Identity and Culture in Ottoman Hungary 3879974608, 9783879974603

Citation preview

Pál Fodor / Pál Ács (eds.) Identity and Culture in Ottoman Hungary

STUDIEN ZUR SPRACHE, GESCHICHTE UND KULTUR DER TÜRKVÖLKER Begründet von György Hazai Herausgegeben von Pál Fodor, Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Simone-Christiane Raschmann

2

STUDIEN ZUR SPRACHE, GESCHICHTE UND KULTUR DER TÜRKVÖLKER Band 24

Pál Fodor and Pál Ács (eds.)

Identity and Culture in Ottoman Hungary

3

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de

This book was produced under the auspices of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and with the support of the National Bank of Hungary.

www.klaus-schwarz-verlag.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

© 2017 by Klaus Schwarz Verlag GmbH First Edition Layout & Satz: textintegration.de Printed in Hungary ISBN 978-3-87997-460-3

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ...........................................................................................7 List of Contributors ..........................................................................................8 Introduction (Pál Fodor – Pál Ács) .................................................................13

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY Pál Fodor The Formation of Ottoman Turkish Identity (Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries) ...........................................................19 Balázs Sudár The Ottomans and the Mental Conquest of Hungary .....................................55 Zsuzsa Kovács The Library of the Müfti of Buda in the Marsili Collection, Bologna ............69

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE Tibor Martí Count László Esterházy: The Military Career of a Young West Transdanubian Aristocrat ..................123 András Péter Szabó “True Hungarian Blood”: Noble Nationalism in the Post-1657 Crisis in Transylvania .........................141 Szabolcs Varga The Image of Ottoman Hungary in Bosnian Heroic Epics ...........................163

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE Gabriella Erdélyi Marriage and Voluntary Conversions in the Hungarian–Ottoman Frontier Region .................................................183 Pál Ács The Rise and Fall of a Notorious Renegade: The Story of Sásvár/Şehsuvar Bey, 1580 .....................................................209

5

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE: IMPACTS AND MUTUAL EFFECTS Árpád Mikó Fate of the Liturgical Equipment of Late Medieval Cathedrals in Hungary in the Early Modern Age ...........................................................225 Ibolya Gerelyes Ottoman-Balkan Jewellery in Ottoman Hungary: Typology and Spread ......239 Emese Pásztor Fashion à la Porte Was There a Turkish Fashion Trend in Hungarian Aristocratic Homes During the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries? ........255 Borbála Gulyás The Fight Against the Ottomans in Hungary and the Court Festivals of the Habsburgs in the Sixteenth Century ..............277 Rumen István Csörsz From the Turkish Pipes to the Hungarian töröksíp .......................................301

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE Emőke Rita Szilágyi Teucri Sive Turci: History of an Ideologically Laden Designation in Fifteenth-Century Latin Works .................................................................327 Ágnes Drosztmér The Captivity of Mihály Szilágyi and the Love of the Princess: Evaluating Parallels Between a Hungarian and an Ottoman Turkish Romance .........................................................................................347

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE Gergely Tóth Vestigia barbarae gentis: Mátyás Bél on Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Hungary .................................................................................367 Index of Names and Places ..........................................................................387

6

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

The Flag of Barbarossa Hayreddin .......................................................52 Mitre of Pál Bornemisza (Abstemius) ................................................230 Pair of Candlesticks from Óbuda .......................................................231 Reliquiary Bust of St Ladislaus ..........................................................233 Standing Cross ...................................................................................235 The Gyöngyös Gradual ......................................................................237 Disk-shaped Ear Pendant ...................................................................244 Filigree-decorated Dress Ornament – Brooch ....................................246 Head Ornament with Sheet-metal Pendants, Kajdacs .........................247 Head Ornament with Sheet-metal Pendants, Battonya .......................248 Filigree-adorned Hair-pins with Spherical Heads, Glogon .................249 Filigree-adorned Hair-pins with Spherical Heads, Pécsbányatelep ....250 Child’s Overcoat (mente) Tailored from a Turkish Caftan ..................261 Back of a Chasuble Sewn from a Turkish Caftan ...............................262 István Esterházy’s mente With “Turkish sleeves” ..............................266 “Turkish Cushion for the Coach” .......................................................270 Turkish Turban Cover, Table Cloth of the Communion Table in the Calvinist Church of Ónod ........................................................271 “Transylvanian Carpet”, Uşak ............................................................272 Back of a Chasuble Sewn from a Turkish Velvet Blanket ..................273 Ottoman Turkish Ornamental Horse Tack ..........................................275 Tournament on the Periphery of Vienna .............................................289 Naval Battle and the Siege of a Firework Fortress on an Island of the Danube .................................................................292

7

CONTRIBUTORS PÁL ÁCS is senior research fellow at the Institute for Literary Studies of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, honorary professor at the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, and co-editor of the periodical Magyar Könyvszemle (Hungarian Book Review). His research focuses on Hungarian and European literature and intellectual history of the early modern era, among others on the relationship between Christianity and Islam. He has participated in research projects in Oxford, Leiden, Leipzig, Vienna, Copenhagen and Paris. His most recent book is Átszitált idő. Tinóditól Tandoriig [Sifted time. From Sebestyén Tinódi to Dezső Tandori] (Budapest, 2014). RUMEN ISTVÁN CSÖRSZ is senior research fellow at the Institute for Literary Studies of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He has published many papers on the textology of early modern Hungarian and Central European popular poetry and critical text editions (4 volumes, 2000–2015, co-edited with Imola Küllős). His recent monographs include A kesergő nimfától a fonóházi dalokig: Közköltészeti hatások a magyar irodalomban, 1700–1800 [From the mourning nymph to the spinning-house songs: Influences of popular poetry on Hungarian literature 1700–1800] (Budapest, 2016), and Macaristan’da Mehter Müziği, co-authored with Balázs Sudár and translated by Erdal Şalikoğlu (İstanbul, 2016). ÁGNES DROSZTMÉR defended her PhD dissertation at Central European University, Budapest, in 2016. The work, entitled Images of Distance and Closeness: The Ottomans in Sixteenth-Century Hungarian Vernacular Poetry and her other publications deal with the literary, religious and intellectual traditions of the Ottoman era in Hungary, focusing on the patterns of transformation in oral and literary traditions of vernacular literature and the literary fashioning of individuals and groups. GABRIELLA ERDÉLYI is senior research fellow at the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. She is an editor of The Hungarian Historical Review. She has

8

recently published A Cloister on Trial. Religious Culture and Everyday Life in Late Medieval Hungary (Farnham, 2015), and edited Armed Memory. Agency and Peasant Revolts in Central and Southern Europe (1450–1700) (Göttingen, 2016). PÁL FODOR is Director General of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of History at the RCH, and editor-in-chief of the periodical The Hungarian Historical Review. He has published extensively on the military, administrative, and intellectual history of the Ottoman Empire, as well as on Ottoman politics towards Central Europe. His books include In Quest of the Golden Apple: Imperial Ideology, Politics and Military Administration in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul, 2000), and The Unbearable Weight of Empire: The Ottomans in Central Europe – A Failed Attempt at Universal Monarchy (1390–1566) (Budapest, 2015, 2016). IBOLYA GERELYES retired as Head of the Archaeology Department at the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. She participated in a number of excavations of Ottoman strongholds in Hungary, among them Gyula Castle. She has contributed to several collections of studies and has staged exhibitions of Ottoman art, in Hungary and in Turkey. Her most recent publication is a collection of studies entitled Ottoman Metalwork in the Balkans and in Hungary (Budapest, 2015) co-edited with Maximilian Hartmuth. BORBÁLA GULYÁS is research fellow at the Institute of Art History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include the art, art collecting and court festivals of Europe, especially in the Kingdom of Hungary in the early modern period. She is currently a member of the “Lendület” Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project (2012–2017, led by Géza Pálffy) of the Institute of History at the RCH. Her publications include ‘„gegen den Bluedthunden und Erbfeindt der Christenhait”: Thematisierung der Türkengefahr in Wort und Bild an den höfischen Festen der Habsburger in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Robert Born – Sabine Jagodzinski (Hgg.), Türkenkriege und Adelskultur in Ostmitteleuropa vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert (Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia, 14.) (Ostfildern, 2014), 217–236.

9

ZSUZSA KOVÁCS is a freelance researcher. As external collaborator of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Science she has published sources and studies on cultural relations between Italy and Hungary from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. She is co-editor and coauthor (with Florio Banfi and Péter Sárközy) of the Magyar emlékek Itáliában [Hungarian relics in Italy] (Szeged, 2005). TIBOR MARTÍ is research fellow at the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His research interests comprise Hungarian–Habsburg relations in the seventeenth century with special regard to the Spanish Habsburgs as well as the political elite of the Kingdom of Hungary in the seventeenth century (primarily the members of the Esterházy and Batthyány families) and their networks. His PhD dissertation entitled Count László Esterházy (1626–1652): Chapters from the History of an Aristocratic Family (Budapest, 2013) is going to be published. ÁRPÁD MIKÓ is Director of the Institute of Art History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and editor-in-chief of the periodical Művészettörténeti Értesítő (Bulletin of History of Arts). He specializes in Renaissance art and culture of Hungary. He is the author of many peerreviewed publications and exhibition catalogues. His book, A reneszánsz Magyarországon [Renaissance in the Kingdom of Hungary] (Budapest, 2009) is a major contribution to the art history of Hungary. EMESE PÁSZTOR is art historian, curator and head of the Textiles Department of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts. Most of her publications are on Ottoman textiles; for example: ‘Ottoman Turkish Carpets in the Collection of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts – In Memoriam Ferenc Batári’, in Catalogue for an Exhibition at the Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest (Budapest, 2007; in Turkish: Ankara, 2015), and ‘Ottoman Turkish Textile Artworks in the Esterházy Treasury in Fraknó’, in Emese Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury in the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts (Thesaurus Domus Esterhazyanæ, II.) (Budapest, 2013). BALÁZS SUDÁR is senior research fellow at the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His

10

main areas of research are history and culture of Ottoman Hungary, including Turkish aşık poetry and the culture-mediating role of the Bektashi order of dervishes. His most recent publications include Dzsámik és mecsetek a hódolt Magyarországon [Djamis and mosques in Ottoman Hungary] (Budapest, 2014), and Macaristan’da Mehter Müziği, co-authored with Rumen István Csörsz (İstanbul, 2016; translated by Erdal Şalikoğlu). ANDRÁS PÉTER SZABÓ is research fellow at the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His research interests include early concepts of nation, history of marriage, and other topics of social history. He has authored several articles about the early modern history of Hungary and Transylvania, and published a unique source on the military administration in seventeenth-century Hungary: A szécsényi seregszék jegyzőkönyve (1656–1661) [The minutes of the military court of Széchény, 1656–1661] (Salgótarján, 2010). EMŐKE RITA SZILÁGYI is research fellow at the Institute for Literary Studies of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and scientific secretary at the same Institute. She deals with Latin literature of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Hungary, and prepares critical edition of the correspondence of Nicolaus Olahus, Archbishop of Esztergom between 1553 and 1568. She is co-editor (with Enikő Békés) of a collection of articles entitled Latinitas Polona: A latin nyelv szerepe és jelentősége a történelmi Lengyelország kora újkori irodalmában [The role and significance of the Latin language in the early modern literature of historical Poland] (Budapest, 2014). GERGELY TÓTH is research fellow at the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. His major field of research is the exploration and publication of the works of the historian Mátyás Bél (1684–1749) and Péter Révay (1568–1622); historiography in Hungary in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and neolatin philology. He is the editor-in-chief of the great work of Mátyás Bél (Matthias Bel) entitled Notitia Hungariae novae historico geographica ... Comitatuum ineditorum…, of which three volumes have been published so far (Budapest, 2011–2015).

11

SZABOLCS VARGA is college professor and Department Head at the College of Divinity of Pécs. His main research field is the early modern history of the Kingdom of Hungary, especially the social and church history of Croatia and Ottoman Hungary. His major publications include Irem kertje. Pécs története a hódoltság korában (1526–1686) [The garden of Irem: History of Pécs in the Ottoman era] (Pécs, 2009), and Europe’s Leonidas: Miklós Zrínyi, Defender of Szigetvár (1508–1566) (Budapest, 2016).

12

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION Hungary, a great power in the centre of Europe in the fifteenth century, collapsed under Ottoman military pressure in the first half of the sixteenth century. The defeat of Nándorfehérvár (Belgrade, 1521) opened the gates to the inner regions of Europe before the Ottoman army; King Louis II and the majority of Hungary’s political and clerical elite perished at the battle of Mohács (1526). The final stroke was the loss of Buda, the royal capital to the Ottomans (1541), resulting in the partition of the kingdom into three parts. The northern and western territories fell under Habsburg rule (Magyar Királyság/ Kingdom of Hungary), in the east an Ottoman vassal state emerged with limited autonomy (Erdélyi Fejedelemség/Transylvanian Principality), and the central parts of the country were annexed by the Ottoman Empire. This latter part, occupied for nearly 150 years, was usually called hódoltság (literal translation: “subjugated territory/parts”). The concept cannot be properly translated into other languages: the terms used in German are, for example, “türkische Besetzung, Botmässigkeit” or “türkische Herrschaft”; while in English, until recently it was called “Turkish/Ottoman occupation, Turkish-occupied territories”, or “occupied territories of Hungary”. This volume prefers the recently coined term “Ottoman Hungary”. The territories along the dual (Ottoman–Habsburg) border defences – from the Adriatic Sea to the Lower Danube region – did not know the state of peace during this time. There was no interim period without sieges, duels and raids, not even when the Ottoman and Habsburg parties officially declared peace. Ottomans were branded the “natural enemies” of Christian Europe, in a manner similar to the Moorish–Spanish antagonism in the times of the Reconquista. This collection of essays deals with questions of identity in the long period of Ottoman conquest and rule in Hungary stretching over three hundred years (fifteenth–early eighteenth centuries). Western European historiography usually treats Ottoman Hungary as a mere buffer zone between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires: it perceives the territory as a battlefield. This volume, however, shifts the focus: it concentrates on the society and culture of the local population rather than military history. The studies use diverse methodologies, but share the view that a stereotypical

13

IDENTITY AND CULTURE IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

conceptual framework of “Hungarian–Ottoman struggles” cannot be applied to describe the complexity of the identities present here. In the early modern age, the word “török” (“Turkish”) referred more to a religious characteristic than ethnic belonging, synonymous in essence with the term “Muslim”. Identity was attached to language, ethnicity, genealogy, and social belonging, with particular attention to religious affiliation. The ethniclinguistic composition of the warring parties was extremely heterogeneous, sometimes the enemies spoke the same South Slav dialect and shared a common culture (Szabolcs Varga). Although Muslim and Christian worlds were clearly separated, the population in the garrisons knew each other’s languages, folklore, and beliefs (Ágnes Drosztmér), as well as each other’s garments and everyday objects (Ibolya Gerelyes, Emese Pásztor). Despite the initial atmosphere of distrust and hatred, vivid trade relations emerged between the Christian world and the Ottoman Empire. This, by no means “friendship”, can be described as pragmatic co-habitation. The studies of this multidisciplinary book deal with three groups of topics: the historical, literary and art historical approaches combine their methodological merits to paint a colourful picture of Hungary facing or under Ottoman rule. A case study discusses the decay of medieval art heritage, underlining the shared responsibility of the conquerors and the local community (Árpád Mikó). After the re-occupation of Buda (1686), the library of the müfti of Buda passed into Christian hands. The discovery of the catalogue in the Marsili Collection in Bologna is of high importance (Zsuzsa Kovács). Some texts deal with the complexity of Ottoman identity (Pál Fodor, Pál Ács) and with the role of the Ottoman establishment in such processes (Balázs Sudár, Borbála Gulyás). Cultural exchange is of extreme importance (Emese Pásztor, Rumen István Csörsz), in conjunction with the changes of identity. Other studies reveal the significance of Hungarian–Ottoman confrontations in the slow emergence of Hungarian national consciousness (Tibor Martí, András Péter Szabó). Others chapters deal with the multiple identities of individuals and communities (Gabriella Erdélyi). The authors consider a wide scale of loyalties which – among Christians – bound individuals and communities in the same manner to language, culture, religion, (imagined) common ancestry (Emőke Rita Szilágyi) as to the territory, the patria, the country, and the empire. We discover similar tendencies on the Ottoman side, where an abundance of

14

INTRODUCTION

identities coexisted, influencing each other. The book pays special attention to the cultural memory of the Ottoman age, more precisely, to the swift memory loss that followed the rebuilding of the country after it had been reconquered from the Ottomans (Gergely Tóth). Within a few decades following Hungary’s subjection to Habsburg rule the everyday experiences of the Ottoman era had faded away and the negative balance of the Ottoman rule became part of the written canon. The book offers a balanced and realistic account of the coexistence of different peoples and cultures in Ottoman Hungary. It refrains from either repeating the commonplaces of the sixteenth-century antiturcica literature, or sharing the overtly positive Ottoman-image of the early modern age. Pál Fodor

Pál Ács

15

IDENTITY AND CULTURE IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

16

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

PÁL FODOR

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY (FOURTEENTH TO SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES)

To this day Turkish identity has been burdened with unclarified issues, contradictions and disputes. One might just recall the novels of Nobel-Prize winner Orhan Pamuk, preoccupied with analyses of the conflicts between the Asian and European parts of the Turkish soul – a predicament that is also not unfamiliar to Hungarians.1 Similar uncertainties and inner struggles characterize Turkish cultural history and historians who have been committed the analysis of Turkish identity. In a voluminous monograph devoted to the question and published over two decades ago, Bozkurt Güvenç raises the following, typical question as a starting point: “Are we Eastern, Anatolian, or Western people? Who are we?”2 This aptly illustrates the complexity of the problem: while the author pinpoints ethnicity and language as the pillars of Turkish national identity, a more recent monograph defines the Turks as an outcome of a Byzantine–Ottoman synthesis.3 In this study I examine the identity of the Ottoman Empire between 1300 and 1800 and the means by which it was related to Turkish self-identity. It must be made clear in advance that lots of identities existed side by side in the Ottoman world, all mutually influencing one another. They could all hardly be inventoried within the purview of this essay.4 Turkish identity itself has undergone innumerable changes in history. Therefore, I have decided to keep to the “mainstream”, and investigate self-identities connected to the actual power centres, since the dynastic court played a decisive role in shaping the image of Ottoman society from the fifteenth century onwards (in similar fashion to Ata1

2 3 4

Orhan Pamuk, The White Castle. Translated by Victoria Holbrook. Manchester, 1990. Idem, My Name is Red. Translated by Erdağ M. Göknar. New York, 2001. Idem, Snow. Translated by Maureen Freely. New York, 2004. Idem, The Black Book. Translated by Maureen Freely. New York, 2006. Bozkurt Güvenç, Türk Kimliği Kültür Tarihinin Kaynakları. İstanbul, 1993, 21. İsmail Tokalak, Bizans-Osmanlı Sentezi. Bizans Kültür ve Kurumlarının Osmanlı Üzerindeki Etkisi. İstanbul, 2006. For the difficulties of such an endeavour, see Maurits H. van den Boogert, ‘Resurrecting Homo Ottomanicus: The Constants and Variables of Ottoman Identity’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları 44 (2014) 9–20.

19

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

türk’s one-party state creating a modern national identity). This approach is also substantiated by Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities, a seminal book of post-modern scholarship explicating three cultural conceptions of identity of the pre-modern age: the religious that offered truth; the dynastic perspective that attached several divine functions to power; and the coincidence of cosmology and history.5 Below, I am looking at the first two in greater detail. Ethnically, the dynasty and its followers, who founded the Ottoman Empire, belonged to the Oghuz branch of the Turks, the branch that was called Turkmen by Arabic sources since the tenth century. Members of this ethnic group identified themselves as Türk at the time of the foundation of the empire – similarly to all Turkic groups since the foundation of the First Turkic Empire in the mid-five hundreds. Even the sporadic sources at our disposal allow us to assume that the majority of the population governed by Osman (?–1324) had the same cognitive structure – described by Jenő Szűcs as gentilistic 6 – as the Germans of the Migration Period, or the Inner Asian Turks. Four distinct elements of this structure are to be differentiated: the first of these is the belief in common origins (all the Oghuz/Turkmen people traced their lineage to a legendary Oghuz Khan); the second is common customary law (törü); the third is common religion (a vernacular form of Islam complemented with several features of shamanism among the Ottomans); and the fourth is the common tongue. The importance of the latter is well confirmed by a piece of nonOttoman evidence as well: when in 1276–77 the nomadic Turkmens revolted against the Seljuks in Asia Minor (Rum) and the leader of the rebels, Mehmed of Karaman, occupied the capital Konya, his first issued decree ordered that the language of the state be Turkish from that time on. 7 5 6

7

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. London–New York, 2006, 9–36. Jenő Szűcs, A magyar nemzeti tudat kialakulása. Két tanulmány a kérdés előtörténetéből [Formation of the Hungarian national consciousness]. (Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár, 3.) Szeged, 1992. Cf. István Vásáry, ‘Nép és ország a türköknél [Nation and country among the Turks]’, in Ferenc Tőkei (ed.), Nomád társadalmak és társadalomalakulatok (Tanulmányok) [Nomadic societies and social formations (Studies)]. Budapest, 1983, 189–213. On the problem of ethnic characteristics and difficulties of conceptualizing ethnicity in general, see Csanád Bálint, ‘Ethnosz a kora középkorban (A kutatás lehetőségei és korlátai) [Ethnos in the early middle ages (Possibilities and limitations of research)]’, Századok 140:2 (2006) 277–347. Zeynep Korkmaz, ‘Anadolu Beylikleri Devrinde Türk Dili ve Karamanoğlu Mehmed Bey’, in Uluslararası Yunus Emre, Nasreddin Hoca, Karamanoğlu Mehmed Bey ve Türk Dili

20

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

The Turks preserved a sense of identity defined by the above four criteria until the late fifteenth, early sixteenth century. Traces of this identity can be discerned in Ottoman Turkish history writing emerging in the second half of the fifteenth century (as will be later discussed, the Oghuz origin of the dynasty and of the people had never been forgotten), even though these works mainly use Islamic terms to describe the birth of the Ottoman state and its wars of conquest.8 (It is a clear sign of transition that the first generation of founders in these works are called, alternately, Turks and warriors of faith [gazi].) At the outset, the self-image of the Turks tallied perfectly with the external view of them: Europeans also referred to them as Turks. Turkia, as the name for Asia Minor (later Anatolia), appeared in 1190 in crusading sources, indicating clearly that this ancient territory of the Eastern Roman Empire became a habitat of Turks in the eye of outsiders too. 9 At the same time, in the early Ottoman age, political loyalty tied ethnically Turkic members of the principality not only to a Turkish ancestor or tribe, but to the dynasty that founded the empire and kept expanding it successfully. In this respect, people of this period regarded themselves not only as Turks, but also Osmanlı, the followers or adherents of the House of Osman (naming the country Osman eli, Ottoman land). Moreover, dynastic identity and loyalty was not specific only to the Ottomans, but rather a general feature of the Islamic world, where after the fall of the caliphate, the dynastic state became the main form of political organization. In this civilization rulers regarded it an offense to designate their countries along ethnic or territorial terms.10 However, by the end of the fourteenth century, the initial social homogeneity of Ottoman society had been disrupted for good. A sharp division between the layers of society in governance and production came about: the former was referred to as the askeri or “military” class, while the latter, the majority working population was called as reaya or the “flock”. Parallelly, the ruling elite gradually expropriated Osmanlı identity and dismantled their Turkic/ Turkish identities. In the fifteenth century, it was the people of the state, the members Semineri Bildirileri, 10–12 Hazıran 1977, Konya. Ankara, 1977, 215. Feridun M. Emecen, ‘Eski bir İmajın Yeniden Keşfi: İlk Osmanlı Kroniklerinde Oğuz Geleneği ve Orta Asya Bilgisi’, in Idem, İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası. İstanbul, 20032, 151–160. 9 Bernard Lewis, Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire. Norman–London, 1972, 13. 10 Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York–London, 1982, 60. 8

21

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

of the military class, who were typically designated Osmanlı (Ottoman) – meaning specifically those who secured their living by serving the dynasty. In the course of the century, the Osmanlı-askeri governing apparatus became further stratified, with a distinct group at the top of the hierarchy that has been named “palace class” in scholarly literature. 11 This privileged group – in my opinion, rather an “estate” than a “class” – developed its own, separate identity, an identity that can be identified as an Ottoman identity, similarly to the self-identification of the askeri estate, yet a different one in substance. For the top elite, the term Ottoman indicated essentially three things: the dynasty, the empire this dynasty ruled, and the top elite itself. Its cognitive character can also be described with three lineaments: 1. unlimited loyalty to the dynasty, 2. unlimited loyalty to Islam, 3. adherence to the so-called Ottoman way/ customs (edeb-i Osmanı). The latter feature sharply separated the palatial estate from the rest of society. Being a member of the palatial estate meant being in possession of a special erudition and behavioural culture (expressed by the concept of the Ottoman way). 12 First of all, the members of the elite spoke a different language, Osmanlı – in the vocabulary of which Arabic and Persian overshadowed Turkish – a language which was often incomprehensible not only to the simple peasantry, but also to other groups of the askeri segment. This language was developed by the second half of the fifteenth century, and from that time on, no one could become a member of the elite of elites unless literate in this language, as it became the language of political life and high culture. Lastly, members of the imperial household, the “true Ottomans” were differentiated from all others, because they protected and safeguarded the despotic/dynastic political system more resolutely than anyone else. Thus, the question can, and must, be raised: what motivates this matchless commitment and loyalty? The answer is to be found in the institution of military slavery.13 11 Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli (1541–1600). Princeton, 1986, 195–196. Recent scholarship uses the term “political household” with equal – if not greater – frequency. A recent analysis of the emergence and changes of the ruler’s “household”: Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial Household, 1400– 1800. London–New York, 2008, 99–174. 12 Norman Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition. Chicago–London, 1972, 60. 13 For this, see Fodor Pál, ‘“Hivatásos törökök” – “született törökök”. Hatalmi elit és társadalom a 15–17. századi Oszmán Birodalomban [“Professional Turks” – “born Turks”. Power elite and society in the Ottoman Empire in the 15th–17th centuries]’, Századok 138:4

22

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

The majority of the members of the palatial estate were not of free origin. From the second half of the fourteenth century, the Ottoman rulers gradually expelled tribal aristocracy from political power and parallelly also tried to hinder upward social mobility. Former comrades-in-arms were replaced with soldiers and state administrators who had been their slaves initially, or with Christian subjects who had been torn from their families as children under the child levy and were trained for the service of the sultan using special methods. The system, referred to as military slavery by historians of Islam, was developed and perfected in such an elaborate manner that by the early sixteenth century, the court mercenary troops and the leading positions of the central offices were mainly filled by these “cadres” (kuls in Ottoman Turkish). Relying on them, the sultan could gradually extend control over all of society, the economy, and over property in a centralized (despotic) system that survived, in several regards, until the twentieth century. In addition to the employment of slaves, the formation of the Ottoman identity of the top elite was highly influenced by the introduction of the damad system. The word damad means “sonin-law”, and designates a system that was introduced in dynastic politics from the second half, or the end of the fifteenth century. After this period, Ottoman sultans did not take their wives from ruling houses, they did not arrange dynastic, or any other kinds of marriages (altogether, only three official marriages are known from the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries) but used slave women to produce heirs. Women brought up in the harem and female members of the sultan’s family were married off to the kuls of the ruler, creating a “family” elite (a large imperial household) whose members were tied inseparably to the dynasty by kinship, in addition to slavery, the common world view, education and culture. In the first third of the sixteenth century, as a further step to advance this special kind of elite formation, it practically became the norm that no other statesman except the ruler’s son-in-law could be nominated grand vizier. Apparently, the sultan’s family absorbed the elite governing the (2004) 773–791. Cf. Gábor Kármán, ‘Turks Reconsidered: Jakab Harsányi Nagy’s Changing Image of the Ottoman’, in Pascal W. Firges – Tobias P. Graf – Christian Roth – Gülay Tulasoğlu (eds.), Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History. (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 57.) Leiden–Boston, 2014, 110–130, particularly 114 ff. On contemporary debates on the place of con verts in Ottoman society, see Tijana Krstić, ‘Conversion and Converts to Islam in Ottoman Historiography of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries’, in H. Erdem Çıpa – Emine Fetvacı (eds.), Writing History at the Ottoman Court: Editing the Past, Fashoning the Future. Bloomington–Indianapolis, 2013, 58–79.

23

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

empire, or vice versa, the top elite or palatial estate was basically an artificially enlarged imperial household or family enterprise. 14 It is easy to recognize that such an elite – an elite of slave origins, tied to the dynasty in the above manner, with no independent livelihood or rights, and above that, being cosmopolitan and extremely diverse ethnically – did everything to suppress Turkish ethnic identity. In this process, the elite received great assistance from the representatives of Islamic law, the ulema, who also advocated a certain kind of universalness, claiming that in Islam, a person’s background or ethnicity did not matter; all that matters is whether one is a pious Muslim or not. As a result of this dual pressure, the earlier, highly esteemed term “Turkish” and Turkish ethnicity or simply life as a Turk had lost its positive connotations by the early sixteenth century. The increasing admission of Muslim-born (Turkish) youth into the imperial household from the second half of the sixteenth century did not make any great difference either; as Metin Kunt remarks, “the presence of Turks in the palace did not signify a ‘Turkification’ of the empire”, it retained its predominantly dynastic and Muslim character.15 Incidentally, a similar process took place among the predecessors of the Ottomans, in the state of the Anatolian Seljuks: the Turkish masses, who conquered the country and gave it its name, were soon to be squeezed out of power and were made despicable by the members of the elite recruited from Christian (Greek, Armenian, etc.) subjects. From the Seljuk period onwards, common Turks were labelled Türk-i bi-idrak (“dull-witted Turk”) or Türk-i bi-edeb (“boorish Turk”) and were considered unfit to take part in running the state. 16 (This is probably the source

14 Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem. Woman and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York–Oxford, 1993, 65–77. Gülru Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire. London, 2005, 35–46. Murphey (Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty, 98) also defines the dynasty as “family enterprise”. 15 İ. Metin Kunt, ‘Turks in the Ottoman Imperial Palace’, in Jeroen Duidam – Tülay Artan – Metin Kunt (eds.), Royal Courts in Dynastic States: A Global Perspective. Leiden–Boston, 2011, 312. 16 Furthermore, accusations with irreligiousness also became attached to the word Türk; the opinion “the faith of the Turks is feeble” (Etrak’in dini zayıf) also originates from the Seljuk age; see Irène Mélikoff, ‘L’origine sociale des premiers ottomans’, in Elisabeth Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate (1300–1389). Rethymnon, 1993, 136. All this resulted in the gradual shrinking of the semantic field of Türk/Etrak, used more and more to designate exclusively the nomads of Oghuz/Turkmen origin. Nejat Göyünç, ‘Osmanlı Devleti Hakkında – Kuruluşunun 700. Yılı Münasebetiyle’, Cogito 19 (1999) 88.

24

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

of the feeling of being by-passed, and the bipolar psychic construct that characterize modern-time Turks, as well as Hungarians.) 17 The separation of the ruling elite and the commonalty is adequately mirrored by the changes of Ottoman genealogies. It is important to bear in mind that although the Ottoman concepts of power and society became dynastic, the House of Osman and its chroniclers have never denied, on the contrary – especially in the fifteenth century – proudly proclaimed that the family of the founder of the state could be traced back to Oghuz Khan. Apart from a certain degree of historical knowledge, this also had palpable politicalideological reasons. In the early fifteenth century, the Ottomans found it important to stress their own Turkish-ness: at first, in order to counterbalance Timurlenk, and later, to subdue the Turkmen principalities in Asia Minor, Iran, Syria and Iraq and win over their population. Since in this realm, political claims were often expressed by the means of family trees and their redrafting,18 the Ottomans also had to enter this genealogical race and present the most magnificent ancestors. Practically all fifteenth-century genealogies relied on Mahmud al-Kashghari’s Turkic-Arabic dictionary written around 1077 and on the Oghuznama, compiled around 1310 by Rashid al-Din. 19 In these two works, the progenitor (most often called Uljay, Oljay, Abulja or Bulja) was the biblical Japhet, the grandson of Noah; his fourth successor was Oghuz Khan, who lived for a thousand years, and whose six sons and twenty-four grandsons 17 What makes this particularly strange is the fact that in the multi-ethnic Ottoman world, not even black skin colour implied such a great disadvantage. The chief black eunuch (darü’ssaade ağası/kızlar ağası) of the imperial harem rose to be one of the top dignitaries of the empire by the end of the sixteenth century. The black ulema Molla/Sünbül Ali, who got into the empire as a slave and rose to a high level of the hierarchy through his literacy and skills, was appointed chief justice (kadıasker) of Anatolia in 1621, and kadıasker of Rumelia in the same year. He became the first black member of the imperial council and – as the French envoy opined – the actual governor of the empire. He wrote a self-assertive work on the equality of black and white people. On his career and its fairly tolerant, contemporaneous evaluation, see Baki Tezcan, ‘Dispelling the Darkness: The Politics of “Race” in the Early Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire in the Light of the Life and Work of Mullah Ali’, in Baki Tezcan – Karl K. Barbir (eds.), Identity and Identity Formation in the Ottoman World. A Volume of Essays in Honor of Norman Itzkowitz. Madison, Wisconsin, 2007, 73–95. 18 Rudi Paul Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans in Medieval Anatolia. Bloomington, 1983, 8–9. John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu. Clan, Confederation, Empire. Revised and Expanded Edition. Salt Lake City, 1999, 173–182. 19 Barbara Flemming, ‘Political Genealogies in the Sixteenth Century’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları 7–8 (1988) 123–137.

25

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

were the ancestors of all Oghuz-Turks. From the early fifteenth century, the Ottomans traced their ancestry to Kayı, the son of Gün, the oldest offspring of Oghuz, justifying their claim to political primacy. Though some authors might have deviated slightly from this scheme in debates on primacy and during the reconstruction of genealogies,20 the direct descent from Oghuz was firmly maintained and asserted until as late as the end of the sixteenth century. While describing the twenty specific features of the House of Osman, official court historian (şehnameci) Talikizade pointed out “the nobility of their descent and ancestors (şeref-i haseb ü neseb)” as the fifteenth feature; he claimed that all other rulers received their legitimation from the Abbasids or occasionally, from the Genghisids, and only the Ottomans could retrace their origin to Oghuz, therefore only they could rule in their own right, having held the khanate and sultanate in their hands for a thousand years. 21 In the second half of the fifteenth and in the early sixteenth centuries, when the chain of forefathers of the state-founder Osman had been established irrevocably in the dynastic mythology, some alternative ideas about the ancient past also emerged and grew in significance. One of them goes back to the steppe tradition that is also recorded in al-Kashgari’s dictionary, making an attempt to find a connection between Alexander the Great and the Turks (in our case, the Ottomans). The old Turkic tradition of the Zulkarnayn or “the two-horned one” of the Quran (which was shortly meshed with the figure of Alexander the Great in Islamic literature, and became known as the “Twohorned İskender”) claimed that having conquered Turkestan, it was he who gave the Oghuz people the name Turkmen.22 In the introduction to his chronicle of the age of Mehmed II (1451–1481) and the first years of Bayezid II (1481–1512), Tursun Bey presents the figure of Zulkarnayn as the ideal of a good Muslim and great conqueror.23 Finalizing Ottoman dynastic ideology the historian Neşri “canonized” the Ottoman story of the “Two-horned Iskender” of the Quran in his work, and revealed that it was actually identical with their 20 Thus Şükrullah and Enveri in the 1460s, see Colin Imber, ‘The Ottoman Dynastic Myths’, Turcica 19 (1987) 17–18. 21 Christine Woodhead, Ta‘līkī-zāde’s şehnāme-i hümāyūn. A History of the Ottoman Campḳ aign into Hungary 1593–94. (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, 82.) Berlin, 1983, 124–127. 22 Robert Dankoff, ‘The Alexander Romance in the Dīwān Lughāt at-Turk’, Humaniora Islamica 1 (1973) 233–244. On the fusion and Islamisation of Alexander the Great and Zulkarnayn, see also Ferenc Csirkés, ‘The Road from Accursedness to Prophethood: The Image of Alexander the Great in Zoroastrian and Islamic Literature’ (manuscript), 3–4. 23 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth. Hazırlayan Mertol Tulum. İstanbul, 1977, 3.

26

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

ancestor, Oghuz.24 At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Central Asian Shibanids and their historians, having favourable connections with the Ottomans, also called the Ottoman ruler “the two-horned one”, that is, the new Alexander the Great.25 A further attempt to make a change in genealogies emerged in the 1480s, when instead of the origins from Japhet, certain authors proposed a lineage from Esau, leading finally to Shem.26 They argued that Esau, Isaac’s son, who had been regarded by the Arabic tradition as the ancestor of the “Rums” (Greeks) named Banu Asfar (yellow, red people), 27 wandered to Turkestan after the family conflicts, where he became the ancestor of the Turks so Osman originated from his lineage. Although Neşri disregarded this concept, historians of the sixteenth century gave credit to it, some authors even identifying Kayı Khan with Esau. Eventually, the contradiction was eliminated by poet and historian Mustafa Ali (1544–1600) who derived the Ottoman dynasty from Esau, and the Turkish common people – as well as the Mongols – from Japhet. In this way, not only did he reconcile the Oghuz and Islamic traditions, but also found solutions for multiple, long-standing ideological problems. First of all, he dissolved all doubts looming over the conquest of Constantinople. The fall of the city had been prophesied by sayings (hadis) attributed to the prophet, but at the same time, according to the tradition, the walls of the city should have collapsed upon the cry in unison (“Allah is most great”) of the 70,000 warriors of Banu Ishak (the people of Isaac). 28 According to the medieval Islamic idea, Banu Ishak (Isaac’s people) denoted the Arabs, whereas Byzantium, as it is and was known for all, had been conquered by the Turks. If, however, the Turks (or at least the dynasty) were descendants of Isaac, 24 Mehmed Neşrî, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Neşrî Tarihi. Hazırlayanlar Faik Reşit Unat – Mehmed A. Köymen. Vol. I, Ankara, 1949, 10–11. 25 Flemming, ‘Political Genealogies’, 134. Cornell H. Fleischer, ‘The Lawgiver as Messiah: The Making of the Imperial Image in the Reign of Süleymân’, in Gilles Veinstein (publ.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Actes de Colloque de Paris. Galeries Nationales de Grand Palais 7–10 mars 1990. Paris, 1992, 163–164. 26 Flemming, ‘Political Genealogies’, 134–137. 27 Cf. Zoltán Szombathy, The Roots of Arabic Genealogy: A Study in Historical Anthropology. (Documenta et Monographiae, I.) Piliscsaba, 2003, 122–123. 28 Barbara Flemming, ‘Ṣāḥib-ḳırān und Mahdī: Türkische Endzeiterwartungen im ersten Jahrzehnt der Regierung Süleymāns’, in Görgy Kara (ed.), Between the Danube and the Caucasus: A Collection of Papers Concerning Oriental Sources on the History of the Peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Budapest, 1987, 46.

27

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

history will have taken place according to the Islamic scenario, as prophesied.29 On the other hand, the dual genealogy successfully separated the ruling house from the commoners, enhancing the former’s exaltedness by being Semite, and justifying the distance between the elite and the subjects. However, the Esau-Isaac lineage had an additional advantage. As mentioned above, Esau was the ancestor of the “lesser Rums” or “the second Rome” (Rum-i saniye)30 in the Islamic tradition, and in this way the Ottoman dynasty came into “kinship” not only with the Arabs, but also with the Byzantines. This idea allowed for the explication of a significant, by that time welldeveloped process of social- and self-identification: the Byzantine–Ottoman synthesis, which became a cornerstone of the identity of the Ottoman elite. It is no accident that the aforementioned Mustafa Ali, one of the most outstanding minds of sixteenth-century Ottoman society, favoured applying the word Rumi (Roman/Byzantine) to the ruling elite and its language, and even to Ottoman society.31 With this gesture he made it explicit that the entity that emerged from diverse foundations was closely tied regionally and culturally to the heritage of “Rome” (Byzantium). His was not a solitary voice, as he expressed a general conviction of the fifteenth–sixteenth-century elite. Recent research has uncovered plenty of similarities between the two worlds in their contents and structures, and verified the formerly denied Byzantine influence in several areas. It has also been brought to light that apart from the spontan eous and deliberate borrowings, the power and intellectual elites made intentional attempts to formally interpret this process and incorporate it into the image of its own mission. Overall, the acceptance and interiorisation of Byzantine-ness became an important component of Ottoman identity and it even played a role in the justification of power claims. The new results have closed a long period of misunderstandings. In his autobiographical novel Istanbul, Orhan Pamuk made the following remark: “At a time when the empire had fallen, the ideology of the Turkish Republic 29 The same position was taken and advocated by Vani Mehmed Efendi, the highly influential court preacher of Sultan Mehmed IV (1648–1687), one of the most influential representatives of the kadızades or puritans in the 1670–80s, who traced the ancestors of the Turks (Turkmens) back to the nuptial union of Oghuz khan and the daughter of Isaac; see Marc David Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe. Oxford, 2008, 207–208. 30 Neşrî, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ, Vol. I, 56–57. 31 Fleischer, Bureaucrat, 253–260.

28

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

was ascendant, and westward-looking Istanbul had begun to reject, suppress, deride, and suspect anything to do with its Ottoman past…” 32 Pamuk’s remark is discerning. The Turkish national historiography of the 1920s, which sought to defend the Turkish national identity that had been forged in the intellectual struggles of the previous century, did indeed do everything to get rid of the Ottoman heritage. Two methods were adopted in order to “erase” the Ottoman past. On the one hand, in an approach that can be labelled as “interrupted, or circumvented continuity”, historians made attempts to connect modern Turkey to the pre-Ottoman “great Turkish past”, while on the other, they tried to repaint the Ottoman Empire with Turkish colours – colours it wore in its earlier moments at best.33 However, the Muslim character of the empire could not be denied, and it was presented as a Turkish-Islamic state, even though scholars were perfectly aware that over the course of centuries Turkish ethnicity had been despised in the empire. In the 1970s, this interpretation was elevated to the level of official state ideology and cultural policy, and was referred to as “Turkish-Islamic synthesis”. 34 This concept, which was taken up by the Atatürk elite in order to counterbalance the growing far-left, suggested that the pillars of Turkish national culture and identity are Turkish ethnicity and Islam, and the real essence of Turkish-ness is indeed this synthesis, which enabled the Turks to be the leading power in the Muslim world since the adoption of Islam. As the victory over Byzantium and Constantinople became a crucial, symbolic event of this mission, the idea that Byzantine heritage may have played a part in the formation of Turkish identity, was close to heresy. M. Fuad Köprülü won enduring praise for his “denial” of the Byzantine “origins” (or component) of Turkish identity; in his seminal study, written in 1931, he 32 Orhan Pamuk, Istanbul: Memories and the City. Translated by Maureen Freely. New York, 2006, 157. 33 Büşra Ersanlı, ‘The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography of the Kemalist Era: The Theory of Fatal Decline’, in Fikret Adanır – Suraiya Faroqhi (eds.), The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography. (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 25.) Leiden–Boston–Köln, 2002, 115–116. 34 Dietrich Jung – Wolfango Piccoli, Turkey at the Crossroads: Ottoman Legacies and a Greater Middle East. London–New York, 2001, 121–122. István Vásáry, ‘A muszlim demokrácia esélyei Törökországban [Chances of Muslim democracy in Turkey]’, in István Vásáry (ed.), Törökország és az iszlám. Az iszlám szerepe Törökország EU-csatlakozásának megítélésében [Turkey and Islam. The role of Islam in the judgement on accession of Turkey to the EU]. (Acta et Studia, VII.) Piliscsaba, 2008, 93–95. Halil İnalcık , Rönesans Avrupası. Türkiye’nin Batı Medeniyetiyle Özdeşleşme Süreci. (Halil İnalcık Seçme Eserleri, V.) İstanbul, 2011, 375–381.

29

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

examined more than thirty basic institutions of the Ottoman state and came to the conclusion that, with the exception of a few, minor aspects, the concept of the adoption of Byzantine institutions should be rejected in each and every case. In sum, he stated that “the Ottoman state was the inheritor of the administrative tradition of the Anatolian Seljuk sultanate, and was a Turkish-Islamic sultanate which in part came under the influence of the Ilkhanides and the Mameluks”.35 Köprülü’s thesis brought about a shift not only in Turkish historiography, but also in international Turkology. Previously, European scholars had regarded it as a simple fact that Byzantium lived on in the Ottoman Empire. 36 The majority of Turkologists shared this opinion. Nicolae Iorga, for example, a famous monographer of Ottoman history, referred repeatedly to the Ottoman state as a “Muslim Roman Empire”,37 while others attributed even the foundation of the state to the Greeks. 38 However, the high esteem in which Köprülü was held discredited such views for decades (at least outside of Greece), and hindered comparative research.39 35 Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, ‘Bizans Müesseselerinin Osmanlı Müesseselerine Te’siri Hakkında Bâzı Mülâhazalar’, Türk Hukuk ve İktisat Tarihi Mecmuası 1 (1931) 282. 36 Thus, for example, numerous contemporaries of the fifteenth–seventeenth-century Ottoman expansion, including Johannes Löwenklau/Leunclavius (1541–1594), who knew much about the Ottomans; see Pál Ács, “‘Pro Turcis’ and ‘contra Turcos.’ Curiosity, Scholarship and Spiritualism in Turkish Histories by Johannes Löwenklau (1541−1594)”, Acta Comeniana 25 [XLIX] (2011) 25−46. 37 Cf. Köprülü, ‘Bizans Müesseselerinin’, 174: note 2. In his lecture given at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1915, Ignác Kúnos also spoke about Byzantine–Ottoman “fusions”, “saturations” and the “Rum-Turkish Empire of the Ottomans,” where according to Kúnos a fundamental Byzantine influence prevailed in every aspect of life. Ignác Kúnos, A nyugati kultúra hatása a török irodalomban [Influence of Western culture in Turkish literature]. Budapest, 1915, particularly 3–23. 38 Herbert Adams Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire: A History of the Osmanlis up to the Death of Bayezid I (1300–1403). Oxford, 1916. 39 All this happened at the time when F. W. Hasluck’s innovative monograph, often cited even today, had already been available for two years, presenting considerable evidence regarding interactions between folklore and religious beliefs of Christians and Muslims under Ottoman rule. See Christianity and Islam under the Sultans. Ed. by Margaret M. Hasluck. Oxford, 1929. The overall picture was not modified by the influential book of Nicolae Iorga (Byzance après Byzance: continuation de l’“Histoire de la vie byzantine”. [Bucharest, 1935]) either, in which he – as the emblematic title suggests – argued that Byzantine civilization “avait survécu à la forme impériale chrétienne presque quatre siècles” in territories of Christendom (especially in the two Rumanian principalities) that had been subjugated by the Ottomans (ibid., 13).

30

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

One of the first significant attempts to challenge Köprülü’s thesis came in 1971 with the publication of a lengthy monograph by Speros Vryonis Jr. Vryonis traced the fate of the Byzantine world from the Seljuk conquest to the formation of the Ottoman great power.40 Although he emphasised the gradual disappearance or elimination of the Byzantine-Greek population and culture, he referred many times to the Byzantine influences on Seljuk and Ottoman Turks, and in his last chapter he systematically surveyed the Byzantine “residue” in the Ottoman Empire.41 But perhaps precisely because the overall picture he painted suggested the destruction of Byzantium more than its survival, the conclusions he drew were barely incorporated into Ottoman studies. Over the course of the past thirsty years, however, interest in this topic has grown and Köprülü’s views have been reassessed. The “Byzance après Byzance” process – which had been extended to the Ottomans as well – began outside Turkey,42 and in the last couple of years substantial results have been produced in Turkey, too, though it would be an exaggeration to contend that this has led to any major reform of Turkish thinking. 43 I do not intend to elaborate on the reasons for the turn in Turkey, but rather touch only tangentially upon the most important ones. These include the enervation of the Atatürk paradigm, the rebirth of Islam, the perplexities of Turkish self-identity, the failures of Westernisation, the controversial policy of the European Union towards the country, and the great celebrations in 1999, when the 700th anniversary of the establishment of the Ottoman state was commemorated. 40 Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. Berkeley–Los Angeles– London, 1971. Cf. Idem, ‘The Byzantine Legacy in Folk Life and Tradition in the Balkans’, in Lowell Clucas (ed.), The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe. (East European Monographs, 230.) Boulder–New York, 1988, 107–145. 41 Vryonis, The Decline, 444–497. Prior to this study, Bistra Cvetkova had already drawn attention to the parallels between the Byzantine-Balkan and Ottoman taxation systems, see her ‘Influence exercée par certaines institutions de Byzance et des Balkans du Moyen âge sur le système féodal ottoman’, Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962) 237–257. 42 Fleischer, Bureaucrat, esp. 254–257. Cemal Kafadar, ‘A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum’, in S. Bozdoğan – Gülru Necipoğlu (eds.), History and Ideology: Architectural Heritage of the ‘Lands of Rum’, in Muqarnas, Special Issue 24 (2007) 7–25. Tijana Krstić, Contested Conversion to Islam: Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford, California, 2011, esp. 7–74. 43 Salih Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği. 14.–17. Yüzyıllarda Rûm/Rûmi Aidiyet ve İmgeleri. (Kitap Yayınevi 75; Tarih ve Coğrafya Dizisi, 29.) İstanbul, 2004. Cf. Kafadar, ‘A Rome of One’s Own’, 20–21.

31

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

This offered an occasion to raise and analyse the question, “What is Turkish?” in various writings.44 During the debates on the identity and cultural orientation of the country, emphasis was put less on ethnic characteristics and more on the Ottoman state as an empire and its cultural and ethnic diversity. All this, almost naturally paved the way to a new disentanglement of the Byzantine ties to Ottoman history. Recent works stress that the relationship between Ottomans and Byzantines cannot merely be described as a history of opposition, victory and defeat, but also as a centuries-long acculturation, cooperation, and assimilation, or, as Michel Balivet put it, a story of ralliement and conciliation; and we can regard the Ottoman Empire as a melting pot in which Christians and Muslims considered themselves parts of one political community and common bearers of an Ottoman civisme.45 İlber Ortaylı even referred to the empire as “Muslim Rome” in a speech, and in another as “the last Rome”;46 and Balivet tends to regard the Ottoman system of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (to which he refers on one occasion as “Euro-Balkan Islam”) as a model solution for present political troubles in regions similar to the Balkans.47 If one were to offer a brief survey of the interconnecting points of the two worlds, it would be prudent to begin by noting the ethnic and cultural blend44 See, for example, the Istanbul periodical Cogito’s issue (19 [1999]) on Ottomans, where well-known Turkish and Western historians commented and wrote on questions of Ottoman identity. 45 Michel Balivet, Romanie byzantine et pays de Rum turc. Histoire d’un espace d’imbrication gréco-turque. (Les Cahies du Bosphore, X.) Istanbul, 1994, 194. For a more recent description of the rise of the Ottoman Empire that emphasizes the cooperation and not the struggle between Muslims and Christians: Heath W. Lowry, The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. Albany, 2003. Similarly, the transition and continuity between the two worlds were the focus of the exhibition entitled De Byzance à Istanbul. Un port pour deux continents, organised jointly by French and Turkish experts at the Grand Palais in Paris. The exhibition was open from 10 October 2009 to 2 January 2010; cf. Stéphanie Pioda, ‘De Byzance à Istanbul’, Archéologia 473 (2010) 28–37. 46 İlber Ortaylı, ‘19. Asra Kadar Osmanlı Millet Sistemi ve Bâb-i Âli’, Tarih ve Toplum 224 (August 2002) 19–20. Idem, ‘Son Roma İmparatorluğu’, in Idem, Osmanlı’yı Yeniden Keşfetmek. İstanbul, 2006, 181–189. In her recent overview of Ottomanist historiography, Suraiya Faroqhi also points to the usefulness of the “conveniently vague term Rumi”; see Suraiya Faroqhi, ‘Empires before and after the Post-colonial Turn: The Ottomans’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları 36 (2010) 73. 47 Michel Balivet, ‘Aux origines de l’islamisation des Balkans ottomans’, Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 66:4 (1992) 18.

32

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

ing. Ottoman society (except, perhaps, for its nomadic segment) was anything but all-Turkish (not even in villages). By the beginning of the sixteenth century, as a result of four-hundred years of Greco-Turkish conflict and cohabitation, Christians largely disappeared in Asia Minor (while they constituted a majority in the Balkans), but due to the high number of mixed marriages, slavery, conversions, Islamisation, and the institution of the janissaries, a sort of ethnic mixture was created, which naturally had concomitant cultural consequences.48 One may discern syncretism in almost all sectors of life: in religious life (for ordinary people, this was rather a system of folk beliefs consisting of Muslim-Christian elements), in the family, in everyday life (for instance, the general habit of drinking wine in the ruling elite and in Rumelia), in gastronomy (Greeks and Turks still offering the same food under different names), in various fields of economy (agriculture, trade, finance, guilds, fishing), in navigation, music, and folklore, etc.49 Undoubtedly, the greatest blending took place at the uppermost levels of power, due to the peculiar supplies of the Ottoman elite of slave origin, the well-known child levy. But the House of Osman was glad to lift members of the old Byzantine-Balkan elite and even remaining members of the Palaiologos dynasty into positions of power, as indicated by the fact that in the period between 1453 and 1516, the majority of grand viziers had originally been part of this group.50 The survival of defeated Byzantium was first and foremost ensured by the compromise between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Ottoman state. It seems that the majority of the ecclesiastical and monastic establishments had already taken sides with the Ottomans during the last years of Byzantium, for 48 Vryonis, The Decline, 227–243. Elisabeth A. Zachariadou, ‘Co-existence and Religion’, Archivum Ottomanicum 15 (1997) 119–129. Kafadar, ‘A Rome’, 13–14. Krstić, Contested Conversion, 66–67, 74. 49 Vryonis, The Decline, 444–497. Tokalak, Bizans–Osmanlı Sentezi, passim. In her book Tijana Krstić frequently emphasizes that the traditional use of the term “syncretism” is highly problematic. She argues “that ‘syncretism’ in the Ottoman Empire was not something that was confined to the state, Sufis, or any other particular social and religious group or institution.” Rather, “it was a complex arena of conflicting interest and initiatives represented by diverse groups of agents, ranging from the Ottoman government, its political rivals, converts themselves, mothers and wives, to the Orthodox Church.” Krstić, Contested Conversion, 53, 72. 50 Theoharis Stavrides, The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelović (1453–1474). (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 24.) Leiden–Boston–Köln, 2001. Lowry, The Nature, esp. 115–130.

33

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Church leaders had hoped that under the authority of the sultans they would be able to gain control over all Orthodox believers and would have greater say and more prominence in the everyday lives of Christians than they had had under the emperors.51 These expectations were splendidly fulfilled, as by the eighteenth century, the Istanbul Patriarchate had obtained a degree of autonomy it had never known before. And it was precisely for this reason that the Patriarchs of Constantinople unceasingly supported the sultanic power, even in the nineteenth century.52 In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a vast multitude of Greek tax collectors and economic professionals entered into the service of the Ottomans, thus helping them learn to administer a great empire with Constantinople as its centre.53 Among the institutional parallels and actual instances of adoption of Byzantine institutions, the following seem the most significant: 1. The Ottoman prebendal (timar) system, widely considered to have its origins in the late Byzantine pronoia.54 2. The taxation system, based on a combination of land and head tax (çift-hane), which is the “ottomanized” version of the late Roman iugatio-capitatio.55 3. Several elements of the notion and structures of power, 51 For a recent and nuanced study of the subject, see Nevra Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire. Cambridge, 2009, esp. 113–115, 218–232, 285–289. 52 Balivet, Romanie byzantine, 187. Richard Clogg, ‘The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire’, in Benjamin Braude – Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society. Vol. I: The Central Lands. New York–London, 1982, 185–207. For further possible interpretations of the relationship between the Ottoman state and the Orthodox churches, see also Halil İnalcık, ‘The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans’, Turcica 21–22 (1992) 407–436. Phokion P. Kotzageorgis, ‘About the Fiscal Status of the Greek Orthodox Church in the Seventeenth Century’, Turcica 40 (2008) 67–68. Antal Molnár, ‘Hadrovics László és a törökkori szerb egyháztörténet kutatása [László Hadrovics and research on the history of the Serbian church in the Ottoman era]’, in Lajos Gecsényi – Lajos Izsák (eds.), Magyar történettudomány az ezredfordulón. Glatz Ferenc 70. születésnapjára [Hungarian historiography around the turn of the millennium. In honour of Ferenc Glatz’s 70th birthday]. Budapest, 2011, 117–123. 53 Halil İnalcık, ‘Greeks in Ottoman Economy and Finances, 1453–1500’, in Idem, Essays in Ottoman History. Istanbul, 1998, 377–389. 54 For a recent summary of the subject, see Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 1300–1650: The Structure of Power. Second Edition. Houndmills, 2009, 181–184. 55 Halil İnalcık, ‘Köy, Köylü ve İmparatorluk’, in Idem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu. Toplum ve Ekonomi Üzerinde Arşiv Çalışmaları, İncelemeler. İstanbul, 1993, 1–14. Idem, ‘The Ottoman State: Economy and Society, 1300–1600’, in Halil İnalcık – Donald Quataert (eds.),

34

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

as well as of court and military organisation (the status of the ruler, his epithets, court mercenary troops and peasant soldiers, etc.), which can be traced back primarily to Byzantine pre-figurations. 56 4. The so-called ilmiye system, that is, the state-controlled educational and judicial organisation of learned men, including doctors of law/teachers (ulema), jurisconsults (müfti) and judges (kadı), which grew out of the model of the Orthodox Church and is unique in Islam, where there is no intermediary clergy between believer and God (the contention has also been made that the position of grand müfti is merely an Ottoman replica of the office of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople).57 5. Organisations of dervish orders, which are comparable to Byzantine monasteries (one recalls the similarities or convergences in Byzantine and Islamic mysticism, hesychasm and tasavvuf).58 6. Ottoman architecture, which for a long time imitated the patterns of Byzantine architecture, though its aspiration was to surpass its role model. 59 As for the question of a conscious assumption of Byzantine identity, one can perhaps most easily address this by looking at Ottoman terminology. First of all, it bears noting that the Ottoman state had no official name. If emphasis was placed on its most important character, that is, the dynastic character, then it was referred to as devlet-i Osmaniye (Ottoman state/empire), but it was more often called memalik-i mahruse (well-protected country) or simply bu canib (this side, this part); if emphasis was laid on its Islamic character, it was referred to as memleket-i/memalik-i islamiye (the land[s] of Islam). However, very early use of the expression memleket-i/diyar-i/iklim-i Rum (the land[s] of Rum) has also been documented. The second part of this term originally denoted Roman, then Eastern Roman, that is, Byzantine. Byzantine people

56

57 58

59

An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Cambridge, 1994, 145–154. Peter Schreiner, Byzanz. München, 1994, 57–67. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, Osmanlı Toplumunda Zındıklar ve Mülhidler (15.–17. Yüzyıllar). İstanbul, 1998, 77–78. Cf. Colin Imber, Ebu’ssu‘ud. The Islamic Legal Tradition. Edinburgh, 1997, 73–76. Gilles Veinstein, ‘L’empire dans sa grandeure (XVI e siècle)’, in Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l’Empire ottoman. Paris, 1989, 188. Balivet, Romanie byzantine, 181. Balivet, Romanie byzantine, 144–149. In contrast to Balivet, Krstić thinks (Contested Conversion, 9–12) that no direct connection or interplay between the two mystic currents have been convincingly proven, in spite of the obvious parallels in their teachings and practices. And in this it succeeded, at least according to the biography of Sinan, the great architect; see Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 139–147.

35

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

referred to themselves Rhomaioi, their country Rhomania,60 and thus Arabs/ Muslims called the Byzantine Empire diyaru’r-Rum/biladu’r-Rum (land/country of Rum) and its inhabitants rumi. Geographically, the land/country of Rum started from the West of the Euphrates and the Taurus Mountains and included the main areas of the Byzantine Empire (especially its territories in Asia Minor).61 The Seljuk rulers, who conquered Asia Minor, also referred to themselves as sultans of the land of Rum.62 For this reason (and because of the Latin conquest in 1204), the expression Rhomania slowly began to be used to denote the Orthodox Balkans, and was taken over by the Ottomans in the form Rum eli (Rumelia).63 Plenty of evidence indicates that the Ottoman power and intellectual elite – after scarcely using the term initially – started to apply, from the second half of the fifteenth century, the Rum epithet to itself more often and with growing deliberateness. Sultan Bayezid I assumed the title Rum sultanı (sultan of Rum) in 1394,64 and from Mehmed II’s time on, rulers held not only the titles sultan, padishah, khan and shah, but also kaysar-i Rum (in their Greek letters, basileus and autokrator).65 If they wished to express their positions of power briefly to foreigners, they used the title hakan-i/sultanü’r-Rum ve’l-Arab ve’l-Acem (khan/sultan of Rum, Arabs and Persians). 66 The men of learning and religion 60 See the entries ‘Rhomaios’ and ‘Romania’, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Vol. 3. New York–Oxford, 1991, 1793, 1805. After the establishment of the Latin Empire (1204), the name Rhomania was no longer used in official Byzantine documents. 61 Paul Wittek, ‘Rûm Sultanı’, in Batı Dillerinde Osmanlı Tarihleri.Vol. 1, İstanbul, 1971, 83– 87. Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği, 50–54. For the vagueness of the boundaries of Rum in the late medieval and early modern period, see also Kafadar, ‘A Rome’, 17–18. 62 Claude Cahen, La Turquie pré-ottomane. (Varia Turcica, VII.) Istanbul–Paris, 1988, 179– 180. 63 Wittek, ‘Rûm Sultanı’, 89. Halil İnalcık, ‘Rūmeli’, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, VIII:608a. 64 Wittek, ‘Rûm Sultanı’, 91. 65 Markus Köhbach, ‘Çasar oder imperator? – Zur Titulatur der römischen Kaiser durch die Osmanen nach dem Vertrag von Zsitvatorok (1606)’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82 (1992) 232–233. Hélène Ahrweiler, ‘Une lettre en grec du Sultan Bayezid II (1481–1512)’, Turcica 1 (1969) 152. Peter Thorau, ‘Von Karl dem Großen zum Frieden von Zsitva Torok [Zsitvatorok]. Zum Weltherrschaftsanspruch Sultan Mehmeds II. und dem Wiederaufleben des Zweitkaiserproblems nach der Eroberung Konstantinopels’, Historische Zeitschrift 279:2 (2004) 322–324. 66 See, for instance, Amy Singer, Palestinian Peasants and Ottoman Officials: Rural Administration around Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem. Cambridge, 1994, 189: note 19 (the inscription of a fountain in Jerusalem from 1536); cf. Imber, ‘The Ottoman Dynastic Myths’, 25. Feridun Ahmed Beğ, Münşeatü’s-Selatin. Vols. I–II. İstanbul, 1274/75 (1858)2, Vol. II, 419 (imperial letter of Ahmed I to King Matthias II of Habsburg after the peace of

36

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

also mentioned poets, dervishes, sheiks and doctors of law of Rum (şuara-i/ abdalan-i/meşayih-i/ulema-i Rum) when talking about themselves. 67 The “classical” Osmanlı language took form by the second half of the fifteenth century. Hitherto referred to as lisan-i Türki (Turkish language), from the sixteenth century on it was alternately called lisan-i/zeban-i Rumi and Türki (Turkish and Rumi language), and sometimes lisan-i Türk-i Rumi (Rumi-Turkish language).68 This self-definition harmonised with the view of the Ottomans in the East. While Europeans generally designated them as Turks (turcus, turco etc.) or sometimes Trojans, for Persians, Arabs, Africans, Indians, Southeast Asians and for a while for the Portuguese, Ottomans had always been the Rumi and would always remain so.69 As a thorough analysis of Ottoman historical and literary works and official state documents reveals, for sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ottomans the notion of Rum had several meanings. Firstly, geographically it denoted Byzantine and Ottoman core territories that were identical (Asia Minor or, from the early twentieth century, Anatolia and the majority of Rumelia). Secondly, it comprised the central dynastic power and the state-controlled cultural elite, with its Istanbul-centred intellectual, cultural, and artistic life. In this sense, the Rum or rumi is a synonym for Osman(lı). Thirdly, it constituted an unambiguous reference to the Seljuks of Rum, offering a kind of confirmation of the notion that the Ottomans were their legitimate heirs, an idea that was an important source of legitimacy for the dynasty. Fourthly, the Zsitvatorok [1606], where the title “Heir to the throne of the [Byzantine] emperor and Persia” can be found). Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty, 84 (a favourite title of Sultan Mehmed IV [1648–1687]): “Sultan over all the sultans of East and West and conqueror of the lands of Rumis, Persians and Arabs”). 67 Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği, 47, 109–117. 68 Mertol Tulum, ‘Osmanlı Türkçesi’, in Güler Eren (et alii ed.), Osmanlı 9. Kültür ve Sanat. Ankara, 1999, 421–429. István Vásáry, ‘The Beginnings of Western Turkic Literacy in Anatolia and Iran (13th–14th Centuries)’, in Éva M. Jeremiás (ed.), Irano-Turkic Cultural Contacts in the 11th–17th Centuries. Piliscsaba, [2002]2003, 245–253. At the end of the sixteenth century, court historian Talikizade described the position of the Ottoman sultan and the language that was worthy of him, in the following manner: “Since nowadays the sultan of Rum … is king and [divine] governor of the entire word and all people and – according to the saying that ‘the word of kings is the king of words’ – the Rumi language (lisan-i Rumi) is the most ornate and eloquent of all languages, … golden-mouthed authors of scholarly works tell us in their writings: the Arab has the religion, the Persian has the knowledge, and the people of Rum is between the two, being prominent in both…” Woodhead, Ta‘līkī-zāde’s şehnāme-i hümāyūn, 134–135. ḳ 69 Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği, 52–64, 78–88.

37

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Rum-ness (rumilik) of Ottomans expressed a separate, regional Turkish identity in so far as it drew a distinction between the inhabitants of the land of Rum who spoke a mixed language, which, even if artificial, was Turkish in structure and in its everyday form, and the Turkish inhabitants of the Arabian, Iranian, and Asian territories.70 This helps one understand the strange stories of the seventeenth-century traveller Evliya Çelebi, who attempted to prove the ancient character and primacy of the Türki language, recounting that it had been spoken even in the entourage of Alexander the Great, and contending even that Noah had conversed in this language when in the ark with the legendary Persian king, Hoshang Shah; for Evliya Çelebi, these stories proved and presaged that Turkish-speaking people would be rulers of the world. 71 And finally (as a fifth meaning), Rum-ness meant assuming Byzantium’s universal claims of power, that is, asserting that the “Turkish-Roman padishah” (basileus kai autokrator/amiras Turkorhomaion) was the sole emperor of the world, as ancient Roman and Eastern Roman caesars had been. As their successors who were in possession of the sedes imperii (the imperial seat), the Ottoman rulers had the duty of restoring the Roman Empire, the third Rome. 72 70 Cf. Ibid., 116–117. This difference was also pointed out when it came to the description of the stylistic characteristics of architectural environment. Ottoman geographical authors and travellers used the expression tarz-i rumi (Rumi style) to characterize the Ottoman (core) area’s architecture, as well as buildings erected outside these lands, but following the manners of core territories to differentiate them from Arabian, Iranian and other “strange” styles. Cf. Çiğdem Kafesçioğlu, ‘Rûmi Kimliğin Görsel Tanımları: Osmanlı Seyahat Anıtlarında Kültürel Sınırlar ve Mimari Tarz’, Journal of Turkish Studies 31:2 (2007) 57–65. 71 Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 8. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Seyit Ali Kahraman – Yücel Dağlı – Robert Dankoff. İstanbul, 2003, 334–337. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 3. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 305 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Seyit Ali Kahraman – Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul, 1999, 220–221. The prominent role in Islam of ancient and contemporary (that is Ottoman) Turks who had converted was also emphasized by the above mentioned Vani Mehmed Efendi (note 29) in one of his Quran commentaries written in 1679–80. Based on the 38 th and 39th verses of Sura 9, he saw the essence of the history of Islam in the failure of the Arabs to fulfil their divinely ordered task (namely, securing the victory of the true religion), and therefore the rise of the Turks to replace them in this mission. The Arabs conquered the lands of the Christians (Byzantines, Armenians, Georgians, etc.), and now the Ottomans were carrying on the mission of Arabs and earlier Turks; see Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, 207–209. 72 Thorau, ‘Von Karl dem Großen’, 316–330. İlber Ortaylı, ‘İstanbul’un Fethi ve Üçüncü Roma Nazariyesi’, in I. Uluslararası İstanbul’un Fethi Sempozyumu. İstanbul, 14–25 Mayıs 1996. İstanbul, 1997, 185–192. It is hardly a coincidence that in the early sixteenth

38

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

(I would add that in spite of earlier views, this claim was not challenged by the emerging Russia either. The theory of “Moscow, the third Rome,” which had been univocally categorised as political ideology, has recently been interpreted as a religious-eschatological doctrine the gist of which is that Moscow did not wish to be the heir to Byzantium in a political sense, but rather as a refuge of true faith.)73 Therefore, for the Ottomans, the legacy of Byzantine emperors (derived sometimes from the Palaiologos, sometimes from the Komnenos or the Trojans)74 also served to legitimize their conquests: they deduced that, as his inheritance, the sultan was entitled to all that had once belonged to the Rumis/Byzantines. To offer further support for this idea, they adopted the legend of Alexander the Great, whose imaginary conquests served as a solid legal ground for expansion towards the West (this is the basic idea of Tercüman Mahmud’s work, entitled Tarih-i Ungurus).75 Hungary and Habsburg century Suzi Çelebi, a chronicler of the borderland warriors who were in sharp opposition to the court, mentions the sultan residing in Istanbul as Rumun padişahı (the emperor of Rum). Agâh Sırrı Levend, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Ġazavāt-nāmesi, Ankara, 1956, 312. 73 Filippov Szergej, ‘“Támaszt az egek Istene birodalmat, mely soha örökké meg nem romol.” Történelembölcseleti elképzelések a 15–17. századi Oroszországban [“The God of the heavens has created an empire that will never ever decline.” Views in the philosophy of history in Russia in the 15th–17th centuries]’, Aetas 10:3 (1995) 5–31. 74 In his 1509 work on the origins of Ottoman sultans, Theodore Spandugnino states that Mehmed II believed he had descended from the Komnenos dynasty; cf. Hakan T. Karateke, ‘Legitimizing the Ottoman Sultanate: A Framework for Historical Analysis’, in Hakan T. Karateke – Maurus Reinkowski (eds.), Legitimizing the Order: The Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power. (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 34.) Leiden–Boston, 2005, 24–25. The main source of the Turks’ Trojan origin (a commonplace in Europe since the Crusades, in which, again, Sultan Mehmed II was keenly interested on the Ottoman side) was the Greek historian Kritovoulos; he recounted that, on a visit to the ruins of Troy in 1462, the sultan had declared that by defeating Byzantium he would take revenge in the name of the Asians for the numerous injustices wrought upon them by Greeks, Macedonians, Thessalonians and Peloponnesians. Stefanos Yerasimos, Kostantiniye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri. İstanbul, 19952, 77–80. Cf. Carl Göllner, Turcica. III. Band. Die Türkenfrage in der öffentlichen Meinung Europas im 16. Jahrhundert. Bucharest–BadenBaden, 1978, 229–236. Thorau, ‘Von Karl dem Großen’, 331: note 79. Robert Osterhout, ‘The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture’, Gesta 43:2 (2004) 165–176. See further Emőke Rita Szilágyi’s study in the present volume. 75 György Hazai, Die Geschichte der Ungarn in einer osmanischen Chronik des 16. Jahrhunderts: Tercümān Mah ḳmūds Tārīḫ-i Ungurus (Edition der Handschrift der Bibliothek der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Türkvölker, 8.) Berlin, 2009, 13–31. Cf. Balázs Sudár, ‘Platón Pécsett [Plato in Pécs]’,

39

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Vienna were proclaimed parts of a Rum heritage in order to depict their capture as a re-conquest, or the assertion of a lawful inheritance. 76 For the sake of the cause, as mentioned above, they even rewrote the genealogy of the dynasty in order to establish a genealogical and genetic relation with Greeks, who according to the Islamic tradition originated from Rum, son of Esau. In this light, it cannot be a coincidence that at the end of the fifteenth century, Tursun Bey’s chronicle referred to Hungarians as “the people of Beni Asfer”, which was another Arabic name for the Rumis/Greeks in the Middle Ages. 77 In 1577–78, this role of the Byzantine legacy was summarised by court historian Lokman in the following way: the Ottomans conquered Rum, and thus, they became lawful heirs of the Rumis – Alexander the Great being one of them – and consequently, Ottomans are inheritors of the world power of Alexander the Great, and they are entitled to all his conquests, including Vienna; therefore, the sultan lawfully regards the Habsburg ruler as his vassal, because the “Viennese king” is the subject of the Roman (that is, Byzantine)

Pécsi Szemle 10:2 (2007) 16–27. (I disagree with the opinion outlined in the latter study, namely that Alexander the Great “did not receive a prominent place” in the representation of Ottoman rulers prior to the sixteenth century, and that the rise in his significance was caused by western influence; setting forth my opinion, however, would go beyond the framework of this article.) 76 Evliya Çelebi effectively uses the model of justifying Ottoman conquest ideologically and theoretically by asserting the country’s former (real or imagined) Greek-Byzantine relations. This is why he “moves” Plato to Pécs, describing him as a city-builder and local school-founder, and also places his grave in the neighbourhood of the city, claimed to be given by Alexander the Great (Sudár, ‘Platón’; for similar concepts, see also Pál Fodor, Magyarország és a török hódítás [Hungary and the Ottoman conquest]. Budapest, 1991, 143–144). Evliya Çelebi justifies the rightfulness of Ottoman Turkish claims regarding Hungary by insisting on Persian-Hungarian kinship, and more closely by alleging that the Hungarians originate from the legendary royal dynasty of Pishdadians (from Manuchehr, one of Hoshang’s successors), attempting to prove this concept by stating that there is a drawing of the Hungarian Holy Crown on Hoshang’s tomb in Dagestan. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zıllî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 7. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Yücel Dağlı – Seyit Ali Kahraman – Robert Dankoff. İstanbul, 2003, 312–313; cf. 117–118 and Idem , Evliyâ Çelebi seyahatnâmesi. 6. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Revan 1457 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Seyit Ali Kahraman – Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul, 2002, 7. On this question, see also Balázs Sudár’s study in the present volume. 77 Tursun Bey, Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth, 111: Üngürûs’a – ki tayife-i benî-asferdür – zafer bulup; see also ibid., 33, 122, 129, 205.

40

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

emperor, from whom the sultan captured the capital, Constantinople – and the duty of a vassal is to pay taxes.78 To sum up, in the period between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ottomans consciously related themselves to the defeated and “preserved, though abolished” Eastern Roman Empire. Not only did they borrow numerous institutions from Byzantium, but they also made use of Rum heritage for the formulation of their self-identity and political ambitions. This had a universal aspect that gained expression in the continuity of the idea of the Roman rule of the world. There was also a regional aspect, which served to distance the Ottomans from other eastern and various Turkic people, and it became, as it were, the cornerstone of Ottoman elite identity. As a sixteenth century chronicler aptly expressed it in one of his poems: Speak to us in Türki language, to us who are Rumis Isn’t it pleasant for Rumi ears to hear a Türki word? 79 This proudly professed regional Rumi self-awareness is also manifested in Mustafa Ali’s late sixteenth century poem: In one word: a Rumi is an outstanding person Arabs are sycophantic and mean And although Persians are courteous Most of them are hypocritical They are not fuelled by envy or hatred towards the Rumi For they keep fire and water in the same cup In one word, nowadays According to the wise The Rum is a hundred times better than the Persians And those who dislike this word are mean 78 István Nyitrai, Seyyed Loqmân Kiegészítése és a perzsa történeti eposz az Oszmán Birodalomban [Seyyed Loqmân’s Addendum and the Persian historical epic in the Ottoman Empire]. PhD Dissertation. Budapest, 2005, 124–130. According to Yerasimos (Kostantiniye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri, 235–236), the works of the Süleymaniye mosque may have been commenced, because after making peace with the Habsburg brothers in 1547, Sultan Süleyman decided to use architecture as yet another means to express that after decades of war, he had indeed become the Roman Emperor, suzerain of the two kings who were obliged to pay tribute. This is the reason why another sultanic mosque that had been built for him in previous years was renamed Şehzade in memory of his son Mehmed who died in 1543. 79 Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği, 117.

41

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Earlier the noble Persians Had won fame and name with their virtues Now they lack all of these They lack the greatness of the Rumi people.80 Yet for all that has been said above, the Ottoman Empire was not a second edition of Byzantium. It is important to recognize a separate, Persian/Iranian component which shaped the Ottoman identity with varying intensity. The (West) Anatolian Turks got acquainted with the enormous edifice of Islamic civilization primarily through the filter of Iran and the Persian language. 81 In the age of the Seljuks of Rum (twelfth–thirteenth century), Persian was the language not only of the state administration, but also of literature, historiography and commerce.82 What is more, before the rise of the Ottomans, nearly all Muslim states east of Asia Minor were governed on the “TurkoPersian” model, to use Robert Canfield’s term: 83 usually, soldiers were Turks and bureaucrats were Persians, thus state administration was run in Persian. 80 Mehmet Şeker, Gelibolulu Mustafa ‘Âlî ve Mevâ‘ıdü’n-Nefāis fî-K aḳ vâ‘ıdi’l-Mecâlis. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, III/16.) Ankara, 1997, 193, 343. Based on the aforementioned, I disagree with Kafadar, who opines that the “Roman-ness” of the Ottomans, unlike that of the nineteenth-century British elite or the present-day neo-cons of the USA, did not contain elements of an imperial claim for power (Kafadar, ‘A Rome’, 20). For similar reasons, Kafadar’s view that the term Rumi denoted first and foremost the Turkish speaking urban segment of Seljuk and Ottoman society, and was a “category shaped by the civil society” (ibid., 12) seems to underestimate the role of the state in the process of the appropriation of Byzantine heritage. The opinion that Ottoman state documents did not use the word Rumi as an “operational category” for the Ottomans themselves (ibid., 12) does not appear to be correct either; in several imperial orders (see, for instance, İstanbul, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Mühime defterleri 5, Nos. 65, 833, 1361, 1451, etc.), the term Rumi is adopted to denote the Ottomans and is repeatedly contrasted with Acem and Arab in the same way as in the literary and other texts used in cultural discourses. 81 On the enormous translation activity in the principalities of Asia Minor, particularly during the reign of Sultan Murad II (1421–1451), see Ahmed Kartal, ‘Tercüme Edebiyatı’, in Idem, Şiraz’dan İstanbul’a Şiir Rüzgârları. Türk–Fars Kültür Coğrafyası Üzerine Araştırmalar. İstanbul, 2008, 321–340. 82 Gyula Káldy-Nagy, ‘Politische und kulturelle Einflüsse in Kleinasien zur Zeit der Herausbildung des osmanischen Staates’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82 (1992) 221. 83 Robert L. Canfield, ‘Introduction: The Turko-Persian Tradition’, in Idem (ed.), TurkoPersia in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, 1991, 1–34. Metin Kunt, ‘Characterizing Ottoman Polity: “Turko-Persia” and the Ottomans’, in İlker Evrim Binbaş – Nurten KılıçSchubel (eds.), Horizons of the World: Festschrift for İsenbike Togan. Istanbul, 2011, 311– 324.

42

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

Initially, the Ottomans also followed this model, and, as a result of a long emancipatory process, by the second half of the fifteenth century they “ottomanized” the Seljuk and Ilkhanid heritage and adjusted it to their own needs (partly upon Byzantine influences). Here the “Turkish element” was constituted by the Balkan and Anatolian devşirme recruits, who were assimilated linguistically, while the administration was gradually “Turkified”, as (Ottoman) Turkish was the lingua franca in the empire. Oddly enough, however, during the attempts to re-establish the universal Roman Empire (in the age of Mehmed II), instead of Greek, Persian language came to the fore as a tool of universalness, allowing for the articulation of the idea that the Ottomans were heirs to the Persian-Islamic legacy in the first place. The emergence and strengthening of Safavid Iran, and the domestic political troubles and sharp ideological-religious struggle it caused also played a role in the intense Ottoman linguistic dissociation from Iran: this was one of the reasons of the final triumph of Osmanlı as the language of literature and historiography. It is, however, a clear proof of the enduring appeal and influence of Persian culture that Sultan Süleyman created the post of “shahnama-writer” (şehnameci) in the mid-sixteenth century: the holders of this post were expected to praise the ruler’s deeds in Persian, imitating Firdausi’s The Book of Kings.84 In conclusion, it can be stated that while the Byzantine-Turkish tradition determined the regional orientation of Ottoman identity, the Islamic-Persian legacy was instrumental in shaping its cultural universalism.85 A question that remains to be clarified concerns the religious component of Ottoman identity. As discussed above, the religion of the ruler, the governing segment, and the common people was more or less the same in the early Ottoman period: they all observed a faith which might be covered by the general term “popular (folk) Islam”. This phrase struck roots in scholarship a few decades ago and refers to a highly mixed set of beliefs typical of 84 Christine Woodhead, ‘An Experiment in Official Historiography: The Post of Şehnāmeci in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1555–1605’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 75 (1983) 157–182. Nyitrai, Seyyed Loqmân Kiegészítése, 23–41. 85 The mutually complementary character of the two legacies is spectacularly illustrated by the sultan’s title Rum padişahı/şahı (emperor/king of Rum), the first half of which goes back to Byzantium, the second to Iran. One example of the frequent use of the title from 1526: Balázs Sudár, ‘A végítélet könyve. Oszmán elbeszélő forrás a mohácsi csatáról [Book of the Last Judgement. An Ottoman narrative source about the battle of Mohács]’, Történelmi Szemle 52 (2010) 401, 408, 412, 417; see also notes 62, 72.

43

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

thirteenth–fifteenth century Oghuz Turks.86 This form of religion was actually a superficially Islamized shamanism, the tribal religion of the Turks, the main figures of which were the “holy men” (shamans): Horasan erenleri, babas, dedes, torlaks, ışıks, etc. From this colourful conglomerate, the following dervish orders (tarikat) evolved in the thirteenth century: 1. Kalenderis, popularly known as Abdals, 2. Haydaris, and finally 3. Yesevis. By the fourteenth century, the movement of the still rather heterogeneous “Rumi Abdals” (abdalan-i Rum) grew out of these branches, gradually evolving into the Bektaşi order which fused several Buddhist, neo-Platonic, Christian (gnostic) and Islamic elements into a syncretic unity.87 As mentioned earlier, in the Balkans, a separate “Euro-Islam” emerged, primarily upon the influence of the Abdal-Bektashi missionaries. Fifteenth-century Balkans and Anatolia abounded in religious groups halfway between Islam and Christianity (mixovarvaroi, crypto-Christians, Bosnians, Pomaks, Hellenistic Muslims, Hubmesihis).88 By the second half of the fifteenth century, in Anatolia, Azerbaijan and Western Iran, the Kızılbaş “sect” emerged, which originally belonged to the AbdalBektashi conglomerate, however, later gradually absorbed a lot of apparently Shiite, but actually heretic elements. Ottoman theologians declared that these “erring people” neglected even the most fundamental teachings of Islam (for 86 Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, ‘Islam in the Ottoman Empire: A Sociological Framework for a New Interpretation’, International Journal of Turkish Studies 9:1–2 (2003) 185–186, 194–195. 87 Victor L. Ménage, ‘The Islamization of Anatolia’, in Nehemia Levtzion (ed.), Conversion to Islam. New York–London, 1979, 52–67. Irène Mélikoff, ‘Un ordre de derviches colonisateurs: les bektachis. Leur rôle social et leurs rapports avec les premiers sultans ottomans’, in Mémorial Ömer Lûtfi Barkan. Paris, 1980, 149–157. Eadem, Uyur İdik Uyardılar. Alevîlik–Bektaşîlik Araştırmaları. İstanbul, 1993. Eadem, ‘L’origine sociale’, 135–144. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, XIII. Yüzyılda Anadolu’da Baba Resûl (Babaîler) İsyanı ve Anadolu’nun İslamlaşması Tarihindeki Yeri. İstanbul, 1980. Idem, Bektaşı Menâkıbnâmelerinde İslam Öncesi İnanç Motifleri. İstanbul, 1983. Idem, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Marjinal Sûfîlik: Kalenderîler (XIV–XVII. Yüzyıllar). Ankara, 1992. Idem, ‘Les milieux soufis dans les territoires du beylicat ottoman et le problème des “abdalan-i Rum” (1300–1389)’, in Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate, 145–158. 88 See Zachariadou, ‘Co-existence’. Balivet, Romanie byzantine. Idem, ‘Aux origines’. Machiel Kiel, ‘Sarı Saltuk: Pionier des Islam auf dem Balkan im 13. Jahrhundert’, in İsmail Engin – Erhard Franz (eds.), Alewiten. Band 1. Identität und Geschichte. Hamburg, 2000, 253–305. The religious process taking place here – similarly to the Khazars’ change of faith – fits well into Richard Eaton’s model postulating that the embrace/victory of a religion is realized by the phases of embedding–identification–replacement; cf. Peter B. Golden, ‘A kazárok megtérése a zsidó hitre [Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism]’, in Ádám Molnár (ed.), Csodaszarvas. Őstörténet, vallás, néphagyomány [Early Hungarian history, religion, folk tradition]. Vol. II, Budapest, 2006, 42.

44

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

instance, they committed the sin of denying the sacred law [ibaha]), therefore in theological terms, they were more than Shiites – they were heretics (mülhid, rafizi).89 And then there were the Bayrami-Melametis with their pantheism (vahdet-i vücud/mevcud) and their belief in a strong, charismatic spiritual leader (kutb: redeemer-pole), who expressed their claims to this-worldly power, or the Hurufis, who had a great influence on Bektashism, etc. 90 This wide assortment of trends and orders, all of them suspect of being heretical, began to impose a serious threat on the dynastic-imperial and absolutistic ambitions of the House of Osman by the mid-fifteenth century, therefore the sultans provided increasing support to the scholars of Islamic law (ulema) representing Sunni orthodoxy, that is, “madrasa or scriptural Islam”. 91 In an effort to support its power and restrain Sufi and folk Islam, one of the moves with the most far-reaching consequences made by the dynasty was the establishment of the ilmiye, a hierarchically organized body of religious scholars, an institution with no parallel in earlier Muslim states. 92 Modelled to a certain degree on the Byzantine clergy, the head of the organization was the grand müfti (later called şeyhülislam), followed in rank by the two chief justices (kadıasker) of Rumelia and Anatolia, the judges (kadı) of major cities (Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, Mecca, Cairo, Damascus, etc.), the judges of judicial districts, the professors (müderris) of colleges of various ranks (medrese), the jurisconsults (müfti), the preachers (vaiz), the leaders of prayer at the mosques and the Friday preachers (imam-hatib) (the preachers and the employees beneath them in rank did not belong to the ulema sector in the strict sense, but they – especially the preachers of the great imperial mosques in Istanbul such 89 Elke Eberhard, Osmanische Polemik gegen die Safawiden im 16. Jahrhundert nach arabischen Handschriften. (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, 3.) Freiburg im Breisgau, 1970, esp. 84–137, 155–163. Irène Mélikoff, ‘Le problème kızılbaş’, Turcica 6 (1975) 49–67. By the nineteenth century, the kızılbaş had come to be known as alevi. 90 Ocak, Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, 131–135, 251–313. 91 Ocak, ‘Islam in the Ottoman Empire’, 190. 92 Madeline C. Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Postclassical Age (1600–1800). Minneapolis, 1988. On the independent ulema career (or “estate”) and the emergence and consolidation of the ulema aristocracy, see Abdurrahman Atcil, ‘The Route to the Top in the Ottoman ilmiye Hierarchy of the Sixteenth Century’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 72:3 (2009) 489–512. Baki Tezcan, ‘The Ottoman Mewali as “Lords of the Law”’, Journal of Islamic Studies 20:3 (2009) 383–407. On mobility within the ulema still demonstrable in the seventeenth century, see Denise Klein, Die osmanischen Ulema des 17. Jahrhunderts. Eine geschlossene Gesellschaft? (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, 274.) Berlin, 2007.

45

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

as the Aya Sofya, Sultan Ahmed, Süleymaniye, Bayezid, Fatih, Selim, Valide, and Şehzade mosques – had great influence on society). There were Quran schools, mosques and judges in about 1,200 communities, and in several settlements there were madrasas. Approximately the same number of mosques could be found in the capital city of Istanbul. These institutions and the hierarchical system ensured the Sunni, centrist and legalist character of the state, as M. Zilfi maintains.93 Although scholars of religious law did not form a clerical order in the strict sense, they provided a supply of teachers and judges, thus they had a direct influence on all areas of life, and determined social norms considerably.94 From the second half of the fifteenth century, the state made a steadily increasing effort to harmonize jurisdiction with the precepts of religious law (şeriat) aided by the ulema. Partly for these reasons, and partly because of the foundation of the Safavid state and the Kizilbash religious threat, strong waves of “Sunnitization” emerged in the first half of the sixteenth century, along the following lines: 1. From the age of Mehmed II, suspected heretic dervishes and dervish orders were harshly persecuted, while others that aligned themselves with the more orthodox line of the government were supported or founded. That is how the Halvetis, Mevlevis, Nakşibendis and the Bektaşis (the latter organized into an order at the turn of the fifteenth–sixteenth century) came to the fore.95 The Kizilbashes and Melamis were constantly inspected and harassed over the course of the sixteenth century.96 Georgius de Ungaria, who spent twenty years in captivity in the Ottoman Empire in the middle of the fifteenth century, left two stories to posterity which shed sharp light on the tensions between the followers of the two ways (ulema vs Sufi), and between the dervishes and the state. The first, early “momentous event” took place during the reign of Murad II (1421–1451), in the form of a quarrel between the dervishes and the “priests” about whether “the offerings, alms, and donations of the 93 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety, 26. 94 Ocak, ‘Islam in the Ottoman Empire’, 190–193. 95 Nathalie Clayer, Mystiques, état et société. Les Halvetis dans l’aire balkanique de la fin du XVe siècle à nos jours. Leiden–New York–Köln, 1994. Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 53. John Kingsley Birge, The Bektashi Order of Dervishes, London, 1965. Gábor Ágoston – Balázs Sudár, Gül Baba és a magyarországi bektasi dervisek [Gül Baba and the Bektashi dervishes in Hungary]. Budapest, 2002, 13–39. 96 Ahmed Refik, ‘Osmanlı Devrinde Rafızîlik ve Bektaşîlik (1558–1591)’, Darülfünun Edebiyat Fakültesi Mecmuası 8:2 (1932) 21–59. Ocak, Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, 268–306.

46

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

commoners were to be given to the priests or the monks. The priests claimed that ‘We take care of the people, give them advice, provide legal judgment, govern, teach them, we make and execute laws, therefore the burden of all the people weigh on our shoulders. Since our service is more necessary for the people and for the entire country, we are rightly entitled to the offerings of the people.’ On the other hand the other side argued: ‘We are the heirs and vicars of those who were the foundations of law and grace, those who intercede for the people in front of God, those who try to satisfy the needs of people with their merits and their intercession. Warding off the troubles and threats of the country, and doing good with all our might, we lend support and help in the places where human strength is flagging. Consequently, we are truly entitled to the people’s alms and votive offerings.’” The sultan’s decision in the case favoured the “priests”, that is, the ulema, but upon the monks’ request, he granted a seven days’ moratorium before the announcement of his verdict. One night during this period, he was sitting on the lavatory relieving himself, when it collapsed under him and as he fell into the depths he was caught in a tree. From this quandary he was rescued by a person dressed like a monk, which prompted him to abdicate the throne and live among monks for the rest of his life. – The other “momentous event”, which took place during the reign of Mehmed II, was obviously intended as a justification for the aggressive treatment of the dervishes. There was a rumour that the Mongolian ruler wanted to have the Ottoman sultan murdered, and he convinced some devilish fellows to commit the crime, first getting close to him in dervish attire. Apart from that, ordinary criminals “in those times, were also hiding disguised in the clothes and outward appearances of monks. All this enraged the ruler, but above all, it was the wickedness of the persons mentioned above that drove him to act, and he issued a public edict to banish and expel all monks from the country. At the same time, he ordered anyone found in dervish clothes to be taken captive, imprisoned, publicly punished, deprived of all his belongings, and finally, deprived of his life. For the king’s heart was overtaken by such disgust and hatred towards this kind of creature, that he could not even tolerate their names, and whenever he saw someone dressed in this attire of the poor, he could not look at them without agitation. That was why those who accompanied him or were

47

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

making his way in front of him, did not allow a single poor person to appear at places he was about to pass.”97 2. Major mosque building programs were initiated (particularly in the 1530s).98 3. Attempts were made to have the religious precepts observed in all their rigour. Grand müfti Ebussuud Efendi issued fetvas proclaiming that those who missed the five daily prayers and the Friday service should be severely punished.99 At certain places, special officials (namazcı) were appointed to go from house to house on Friday and bundle off people who stayed at home to attend the divine service, or initiate investigations against notorious absentees.100

97 Georgius de Ungaria, Értekezés a törökök szokásairól, viszonyairól és gonoszságáról [Treatise on the customs, relations and wickedness of the Turks], translated by Győző Kenéz in Lajos Tardy (ed.), Rabok, követek, kalmárok az Oszmán Birodalomról [Slaves, envoys and traders on the Ottoman Empire]. Budapest, 1977, 130–133. The origin of Friar Georgius, to whom posterity owes a multitude of excellent and authentic observations, has long been a subject of dispute. More recently, Reinhard Klockow, who edited and translated his work into German (cf. Georgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de moribus, condictionibus et nequicia Turcorum. Traktat über die Sitten, die Lebensverhältnisse und die Arglist der Türken. Nach der Erstausgabe von 1481 herausgegeben, übersetzt und eingeleitet von Reinhard Klockow. [Schriften zur Landeskunde Siebenbürgens. Ergänzungsreihe zum siebenbürgischen Archiv, Band. 15.] Köln–Weimar–Wien, 1993) argues that “er war ein deutschsprachiger Siebenbürger”; see ‘Georgius de Hungaria alias Georgius Alemanus. Neues zur Biographie des Verfassers des Tractatus de moribus, condictionibus et nequicia Turcorum anlässlich seines 500. Todestages am 3. Juli 2002’, Südost-Forschungen 61–62 (2002–2003) 80. On the appeal of fifteenth-century Ottoman culture and Islam, and their influence on Friar George, see Albrecht Classen, ‘The World of the Turks Described by an Eye-Witness: Georgius de Hungaria’s Dialectical Discourse on the Foreign World of the Ottoman Empire’, Journal of Early Modern History 7:3–4 (2003) 257–282. The above cited story of Georgius de Hungaria was also referred to by Krstić, Contested Conversions, 49. 98 Halil İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire. The Classical Age 1300–1600. Translated by Norman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber. London, 1973, 182. The Sunni turn also had its imprint on architecture; one of the signs is the shift from the earlier T-shaped convent–masjid complexes with appended guest houses to the Friday mosque complexes. Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, Chapter 2, esp. 50–52. 99 Necipoğlu, The Age of Sinan, 48–49, 55–56. 100 Pál Fodor, ‘“A kincstár számára a hitetlen a leghasznosabb”. Az oszmánok magyarországi valláspolitikájáról [“The unbeliever is the most useful for the treasury.” On the religious policy of the Ottomans in Hungary]’, in Mária Ormos (ed.), Magyar évszázadok. Tanulmányok Kosáry Domokos 90. születésnapjára [Hungarian centuries. Studies in honour of Domokos Kosáry’s 90th birthday] Budapest, 2003, 90.

48

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

4. Occasionally, they “bore down” upon the ulema too (Sultan Süleyman, for example, had Molla Kabız declared a heretic, and executed in 1527). 101 As a result of all this, the ulema sector and its world view came to play an increasing role in shaping the self-identity of the dynasty. This was most conspicuous in three areas: 1. The ruling house identified jihad, the holy war as its mission; the Ottoman state and jihad became conceptually united. In the Ottoman world, jihad became – although not by the word of the sacred law, but as suggested by the ulema – the sixth “pillar” of Islam (ibada, that is “worship”), which justified the political system and gave a transcendental meaning to the existence of the empire.102 2. In accordance with the above idea, the Ottoman rulers became the “revivers” of Islam (müceddid) and “servants of the two holy cities [Mecca and Medina]”.103 3. As the leading force of Sunni Islam, they undertook the protection of orthodoxy against the religious straying and “false” claims of power on the parts of the Kizilbash Safavids and Christian Habsburgs. This role substantiated the theory of the Ottoman caliphate, which proclaimed that the sultans were the direct heirs and successors of the first four caliphs, and as such, they were God’s chosen people, whose reign was the precondition for the implementation of the sacred law of religion. 104 The advance of Sunni positions slowly but steadily increased the sphere of influence of the religious scholars, and with time, they began to circumscribe the power of the dynasty as well (by the end of the sixteenth century, the grand müfti had risen among the main protagonists of political life, whose fetva had 101 Ocak, Zındıklar ve Mülhidler, 230–238. In a paper presented at the conference on Sultan Süleyman’s Szigetvár campaign in 1566 (held in Pécs, 6–9 September 2016) Tijana Krstić convincingly argued that in addition to the state, the Ottoman civil society also took part effectively in the Sunnitization process. See ‘State and Religion, Sunnitization and Confessionalism in Süleyman’s Time’ (forthcoming). 102 Pál Fodor, A dzsihád tana és gyakorlata az Oszmán Birodalomban [The doctrine and practice of jihad in the Ottoman Empire], manuscript. 103 Imber, ‘The Ottoman Dynastic Myth’, 23–24. Fleischer, ‘Lawgiver and Messiah’, 163. 104 Colin Imber, ‘Süleyman as Caliph of the Muslims: Ebû’s-Su‘ûd’s Formulation of Ottoman Dynastic Ideology’, in Veinstein (publ.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps, 179–184. Idem, Ebu’s-su‘ud, 98–111.

49

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

the power to dethrone rulers (while by the eighteenth century, the upper segment of the ulema developed into an estate of “feudal aristocracy” buttressed with privileges). Later, because of their ties to power and their corruption, the ilmiye estate itself had to face serious threats, as puritanical movements emerged in the late sixteenth century and grew into a considerable social force by the mid-seventeenth century. These movements included, first of all, the kadızades, whose leaders exerted substantial influence upon Sultan Mehmed IV (1648–1687) as well.105 Despite all that has been said above, we might conclude that neither the relations between the state and the Sufis, nor relations between the ulema and the Sufis can be characterized by stating that the Sufis (who were hated and attacked by the purists even more intensely than the ulema) were suppressed. The two basic institutions – the ilmiye and the tarikat, the two “paths” of Islam – were inevitably intertwined, and what is even more important, the persons involved in the two strains were interconnected by a thousand personal threads. The majority of sultans and the ulema entered one or another dervish order, most of them were students of some of the great sheikhs. Sons of several prominent dervishes chose the career of the ulema, and many order leaders preached regularly in the mosques. The ulema hierarchy (through the kadıs) controlled the finances of the endowments (vakıf) of the dervish convents (zaviye, tekke) and dervish orders that were preferred by the state were supported with large donations. The number of convents largely exceeded that of the mosques, and the religious foundations that were made for them fulfilled highly complex social functions, providing the frameworks for civilian life that were someway independent from the state. 106 In public life and literature, the Sufi, sometimes syncretic discourse maintained its decisive role. The advocates of the two paths kept quarrelling, and sometimes took serious action against certain deviants, but on the whole, there was agreement between them, and violence was rarely present in these debates. 107 Evidently, the methods of 105 Madeline C. Zilfi, ‘The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in Seventeenth-Century Istanbul’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986) 251–274. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, ‘XVII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dinde Tasfiye (Püritanizm) Teşebbüslerine Bir Bakış: Kadızâdeliler Hareketi’, Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları 17–21:1–2 (1983) 208–223. Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, 63–77, 109–119. 106 Among the rich literature on pious endowments, see Hasan Yüksel, Osmanlı Sosyal ve Ekonomik Hayatında Vakıfların Rolü (1585–1683). Sivas, 1998, esp. 176–180. 107 Hans Georg Majer, ‘İçtimâî Târih Açısından Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ulemâ–Meşâyih Münâsebetleri’, Kubbealtı Akademi Mecmuası 9:4 (1980) 48–68. Reşat Öngören,

50

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

elite recruitment also had a prominent role in all of this. The “true Ottomans”, who were elevated from slave status, obviously made attempts to become good Muslims, but their faith was different from that of the religious elite of Muslim Turkish origin.108 Since a decisive majority had come from Christian environments, they were fairly tolerant of their original religion (practically, the religion of their parents), though in politics they gave unswerving support to the fight against the Christian world. Members of this sector were usually aware of their origins, paid attention to, and often supported their relatives. There is data on co-operations that may appear peculiar from a current perspective; for example, one part of a family embraced Islam, and was elevated to the highest ranks of Ottoman state hierarchy, while the other branch of the family remained Christian and enjoyed the blessings of their prominent relations.109 (This method was applied in the lower segments of society as well.) 110 In regard to identity, all this boils down to the conclusion that the primary means of integration in and identification with the Ottoman realm (apart from language) was religion, more precisely, its specific Ottoman form. This milieu, apparently, sometimes tolerated tendencies that would have been unacceptable for true Sunnites. As an example, I would refer to the Hubmesihi “sect” earlier mentioned in passing (who ascribed Jesus a significant role, a role that ex cessed that of Mohamed in certain regards): this movement – at least according to western observers – cropped up repeatedly not only in the fever ish period of fifteenth-century blending (first of all, among the heretic trends), but also in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the circles of the topmost Osmanlılar’da Tasavvuf. Anadolu’da Sûfîler, Devlet ve Ulemâ (XVI. Yüzyıl). İstanbul, 2000, 235–402. Necdet Yılmaz, Osmanlı Toplumunda Tasavvuf. Sûfîler, Devlet ve Ulemâ (XVII. Yüzyıl). İstanbul, 2001, 429–457. The language and imaginary of Islamic mysticism prevailed in earlier times too, see Krstić, Contested Conversions, 73. 108 Kármán, ‘Turks Reconsidered’, 115. 109 The example of the Sokollus is well known: Gilles Veinstein, ‘Soḳollu Meḥmed Pasha’, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. Vol. IX, Leiden, 1997, 706–711. See also Pál Fodor, The Unbearable Weight of Empire: The Ottomans in Central Europe – A Failed Attempt at Universal Monarchy (1390–1566). Budapest, 20162, 41: note 81. 110 Antal Molnár, Katolikus missziók a hódolt Magyarországon. I. (1572–1647) [Catholic missions in Ottoman Hungary, 1572–1647]. (Humanizmus és reformáció, 26.) Budapest, 2002, 244: note 192; 295, 300. Idem, Le Saint-Siège, Raguse et les missions catholiques de la Hongrie ottoman 1572–1647. (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae – Roma. Studia, I.) Rome–Budapest, 2007, 264–265, 269.

51

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

elite.111 It seems that several latitudinarian elements of Ottoman religious identity irritated not only certain spokesmen of the ulema, or the puritans, but also the Muslims east of the empire. In these countries, the name Rumi often carried pejorative overtones. The Persians, Egyptians and other Muslims considered the Ottomans the heirs to Eastern Romans (Byzantines), who were bad Muslims, former Christian degenerates with feeble faith. This syncretic character that is discernible at both upper and lower levels of society can be visually illustrated by the fortuitously still extant green war flag of Barbarossa Hayreddin (died in 1546), the famous Ottoman pirate who was made grand admiral of the Ottoman fleet.

Fig. 1. The Flag of Barbarossa Hayreddin (Reproduced from Fevzi Kurtoğlu, Türk Bayrağı ve Ay Yıldız. Ankara, 1992, figure 64)

The flag, preserved in the Naval Museum of Istanbul, features the following motifs: on the upper part, there is a Quran citation, beneath it, in the four 111 Ocak, Zındıklar ve mülhidler, 228–243.

52

THE FORMATION OF OTTOMAN TURKISH IDENTITY

corners there are the names of the first four caliphs; between these “cartouches”, on the upper left side, there is a hand, and below in the middle, a star of David; in the very middle, a rather anthropomorphic representation of Zulfikar, the famous double-bladed sword. The latter was received by Ali, the fourth caliph and champion of Islam, from the Prophet and Abu Talib; through legends about the prophet and his companions the figure of Ali was “united” with Zulfikar (as the saying “There is no hero like Ali and there is no sword like Zulfikar” illustrates). The sword was particularly precious to the Shiites, as it symbolized the power claims of Ali and his descendants. Zulfikar as a symbol gained great significance in the fifteenth century in the Ottoman context, and was mainly cherished by the janissaries and Bektashis. The military campaigns of the Ottomans spread the legend far and wide, and it became associated with miraculous stories about swords from Europe, Persia, and the Arabic world. It is not accidental that Zulfikar resembles a cross on Ottoman representations: being syncretic and ecumenical, the janissaries of mixed, mostly Christian origin could project into it their own native traditions and thus it strengthened their cohesion. 112 It is therefore very likely that Barbarossa’s flag proclaimed the unity of the three great religions, with primacy given to Islam (as expressed by the frame consisting of a Quranic quotation and Islamic motifs). A milestone in the process of the consolidation of Ottoman identity was the crumbling of the cultural-religious wall that divided the two major parts of the ruling elite, the political (ümera/kul) and the religious (ulema/dai) sectors, resulting by around 1600 in a unified Ottoman Muslim ruling elite with a unified world view and attitude – as also testified by the politicization of the ulema and the homogenization (Islamisation) of name-giving customs. 113 The Muslim Turkish, Persian, and Byzantine cultural syncretism of the elite and its appeal did not fail to affect also larger masses of society (including to a certain extent non-Muslims too).114 While the social and political gap between the elite 112 For this interpretation, see Jane Hathaway, ‘Unutulan İkon: Hz. Ali’nin Kılıcı Zülfikar’ın Osmanlı Türevi’, Cogito 19 (1999) 146–160. 113 İ. Metin Kunt, ‘Ottoman Names and Ottoman Ages’, Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986) 233. 114 Cf. van den Boogert, ‘Resurrecting Homo Ottomanicus’, 18: “All these groups, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, were connected directly or indirectly with the Ottoman state and their members were all part of Ottoman society, even if some of them were not Ottomans. Ottoman society was a framework, a grid composed of a multitude of boundary patterns.”

53

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

and the “Turkish” common people (the subjects) kept widening, by the seventeenth century great masses of Oghuzs/Turkmens had changed their Turkish identity to an unambiguously Muslim one, due mainly, but not exclusively to the conscious dynastic politics and the cultural-religious patterns coming from above. This process was complemented by two further elements of identity. One them was the intense sense of belonging to the (larger) family, and in nomadic areas, to the clan or tribe. In addition, there was the incredibly strong attachment to a given person’s closer patria, native area (memleket in Turkish), which has remained an extremely strong type of connection within Turkish society to this very day. While among masses of common people, the dynastic character of power and the necessity to be loyal to it became generally accepted, an attachment to a large unit, to the country took still a long time to be formed; this is well exemplified by the fact that up to the second half of the nineteenth century, the Turks had no distinct expression for “country” and “fatherland” (the words used in this context were memleket, diyar, vilayet, and devlet, all having different connotations). Although it may seem a bit of an exaggeration, it is not a coincidence that Bernard Lewis, the well-known expert of Islamic culture stated that in the world of Islam there was hardly any other group of people who ascribed less significance to ethnicity, and who associated themselves with religion to a greater extent than the Ottoman Turks.115 This is the reason why, of all the nations of the empire it was the Turks who arrived in the age of nationalism with one of the weakest ethnicnational consciousnesses.

115 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. Second Edition. London–Oxford–New York, 1968, 13.

54

BALÁZS SUDÁR

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY When Hungarians today consider the period of their history in which a part of Hungary was dominated by the Ottomans, they have a time in mind that is gone for good, without a trace, although it caused grave problems and had long-lasting consequences back in history. The Ottoman troops were only stationed “temporarily” in Hungary for a hundred and fifty years, and then marched out, so today’s Hungarians have little to do with them. When it comes to the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a single unified Hungary is envisioned temporarily divided into three parts. The contemporaries, however, saw the situation differently; they could not know what is obvious to us, notably, that the rule of the Porte would come to an end. In theory, and partly in practice, they also cherished the memory of a formerly unified country, which is indicated by the institution of the condominium or the émigré bishoprics.1 The serious role they played is clearly shown by the rapid recuperation of the institutional system after the re-capture of the territory from the Ottomans. On the other side, there was always a political group striking compromises with the Ottomans and accepting the actual power relations. This political attitude was introduced by King John Szapolyai when he surrendered to Sultan Süleyman in 1529. The relationship was already put to good use the following year, 1530: Buda was practically defended from the army of the other elected Hungarian king, Ferdinand of Austria by the troops of Yahyapaşazade Mehmed Bey, the district governor of Semendire (Szendrő, today Smederevo in Serbia). The Transylvanian princes who, as vassals of the Porte, had no other choice necessarily adopted this policy. In their campaigns against the Hungarian Kingdom they always resorted to the help of Ottoman 1

This study was written with support from OTKA F 048 361 research grant and the János Bolyai research scholarship. Condominium meant that the Hungarian aristocracy and noblemen did not resign from the taxes of the Ottoman-occupied areas and obtained them by the force of arms; to put it differently, they collected taxes in the territory of another state. Similarly, the organization of the Catholic Church did not cease, but remained alive in name, though the high priests of the lost areas moved to the area of the Hungarian Kingdom.

55

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

troops. Contemporaneous word usage is most informative: some claimed Turkey began somewhere around Belgrade, others said it started at Buda. 2 That means that the Hungarians, on the one hand, did not accept the fact of Ottoman occupation, and on the other, they did bow under the pressure of the actual power relations. We may now ask how the conquerors looked upon the occupied Hungarian territories. They regarded it as conquest, as a part of the empire seized by the sword – which is beyond doubt, but apart from that, what spiritual threads tied them to these areas? To answer this question is rather difficult, for want of pertinent sources. In the following, I am going to look at five areas that – in my view – illustrate the mental attitude of the conquerors to the occupied territory. The first three concern the presence of the conquest and are connect ed to activities of the conquerors, the remaining two become embodied in the reinterpretation of the past.

Mosques Immediately after seizing a settlement, the Ottomans converted a – relatively significant – local church into a mosque and delivered the sermon (hutbe) there on the first Friday.3 Several chronicles and eyewitnesses recalled this event and via translations the Hungarian local historical chroniclers also got to know about it and used it, often with exaggeration, to depict their own image of occupied Hungary. The Friday prayer was not only a religious act, but also certified that the conquered territory became part of the abode of Islam (darü’l-islam). The settlement where the Friday prayer was once said could no longer go back to the infidels – it was the Muslims’ duty to preserve it. Several examples prove how keenly they were aware of this. Hieronymus Łaski, the envoy of King John Szapolyai, sent to Istanbul in 1528 recalled what the Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha said when the potential return of the Szerémség (Syrmium, today district in Croatia [Srijem] and Serbia [Srem]) was discussed: 2

3

On the concept of Ottoman Hungary and its borders, views by contemporaries: Ferenc Szakály, Magyar adóztatás a török hódoltságban [Hungarian taxation in Ottoman Hungary]. Budapest, 1981, 23–29. Arent Jan Wensinck, ‘Khutba’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. V, Leiden, 1986, 74–75. Since the Friday prayer could only be said in a djami, masjids had no significance in terms of mental conquest.

56

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

“In the Szerémség the Turkish faith has struck roots, they have built many churches, their lord [the sultan] would never give them back into our hands.” 4 It was also an often declared argument that a fort could not be returned to the Christians because the “prayer of the emperor” had been said in it. In 1592 Mehmed Pasha of Buda wrote: “In Bittye (Bihács, today Bihać in Bosnia and Herzegovina) a mosque was made in which prayers were said for the health of the mighty emperor, so it is impossible to give it back, because any newly occupied town, fort or province in which a mosque has been made for the health of the mighty emperor is thought to have been the country of the mighty emperor for centuries…”5 On the other hand, when Melek Ahmed Pasha captured the fort of Szamosújvár during the punitive – and not conquering – campaign in Transylvania in 1661, and the troops wanted to convert one of the churches into a mosque in their enthusiasm, the pasha threw cold water on their ardour saying: “This fort is in the land of the pagans, twenty days’ journey away. We have come here from the land of Islam by force. You examine the fort, create a few places suitable for the worship of God, then you leave. How many times will you have to conquer it again? There are no traces of Muslim forts in the vicinity. … If we should attach it to the Islamic empire, then the perfidious infidels would encircle it and take it back like they did in Esztergom or Székesfehérvár. How many times would you have to suffer the hardships of the campaigns? A djami, a masjid, the palace of the House of Osman can be formed [here], but it cannot be kept.” 6 Founding a mosque (djami), and hence the regular service of the Friday prayer allotted a serious responsibility to the Ottoman state.7 That the symbolic value of this was great 4

5 6

7

Gábor Barta (ed.), Két tárgyalás Sztambulban. Hieronymus Łaski tárgyalása a töröknél János király nevében. Habardanecz János jelentése 1528 nyári sztambuli tárgyalásairól [Two negotiations in Istanbul. Hieronymus Łaski’s talks at the Porte on behalf of King John. Report of Johannes Habardanecz about his talks in Istanbul during the summer of 1528]. Budapest, 1996, 132. Quoted by Pál Fodor, ‘Ungarn und Wien in der osmanischen Eroberungsideologie (im Spiegel der Târîḫ-i Beç k ḳrâlı, 17. Jahrhundert)’, Journal of Turkish Studies 13 (1989) 83: note 8. Gustav Bayerle, Ottoman Diplomacy in Hungary. Letters from the Pashas of Buda, 1590– 1593. Bloomington, 1972, 155. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zillî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 6. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Revan 1457 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Seyyid Ali Kahraman – Yücel Dağlı. İstanbul, 2002, 9. This question of responsibility is revealed by the peace treaties signed after the late seventeenth-century wars: in theory, the Muslims could not give up the occupied territories, so they had to take the peace as temporary and transitional.

57

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

is clearly verified by the case of the newly founded Turkish palankas (palisaded fortifications) in the occupied areas: they had never been in Christian hand so it was not important to declare that they belonged to the Islamic empire, as it was self-evident and therefore the djamis were far less diligently built in them than in the occupied forts. 8 The Friday prayer means a strong attachment to an area, but it is a general feature, not personal.

Saints and Their Graves Along with the conquerors, not only the representatives of Islamic orthodoxy, but the dervishes appeared in the border regions. They had long-standing close contacts with the expansion: their convents were outside the fortified settlements, so they provided more or less secure accommodations or military rallying points. Besides, the dervishes were very active in caring for the spiritual needs of the frontier troops; the janissaries, for example, were in close contact with the Bektashis. The less rigorous faith of the dervishes allowed them to better communicate with the local population. In the Balkans, for instance, the prophet Hızır of Islamic mythology is almost fused with the figure of St George, thus supra-denominational cultic places could come about.9 On the basis of these aspects of their activity a noted researcher Ömer Lutfi Barkan called them “colonizer dervishes”. 10 When a dervish superior settled somewhere, he extended his charisma, his “holiness” to the given area. After his death he got finitely “anchored” there and consecrated the given land. Around the saints and their tombs miracles often happened, which Allah effected through the saint: hence the place

8

Out of the forts and palisades registered by Klára Hegyi, 67 appear to be newly built, and in 39 of them are known to be djamis. Klára Hegyi, A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága [Fortresses and fortress garrisons in Ottoman Hungary]. (História Könyvtár. Kronológiák, adattárak, 9.) Vols. I–III, Budapest, 2007. Balázs Sudár, ‘Osmanlı Macaristanı’nda Camiler ve Mescitler’, in Géza Dávid – Ibolya Gerelyes (eds.), Thirteenth International Congress of Turkish Art. Budapest, 2009, 637–650. 9 Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, İslâm-Türk İnançlarında Hızır Yahut Hızır-İlyas Kültü. Ankara, 1985, 130–135. 10 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, ‘Osmanlı İmperatorluğunda Bir İskan ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakıflar ve Temlikler. I. İstila Devirlerinin Kolonizatör Türk Dervişleri ve Zaviyeler’, Vakıflar Dergisi 2 (1942) 279–304.

58

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

became the manifestation of God. 11 Through his disciples and those who turn to him for help the saint becomes the “acquaintance” of a community, thus the connection becomes personal. The grave of a saint is a strong personal attachment to an area. And the frontier area abounded in graves of saints and convents. Evliya Çelebi makes mention of about a hundred dervish lodges, probably a strong exaggeration. For the time being, I think the existence of about twenty can be verified, but most probably far more were active in the occupied territory.12 No complete legends survive of the local saints – possibly because of the unexpected and rapid cessation of the history of occupation – but some stories have been preserved. The most outstanding saint was Gül Baba, buried on Rózsadomb [Rose Hill] in Buda, about whom several stories survive.13 There is some knowledge of Gerez İlyas also buried in Buda, 14 Şeyh Mehemmed el-Hindi resting in Lippa,15 and İdris Baba buried in Pécs.16

Heroes’ Cemeteries, Memorial Sites The question of warriors’ cemeteries partly relates to the previous question. They were carefully maintained and registered. The noted traveller Evliya Çelebi, for example, never failed to call attention to them and warmly encouraged readers to visit them when there was one close by the described settlement. Persons killed in action for their faith, the martyrs (şehid) are 11 There is enormous literature on the question, its brief summary: Thierry Zarchon, ‘[Walī] in Turkey, the Balkans, the Caucasus and Ādherbaydjān’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. IX, Leiden, 2002, 113–115. On the general abilities of the saints: B. Radtke, ‘Walī. General survey’, in ibid., 109–112. 12 On Bektashi convents, see Balázs Sudár, ‘Bektaşi Monasteries in Ottoman Hungary (16th– 17th centuries)’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61:1–2 (2008) 227– 248. 13 The stories were collected by Gábor Ágoston: Gábor Ágoston – Balázs Sudár, Gül Baba és a magyarországi bektasi dervisek [Gül Baba and the Bektashi dervishes in Hungary]. Budapest, 2002, 65–71. A new circle of legends can be read in Demir Baba’s legendarium writ ten down in 1619: Bedri Noyan (ed.), Demir Baba Vilâyetnamesi. İstanbul, 1996, 104. See also Sudár, ‘Bektaşi Monasteries’, 229–232. 14 The set of legends is analysed in detail: Marcus Köhbach, ‘Gellérthegy-Gerz İlyās Tepesi. Ein Berg und sein Heiliger’, Südost-Forschungen 37 (1978) 130–144. 15 Sudár, ‘Bektaşi Monasteries’, 235–236 16 Balázs Sudár, A pécsi Idrísz baba-türbe [The türbe of Idris Baba in Pécs]. Budapest, 2013. A more complete version of the legend was written down by Evliyâ Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. 6, 119–120.

59

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

distinguished according to Islam: they will enjoy advantages at the Last Judgment and will automatically enter Paradise. Besides, the martyrs are often members of a community, who sacrificed their blood and life to defend the collective. To give up the area including their graves would make their sacrifice useless, so it is unpardonable. There are also miracles, legends associated with these graves, which further strengthen the attachment. Such is, for example, the legend of the beheaded hero that can be traced for almost a century in Görösgál, 17 or the story of the unearthed intact bodies of warriors of the faith found after several decades during the repairs of the fortress moat in Pest. 18 Miracles are often even simpler things: presentiments of some future event, successful solution of an unexpected and hard situation are seen as manifestations of God’s grace. 19 (The cult of heroism is closely related in this aspect with the veneration of saints.) There was a particularly interesting memorial site in occupied Hungary, the türbe of Sultan Süleyman. The site where the sultan died near Szigetvár in 1566 was marked by a sepulchral chapel and turned into a memorial shrine. 20 17 The story was put down in diverse variants by Cafer Iyânî, İbrahim Peçevî and Evliyâ Çelebi. Cafer Iyânî, Zübdetü’n-Neşâyih. İstanbul, Süleymaniye–Beyazıd Kütüphânesi, No. 1465, 99a–100b (mentioned by Câfer Iyânî, Tevârîh-i Cedîd-i Vilâyet-i Üngürüs [OsmanlıMacar Mücadelesi Tarihi, 1585–1595]. Hazırlayan Mehmet Kırışcioğlu. İstanbul, 2001, XVI). İbrahim Peçevî, Târîh. Vol. I, Istanbul, 1866, 355–363. Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zillî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 7. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Yücel Dağlı – Seyit Ali Kahraman – Robert Dankoff. İstanbul, 2003, 18. Hagiographic analysis of the text: Markus Köhbach, ‘A görösgáli hősök [The heroes of Görösgál]’, Keletkutatás (1987 Spring), 39–46. Hungarian translation of the text and analysis of the historical background: Balázs Sudár, ‘“Görösgál ostroma” 1555-ben és a hódoltsági török epikus költészet [“The siege of Görösgál” in 1555 and Ottoman epic poetry in Hungary]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 115:2 (2002) 353–374. 18 Cafer Iyânî, Zübdetü’n-Neşâyih, 100b–102a. 19 See, for instance, the acts of Tiryaki Hasan Pasha: “This part narrates the fights and miraculous deeds performed by Gazi Hasan Pasha after the fighting at Kanizsa. … Several of his miraculous acts are known. … This is one of his many wonders: the good news of the fight at Kanizsa [the successful defence of the stronghold in 1601] was known to him a year earlier.” Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Oriental Collection, Török, O. 216, 71a. 20 Nicolas Vatin, ‘Un türbe sans maître. Note sur la fondation et la destination du türbe de Soliman-le-Magnifique à Szigetvár’, Turcica 37 (2005) 9–42. Norbert Pap – Máté Kitanics – Péter Gyenizse – Erika Hancz – Zita Bognár – Tamás Tóth – Zoltán Hámori, ‘Finding the Tomb of Suleiman the Magnificent in Szigetvár, Hungary: Historical, Geophysical and Archeological Investigations’, Die Erde. Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin 146:4 (2015) 289–303. Pál Fodor – Norbert Pap, ‘Szulejmán szultán szigetvári sírkápolnája

60

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

This put the name of Szigetvár down in Ottoman history for good. In its time it was deeply revered. A memorial place for a sultan killed during the fighting was not unique; such a mausoleum was erected for sultan Murad I, killed in the battle of Kosovopolje in 1389.21 Not only heroes earned great respect, but stunts, memorable deeds were also kept on the record. In Buda, for instance, the sphere on top of a pole, which Kalaylıkoz Ali Pasha, governor-general of Buda shot through from the back of his galloping horse, practising an ancient Turkish type of archery was on display for a long time. 22 Similar trophies were hanging under the vaults of the Vienna Gate of Buda Castle until the mid-nineteenth century. In 1573, Stephan Gerlach noted that “under the Vienna Gate a huge bone, a jaw and a lance were hanging and a large strong horseshoe; with one of them a Turk has pierced a plough-iron and he broke the other into two.” 23 There is more information in a similar account by Reinhold Lubenau dated 1587: “Under the gate we were shown a plough-iron and a horseshoe pierced by a Turk with his lance to prove his prowess in tournaments. At the same place we saw two fourpound cannonballs shot into the town by the noble General Rattendorf during the siege, and a Turk picked them up by hand as they were rolling, took them to the town wall and showed them mockingly to the enemy, so they were hung up in the vault of the town gate. There is also a strong shackle there, which a captive Turk broke into two by hand… that is how the miracles are told, I did not see them happen myself.” 24 It cannot be known whether these suspended weapons were indeed wielded by the Ottomans. The Hungarian tradition at-

21

22

23 24

nyomában [In search for the tomb of Sultan Süleyman in Szigetvár]’, Magyar Tudomány 177:9 (2016) 1057–1066. On the role of leading persons’ graves killed during fighting in the assertion of claims to an area by Islamic law: Gilles Veinstein, ‘Le rôle des tombes sacrées dans la conquête ottomane’, in Idem, Autoportrait du sultan ottoman en conquérant. (Analecta Isisiana, CXI.) Istanbul, 2010, 269–284. Icon vicissitudinis humanae vitae, stanza 9, in Géza Szentmártoni Szabó (ed.), Ámor, álom és mámor. A szerelem a régi magyar irodalomban és a szerelem ezredéves hazai kultúrtörténete. Tudományos konferencia, Sátoraljaújhely 1999. május 26-29. [Amor, dream, ecstasy. Love in old Hungarian literature and in millennium-long Hungarian cultural history]. Budapest, 2002, 580. On this Hungarian historical song and its value for Ottoman cultural history, see Pál Fodor – Balázs Sudár, ‘Ali Pasa’nın Evlilik Öyküsünün Tarihsel Geri Planı ve Osmanlılarla İlgili Yanları’, Belleten 70:259 (2006) 963–1000. On tournaments: ibid., 975–981. József László Kovács (ed.), Ungnád Dávid Konstantinápolyi utazásai [Travels of David Ungnad to Constantinople]. (Magyar ritkaságok) Budapest, 1986, 115. Edgár Palóczi, ‘Toldi Miklós fegyverei [The weapons of Miklós Toldi]’, Pesti Hírlap (24 December 1916), 48.

61

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

tributed them to Miklós Toldi – a fourteenth-century Hungarian warrior of legendary strength.25 This question is immaterial, as it suffices to know that the conquerors looked upon them as signs of their excellence.

Conquest of the “Past” The above examples were connected to the “present” of the Ottomans, to the period of their conquest. So it seems that they did not rest content with putting out contemporary mental anchors and tried to conquer the past as well. That is nothing unique, of course: they developed their own legends about the foundation of Constantinople and the building of Hagia Sophia with the overt aim of proving the primacy of the Muslims and their predecessors. 26 On Ottoman-ruled Hungarian territory, the construction of the past went back to Alexander the Great. Iskandar of the Islamic mythology emerged from a fusion of Alexander the Great and the Prophet Zulkarnayn. His story thus contains many fabulous elements. There are several versions of the story; let us see now one of the most popular ones: Dara of Persia (that is, Darius, King of Persia) asks for and is given the daughter of the Greek Felyakus (that is, Philip II of Macedon) in marriage. The beautiful queen does not live long in the Persian court, for the husband sends her back to her father under the pretext that her breath smells of garlic. Their child, Iskandar is born among the Greeks. His education is entrusted to the care of the greatest sages, for example Plato and Aristotle. When the youth becomes the ruler of the Greeks, his goal is to take revenge for her mother’s grievance: he attacks and seizes Persia and goes on a conquering campaign. He suppresses India, is a guest at the Chinese court. He returns along the Central Asian steppe and defeats the Rus on the way. Then he settles to meditation and upon Allah’s inspiration he gets to know the tenets of Islam, about a thousand years prior to the Prophet Mohamed’s birth. Upon the life-changing influence of the teachings he takes up arms again, conquers West Europe, gets into adventures on sea and returns along North Africa where he defeats the amazons.27 Thus Alexander the Great is a world conqueror, the 25 I analysed the question in ‘A Bécsi-kapu átdöfött pajzsa és a szultáni kar ereje [The pierced shield of the Vienna Gate in Buda and the strength of the sultan’s arm]’, Keletkutatás (2009 Autumn) 91–100. 26 Stefanos Yerasimos, Kostantiniye ve Ayasofya Efsaneleri. İstanbul, 1993. 27 Ahmedî, İskendername. See also Amil Çelebioğlu, Türk Edebiyatı’nda Mesnevi (XV. Yy.’a

62

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

prototype and model of subsequent successful conquerors. All this he does for the dissemination of Islam, thus he is the predecessor of the warriors of the faith, the gazis, and indirectly of the Ottomans. That is certainly why the sultans sometimes bear the title of Second Iskandar. At the same time, the Ottomans have another point of contact with Alexander the Great. He is taken to be Greek by them, and the empire of the Greeks, Byzantium, was conquered by the Ottomans, or more precisely, Ottomans ascended to the Byzantine throne, less as conquerors than as heirs. What the Greeks used to own was their due, too: the first phase of the imperial expansion appears to have been aimed at getting back the ancient Greek frontiers.28 It is not surprising that in connection with the capture of Hungary the actualized version of this train of thought cropped up again. It was most thoroughly elaborated by an Austrian renegade from Vienna, Mahmud Tercüman in his politically motivated historical work entitled Tarih-i Ungurus, which says that Alexander Great arrived in Pannonia to take revenge for the brother of his mother, and then went on to capture Vienna. 29 A sideline of the story is also well known: old Plato, fed up with his life in Athens, settled in a hermitage far in the north, somewhere near Esztergom in Hungary. Deliberating his plans to conquer the world, Alexander the Great wished to ask his advice, too, but the secluded sage sent back the messenger: if his former pupil wished to ask him something, he should visit him. Alexander acted accordingly and marched into Pannonia with an army, met Plato for whom he founded a school, and eventually died in Pécs in Southern Hungary.30 Several relics of Plato remained in Hungary, including a mosquito-repellent amulet in Buda, which was so miraculous that even after Mohamed’s birth it was Kadar). İstanbul, 1999, 67–71. 28 Pál Fodor, ‘Byzantine Legacies in Ottoman Identity’, in Barbara Kellner-Heinkele – Simone-Christiane Raschmann (Hrsg.), Opuscula György Hazai Dicata. Beiträge zum Deutsch-Ungarischen Workshop aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von György Hazai. (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Türkvölker, 19.) Berlin, 2015, 93–108. See further Pál Fodor’s study in the present volume. 29 György Hazai, Die Geschichte der Ungarn in einer osmanischen Chronik des 16. Jahrhunderts: Tercümān Maḥmūds Tārīḫ-i Ungurus (Edition der Handschrift der Bibliothek der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte and Kultur der Türkvölker, 8.) Berlin, 2009, 81–82. 30 The legends were written down by Matrakçı Nasuh and Evliya Çelebi. Analysis of the story: Balázs Sudár, ‘Platón Pécsett. Egy hódoltsági legenda nyomában [Plato in Pécs. In the wake of a legend from Ottoman Hungary]’, Pécsi Szemle 10:2 (2007) 14–27.

63

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

effective, whereas all former magic was invalidated by the birth of the prophet of Islam.31 The sage predicted the coming of the Muslims in several of his inscriptions, for example in Pécs. This is a very important perspective: the Ottoman conquest was not a new, rootless seizure but the re-capture of a former lawful possession.32 A peculiar manifestation of this mentality is the case of the coats of arms described by Evliya Çelebi. The traveller saw two-headed eagles at several places – in Pécs and Eger – above the castle gates. Though he notes that they resemble the ones on the thaler called guruş, he keeps forgetting to note that the figure was identical with the coat of arms of the Habsburgs. What is more, he clearly ties it to Plato in Pécs. 33 Consciously or unwittingly he might have had the coat of arms of Byzantium in mind, the presence of which reinforced again the sense of “retaking”. It is worth touching at this juncture on the relation between the centre of the empire and the Hungarian territories. After the occupation of Byzantium, the Ottomans laid claim to the entire Eastern Roman Empire. Adapting the same logic to Hungary, by capturing Buda they claimed to be rightful heirs to the Hungarian Kingdom. With the capital city having been taken, the expansion on the occupied area was not a new conquest, but taking possession of the already seized property. An example of this mentality might be the visit of Süleyman at the royal graves in Székesfehérvár: he visited the resting place of the preceding rulers of his new country, of his predecessors. That is why monarchic authority protected the coffins for some time, and it was not the Ottomans who later sealed their fate.34 Another case of reinterpreting the past might also be cited. As early as 1529, the Ottomans thought that the Hungarian Holy Crown was from Iran, and had belonged originally to King Nuşinrevan, who was identical with the Sassanid Hosrau Anushirvan (531–579). The story gradually became more entangled, with more and more details being put down (or made up): finally, 31 Evliyâ Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. VI, 145. 32 The ideological significance of a conquest interpreted as “re-conquest” was pointed out by Fodor, ‘Byzantine Legacies’, 101–102 (cf. also Fodor’s study in the present volume) and by Gilles Veinstein through the examples of the graves; cf. Veinstein, ‘Le rôle des tombes’. 33 Evliyâ Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. VI, 115. Balázs Sudár, ‘A sas meg az oroszlán. Evlia az egri vár Varkocs kapujáról [The eagle and the lion. Evliya Çelebi on the Varkocs Gate of Eger fort]’, Az Egri Vár Hiradója 41–42 (2009) 22–30. 34 Pál Fodor, ‘A török hódítók és a királysírok [The Ottoman conquerors and the royal tombs]’, História 11:3 (1989) 23–27.

64

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

the crown came to be originated from the first crowned ruler of Persian mythology, Hoshang Shah, who was the founder of many such things as the crafts and also of monarchic power. The power insignia was a serious source of law, and since it came into Süleyman’s hand in 1529, the Ottomans thought it was theirs: they gave it over to their vassal John Szapolyai and later, to quote their version, to Ferdinand as well. It is then clear that the legitimacy of the Habsburgs derived from the Ottomans, too.35 Also, the Ottomans knew very well that the Hungarians had come from the east, even though they had a somewhat different story of their prehistory. According to the tradition recorded by Evliyâ Çelebi, a warfare broke out among the scions of the Persian King Feridun, which triggered off the thousand-year-long struggle between Iran and Turan. The four sons of Menuchehr managed to escape from the war with the ancient crown and sought a new home in the west. They found it in the Carpathian Basin. They first conquered the north-eastern strip, Transcarpathia and the area beyond the Tisza. They built earthworks, defeated the dragon and giants, and having multiplied amply, occupied entire Hungary.36 The name Magyar also derived 35 On the role of the crown in the legitimation of the Ottomans: Pál Fodor, ‘A terjeszkedés ideológiái az oszmán birodalomban [Ideologies of expansion in the Ottoman Empire]’, in Idem, A szultán és az aranyalma [The sultan and the Golden Apple]. Budapest, 2001, 176. I have also analysed the Turkish views on the Holy Crown: Balázs Sudár, ‘Egy török utazó a magyar Szent Koronáról [A Turkish traveller about the Hungarian Holy Crown]’, Történelmi Szemle 54:1 (2012) 17–36. 36 “The masters of these statues are the statues of the ancestors of our Christian Madjars. They are the four sons of Menuchehr living in the country of Maveraünnehr, who fled from Menuchehr and … came to the land of the Madjars, and these are the statues of the first settlers. … Thus, the ancestors of the Madjars are the sons of Menuchehr whom these statues represent. In this way, the root of the origin of the Madjars is at the beginning the Persian (Acem) people. One of the represented persons rests in the garden of the central Hungarian state Irem, he is Kashavan who founded Kassa and after whom Kassa was named. Another one of them rests in the field of Keresztes – where the conqueror of Eger, Sultan Mehmed fought – in a place called Türk Oru. The third one fought with the giants on the bank of the river Tisza, killed several thousand white giants and pushed them into the river Tisza. That is why skulls the size of bath domes and 5 yard long bones are still fished out of the river. Once he was fighting a giant, they got hold of each other, [fell] into the Tisza and drowned. His body is resting on the bank of the Tisza. The fourth was Nag’ban Ezhder, who built the fortress of Nag’ban Ezhder [Nagybánya] in Transylvania and lived for six hundred years. Then in the fortress of Nag’ban Ezhder a land dragon devoured and killed him. Nag’ban Ezhder is a dragon-shaped fortress named after him, and in the cliff of this castle there is still a large cave. In it there was a seven-headed dragon with whom Nag’ban had a great fight and when he killed it, its crypt became a grave mound, too. The

65

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

from them, or from their father: Menuchehr > Menchar > Madjar – the latter is the prevalent Turkish name of the Hungarians (Macar).37 According to another etymology, when the “conquering” princes were asked who they were, they answered, in Persian: we are four, ma char, which closely remembers the mentioned Madjar form. After much repetition the name stuck. 38 Thus, the Magyars were a people from the east, who were distantly related to the great figures of Persian mythology and are thus part of the eastern “us” identity – and strangely enough, of Muslim identity, in contradistinction to the western “Germans”. (From this point of view it is fairly immaterial that they were related to the great enemy, the predecessors of Safavid Iran.) Thus, the Hungarians were a “kinfolk” whom the Ottomans lent help against the tyrannical “Germans”. This idea – the assistance for the Magyars against the West – was strongly imprinted on the minds of the Turks, who tried to drive a wedge between the Magyars and their western allies with the help of this thought in the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries. (It all boiled down to the timetested principle of “divide and rule”.) To sum up: apart from occupying the central part of Hungary with their army, and creating the living conditions suitable for them, the Ottomans tried mentioned brothers came from the land of Adjem to the pure soil of Hungary and multiplied here, and the Madjar people grew large in number. Among the Hungarian words you can hear many Persian words, that is why this tongue is so sweet. … The statues in the fort of Várad are portraits of the sons of Menuchehr. … That is how we chatted with the mentioned priest.” Evliyâ Çelebi b. Derviş Mehemmed Zillî, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. 5. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bağdat 307 Yazmasının Transkripsiyonu–Dizini. Hazırlayanlar: Yücel Dağlı – Seyit Ali Kahraman – İbrahim Sezgin. İstanbul, 2001, 219–220. 37 “In the beginning instead of Menchar – mistakenly – Madjar Bach [was said] for this.” Evliyâ Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Vol. VII, 139. “And this Menuchehr is identical with a Hungarian renegade called Menchar, for instead of Menchar now they say – mistakenly – Madjar.” Evliyâ Çelebi, ibid., 317. “In Persian they were called the people of Menchar, and then a widely spread mistake led to replace Menchar, erroneously, with the people of Madjar.” Evliyâ Çelebi, ibid., 117–118. 38 “They are the four sons of Menuchehr… At that time, these four people were asked: ‘Who are you and where do you come from?’ But they did not know that language. At last, they answered in their own Persian: ‘Men chariz,’ that is, ‘we are four princes.’ So they said: menchariz. They were men char, and as they kept repeating men char, men char, from men char it spread erroneously as Madjar.” Evliyâ Çelebi, Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. Vol. V, 219–220. “The rest of the infidels asked the four sons of Menuchehr: ‘Who are you?’ They answered in Persian: ‘We are Menchar’, which was to mean we are four people. Then people kept repeating menchar, menchar, and as time went on, it got distorted and they said with the corruption of the language: Madjar. Behold, Madjar is a widespread error from menchar.” Evliyâ Çelebi, ibid., Vol. VII, 159–160.

66

THE OTTOMANS AND THE MENTAL CONQUEST OF HUNGARY

to establish spiritual connections to the new territory. Through the first Friday prayers they converted the place into a part of the realm of Islam, and through the saints’ graves and heroes’ cemeteries they made the place personal: they established their local traditions reinforced by a multitude of legends soon arising. They were not content with the “acquisition” of the present and the recent past, but also conceived a distant past: through the fantastic conquests of Alexander the Great/Iskandar, they did not show themselves as conquerors but as the re-takers of what used to be theirs. They also incorporated the Magyars in an area of their ideology: they only helped a distant relative in the teeth of the “Germans”. In the light of these strong mental ties, it can hardly be presumed that they looked upon themselves as temporary conquerors, garrisons at the end of the world; they were much rather the (re-)capturers of an original holding. That they earnestly thought so is proven by the conditions under which they surrendered fortress after fortress in the late seventeenth century: many were ready to sacrifice their Muslim faith to be able to remain in the land of their parents and grandparents. 39 That, however, increased the rate of the South Slavs, rather than the Turks in the Carpathian Basin.

39 The text of the capitulation of Eger reads: “And those who wish to stay may remain in possession of their houses and goods without exception.” István Sugár, “Eger kapitulációja és létrejöttének körülményei [Capitulation of Eger and its circumstances]’, in László Szita (ed.), A török elleni visszafoglaló háborúk történetéből. 1686–1688 [From the history of the wars waged to re-take the country from the Turks]. Pécs, 1989, 224. Székesfehérvár: “Any Turk who wishes to become Christian should be allowed to do so, and any Muslim man or woman above 18 years of age, once Christian shall have the freedom to remain here or go with the Turks.” Csaba Veress D. – Gyula Siklósi, Székesfehérvár, a királyok városa [Székesfehérvár, the city of kings]. Budapest, 1990, 182. Ottomans also remained in Kanizsa: László V. Molnár, Kanizsa vára [The fort of Kanizsa]. Budapest, 1987, 146. On the remaining inhabitants of Pécs: Mária Anna Móró, ‘Pécs város népessége a török alóli felszabadulástól 1848-ig [The population of Pécs from the liberation from the Turks to 1848]’, in József Vonyó (ed.), Pécs népessége 1543–1990 [The population of Pécs, 1543– 1990]. (Tanulmányok Pécs történetéből, 1.) Pécs, 1995, 27–28.

67

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

68

ZSUZSA KOVÁCS

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA IN THE MARSILI COLLECTION, BOLOGNA The Marsili Collection in Bologna is a goldmine for researchers of Hungarian history and cultural history. Several recent publications and program proposals have been urging for more systematic research within it. 1 It has an Oriental Collection – including over seven hundred Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, as well as Hebrew manuscripts and prints – a majority of which was seized by Marsili during the fights for the liberation of Hungary from the Ottomans. Although the collection includes the most significant source material on Ottoman Turkish culture in Ottoman Hungary, no steps have so far been taken to explore it methodically – a task to be undertaken foremost by Hungarian orientalists.2 Áron Szilády was the only scholar to carry out research in the Oriental Collection of Bologna, hoping to find “defters and tax registers of the sancaks of Hungary under Ottoman domination” among the codices, but he didn’t find any material of this kind. He also examined the catalogue of the collection from 1720 and concluded that “none are rare or unique” whereon he stopped further research.3 In addition to the separately maintained Oriental Collection, there are some Turkish or Ottoman-related manuscripts in the Marsili Collection. Hungarian

1

2

3

Mónika F. Molnár, ‘Le ricerche ungheresi del Fondo Marsigli di Bologna’, Annuario. Studi e documenti italo-ungheresi (2005) 38–49. Eadem, ‘Acta executionis pacis. Luigi Ferdinando Marsili gróf tudományos és politikai hagyatéka [The scientific and political legacy of Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsili]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 119:2 (2006) 303–387. At the VIth Hungarological Congress in Debrecen in 2006, a roundtable was held moderated by Sándor Bene with the title Birodalmi patriotizmus és béke a muzulmánokkal: L. F. Marsili hagyatékának kérdései [Imperial patriotism and peace with the Muslims: questions of the L. F. Marsili bequest]. Levente Nagy, ‘Magyar kutatógenerációk és a Marsili-hagyaték [Generations of Hungarian researchers and the Marsili bequest]’, Studia Litteraria 45 (2007) 252–273. In her account of the Marsili Collection in which she surveyed the Hungarian publications concerning it outlining future tasks, Mónika F. Molnár makes no mention of the Hungarian provenance and research of the Oriental Collection (F. Molnár, ‘Le ricerche’, 41). Áron Szilády, ‘Jelentése bolognai útjáról [Report on his trip to Bologna]’, MTA Értesítője (1868) 138.

69

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

scholars have studied a few of these, as a result of which some Turkish maps and depictions of Buda have been published.4 Kálmán Thaly chanced upon a manuscript among the Italian codices of the Marsili Collection, about which he published an article entitled The Library of the Müfti of Buda in 1684 and 1686.5 This study was the basic source for historians interested in the culture of Ottoman Hungary, they used its contents in many subsequent publications6 – although, as will be seen, nearly all the pieces of information in Thaly’s article are mistaken. Though several catalogues have been made of the Oriental Collection of Bologna over the past three hundred years, there is still no up-to-date, comprehensive printed or online catalogue, which aggravates any attempts at orientation in the collection. This partly explains the lack of Hungarian researches. Actually, there are generally few publications about the manuscripts of the Oriental Collection. No preparatory work has been done to provide the right conditions for research. Before anyone plans a trip to Bologna to study codices, he/she ought to have due information of the material, whereas there are only old, inaccessible, handwritten or incomplete catalogues, and the history of the collection is also waiting to be written. With this paper I should like to lend assistance to the preliminary work in this area by correcting Thaly’s mistakes, then making a brief review of the history of the collection and its catalogues on the basis of Italian and Latin sources. Finally, I try to take the initial steps towards a reconstruction of the most important single unit of the Oriental Collection, the library of the müfti of Buda. 4

5 6

Endre Veress, Gróf Marsigli Alajos Ferdinánd olasz hadimérnök jelentései és térképei Budavár 1684–1686-iki ostromáról, visszafoglalásáról és helyrajzáról [Italian war engineer Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsili’s reports and maps on the siege, recapture and topography of Buda in 1684–1686]. Budapest, 1907. Mónika F. Molnár, ‘Buda 1684. évi ostromának “ismeretlen” török ábrázolása a bolognai Marsili-gyűjteményből [“Unknown” Turkish depiction of the siege of Buda in 1684 from the Marsili collection in Bologna]’ , Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 119:2 (2006) 373–387. Kálmán Thaly, ‘A budai mufti könyvtára az 1684. és 1686. években [The library of the müfti of Buda in 1684 and 1686]’, Magyar Könyvszemle 20 (1896) 338–340. For instance, Lajos Fekete – Lajos Nagy, Budapest története a török korban [The history of Budapest in the Ottoman age]. Budapest, 1986, 93. Gábor Ágoston, ‘Muszlim oktatás és nevelés a török hódoltságban [Muslim education in Ottoman Hungary]’, Keletkutatás (1987 Spring) 56. Balázs Sudár, A Palatics-kódex török versgyűjteményei [Turkish verse collections in the Palatics codex]. Budapest, 2005, 105. F. Molnár, ‘Le ricerche’, 47–48.

70

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

The Library of the Müfti of Buda – as Kálmán Thaly Presented It In his article on the Buda müfti’s library Kálmán Thaly announced that on pp. 103–109 of codex 81 in the Marsili Collection the renowned library of the müfti of Buda was described by Marsili in Vienna on 14 May 1684. Thaly inferred from Marsili’s note that the library had been arranged by the following disciplines: “1. Theology, 2. Medicine, 3. Rhetoric, 4. Poetry, 5. Music, 6. Astronomy, 7. Geography, 8. Architecture … Not only works by oriental, Arab, Persian, Turkish, etc. writers but the more famous works of the Greek classic authors and western writers were included in the library as is proven among other titles, by Aristotle’s philosophical and Galen’s medical works, which Marsili expressly mentioned. The scholarly Italian, who had acquired knowledge of the library by then, stressed its richness in general and the rarity and wealth of geographic works in particular, saying they were extremely important … where it concerned getting acquainted with the East. There might have been Corvina codices (from King Matthias’ collection) in the library. The description has the following title in Marsili’s hand: ‘Indice della maggior parte della Biblioteca … (name erased) Effendi Mufti di Buda.’ Following my indication of the highly valuable index densely covering seven pages, the Hungarian National Museum ought to have it copied.” Thaly is wrong on the following points: 1. Codex 81 does not have pages 103–109 as it consists of 98 numbered pages bound in parchment, in eighteenth-century binding, and there is no sign of any leaves having been torn or cut, or fallen out of the codex. 7 However, on pages 83–89 there is a Marsili letter dated Vienna, 14 May 1688 (not 1684!).8 On page 90 (that is, after the letter!) the title Thaly cited can be found: “Indice della maggior parte…” etc. (From page 91, notes on military justice have been recorded). Digit 8 in the page numbering has been written

7

8

Cf. Lodovico Frati, Catalogo dei manoscritti di Luigi Ferdinando Marsili conservati nella Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna. Firenze, 1928, 96, and http://www.meduproject.com/ Byzantina%20Marsiliana/ BUB_081.htm (22.07.2008). The text was published in a university dissertation: Pier Enrico Favalini, Luigi Ferdinando Marsili e le cose di Turchia. (Tesi di laurea, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia.) Vol. I, Bologna, 1982–1983, 163–175.

71

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

horizontally,9 which Thaly must have mistaken for 10, and that is how page numbers 83–89 may have turned into 103–109. 2. The date of the manuscript is erroneously established. In Thaly’s view the library list dated from the year of the first siege of Buda. However, the siege of Buda did not begin before 16 July 1684, Marsili took part in it from 1 October, whereas the letter is dated in Vienna, on 14 May. In May 1684, however, Marsili was in Bologna and not in Vienna, to recover from the vicissitudes of his Ottoman captivity from which he had been freed a while earlier. (As a slave he passed Buda, but as his autobiography reveals his circumstances did not allow him to learn too much about the müfti’s library at this time.)10 Thaly probably misread the date again because of the horizontally written numeral 8s: the manuscript bears the date 1688 and not 1684. Thaly did not cite the whole title of the manuscript. The section he omitted clearly reveals that the list is that of the whole booty Marsili had seized in Buda: “List of the great part of the library of the Buda mufti Ne[?] efendi, which Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsili had seized when the castle was taken, while at the same time sending information on the literature of the Turks to the honourable Giovan Battista Donato [Donado], the great sage of Venice.”11 Its date cannot be earlier than the capture of Buda, September 1686. Thaly must also have been bothered by the problem of the 1684 date and therefore remained silent about the part of the title of the catalogue, which reveals that the library was seized as war booty in Buda; yet to further boggle things up, he mentions 1686 in the title of his article, too. 3. The manuscript Kálmán Thaly presented in the article is not the book list of the müfti of Buda. The Indice della maggior parte… title is on a page of different format after the text presumed to be the description of the library; 9

This form was in use in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; cf. Adriano Cappelli, Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane. Milano, 19796, 427. 10 He stayed in Bologna between 5 May and 18 June, and only arrived under Buda on 1 October. See Emilio Lovarini, La schiavitù del generale Marsigli sotto i tartari e i turchi da lui stesso narrate. Bologna, 1931, 19–42. On his captivity, see also L. F. Marsili, Autobiografia. Ed. by Emilio Lovarini. Bologna, 1930, 45–63. 11 Indice della maggior parte della Biblioteca di ne… [illegible name underlined] effendi mufti di Buda presa nel sacco della medesima piazza da Luigi Ferdinando Conte Marsiglij, che con questo più notitie sopra la litteratura de’ Turchi trasmette al Eccellente Signor Giovanni Battista Donato savio grande di Venezia. Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna [hereinafter BUB], Fondo Marsili [hereinafter FM], MS 81, fol. 90r.

72

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

it is the title not of the text but of the supplement to it. That is made evident both by the title itself and by the text. What Thaly presented in a summarized form was actually a treatise on the literature (written culture) of the Turks in general composed by Marsili in letter form addressed to Giovan Battista Donado. In the introduction, Marsili lists the subjects he was going to touch on: “Teologia, Medicina, Retorica, Poesia, Musica, Astronomia, Geografia, Architettura.”12 In Thaly’s article they appear to be the scientific branches in the library of the Buda müfti. He claimed that the works of Aristotle and Galen were also included in the inventory of the müfti’s library. Thaly probably misinterpreted the Marsili passage in which he wrote that to his great surprise the medicine of the Ottomans was based on the knowledge of Avicenna, Averroes, Aristotle, Galen, and Hippocrates.13 (Marsili also provides the Turkish form of these names, so there can be no doubt that what is meant here is these authors’ works in Arabic and not European books, hence the presumption of finding Corvina codices among them lacks any justification whatsoever.) Speaking of geography, Marsili expresses his esteem of the knowledge of the Turks in general and lists their major works, not speaking of the items in the müfti’s library. (The majority of Marsili’s Turkish geographic manuscripts are certainly not from Buda, but were bought by him or copied for him in Constantinople. He mentions a Turkish map of Hungary in the letter, noting that he always kept it with him during his trips, but regarding its origin, he claims to have found it in the camp of the enemy.) In Marsili’s letter the designations of the subjects and the names of the Greek medical authors are immediately conspicuous, as in the otherwise continuous text they are written in columns. Probably Thaly copied these salient sections and complemented them from memory later, which must have caused the errors.14 It is not surprising then what Endre Veress wrote in the catalogue of the Hungary-related manuscripts in the Marsili Collection, namely, that the book list announced by Thaly was missing except for its title-page. 15 He published 12 Ibid., fol. 84r. 13 Ibid., fol. 84v. 14 “The treatise … is so voluminous … that during the few days of our stay in Bologna … we could not copy it but took some informative notes.” Thaly, ‘A budai mufti’, 339. 15 Endre Veress, ‘A bolognai Marsigli-iratok magyar vonatkozásai [Hungarian references of

73

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

the full text of the title-page of the catalogue, adding that it was attached to a letter written to Donà. He did not realize, however, that Thaly’s report of the alleged catalogue was actually the description of the letter to Donà. The view that Thaly had seen the book list, which then got lost, took root in research literature, and since then Turkologists investigating the culture of Ottoman Hungary have had to rely on the false information in Thaly’s article, for want of anything better. This is in spite of the fact that the text of the letter contains a few references to the contents of the attached supplement – not mentioned by Thaly – which do provide some information about the book catalogue of the library of the müfti of Buda. These are the following: “…as I experienced, theology … is taught in private and public schools … they have to learn thereof not only their false religion, but also the bases and laws of jurisdiction in secular courts, there being no differentiation between secular and ecclesiastical law there; you will see a multitude of books devoted to this discipline in the appended catalogue.”16 “[T]o become a good writer, they have to be able to use promiscuously the Arabic, Turkish and Persian languages; to help these studies, they have made dictionaries and grammars, of which Your Excellency will see some in the appended catalogue.”17 “…I am giving you [information on poetry] not only by including some poems in the catalogue, but also by describing the three forms of verse they regard as the most elegant…” 18 the Marsili documents in Bologna]’, Magyar Könyvszemle 30 (1906) 217. 16 La Theologia la trovai ... insegnata alla gioventù in private e publiche scole ... dovendo da questa non solo apprendere la loro falsa religione, ma ancora li fondamenti, e codici d’administrare la giustitia ne’ temporali tribunali non essendovi fra loro distintione di temporale e spirituale, e la multiplicità de libri vegenti a questa parte di studio veddrà nel qui annesso cattalogo. BUB, FM, MS 81, fol. 84r–v. 17 ...per essere fra loro un bon compositore è necessario sappere promiscuamente servirsi delle lingue Araba, Turca e Persiana, per facilitare di tutto ciò hanno composti ditionari, gramatiche, alcune delle quali veddrà Vostra Eccellenza nel anesso cattalogo. BUB, FM, MS 81, fol. 85v. 18 ...espongo [notizie sulla la poesia] a Vostra Eccellenza non solo con l’escibirli nel Cattalogo qualche poema, ma ancora nel comunicarli tre sorte di versi stimate de più eleganti… Ibid.

74

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

In short, the catalogue contains many theological-legal works, some grammars and dictionaries, and a few poetic works. No more can be gleaned from the manuscript. The addressee of Marsili’s letter, Giovan Battista Donà 19 was the ambassador of Venice to Constantinople between 1680 and 1684. Back home he gathered a group around him who were the first in Europe to make a program of learning about Ottoman culture, trying to understand their mentality, and spreading this information to facilitate a change in the traditional evaluation of the Turks.20 Donà had a salient role in the establishment of Accademia degli Argonauti focusing on geography.21 With his participation or upon his urging, lots of works related to the Ottomans appeared in print. Francesco Maria Pazzaglia translated the French Prechac’s work on Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa to Italian for him;22 he encouraged Dionigi Carli to publish his work on the customs and religions of African and Asian peoples; 23 a member of his academy known for his geographic works, Vincenzo Coronelli wrote a biography of a sultan;24 in 1688, the travelogue of an employee in the service of Donà, Antonio Benetti, which perpetuates the journey of the legation led by Donà during which historical, geographical and natural scientific observations were also made was published; 25 the interpreters travelling with the delegation 19 Giovanni Battista Donà (1627–1699). See in more detail, G. Gullino, ‘Donà (Donati, Donato), Giovanni Battista’, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Vol. XL, Roma, 1991, 738–741. 20 Paolo Preto, Venezia e i Turchi. Firenze, 1975, 340–351. 21 On Accademia degli Argonauti, see Michele Maylender, Storia delle Accademie d’Italia. Vol. I, Bologna, 1926, 337–338. There is no positive information on Marsili’s academic membership; at any rate, names of several people in his close circle can be met with in different documents of the academy, for example, his brother Felice Antonio Marsili, Lodovico Caprara, Cristina, Queen of Sweden living in Rome, Lodovico Odescalchi, and Vincenzo Coronelli. Cf. ‘Elenco degli ascritti all’Accademia Cosmografica degli Argonauti’, in Il P. Vincenzo Coronelli nel III Centenario della nascita. Roma, 1951, 329–340. 22 Jean de Prechac, Cara Mustafa gran visir historia in cui si contiene il suo innalzamento, suoi amori nel serraglio, la diuersita de’ suoi impieghi, la vera cagione che gl’ha fatto intraprendere l’assedio di Viena, e le particolarita della sua morte. Portata dal francese dal Pazzaglia. Consacrata all’illustriss. & eccellentiss. sig. Gio. Battista Donato. Venetia, per Stefano Curti, 1685 (then 1686). 23 Dionigi Carli, Il Moro trasportato nell’inclita citta di Venetia, ouero Curioso racconto de costumi, riti, e religione de popoli dell’Africa, America, Asia, & Europa. Bassano, after Gio. Antonio Remondini, 1687. 24 Vita di sultano Achmet Han I imperatore d’Oriente (cf. Lorenzo Di Fonzo, La produzione letteraria del P. Vincenzo Coronelli, O.F.M. Conv. [1650–1718]. Roma, 1951, 52). 25 Andrea Poletti, Viaggi a Costantinopoli di Gio. Battista Donado senator veneto spedito

75

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

published Italian translations of Turkish poems with dedications to Donado’s son, Pietro;26 Donado himself published – also in 1688 – a pioneering book on the culture of the Turks, Della letteratura de’ Turchi, in which he added to his own knowledge and experience some information, translated poems, and even notated music he received from other people who had toured Turkey.27 Marsili had been in contact with Donà for years; the letter makes clear that Donà had asked him for the catalogue of the seized library of the müfti of Buda. As an addition, Marsili wrote the essay summarizing his knowledge of Turkish culture – most of it gained during his trip to Constantinople in 1679– 80 – hoping that it would help Donà “prove that opposite to what was generally believed, the Turkish nation is not devoid of scholarship or literature”.28 The letter on pages 83–88 of codex No. 81 is an open letter. Marsili meant it for publication: the text includes instructions to the editor (“Doctor Grandi, the sheet with the printed poems has to be inserted here … Doctor Grandi, the page of the system [that is, the globe] comes here”), 29 and at the end of the letter he stresses that he wished to comply with his friend’s request by having the list of books printed. Page 90 is actually the title-page design of the catalogue of the müfti of Buda’s library to be published. After the title, notes addressed to the editor can be read: “Please lay it out as you see fit, this is my idea, arrange it nicely and put at the end this drawing of his turban which lay by his side when he was killed; I am going to send the wood with the copper and the plate of the poem next week,” 30 and under this note the drawing of the

26

27 28 29 30

bailo alla porta ottomana l’anno 1680. Sua permanenza, e ritorno in patria nel 1684. Osseruati colla raccolta delle più curiose notitie dal fù dottor Antonio Benetti, e dati in luce dal dottor Francesco Maria Pazzaglia... Vols. I–IV, Venice, 1688 (variant of title: Osseruazioni fatte dal fu dottor Antonio Benetti nel viaggio a Costantinopoli). Andrea Poletti, Raccolta curiosissima d’adaggi turcheschi trasportati dal proprio idioma nell’italiano, e latino dalli giovani di lingua sotto il bailaggio in Costantinopoli dell’illustriss. & eccell. sig. Gio. Battista Donado, e indirizzati da’ medesimi all’illustriss. Pietro di lui figlio. Venice, 1688. Poletti, Raccolta, 1688. …potrà aumentare le sue dimostrazioni, che la natione Turca non sii senza studio, e letteratura secondo il comune concetto… BUB, FM, MS 81, fol. 83r. Sig. Do. Grandi qui va inserito il foglio dove sono stampati li versi. fol. 86r; Sig. Do. Grandi qui va il foglio del sistema [della sfera celeste]. fol. 86v. Lei l’accomodi a suo modo essendo questo il mio senso, e lo facci compartire con un bel ordine, e nel fine li ponghi questa figura che è quella del suo turbante haveva vicino di se quando fu ucciso, et il legno lo mandarò la ventura settimana col Rame e foglio de’ versi. fol. 90r.

76

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

turban indeed appears.31 The rough copy of the letter-essay can also be found in the Marsili Collection.32 Thaly’s article “presents” the clear copy of this manuscript, and although it bears Marsili’s autographic signature, it is not the final text. It carries corrections at several points, including the title-page design. The name of the müfti of Buda is left blank, probably Marsili wished to insert it later. In all probability, new clear copies were made of the treatise and the title-page and they were sent to Grandi in Venice together with the catalogue for printing. The printing was presumably done, maybe in Andrea Poletti’s printing workshop who printed the rest of the Turkish-related works associated with Donado, but no copies survive, or they remain hidden.

History of Marsili’s Oriental Collection and of Its Lists and Catalogues Marsili wanted to publish the catalogue of his collection in 1720 and wrote a preface to it with an account of how he had acquired his oriental books. This memoir is the most important source for the reconstruction of the history of the collection.33

Study Trip to Constantinople (1679–1680) Marsili first visited Constantinople as a member of the delegation of Pietro Civrani, ambassador of the Republic of Venice. He spent eleven months studying the Turkish language and the country, principally its geography, political establishment, and military organization. Similar study tours were made by several other persons in the age, primarily by young Venetians. In Constantinople, he came into contact with Hezarfen Hüseyn Efendi, 34 from whom he 31 The person who contributed to printing was perhaps Jacopo Grandi (1646–1691), a joint friend of Donà and Marsili, a scholarly physician who taught anatomy in Venice. Besides medicine, he took an interest in geography, paleontology, and literature, too. When Marsili was freed from slavery, he treated him for three weeks in Venice in 1684. Cf. Marsili, Autobiografia, 61. 32 BUB, FM, MS 54, fols. 765r–770r. 33 BUB, FM, MS 85 E. Published in Luigi Ferdinando Marsili, Lettera prefazione al catalogo dei manoscritti orientali. Ed. by Albano Sorbelli. Bologna, 1930. See also in Scritti inediti di Luigi Ferdinando Marsili. Bologna, 1930, 173–186. 34 On him, see Heidrun Wurm, Der osmanische Historiker Hüseyn b. Ğa‘fer, genannt Hezārfenn, und die Istanbuler Gesellschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg

77

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

acquired information on state organization and Ottoman politics, as well as culture, and from whose rich library he could borrow manuscripts. He had his interpreter translate them, and had a few copied in Arabic script. In his recollections he writes: “…He was a man around seventy, very friendly, and the owner of a rich and well selected library. He listened to my questions I asked him through my interpreter with great patience, and lent me any book I asked for free to read and have it translated by my interpreter. During my visits over the months I had the interpreter translate the Canon Amet I received from him35 … and several other historical works, which – in line with this one – began to persuade me that it is wholly false what we Christians believe of the Turks, notably, that their education and false law forbid them to learn. This recognition urged me to ask the amiable effendi to acquaint me more closely with the literature and scholarship of the Turks. … Among the manuscripts of my first trip to Constantinople there is sufficient material for a comprehensive sketch about the literature and exquisite arts of the Turks.” 36

in Breisgau, 1971. Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, Az Oszmán Birodalom katonai állapotáról, felemelkedéséről és hanyatlásáról [On the military state, rise and decline of the Ottoman empire]. Translated, edited and introduced by Mónika F. Molnár. Budapest, 2007, XIX– XX. 35 Published in Hezârfen Hüseyin Efendi, Telhîsü’l-Beyân Fî Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osmân. Hazırlayan Sevim İlgürel. Ankara, 1998. This work was the basis for his monumental work on the military organization of the Turkish Empire: Pietro Gosse – Giovanni Neaulme – Pietro de Hondt – Adriano Moetjens (eds.), Stato militare dell’Impèrio Ottomanno, incremento e decremento del medesimo. Del signore conte di Marsigli dell’Academia reale delle scienze di Parigi, e di Monpelièri, e della Società reale di Londra, e fondatore dell’Instituto di Bologna. Vols. I–II, Haya, 1732; also published in Amsterdam, 1732, and edited by Hermann Uytwerf and François Changuion. 36 …era uomo vicino a settanta anni d’età, pieno di buona legge d’amicizia, ricco d’una sceltissima biblioteca, pacientissimo alle continuate mie domande per l’interprete, e senza un minimo interesse e che mi prestava qualunque libro avessi richiesto, per farlo leggere dal mio interprete, ed anche trascriverlo. In questa continuata pratica di più mesi nella quale aveva io con l’aiuto del medesimo interprete tradotto il libro da lui datomi detto Canon Amet ... e per consenso tante altre notizie historiche, cose tutte, che mi cominciarono a persuadere quanto mai fosse falso il concetto, che correva fra noi nella cristianità che li Turchi, e per educazione e per divieto della loro falsa legge non potessero studiare. Da questo principio di cognizione presi motivo di sollecitare l’affettuoso Effendi di darmi più notizie della letteratura, e studio de’Turchi... Ne’ miei manoscritti del primo viaggio a Costantinopoli vi è la raccolta d’un materiale sufficiente a formare un assai abbondante abbozzo della letteratura e delle arti eccellenti de’Turchi. Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 9–10. Cf. Marsili, Autobiografia, 21, 25.

78

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Marsili’s notes on Turkish culture (science, literature, art, religion, school system) and various customs are extant in Bologna. 37 In addition to the comments in Italian, a few smaller copied Turkish texts also survive. They can be seen as the first items of Marsili’s Oriental Collection, although they are not included in the separately handled Oriental Collection, but are preserved among the Marsili documents.38 Marsili took home a treatise on coffee by the scholarly efendi, which he published in Vienna in 1685, together with an Italian translation and supplemented by his personal impressions which he acquired as a coffee-making slave in 1683–1684.39 In addition to Hüseyn Efendi, he named another person who was of help to him in enlarging his knowledge and collection in Constantinople. In his autobiography, he writes about Ebubekir Efendi: 40 “[I]t was he who translated all the maps by Blau, which had been presented to that sultan by a Dutch envoy: eventually, it came into my possession a few years ago when I returned to Constantinople. It was from him that I got the information on the maps that 37 BUB, FM, MSS 51, 52; several parts were published by Favalini, Luigi Ferdinando Marsili. Cf. http://www.meduproject.com/Byzantina%20Marsiliana/BUB_051.htm (22.07.2008); http://www.meduproject.com/Byzantina%20Marsiliana/BUB_052.htm (22.07.2008). 38 BUB, FM, MS 51, fols. 106, 113, 114, 121, 124, 125, 129, 134, 211–217. FM, MS 52, fols. 504, 507. It is to be noted that Marsili documents from subsequent years also contain sporadic Turkish texts or translations to collect, which would also be useful. 39 BUB, FM, MS 87, fols. 7–28. Clemente Mazzotta (ed.), Bevanda asiatica brindata all’E.mo. Bonvisi nunzio apostolico appresso la maesta dell’Imperatore ... da Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, che narra l’historia medica del cave, Vienna, Johann van Ghelen, 1685. Facsimile edition: Bologna, 1986. Idem. (Minima, 62.) Roma, 1998. Re-published in part: Luigi Rava, ‘Il conte Marsili e il caffè’, in Memorie intorno a L. F. Marsigli, pubblicate nel secondo centenario della morte per cura del Comitato Marsiliano. Bologna, 1930, 357–382. 40 Ebubekir bin Behram ed-Dimişki (died in 1691). On him, see G. J. Halasi-Kun, ‘The Map of Şekl-i Yeni Felemenk maa İngiliz in Ebubekir Dimişki’s Tercüme-i Atlas Mayor’, Archivum Ottomanicum 11 (1986 [1988]) 51–70. Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, ‘Cihannümâ ve Ebûbekir b. Behrâm ed-Dımeşkî – İbrahim Müteferrika’, in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan. İstanbul, 1991, 121–142. Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, ‘Ebû Bekir b. Behrâm’, in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Vol. X, Istanbul, 1994, 110–111. Wurm, Der osmanische, 39–47, etc. Ilona Dorogi – György Hazai, ‘Zum Werk von Ebū Bekr b. Bahram Dimişkī über die Geschichte und den Zustand des osmanischen Reiches’, Archivum Ottomanicum 28 (2011) 49–97; 29 (2012) 199–325; 30 (2013) 303–352; 31 (2014) 167–350. I thank Géza Dávid for identifying the persons called “Hussein Efendi” and “Abubeki Efendi” in Marsili’s writing and calling my attention to the literature on them.

79

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

illustrate my treatise on the Ottoman army. I received the horoscopes of the then reigning sultan and his two sons [from him]: in the former his past disasters were explained, while in the latter nothing less was predicted for his son who is in power now. Then Queen Cristina of Sweden asked me in Rome to give her both so that she could insert them in certain books in her collection of astrology.”41 Between 1682 and August 1686, Marsili gained a great deal of experience about the Ottomans as an officer of the imperial army and as a captive of the Ottomans; he also wrote works on Turkish themes, but as far as I know he did not acquire further Turkish manuscripts in these years.

The War Booty Seized in Buda (3 September 1686) and the Catalogue Made of It in Vienna As is well known, Marsili as a war engineer of the imperial army took part in the siege of Buda. This is how he described his acquisition of books after the victory: “[I]n 1686, when the second siege of Buda took place, on 2 September the town fell, and though I was suffering from the wounds I had received during the siege and was exhausted … I managed to get permission the next day to go into Buda where everything was still aflame, the streets were covered with the bodies of Turks, not in order to seek for gold or silver booty but to collect Turkish books, and find a way to rescue – if it was not too late – the renowned Buda library. I rushed to the main mosque of Buda spared by the fire – it used to be the cathedral dedicated to king St Stephen in Christian times 42 – and entered two small rooms in one of which I found the beheaded high priest surrounded by books; he was killed by our soldiers, and with the help of some 41 …fu quello che fece l’inversione di tutte le mappe geografiche del Blau, donate da un ambasciatore d’Olanda a quel sultano: opera che in fine cade in mio potere pochi anni sono, quando fui di nuovo in Costantinopoli. Da questi ebbi lumi per le mappe che vagliono nel mio Trattato della milizia ottomana. Ricevei gli oroscopi del sultano allora regnante e de’ di lui due figliuoli; e siccome nel primo stavano spiegati i suoi passati infortuni, così nel secondo non erano promessi inferiori al suo figlio ora regnante. E l’uno e l’altro poi da Cristina regina di Svezia mi furono in Roma levati, per inserirli in certi libri di sue raccolte astrologiche. Marsili, Autobiografia, 21. 42 On today’s Matthias Church functioning as a mosque, see Péter Farbaky – Lilla FarbakyDeklava – Balázs Mátéffy et al. (eds.), Mátyás-templom. A budavári Nagyboldogasszony templom évszázadai (1246–2013) [Matthias Church. The centuries of the Church of Our Lady in Buda Castle]. (Exh. Cat. Budapest History Museum, Castle Museum, 15 April–18 October 2015.) Budapest, 2015, 139–148.

80

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

of them I gathered all the books, and likewise collected others in the other mosque, and these have come to constitute a majority of the legal and religious books in this list,43 as well as many of the dictionaries and grammars. I went over to the Jewish section where the whole street was on fire, because our troops were convinced that those merchants had contributed a lot of money and active aid to the defense, which was why it could last so long, so they acted here even more cruelly; and I found the Hebrew books also on our list, scattered all over.”44 In search for the Corvina Library, Marsili also came across books in the former royal palace. Of this part of the booty containing partly handwritten, partly printed Latin books and deemed more valuable, a catalogue was soon made45 and they were transported to Vienna as imperial spoils. (In the view of Csaba Csapodi – who identified, and with a few exceptions found the codices in the imperial library in Vienna – the books Marsili salvaged did not belong to the king’s library but to the library of the royal chapel.) 46 From this lot, only the six books Marsili “pocketed” at the last moment, without selection, arrived 43 That is, in the catalogue made by Assemani in 1720; for more on this, see below. 44 ...nel 1686 succedendo il famoso secondo assedio di Buda con la caduta d’essa piazza alli 2 di Settembre, afflitto ed esausto di forze, per le mie molte ferite in esso riportate, ... ottenni nel giorno seguente la permissione d’andare in Buda, dove tutto era ancora in fiamme, e che le strade erano coperte de’cadaveri di Turchi, non per rintracciare prede d’oro e d’argento, ma per raccogliere libri Turchi, ed anche procurar il modo se più a tempo si fosse stato di salvare la tanto decantata Biblioteca Budense. Mi gettai dentro nella Moschea primaria di Buda esente dalle fiamme, e che al tempo Cristiano era la Metropoli dedicata a S. Stefano Re d’Ungheria, ed a questa m’insinuai in due piccole stanze, in una delle quali attorniato da libri trovai il supremo Antistite decapitato dagli soldati nostri e con l’opera d’alcuni.di questi feci la raccolta di tutti que’libri, come in altra Moschea pure ne ritrassi altri, che compongono il maggior numero dei legali, e degli altri di Religione espressi in questo elenco, come pure li tanti lessici, e grammatiche. Passai al quartiero degli Ebrei, che tutta via era in fiamme, per che anche le nostre truppe impresse che quei negozianti avessero dati tanti aiuti, e col denaro, e con l’opera per una così lunga difesa, ivi ancora praticarono maggior fierezza, e dispersi trovai quelli libri Ebraici che son pure nello stesso nostro elenco. Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 11–12. Cf. Marsili, ‘Discorso intorno alla Libreria famosa di Buda’, in Ercole Ricotti, Sulla Biblioteca Corvina spigolature. Torino, 1879, 10–11, where the description of the müfti’s body surrounded by books abounds in even more naturalistic details. 45 Catalogus librorum in arce Budensi repertorum anno 1686, two copies of which are preserved in Bologna: BUB, FM, MS 85 F and BUB, MS 2951 i-q, published by Ludovico Frati, ‘Della Biblioteca Corvina’, Rivista delle Biblioteche 4:37–38 (1893) 7–16. 46 Csaba Csapodi, A budai királyi palotában 1686-ban talált kódexek és nyomtatott könyvek [Codices and printed books found in the royal palace of Buda in 1686]. Budapest, 1984.

81

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

in Bologna.47 But all the Turkish and Hebrew books remained with him, as war booty.48 They were also shipped to Vienna where they were catalogued in Arabic and Hebrew script. A little later a Latin catalogue was also drawn up of the codices grabbed from around the müfti’s body. (The Arabic and Hebrew lists do not survive, only references to them are found in the catalogue written in Roman script in 1689, to be discussed below.)

The War Booty from Nagyharsány (12 August 1687) In the course of the anti-Ottoman war of the next years Marsili had the opportunity to further enlarge his Oriental Collection. During the battle of Nagyharsány he seized Turkish chronicles of the recent past: “I got a few other books narrating the siege of Érsekújvár [today Nové Zámky, Slovakia] and the peace of Szentgotthárd from the tent of the Grand Vizier Soliman Pasha when the Ottoman army was defeated at Nagyharsány.” 49 He may also have got hold of the drawing representing the unsuccessful 1684 siege of Buda here. 50

Catalogue of the Library of the Müfti of Buda (14 May 1688) In early 1688, Marsili was sent on a diplomatic mission to the Pope. Stopping in Venice on the way, he probably told Donado and his friends about the oriental manuscripts captured in Buda, and upon their encouragement, back in Vienna (as previously discussed in regard to Thaly’s errors), he prepared a list 47 [S]enza scelta presi per me quei pochi manoscritti Latini espressi pure nell’Elenco. Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 12. Cf. Csapodi, A budai, 39–41. 48 Marsili was not the only one to take Turkish and Hebrew books as booty with him from Buda. See Albert Gárdonyi, ‘Budai török könyvek Mainzban [Turkish books from Buda in Mainz]’, Magyar Könyvszemle 29 (1905) 88. There are two codices with Süleyman Şeyh Efendi’s endowment (vakıf) mark in the National Széchényi Library. For their description, see István Orosz, ‘Sejhzáde szuperkommentárja Bajdávi Korán-kommentárjához a budai Nagy dzsámi könyvtárából [Şeyhzade’s supercommentary to Baydavi’s commentary on the Quran from the library of the Great Mosque of Buda]’, in Farbaky – Farbaky-Deklava – Mátéffy (eds.), Mátyás-templom, 144–145. Idem, ‘As-Saaráni Latáif al-minan című mûve a budai Nagy dzsámi könyvtárából [Ash-Shaarani’s work entitled Lataif al-Minan from the library of the Great Mosque of Buda]’, in Ibid., 146. 49 Alcuni pochi altri libri Turchi che scrivono la storia dell’assedio di Naisel e della pace di St. Gottardo, ebbi dalla tenda del Gran Visir Soliman Pasa nella sconfitta dell’esercito Ottomano appresso d’Arsan. Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 13. 50 Cf. Maurizio Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti musulmani della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna’, in Paolo Bagni – Maurizio Pistoso (eds.), Poetica medievale tra Oriente e Occidente. Roma, 2003, 310–311. See also Idem, ‘Una pianta ottomana di Buda’, Oriente Moderno n.s. 15(76):1 (1996) 127–133. F. Molnár, ‘Buda 1684’.

82

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

of the Buda müfti’s books with a treatise on Ottoman culture for printing. Although the publication does not survive, fragments of the printed matter and the list made of the collection in 1689 may be useful for an attempt to reconstruct it.

The War Booty of Belgrade (6 September 1688) When Belgrade was taken, Marsili again seized some Turkish manuscripts. He writes as follows: “In the next year, that is, in 1688, I collected a few other Turkish books after the capture of Belgrade, but since the Ottomans had long expected the siege, they had rescued the books by way of the Danube.” 51 The considerable amount of “literary spoils” found in Buda and Belgrade stimulated him from then on to collect manuscripts of any “exotic” language whenever he had a chance to do so.52 That explains why in Bologna relics in Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian, Armenian, etc. can also be found.

Book-list Submitted to the Inquisition (Prior to 3 August 1689), BUB 595, Y, 3, fols. 1r–9v 53 From 1685, Marsili had been toying with the idea of establishing a scientific institution in his native town,54 so he kept sending the manuscripts, maps, books, minerals, fossils, plants, etc. that he had bought or looted over the years back to Bologna, for the prospective institute. For example, his correspondence reveals that in May 1689 he had several crates of books and minerals transported from Vienna to Bologna.55 He must have been considering also sending the oriental books he had captured around that time home. These being heretic books, he needed the permission of the Inquisition. He had to attach the list of the books to the application for permission. There was no one in Bologna able to read a list of captured books in Arabic script, so a version in Latin alphabet was also 51 Nell’anno susseguente che fu il 1688 alcuni pochi altri libri Turchi raccolsi dopo l’assalto di Belgrado, ma come che questo assedio attendevano i Turchi da molto tempo, col comodo del Danubio precedentemente li avevano salvati. Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 14. 52 ...Da questi riscontri di prede literarie in Buda e Belgrado, fui stimolato a continuare in tutti li altri, che mi pottevono occorrere per ogni esotica lingua... Ricotti, Sulla biblioteca, 11. 53 See the text in the Supplement. 54 Ettore Bortolotti, ‘La fondazione dell’Istituto e la Riforma dello “Studio” di Bologna’, in Memorie intorno a L. F. Marsigli, 420. 55 Cf. H. D. Adelman (ed.), The Correspondence of Marcello Malpighi. Vol. IV, Ithaca– London, 1975, Nos. 740, 741.

83

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

written. This list is preserved in Bologna, at the head of Talman’s printed catalogue (see below), together with the permission by the Inquisition dated 3 August 1689, which contains the reservation that the manuscripts had to be kept duly locked up and their catalogue had to be printed. (The Hebrew and Greek books meaning no problem to read, were not included in the list.) 56 The list containing abbreviated titles, sometimes reduced to the subjectmatter, consists of two parts: the first part has 339 items, followed by 74 separately numbered items. That is, at least two originally different groups of manuscripts were catalogued. In the first unit, the items are arranged by the size of the manuscript without regard to contents, and often a serial number designates several similar works or copies of a work. Consequently, the 339 items cover over 500 Arabic, Persian, and Turkish manuscripts. The majority are theological, legal, grammatical works and dictionaries. They include codices of mixed contents, and the description also claims that several Arabic and Persian manuscripts have interlinear Turkish translation and Turkish interpolations. The great majority were possibly taken from madrasas. There are several remarks claiming that the beginning or end of books are truncated, damaged, or burnt. After item 339 comes the second list of 74 items written by the same hand. Each item here designates a single and unique manuscript, without classification by size (measures are not at all given), but the sequence of the items clearly outlines thematic groups, as follows: grammatical works, dictionaries, logic, law, ethics, medicine, theology, “belle lettres”. None of these items is said to be incomplete or damaged. This section of the catalogue appears to have stood for a systematized collection of intact manuscripts. In my hypothesis this second list could be a copy of the list of the Buda müfti’s library. The list submitted to the Inquisition includes nearly 600 manuscripts, which Marsili had collected exclusively in Ottoman Hungary. Although he received permission from the Inquisition in 1689 to take the heretic books to Bologna, he had them transported home as late as 1702. 57 Until 1691, Marsili was active in the Hungarian theatre of war, and it cannot be precluded that he got hold of further Islamic manuscripts, but no information concerning that period is at my disposal. 56 Ulterius Uolumina n.o 84 Graeca, et Hebraica, quorum tituli non apponuntur cum non sint transcripti in Catalogo Uiennensi ex suppositione quod Bononiae haec idiomata uerti possint. BUB, 595, Y, 3, fol. 9v. 57 Cf. Eustechio Manfredi’s letter of 8 August 1702 about the arrival of the crates with the manuscripts in Bologna: BUB, FM, MS 80, B, 93.

84

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Diplomatic Missions to Constantinople (1691–January 1693) Marsili had several missions to carry out in the Ottoman Empire between 1691 and early 1693. After his official talks, he had the opportunity to indulge in his passion for books. He remarks after the description of his talks in Adrianople that at the end of the negotiations the Grand Vizier “started talking about the natural sciences and mathematics. He showed me several interesting Turkish books and asked me about books in Latin.” 58 It is possible that he could also acquire some manuscripts. Although there is no data on the Grand Vizier donating him any book, it is known that he had received a Turkish map as a gift from the “Wallachian prince” during a diplomatic trip in 1691. 59 Occasionally he might have acquired a manuscript or two in a similar way, and when he sojourned in Constantinople longer, he had a chance to significantly enlarge his collections through purchases. “Now my oriental book collection could be enriched by money and not by looting … I acquired some medical, chemical, astronomical, and geographic books and some historical pieces…”; “[a renegade from Livorno] brought me all the Greek manuscript volumes that are in the list60 from the serail, and got me the translation and maps of Blau’s atlases, which – to the greatest envy of the ministers of Christian princes – Sultan Mehmed IV had ordered from the best possible interpreters in Constantinople and from Turks well versed in geography, with particular knowledge of the Asian and African parts.”61 It was at that time that he acquired the two twin codices which contain colour drawings of diverse badges of the janissaries (MS 3358) and of turbans 58 Passò poi a discorrere di scienze naturali e matematiche. Mi esibì più libri curiosi in lingua turca e mi cercò de’ latini. Marsili, Autobiografia, 143. 59 See Frati, Catalogo, 19, MS No. 24, 78. 60 The Greek manuscripts are presumably from the library of Sultan Mustafa I; cf. Angelo Bernasconi, ‘Un gruppo di codici greci Bolognesi provenienti dalla biblioteca del sultano Mustafa I’, Scriptorium 60 (2006) 254–268. 61 ...ebbi motivo di aumentare non più per mezzo de’ Sacchi, ma del denaro la mia raccolta de’ Libri Orientali ... Feci la provista di alcuni libri di Medicina, di Chimica, d’Astonomia, di Geografia e d’alcuni pezzi di Storia ... mi tirò dal Seraglio tutti li volumi mano scritti greci, e riferiti nell’Elenco, e mi procurò la traduzione, e mappe de gli atlanti di Blao, che fu fatta fare dal Sultano Meemeto quarto, con tanta gelosia de’Ministri de’ Principi Cristiani con l’opera di tutti li migliori interpreti che si trovassero a Costantinopoli e de’ Turchi intendenti di Geografia, e pratici massime nelle parti dell’Asia e dell’Affrica... Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 14–15. See also Marsili, Autobiografia, 160.

85

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

(MS 3359);62 the manuscript entitled Book of the Sea (MS 3609); the Arabic version of Dioscorides’ medical work (MS 2954); 63 a versified fifteenthcentury medical treatise (MS 3583);64 he had the map of Armenia copied (rotolo 24),65 and had a manuscript with drawings of Turkish costumes made to which he himself applied the captions (the latter is not in the Oriental Collection, but among Marsili’s documents: BUB, FM, MS 119).66 In 1694–1697, Marsili took part in the wars liberating the Balkans, and between 1698 and 1701 he was involved in the negotiations of the Treaty of Karlowitz and the demarcation of the frontiers between the two empires. There is no information of major acquisitions for his collection from this period, though he could have access to an Islamic manuscript or two; pertinent data may still crop up. Since between 1702 and his death in 1730 he only visited Western Europe – in the emperor’s service until 1704, then returning to Italy and later making trips to England, France and the Netherlands – he had no more chance to enlarge his Oriental Collection.

Talman’s Unfinished Catalogue (1702) Before sending it to Bologna, Marsili wished to have – in compliance with the Inquisition as well – a new, adequately printed catalogue of the collection enriched with valuable acquisitions in Constantinople. He commissioned Michael Talman, the interpreter and oriental specialist of Emperor Charles VI, who had been with him at the Karlowitz peace talks earlier. Talman set to work, but before having finished it a diplomatic mission to Constantinople called him away from Vienna. Though it only elaborates part of the collection, and despite being incomplete, his catalogue was published with the title Elenchus librorum orientalium manuscriptorum, videlicet graecorum, arabicorum, persicorum, turcicorum, et deinde hebraicorum, ac antiquorum latino62 Cf. Orazgözel Machaeva, ‘Due album d’arte ottomana del Seicento’, in Ugo Marazzi (ed.), Turcica et islamica. Studi in memoria di Aldo Gallotta. Napoli, 2003, 406–456. 63 http://www.librit.unibo.it/servlet/ParseHtml/page/frames/index.html?idimmagine= &idoggetto=170 (16.09.2008) 64 Cf. Orazgözel Machaeva, ‘Il Tarvīh al-arvāh di Tāj ad-Dīn Ahmedī. Un trattato in versi di medicina ottomana nel Fondo Marsigli della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna’, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 55 (1995) 96–108. 65 Cf. Gabriella Uluhogian (ed.), Un’antica mappa dell’Armenia. Monasteri e santuari dal I al XVII secolo. Ravenna, 2000. 66 Cf. Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti’, 316–318.

86

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

rum, tum manuscriptorum, tum impressorum a domino Comite Aloysio Ferdinando Marsigli, Sacrae Caesareae Majestatis Camerario, pedestris legionis tribuno, et vigiliarum campi generali partim in ultimo bello Turcico et partim in itinere Constantinopolim suscepto collectorum, coemtorumque, opera Michaelis Talman, S.C.M Linguarum Orientalium Interpretis compilatus et in sex partes divisus.67 This catalogue shows no likeness whatever to the list of sketchy and short thematic descriptions whose copy was submitted to the Inquisition in 1689. Talman grouped the manuscripts Marsili had seized as booty by language, dividing the Islamic material into Arabic, Persian and Turkish groups. Within each language section the order of the codices is incidental (possibly explained by the work having not been finished), the manuscripts not grouped either by size, subject, alphabet or provenance (for example, the books of the müfti of Buda are not separately treated). Talman gave a detailed description of each item in the original language and script, as well as in Latin, adopting the method the imperial librarian Peter Lambeck used for the description of Greek codices. He indicated the size, page number, scientific discipline of each item, with remarks on the script (for instance, whether it is vocalized), the author, the title, the incipit, titles of the chapters, name of the copier, place and date of copying. This would have been the first scientifically exact catalogue of the collection, if it had not remained unfinished: it contains the description of 19 Greek manuscripts, 68 nothing from the Latin and Hebrew section, and 82 Arabic, 30 Persian, and 11 Turkish items from the Islamic material. Marsili wrote a treatise with the title Discorso intorno alla libreria famosa di Buda, which he meant as an introduction to the planned complete catalogue, but it remained unpublished in manuscript. In it he also gave account of how he had got hold of the items in his collection. 69 Since the catalogue was not finished, Marsili had to transport the manuscripts from Vienna to Bologna in the company of Talman’s incomplete catalogue.70

67 Viennae Austriae, Apud Susannam Christinam – Matthaei Cosmerovii, S. C. M. Typogr. Aulici viduam. Anno M.DCCII. 68 Seventeen of them are identified in Bernasconi’s cited work, all of them originated from the palace of Constantinople. 69 BUB, FM, MS 85, F. The section on the Buda war booty was published in Ricotti, Sulla Biblioteca. 70 See note 55.

87

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Foundation of the Istituto delle Scienze (1711) Marsili and his brother had been urging for the reformation of the university in their native town and the modernization of education for years. Marsili was ready to submit his scientific collections and library to a university of renewed spirit. In his reform proposals for the university written in 1709 he also stressed the significance of teaching oriental languages, 71 and he offered his oriental manuscripts for this purpose. To promote the cause of instructing these languages, he even suggested where to find the right teachers. 72 Since his reform suggestions were turned down, in 1711 he founded a Scientific Institute with papal support and donated his writings, collections, and library to it, including his oriental manuscript collection, 73 and procured bookbinding and printing equipment for the institute. He took pains to have the codices bound 74 and to supply the printing workshop with oriental characters as well. 75 However, the institute did not live up to all of Marsili’s expectations and he repeatedly expressed discontent, inter alia because – for lack of competent personnel – the oriental manuscripts were kept in disorder years after the foundation.

71 In his opinion, the cultivation of these languages was especially indispensable for the practitioners of theology. See Bortolotti, ‘La fondazione’, 409–410. 72 Ibid., 416–418. 73 Ibid., 424. Cf. Atti legali per la fondazione dell’Istituto delle Scienze. Bologna, 1728 (reprint Bologna, 1981) and Instrumentum donationis Ill. Domini Comitis Aloysii Ferdinandi de Marsiliis favore Illustrissimi et Eccelsi Senatus et civitatis Bononiae in gratiam novae in eadem Scientiarum Institutionis, BUB, FM, MS 146, where the donated oriental books and maps are enumerated as the contents of cabinets 5 and 6 (mentioned by Laura Miani,‘L.F. Marsili e la Tabula Chorographica Armenica [rot. 24] della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna’, in Uluhogian, Un’antica mappa, 18, though unfortunately I had no chance to study the manuscript). See also: Inventario corretto e accresciuto dei codici, manoscritti, mappe ed altri recapiti donati da L. F. Marsili all’Istituto delle Scienze , BUB, MS 421. 74 A document dated 1718, about codices lent to the Vatican Library for copying testifies that they were already carrying the Marsili coat of arms on their bindings (BUB, MS 2951, w). 75 Cf. Albano Sorbelli, ‘La stamperia di L. F. Marsili’, in Memorie intorno a L. F. Marsigli, 479–501.

88

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Assemani’s Catalogue with Marsili’s Foreword (1720), BUB, MS 2951 Despite its defectiveness, Talman’s catalogue aroused great curiosity among the orientalists. The orientalist librarian of Vatican Library, Giuseppe Simone Assemani got to know that Marsili was in possession of a three-tome manuscript that contained the bibliography of Arabic-Persian-Turkish writers of all times.76 Since it promised to be a fundamental aid for the cataloguing of the Oriental Collection of the Vatican, the Pope asked for a copy of the item for the library. Marsili was not in Bologna and did not find a competent person for the job. Therefore, Assemani himself came to Bologna in 1720 to search for the work he was interested in, and also set down a record of the entire collection. His catalogue is entitled Index librorum Bibliothecae Marsilianae Graecorum, Latinorum, Hebraicorum, Arabicorum, Turcicorum et Persicorum, nec non Ruthenico, et Illyrico sermone, tum manuscriptorum, tum impressorum, quos Excellentissimus Dominus Comes Aloysius Ferdinandus Marsilius Bibliothecae Instituti Scientiarum Bononiensis addixit. In septem partes divisus. Marsili wanted to publish this catalogue and wrote a foreword to it in Italian, giving a detailed account of the history of the collection. 77 In 1721 the foreword was translated into Latin for publication, 78 but eventually it was left unprinted. The reason probably was Marsili’s dissatisfaction with the work of the institute he founded and handed over to the municipality for running, with the negligent treatment of the collections he donated to it, which came to litigations with the senate of Bologna in the last years of his life. Also, he spent lengthy periods away from his native town, in France, England and Holland. In the catalogue Assemani lists 442 Arabic, 175 Turkish, 28 Persian and 70 Hebrew books (manuscripts and prints are not differentiated among the Hebrew items).79 As part of the Oriental Collection he also registered 22 Greek 76 Marsili, Lettera prefazione, 6. The manuscript: BUB, MS 2952. Cf. No. 125 in the first list submitted to the Inquisition. 77 See note 33. 78 The autograph of the Latin version is preserved even today at the head of the unprinted catalogue. Published by Victor Rosen, Remarques sur les manuscrits orientaux de la collection Marsigli à Bologne, suivies de la liste complète des manuscrits arabes de la même collection. Roma, 1885, 5–13. 79 Pier Francesco Fumagalli, ‘La formazione dei fondi ebraici nelle biblioteche dell’Emilia Romagna’, in Fausto Parente (ed.), Atti del terzo Convegno tenuto a Idice, Bologna, nei giorni 9–11 novembre 1982. (Associazione italiana per lo studio del giudaismo, Testi e

89

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

codices,80 6 Latin items seized in Buda, 3 Ruthenian, and 1 Illyrian item. He indicated the form and contents of the codices in quite the same detail as Talman, but according to a different scheme. As regards Arabic manuscripts, he adopted Talman’s numbering (as far as the latter got), thus the serial number of Talman’s Arabic items usually coincide with those of Assemani. There are some exceptions: for instance, Talman’s Arabic codex No. 19 corresponds to item 316 in Assemani’s list (today MS 3183), or Talman’s last Arabic codex (No. 82) is Assemani’s item 266 (today MS 3147). 81 There are also lesser or greater deviations between the two catalogues, such as in the transcription of the names, and rarely in the definition of contents or size. Using Talman’s catalogue is indispensable despite the errors and overlapping. This is well exemplified by the above mentioned two codices. None of the later catalogues, except for Talman’s, indicate that these two manuscripts (MS 3183: a rhetorical work, and MS 3147, which is the earliest item of the collection dated 1225, about the religions and sects of the world) came to the library of the main mosque in Buda from the Müfti of Buda Süleyman Şeyh Efendi, as the inscriptions in the codices reveal. 82 (What Marsili thought to be the personal library of the müfti of Buda was presumably the library of the principal mosque of Buda.) In describing the Turkish and Persian manuscripts Assemani did not adopt Talman’s numbering, so it is hard to identify Talman’s items with those of Assemani and with the manuscripts themselves. At the end of the catalogue Assemani appended indices of authors and titles by languages in the order of the Latin alphabet. (The identification of the names and titles given in Latin transcription is not without problems, due to the different systems of transcription.) In many cases the current marks of the catalogues have been subsequently inserted into the catalogue (excepting the studi, 3.) Roma, 1985, 93–94. 80 It is to be compared with the Greek section of Talman’s catalogue containing records of 19 books, most of them demonstrably bought in Constantinople, which is possibly not complete – similarly, for example, to the Turkish or Arabic sections. NB. Marsili had some Greek manuscripts prior to the purchases in Constantinople – from unknown provenances – because in the 1689 oriental book-list it is noted that he owned a total of 84 Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. 81 MS 3147: Muhammad bin abd al-Karim al-Sahrastani, Kitab al-milal wa-al-nihal [The book of religions and sects], 1225. Cf. http://www.librit.unibo.it/servlet/ParseHtml/page/ frames/index.html?idimmagine=&idoggetto =171 (16.09.2008). Machaeva, Card No. 221. Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti’, 307. 82 On the other two codices with the vakıf mark of Süleyman Şeyh Efendi, see note 48.

90

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Hebrew items). This is therefore the most practicable catalogue of the entire Oriental Collection to this day.83

Destiny of the Collection and Its Catalogues After Marsili’s Death After Marsili’s death the collection of oriental manuscripts – in the care of the Istituto delle Scienze and its successors, Accademia delle Scienze dell’Istituto di Bologna, later Biblioteca della R. Univesità di Bologna, today Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna – grew somewhat, but the new acquisitions were usually well documented, so they can be separated from the original Marsili Collection. Several catalogues have been made, but usually only about certain segments of the collection and by diverse criteria, which does not help the work of those who want to find their way in the collection with their aid. Marsili’s Islamic manuscript collection contains items in three languages, Arabic, Persian and Turkish, in line with the specificity of Ottoman culture. A considerable part of the manuscripts are bi-, or even trilingual, and there are several miscellanea volumes of mixed contents among them. The catalogues ranged the codices of mixed languages and contents once in one language group, and then in another, describing them now synthetically, now analytically. There are cases when several similar manuscripts were bound in one tome and certain catalogues described them as one item, others catalogued the components separately; or again, severed manuscript parts were catalogued one by one as incomplete until they were identified as belonging to a single manuscript. That explains why a collation of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish manuscripts in different catalogues would not even determine their respective numbers, and it is often a problem to identify whether items in different catalogues refer to a given manuscript. By way of illustration, let me mention a manuscript of diverse contents written in Pécs (MS 3378), listed as No. 59 among the Arabic miscellanea codices of three works in the Talman and Assemani catalogues. Among the catalogues to be discussed below, that of Mezzofanti describes it as three different items, Nos. 255, 339, and 331, while in Rosen’s the three works are Nos. 436,2, 436,3, and 436,4, with Rosen also identifying a fourth work at the head of the codex and numbering it 436,1. 83 On the list of oriental books, see also a letter by Marsili: BUB, MS 2013, 15, Lettera sopra l’elenco dei libri orientali (1728), which I did not have a chance to study (cf. Frati, Catalogo, 138).

91

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Giuseppe Gaspare Mezzofanti , Catalogo de’Manoscritti Orientali che si conservano nella Biblioteca della R. Università di Bologna (1807), BUB, MS 4111 The famous polyglot, Mezzofanti was appointed to head the library in 1803.84 He also added a few manuscripts to the Oriental Collection which he reorganized and re-numbered (subsuming here the Hungarian-language material as well), making a new catalogue in Italian, correcting Assemani’s several mistakes, which – as he writes in the preface – were attributable to too short a time available to Assemani to make the catalogue. Mezzofanti registered several miscellanea volumes analytically, identified the titles and authors of several manuscripts with torn front sections, and reconstructed some manuscripts whose parts were recorded separately in previous catalogues, or errone ously bound together with other manuscripts. He grouped the manuscripts by languages, and by theme within each language. His catalogue includes 544 Arabic, 173 Turkish, and 34 Persian items. He only described 6 Hebrew codices, of which perhaps one or two came from Marsili’s booty from Buda, four surely having different provenances.85 (It is yet to be explored what happened to the 70 Hebrew codices listed by Assemani; perhaps some of them were registered by Mezzofanti among the printed oriental books.) Mezzofanti’s descriptions are far shorter than those of Talman and Assemani, only giving the author and the title in Italian and the original language, followed by the date of copying (if any) and the size of the manuscript. At the end he attached an index of authors in both Arabic and Italian alphabetic order, and one of the titles by Arabic alphabet. He did not include Assemani’s catalogue numbers, but the current inventory numbers and the numbers in Rosen’s catalogue (see below) were also inserted later. This catalogue – similarly to Assemani’s – remained unpublished.

84 Luciano Meluzzi, Il cardinal Giuseppe Gaspare Mezzofanti poliglotta e bibliotecario. Bologna, 1963, 12–13. Franco Pasti, Un poliglotta in biblioteca: Giuseppe Mezzofanti (1774–1849) a Bologna nell’età della restaurazione. Bologna, 2006. 85 Cf. Fumagalli, ‘La formazione’, 94.

92

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Giuseppe Gaspare Mezzofanti , Catalogo regionato de’libri impressi di Letteratura Orientale esistenti nella Biblioteca della Regia Università di Bologna, BUB, MS 411386 The catalogue lists some 80 Hebrew printed books, most of them sixteenth– eighteenth-century grammatical works and dictionaries. It is yet to be examined whether it contains books from Marsili’s loot seized in Buda. Giuseppe De Hammer , ‘Lettere sui manoscritti orientali e particolarmente arabi che si trovano nelle diverse Biblioteche d’Italia, Lettera VII: Biblioteca dell’Istituto di Bologna’, Biblioteca Italiana LVI (ottobre 1829) 28–35. In his Italian-language survey of the major oriental manuscript collections in Italy Hammer gave a brief account of the collection in Bologna. He mentioned its provenance in Buda (based on Marsili’s introduction to Assemani’s catalogue) and noted that it was rich in geographic, rhetoric and legal works. He remarked that in Assemani’s catalogue there were many mistakes and inaccuracies, particularly in the description of Persian and Arabic works, and briefly described the 49 manuscripts he deemed most important (parenthetically referring to Assemani’s catalogue numbers). (He made no reference to Mezzofanti’s catalogue, though he knew about it and remarked that its publication was forthcoming.) His items include the author and title in Latin script, the Italian translation of the title, a comment or two on the author, the value or rarity of the work, sometimes its age. No formal description is given. The items in the oriental manuscript collection of Bologna were given their inventory marks still in use today sometime between 1829 and 1885 (Hammer does not mention them, while they are included in Rosen’s catalogue printed in 1885).

86 Cited by Irene Ventura Folli, ‘Fondi ebraici della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna’, in Atti del terzo Convegno, 83. I have not seen the handwritten catalogue.

93

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Victor Rosen , Remarques sur les manuscrits orientaux de la collection Marsigli à Bologne, suivies de la liste complète des manuscrits arabes de la même collection. Roma, 1885.87 The Russian orientalist Rosen spent three weeks in Bologna in 1883 88 and made a complete list of the Arabic manuscripts of the collection describing 459 items (which, however, include codices of mixed languages, too). He briefly surveyed 167 Turkish manuscripts and gave a summary of 43 Persian manuscripts. Within each language, he discussed the material by themes. He did not rely on Assemani’s or Mezzofanti’s catalogue in forming the thematic groups or for the numbering. In the introduction he included Marsili’s writing on the history of the collection, more precisely its Latin translation of 1721 which was to have been published with Assemani’s catalogue. 89 Then he characterized the collection and his work as follows: “Since the majority of the collection derives from the libraries of the Buda and Belgrade mosques, it includes an immense quantity of textbooks, generally known manuals which were in use in Turkish madrasas in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. My main objective was to define the titles of the 459 Arabic manuscripts of the collection as accurately as possible. I put everything on record to this end, systematically ignoring all that is useful and good to know, but would have consumed too much of my time without promoting the accomplishment of the main task. It is no wonder then that apart from very few exceptions, neither the number of folios or lines, nor the names of the copiers, 90 or any other supplementary information which will certainly be included in a systematic catalogue to be written of the collection cannot be found in my list. I found it useful, by contrast, to record the date of copying.”91 Rosen pointed out that at the beginning or end, or on the binding there are several notes alluding to the transfer, donation and possessors of the manuscripts. His French descriptions include bibliographic references to copies or descriptions of the given manuscript in

87 Also published as part of the periodical of Accademia dei Lincei: Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ser. 3, 11 (1884) 163–295. 88 Maurizio Pistoso, ‘V. R. Rosen e i manoscritti Marsigli’, in G. R. Franci (ed.), La benedizione di Babele. Bologna, 1991, 229–238. 89 See note 78. 90 For some manuscripts he indicates the place of copying: Belgrade, Buda, Pécs, Sarajevo, etc. 91 Rosen, Remarques, 13–14.

94

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

other European collections. Rosen attached an index of titles and authors in Arabic alphabetic order, and other indices of dates and library marks. His work is still the most important catalogue, especially of the Arabic manuscripts. It is his great merit that he identified the overwhelming majority of Arabic works – despite the difficulties caused by many truncated items – and gave exact thematic summaries of them. Leonello Modona , ‘Catalogo dei codici ebraici della Biblioteca della R. Università di Bologna’, in Cataloghi dei codici orientali di alcune biblioteche d’Italia. Vol. IV, Firenze, 1888, 323–372. Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts of the library in Italian, with detailed descriptions of form and content. Though it does not touch on the history of the entire collection, it contains comments on the provenance of some manuscripts. There is a single manuscript which Modona retraces to the Marsili Collection (featuring the Marsili coat of arms), presumably from Buda (today its mark is 3574H): it is a ritual book with missing front part containing, among other things, German-language prayers put down in Hebrew script. Modona claimed to have found the codex with another eight manuscripts on some old forgotten shelves of the library which had been overlooked earlier. 92 The modern addition to the catalogue93 does not contain information on the Marsili Collection. The fate of the rest of the Hebrew books from Buda is unknown. Renato Traini , ‘I fondi di manoscritti arabi in Italia’, in Gli studi sul Vicino Oriente in Italia dal 1921 al 1970. II. L’Oriente islamico. Roma, 1971, 261– 276. In an appendix to his writing about the Arabic fonds in Italy, Traini presented a summary table entitled Tavola comparativa dei cataloghi dei manoscritti arabi esistenti presso la Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, in which he tried to identify the items in Rosen’s catalogue with those of Assemani’s and Mezzofanti’s catalogues and today’s inventory marks. It is a highly valuable aid. It must be noted, however, that his identification was not always successful, and only covers the 459 Arabic items in Rosen’s catalogue, leaving the Persian and Turkish manuscripts out of consideration. 92 Modona, Catalogo, 350: note 1. 93 Ventura Folli, ‘Fondi ebraici’, 81–83.

95

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

Angelo Michele Piemontese , Catalogo dei manoscritti persiani conservati nelle Biblioteche d’Italia. Vol. I, Roma, 1989, 3–35. Catalogue of Persian manuscripts preserved in Italy, which includes 60 items from the Oriental Collection of Bologna qualified as Persian. They include mixed-language codices too, containing Turkish works or translations. This is the only catalogue of the collection written by up-to-date criteria, with detailed descriptions of the content and form of the manuscripts in Italian and a bibliography. In the preface, Piemontese notes that most of the manuscripts came into the Marsili Collection as booty captured in Buda. For a few manuscripts he names other provenances. Sometimes he informs us of possessors’ inscriptions, the place and date of copying, but he does not always or exhaustively provide supplementary information that would be indispensable for a history of the collection. Orazgözel Machaeva , Inventario dei manoscritti turchi della Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna (1997). The Turkmenian researcher began examining the Turkish codices in the collection in the 1990s. She published a brief summary of them 94 and catalogued them. The list of 191 items was completed in 1997, but it is still unpublished. She only published the descriptions of five codices with the reproduced colophons in microcard form.95 She also published some studies on individual codices.96 The homepage of the library carried an announcement in 2006 about the planned cataloguing of the Turkish codices. It said that Machaeva was commissioned to create the online version of the catalogue. 97 According to plan, the catalogue of Turkish manuscripts will be integrated in the “Manus” 94 Orazgözel Machaeva, ‘A Little Known Collection of Turkish Manuscripts: the “Fondo Marsili” of Bologna University Library’, The Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 18:1 (1994) 79–83. 95 MS 3582 (Aşık Paşa, Garibname), MS 2954 (Dioscorides), MS 3014 (Zamakhsari, Muqaddimat al-adab), MS 3147 (The book of religions and sects), MS 3583 (Tarwih alarwah). See Machaeva, Card Nos. 218–222, Nouvelles des Manuscrits du Moyen-Orient 6:2 (December 1997). 96 Machaeva, Il Tarwih al-arwah. Eadem ‘Due album’, as well as on codex MS 3370 containing the chronicle of Persian rulers by Navai: Orazgözel Machaeva, ‘La melodia dei tempi passati: quattro discorsi di ‘Alî Shîr Navâ’î’, Oriente moderno n.s. 16(76):2 (1996) 459: note 38. 97 http://www.bub.unibo.it/it-it/bublife/maggio-2006/accadde-in-biblioteca/nuovi-progetti-dicatalogazione-di-manoscritti.aspx?idC=61723&LN=it-IT&stampa=1 (05.04.2015)

96

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

database98 as an experimental undertaking: in Italy it will be the introduction of a national standard for library records to be applied to a manuscript stock not written in Roman script. As far as I know, in modern research literature there are a mere two short writings touching upon the history of Marsili’s Oriental Collection: Laura Miani’s introduction to an edition of the famous Armenian map, 99 and an account of the exhibition held on the occasion of an orientalist conference in Bologna in 2000 showing the most valuable oriental manuscripts of the Univesity Library. In the prospective program of the conference Machaeva was included with a presentation of the Oriental Collection, but in its place the volume of proceedings publishes the Iranist Maurizio Pistoso’s short summary of the Islamic material of the collection as an appendix to the book of studies, along with his descriptions of the 12 exhibited codices (including the presentations of the five Turkish codices already published by Machaeva), some photos and a short bibliography.100 Later, the library published online the descriptions of five Turkish, two Arabic and two Persian manuscripts with photo illustrations.101 There were another two exhibitions in the library, which included a few manuscripts from Marsili’s Oriental Collection: one about the origins of Biblioteca Universitaria in 2006, and one about the Quran in 2011. The descriptions of the pieces exhibited there can be read in the typewritten catalogues of the exhibitions in the room of the manuscript collection. 102 *

98 99 100 101

See http://manus.iccu.sbn.it//index.php (05.04.2015) Miani, ‘L.F. Marsili’, 16–18. Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti’. See on the homepage of Mostra Virtuale dei Materiali delle Biblioteche, http://www. librit.unibo.it/ page/oggetti/oggetto.html (16.09.2008). With one exception the codices presented here were included in Pistoso’s writing. 102 Alle origini della Biblioteca Universitaria: un patrimonio venuto da lontano, Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, 23–30 settembre 2006, Sala mss. C 3 ALL (Orazgözel Machaeva’s description of the below manuscripts: BUB, MSS 3574, NN; 3574, RR; 3574, OO/1). Il Corano nei fondi manoscritti della Biblioteca Universitaria, Atrio Aula Magna, 9 aprile – 5 maggio 2011, Sala mss. C 3/Pas (description of 20 manuscripts containing the Quran and Quran commentaries on the basis of Rosen’s catalogue, corrected in some cases by Ahmad Addous).

97

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

With a greater part still awaiting elaboration, the enormous Marsili oeuvre must have lots of information in store about the history of the Oriental Collection. The above survey is hardly more than an outline to be refined in far greater detail through future research. A more thorough scrutiny and comparison of the catalogues and inventories may provide further information on the provenance of individual manuscripts. Clues can be obtained from a study of bindings, frequently applied sigils, from the systematic examination of possessor’s notes. The separation of manuscripts taken from Ottoman Hungary and the rest of the collection derived from other areas does not appear hopeless. In his catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts, Modona did not consider the history of the collection, the fate of books taken from Buda. Rosen’s work was focused on determining which sources of Arabic cultural history were preserved in the collection. Piemontese wished to catalogue the documents of Persian culture. Machaeva’s investigations concentrated on Turkish manuscripts. The exhibitions and publications of Biblioteca Universitaria wanted to call attention to the oldest, most valuable items of the collection and to the Quran manuscripts. Until now, nobody has looked at the whole collection as the most important relic of the written culture of Ottoman Hungary from 1686–1688. The value and uniqueness of the collection lies in the fact that it documents the written culture of a distinctly definable area at a given point of time, possibly not in its entirety but with extraordinary richness. An exact accounting of the manuscript records from Ottoman Hungary may open new vistas for cultural-historical investigations.

Reconstruction of the Library of the Müfti of Buda Let us sum up the available information on the library of the müfti of Buda. During the recapture of Buda in 1686 Marsili collected the Turkish books he found in the mosques of the castle. In his memoir he made special mention of those he found in a small room by the side of the müfti’s body in the principal mosque, which remained intact. He took the booty with him to Vienna. In May 1688 he wanted to publish the list of books taken from the müfti of Buda with a treatise on the culture of the Ottomans, perhaps in Venice. The manuscript of

98

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

the treatise and the title-page of the book-list survive, that of the list itself does not. No copy of the publication, if any, is known. In 1689, Marsili submitted to the Inquisition in Bologna a book-list of the oriental books in his possession that he wished to take home from Vienna. The book-list was compiled from two separate lists. The second, shorter list – unlike the first – contains complete and unique codices listed in thematic groups. It can be presumed that this list is identical with the list of the müfti’s library handled as the prize possession of the collection. This presumption is supported by the following observations. At the beginning of certain codices in the collection, there is a label stuck on the inside of the book-board with a serial number and title cut out from a printed matter. The label of the fifteenth-century Turkish codex containing Garibname by Aşık Paşa carries the following label in Latin: “38. Historicum de rebus gestis Mahometis Carmen Turcicum.”103 In the book-list submitted to the Inquisition, the same text can be read under item 38 of the second list, which is presumed to contain the books of the müfti. The old custom of cutting out the respective description from a printed catalogue and sticking it on the front endpaper of a codex can be found in Italian-language codices. This must be the case here: the relevant description was clipped from the printed list of the library of the müfti of Buda and stuck to the front endpaper of the codex. The manuscript containing a thirteenth-century copy of the famous Arabic-Persian dictionary entitled Muqaddimat al-Adab marked MS 3014 carried the following label: “14. Arabicum Dictionarium Turcici explicatum” 104 – this text is again identical with the text after number 14 in the second unit of the booklist sent to the Inquisition. A further example is cited by Piemontese in the catalogue of Persian manuscripts. Writing of MS 3301, a manuscript of mixed content and language containing a Persian grammar and small Persian-Turkish and Arabic-Turkish dictionaries, as item 44 in his list, he noted that on the inside of the back board printed labels have been applied containing the inaccurate titles in Latin probably of the originally distinct manuscripts bound in one volume. Unfortunately he does not give the exact texts of the labels. 105 103 See http://www.librit.unibo.it/images/jpg/0900pa.jpg (16.09.2008). Machaeva, Card No. 218. Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti’, 313–314. 104 Piemontese, Catalogo, 24–25: note 39. Cf. Machaeva, Card No. 220. Pistoso, ‘I manoscritti’, 308. 105 Piemontese, Catalogo, 27–28: note 44. I did not have a chance to study the manuscript.

99

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

The two cited labels whose texts correspond to two items in the second list of 1689 and the mentioned other similar stuck-in labels presumably are fragments of the print about the library of the müfti of Buda. Were further similar stuck-in printed fragments to be found during the systematic examination of the manuscripts, they would greatly boost the reconstruction of the library of the müfti of Buda. Who knows, in the meantime perhaps a complete copy of the printed catalogue of the library of the müfti of Buda will also be found…

SUPPLEMENT An overwhelming majority of Marsili’s Oriental Collection is from the territory of Hungary that was ruled by the Ottomans. The other single most important group of the collection includes manuscripts purchased by Marsili in Constantinople between 1691 and 1693. The book-list made for the Inquisition in 1689 has signal importance for the exploration of the history of the collection, as it was drawn up prior to the acquisitions in Constantinople, thus containing books seized exclusively in Ottoman Hungary. Its text is presented below.

Biblioteca Universitaria di Bologna, MS 595, Y, 3. 1r Catalogus Librorum Orientalium in folio Illustrissimi D. Comitis Marsiglij N.o primo N.o 2.

N.o 3.o

Commentarij Turcici in Alcoranum Thomus primus eleganter scriptus, et si adesset secundus rarissimus. Alcoranum cum uersione interlineari Turcica Codex rarus, ac alia in folio sex, in quarto maiori septem, et in minori, ac octavo iterum septem sub eodem N.o 2.o inuenienda erunt. Uita Mahometis in folio, et alia tria similia exemplaria sub eodem N.o 3.o.

100

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

N.o 4. N.o 5. N.o 6. N.o 7.o N.o 8. N.o 9. N.o 10. N.o 11. N.o 12.

N.o 13. N.o 14. N.o 15. N.o 16. N.o 17. N.o 18. N.o 19. N.o 20. N.o 21. N.o [22] 23. 1v N.o [23] 22. N.o 24.

N.o 25. N.o 26. N.o 27.

Liber Arabico-Persico-Turcicus-Theologico-PhysicusMoralis initio mutilus antiquior. Pars Commentarij Arabici in Alcoranum. Collectiones uariarum Epistolarum Turcicarum. Commentarius Turcicus in multa Loca Alcorani, sed initio mutilus. Liber Turcicus de fide Ortodoxa. Liber Turcicus eleganti stylo compositus de Uita, et Rebus gestis Mahometis. Liber Arabicus Theologico Iuridicus. Liber Turcicus elegans Moralia, et caetera tractans. Liber Arabicus Theologicus, et alij undecim sub eodem numero septem in folio, reliqui uero in quarto maiori conscripti. Dictionaria duo Persico-Arabico-Turcica. Commentarius Arabicus in certa capita Alcorani. Liber Arabicus Grammaticalis, et alia 9 eiusmodi exemplaria sub eodem numero 15 inuenire erit. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum quendam Iuridicum. Liber Theologicus Arabicus. Liber Arabicus de dictis Mahometis. Liber Arabicus Iuridicus de Lege, et ritibus Mahometanorum. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Theologicum Iuridicum. Commentarius Arabicus in Tractatum Iuridicum. Commentarius Arabicus Iuridicus Bukari106 dictus praetiosus. Liber Arabicus de Uita contemplatiua. Liber Arabicus fundamentum eloquentiae explicans praecipuarum uocum Arabicarum significationes tam proprias, quam tran[s]latas addi[ti]s exemplis ad singulas uoces. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus Mahometanorum. Liber Iuridicus Arabicus. Commentarius Arabicus in partem Alcorani.

106 Bukari underlined.

101

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

N.o 28.

N.o 29. N.o 30.

N.o 31. N.o 32. N.o 33. N.o 34. N.o 35. N.o 36. N.o 37. N.o 38. N.o 39 N.o 40. N.o 41. N.o 42. 2r N.o 43. N.o 44. N.o 45.

Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Iuridicum, ac similia uariorum Auctorum exemplaria inuenienda sunt sub praedicto N.o 28. tria exemplaria scilicet in folio; uiginti tria in 4.o conscripta. Liber Arabicus de fide, et Religione Mahumetana, et tria alia exe[m]plaria in 4.o conscripta sub eodem N.o 29. Aliquot capita Alcorani, et in fine figura, seu Amuletum circulare cum explicatione Turca, et similes 15 libros sub eodem N.o 30. reperiens. Liber Turcicus de dictis, factisque Mahumetis aliorumque Profetarum factas historias continens. Liber Arabicus Leges Mahumetanas explicans. Commentarius Arabicus in poema. Grammatica Arabica fusa, et aliud exemplar huiusmodi uideri est sub praedicto N.o 34. Liber Arabicus explicans dicta Mahumetis trecenta. Liber Turcicus Doctrinalis eleganter scriptus. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus, et praeceptis Legalibus Mahumetanorum. Liber Turcicus de Medicina, et medicamentis uersu conscriptus initio mutilus. Poemata Arabica de uarijs Rebus, peculiariter ad fidem pertine[n]tibus. Poema de Laudibus, et uita Mahometis. Commentarij Arabici in Alcoranum continens septemdecim107 capita eius. Commentarius Grammatico Rhetoricus. Liber continens primo poema Arabicum, deinde collectiones Epistolarum Turcicarum. Collectanea Turcica forma oblonga. Registum, seu inuentarium uariorum Mobilium, et maxime diuersorum librorum forma oblonga.

107 septemdecim in the manuscript: septemdicim.

102

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Libri Orientalis in quarto maiori, subinde minori. N.o 46. N.o 47. N.o 48.

N.o 49. N.o 50. N.o 51. N.o 52. N.o 53. N.o 54. N.o 55. N.o 56. N.o 57. N.o 58. N.o 59. N.o 60. N.o 61. N.o 62. N.o 63. N.o 64. N.o 65. N.o 66. N.o 67. 2v N.o 68.

Commentarius Arabicus in partem Alcorani. Commentarius Arabicus breuior Syntaxeos. Commentarius Arabicus in Syntaxin, eiusmodi septemdecim exemplaria in 4.o, et quatuor in 8.o inuenies sub eodem n.o 48. Historia Regum fabulosa uersu Turcico expressa. Pars Libri Turcici uersu scripta de uita, et Laudibus Mahometis. Commentarius Arabicus in caput Alcorani. Commentarius in Librum Arabicum. Liber Arabicus de Lege Mahometana. Liber Turcicus. Liber Arabicus de Mundatione, ac purificatione Corporis iuxta Legem, et canones Mahumetanorum. Liber Arabicus tractans materias praecipuas sectae Mahumetanae. Dictionarium Iuridicum Arabicum. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Iuridicum de successione haereditaria. Liber Arabicus Iuridicus uariorum Auctorum doctrinam exponens. Commentarius Turcicus in Librum poeticum persicum... 108 Historia de excellentia Meccae. Compendium Lexici Arabici. Libri doctrinales Arabici. Liber Arabicus de modo Legendi facile Alcoranum. Commentarius Arabicus Grammaticalis. De Articulis fidei. Liber Arabicus Grammaticalis fine carens. Uarij Tractatus Arabici de explicatione dictorum Mahometis; De Uita contemplatiua cum explicatione ethimologia.

108 Dotted and left blank in the manuscript.

103

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

N.o 69. N.o 70. N.o 71. N.o 72. N.o 73. N.o 74. N.o 75. N.o 76.

N.o 77.110 N.o 78. N.o 79.111 N.o 80. N.o 81. N.o 82. N.o 83. N.o 84. N.o 85. N.o 86. N.o 87. N.o 88. N.o 89. N.o 90. 3r N.o 91. N.o 92.

De modo docendi, ac discendi Liber Arabicus, et alia duo exemplaria in 4.o descripta sub eodem n.o 69 reperiuntur. Commentarius Arabicus de doctrina Mahometis. Expositio quaedam grammaticalis Arabica. Liber Theologicus Arabicus de fide. Pars Commentarij Arabici in Alcoranum. Libellus Arabicus de Medicina. De diuersis Artibus, et facultatibus. Commentarius Arabicus Iuridicus cum alijs fragmentis, et Tractatibus Turcicis; De Astronomia, De Cultura Horti; 109 et de Aritmethica. Pomarium, Liber persicus uersu scriptus Moralis. Collectanei uersus Turcici, et alij huiusmodi sub eodem n.o 78 inueniendi erunt in 4.o in 8.o uero tres. Liber moralis Turcicus, cui desunt nonulla capita. Primo continens uarias historias ueras, et fabulosas de Prophetis. Liber Turcicus de Religione Mahumetana. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum de Consilijs, Legibusque Mahometis. Liber Arabicus doctrinalis incipiens de Creatione Angelorum, Spirituum, et Adami. Liber doctrinalis Arabicus. De Natiuitate Mahometis uersu Turcico. Liber Astronomicus Arabicus. Commentarius in Exordium Syntaxeos Myspal, et alia similia exemplaria sub eodem n.o 86 inuenienda. Liber Arabicus de Canonica Lectione Alcorani. Liber Arabicus doctrinalis, peculiariter de Iure, et Legalibus. Commentarius in omnes partes Grammatices. Lexicum celebre Arabico Turcicum. Liber Moralis persicus. Liber Iuridicus.

109 Before De Cultura Horti on the margin: N.o 77. crossed out. 110 N.o 77. corrected, originally: N.o 78. 111 N.o 79. mistakenly written at the head of the second line of the previous item.

104

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

N.o 93. N.o 94. N.o 95. N.o 96. N.o 97. N.o 98. N.o 99. N.o 100. N.o 101. N.o 102.

N.o 103. N.o 104. N.o 105. N.o 106. N.o 107. N.o 108. N.o 109. N.o 110. N.o 111.

N.o 112. N.o 113.

N.o 114. N.o 115. N.o 116.

Historia fabulosa Turcica. Dictionarium Arabico Turcicum, exordio, et fine carens. Collectanea de explicatione Alcorani in Librum Iuridicum. Liber Arabicus de Studijs, et excellentia scientiarum. Commentarius Arabicus in Dialecticam; Item de Articulis fidei; De poesi, de Grammatica persica. Liber Arabicus doctrinalis. Commentarius in partem Alcorani. Liber Doctrinalis Arabicus. Commentarius Arabicus in certum Auctorem pariter Arabicum. Libellus Arabicus continens aliquot exiguos tractatus uersu, et de112 forma prosa, et significatione Mistica Literarum Alcorani. Commentarius Arabicus in Legem Mahumetanam. Liber doctrinalis uersu Turcico compositus. Liber Arabicus de successione ab intestato. Liber Turcicus uarias historias narrationes continens. Uita Mahometis. Liber Medicinalis Turcicus. Tractatus de fundamentis, et Articulis fidei. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Iuridicum uersu conscriptus. Liber praecum Turcicus, et huiusmodi sex alia exemplaria reperienda erunt dicto n.o 111. Unum in 4.o alia uero in 8.o descripta. De Natiuitate Mahometis. Liber Arabicus continens plures tractatus de Metaphoris, aliisque figuris; Tropisque Rethoricis; Disputationes de sensu genuino, et mystico dictorum Mahometis, glosam super haec; Codex curiosus. Duo tractatus de Medicina. Commentarius Turcicus in Librum Persicum. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum de Requisitis ad faciendas

112 de inserted.

105

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

3v N.o 117. N.o 118. N.o 119. N.o 120. N.o 121. N.o 122. N.o 123. N.o 124. N.o 125. N.o 126. N.o 127. N.o 128. N.o 129. N.o 130. N.o 131. N.o 132. N.o 133. N.o 134. N.o 135. N.o 136. N.o 137. N.o 138. N.o 139.

sacras praeces Lege praeceptas. Liber Arabicus de successione haeredum ab intestato; Deest una pagina. Liber Arabicus de Lotione, mundatione113 Corporis, alijsque Legalibus. Commentarius Persicus in Librum Penedetar dictum. Commentarius Arabicus in grammaticam de regimine partium Orationis. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum de Regulis disputandi. Liber Turcicus de peccatis, et peccatorum poenis. Doctrina Mahometana uersu Turcico. Poema Arabicum de Requisitis ad orationem, et cultum diuinum. Liber Arabicus continens Cathalogum Auctoris celebrium 114 sectae Mahumetanae; et alia sat curiosa. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus. Liber Arabicus de recta Lectione Alcorani una cum Compendio eiusdem Turcico. Collectanea sat curiosa oblonga. Liber Arabicus de Lotione, praecibus, et alijs Legalibus. Dictionarium Arabico-Turcicum. Liber Arabicus complectens in se aliquot tractatus in partem Alcorani. Liber Theologicus Arabicus Iuridico-Grammaticalis. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum de Consilijs, et Legibus Mahometis. Libellus Arabicus doctrinalis, peculiariter de Legibus Mahometis. Libellus de legalibus temporibus sacrarum praecum. Collectanea. Liber Arabicus Iuridicus de Officijs diuinis. Historia Turcica de caede Husein filij Alli. Iurista Arabicus.

113 mundatione in the manuscript: mundationes. 114 celebrium in the manuscript: caelebrium.

106

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

N.o 140. N.o 141. N.o 142. 4r N.o 143. N.o [144] 145. N.o [145] 146. N.o [146] 147.

N.o [147] 148. N.o [148] 149. N.o [149] 150. N.o [150] 151. N.o [151] 152. N.o [152] 153. N.o [153] 154. N.o [154] 155. N.o [155] 156. N.o [156] 157. N.o [157] 158. N.o [158] 159. N.o [159] 160. N.o [160] 161. N.o [161] 162. N.o [162] 163.

Liber doctrinalis Arabicus, cui adiun[c]ti sunt alij tractatus poema Turcico, et Persico. Liber Turcicus de interpretatione somniorum. Item tractatus de motu Arteriarum. De modo docendi; et discendi Liber Arabicus cum Commentarijs. Commentarius Arabicus in uarios Libros doctrinales. Liber Arabicus Theologico Iuridicus. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum quendam Theologicum. Sortilegium Persicum ex Alcorano uersu, Item tractatus breuis de pelligrinatione Meccana, ac de lectura Canonica Alcorani. Commentarius aegregius in syntaxin. Commentarius Arabicus compendium Rethoricae. Codex completens uarios tractatus ad sectam, aut Religionem Mahumetanam, scientiasque pertinentes. Praeliminaria in Commentarium nempe in grammaticam. Liber Arabicus politico-moralis pro Regibus, Ministris, Praefectis. Libelli Arabici doctrinales de genuina prolatione Litterarum Arabicarum. Item Commentarius. Liber Arabicus initio mutilus de Ritibus, et praeceptis orationis publicae Lege imperatae. Liber Arabicus de Lege, et fide Mahometana. Collectanea. Item Liber de Canonica Lectura Alcorani. Commentarius Arabicus in oracula, seu dicta Mahometis. Institutiones Iuris Arabici. Liber Arabicus de doctrina Sectae Mahumetanae. Item Turcicus Tractatus de modo Resoluendi questiones. Libellus Arabicus, Ethimologice dictus. Liber Arabicus de Canonica Lectione Alcorani. Liber Arabicus collectus ex uarijs Auctoribus TheologicoIuridico-Moralis. Commentarius Turcicus in poema persicum

107

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

N.o [163] 164. N.o [164] 165. N.o [165] 166. N.o [166] 167. 4v N.o [167] 168. N.o [168] 169. N.o [169] 170. N.o [170] 171. N.o [171] 172. N.o [172] 173. N.o [173] 174. N.o [174] 175. N.o [175] 176. N.o [176] 177. N.o [177] 178. N.o [178] 179. N.o [179] 180. N.o [180] 181. N.o [181] 182. N.o [182] 183. N.o [183] 184. N.o [184] 185. N.o [185] 186.

Responsa seu Resolutiones casuum iuxta Legem Liber Arabicus. Libellus collectaneorum uersu Turcico. Libellus Arabicus explicans Articulos fidei Mahumetanae. Dictionarium Arabice explicandum aliqua parte mutilum. Rosarium politicum persicum. Liber Turcicus de Recta fide, et ad eamdem Requisitis. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum dictum de canonica Lectura Alcorani. Collectanea Turcica. Commentarius in Grammaticam Libellus initio carens. Liber Arabicus Theologicus de Rebus ad perfectam fidem pertinentibus. Rosarium politicum persicum cum uersione Turcica interlineari. Liber Arabicus Theologico-Philosoficus. Liber Turcicus initio, et medio mutilus resoluens uarias questiones de doctrina Mahometana, et alia uaria continens. Libellus Arabicus doctrinalis. Liber Arabicus explicans, et commentans Multa Theologica capita. Commentarius in partem Alcorani. Liber Turcicus de Remedijs, et Medicamentis uarijs auctore. Liber Arabicus de Syntaxi-Poeti-Dialectica115, et Rethorica etc. Commentarius Arabicus Iuridicus; Initio desunt paginae 38. Gemma Iuris, aut Legum, Liber Iuridico-Theologico Arabicus. Poema Turcicum de uita, et Laudibus Mahometis utraque parte mutilum. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus praecum Lege praeceptarum, alijsque. De Propheta Adamo, et Angelis Liber Turcicus. Item Uersus Turcici.

115 Dialectica in the manuscript: Dialetica.

108

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

N.o [186] 187.

N.o [187] 188. N.o [188] 189.

Libellus continens Tractatum Arabicum de Grammatica, et alterum Turcicum de Mensibus, et Annis, diebusque illorum faustis, et infaustis. Liber Doctrinalis Arabicus, seu Compendium. Libellus continens tractatus Arabicos de Oratione, Lege, praece-

5r N.o [189] 190. N.o [190] 191. N.o [191] 192. N.o [192] 193. N.o [193] 194.

N.o [194] 196.

N.o [195] 197. N.o [196] 198. N.o [197] 199. N.o [198] 200. N.o [199] 201. N.o [200] 202. N.o [201] 203. N.o [202] 204. N.o [203] 205. N.o [204] 206.

pta, tum dictionarium Turcicum, Persicum Rhitmicum. 116 Liber Turcicus continens uarias questiones de Religione. Libellus Turcicus declarans somnia. Libellus Arabicus de comparandis scientijsque praesertim diuinis. Liber Arabicus; Theologori dictus. Codex continens primo explicationem Turcicam Ethimologicam, Textus Arabici Libri; 2.do explicationem arabicam Grammaticae, aut Ethimologiae a certo Auctore dicto. Commentarius Turcicus in persicum Rosarium politicum; et alia exemplaria quatuor scilicet in 4.o, et duo in 8.o reperire est sub eodem n.o 196. Clauis Paradisi Liber Turcicus. Tractatus Arabicus de dictis Mahometis. Tractatus de arte diuinatoria, astrologica. De Natiuitate Mahometis. Rudimenta, seu cognugatio[!] Arabica. Dictionarium Persicum pro Poetis contemplatiuis. Item poema Turcicum, et alia collectanea. Historia fabulosa persica. Dictionarium uersu scriptum persico-Turcicum. Liber Arabicus tractans praecipuas materias Sectae Mahumetanorum. Liber Turcicus de fide rebusque ad eam pertinentibus, cum Historia Canitsae Calendarium.

116 Before Rhitmicum: Rith crossed out.

109

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

N.o [205] 207. N.o [206] 208. N.o [207] 209. N.o [208] 210. N.o [209] 211. N.o [210] 212.

Monita Poetae persici; Item Tractatus Arabicus de modo docendi ea. Presagia, aut signa extremi Iudicij Arabico-Turcica. Liber Moralis Arabicus. Liber Arabicus Philosophicus de optima proprietate hominis, una cum alijs tractatibus doctrinalibus. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Iuridicum. Item Turcicus in Librum persicum. Commentarius Arabicus de 4.o dictis Prophetae cum alijs collectaneis.

5v N.o [211] 213. Tractatus Turcicus de unitate Dei, praeceptis, et fundamentis fidei; Item alij tractatus Phithimici[!]; et Medicinis, et Medicamentis, N.o [212] 214. Liber Arabicus de Oratione. N.o [213] 215. Liber Turcicus doctrinalis, et praecum. N.o [214] 216. Tractatus de Litteris componendis cum subsequentibus exemplis poemate expressis. N.o [215] 217. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus, et Legalibus Mahumetanorum. N.o [216] 218. Dictionarium Africanum iuxta ordinem arabicum. N.o [217] 219. Liber Iuridicus arabicus peculiariter de diuisione haereditatis. N.o [218] 220. Interpraetatio Turcica Theologico-Moralis. N.o [219] 221. Liber Arabicus complectens Resolutiones Casuum, aut Patriarcarum religionis Mahumetanae. N.o [220] 222. Liber Arabicus de modo docendi, et discendi. N.o [221] 223. Liber e persico in Turcicum Idioma translatus de cognitione Dei, Mundi, huius, et alterius, ac de amore Dei. No. [222] 224. Liber doctrinalis Arabicus uarios tractatus continens circa Doctrinam, et Legalia Sectae Mahumetanae. No. [223] 225. Instituta Legis Mahumetanae. No. [224] 226. Commentarius arabicus in doctrinam Theologicam. No. [225] 227. Commentarius arabicus in quendam tractatum117 Logicum. No. [226] 228. Tractatus Turcicus de Successione, aut haereditate. Item de difficultatibus praecaeptorum Legis. 117 tractatum in the manuscript: tractatus.

110

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

No. [227] 229. No. [228] 230. No. [229] 231. No. [230] 232. No. [231] 233. No. [232] 234. No. [233] 235. No. [234] 236. 6r

No. [235] 237. No. [236] 238. No. [237] 239. No. [238] 240.

No. [239] 241. No. [240] 242. No. [241] 243. No. [242] 245. No. [243] 246. No. [244] 247. No. [245] 248. No. [246] 249. No. [247] 250. No. [248] 251. 118 119 120 121

Liber ex Arabico in Turcicum Idioma translatus ad historias, et Religionem118 spectantes continens. Uaria poemata Turcica. Liber Turcicus uersu conscriptus de amore Dei. Liber Turcicus de doctrina Sectae Mahumetanae. Miscelanea. Liber Arabicus de Ritibus Mahumetanorum. Liber Arabicus de Legibus Mahumetanorum. Liber Arabicus de pelligrinatione Meccana, et praecibus ibi fundendis, cum Calendario perpetuo, et Turcicis119 poematis, Item explicatio somniorum; Tractatus Turcicus de direttione ad salutem. Poemata Arabica super capita nonulla Alcorani. Tomus primus de traditionibus Mahometis. De uarijs poesis120 generibus cum alijs fragmentis. Liber Arabicus Philosophico-Theologicus continens plures tractatus de scientia eiusque partibus; De Legibus et Ritibus perseruandis. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Logicum. Liber Arabicus tractatus uaria ad Rethoricam spectantia. Explicatio Turcica Libelli persici Pendetar dicti uaria monita et consilia moralia sententiasque continentis. Commentarius Arabicus in dialecticam. Liber Arabicus de dictis Mahometis. Explicatio Arabica, Tractatus eiusdem de praeceptis disputationis. Liber Arabicus uarios Tractatus de Lectione Alcorani completens. Liber Arabicus de Iure Canonico. Isagoges in dialecticam.121 Liber Persicus de Arte poetica.

Religionem corrected, originally: Religiones. Turcicis in the manuscript: Turcicus. poesis in the manuscript: poesos. dialecticam in the manuscript: dialethicam.

111

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

No. [249] 252. No. [250] 252. No. [251] 253. No. [252] 254. No. [253] 255. No. [254] 256. No. [255] 257. No. [256] 258. No. [257] 259. 6v No. [258] 260. No. [259] 261. No. [260] 263. No. [261] 264. No. [262] 265. No. [263] 266.

No. [264] 267. No. [265] 268. No. [266] 269. No. [267] 270. No. [268] 271. No. [269] 272. No. [270] 273. No. [271] 274.

No. [272] 275.

Liber Arabicus seu Commentarius in Physicam initio mutilus. Explicatio Grammaticae. Liber Arabicus de Lege Mahumetana. Item tractatus Turcicus de Lectione Alcorani. Liber Arabicus initio carens uarijs schaedulis refertur. Liber Arabicus de Geomantia, et Kabula. Iuridica arabica desunt 39 folia. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum de Successione haeredum. Marginalia in Logicam. Commentarius Arabicus in Librum Philosophicum. Commentarius Arabicus de Iure, et Legibus. Liber Arabicus Iuridicus de Officijs diuinis. Pomarium Liber moralis persicus. Dialectica Arabica, et Turcica. Legista Arabicus. Libellus Arabicus eleganter scriptus de Legibus, et Ritibus Mahumetanorum, et praesertim de Requisitis ad orationem Lege praeceptam rite persoluendam. I[s]agoges, seu dialectica arabica. Commentarius Turcicus in quendam Poetam persicum, fine mutilus.122 De quadam praeseruatiua oratione. Item explicationes somniorum. Porrò Uocabularium persico Turcicum. Liber Arabicus doctrinam Saectae Mahumetanae continens. Libellus Turcicus de Medicina, et Medicamentis. Liber Turcicus de Die Iudicij. Commentarius in prima Rudimenta grammaticae. Libellus persicus moralis, cui adiun[c]tum est Uocabularium difficillimorum uocum Libelli Aidi123 dicti cum explicatione Turcica. Historia fabulosa de Rege, et paupere uersu persico scripta.

122 mutilus in the manuscript: munilus. 123 Aidi underlined.

112

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

No. [273] 276. No. [274] 277. No. [275] 278. No. [276] 279. No. [277] 280. No. [278] 281. No. [279] 282. No. [280] 283.

Codex arabicus uarios completens tractatus doctrinales. Liber Arabicus de Iure cum adiunctis tractatibus uarijs Legis, ritibus scriptisque spectantibus. Liber doctrinalis Arabicus. De Arte poetica. Commentarius Arabicus in Dialecticam. Liber Turcicus Moralis elegans. Liber Turcicus de Raptu Mahometis in Coelum, miraculis eius, et de instituta[!] Religionum. Duo libelli uno ab initio mutilus est, qui poema Turcicum de Uita hominis; alter in duodecimo continens aliquas orationes praeseruatiuas arabicas, cum explicatione Turcica

7r No. [281] 284. No. [282] 285. No. [283] 286. No. [284] 287. No. [285] 288. No. [286] 289. No. [287] 290. No. [288] 291.

No. [289] 292. No. [290] 293. No. [291] 294. No. [292] 295. No. [293] 296. No. [294] 297. No. [295] 298. No. [296] 299.

ad quid ualeant Poemata Turcica elegantia, et acuminosa. Commentarius in Librum persicum. Poetica arabica cum alijs tractatibus. Libellus Turcicus initio mutilus eleganti stylo instar historiae fabulosae. Commentarius in articulos fidei. Duo Tractatus Iuridici. Commentarius in Librum moralem persicum. Liber obtritus continens uarios Tractatus; primo Turcicum de Iure, Tum arabicos de ritibus, et Legalibus Mahumetanorum. De scientia acquirenda. Et in fine Grammatica arabica. Poemata amorosa Turcica. Liber persicus. Poemata Turcica. Uocabularium persico-Turcicum. Iurista arabicus. Liber Iuridicus. Poema Turcicum historicum morale, alias fabulosum. Libellus initio, et fine mutilus.

113

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

No. [297] 300.

No. [298] 301. No. [299] 302. No. [300] 303. No. [301] 304. No. [302] 305. No. [303] 306. No. [304] 307. 7v No. [305] 308. No. [306] 309. No. [307] 310. No. [308] 311. No. [309] 312. No. [310] 313.

No. [311] 314.

No. [312] 315. No. [313] 316. No. [314] 317. No. [315] 318. No. [316] 319. No. [317] 320. No. [318] 321.

Commentarius in Librum de praecibus, Legalibus. Item Tractatus de Iure; de dictis Mahometis, et de Canonica Lectione Alcorani. Item aliqui Tractatus Turcici; et Persici; Poema de Medicina. Explicatio septenariorum arabica. Commentarius arabicus in Librum Iuridicum, De successione Legitimis ab intestato. Tractatus arabicus de oratione rite peragenda. Liber Arabicus de Logica, et de Grammatica, fine mutilus. Liber Theologicus de attributis diuinis. Liber arabicus de cultu diuino. Poemata persica acuminosa. Libellus arabicus de Lotione, et Reliquis requisitis ad orationem Legalem. Commentarius in dialecticam arabicam. Liber Turcicus e persico translatus de explicatione somniorum. Liber moralis charatere,124 et idiomate persico. Liber arabicus doctrinalis initio mutilus cum explicatione somniorum in Turcicum idiomata translatus. Liber praecationum arabicarum praeseruatiuarum ex Alcorano, et aliunde desumptarum cum Calendario perpetuo Kabalicis notis, ac poemate Turcico conscripto. Fragmenta Alcorani, Uariaeque Orationes praeseruatiuae ex Alcorano, et aliunde descriptae cum explicatione Turcica; efficaciae earum. Item notae Cabalisticae uariae. Libellus Turcicus moralia, et caetera continens initio mutilus. Liber Arabicus Iuridicus eleganter scriptus. Liber Turcicus de pelligrinatione sacra. Uersus collectanei Liber oblongus. Dialectica Arabica. Liber persicus de Mensibus Uersu. Liber Turcicorum Uersuum oblongus.

124 Before charatere: carathere crossed out.

114

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

No. [319] 322. No. [320] 323. No. [321] 324. No. [322] 325. No. [323] 326. No. [324] 327. No. [325] 328. No. [326] 329. 8r No. [327] 330. No. [328] 331. No. [329] 332. No. [330] 333. No. [331] 334. No. [332] 335. No. [333] 336. No. [334] 337. No. [335] 338.

No. [336] 339.

125 126 127 128 129

Liber Turcicus de praerogatiuis Mensium ex uarijs authoribus collectus. Liber Arabicus conditiones praecium tractans. Figurae oblongae Libellus continens cantilenas Turci[c]as; Item Calendarium perpetuum cum Amoletis. Dictionarium Arabico-Turcicum phrasium Monacorum Turcicorum, seu religiosorum. Collectanei uersus. Uaria Poemata Turcica hinc inde collecta. Liber Turcicus in quo recensentur uariae Interogationes a quodam Patriarcha propositae. Item Uersus Turcici. Liber Moralis persicus. Dictionarium Turcicum persicum rhithmice125 scriptum. Dictionarium Turcicum Arabicum. Dictionarium persico-Turcicum Uersu. Dictionarium ut supra. Liber Arabicus Philosophicus. Grammatica Arabica pecularis eleganter scripta. Syntaxis Saphiae. Et alia tria huiusmodi exemplaria in 4.o unum, duo uero in 8.o sub eodem n.o 336. inuenienda. Syntaxes uariorum Authorum, et duo aliae sub eodem n.o 337. reperientur. Uarij Commentarij in syntaxe, ac Grammaticas uariorum Authorum 43. scilicet in 4.o et 5que in 8.uo praedicto n.o 338. signate inuenire erunt. Liber Arabicus mys[t]eriorum continens minimorum[?] uarias praedictiones, aut modum eas eliciendi, siue 126 Arte Geomantica, siue127 Kabala, alijs modis cum nonullis figuris Kabalicis. Authore Nured-dino, siue128 ...129

rhithmice in the manuscript: rhithurice, corrected, originally rhithuricae. siue in the manuscript: sire siue in the manuscript: sire siue in the manuscript: sire Dotted and left blank in the manuscript.

115

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 8v 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

Grammatica Arabice explicata. Grammaticae Arabicae rudimenta. Grammatica Arabice explicata. Arabicae Grammaticae tractatus. Arabicae Grammaticae tractatus. Arabica Syntaxis. Elegantior Arabicae Grammaticae tractatus 2. Arabicae Grammaticae pars. Grammatica Arabice explicata. Arabicae Grammaticae commentum. Grammatica Arabica. Turcicae linguae Eloquentia, Persica, et Arabica ornatae. Dictionarium Persico-Turcicum. Arabicum Dictionarium Turcice explicatum. Arabicum Dictionarium Turcice explicatum. Arabicae Linguae Tractatus. Persicum Dictionarium Turcice explicatum. Persicum Dictionarium Turcico Carmine explicatum. Logicae praemissa Arabice expressa. Logicarum Dissertationum Regulae. Iuridica, et historia Arabica. Iuridica Arabice explicata. Moralia Consilia, et sententiae persico carmine composita. Sententiarium aliarumque Compositionum Turcico ferme carmine explicatarum collectio. Moralium exemplorum Arabice expressorum floridus 130 fasciculus. Politicum Rosetum, seu Rosarium. Sententiarum, et Decretorum Index. Turcice expraessarum admonitionum collectio, quando quis magisterium induit. Medicinalium Secretorum Arabicus Tractatus. Tractatus Medices Turcico Idiomate.131 Tractatus Medices Turco-Arabice compositus.

130 floridus in the manuscript: sfloridus. 131 Before Idiomate: Arabice compositus crossed out.

116

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 9r 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Octauus ex triginta duobus Mahometanae Legis, seu Alcorani Libellis. Origo, et Uita Mahometis uersibus descripta. Alia pars Originis, et Uitae Mahometis. Mahometana Lex, seu Alcoran Arabice. Alcoran. Historicum de rebus gestis Mahometis Carmen Turcicum. Dictorum Mahometis Arabica collectio. Dictorum Mahometis declaratio. Mahometanae Legis doctrina. Mahometis Uita Turcico Carmine. Mahometana Lex, seu Alcoran. De religione, et Ritibus Mahometanis Tractatus. De Mahometis Natiuitate Poema. Uigesimus secundus de Mahometana Lege Libellus. Mahumetanae Legis Arabicum Commentum. Mahometanae Legis Commentorum pars. Mahometis Uita Carmine descripta. Mahometana Lex, seu Alcoran. Mahometana Lex, seu Alcoran. De Mahometanae Legis ritibus, nempe de correctione, et purificatione. Partis Mahometanae Legis commentum. Mahometanae Fidei tractatus Arabice. Modus habendi de Sanctis sermonem. Orationis circumstantiae necessariae. Pro deuotione Liber, cuius Tractatus est circa Prophetas, et quem ordinarie Legunt Turcae.[!] De contemplatiua, et perfecta Uita Arabicus discursus. Diuina unitas Persico Carmine. Abrahami et Isimaelis Uita. Sultani Baiazetis sententiae. Prophetarum sententiae arabicae. Felicitatis Alchimia. De concionibus discursus. Orationum e Mahometana Lege, seu Alcorano excerptarum Liber. Documenta ab Insigni Persico Concionatore uersibus data.

117

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

Bectasij, qui Ianizzerorum fuit Institutor, uita, ac uirtutes Turcice descriptae. Uersibus expraessae cum apodosi Turcica fabulae. Cantilenarum, aliorumque collectaneorum Liber. Cuiuscunque facinoris Arabice descripta directio. Contra fascinationes secretum. Gratiosae historiolae Turcice descriptae. Orationum auertentium Libellus ad euitandam captiuitatem aliaque mala. Poemata Persica celeberrimi Poetae Hafiz dicti.

74. 9v Ulterius Uolumina n.o 84 Graeca, et Hebraica, quorum tituli non apponuntur cum non sint transcripti in Catalogo Uiennensi 132 ex suppositione quod Bononiae haec idiomata uerti possint. Feria133 4.a die 3 Augusti 1689. In Generali Congregatione Sanctae Romanae et Uniuersalis Inquisitionis habita in Conuentu Sanctae Mariae supra Mineruam coram Excellentissimis et Reuerendissimis Dominis Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus in tota Republica Christiana contra haereticam prauitatem Generalibus Inquisitoribus a Sancta Sede Apostolica specialiter Deputatis Lecto supposto memorali D. Comitis Aloysij Ferdinandi, et D. Antonij Felicis de Marsilijs, Clarissimi et Reuerendissimi Domini Cardinales Generales Inquisitores praefati concesserunt Licentiam dominis oratoribus eorumque Posteris retinendi tantum praefatos Libros, in Loco particulari clausos, eorumque Indicem Imprimendi, cum prohibitione eos non communicandi alijs Personis, nisi ostenderint expressam licentiam Sanctae Ecclesiae Congregationis. Alexander134 Speronus Sanctae Romanae et Uniuersalis Inquisitionis Notarius.

132 Uiennensi in the manuscript: Uiennensis. 133 Feria… Congregationis 2nd hand. 134 Alexander… Notarius 3rd hand.

118

THE LIBRARY OF THE MÜFTI OF BUDA

Die135 12 Augusti 1689. Praedicta licentia presentata uisa et registrata fuit in Sancto Offitio in libro, ubi solent registrari … ti licentiae fol. 62.Joseph Antonius Rampionesius Cancellarius subscriptus Sanctis Offitiis Bononiensibus.136 [sigil]

135 Die… Bononiensibus 4th hand. 136 I hereby express my gratitude to Klára Pajorin for her help in deciphering the Latin text.

119

BASIC FORMS OF OTTOMAN IDENTITY

120

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

TIBOR MARTÍ

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY: THE MILITARY CAREER OF A YOUNG WEST TRANSDANUBIAN ARISTOCRAT Palatine Miklós Esterházy (1625–1645) was one of the most eminent statesmen of the Hungarian Kingdom who determined the network of political relations between the political elite of the kingdom and the House of Habsburg in the first half of the seventeenth century. He had an important role in concluding several peace agreements with the Ottoman Empire, and thus an impact on the development of Habsburg–Ottoman relations at that time. 1 His second wife, Krisztina Nyáry (1604–1641) was the widow of Imre Thurzó, the wealthiest Protestant aristocrat of the age and potential heir to the palatine’s title. The eldest son from this marriage was László (1626–1652), whom paternal legacy predestined for a pre-eminent political role had he not died a 1

My investigations in Vienna were made possible by support from the Pro Renovanda Cultura Hungariae Foundation’s special section “Students for Science”, by the AustrianHungarian Foundation, the Stipendienstiftung der Republik Österreich and the “Lendület” Holy Crown Research Group at the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, for which I herewith express my gratitude. Géza Pálffy, ‘Pozsonyból a Magyar Királyság élére. Karrierlehetőségek a magyar arisztokráciában a 16–17. század fordulóján (Az Esterházy, a Pálffy és az Illésházy család felemelkedése) [From Pozsony to the leadership of the Hungarian Kingdom. Career possibilities in the Hungarian aristocracy at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries (The rise of the Esterházy, Pálffy and Illésházy families)]’, Századok 143 (2009) 853–882. Idem, ‘Aufstieg der Familie Esterházy in die ungarische Aristokratie’, in Rudolf Kropf – Wolfgang Gürtler (eds.), Die Familie Esterházy im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. (Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten aus dem Burgenland, 128.) Eisenstadt, 2009, 13–46. István Hiller, Palatin Nikolaus Esterhazy. Die ungarische Rolle 1625–1645. Wien–Köln–Weimar, 1991. István Bitskey, ‘Esterházy Miklós, a hitvitázó nádor [Miklós Esterházy, the palatine and religious polemist]’, in Gábor Kecskeméti (ed.), Tarnai Andor emlékkönyv [Studies in honour of Andor Tarnai]. Budapest, 1996, 31–42. András Szilágyi, ‘Egy rendhagyó sikertörténet a XVII. században – Esterházy Miklós életpályája [An unusual success story in the 17th century – the career of Miklós Esterházy]’, in Áron Tóth et al. (eds.), “És az oszlopok tetején liliomok formáltattak vala” – Tanulmányok Bibó István 70. születésnapjára [“Now the capitals that were on the tops of the pillars in the vestibule were of lily-work” – Essays in honour of István Bibó]. Budapest, 2011, 79–88. Idem, ‘A kincstár történetének rövid áttekintése’ [A brief review of the history of the treasury], in András, Szilágyi (ed.), Műtárgyak a fraknói Esterházy-kincstárból az Iparművészeti Múzeum gyűjteményében [Art works from the Esterházy treasury in the collection of the Museum of Applied Arts]. (Thesaurus Domus Esterhazyanae, I.) Budapest, 2014, 9–36.

123

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

hero’s death – together with another three Esterházys (Tamás, Gáspár, and Ferenc) – in the battle of Vezekény (today Veľké Vozokany, Slovakia) in 1652 at the young age of 26.2 A study of the young count’s career cannot be taken out of the social context which prized martial virtue high, making military forays an inherent part of his everyday life and, without exaggeration, the most important activity of his life. The idea of fighting against the Porte was paired with daily clashes and by implication the thought – and acceptance – of glorious death.3 Sacrificing one’s life for the country, the idea of heroic selfsacrifice was inherent in the self-identity of the Hungarian nobility passed down from father to son. Several examples of the course taken by aristocratic lives in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries could be cited, but in order to illustrate this type the present paper revisits the brief military career of Count László, a member of the Esterházy family.

Participant in Raids Count László Esterházy first studied (with Jesuits) in the capital of the Habsburg Empire, Vienna, and then in Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia).4 When his father died in the autumn of 1645, he returned to the family 2

3

4

Tibor Martí, Gróf Esterházy László (1626–1652). Fejezetek egy arisztokrata család történetéhez [Count László Esterházy (1626–1652). Chapters in the history of an aristocratic family]. PhD thesis, PPKE BTK, Budapest, 2013. László Szilasi, ‘Argumenta mortis (Érvek és ellenérvek a hősi halálra: becsület és méltóság a régi magyar elbeszélő költészetben és emlékiratokban) [Argumenta mortis (Arguments for and against heroic death: honour and dignity in old Hungarian narrative poetry and memoirs)]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 101 (1997) 217–234. István Bitskey, ‘A vitézség eszményének változatai a XVI–XVII. század fordulójának magyar irodalmában [Variations of the ideal of military virtue in the Hungarian literature of the turn of the 16th–17th centuries]’, in Tivadar Petercsák (ed.), Hagyomány és korszerűség a XVI–XVII. században [Tradition and modernity in the 16th–17th centuries]. (Studia Agriensia, 17.) Eger, 1997, 203–215. Péter Szabó, ‘Nádasdy Ferenc és Pálffy Miklós vitézi kultusza [The cult of valiance of Ferenc Nádasdy and Miklós Pálffy]’, in János Fatuska – Éva Mária Fülöp – Gyüszi László (eds.), Tata a tizenötéves háborúban [Tata in the Fifteen Years’ War]. (Annales Tataienses, 1.) Tata, 1998, 139–147. Sándor Bene, Theatrum politicum. Nyilvánosság, közvélemény és irodalom a kora újkorban [Theatrum politicum. Publicity, public opinion and literature in the early modern age]. (Csokonai Könyvtár, 19.) Debrecen, 1999, 337. In the matricula of Nagyszombat University for the academic year 1644–45 László Esterházy is registered as a student of the logics course: Attila Zsoldos (ed.), Matricula Universitatis Tyrnaviensis, 1635–1701. Budapest, 1990, 48.

124

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

estates (among which Fraknó [today Forchtenstein, Austria], Kismarton [today Eisenstadt, Austria], Sempte [today Šintava, Slovakia], etc. were the most important), and with the guidance of elder and more experienced family members such as Dániel and Farkas Esterházy, he acted strictly in line with his father’s last will. Accordingly, he fought to preserve the family heritage. 5 Not only his fine manly stature, but martial virtues and bravery in raids made him well-known in broad circles. Only 19 when his father died, László became the főispán (supremus comes) of Sopron County in 1645, 6 and from late 1648 he was also captain-general of Pápa. 7 When the bishop of Pécs, Pál Hoffmann gave the funeral sermon at the burial of the young count, 8 the oration conjured up Count László’s person and external features in detail 9 and made special 5

6

7

8

9

Judit Fejes, ‘The Marriage Policy of the Esterházy Family after the Death of Palatine Miklós’, in Katalin Péter (ed.), Beloved Children: History of Aristocratic Childhood in Hungary in the Early Modern Age. Budapest–New York, 2001, 216–224. Most recently Noémi Viskolcz, ‘Esterházy Anna Júlia (1630–1669) [Anna Júlia Esterházy]’, Századok 149:4 (2015) 873–903. He was the főispán of Sopron County from 25 September 1645; cf. Zoltán Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főméltóságai 1526–1848 [Top dignitaries of Hungary 1526–1848]. Budapest, 1988, 96. On László Esterházy’s tenure as főispán of Sopron County: Péter Dominkovits, ‘Főúri familiárisok. Sopron vármegye alispánjai a 17. században [Familiares of aristocrats. Alispáns of Sopron County in the 17th century.]’, in Nóra G. Etényi – Ildikó Horn (eds.), Idővel paloták… Magyar udvari kultúra a 16–17. században [Then palaces… Hungarian court culture in the 16th–17th centuries]. Budapest, 2005, 511–529. Idem, ‘Graf Ladislaus Esterházy, Obergespan des Komitats Ödenburg/Sopron’, in Kropf – Gürtler (eds.), Die Familie Esterházy, 161–178. Idem, ‘Gróf Esterházy László, Sopron vármegye főispánja [Count L. Esterházy, főispán of Sopron County]’, Századok 143 (2009) 883–903. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), Kriegsarchiv (KA), Hofkriegsrat (HKR), Prot. Bd. 298, fol. 456r: Esterhasi bitt umb conferirung der Oberhaubtmanschafft zu Papa (November 1648). ‘Hoffmann Pál Esterházy László, Ferenc, Tamás és Gáspár fölött [Pál Hoffmann rendering homage to László, Ferenc, Tamás and Gáspár Esterházy], Vienna, 1653’, in Gábor Kecskeméti – Hajnalka Nováky (eds.), Magyar nyelvű halotti beszédek a XVII. századból [Funeral sermons in Hungarian from the 17th century]. Budapest, 1988, 127–154. Apart from the speech of the bishop of Pécs, Tamás Pálffy of Erdőd also rendered homage in Latin (RMK III, 1830) during the funeral (ibid., 155–169). On the burial of László Esterházy: Péter Szabó, A végtisztesség. A főúri gyászszertartás mint látvány [The last tribute. The aristocratic funeral as spectacle]. Budapest, 1989. Noémi Viskolcz, ‘Az Esterházyak temetkezéseiről a 17. században [On the funerals of the Esterházy family in the 17th century]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 58 (2009) 245–268. “He … had a fine open face, the miraculously finely wrought, highly balanced limbs and body of a valiant champion, he cut a dignified lordly figure from top to toe, which earned him the epithet beautiful count not only at home but in public as well. On a par with his good looks was his strength; there was no one tall or corpulent in his court whom he could

125

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

mention of his chivalry, also confirmed by other recollections. 10 He was chivalrous, but also famous as a formidable warrior who showed the enemy no mercy when Christian captives had to be freed. Count László inherited a rich tradition of valiance from his forefathers, with several members of the family killed in action against the Ottomans. Hungarian aristocrats who were linked, apart from the proximity of their estates by an intricate web of kinship and family relations, often organized joint raids on the border area between the Hungarian Kingdom and Ottoman Hungary (where many of their estates were located) and on several occasions their parties pushed deep into Ottoman territory. Their aim was “to counter” raids by Ottoman marauders and other atrocities, and to capture Turks or liberate Christian prisoners. Though prohibited by the Vienna Aulic War Council (Wiener Hofkriegsrat) in the “wartime peace years”, these (private) military actions were not reckless adventures, or simple looting. It was an important component of the “ideology” of the war against the Porte to protect the estates, the territory and population of the country, to lay claim to the temporarily occupied areas, to free the Christians in Ottoman captivity, and to “bring the conquerors to heel”, “to keep them at bay”. The aristocrats set out for a raid with their private troops and familiares (Hungarian type of vassals, a nobleman’s military escort); the success and efficiency of an action was usually measured by the number and value of prisoners captured. 11 The way not have knocked down with one elbow (if he had wanted to). No one shot at the target more accurately, or stretched the bow tauter, or hit the ring more precisely, or rode a horse more powerfully than he.” Kecskeméti – Nováky (eds.), Magyar nyelvű halotti beszédek, 141–142, cited by Sándor Iván Kovács in ‘Eszterházy László véletlen halálárul írt Zrínyi uram versei [My lord Zrínyi’s poems on the accidental death of László Eszterházy]’, Somogy 11:1 (1983) 78. 10 Once a prisoner in the court of János Kéry, Mustafa Bey wrote to Ádám Batthyány about his good relations with Count László, stressing that he treated his Turkish captives humanely. 11 There is a wealth of literature on the characteristics and forms of keeping prisoners: beside the works of Sándor Takáts (for instance, Rajzok a török világból [Sketches from the Turkish world]. Vols. I–III, Budapest, 1915–1917) several modern analyses are available: János J. Varga, ‘Rabtartás és rabkereskedelem a 16–17. századi Batthyány-nagybirtokon [Maintenance of and trade in prisoners on the large estates of the Batthyány family]’, in János Kalmár (ed.), Unger Mátyás Emlékkönyv [Essays in honour of Mátyás Unger]. Budapest, 1991, 121–133. János J. Varga, ‘Hadizsákmány és rabkereskedelem, mint az emberi kapcsolatok formái a Dunántúlon a török hódoltság korában [Trading in war spoils and prisoners as forms of human relations in Transdanubia in the Ottoman age]’, Levéltári Szemle 42:3 (1992) 16–20. Pál Fodor, ‘Adatok a magyarországi török rabszedésről [Data on

126

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

raids were conducted was determined by the unwritten rules of custom in the frontier areas. During his years of training, Count László learned the skills of the martial arts from no less a personality than Captain-General Ádám Batthyány I (1610– 1659),12 his future father-in-law. In his early youth he often met (mostly at the Batthyányis) one of the most outstanding personalities and military commanders, Miklós Zrínyi (1620–1664), with whom he fostered a friendship as revealed by the letters written to him by Zrínyi 13 and the lost poem Zrínyi wrote upon László’s death. 14 A number of diverse sources evidence that the three aristocrats often staged joint raids, fighting valiantly with their troops and achieving considerable successes with their actions. For instance, in August 1651 they hurried to the help of the captain of Kiskomárom (today Zalakomár), László Pethő of Gerse who was beset by the Ottomans, putting

taking prisoners by the Ottomans in Hungary]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 109:4 (1996) 133–142. Géza Pálffy, ‘Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman–Hungarian Frontier in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century’, in Géza Dávid – Pál Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman Borders (Early Fifteenth – Early Seventeenth Centuries). (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 37.) Leiden–Boston–Brill, 2007, 35–83. Further literature on the Batthyány estates: Hajnalka Tóth, ‘Török rabok Batthyány I. Ádám uradalmaiban [Ottoman captives on the estates of Ádám Batthyány I]’, Aetas 17:1 (2002) 136–153. Most recently: Ilona Tarkó, Rabkereskedelem és anyagi kultúra a XVI– XVII. században a Batthyány család levéltára alapján [Prisoner trade and material culture in the 16th–17th centuries based on the archives of the Batthyány family]. PhD thesis, PPKE BTK, Piliscsaba, 2012. 12 On the career of Ádám Batthyány I (1610–1659) and the role of members of the Batthyány family in frontier defence: Géza Pálffy, ‘A Batthyány család a törökellenes határvédelemben a XVI–XVII. században [The Batthyány family in border defence against the Ottomans in the 16th–17th centuries]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 122:2 (2009) 321–356. Idem, ‘A Batthyány család és a dunántúli határvédelem a XVI–XVII. században [The Batthyány family and border defence in Transdanubia in the 16th–17th centuries]’, in Zsuzsanna J. Újváry (ed.), Batthyány I. Ádám és köre [Ádám Batthyány I and his circle]. Piliscsaba, 2013, 41–66. 13 See also Kovács, ‘Eszterházy László’, 75–87. 14 Miklós Zrínyi’s letters to László Esterházy in print: Gábor Hausner – Sándor Iván Kovács – Péter Kulcsár (eds.), Zrínyi Miklós Összes Művei [Complete works of Miklós Zrínyi]. Budapest, 2003, letters Nos. 55, 172, 187, 191.

127

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

the numerically superior enemy to flight, 15 and liberating the strategically important fortress.16 Date

Place

Presence of László Esterházy

1 January 1649

“The clash occurred at Véged (today Zalavég) – ‘that was some brawl’ – from where they drove the fleeing Turks to Alibánfa, then Pölöske, and Balás (today Zalaszentbalázs), for some 40 km.”17

“The troops of the Count with his own standard”; Ádám Batthyány’s invoice book reveals that on 1 January 1649 Count László took part with 92 horsemen

End of August 1651

Kiskomár (today Zalakomár), Segesd

With Zrínyi, Pucheim, Batthyány: to assist people of Kiskomár

After 25 January 1652

towards (Székes) Fehérvár

In January 1652 Batthyány and his son-inlaw László Esterházy set out for Fehérvár for a little “trial” with 1,047 horsemen (97 of them belonged to the Count)

The close connection between Ádám Batthyány and László Esterházy is more conspicuous when their personal meetings are taken into account: the main source here is Ádám Batthyány’s itinerary.18 The notes reveal that in 1648 and 15 On the history of the fortress of Kiskomárom in these years: Róbert József Szvitek, Kiskomárom végvár szerepe a dél-dunántúli védelmi rendszerben [The role of the border fortress of Kiskomárom in the defence of South Transdanubia]. PhD thesis, Budapest, 2008, 26–28. 16 László Esterházy arrived under Kiskomárom with his father-in-law Ádám Batthyány: Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Cental Archive of the National Archives of Hungary, Budapest – henceforth MNL OL], P 1315, 4. cs., p. 339. 17 Zsuzsanna J. Újváry, ‘Batthyány I. Ádám, a vitéz katona [The valiant soldier Ádám Batthyány I]’, in Újváry (ed.), Batthyány I. Ádám és köre, 137. 18 Ádám Batthyány’s diary (itinerarium) for the years 1641, 1644–1648, 1650–1652: MNL OL, P 1315, 2. cs, fols. 119–178.

128

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

in 1650–52 they met almost every month, László visiting Count Ádám in Németújvár (today Güssing, Austria) or Rohonc (today Rechniz, Austria) most cases, but they also met elsewhere on different occasions. For example they met on László’s request on 18 July 1646 in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia), where Ádám Batthyány, along with Pál Pálffy, the influential Hungarian politician (president of the Hungarian Treasury, later palatine), tried to promote the László Esterházy’s success in a possessory action for Kismarton against his brother-in-law Ferenc Nádasdy III (1611–1671) 19 through his personal presence. Both attended the diets of 1647 and 1649: in autumn 1646 László Esterházy sent several letters to asking Ádám Batthyány whether King Ferdinand III had set out for the diet from Vienna and when he might arrive, 20 and in some letters he wrote from Pozsony in 1647 he sent news of the candidates for the palatine’s post.21 In addition to the correspondence, other sources also evince the frequency of joint, successful, and memorable raids: Ádám Batthyány’s invoice book reveals that on 1 January 1649 Count László took part in a raid with 92 horsemen; in late August 1651 and on 18 January 1652 he also made inroads with Count Ádám, in the latter case with 97 horsemen. 22 Finally, intriguing information is provided by a list written around 1650, including the number of soldiers Miklós Zrínyi, Ferenc Nádasdy, László Esterházy, and Ádám Batthyány joined the raid with, as well as the necessary provisions: “List of the number of horsemen and infantrymen to be provided for: 23 The Right Honourable Ádám Batthyány’s horsemen No 1,293, foot soldiers No 652 The Right Honourable Zrini’s24 horsemen No 400, foot soldiers No 300 From frontier strongholds horsemen No 234, foot soldiers No 453 19 László Esterházy to Ádám Batthyány, MNL OL, P 1314, Missiles, No 12.090, and 12.091. Cf. Fejes, ‘The Marriage Policy of the Esterházy Family’, 132. 20 László Esterházy to Ádám Batthyány, MNL OL, P 1314, Missiles, No 12.096, 12.097 (both dated Fraknó, 7 and 9 September 1646). 21 László Esterházy to Ádám Batthyány, Pozsony, 18 September 1646, MNL OL, P 1314, Missiles, No 12.099. Count János Draskovich (1603–1648) was elected palatine by the diet on 25 September 1646. 22 Újváry, ‘Batthyány I. Ádám’, 140–141. 23 MNL OL, Archive of the Batthyány family, P 1322, documents pertaining to the landowner family and the employees on the manorial estates, 53. cs., No 1005, s. d. (c. 1650). 24 Miklós Zrínyi was ban of Croatia and Slavonia from 1648.

129

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

The Right Honourable László Esterházy’s horsemen No 200, foot soldiers No 100 The Right Honourable Ferencz Nádasdy’s horsemen No 150, foot soldiers No 100 Also, German cavalry and infantry.” 25 Though the figures are occasional and incidental, alluding presumably to an armed force compiled for a single incursion, the magnitude of the figures well suggest the potential military force that could be combined from each aristocrat’s private armed force; besides, they reveal the roles taken in the leadership of the raid, and their status and position within the national armed forces. The figures suggest that in terms of size this action was similar to the raid at Igal in 1641 26 (one of the largest such Hungarian military undertakings during the period of Ottoman rule in Hungary). Péter Keglevich’s diary entry of 31 August 27 confirms the data for the last days of August 1651, also providing an interesting report on the events of those days: “We were under Segesd, and some German count Puchaim, 28 deputy president of the War Council was our commander; there were Ban Count Miklós Zríni (Zrinsky), Count László Eszterházy, Ádám Battiani, the general of the Kanizsa frontier, and me with the Kanizsa frontier defence troops; a part of the town was devoured by fire because grenades were hurled by our troops at it and had it not been his majesty’s order to Puchaim, we would have captured it. We settled around Szent Grót 29 and encamped there, 25 The original order of the names in the document: 1. Miklós Zrínyi, 2. Ferenc Nádasdy III, 3. László Esterházy, 4. Frontier troops from strongholds opposite Kanizsa, 5. Ádám Batthyány I. 26 László Fenyvesi, ‘Az igali portya és a körmendi kótyavetye balkáni tanulságai [Lessons drawn from the Igal raid and sale of the booty at Körmend for the demographic history of the Balkans]’, in Sándor Bodó – Jolán Szabó (eds.), Magyar és török végvárak, 1663–1684 [Hungarian and Ottoman border fortresses, 1663–1684]. Eger, 1985, 199–218. 27 Péter Buzsini Keglevich (Keglevics): deputy captain-general of the border area opposite Kanizsa between 1641 and 1656. Géza Pálffy, ‘Kerületi és végvidéki főkapitányok és főkapitány-helyettesek Magyarországon a 16–17. században [District and border fortress captain-generals and deputy captain-generals in Hungary in the 16th–17th centuries]’, Történelmi Szemle 39:2 (1997) 280. 28 Hans Christoph Puchheim (Puchaimb): captain-general of the fortress of Komárom (1639– 1651), vice president of the Aulic War Council from 1652, field-marshal. Pálffy, ‘Kerületi és végvidéki főkapitányok’, 284. 29 Szentgrót: frontier fortification against Kanizsa, today Zalaszentgrót.

130

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

some six thousands of us. The bishop of Veszprém at that time, György Szécheny30 was also with us.”31 László Esterházy gave memorable evidence of his personal courage there, which was also recalled by Pál Hoffmann in his previously mentioned sermon for the late count: “He gave awe-inspiring indication of his courageous heart just last year under Segesd, when – with a volley of cannonballs flying around his head – he would have charged at the pagan horde without being frightened the least, had the command of his perspicacious and valiant father-in-law not kept him back.” 32 In the battle of Vezekény on 26 August 1652, there was no one to hold the young count back from the “sortie” and thus he sacrificed his young life in the anti-Ottoman fight by winning “the crown of martyrdom”. The course of life for a seventeenth-century young aristocrat often ended in tragedy: just think of László Rákóczi who also died young in an unsuccessful attempt to besiege the fort of Várad (today Oradea, Romania) in 1664, 33 of Ádám Erdődy, killed during an Ottoman incursion in 1668, 34 or Ádám Zrínyi who died a heroic death later.35 The rise of the members of the Esterházy family to the highest ranks in the early seventeenth century was not only on account of their growing wealth and outstanding political roles, but due to their military ranks and participation in the anti-Ottoman struggles, which claimed several lives among them, ensuring that they deserved a place among the old Hungarian nobility, who had shed their blood in the fight against the Ottomans (“pagans”) for centuries. The 30 György Széchényi (Szécsény, 1605/06–Nagyszombat, 1695). 31 Farkas Deák (ed.), ‘Keglevich Péter naplója 1599–1661 [Diary of Péter Keglevich 1599– 1661]’, Történelmi Tár 13 (1867) 246. 32 Kecskeméti – Nováky (eds.), Magyar nyelvű halotti beszédek, 142. 33 László Rákóczi (1636–1664): the son of György Rákóczi I’s second brother Pál; he died on 27 May 1664, during the unsuccessful attack on Várad. Ildikó Horn, ‘Rákóczi László pályája (1633–1664) [Career of László Rákóczi]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 103 (1990) 61–91. 34 Ádám Erdődy, son of Imre Erdődy and Éva Forgách, captain of Petrinja in Slavonia. See Zuzana Ludoviká – Árpád Mikó – Géza Pálffy, ‘A szepeshelyi Szent Márton-templom, egy felső-magyarországi katolikus központ késő reneszánsz és barokk sírkövei és halotti címerei [Late renaissance and baroque tombstones and funeral coats of arms in the St Martin church of Szepeshely (today Spišská Kapitula, Slovakia), a catholic centre in Upper Hungary]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 56 (2007) 327–328. 35 Ádám Zrínyi: son of Miklós Zrínyi, who lost his life in the battle of Szalánkemén (today Stari Slankamen, Serbia) (19 August 1691). Gábor Hausner, ‘Zrínyi Ádám [Ádám Zrínyi]’, in Sándor Bene – Gábor Hausner (eds.), A Zrínyiek a magyar és a horvát históriában [The Zrínyis in Hungarian and Croatian history]. Budapest, 2007, 165–180.

131

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

following rightly applies to the Esterházy family, as it does to the ancient Báthory, Drágffy, Perényi, Zrínyi, Dobó, Balassa families among others: “There is no noteworthy family in Hungary, which did not have to mourn on many an occasion for their brave men who fell in sacrifice: they were bulwarks of the neighbouring countries and provinces toward the east.” 36

The Captain-General of Pápa Issued by the chancellery of the Aulic War Council, Ferdinand III’s deed of 7 November 1648 appointed Count László Esterházy captain-general of Pápa (Oberhauptmann zu Papa) upon his request,37 as the protocol entry of the War Council attests. This made him the second Esterházy – after his brother István (captain-general from 1639–41)38 – to command one of the major fortresses in the frontier zone of Győr (Raaber Grenze) with crucial importance in defence against the Ottomans. After his imperial recognition (lord-in-waiting at the Imperial Court) and the decoration awarded by the Hungarian estates (knight of the golden spur) this position was a major station in the independent career of the young count. Firstly, he had himself applied for this post, which his father had never filled (only his brother had), and besides, additional factors in acquiring the post may have been his more frequent meetings with his intended father-in-law, General Batthyány, the experience of the first encounters with the Ottomans, as well as his experience of life at a frontier fort. However, the acquisition of the position was probably also largely motivated by the significance of Pápa and its demesne for the family over a considerable length of time. The seizure of the Pápa domain is an interesting and intriguing 36 Source of the quotation: ‘A Bocskaihoz csatlakozott rendek kiáltványa Európa népeihez a szabadságharc kitörésének okairól és a török elleni küzdelem megszakításának ideiglenességéről’ [Proclamation of the estates joining Bocskai addressed to the nations of Europe on the causes of the outbreak of the war of liberation and on the temporariness of the interrupted fight against the Ottomans]. Szerencs, April 1605, in István Sinkovics (ed.), Magyar történeti szöveggyűjtemény [Chrestomathy in Hungarian history]. Vol. II/1, 1526– 1790, Budapest, 1968, 268; for its new edition, see Miklós Nyakas, Az “ismeretlen” szerencsi kiáltvány. Hasonmás kiadás [The “unknown” proclamation of Szerencs. Facsimile edition]. (A Bocskai-szabadságharc 400. évfordulója, VI.) Debrecen, 2006. 37 Cf. note 7 above. 38 Instruction for István Esterházy, captain-general of Pápa: 21 May 1639 – ÖStA, KA, Bestallungen (Best.) Prot. Bd. 2., pag. 8. (No. 20.) Its signature: ÖStA, KA, Best., Kt. 9, No. 1314.

132

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

example of Palatine Miklós Esterházy’s practice of increasing his landed property; although in 1630 he put it in pawn to László Csáky, he reckoned with it as an important estate in the long run, which also made the acquisition of a military position possible for his family (for István Esterházy in 1639). The interest of the Esterházys, particularly Count László in the Pápa domain is patently revealed by sources documenting his steps and efforts around the fortress and fortress domain of Pápa. First, the legal status of the domain had to be clarified. Upon his request, Pál Pálffy (as chief justice) summoned the cathedral chapter of Győr to submit the documents concerning Pápa to him.39 The documents revealed who the person was whom László had to approach in order to redeem the Pápa estate pawned to László Csáky: Mrs Gáspár Konszky born Zsuzsanna Balassa. 40 A protocol record in the archives of the cathedral chapter of Pozsony, with notarial functions dated 15 September 1648 says that the estate was redeemed from pawn for the same amount (80,000 florins) for which Csáky had passed it on to Balassa earlier. 41 From 1648 Count László was the captain-general and legal landowner of Pápa. László Esterházy took his position as captain-general seriously. On matters of the fortress of Pápa and the frontier town he gave orders when in possession of thorough and up-to-date information, which he gained from his correspondence and communication with his subordinates, primarily the Pápa bailiff János Dominovics and his vice captains. In his absence his deputies governed the frontier station: Pál Somogyi until 1649 and István Radovány after 1650. Their letters give detailed reports on the condition of the fortress, on the garrison, and the prisoners; they also reveal that the captain-general of Győr, Philipp Graf von Mansfeld (1589–1657) often meddled with matters concerning Pápa, particularly with the completion of major constructions and the transfer of German troops, with considerable impact on the composition of military units in Pápa. 39 Győr Diocesan Archives, Notarial documents of the chapter, Theca V., No. 25067. 40 The contents of his later testament pertaining to Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia) were discussed by Béla Vilmos Mihalik, ‘Katolikus megújulás az egri egyházmegyében (1634– 1746) [Catholic revival in the Eger diocese]’, in Zoltán Péter Bagi – Adrienn Horváth (eds.), Mozaikok a Magyar Királyság 16–17. századi történelméből [Mosaics from the 16th–17th-century history of the Hungarian Kingdom]. Budapest, 2012, 170. 41 Slovak National Archive (SNA), Notarial Archive of the Pozsony Cathedral Chapter, Protokolli, Vol. 39. (1648–1649), No. 185, pag. 274–276. Datum feria sexta post festum Nativitatis Beatae Mariae virginis (15 September 1648).

133

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

The fact that László Esterházy was the főispán of Sopron County bolstered both his application for the position of captain-general of Pápa, and after its acquisition, his position with the Aulic War Council in regard to his requests in the interests of the border fort. It is known from Péter Dominkovits’s research that in the seventeenth century almost the all of Sopron County was obliged to provide free labour (gratuitus labor) for the fortification of Pápa fort.42 Initially, as a candidate for the post, it must have been an advantage for László Esterházy that he was the főispán of that county. And it would not have been immaterial for the War Council at the same time, firstly, who the actual owner of the Pápa estates was; secondly that the position of captain-general had been filled by another Esterházy – István – earlier; and finally, that László was head of the county responsible for providing free labour for the fort of Pápa from the beginning of the century. Thus, the interests of the family and the Viennese War Council were joined on this matter, and the concordance of privatum and publicum was clearly in favour of László’s appointment. That said, it is then thought provoking that in 1649 the deputy of the captain-general of Pápa, Pál Somogyi urged Sopron County to provide the failing fortification work as soon as possible. 43 What is more, one can find documentary evidence that on one occasion the főispán of Sopron County tried to hinder the performance of gratuitus labor in spite of the fact that he was the captain-general of Pápa fort: at the general assembly of Veszprém County in 1651 it was proposed that upon the request of István Radovány, then deputy of the captain-general of Pápa, a letter ought to be written to the főispán of Sopron County, László Esterházy telling him that if he should withdraw the peasants from rendering free labour on the fortification of Pápa, then the nobility of Veszprém County would follow suit.44 Eventually, the magistrates 42 Péter Dominkovits, ‘Sopron vármegye ingyenmunka-adója a pápai vár erődítésére a XVII. század derekán (1622–1670) [Duty of free labour imposed on Sopron County for the fortification of Pápa fort in the mid-17th century]’, Acta Papensia 2:3–4 (2002) 203–220. 43 This means that in the first years of László Esterházy’s tenure as főispán of Sopron County – at least until 1649 – Sopron County amassed a large amount of arrears in free labour to be rendered for the fortification of Pápa. As Pál Somogyi complained, “gratuitus labor was missed for five whole years when no money was presented”. Letter of Pál Somogyi, deputy captain-general of Pápa to Sopron County, MNL Győr-Moson-Sopron County Sopron Archive (hereafter: MNL SL), Sopron County Archive, documents of the noble assembly of Sopron County (SVMLt), IV. 1.b (pallium: 1649). 44 MNL Veszprém County Archives (VemL), Veszprém County Archives (VMLt), IV.1.a – Documents of the small and general assemblies of Veszprém County. Protocols, 1651; on the second day prior to the feast of Bishop Saint Martin (generalis congregatio); those

134

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

of Veszprém County did send a letter to László Esterházy which warned the captain-general with due courtesy that “the gratuitus labor meant to be expended on this Praesidium was not presented by Your Excellency’s bailiff from your holdings, instead he wants to divert it to other private property of Your Excellency.” Shocked by the illegal practice the nobility of Veszprém County decided to take steps on the matter during the next diet: “The holding back of serfs by the nobility must be put before the country; for what the country spends on the survival of the nation cannot be diverted for private benefit.”45 In other words: privatum and publicum did not coincide in this case. However, more research would be needed to establish the extent to which this case might characterize László Esterházy’s general practice, whether Veszprém County was right in protesting. The fortified town of Pápa was a manorial centre and economic entity in addition to its military-defensive functions. It is wrong to believe, however, that the subsistence of Pápa (pay of the soldiers, food, arms, etc.) could be ensured from the landed property belonging to the fort. From the second half of the sixteenth century the wages of the fort troops, including the captaingeneral, was traditionally provided by the estates of Lower Austria. Proof of this is László Esterházy’s letter of May 1652 to the estates asking them to send the arrears of the pay for Pápa. 46 Earlier, the count even urged Palatine Pál Pálffy to intervene for the delivery of the considerable arrears in soldiers’ pay.47 Luckily, there is a statement in German in the family archives 48 which itemizes the seven months’ pay remitted by the Lower Austrian estates for 1650, actually handed over later that year in Vienna in various forms, as follows:

present included a high priest as well, János Szanyi (“Ill. et Rev.”). 45 MNL OL P 124 (documents of Count László Esterházy), No. 1495. Papa, feria secunda proxima ante Festum Beati Martini Episcopi, loco nempe ac die, celebrationis Congregationis nostrae. A. D. 1651. 46 László Esterházy’s request to the Lower Austrian estates for the remittance of the arrears in payment (3,670 thalers, 85 denars). 29 May 1652. MNL OL P 108 Rep. 40, Fasc. C, No. 60. 47 MNL OL P 124, No. 987, Pál Pálffy to László Esterházy, 3 February 1651. 48 MNL OL P 108 Rep. 2 et 3, Fasc. H, No. 129: 1650, Specificatio solutionis Capitaneatus Papensis.

135

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

“In Bezahlung Ihrer gräfl[ichen] Herrn Oberhaubtmanns zu Pappa Herrn Graf[en] Ladislai Esterhasii gebürendten siben Monnath. Vierdet hiemit gelifert und Abgefierth Erstlich in Gelt 659 fl. 54 kr. 49 Silber ganz Verguldt dreyssig March vier Loth jedes March pro 24fl. 726 fl. fünf Stück Scheptuch50 welche außtragen 260 fl. Summa bringt die völlige liferung 1645 fl. 54 kr. Datum Wienn dem 24 decembris, Anno 1650 Michael Glacz.”51 It is indicative of the stalling payments from Lower Austria that László Esterházy occasionally pressed for the remittance. 52 Sometimes he even turned to the ruler on military matters concerning Pápa: in his petition of 1 September 1650 he reported that ignoring the laws of war, the Ottomans attacked his troops forming the company that went to receive the Turkish delegation, slaying several among them and taking the rest into captivity. He was asking the ruler to intercede for the release of his captured soldiers without ransom. 53 During his tenure as captain-general, the fort of Pápa underwent considerable fortification, for which he had requested a separate allocation from the War Council, which he did receive as his acknowledgement reveals. The captain-general of Győr, his superior, Mansfeld supervised the construction

49 Mark and lat (= half an ounce, lotum): units of measure; on weights of precious metals. István Bogdán, Régi magyar mértékek [Old Hungarian measurements]. Budapest, 1987. 50 Kind of broadcloth; see Walter Endrei, Patyolat és posztó [Cambric and broadcloth]. (Mikrotörténelem) Budapest, 1989, 236. 51 Michael Glacz was Grenzunterzahlmeister at that time in charge of issuing the border troops’ pay on behalf of the estates. See about him from 1661: Niederösterreich Landesarchiv (NÖLA) SA A–VII–36. fols. 393–394 and NÖLA SA A–VII–65. fol. 18 and fol. 21. The data was pointed out to me by Géza Pálffy. 52 Hungarian Academy of Sciences Library, Coll. of Manuscripts, copies of deeds of HAS Historical Committee, Raudnitzer Archiv, Sign. C. 37., László Esterházy to Prince Euseibius Wenzel von Lobkowitz, president of the War Council, Nagyhöflány (today Großhöflein, Austria), 30 November 1651: Ich nochmahlen gehorsamblich Euer fürstl. … Gnadt erhalten undt wegen meiner Pappauischen Graniz Besoldungs Austandt mit fürstl. Gn. meiner in gedankh verbleiben… 53 The rough and clean copies of the petition survive: MNL OL P 124, 7. cs., No. 1714, pag. 20–23.

136

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

and use of the allocated sum, 54 an activity in which he was indeed effective. There was frequent demand for building materials from his estate: the ruler called on him to contribute to the reconstruction of Alsólendva, for example, 55 and his important patron Pál Pálffy, who was duly renowned for his constructions56 also turned to him in several cases. Prior to his ceremonious inauguration as captain-general, László Esterházy applied to Ferdinand III for a separate flag and drums for the garrison of the fort, as was customary in the age. 57 It is noteworthy that upon the submitted application the War Council ordered the court treasury to issue the necessary amount of money on 2 December 1648. On 15 December the treasury summoned the chief master of war payments (Hofkriegszahlmeister), Hans Friedrich Leuter to report on the necessary costs based on previous general practice. He replied that according to practice in those parts, the equipment of the infantry needed no more than 200 guldens, and he had seen to the remittance of that sum through the Hungarian administration.58 As his itinerary reveals, László Esterházy visited Pápa several times (though he was instructed as captain-general to be present there permanently), and sojourned in the town for lengthier periods of time: on 22 September 1649, 13–19 February 1651, 3 March 1651 (and almost throughout March), and 27 January–14 March 1652 he was surely in or around the fort. He knew his soldiers personally; when the voivode of Pápa (János Pesti) died, he proposed a person (Ferenc Kőrösi) as his successor.59 This latter information is 54 MNL OL P 124, No. 717. 55 MNL OL P 124, No. 1469: Ferdinand III to László Esterházy, Vienna, 25 April 1651: Ádám Batthyány had already contributed to the reconstruction and fortification of Alsólindva (today Lendava, Slovenia) and Nempti (i.e. Lenti) burnt down by the Ottomans; therefore, the ruler asked László Esterházy to partake of the work by providing piles and timber for the fortification and have them transported there by his subjects. 56 On Pál Pálffy’s constructions: Anna Fundarek, ‘Pálffy Pál építkezései [Pál Pálffy’s constructions]’, Sic Itur ad Astra 15:1 (2003) 15–34. 57 ÖStA Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv (FHKA), Hofkammerarchiv (HKA) Familien–Akten E 75. fols. 10–11. prior to 2 December 1648: ratione vexilli et timpanarum mandatum de more militaris istius officii omnino necessarium. 58 Ibid.: ZuerZeugung inuermelter fahnen vnd hörpauggen auf dergleichen Gränczen ist mehrers nicht dann Zwaijhundert gulden vnnd dieselben von der Hungarischen Cammer Zugeben gebreäuchig [sic!] gewesen. 59 HAS Library, copies of deeds of the Historical Committee, ibid.: Proxime euolutis diebus Egregio condam Joanne Pesti, cuius sublato per eius mortem officium Vaivodatus Praesidii Papensis in vacantia haeret, et quia eidem subjectus miles Pedestris sine Capite, in confusione persistere nequit, neque Praesidio commode servire praesentium exhibitor

137

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

complemented by an entry in the December 1650 protocol of the War Council saying that in keeping with practices of the time, Esterházy and the deputy of the captain-general of Győr, István Zichy nominated three persons for the voivodship of Pápa: István Kőrösi, György Vajda,60 and Márton Tóth.61 During Esterházy’s frequent absences his deputies were acting commanders on matters arising in the border fort. His trustworthy deputies were Pál Somogyi62 until 1649, and István Radovány63 after 1650, the latter identified as “cavalry lieutenant of His Majesty here” by deputy captain-general of Győr, István Zichy writing to Ádám Batthyány in October 1647, 64 that is, Radovány rose from being a hussar captain in Győr to the position of vice commander of Pápa. An experienced and ambitious soldier, he had quite a good knowledge of the region and could be “deployed” at a number of places. There is another piece of information about him from Zichy, dating from September 1648: “During his stay in Linz His Majesty conferred the title of captain of Vázsony upon Lieutenant István Radovány, but since the legal status of the Vázsony estate was unclarified, he did not occupy the post but decided to wait until matters were cleared up.”65 Since the proprietorship of Vázsony (today Nagyvázsony) passed on to Zichy, the deputy captain-general of Győr asked for Radovány to be assigned of the position. Finally, Radovány was transferred to Pápa about which he himself informed László Esterházy,66 not failing to

60 61

62

63 64 65 66

Egregius Franciscus Kőrősi pro obtinendo illo munere instet, eundem tanquam bene meritum, et sufficientem personam, alias etiam ibidem possessionatum dirum, Vestrae Domini Illustrissimae et Excellentissimae recommendo; rogando eandem, ne gravetur ad dictum vacantem vaivodatum promovere. (Kismarton, 26 September 1650.) MNL OL P 707 (Archive of the Zichy family), 542. cs. (fols. 294–295); No. 11.543, letter of György Vajda to István Zichy: Pápa, 16 December 1651. ÖStA, KA, HKR, Bd. 301, 1650 Reg. [fol. 513v:] [December 1650] [30]: Esterhasi Ladislaus Oberhauptman zu Pappa und Obristleutnant zu Raab. P: vacierend[e] wäy[vo]da[tus]stell zu Pappa, darzur Sie [?]den Stephan Kőrőschy, Georg Waÿda und Martin Totty vorschlagt. Possibly it was Pál Somogyi, who often substituted for his superior, who was mentioned as captain-general of Pápa summoned to testify before the chapter of Veszprém: MNL VemL, Veszprém Chapter Prot., (Protocol of testimonies), Vol. I, feria secunda post dominicam quasimodogeniti A. D. 1649, pag. 723. In the list of Pápa citizens he is included as “István Radvány”. MNL OL P 1314, No. 53064. Győr, 14 October 1647. MNL OL P 1314, No. 53075. Győr, 14 September 1648. MNL OL P 124, No. 1074. István Radovány to László Esterházy, Pápa, 29 September 1651: “His Excellency the Count General [Mansfeld] delegated me here to the position of vice captain with His Majesty’s consent”.

138

COUNT LÁSZLÓ ESTERHÁZY

detail the assignment he had received from the captain-general of Győr. This clearly indicates – as is made explicit by the instruction for the captain-general of Pápa – that the general of Győr kept interfering with the matters of Pápa. 67 The deputy commander of Pápa received orders and instructions from both László Esterházy and the captain-general of Győr, Mansfeld. 68 Radovány apparently took a great liking of the border town, because he remained in service during the commandership of Pál Esterházy from 1653, and from November 1654 until 1661 he became alispán of Veszprém County as well.69 To sum up: the post of captain-general of Pápa was a decisive station in the independent career of the palatine’s son that went farther than what paternal legacy predisposed for him. His military virtue (reinforced in part at the court of Ádám Batthyány), personal courage, and awareness of his high birth – paired with a true love of life: Count László was fond of merry-making, dancing, riding, archery – intertwined to determine the life course of this outstanding member of a West Transdanubian Hungarian aristocratic family, whom posterity only remembers for his death and its circumstances.

67 Ibid. 68 See for example: MNL OL P 124, Pápa, 11 November 1651. A relatively detailed description of a punitive sortie by the Győr troops in return for the Turkish devastation of the bishop of Veszprém’s Gyirmót estate (led by the bey of Székesfehérvár): MNL OL P 124, No. 1078, 7 April 1652. 69 István Radovány was elected alispán of Veszprém County in November 1654: he informed Pál Esterházy who succeeded his elder brother in the position of captain-general of Pápa in a letter: MNL OL P 125, (box 9), No. 3614 and MNL VemL, VMLt (Assembly protocols) Vol. 1, 86.

139

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTOMAN RULE

140

ANDRÁS PÉTER SZABÓ

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD” NOBLE NATIONALISM IN THE POST-1657 CRISIS IN TRANSYLVANIA Lessons of a Crisis When Prince of Transylvania György Rákóczi II launched his offensive campaign against Poland as an ally of Charles Gustav X, King of Sweden in early 1657, hoping to carve out a considerable portion from the planned partition of Poland, nobody anticipated that his daring venture would lead to the gravest of the seventeenth-century crises of the Transylvanian Principality, a vassal to the Porte. The military failure of the prince triggered off a long row of cataclysms. He was forced to sign a humiliating peace with the Polish king, a greater part of his army was captured by the Crimean Tatars, and Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmed Pasha abandoned his earlier stance of passive politicizing to urge for the impeachment of Rákóczi. Commissioned by the Porte, the Crimean Tatars plundered nearly all Transylvania in 1658, laying havoc to the prince’s seat Gyulafehérvár (today Alba Iulia, Romania). In 1658, the Ottomans seized a fortress of strategic importance at Borosjenő (today Ineu, Romania) and took Várad (today Oradea, Romania), the central stronghold of the principality in 1660. Populations of entire regions were sent fleeing. Influenced by the Transylvanian conflict, the neighbouring Hungarian Kingdom, ruled by the Habsburgs, also gradually got involved in warfare with the Ottoman Empire, broadening into a Europe-wide endeavour by 1663–64. At the same time, the regional role of the Transylvanian principality in the politics of Europe vanished into thin air, and in the Ottoman power structure the state also got reduced to a par with the two Romanian principalities, Mol davia and Wallachia. The threat from outside was accompanied with unusual instability inside. Between 1657 and 1663, five princes followed in quick succession: Prince György Rákóczi II (1648–1660) returning twice, Ferenc Rhédei, whose reign was short (1657), Ákos Barcsai, in an unusual way simply appointed by the suzerain (1658–1660), the great chieftain of Transylvanian politics, the iron-handed János Kemény (1661–1662) and young

141

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

Mihály Apafi (1661–1690), who had just escaped from Tatar captivity. The domestic turmoil laden with bloody countdowns was recently put to an end by the Hungarian campaign of Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmed in 1663, and by the Habsburg–Ottoman peace of 1664. For a historian of ideas, this turbulent period is important on two counts: on the one hand, it was a catalyst of the seventeenth-century transformation of Hungarian national ideology, and on the other, it exposes – like all similar crises – the spectrum of the actual political ideas and discourse. In the present paper, a single but remarkable element of this broad palette is to be discussed: seventeenth-century noble nationalism, which hallmarked György Rákóczi II’s and his followers’ attitude. At first, however, the use of the term “nationalism” must be justified and the author’s position explained, since the majority of modernist nationalism theories conceive of nationalism as the offspring of the French Revolution or the industrial revolution. 1 The main conclusion I tend to draw from the polemics over the roots of modern nations is that it is impossible to define nation and nationalism unambiguously, for the category of nation is inherent in our thinking and language. Perhaps the most important question is how radical the change wrought by modernity is considered? Although the novel approach of Philip S. Gorski, who claims that the spread and strengthening of the idea of the nation is a centuries-long gradual process without major directional turns is attractive, 2 it is acceptable that in the late eighteenth–early nineteenth century, social structures emerged that were mostly diverging from all previously known establishments. Following Benedict Anderson, I am inclined to find novel tools and theatres of communication in the background of the widespread character of the national idea.3 Though the pluralism of national ideologies did not cease within a community (there are always parallel versions of the nation or national identity in the modern age, too), but more intense discourse between these ideologies created a common denominator for the concepts of nation: that is, the modern nation as a category, or in other words, national conscious1 2 3

Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, 1983. Eric J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, 1992. Philip. S. Gorski, ‘The Mosaic Moment. An Early Modernist Critique of Modernist Theories of Nationalism’, American Journal of Sociology 105:5 (2000) 14281468. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London–New York, 2006, 2246.

142

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

ness. I agree with the thesis of the ethnic core or organic precedents of a nation proposed by Anthony D. Smith and the ethno-symbolist school. (Ironically speaking, I have no other choice, for the modernist trend usually precludes early modern age from its topics of investigation with elliptic arguments.) 4 I do not regard modern nation and the preceding communities as abstract concepts, for the loyalty of their members and their emotional affinities, as well as their boundaries separating them from other communities render them real in the microcosm of society and other societies.5 Among other definitions, Philip S. Gorski’s approach is inspiring: he discards the use of modern nation as the standard measure, and regards each community defining themselves as nation on a regular basis, as some sort of a nation. Since, however, the term nation is not generally used to cover the process of gradually growing cohesive force as outlined by Gorski, but is normally associated with permanence and unity, I refrain from using it and speak of national ideas and national ideologies. When the individuals’ emotional ties to the community and their loyalty is concerned, the term “national identity” is used. As for nationalism, the following definition will be adopted: it is an idea that defines future expectations for a community named nation by drawing on the idealized past. In this sense, one may speak of early modernist nationalism, which – as will be explicated – did not fall short of modern nationalism in its emotional charge.

Noble Nationalism in Hard Times Dealing with the Transylvanian crisis, Hungarian historiographers often speak of the reluctant “coat-turning” of the elite, as if each new prince to rule had proposed the rise of a different party.6 Actually, there were two major trends that could be clearly discerned in late 1657. One rallied around Ferenc Rhédei, 4 5

6

Anthony D. Smith, Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism. A Cultural Approach. London–New York, 2009, 16–17. Anthony D. Smith’s approach was combined here with the phenomenological outlook: Smith, Ethno-symbolism, 41–42. Pál S. Varga, ‘A nemzetfogalom fenomenológiai megközelítésének lehetséges hasznáról [About the possible uses of a phenomenological approach to nation]’, in Ferenc Kulin – Éva Sallai (eds.), A nemzeti tudományok historikuma [Historical dimension of the so-called national studies]. Budapest, 2008, 307324. Bene Sándor, ‘A köpenyegforgatás dicsérete [Praise of the turncoat]’, BUKSZ 6:2 (1994) 140–149.

143

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

and then around Ákos Barcsai and Mihály Apafi, whom their contemporaries called the “pro-Turkish” side. Its leaders, the historian János Bethlen (1613– 1678) and Gábor Haller (1614–1663) who had studied at Leiden University, were on the opinion that Transylvania’s subordinated position and the superior power of the Ottoman Empire did not leave room for an independent Transylvanian foreign policy in the 1650s. They adduced examples from the past to point out that Transylvania had not made a single successful antiOttoman move yet7 and had only lived in peace “in the shadow of the Porte”: Ottoman suzerainty was God’s will. 8 As for internal politics, their ideal was a consolidated power of the estates, like in Poland. The imported idea of the noble republic was formulated with reference to the resistance clause of the Golden Bull (promulgated in 1222).9 They envisaged a government based on the division of power between the estates and the ruler, a layout that had never existed in Transylvania.10 To epitomize their program in a single word, one would use “Country”. The other party gathered around György Rákóczi II, and after his death around János Kemény. A good indicator of political continuity is that István Czeglédi named Kemény as “the new morning-star” in his funeral oration over György Rákóczi II’s grave.11 This side brought together all those who, realiz7

11 October 1659, Várad. Gábor Haller to the diet in Marosvásárhely: “You must remember from history and some of you as eye-witnesses, from bitter experience, that when this poor country, unable to protect herself by her own effort was under the shadow of the Porte as our forefathers had decided, her life went on happily, the feet of enemy horses did not cross her borders or tread her soil. When, conversely, she armed herself against the Porte, or allied herself with other nations, it was followed by decay and destruction, and she could not be restored until the offended Turkish nation came to help her to cast off the yoke.” Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Central Archive of the National Archives of Hungary, Budapest – hereafter: MNL OL] E 190. A Rákóczi család levéltára [Papers of the Rákóczi family] 31. d. No. 7750. Further examples: Márton Tarnóc (ed.), ‘Bethlen Gábor Végrendelete [The last will of Gabriel Bethlen]’, in Idem, Magyar gondolkodók 17. század [Hungarian thinkers of the 17th century]. Budapest, 1979, 107–108. Ferenc Szakály (ed.), Szalárdi János Siralmas magyar krónikája [Woeful Hungarian chronicle of János Szalárdi]. Budapest, 1980, 72–74. Sándor Szilágyi (ed.), Erdélyi Országgyűlési Emlékek [Transylvanian parliament records (henceforth: EOE)]. Vol. XII (16581661), Budapest, 1886, 365. 8 3 March 1659: “Under whose yoke we were put by the will of God.” EOE, Vol. XII, 194. 9 13 October 1658, Várad. György Rákóczi II to Gábor Haller. EOE, Vol. XII, 76–79. 10 On the political possibilities of the Transylvanian estates: Graeme Murdock, ‘“Freely Elected in Fear”. Princely Elections and Political Power in Early Modern Transylvania’, Journal of Early Modern History 7:34 (2003) 213–244. 11 The funeral was held on 24 April 1661: Gábor Kecskeméti – Hajnalka Nováky (eds.), Magyar nyelvű halotti beszédek a XVII. századból [Funeral sermons in Hungarian from the

144

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

ing the dwindling material and political possibilities of Transylvania, regarded confrontation with the Porte and at first cautious, then more and more overt rapprochement with the Habsburgs as the only chance for the principality. They opined that the unfavourable developments were to be ascribed to the changed politics of the Ottoman Empire and not to the disobedience of the country or the prince. With Rákóczi, the ideology of the charismatic prince elected by the grace of God was given, and later János Kemény assumed this role with comfortable ease. The main cohering force of the group was the dense network of relations of the familiares (Hungarian type of vassals, a nobleman’s military escort) woven in the peace years. The hallmark of this group would clearly be “Prince”. At the core, the rhetoric of the two sides became completely unchanged from 1657 to 1663. While the adherents of the “pro-Turkish” party accused the followers of Rákóczi, and after him, János Kemény of irresponsibly jeopardizing the motherland, the nation and Christianity as a whole, the advocates of the other side charged the followers of Rhédei, Barcsai and Apafi 12 with being credulous people who were easily taken in by the “sly nation” and betrayed the common cause of Christendom. Needless to say, each of the five princes, adopting the noblest Ciceronian traditions, were convinced that they started their service “out of the will of the noble country” and not by their own initiative, undertaking a great burden, an arduous responsibility, and not grabbing power.13 All five were devout practitioners of the Calvinist faith, so their rivalry might also be seen as a domestic strife among Calvinist princes. The struggles sometimes caused a rift within the Calvinist Church, the dominant religion of the principality: since Rákóczi was an adherent of Calvinist orthodoxy, Barcsai was forced to support the so-far overshadowed puritanical trend for political reasons. Ironically, both of them hoped to get support from the predominantly Catholic elite of the Hungarian Kingdom ruled by the Habsburgs: intercession for the dispatching or withdrawal of German troops, 17th century]. Budapest, 1988, 206. 12 József Jankovics, ‘Bethlen Jánosné Váradi Borbála ellen írt pasquillusa [Mrs János Bethlen’s pasquinade against Borbála Váradi]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 89:45 (1985) 528–533. 13 3 October 1659. György Rákóczi II to his adherents in Várad. József Koncz, ‘II. Rákóczi György fejedelem eredeti sajátkezű levelei a fejedelemségért vívott utolsó küzdelmei időszakából 1658. jan. 9.–1660. máj. 16. [Original letters of Prince György Rákóczi II from the period of his last struggles for the principality]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 7 (1894) 45.

145

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

intervening at court, external backing to their respective position in the domestic strife. Thanks to the anti-Ottoman rhetoric and the actual fighting, Rákóczi and his followers were more successful, and during the Ottoman attacks, almost the entire Hungarian elite ensured them of their support. In the discourses during the crisis between György Rákóczi II (and later János Kemény) and the estates of the kingdom, there are phrases of a distinct meaning in the textual context that immediately strike the eye: “true Hungarian”/“identification as Hungarian”. 14 Not only the prince appeals to “true Hungarian-ness”, but the dignitaries of the Hungarian Kingdom – notably Judge Royal (országbíró) Ferenc Nádasdy (1655–1671), Palatine Ferenc Wesselényi (1655–1667) and Chancellor György Szelepcsényi (1644–1666) – also use it in the same sense. 15 Obviously, this code (as ideology and as identity) was supra-denominational, for otherwise it would not have been used in discourses with a nearly hundred percent Catholic elite of the kingdom. It is 14 3 February 1658, Pozsony. Ferenc Wesselényi to György Rákóczi II, MNL OL E 190. 44. d. fols. 7–8. 30 August 1658, Debrecen. György Rákóczi II to Szepes County. Štátny Archív v Levoči [Levoča Branch of the Slovakian State Archives] Spišská župa, kongregačné písomnosti [Szepes/Spiš County, documents of the noblemens’s assembly] šk. 116. No. 339. 21 September 1658, camp at Kálló. György Rákóczi II to Szatmár County, MNL OL R 395. Szatmár vármegyei gyűjtemény [Szatmár County collection] 1. d. 2. t. 12 January 1661, Szászrégen. János Kemény to György Homonnai Drugeth, MNL OL P 1983. Homonnai Drugeth család [Papers of the Homonnai Drugeth family] 1. cs. 10. t. fols. 67–68. 6 June 1662 [Szatmár], Simon Kemény to Mihály Teleki, in Sándor Szilágyi (ed.), EOE, Vol. XIII (16611664), Budapest, 1888, 156. 15 10 July 1657, Vienna. György Szelepcsényi to a familiaris of the Rákóczis, Jónás Mednyánszky, concerning the Polish campaign: “No one should believe it was me who kindled and fanned this fire from the beginning to this time; quite the contrary, I have expended all my talent to pacify, to tone it down. What would have motivated me, who deem myself of true Hungarian blood, to act to the detriment of this handful of fine Hungarians?” Sándor Szilágyi, ‘Szelepcsényi György leveles tárcájából [From the correspondence of György Szelepcsényi]’, Történelmi Tár 15 (1892) 200. Ferenc Nádasdy to György Rákóczi II: “Hungarians will always be suspicious of foreign [i.e. German] help, and it appears nearly impossible, that in such a case true Hungarians would gladly act.” András Péter Szabó, ‘Esterházy Pál nádor néhány erdélyi vonatkozású iratmásolata. Ismeretlen források az 1658–1659. esztendők történetéhez [Some copies of documents of Palatine Pál Esterházy referring to Transylvania. Unknown sources about the years 1658 and 1659]’, Lymbus 6 (2008) 80. 6 July 1663, Kassa. Ferenc Wesselényi to Johann Rottal on the mobilization of the nobility: “I have also learnt that there was no need for urging, for true Hungarians, their blood roused for the defence of the country aware of the wrathful intention of the pagans against our land, got themselves readily armed immediately.” MNL OL P 507. Nádasdy család nádasdladányi levéltára [Nádasdladány Archives of the Nádasdy family] 12. cs. No. 466. fols. 472–473 (copy).

146

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

to be presumed that, underlying the discourse, this was less heart-felt religious tolerance – like that of Miklós Zrínyi, ban of Croatia – than practical will for political cooperation. As it is known, Ferenc Nádasdy was a prominent figure of counter-Reformation in Transdanubia. Also, Wesselényi made the following remark about the delegation of the Protestant-majority Upper Hungarian counties about to visit Vienna in 1663: “…Nothing and nobody, not even John Calvinus himself rising out of Hell, would keep these fellows back from seeking out His Highness.”16 All of these signs indicate that “true Hungarian-ness” is not only a mere rhetoric turn, a tool of discourse between the Transylvanian prince and the estates of the Kingdom, but it was also a political idiom within the Hungarian Kingdom itself,17 equipped with an elaborate ideological system. In short: the phrase is to be recognized as an indicator of a seventeenth-century collective/ national identity, the contents of which were to be modified during the course of political discourse. This political idiom was used by the nobility, had a noble character, and was obviously rooted in the traditional Scythian-based noble identity coming to efflorescence in the Jagiellonian Age with Simon Kézai’s Gesta Hungarorum (1282–1285) as its Holy Writ.18 The spirit of István Werbőczy, who codified the Hungarian customary law in the early sixteenth century, was now enriched with an intense emotional charge and a critical stance. Its ideologies obviously included the nobility exclusively in the collective of “true Hungarians”, maybe together with the “warring estate” (soldiers of the border regions). Common people, who had already been excluded from the political community (communitas) in Scythia in Kézai’s view, were surely ruled out. István Vitnyédi’s attitude was probably typical: “hopefully there will be no more trouble with them than with the Germans, for the furens populus [furious 16 25 February 1663, Besztercebánya. Ferenc Wesselényi to Johann Rottal. MNL OL P 507. 12. cs. No. 466. fol. 454 (original). MNL OL E 199. Wesselényi család levéltára [Papers of Wesselényi family] 8. cs. IV/4. t. No. 449. fol. 28 (copy). 17 The phrase was also used in a pamphlet written by the Catholic lower nobility of the Kingdom: Katalin Péter, A magyar nyelvű politikai publicisztika kezdetei. A Siralmas panasz keletkezéstörténete [Beginnings of Hungarian political writing. Genesis of the “Woeful Lament”]. Budapest, 1972, 83. 18 Jenő Szűcs, Nemzet és történelem. Tanulmányok [Nation and history. Studies]. Budapest, 1974, 413–556. András Kubinyi, ‘Az 1505-ös rákosi országgyűlés és a szittya ideológia [The diet in 1505 on the Rákos-field and the Scythian ideology]’, Századok 140 (2006) 361–374.

147

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

people] are a great beast.”19 It is not clear, however, to what extent the frontier defence troops stationed in the border fortresses identified with this ideology, similar in character to Polish Sarmatism. Regarding this idea of a noble nation – overlooking its supra-denominational character – noted Hungarian literary historian Tibor Klaniczay speaks not unjustifiably of a “baroque nationalism”,20 for the rich rhetoric of this political idiom does display baroque influence. Using Eric J. Hobsbawm’s term, we might as well label it proto-nationalism, if we accept the original modernist paradigm. One of the examples the British historian cites to illustrate the phenomenon is precisely Hungarian noble nationalism. 21 Pointing to the roots of the ideology, we might call it Scythian nationalism, but the adjective has been “reserved” by historical science to refer to the early sixteenth-century ideology of lower nobility. Perhaps the best solution is to label it noble nationalism. A certain term must certainly not be used for it: patriotism, for it does not emphasize etatist frames; at the time, the country was divided into two patries, the Hungarian Kingdom and the Transylvanian Principality, and the ideology was not tied to this or that part, but to idealized noble values. A true Hungarian had the duty to serve the fatherland, but true Hungarian-ness did not lie in land, but in moral quality. Of course, the collective ideology of the nobility had several parallel denominational variants that were more tightly associated with a given area, and hence often appear as patriotism. One is protestant ideology rooted in the István Bocskai-led uprising (1604–1606), which firmly tied the aim of the 19 22 October 1662, Alsópulya. István Vitnyédi to Péter Zrínyi. András Fabó (ed.), Vitnyédi István levelei [The letters of István Vitnyédi]. Vol. I (16521662), Pest, 1871, 237. 20 Tibor Klaniczay, ‘Nacionalizmus a barokk korban [Nationalism in the age of baroque]’, in Idem, Pallas magyar ivadékai [The Hungarian offspring of Pallas]. Budapest, 1985, 138– 150. Misled by sources of the kuruc era, Klaniczay thinks the concept was of a Protestant character. Other researchers firmly argue for the supra-denominational character of seventeenth-century noble nationalism: Ágnes R. Várkonyi, ‘A nemzet és a haza fogalma a török harcok és a Habsburgellenes küzdelmek idején (15261711) [Concept of nation and homeland in the age of the Ottoman wars and of the struggles against the Habsburgs 1526 1711]’, in Eadem, Magyarország keresztútjain. Tanulmányok a XVII. századról [At the crossroads of Hungary. Studies on the 17th century]. Budapest, 1978, 355. László Makkai, ‘Politikai gondolkodás [Political theory]’, in Ágnes R. Várkonyi (ed.), Magyarország története 1526–1686 [History of Hungary, 1526–1686]. Vol. II, Budapest, 1985, 1530 1533. 21 Hobsbawm, Nations, 46–80. In particular about the Hungarian and Polish noble nationalism: Ibid., 7374.

148

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

independence of fatherland (sometimes nation) to freedom of religion. 22 (During the crisis, this idea was most strongly preserved by the political microcosm of the Upper Hungarian region.) By the mid-seventeenth century, another strong ideology, that of the Catholic “Regnum Marianum” (Realm of Blessed Mary) was built on the medieval concept of “Patrona Hungariae” (the Virgin as the patron of Hungary) 23 that was also strengthened, and incorporated several elements of noble nationalism to become, by the end of the century, the leading ideology of the politically active estates and the prevailing national identity for many. It further aggravates the situation that the ideas explicated in the crown history by Lutheran Péter Révay (1613) and centred around the Holy Crown of Hungary could serve as a foundation for several different national ideologies. Indeed, most of them were predominantly influenced by the Catholic context from the mid-century onwards. In my view, ideas about the Holy Crown cannot be taken as a primary source of noble national identity 24 as they were only a supplement, weapon or symbol of other, more widespread ideas. They were mainly deployed in the constitutional struggle with the court; on the basis of Hungarian political correspondence, one cannot glean any autonomous political idiom or national ideology. What one can safely state is that in the mid-seventeenth century, in the dominantly Protestant Transylvania, Holy Crown tenets tightly entwined with Catholicism had no serious repercussions. The above-said is evidently a simplification, as collective identities often appear side by side, but it seems that the idea of “true Hungarian-ness” was one of the most widespread noble collective ideologies and identities, often as a common denominator within the entire nobility. 22 András Péter Szabó, ‘Inhalt und Bedeutung der Widerstandslehre im Bocskai-Aufstand’, in Márta Fata – Anton Schindling (eds.), Calvin und Reformiertentum in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen. Helvetisches Bekenntnis, Ethnie und Politik vom 16. Jahrhundert bis 1918. Münster, 2010, 317–340. 23 Imre Bán, ‘Korai felvilágosodás és nemzeti műveltség [Early Enlightenment and the erudition of nation]’, in Idem, Költők, eszmék, korszakok [Poets, ideas and ages]. Debrecen, 1997, 235–237. Gábor Tüskés – Éva Knapp, ‘Magyarország – Mária országa. Egy történelmi toposz a 16–18. századi egyházi irodalomban [Hungary, the Land of Virgin Mary. A historical topic in the ecclesiastical literature of the 16th18th centuries]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 104 (2000) 573–602. On the representation of “the Land of the Virgin” in art: Géza Galavics, Kössünk kardot az pogány ellen. Török háborúk és képzőművészet [Let us girdle ourselves with sword against the pagans. Wars against the Ottomans and fine art]. Budapest, 1986, 73–76. 24 Kees Teszelszky, Az ismeretlen korona [The unknown crown]. Budapest, 2009, 224–323.

149

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

One of the great problems to be faced is that due to a lack of contemporaneous theoretical works, no cogent definition of “true Hungarian/identification as Hungarian” can be settled. 25 The only exception is a Protestant source from the kuruc era, the sermon titled Szent had (Holy Army) by Mihály Tolnai Szabó (1676), which includes “an explanation of the term identification as Hungarian”.26 Characteristics of the Magyar Hungarian hero as a Protestant athleta Christi include the following: 1. he fights for the glory of God and not for his own ambition, for selfish goals; 2. he does not oppress “those in poverty”; 3. he aspires to restore the physical and spiritual freedom of the country; 4. he does not bargain with the enemy, but fights to the end. The parson then lays down the canon of “Hungarian identity” that consists of the two Hunyadis (John Hunyadi and King Matthias Corvinus), Pál Kinizsi, György Rákóczi II, and Miklós Zrínyi. Obviously, this is a somewhat modified version of the concept used in the middle of the seventeenth century, but such a detailed definition cannot be found from earlier times. There are a few sources though, which may help us approach the notion more closely. Responding to the arguments of the Barcsai party’s pamphlet entitled Innocentia Transylvaniae in January 1659, Palatine Ferenc Wesselényi pits the true Hungarian György Rákóczi II against the pro-Turkish side. 27 That is to say, an essential feature of the “Hungarian identity” is his fight against the infidels, the negation of collaborating with the Ottomans. 28 Another aspect (or interpretation) can be gleaned from a letter sent by György Rákóczi II to Ádám Forgách in July 1652. The antonym to “true Hungarian” in the text is “accursed Hungarian” whose desire is to see “the Germans and priests” in the seats of the nation’s law-givers. The “true Hungarian” appears here as the

25 Attila Szabó T. (ed.), Erdélyi Magyar Szótörténeti Tár [Etymological dictionary of Transylvanian Hungarian (hereafter EMSzT)]. Vol. VIII, Bukarest–Budapest, 1996, 71. 26 Mihály Tolnai Szabó, Szent had, azaz lelki s testi szabadságokért fegyvert vont vitézek tüköre [Holy army, or the mirror of the soldiers who have taken arms for the freedom of their soul and body]. Kolozsvár, 1676, 30. Online: http://mek/oszk.hu [last accessed: 2 June 2012]. On the sermon: Bán, Korai felvilágosodás, 242. 27 20 January 1659, Murányalja. Ferenc Wesselényi to János Haller. András Péter Szabó, ‘Egy újabb adalék az Innocentia Transylvaniae megjelenését követő vitához [Addenda to the dispute following the publication of Innocentia Transylvaniae]’, Lymbus 4 (2006) 43. 28 Ferenc Szakály, ‘A gyöngyösi ispotályper 1667–1668 (A “törökösség” fogalmának értelmezéséhez) [The hospital-trial in Gyöngyös 16671668. Towards an interpretation of the concept of “Turkism”]’, Archívum 10 (1981) 5–26.

150

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

opponent to the power aspirations of the court and the high priest, as a guardian of the rights of the estates.29 In the labyrinth of definitions, another letter by the prince may also be a useful signpost, which he wrote to the Transdanubian District and Border Fortress’ Captain-General Ádám Batthyány after his successful campaign into Wallachia in 1655. Since the letter, striking an exultant tone, contains nearly all important elements of the ideology, it is worth quoting it at length: “My dear Brother, we have put our name and fame to the test against the Wallachian warriors, trusting their luck and praying for God’s help, we succeeded; although we were not personally involved, God blessed our first fight. They have fought bravely no doubt, but God – who resists the bumptious – mortified them, although only a quarter of our troops did fight so that all nations would learn that there are still Hungarians of the old times here, if there is concordance among them. The side of the Danube has also seen the Hungarian flags fluttering, and our Turkish “friends” were obliged to extradite the rogues who fled to Girgyo [Giurgiu]. Turks, Tatars and Moldavians arrived after our battle, may God be blessed, we managed to win without their help. Maybe I can render no other service to our country but the spreading of the good news that there are good old Hungarians, although many accursed Hungarians are envious, but the blessed state of luck can never pass without jealousy. Let them go their way, but if they should arise against true Hungarians, the God of Hungarians is alive, the blade of our drawn sword will inflate their puffed-up conceit.”30 With the help of the letter, a vocabulary of the political idiom of “true Hungarian-ness” can be compiled. Let us, however, first look at the connotations of the epithet “true”. The adjective “true” of several meanings is a regular attribute not only of “Hungarian” and “Hungarian-ness” but also of “patriot”, “brother” and “Christianity”.31 Sometimes it appears with “nobility”, 29 12 July 1652. György Rákóczi II to Ádám Forgách. László Bártfai Szabó, A Hunt-Pazman nemzetségbeli Forgách család története [History of the Forgách family originated from the Hont-Pazman genus]. Esztergom, 1910, 410–411. 30 13 July 1655, camp by Tîrgovişte. György Rákóczi II to Ádám Batthyány. MNL OL P 1314. Batthyány család levéltára [Papers of the Battyhány family] – Missiles 89. d. No. 39286 (film reel No. 4886). 31 “True Christianity”: Mid-July 1659, the Transylvanian estates to György Rákóczi II: EOE, Vol. XII, 323. “True evangelicus”: Fabó (ed.), Vitnyédi István levelei, Vol. I, 207. “True patriot of old lineage”: EMSzT, Vol. IV, 1251. “True kin”: 5 July 1658, Újvár. Mária Széchy to György Homonnai Drugeth: MNL OL P 1983. 1. cs. 1. t. fols. 22–23.

151

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

as in Miklós Zrínyi’s famous pamphlet Áfium (Opium), meaning nobleness achieved through personal merit (vera nobilitas).32 In my opinion, the word means not only “true” (vera) or “faithful” (fidelis), but also “genuine”, “pure”, “unimpaired” (pura).33 On one occasion, János Kemény spoke about the “pure Hungarian-ness” of István Bocskai, later the főispán (supremus comes) of Zemplén County, clearly using the phrase in the sense of “true Hungarianness” implying his origins.34 I strongly suspect that the ancestor of the epithet must eventually be found in pura Hungaria, designating a fictitious HunnicHungarian ethnic entity in Kézai’s Gesta.35 The adjective also implies that when “true Hungarian-ness” loses its essence, its values, when it ceases to be “Magyar”, it assumes an alien, corrupted, degenerate character.36 Seeking the source of “pure Hungarian-ness” in the past, “old Hungarians” are better Hungarians, 37 not “perverted”. Decline is often formulated antithetically, using the devices of castigating the faults 32 Miklós Zrínyi, ‘Az török áfium ellen való orvosság [Antidote to the Turkish opium]’, in Péter Kulcsár (ed.), Zrínyi Miklós összes művei. Prózai munkák [The complete works of Miklós Zrínyi. Works in prose]. Budapest, 2004, 211. 33 In Latin texts both purus Hungarus and verus Hungarus can be found. Example of the latter is György Rákóczi II’s funeral flag at Sárospatak: si veri Hungari. Antal Szirmay, Notitia topographica, politica inclyti comitatus Zempléniensis. Buda, 1805, 207. 34 ‘Kemény János önéletírása [Autobiography of János Kemény]’, in Éva V. Windisch (ed.), Kemény János és Bethlen Miklós művei [Works of János Kemény and Miklós Bethlen]. Budapest, 1980, 243. 35 In the chapter “De nobilibus advenis”. Cum pura Hungaria plures tribus vel progenies non habeat quam generationes centum et octo… Simon Kézai, Gesta Hungarorum, in Imre Szentpétery (ed.), Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum. Vol. I, Budapest, 1938, 187. Benedek Varga, ‘Political Humanism and the Corporate Theory of State: Nation, Patria and Virtue in Hungarian Political Thought of the Sixteenth Century’, in Balázs Trencsényi – Márton Zászkaliczky (eds.), Whose Love of Which Country? Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early Modern East Central Europe. Leiden–Boston, 2010, 289. 36 After 28 December 1623, Ferenc Balogh’s report to the palatine: “For I am neither from Slavic, nor from any other nation, but I am one of the true Hungarian kind.” Sándor Szilágyi, ‘Bethlen Gábor fejedelem uralkodása történetéhez II [To the reign of Prince Gábor Bethlen]’, Történelmi Tár 2 (1879) 455. Gábor Várkonyi cites László Rákóczi’s opinion of the new palatine, Ferenc Wesselényi (1655): “As far as I can judge, we are going to have a bastardly palatine…” Gábor Várkonyi, ‘Wesselényi Ferenc nádorrá választása [The election of Ferenc Wesselényi for palatine]’, in Gábor Kármán – András Péter Szabó (eds.), Szerencsének elegyes forgása. II. Rákóczi György és kora [Voluble turning of fortune. György Rákóczi II and his era]. Budapest, 2009, 320. 37 In the introduction to the new edition of Zrínyi’s works, Péter Kulcsár explicates that in the poet’s vocabulary good Hungarian was identical with old-time Hungarian. Zrínyi, Prózai munkák, 22.

152

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

(vituperatio) and praising the past (laudatio), a typical technique Zrínyi used for his analysis of a situation.38 The aim is to restore the ancient state and recover the greatest virtue of old-time Hungarians: valiance. 39 The salient role of martial virtue, or valiance in noble ideologies is revealed by contemporary language usage as well: virtus (“valiance, dauntlessness”) borrowed from Latin exclusively designated the martial virtues at that time. 40 (The very few exceptions include Miklós Zrínyi.) 41 As seen above, valiance was a key concept in György Rákóczi II’s cited letter, too. The symbol of this equestrian type valour is the sabre (less frequently the sword) 42 and its target is the Turk usually called dog as “the natural enemy” (hostis naturalis), the same as Bluthund in the German Antiturcica literature. 43 In György Rákóczi’s propaganda, “true Hungarian” heroism was sharply opposed to the perfidious machinations of the leaders of the other party, the pro-Turkish “sages”. The great erudition of Gábor Haller and János Bethlen, so unusual in the Transylvanian elite is interpreted as the negation of virtus: “It is no wonder that the Transylvanian professors enhance the power of the Ottomans, for those who rule it are on the Turkish side, they were also in Turkish academia, where the main profession is mendacity.” 44 The key role of dauntlessness is 38 István Bitskey, ‘Die Topoi des nationalen Selbstverständnisses bei Zrínyi’, in Wilhelm Kühlmann – Gábor Tüskés (eds.), Militiae et Litterae. Die beiden Nikolaus Zrínyi und Europa. Tübingen, 2009, 162. 39 Sándor Iván Kovács, ‘“Magyar vitézeknek dicsőséggel földben temetett csontjai és azok nagy lelkeiknek árnyékjai” [“Bones of Hungarian soldiers buried in earth with glory, and the shadows of their great souls”]’, in István Bitskey – Szabolcs Oláh (eds.), Religio, retorika, nemzettudat régi irodalmunkban [Religion, rhetoric and national consciousness in our old literature]. Debrecen, 2004, 287–296. 40 Varga, ‘Political Humanism’, 311. 41 István Bitskey, ‘A vitézség eszményének változatai a régi magyar irodalomban [Variations of the ideal of military virtue in the old Hungarian literature]’, in Idem, Virtus és Religio [Virtue and religion]. Miskolc, 1999, 114–115. 42 “It was when I first set out from Transylvania that I had a sabre made whose sheath I had covered in gold and I first girded it on at that time so that being a true Hungarian I should serve my nation with the help of God until somebody takes it away from my side.” Szilágyi, ‘Bethlen Gábor’, 455. 43 Some examples: 4 April 1658, Szilágysomlyó. György Rákóczi II to György Homonnai Drugeth: MNL OL P 1983. 1. cs. 1. t. fols. 16–17. 13 October 1658, György Rákóczi II to Gábor Haller: EOE, Vol. XII, 78. Zrínyi, Prózai munkák, 203. 44 9 August 1659, Szatmár. György Rákóczi II to István Koháry, captain-general of Fülek and Szécsény. MNL OL P 1992. Koháry család [Papers of the Koháry family] 1. cs. 5. t. f. 1–2. To the term “sages”: 13 January 1658, Vöcs. Mihály Teleki to György Rákóczi II. Sámuel Gergely (ed.), Teleki Mihály levelezése [The correspondence of Mihály Teleki]. Vol. I

153

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

emphasized by the satirical poem written about Ákos Barcsai and his adherents in the autumn of 1659, calling the ban of Lugos (today Lugoj, Romania) a hare incapable of fighting, and Rákóczi a lion.45 The carrier of valiance is blood that ties the inhabitants of the two countries,46 often also given the attribute “true”. 47 Aliens are those whose veins are not filled by this blood. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, alien blood was sometimes raised as a theoretical obstacle to marriage. 48 “When by God’s grace the time of your marriage arrives, I beg you for God’s sake not to marry a spouse from an alien nation, for that will be your doom. For alien blood is never so true as is that of your dear nation”, András Serényi writes. The advocates of noble nationalism also frequently declared – similarly to the declaration of Rákos in 1505 – that their forefathers had acquired the country by shedding their blood,49 hence “Hungary belonged to the Hungarians”.50

45 46

47

48

49

50

(16561660), Budapest, 1905, 113. (MNL OL E 190. 30. d. No. 7395.) 1 January 1658, Várad. Ferenc Gyulai to György Rákóczi II: Ibid., No. 7499. Imre Varga (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára. XVII. század [Collection of early Hungarian poetry. 17th century. (Henceforth RMKT XVII)]. Vol. IX, Budapest, 1977, 441. 6 February 1660, Sellemberk. The Transylvanian estates to the counties of Hungary: “You should remember that we are also your worships’ bone and blood, we are also Hungarians.” Történelmi Tár 22 (1899) 720. In the dedication of Miklós Zrínyi’s book of verse, Adriai tengernek Syrenaia [The siren of the Adriatic Sea]: “I dedicate this work to the Hungarian nobility. May God grant that I could dedicate it my blood to its last drop.” Károly Széchy – Ferenc Badics (eds.), Gróf Zrínyi Miklós költői művei [The poetical works of Miklós Zrínyi]. Budapest, 1906, XLVI. “There would be good reason, my good Hungarian nation, to take your revenge on your neighbour [the Germans] (if your old true valiant and noble blood would only stir in you).” Sándor Bene – Sándor Szabó, ‘Oktatás jó elmélkedésre [A lesson for good contemplation]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 113 (2000) 460. András Serényi’s admonitions to his children (prob. 1688): Kálmán Thaly, ‘A báró Orlay és gróf Serényi család zábláthi levéltárából 15661718 [From the Zábláth archive of the Baron Orlay and Count Serényi families]’, Történelmi Tár 21 (1898) 254. In the declaration of the diet at Rákos on 12–13 October 1505: Mores et consuetudines huius Scythice gentis (que sicuti Regnum hoc cum maxima sanguinis sui effusione et fratrum suonim ingenti cede acquisivit, it a ferro et armis modo quoque tutare solet). Henrik Marczali, Enchiridion fontium historiae Hungarorum. A magyar történet kútfőinek kézikönyve [Handbook of the sources of Hungarian history]. Budapest, 1901, 318. 17 July 1661, Ferenc Wesselényi to János Rottal: “A few hawkers from who knows where, who are only intent on their own gain, are squandering our freedoms, profit, our goods earned with the blood of our ancestors.” MNL OL E 199. 8. cs. IV/4. t. No. 359. fol. 7 (copy). The slogan, which has run an unparalleled course later, was first put down in the anony mous pamphlet ‘Siralmas könyörgő levél [Grievous beseeching letter]’: “But Hungary belongs to the Hungarians, doesn’t it? Why should we therefore allow that strangers encroach upon our property so much?” Péter, A magyar nyelvű, 87.

154

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

An emblem or badge of the victory or perseverance of valiant Hungarians was the hoisted flag, as the letter to Batthyány reveals. Typical is the application of wishful thinking in a letter written by György Rákóczi II to István Koháry right before his return in 1659: “If only it were possible for all true Hungarians to join us, we would quickly put the hundred thousand Transylvanians to the test, and I should be burnt at the stakes if we failed to hoist the Hungarian flags across Nándorfehérvár [Belgrade].” 51 Victory was also proof of the vitality of a nation against other nations. Thus, one of the aims of valiance was to enhance the reputation of the nation. 52 In case of being defeated, one must resign oneself to be a martyr, partly of the nation and partly of God.53 The best-known example is Miklós Zrínyi’s epic poem Szigeti veszedelem (The Peril of Sziget), and the same idea is echoed by György Rákóczi II’s rousing sentence encouraging the defenders of the fortress of Borosjenő in 1658: “For Jenő, our blood will paint a bush in the field red.”54 Though he did not keep his promise (and his adversaries reproach him for it), this utterance became a slogan of his party, and the image of the valiant prince ready to shed his blood for his people determined Rákóczi’s subsequent canonization. In the narrative, the “super-Hungarian” György Rákóczi II is involved in three clashes with the Ottomans: outside Lippa (today Lipova, Romania; 6 July 1658), near the Iron Gate in Transylvania (today Poarta de Fier, Romania; 22 November 1659), and in the field of Gyalu (today Gilău in Romania; 22 May 1660) not far from Kolozsvár where – 51 9 August 1659, Szatmár. György Rákóczi II to István Koháry. MNL OL P 1992. 1. cs. 5. t. fols. 1–2. 52 Zrínyi in Vitéz hadnagy (Valiant lieutenant): “Alas, where has the good old fame of Hungarians gone?!” Zrínyi, Prózai munkák, 106. 14 November 1653, Gyulafehérvár. György Rákóczi II to Ádám Batthyány after the Moldavian campaign: “We did not reduce but enhance the renown of the Hungarian name in neighbouring countries.” MNL OL P 1314. 89. d. No. 39274 (film reel No. 4886). 53 Levente Nagy, ‘Retorika és nemzeti martirológia a XVII. századi magyar eposzokban [Rhetoric and national martirology in the Hungarian epics of the 17th century]’, in Bitskey – Oláh (eds.), Religio, retorika, 316–329. Péter Szabó, ‘“Virtus vulnere viret” – Sebtől díszlik az vitézség [Virtue is decorated by wounds]’, in Ibid., 338–348. 54 Szabó, ‘Esterházy Pál’, 79. József Jankovics (ed.), Bethlen János: Erdély története 1629 1673 [The Transylvanian history of János Bethlen 16291673]. Budapest, 1993, 37. ‘Petrityvity-Horváth Kozma önéletírása 16341660 [Autobiography of Kozma PetrityvityHorváth]’, in Gábor Daniel – Kálmán Thaly (eds.), Történelmi kalászok 16031711 [Historical gleaning from the period 16031711]. Pest, 1862, 50. EOE, Vol. XII, 120. In István Czeglédi’s funeral sermon: Kecskeméti – Nováky (eds.), Magyar nyelvű, 201. On a similar utterance of János Kemény in 1661: EOE, Vol. XIII, 76.

155

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

fulfilling his earlier pledge – he sacrificed his life for his subjects, receiving several lethal wounds in the heroic fighting. 55 Actually, an “imitation of Christ” motif can also be discerned in the narrative: the prince as the good shepherd sacrifices his life for his flock (John 10:11). 56 The “pro-Turkish” party rejected Rákóczi’s Christ-like pledge, twisting its meaning: “You are offering to spill your blood for our sake, but we have never asked Your Excellency to do so; what we are mourning now is exactly your Excellency’s ambition to retain the country with blood…” 57 Apparently disappointed, István Vitnyédi, a Transdanubian Lutheran adherent of the Ban of Croatia Miklós Zrínyi, laconically commented on the battle of Gyalu: “That’s how the poor soul met his death thanks to his silly resolution of valiance.” 58 The case of György Rákóczi II also proves that the praise of “Hungarian valiance” implies a set of examples, their protagonists being the “national” kings and Hungarian warlords: Attila, renowned – after Kézai’s chronicle – as the first Hungarian king, Matthias Corvinus, John Hunyadi, Pál Kinizsi, and as the above quoted Szent had (Holy Army, 1676) declares, György Rákóczi II and Miklós Zrínyi as well. One cannot help suspecting that this ideological frame also latently implies the idea of a national monarch, but this idea did not 55 23 May 1660, Élesd. Letter of György Rákóczi wounded in action to Csík-, Gyergyó- and Kászonszék. Lajos Szádeczky (ed.), Székely Oklevéltár. Vol. VI (16031698), Kolozsvár, 1897, 227–228. 11 July 1660, Sopron. István Vitnyédi to Miklós Zrínyi on Rákóczi’s death. Fabó (ed.), Vitnyédi István levelei, Vol. I, 153. István Gyöngyösi, Porábúl megéledett Főnix [Phoenix risen from ashes]. Ed. by József Jankovics – Judit Nyerges. Budapest, 1999, III/I/24. The narrative of Rákóczi’s three battles first appears in the funeral invitation dated 18 March 1661, Gergely (ed.), Teleki Mihály levelezése. Vol. II, 42–43. (Publ. of another copy: Történelmi Tár 22 [1899] 504–505). The same on the funeral flag: Hinc fremuit radibo Turcarum murmure Caesar/ Mox et Pannoniam sanguine foedat humum./ Non tulit hoc ardens Princeps fortissimus Heros,/ Ad Gyalu pugnam triplicat ergo gravem. Szirmay, Notitia, 208. See also: RMKT XVII/9, 454–458. Gergely Tamás Fazakas, ‘El-távozott a’ mi magyar Izraëlünktül a’ dicsösség (Köleséri Sámuel panaszimádságai 1666-ból) [Glory has departed from our Hungarian Israel. Prayers of lament of Sámuel Köleséri from 1666]’, Könyv és Könyvtár 27 (2005) 117–118. Gergely Tamás Fazakas, ‘Bűnös-e a fejedelem. Imádságok és versek az 1657 utáni Rákóczi propaganda kontextusában [Is the prince guilty? Prayers and verses in the context of the post-1657 propaganda of Rákóczi]’, in Kármán – Szabó (eds.), Szerencsének elegyes, 425449. 56 30 November 1659, Pozsony. The Hungarian estates to the Transylvanian [pro-Rákóczi] estates: “For he was such a devout guardian and lover of his nation that, as we wrote, he followed in the wake of the good shepherd who did not shrink from sacrificing himself in order to protect his flock.” EOE, Vol. XIII, 579. 57 EOE, Vol. XII, 323. 58 Fabó (ed.), Vitnyédi István levelei, Vol. I, 153.

156

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

come to the surface in mid-seventeenth-century practical politics. For the majority, the goal was not independence, but the restoration of medieval statehood, and the expulsion of the Ottomans.59 The desire to return to the normative of “good old” Hungarians is also manifest in language usage and language consciousness. The odd archaism of Miklós Zrínyi’s prose is probably also attributable to this ambition. 60 The call for the old purity of the language often appears in opposition to Latin and Latinisms. In a postscript to a letter to Palatine Pál Pálffy, György Rákóczi II wrote: “We cannot write to Your Excellency in Latin, for we are Hungarian, and we know more Hungarian than Latin.” 61 Others – like János Haller of Transylvania in 1682 – warned against the danger of mixing the two languages.62 The Puritan Calvinist minister Pál Medgyesi, who was only in superficial contact with noble nationalism, pitted “Slavic Hungarian” against “true Hungarian” in a linguistic sense (Dialogus politico-ecclesiasticus, 1650).63 The cited examples show that noble nationalism (sometimes, but not always) had a linguistic/ethnic component as well. Similarly to Polish Sarmatism, seventeenth-century noble nationalism regarded the national costumes as a mark of “true Hungarian-ness”. It is not accidental that István Vitnyédi symbolizes the rights of the Hungarian estates with pieces of clothing in his letters; the court is determined to get the Hungarians to take off the “yellow boots” and put on “Czech sandals” instead, or to wear “German pants” [ample trousers]. 64 Anticipating the late eighteenthcentury grumbling of József Gvadányi, aversion to foreign costumes often appears in the kuruc period as well.65 Not only emphasis on Hungarian costumes, but nearly the entire set of these ideas can be demonstrated in examples of the visual arts. The attire 59 It is undeniable that in a letter written by Ferenc Nádasdy to György Rákóczi II the desired goal of independence also appears. Szabó, ‘Esterházy Pál’, 80–81. 60 In Péter Kulcsár’s introduction: Zrínyi, Prózai munkák, 22. 61 László Kovács, ‘I. és II. Rákóczi György három levele [Three letters of György Rákóczi I and II]’, Történelmi Tár 21 (1898) 373. 62 Imre Bán, Apáczai Csere János [János Apáczai Csere]. Budapest, 1958, 547. 63 István Bartók, “Sokkal magyarabbúl szólhatnánk és írhatnánk”. Irodalmi gondolkodás Magyarországon 1630–1700 között [“We could speak and write a lot more Hungarian”. Literary thinking in Hungary between 1630 and 1700]. Budapest, 1998, 257–258, 272. 64 11 April 1662, Sopron. István Vitnyédi to Miklós Zrínyi. Fabó (ed.), Vitnyédi István levelei, Vol. I, 197; Vol. II, 66. 65 For example, in András Serényi’s cited admonition of 1688: Thaly, ‘A báró Orlay’, 254.

157

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

appears in Elias Widemann’s printed portrait series of the leaders of the estates (1652) and in the ancestors’ galleries, while good old Hungarians (chieftains, kings, including Attila, the first Hunnic-Hungarian king) are included in engravings of the joint historical undertaking of Lőrinc Ferencffy and Elias Berger, which eventually only appeared some decades later in Judge Royal Ferenc Nádasdy’s Mausoleum (1664).66 Non-Hungarian engravers were also inspired by a peculiar antiquarianism trying to reconstruct costumes of the Huns and Hungarian leaders at the time of the Conquest. 67 Frescoes about the Long War at the turn of the seventeenth century commissioned by Ferenc Nádasdy for the Sárvár castle in 1653, were meant to commemorate both his grandfather, the great anti-Ottoman fighter, and, in general, the valiance of Hungarians. The Rohonc (today Rechnitz, Austria] castle of Ádám Batthyány, an intimate correspondent of György Rákóczi II, was already decorated by a Turkish–Hungarian battle scene in 1635.68 An important question remains to be discussed at the end of this analysis: When did the phrase “true Hungarian-ness” and the ideology it implied appear? The first occurrence is in a letter written by Prince of Transylvania Zsigmond Báthory in Kolozsvár on 4 April 1601 to the estates of the Kingdom. Apparently, the text enumerates several elements of the seventeenthcentury ideology: “What caused the demise of the beautiful and honest Hungarian crown, which had dignity and a formidable name among the nations, if not the machinations of foreign nations infiltrating among you? But what is the most painful is that you, who are Hungarians, only possess the name of the Hungarian nation, don’t you? You only know your old-time freedom from hearsay, don’t you? Having mixed with all sorts of nationalities, both your laws and customs have changed, your nation is a mix. May you be judged by the holy law of God and by your fellows who have shed their blood or died for the Hungarian nation.” 69 66 György Rózsa, Magyar történetábrázolás a 17. században [Imaging the history in 17thcentury Hungary]. Budapest, 1973, 13–80. Galavics, Kössünk kardot, 68–69. Gizella Cenner-Wilhelmb, ‘Grafikus portrésorozatok kelet és nyugat között [Graphic portrait series between east and west]’, in Tamás Hofer (ed.), Magyarok kelet és nyugat között. A nemzettudat változó jelképei [Hungarians between east and west. Changing symbols of national consciousness]. Budapest, 1996, 123–133. 67 Rózsa, Magyar történetábrázolás, 25. 68 Rózsa, Magyar történetábrázolás, 107–120. Galavics, Kössünk kardot, 83–85, 95. 69 MNL OL R 298. Erdélyi iratok [Transylvanian documents] 1 t. 10. d.

158

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

The next examples are from the period of the uprising led by István Bocskai. On 29 March 1605, Bocskai wrote to the estates of Transdanubia: “I am just as true a Hungarian, I am your brother and blood, I have been intent on your welfare just as on ours.” 70 Although János Rimay’s famous poem (In which he is brooding on the decline and degeneration of the Hungarian nation) – dated by literary history to immediately before the uprising – does not contain the phrase, it contains several elements of the later ideology. 71 It can be safely presumed that seventeenth-century noble nationalism was consummated by the Bocskai uprising, though it was not its initiator. One thing is certain: owing to the Ottoman contacts of the prince, the unrelenting struggle against the Ottomans did not have a salient place in the texts of this very period. The two phrases regarded here as indicators can be traced throughout the seventeenth century. In a letter of 1617 to Péter Pázmány, Gábor Bethlen described himself as “true Hungarian”. 72 In 1629 a clergyman of Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia), Péter Alvinczi used the phrase with reference to the news of the great prince’s death.73 The term is found in a letter of a nobleman of Sáros County, István Úsz of Úszfalu (1635), and in another letter of 1644 by Zsigmond Lónyai.74 It was not only used by Protestants; the Catholic Palatine Miklós Esterházy (1625–1645) also used it in a circular letter written to the Upper Hungarian counties.75 The use of the term is ubiquitous in the decades after the Transylvanian crisis, too, but its interpretation is divided along the labanc–kuruc opposition. It is typical that in June 1682, Miklós Esterházy’s 70 Kálmán Thaly, ‘Bocskay István leveleskönyve 1605. martius 20-tól aprilis 29-ig [The book of correspondence of István Bocskai from 20 March to 29 April 1605]’, Magyar Történelmi Tár 7 (1874) 82. 71 Mihály Imre, “Magyarország panasza”. A Querela Hungariae toposz a XVI XVII. század irodalmában [The “lament of Hungary”. The commonplace Querela Hungariae in the literature of the 16th17th centuries]. Debrecen, 1995, 244. 72 17 December 1617, Beszterce. Gábor Bethlen to Péter Pázmány. Vilmos Fraknói, Pázmány Péter 1570–1637 [Péter Pázmány 15701637]. Budapest, 1886, 323. 73 22 November 1629, Kassa. Péter Alvinczi to György Rákóczi I. MNL OL E 190. 3. d. No. 696. 74 16 May 1635, Úszfalva (Sáros County). István Úsz to György Rákóczi I. MNL OL E 190. 7. d. No. 1454. 15 August 1644, Kassa. Zsigmond Lónyai to Palatine Miklós Esterházy. Lajos Merényi, ‘Lónyai Zsigmond levelei Eszterházy Miklós nádorhoz [The letters of Zsigmond Lónyai to the Palatine Miklós Esterházy]’, Történelmi Tár 6 (1904) 532. 75 Štátny archív v Prešove [Prešov Branch of the Slovakian State Archives] Šarišská župa [Sáros/Šariš County], Acta politica 1641/No. 3 (šk. 51).

159

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

son, Palatine Pál Esterházy (1681–1713) means the fight against the Turks when using the phrase “true Hungarian-ness”, 76 while the famous Brezán (today Berežani, Ukraine) manifesto of Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II and Miklós Bercsényi, dated 6 May 1703 defines the meaning of the term as the fight against “German” oppression.77 During the crisis, this duality was not yet present in the presented form: there is no doubt that the struggle against the Ottomans was still a central issue, although several thinkers channelled their dissatisfaction with the Vienna court and the foreign troops – not yet manifest in deeds – with the help of the notion of “true Hungarian-ness”. The extraordinary popularity of György Rákóczi II in the Hungarian Kingdom owed – in addition to the exquisite horses he had donated on a regular basis – to this emotionally surcharged noble nationalism. After the battle of Vezekény (today Veľké Vozokany, Slovakia) of 1652, presented as victory, yet experienced as defeat (in which four members of the prominent Esterházy family were killed) 78 many regarded the prince as the embodiment of “the Hungarian identity”, a victorious Hungarian warlord and ruler, and some dreamers might have even seen him as the new Hungarian king. The fame acquired after the Moldavian (1653) and Wallachian (1655) campaigns outlived the Polish campaign despite the critical notes. Rákóczi shrewdly profited by this capital in his domestic conflict with his “pro-Turkish” opponents. The unusually resolute step taken by Grand Vizier Köprülü Mehmed (1656–1661) also offered him the chance of open warfare against the Ottomans, fulfilling the long-held desires of the Hungarian elite in the kingdom. That was the way the prince became the “functional model” for Miklós Zrínyi as a “national” martyr. Obviously, all the above-said are largely a simplification, and the “Hungarian identity” had different interpretations with shifted accents in the mid-seventeenth century too, 79 but the ideology (and identity) had a firm core, 76 7 July 1682, Kismarton. Pál Esterházy to Bars County (palatine’s circular). Artúr Odescalchi, ‘Emlékek Barsvármegye hajdanából, VII [Relics from the past of Bars County]’, Történelmi Tár 16 (1893) 77–78. 77 Ágnes R. Várkonyi – Domokos Dániel Kis (eds.), A Rákóczi-szabadságharc [The Rákóczi freedom fight]. Budapest, 2004, 34–35. 78 Péter Szabó, A végtisztesség. A főúri gyászszertartás mint látvány [The last tribute. The aristocratic funeral as spectacle]. Budapest, 1989. Noémi Viskolcz, ‘Az Esterházyak temetkezéseiről a 17. században [About the funerals of the Esterházy family in the 17th century]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 58 (2009) 245–268. 79 Palatine Miklós Esterházy, for example, also applied the ideology to the “warring estate”

160

“TRUE HUNGARIAN BLOOD”

which created a surprisingly unified political idiom. Until now, this phraseology was almost exclusively mediated by the monumental figure of Miklós Zrínyi, ban of Croatia, though it was not tied to him personally, but to seventeenth-century noble nationalism. The militant ideology reaching back into the idealized past of the community to provide examples for the corrupted present, reminds one of modern nationalism in many regards. 80 Though evidently, there is no single unbroken line of development up to the nineteenth-century period of Hungarian nation formation, there is no doubt that one of the main inspirations came from the above seventeenth-century idea; furthermore it is also obvious that the ideological profile of Hungarian politics is determined by a conscious reliance on the early modern tradition to this very day.

but restricted it to the Hungarian Kingdom. Sándor Szilágyi, ‘A Rákóczyak levéltárából 1611–1630, VII [From the archive of the Rákóczi’s]’, Történelmi Tár 18 (1895) 663. The “warring estate” is also part of the nation in Zrínyi’s thinking. 6 January 1664, Csáktornya. Miklós Zrínyi to István Csáky: “Every good Hungarian, particularly those of noble blood, must be eager” to fight against the Turks. Sándor Bene – Gábor Hausner (eds.), Zrínyi Miklós válogatott levelei [Selected letters of Miklós Zrínyi]. Budapest, 1997, 144. 80 Anthony D. Smith notes in speaking of modern nationalism that the contrasting of an idealized golden age in the past against the corrupted present is particularly typical of crises. The source of the “originality” of the nation is sought and found in the past, the great narrative of the nation is created and the national heroes selected in such periods. Smith, Ethno-symbolism, 35–36.

161

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

162

SZABOLCS VARGA

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS The aim of this study is to present the way the Hungarian territory under Ottoman rule appears in Bosnian heroic epic poems. This group of sources inspired a very rich literature in international research, but has not been studied from this point of view. These texts are also practically unknown to Hungarian historiography.1 The astonishment caused by the epic songs of the South Slavs was contemporaneous with the birth of interest in the Balkan Peninsula in the nineteenth century. The first translations appeared in English and French in 1827, but later collecting work shifted mostly to Austrian and German researchers.2 The epic Smailagić Meho, the similarity of which to the Homeric epics had attracted the most ardent interest, was first published in 1886. 3 Undoubtedly the most influential researcher of the subject was American classical philologist Milman Parry, who collected nearly 13,000 texts in 1933– 1

2

3

As far as I know, in Hungary Károly Jung is the only folklorist to be involved in the research of the theme. Károly Jung, ‘Bartók találkozik a délszláv verses (hős)epikával (is) [Béla Bartók meets with the South Slav (heroic) epic poems (too)]’, Híd (2006 September) 51–75. In 2002 a selection of literary works on Miklós Zrínyi was released. It includes Dalmatian epics, Slovak and Burgenland Croatian folksongs, several Bosnian epic songs. Only one of them has relevance to our theme in which the hero fights under Szigetvár in the service of Islam. The song – Ljubović Mujo under Sziget – was put down in writing in the frontier defence zone in the early eighteenth century and has been preserved in the Erlangen manuscript found in the twentieth century. György Frankovics (ed.), Zrínyi-énekek és feljegyzések [Songs and notes on Zrínyi]. Pécs, 2002, 145–148. The most important being Kosta Hörmann, who published seventy-five songs in two volumes under the title Narodne pjesme Muhamedanaca u BiH in 1888. It was republished in Sarajevo in 1996, now with the title Narodne pjesme Bosnjaka u Bosni i Hercegovini. Friedrich Salomon Krauss, Smailagić Meho. Pjesan naših Muhamedanaca. Dubrovnik, 1886. More recent edition: Idem, Volkserzählungen der Südslaven. Märchen und Sagen, Schwänke, Schnurren und erbauliche Geschichten. Ed. by Raymond L. Burt – Walter Puchner. Wien–Köln–Weimar, 2002. For ample references to text publications, see SerboCroatian Heroic Songs. Vol. 3: The Wedding of Smailagić Meho / Avdo Međedović. Collected by Milman Parry. Translated with Introduction, Notes and Commentary by Albert B. Lord. With a Translation of Conversations Concerning the Singer’s Life and Times by David E. Bynum. Cambridge, MA, 1974, 46–53.

163

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

1935, 3,500 of them with the phonograph. 4 Parry died soon after his second trip, and his pupil Albert B. Lord resumed his work. Research was not restricted to heroic songs; folk songs about love were collected just as systematically. The method was similar to the approach the Hungarian Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály had elaborated, 5 and therefore it is no accident that it was Bartók, as an émigré to the USA, who notated the music of the collected songs,6 laying the foundations for his great synthesis of Yugoslav folk music. 7 Parry’s research directed the interest of West European scholarship to the Bosnian folk epic, on the presumption that they displayed more ties to the Homeric epics than the Serbian and Croatian songs rooted in the Christian tradition.8 Owing to the protraction of the transcription and translation of the collected material and also influenced by the given global political situation, the first selection of Milman Parry’s collection came out in print as late as 1953 and the following year, in two volumes. 9 In the decades after the publication, researchers of classical philology, linguistics, and folklore pulled these epics to pieces to arrive at highly important results. In the meantime, new texts appeared,10 and later on in the independent Bosnia-Herzegovina a great 4

Serbocroatian Heroic Songs. Vol. 1: Novi Pazar. Collected by Milman Parry. Ed. by Albert Bates Lord. English Translations with Musical Transcriptions by Béla Bartók. Belgrade– Cambridge, 1954, 13. 5 Béla Bartók wrote in enthusiastic terms about the quality of the American scholar’s collection. Parry was the first to use the gramophone among collectors in the Balkans, and sparing no effort he registered entire ballad texts. What is more, they worked with highquality discs and the recordings did not get eroded after several copies were made. Béla Bartók, ‘A Parry-féle jugoszláv népzene-gyűjtemény [Parry’s Yugoslav folk music collection]’, in András Szőlőssy (ed.), Bartók Béla válogatott írásai [Selected writings of Béla Bartók]. Budapest, 1956, 357–362. 6 On the connection between Bartók’s emigration to America and the commission to do this work, see Jung, ‘Bartók találkozik’, 63–64. 7 The job was handed over to Bartók by a former pupil of his, György Herzog, the folk music specialist of Columbia University. Jung, ‘Bartók találkozik’, 60. Title of the synthesis: Béla Bartók, Yugoslav Folk Music. Vols. I–IV, New York, 1978. On the problem of transcription: Idem, ‘A jugoszláv népdalgyűjtemény bevezetése [Introduction to the Yugoslav folksong collection]’, in Szőlőssy (ed.), Bartók Béla válogatott írásai, 151–174. 8 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 18. 9 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs. Vol. 2: Novi Pazar. Serbocroatian Texts. Collected by Milman Parry. Ed. by Albert Bates Lord. Belgrade–Cambridge, 1953. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I (see in note 4). 10 Without an aim of giving the complete list: David E. Bynum – Albert B. Lord (eds.), Serbocroatian Heroic Songs. Vol. 4: Ženidba Smailagina Sina. Kazivao je Avdo Međedović. Cambridge, MA, 1974. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs. Vol. 6: Ženidba Vlahinjic Alije.

164

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

emphasis was put on the care and re-interpretation of these sources in the process of creating the country’s own historical identity.11 Western scholars scrutinised these songs as works of art and not as historical sources, and they did so quite rightly for both hermeneutic and methodological reasons, yet for the same reason they did not appear useful to historians where the past was concerned. Since Heinrich Schliemann, however, it ought to be obvious that epic poems may have historical value as well, similarly to the poems of court minstrels, 12 and akin to folk epics, to the monumental account of Evlia Çelebi little acknowledged as a historian, or again, to works by unknown Turkish poets. 13 Quite understandably, early modern Croatian – primarily Ragusan (today’s Dubrovnik in Croatia) – poetry feeding on folk epics is more in the focus of interest; apart from Croatian researchers, Hungarian historians have also thoroughly studied them. Embarking on this theme in detail would overstep the limits of this article, so let it suffice to mention József Bajza, 14 Rezső Szegedy,15 and László

11

12

13

14 15

Osman-beg Delibegović i Pavičević Luka. Kazivao je i pjevao Avdo Međedović. Collected by Milman Parry. Translated with Prolegomena and Notes by David Bynum. Cambridge, 1980. Bihačka Krajina. Epics from Bihać, Čazin and Kulen Vakuf. Edited with Prolegomena and Notes by David Bynum. Cambridge, MA, 1979. Interest in the texts was already kindled before the Yugoslav war. Međedović’s grand epic appeared in critical edition in Sarajevo in 1987. Thanks to Károly Jung, I could use this version, for which I express my gratitude herewith. Avdo Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho. Junački ep. Priredio Enes Kujundžić. Sarajevo, 1987. It also includes a selected bibliography (ibid., 345–351). Đenana Buturović, Bosanskomuslimanska epika. Sarajevo, 1992. More recently, internet portals also tackle the question, the latest literature can also be found online: http://www.camo.ch/literatura_AM.htm (downloaded: 2 January 2016). As proven by Ferenc Szakály and Géza Dávid in an analysis of a historical song by Sebestyén Tinódi. Ferenc Szakály – Géza Dávid, ‘Újabb adalék Tinódi Sebestyén történetírói hiteléhez. Hajdar bin Abdullah tímár-birtoka [New addenda to the authenticity of Sebestyén Tinódi as historian. Haydar bin Abdullah’s timar holding]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 100 (1996) 481–489. Balázs Sudár, ‘“Görösgál ostroma” 1555-ben és a hódoltsági török epikus költészet [“The siege of Görösgál” in 1555 and the Ottoman epic poetry in Hungary]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 115:2 (2002) 353–375. Idem, ‘Kanizsa ostroma (1601) török szemmel [The siege of Kanizsa (1601) as seen by the Ottomans]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 119:4 (2006) 1025–1058. Idem, Pécs 1663-ban. Evlia cselebi és az első részletes városleírás [Pécs in 1663. Evliya Çelebi and the first detailed description of the town]. Pécs, 2012. József Bajza, ‘Egykorú horvát vers a mohácsi vészről [A contemporaneous Croatian poem of the disaster at Mohács]’, Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny 60 (1936) 198–202. Rezső Szegedy, ‘Zrínyi Miklós és a szigeti veszedelem a horvát költészetben [Miklós Zrínyi and the peril of Sziget in Croatian poetry]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 25 (1915) 291–299, 406–430.

165

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

Hadrovics,16 who wrote several excellent analyses of the work of Marko Marulić, Ivan Vetranić, Ivan Gundulić, Hannibal Lučić and the other poets. 17 To my knowledge, Szegedy was the only one to use the Bosnian epic sources and also make reference to them. 18 Since he found hardly any information on Miklós Zrínyi and the siege of Szigetvár (1566) in them, he did not deem them too important. To a certain extent Szegedy was right, for the actions of an overwhelming majority of the Bosnian epic works he described did not take place in Ottoman Hungary. After Parry’s collections, however, the situation changed, for on the basis of the titles of the songs, at least 25 concern the occupied Hungarian areas.19 The list is surely not complete, because the Parry collection includes 32 songs from Avdo Međedović, while the guslar claimed to know 58 epics. 20 That may be true even if some pieces overlap, and a song might have been narrated by different singers in diverse variations. For example, the less known epic Boj pod Osjekom (Battle of Osijek) survives in the versions of four different minstrels.21 From this corpus, the present paper only analyses six epic poems, so the picture outlined here might be refined and modified by subsequent research. The events described in the six epic songs take place in Hungarian areas occupied by the Ottomans. Most important of them is Ženidba Smailagić Meha (The Wedding of Smailagić Meho) tied to Avdo Međedović. It narrates the wedding of the son of Smail (presumably Ismail) Aga in 12,310 lines. 22 Much is revealed of the connection between work and singer by the conversation between Međedović and Parry. The Bosnian Muslim bard was born in Bijelo Polje in Novi Pazar and never learnt to read or write. He picked up the songs from his surroundings after hearing, first of all from his father who was originally a butcher. In fact, the genre enjoyed its heyday during his parents’ youth, and the generation of singers who learnt the tricks of trade from the most significant performer of the genre, Ćor Huso grew up in the 16 László Hadrovics, ‘Magyar–délszláv szellemi kapcsolatok a középkorban [HungarianSouth Slav intellectual contacts in the middle ages]’, Magyar Nyelvőr 123:1 (1999) 46–58. 17 For an overview of early modern age Croatian poetry, see István Lőkös, A horvát irodalom története [A history of Croatian literature]. Budapest, 1996, 27–115. 18 Szegedy, ‘Zrínyi Miklós’, 292–294. 19 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 21–46. 20 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 53–55. 21 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 21–46. 22 Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 79–247.

166

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

mid-nineteenth century.23 Owing to his empathic sensitivity and improvisatory performance, Međedović was outstanding among his peers in the first half of the twentieth century. It well illustrates his capabilities that his oeuvre amounts to 96,723 lines learnt after hearing, and he was able to recite up to 2,500 lines a day. Although there were already printed text collections for singers in his time, for Avdo they were only accessible indirectly.24 The conversation with him reveals that he was not just a person with an extraordinary memory who reproduced a learnt text word for word, but he was a genuinely creative artist. In 1935, Parry made the acquaintance of Mumin Vlahovljak of Plevlje, another singer. He sang Bećiragić Meho in 2,294 lines, which Avdo did not know, but immediately after hearing it he repeated the story in 6,313 lines! 25 This instance alone suffices to prove that Međedović must have been the best practitioner of the genre. The five remaining ballads are Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha (The Wedding of Ćejvanonić Meho),26 Dvije Sultanije (Two Sultanas),27 and Haso od Ribnika izbavi Mustajbega (Haso of Ribnik Rescues Mustaj Bey) 28 performed by Salih Ugljanin, also from Novi Pazar. Novi Pazar was the birthplace of Sulejman Fortić, whose song Sultan Sulejman uzima Budim (Sultan Süleyman Captures Buda) will be analyzed,29 and that was where Sulejman Makić, to whom we owe the epic Boj pod Temišvarom (The Battle of Temesvár), also lived. 30 As the birthplaces of the singers reveal they all derived from an easily localized narrow area, which will have significance in the following. The map of Ottoman Hungary would be fairly defective if plotted only on the basis of these epics. There are almost painfully few references to 23 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 10. For Ćor Huso, see Milman Parry et alii, Ćor Huso, a Study of the Southslavic Song. New York, 1995. 24 Avdo said he had learnt several songs from books that were printed in Sarajevo in the 1880s. They were in Latin script, and he learnt, for example, The Battle of Osijek from an Austrian policeman reading it out loud to him several times in the bookstore of his tiny village. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 26. 25 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 8–11. On the homepage of Harvard University the entire Milman Parry collection is available since 2012 with the manuscripts of all epic songs: http://chs119.chs.harvard.edu/mpc/songs/mp_songs1.html (downloaded: 29 December 2015.) 26 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 133–144; Vol. II, No. 12. 27 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 155–161; Vol. II, No. 15. 28 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 179–196; Vol. II, No. 18. 29 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 226–233; Vol. II, No. 20. 30 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 277–285; Vol. II, No. 27.

167

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

Hungarian places. Only Eszék (today Osijek, Croatia), Kanizsa, Mohács, Buda, Temesvár (today Timișoara, Romania), on one occasion Bács and Szerém (Syrmium, today district in Croatia [Srijem] and Serbia [Srem]) are mentioned, and the historically identifiable persons are also hardly more in number. On the Christian side Rákóczi appears31 – the context clearly reveals he is Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II (1676–1735) – and Tiro Hasan Pasha on the Ottoman side, who is known to have been an important actor of the early seventeenth century, the beylerbeyi of Kanizsa for some time.32 It is not excluded that “General Peter” mentioned in Smailagić Meho is actually Petru Rareş IV, prince of Moldavia (1527–1528 and 1541–1546) as Lord presumed, but the question is still unsettled despite his rather convincing argumentation. 33 A radical change would be brought about by the identification of one or another Bosnian gazi in the epics by Ottomanist historiography. The identification of the Christian actors will not be successful, as apart from Rákóczi very few have concrete names. In addition, they do not appear in the mentioned songs but in another epic entitled Ženidba bega Ljubovića (The Wedding of Ljubović Bey).34 They are: Pellengrinović of Posavlje, his brotherin-law, Šeremetović, Mrkonja Sirdar, Latin Doge, and Lomigora Vuk, as well as captains János and Gavran. They did not fight in Ottoman Hungary in the strict sense, but clashed with the Muslim heroes in the Sava region and, of course, suffered humiliating defeat at their hand. The ban of Zadar (zadarski ban) also appears in the Croatian theatre of operations, with two Wallachian kings as his allies.35 Apart from the mentioned “General Peter” there is a single known person who fought here: Petar od Bogdena/Bogdana, but probably this name also belongs to a Moldavian or Wallachian prince, nor can it be excluded 31 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 27. 32 Tiro Hasan Pasha is identical with the Ottoman dignitary Tiryaki Hasan Pasha mentioned in scholarly literature. Though his modern biography is not yet written, it is known that he was governor-general (beylerbeyi) of Buda several times (August–September 1599, September 1600–April 1601, November 1609–January 1614), and beylerbeyi of Kanizsa from July 1601–July 1604. He died in 1614 and was buried in Pécs. For further references, see Mahmut Ak, ‘Tiryâkî Hasan Paşa’, in Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi. Vol. 41, Ankara, 2012, 205–207. 33 Albert B. Lord, ‘History and Tradition in Balkan Oral Epic and Ballad’, Western Folklore 31 (1972) 53–60. 34 It was not mentioned among the analysed epic poems for it was only accessible in an English summary. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, 208–211. 35 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 18. Haso od Ribnika izbavi Mustajbega. On the Wallachian kings: Beše stigl do dva vlaška kralja. Ibid., 1068.

168

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

that the two names designate one and the same person. 36 The sporadic data also indicates that the Croatian theatre of war was more important for the epic songs, as at least the memory of the names of the adversaries survived, while to the north of the Drava no corresponding data has been found. The Bosnian heroic epics evolved in a completely different context than the South Slav poems of similar themes: they wholly lack any reference to any member of the Zrínyi or Frangepán families. This is not accidental, but must be connected with the time of their emergence. Miklós Zrínyi, the commander of Szigetvár and his son György were heroes of sixteenth-century events, so the basic motifs of the heroic poetry that evolved around their persons were probably created in the first phase of the Ottoman domination in Hungary. The poems of the Bosnian guslars probably date from a later period. It is an inherent feature of epic poems to have a review of the troops, here this is an enumeration of the Bosnian heroes. The most complete catalogue is in Smailagić Meho, when Tiro Hasan, Smail Aga and his brother Cifrić Hasan from Kanizsa are writing invitations to Meho’s wedding and, incidentally, to a campaign against the treacherous grand vizier of Buda. The first to be invited was the pasha of Travnik, Pašić Ibrahim, followed by Mustaj, the bey of Lika and the leader of Vrljika (ajan od Vrljike).37 Letters went to Fetibegović in Banja Luka, Fatić Omeraga in Jajce, his colleague of a similar name in Lijevno,38 as well as Šehidija in Sarajevo. Ibrahim, Fetibegović and Šehidija represented the entire civilian and military leadership of Bosnia. Another twelve letters went to the area beyond the Una (Unđurovina), 39 to Mehmed in bloody Tuzla and “the Turkish Brk Ibrahim” (na turčina Brka Ibrahima)40 in Gradašac.41 The addressees included the bey of Brčkovo (Brčko), the Turkish Šahić Ali Bey, Delibegović of Eszék 42 and the seven captains of Bihać. 43 A 36 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 163. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, line 6185. In Kujundžić’s edition there is an explanatory note claiming that Petar General actually served in Moldavia. Kujundžić, Ženidba, 34. 37 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 167. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, line 6542. 38 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 167–168. Omeraga krilja od Lijevna, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, line 6608. 39 In Avdo’s view it is on the shore of the Una, but he added: just across from Eszék (today Osijek, Croatia). Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 264–265. 40 Kujundžić claims it is Gradačac. Kujundžić, Ženidba, 193. 41 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 169. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, line 6695. 42 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 169. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 6700–6745. 43 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 170. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines

169

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

thousand warriors were requested from Cazin and further heroes lived in Klissa, Sarajevo, Visoko, Mostar, Trebinje, Cetina, and Kladuša. The enumeration can be enlarged with participants of the assembly at Kanizsa described in the opening scene of the epic. It was attended by thirty beys and twenty-four sultanic agas headed by Tiro Hasan Pasha with an escort of fifty warriors (deli). Next to Tiro Omer sat the alderman of the town (ajan), a hoary old man.44 In addition, there were two commanders of the fortress (dizdar), the alaybeyi Cifrić Hasan and his nephew Meho, the names and ranks of the rest cannot be gleaned from the text. 45 Surveying the quick-list, one finds that the majority of the actors in the epic derive from Croatian or Bosnian areas. When the characters in the other texts are also included in the survey, the superiority of the Balkans becomes even more preponderant, only Tiro also crops up in other songs.46 Permanent characters are Mustaj of Lika, Mujo and Halil, and Lički Tale od Orašaca. They are the true Muslim heroes. Mustaj Bey surely existed; in Radoslav Lopašić’s opinion the gazi with the forename Hasumović was the captain of Bihać in 1642–1676 and the sancakbeyi of Lika in 1653, who was captured by Miklós Zrínyi in 1656 and was redeemed from this captivity by Evliya Çelebi in 1660. 47 Mujo and Halil were inseparable brothers, like Marko and Andrija Kraljević in the Christian Slav world. Mujo had a black horse and Halil had a piebald as their distinguishing marks. Tale was knowledge and justice incarnate, Allah heeded his prayers, he was always accompanied by a hodja holding sacred writs in his hand. It is important that the leadership of the army is also their task, the group of Kanizsa is clearly passive in the course of events. 48 The commanders from the Lika–Kladuša area lead the campaign, Tale directs the faithful troops under Buda and it is he who captures the leader of the enemy troops. Ljubović, the scion of a noble family from Herzegovina living in Nevesinje has a similarly salient role. So as to win his love Zlata, he defeated Pellengrinović and the Christian troops along the Sava49 and conquered Buda, which the viziers of the sultan had been belea6771–6772. Dva Kozlića, tri Huremagića, dva Poprženovića. 44 Ajan Omer od Kanidže dedo, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 80. Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, line 46. 45 In Šemić’s version Nožinagić Ibro and Pločić Oručaga are also included, but Avdo did not know them. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 14. 46 Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 12. 47 Radoslav Lopašić, Bihać i bihačka krajina. Zagreb, 1890, 102–105. 48 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 31–32. 49 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 208–211.

170

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

guered on for twenty-four years, without success. 50 However, their figures belong more to the realm of folklore. In sum, it can be concluded that the Bosnian Muslim heroes divide into two groups: one originated from around Nevesinje and Trebinje, that is, southern Bosnia where the minstrels were also recruited from. The other group lived around Lika, Kladuša, and Bihać, and were weathered in the fights along the frontiers. The third group is only connected loosely to the first two. This is best exemplified by the case of Orlanović Mujo. It can be known from the epic Dvije Sultanije that Orlić was a standard-bearer (bayraktar) of Kanizsa, who lived in the town.51 The sultan ordered him to occupy Crete, where his sons were kept as prisoners. He went therefore to Udbina to discuss it with the rest of the beys and they decided to assemble with their troops at the tower of Orlić in Kanizsa in two weeks’ time. The purpose of the trip to Udbina is revealed by another epic. Orlić Mustafa Aga was a native of Udbina. 52 The corresponding elements of the two wholly different epic texts might permit the presumption of a real person who came from Udbina and served in Kanizsa, but further identification is a future task for researchers. When Turkish characters appear in the epic poems it is consistently indicated, differentiating them in this way from the Bosnian heroes. That is, a sense of “we” identity existed between the singers and the audience, which separated them from both the infidels and from people originating from other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Apart from close personal relations, the appearance of Hungarian places in the epic poems stems from the geographic conception of heroic epics. Eszék, Kanizsa, and Mohács are clearly part of Bosnia in the songs, on equal status with Nevesinje, Sarajevo, or Kladuša. Eszék and Kanizsa are Turkish towns proper,53 where there are no signs of Christian precedents or any feature that would differentiate them from the rest of the Bosnian towns. The only exception might be the constant epithet of these towns: they have wide spacious green surroundings. For the authors of the epic songs there was 50 Sultan Sulejman uzima Budim, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 20. 51 A spremi ga Orlić bajraktaru, da ga spremiš Orlanović Muju, … u Kajniđi gradu cerovane, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 15, lines 229–230, 235. 52 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 174: note 142. 53 A character in an epic song introduces himself as Ćejvanović Meho, iz Kajniđe grada carevoga; Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 12, lines 70–71.

171

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

probably a sharp contrast between mountainous Bosnia and the Hungarian plain. That is probably based on personal experience, for it is a recurrent motif that after Eszék the heroes always arrive in the field of Mohács. The battlefield has extraordinary status, not only in Hungarian national memory. As Evliya Çelebi writes, it was a pilgrimage site for Muslims as well with a tall building and a drinking fountain for the pilgrims.54 Mohács became the geographic centre-point of the Bosnian heroic epics: it is where the beys of Eszék ride out, and is placed immediately next to Kanizsa, and what is more, in Avdo’s song it appears under Buda. The Ottoman beys wintering in Temesvár also look out at the field of Mohács while sipping their coffee. 55 That said, Mohács is not quite unambiguously positive: in some songs the bleached bones of people killed in the battlefield lie scattered around and make the passage highly dangerous. Though an analysis of the image of Mohács would have to be the subject of a separate paper, it can be contended that it has a central role in the Bosnian heroic epics too. The status of Kanizsa is more unambiguous. Tiro Hasan Pasha’s town 56 is in Bosnia, embraced by broad fields and accessible through a wide gate. 57 There is a considerable garrison in the town, four thousand janissaries of Tiro being mentioned,58 and Orlić is just checking his horses in the stable when the sultan’s order arrives. Kanizsa is an assembly point of Muslim troops, those headed for Crete rally there too, 59 and it is the site from which they march against Buda or Eszék. The town is also suitable for a wedding, such as that of Tiro Hasan, and the invited crowds are fed on sheep from Bács and cattle from the Szerémség.60 This tiny piece of information is significant, for other sources 54 Evlia Cselebi török világutazó magyarországi utazásai 1660–1664 [Turkish world traveller Evliya Celebi’s journeys in Hungary 1660–1664]. Translated by Imre Karácson, Introduced an Annotated by Pál Fodor. Budapest, 1985, 225. 55 Pa pogleda poljem zeljenijem, a kad poljem vide od Muhača, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 27, 277. 56 When after the great battle everyone returned to their respective towns, the poem says that Hasan paša [left for] ka gradu svojemu, in Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 12, 143. 57 Posljen Meho uđahao konja, Huso, Pa pošeta niz Bosni gradove. Hajd’, hajd’, hajd’, hajd’. Kad dođi pod grada Kajniđu, kad tu našao veljike kojnike. Sve je polje, in Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 12, lines 50–53. 58 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 181, lines 7650–7700. 59 Skupila se vojska pod Kajniđu, pod Kajniđu, pod kulje Orlića, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 15, Dvije Sultanije, lines 274–275. 60 Jedne monke sprema u ćipćije, da dogonu beljiju pšenicu; druge momke na Bać za ovnove,

172

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

also confirm that the garrisons in Ottoman fortresses in the occupied Hungarian territory were indeed provided for by the Szerémség and Bács. 61 The fort of Kanizsa seized by the Turks in 1600 has key importance in determining the age of the epics; its inclusion is a piece of evidence that the essentially folklore texts may have a layer with relevance to historical research when explored with adequate textual criticism. Klára Hegyi’s investigations have revealed that troops to man the Ottoman border fortresses were mainly recruited from the Balkans.62 The place names of Bosnian epic songs clearly outline a definite area of Ottoman Hungary: South Transdanubia, with Kanizsa being its most important town. Ecclesiastic historical examinations have found that superficially Islamized Bosnian troops garrisoned seventeenth-century Kanizsa, and the success of the Jesuit missions in the region were owed to their tolerance toward the Christian religion. 63 We have also learnt by now that the fort had the same symbolic significance for the Ottomans as Eger had for the Hungarians,64 this being a contact point between the Ottoman chronicles and Bosnian epics. I tend to presume that there was some relation between the two genres and their practitioners. This is confirmed by the fact that Cafer Iyani of Pécs wrote a work about the life of Tiro Hasan Pasha of Kanizsa and Bosnian national hero with the title History of Hasan Pasha’s Holy War.65 Thus, Kanizsa and the events associated with it have symbolic significance in both Ottoman poetry and the Bosnian epics, and through the latter the Transdanubian town became a cornerstone of Bosnian identity emerging in the

61

62

63

64 65

Aman, treće na Srijem volove. Valja hranit’ Bosnu halovitu, in Ženidba Ćejvanović Meha, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 12, lines 357–361. Lajos Fekete – Gyula Káldy-Nagy, Rechnungsbücher Türkischer Finanzstellen in Buda (Ofen) 1550–1580. Türkischer Text. Budapest, 1962. Klára Hegyi, ‘The Financial Position of the vilayets in Hungary in the 16th–17th Centuries’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 61:1–2 (2008) 77–85. Klára Hegyi, ‘Etnikum, vallás, iszlamizáció. A budai vilájet várkatonaságának eredete és utánpótlása [Ethnicity, religion, Islamisation. Origins and recruitment of garrison troops in the province of Buda]’, Történelmi Szemle 40:3–4 (1998) 229–256. Eadem, ‘Magyar és balkáni katonaparasztok a budai vilájet déli szandzsákjaiban [Hungarian and Balkan peasant soldiers in the southern sancaks of the vilayet of Buda]’, Századok 135:6 (2001) 1255–1313. On this in detail, see Antal Molnár, ‘Jezsuiták a hódolt Pécsett (1612–1686) [Jesuits in Ottoman Pécs]’, in Ferenc Szakály – József Vonyó (eds.), Pécs a törökkorban [Pécs in the Ottoman age]. (Tanulmányok Pécs történetéből, 7.) Pécs, 1999, 171–265. Sudár, ‘Kanizsa 1601. évi ostroma’, 1028–1029. Ibid., 1025: note 3.

173

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

nineteenth and twentieth century.66 This statement is supported by the speech of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović at the summit of Muslim countries in Morocco in December 1994, in which he declared that the Muslims in Bosnia, the Sandžak and Kosovo were in similarly desperate straits as their predecessors serving in the fort of Kanizsa. 67 To close this train of thought, it can be stated that the involvement of the fort of Kanizsa does not contradict historical facts, and most probably it was one of the centres of Bosnian Muslims in Ottoman Hungary. The image of Buda, as outlined by the epic songs differs largely from that of Kanizsa. It is very special, but provides information to clarify the self-image of the Bosnian Muslims. According to the epic, the city was captured by Ljubović from Nevesinje after twenty-four years of unsuccessful sieges during Sultan Süleyman’s reign.68 In spite of this victory, the former seat of the Hungarian Kingdom never belonged to Bosnia, unlike Kanizsa and Eszék. One indicator of this is that Bosnian memory preserved the Christian past of Buda,69 while no corresponding data is known for the other two towns. Buda was the seat of the sultan’s vizier where the Bosnian heroes rarely got. It was nearly as far for them as was Baghdad, at the other end of the empire. 70 The actors who make the journey this far are strangers in the town, they are at a loss there, but at the same time they are overwhelmed by its size and wealth. 71 66 Imre Ress, ‘A bosnyák nemzettudat fejlődése [Development of Bosnian national consciousness]’, in Idem, Kapcsolatok és keresztutak. Horvátok, szerbek, bosnyákok a nemzetállam vonzásában [Contacts and crossroads. Croats, Serbs, Bosnians on the road to national states]. Budapest, 1997, 254–272. 67 “Danas su muslimani Bosne i Sandžaka, pa i šire, recimo na Kosovu, u istoj situaciji kao muslimani Kaniže. Mi smo opkoljeni.” Alija Izetbegović, Odabrani govori, pisma, izjave, intervjui. Zagreb, 1995, 215. 68 Sultan Sulejman uzima Budim, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 226–233; Vol. II, No. 20. 69 Jer se Budim skoro uručijo Od Madžara u ruke sultana, Koji nam je mlogo jada dao, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 2005–2007. 70 Jer je Budim kao banevina, Il’ ka manja, sine, kraljevina, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, 2003–2004. 71 Življenje je u Budimu bilo, Što ga niđe u svijetu nije; Nit je take bogaštinje bilo, Bogaštinje pa ni gospoštinje, Ni takije aga ni begova, Ni takije njihnije atova. Ni boljije dvora visokije, Niti više svite i prostirke, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 3261–3268. The son of the alaybeyi of Kanizsa was also astounded by the prosperity: Kad pogleda hadžijino d’jete, Samu česmu i sofu begovu, I na njojzi česme pozlaćene, Zinet sofe i njejnu haliju, Pa pomisli na srdašu svome: Hej moj babo, hadži Smail-aga! Mi kažemo ka što je istina, U Kanidžu i oko Kanidže, U našije trides buljubaštva, To istina, zgodnijega nema, in

174

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

Most of their contact with the city comes from the vizier of Buda being also the commander-in-chief of the Bosnian forces. As a first step against Crete, the sultan wrote to Buda and from there the agas of Udbina were mobilized. 72 During the war with the ban of Zadar, the vizier of Buda issued the major commands, and with his colleague from Travnik he also appeared under the walls of the Adriatic city.73 Smail’s son, Meho also sought out the vizier and asked him to appoint him to the post of alaybeyi, which his father and uncle had filled. In the eye of the pious Bosnian gazis, Buda was alien because it was the home of intrigue, treachery and vengeance. There are several allusions to that in Avdo’s great epic. In the beginning, Smail Aga warns his son to take care in Buda, which is replete with perils. 74 Further events along the way confirm that something is wrong with Buda. Meho freed a beautiful maiden from captivity: Fatima, the offspring of one of the highest-ranking families in Buda who owned all the shops on the main square. The new vizier, however, picked a bone with the nobility, killing or exiling them. 75 This fate befell Fatima’s father, Zajim Ali Bey too, and their shop was confiscated. They had a wealthy village near Buda, it was also seized and is now called the Vizier’s Meadow.76 He wanted to get the maiden as well, but she resisted, so in revenge 77 the vizier Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 3854–3863. 72 Dvije Sultanije, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 155–160. 73 Haso od Ribnika izbavi Mustajbega, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 191. 74 Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 104, lines 1800–1850. Smail meant the town had just been occupied and sporadic clashes were still going on. Tu se, sine, nije umirilo, Umirilo pa ni uredilio. Još pucaju puške krajevina. A vezir te od Budima, sine, Mislim mlogo začamati neće, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 2008–2010. 75 Hj, Budimu vatrom izgorijo, A vezira cigan pogubijo! Sve glavare što su kod vezira, Dunavska hi voda podavila, Ka i šta je vezir učinijo, Od mog baba Zajim Ali-bega, I stotinu zata budimskije, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 3170–3176. This image survives in other epics too, for instance in Avdo’s The Wedding of Zajim Alibeg, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs,Vol. III, 25. Distrust toward the grand vizier is also present in the Ottoman chronicles narrating the siege of Kanizsa in 1601. Sudár, ‘Kanizsa 1601. évi ostroma’, passim. 76 Šgo je selo u polje Budimsko, Srce moje, kod vode Dunava, To je selo stotina kmetova, Od stotine ima tri stotine; To je srce, silna imovina, Čitluk jedan ka četiri druga. I to nam je uzo murtatbaša. Te ga sada Vezir-polje viču, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 3568–3575. 77 The latter is “Sokolovi” in the text, which elicits an intriguing play with words: one may infer that Fatima’s family belonged to the Sokollus. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. III, 261. Add to that the casually attached closure of the grand epic informing the audience that the successor of the treacherous pasha of Buda was Yahya Efendi, the head of another clan:

175

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

sent her to General Peter as a gift in marriage, and to father young falcons to her. By that time the vizier had already made up his mind to commit treason, taking the helm of Bosnia and Buda together with General Peter. The encounter was unavoidable and the troops rallying at Kanizsa set out for Buda. Most of the heroes had no knowledge of the town or its surroundings, so they had to wait for Mustaj Bey, who was passing by. Without recounting further episodes, it can be clearly seen that there were sharp differences between Buda and the rest of the towns, and between the Bosnian gazis and the Ottoman officials. The Bosnian heroic epics differentiated the Ottomans from the Bosnians. Although both were subjects to the sultan, he could only rely on the Bosnians for valour and loyalty. That is proven by the plot of the epic song Boj pod Temišvarom. Two pashas were spending the winter near Temesvár. One morning they were having coffee when the younger one looked out of the window and caught sight of a group of refugees outside the gate. Šedi and Avdi went to meet them and they complained that Rákóczi was scourging them and the night before their houses were set on fire. 78 In response, the pashas wrote a letter to that “swine” Rákóczi and threatened him with war.79 Rákóczi was frightened, for it was not he but Ilija Popović who had committed the vicious deeds. By way of a solution they figured out that they would send a delegation of battered people to Vienna to make the emperor believe that the beys of Temesvár were torturing the subjects. The emperor was convinced by what he saw and decided to launch a war against the Turks, who only managed to get a postponement of the campaign until St George’s day. Since the beys were aware of their weakness, they had no choice but to call the Bosnian heroes. Headed by Đana of Sarajevo, they quickly arrived in the Hungarian theatre of war, occupied Karlov, then Zlatna Jabuka, or Kızıl Elma where they captured the seven Christian kings and seized the treasury. By the time the mainstay of the sultan’s army arrived the war was over with the victory of the Za slobodu i novog vezira, u Budimu Jahja-efendiju, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, lines 12274–12275. 78 Mi smo ti se katal učinjeli. Zulum radi kralje Rakocija. Ja noćas je vojsku ispudijo. Naše jeste kuće sagorijo, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 27, lines 49–52. 79 O ti svinjo kralje Rakociojo! Miči ruke s moje sirotinje, Helh tako mi ljeba bijeloga, za nekoga dobro biti neče. Pokupiću moju carevinu a ću sići do tvoje stoljice. Ja ću tvoju prevrnut’ stoljicu, al’ ću moju izgubiti glavu, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. II, No. 27, lines 80–87.

176

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

Bosnian warriors of the faith. Several elements of the story can be found in a seventeenth-century Ottoman narrative, too, which makes it clear that the seven kings were the German electors in this context. On the basis of identical motifs it can be concluded that the epic was surely not created earlier, and the many similarities prove the interaction between Ottoman Turkish and Bosnian literature.80 It is revealing that the Bosnian heroes won their most complete victories in this – presumably most recent – epic when in reality they mainly suffered bitter defeats. Similarly to other folklore texts, the events narrated by Bosnian heroic epics cannot be tied to actual points of time. The plots of epics are beyond time, they cannot be dated or chronologically determined. They usually take place in Sultan Süleyman’s age which means that the composers of later Bosnian heroic poems also regarded the reign of the great sultan as the timeless golden age.81 Obviously, it cannot be taken literally, for in Süleyman’s time the Bosnian situation was far from idyllic, and there is no reference whatsoever to Szigetvár in these songs, although any contemporaneous narrative would certainly have referred to it. The time of the epics must be later than Süleyman’s reign, for it was not before the fall of Jajce in 1528 that a more powerful Islamization began. 82 This leads to the next issue, the real faith of the Bosnian heroes, which raises new questions. The paragon of a hero in Muslim songs is always the outstanding warrior of the faith, the gazi, but that must be a borrowing from Ottoman oral epic or its seventeenth–eighteenthcentury transformation, when this representation indeed coincided with the expectations of the audience. As mentioned above, the occupying soldiers serving in Ottoman Hungary were not typical gazis, but were drawn to Christian customs and did not abhor alcohol either.83 In Međedović’s great epic 80 Pál Fodor, ‘Ungarn und Wien in der osmanischen Eroberungsideologie (im Spiegel der Târîḫ-i Beç ḳrâlı, 17. Jahrhundert)’, Journal of Turkish Studies 13 (1989) 81–98. On the concept of Kızıl Elma, see also Karl Teply, ‘Kizil Elma. Die große türkische Geschichtssage im Licht der Geschichte und der Volkskunde’, Südost-Forschungen 36 (1977) 78–108. 81 There are noteworthy exceptions, too. In the narrative of the siege of Crete the sultan is called Mahmut. Dvije Sultanije, in Serbocroatian Heroic Songs, Vol. I, 155–160. 82 In the 1530s, 40 per cent of Bosnia’s inhabitants were Muslim. Dénes Sokcsevits, ‘BoszniaHercegovina határai a középkortól napjainkig [The borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the middle ages to our days]’, Limes 12:2–3 (2000) 151. 83 A group of Bosnian Muslims reported as late as in 1618 that the Muslims here did not go to the mosque, their places of worship were ruined, and from grape-juice they made wine and drank all the time. Cited by Pál Fodor, ‘“A kincstár számára a hitetlen a leghasznosabb”. Az oszmánok magyarországi valláspolitikájáról [“For the treasury an infidel is the most

177

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

there are several outspoken references to that. Let it suffice to take a look at the opening scene, where the beys of Kanizsa, led by Tiro Hasan Pasha, are sitting in a pub drinking wine and brandy, flushed with alcohol, telling tall tales of their heroism.84 Quite exceptional is the father of Meho, Smail, who took part in a pilgrimage, became a faithful Muslim and hence did not attend this meeting. This duality must stem from the development of the epics: the image of the warriors of the faith learnt from Ottoman literature became gradually intertwined with the original heroic epics, first perhaps as the model to be followed, like Smail or Tale, and later as the main attribute of the Bosnian soldiers. Though this must have been a slow process. Another important question is the possible date of the composition of the epics, also a matter of some difficulty. With the involvement of the fort of Kanizsa, the epic poems cannot be earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century. That is, the basic motifs of narratives that take place in Ottoman Hungary were created in that century. The ante quem is far more flexible, since the withdrawal of the Bosnian Muslims from Ottoman Hungary did not mean an ideological caesura: the survival and even efflorescence of epic poetry can be demonstrated into the twentieth century. It is true no new geographic loci were incorporated in the corpus, so the deepest strata of the epics with the textual sections tied to Mohács, Eszék, etc. must have been developed by the late seventeenth century and completed during the freedom struggle led by Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II in the early eighteenth century. 85 The useful”. On the religious politics of the Ottomans in Hungary]’, in Mária Ormos (ed.), Magyar évszázadok. Tanulmányok Kosáry Domokos 90. születésnapjára [Hungarian centuries. Studies in honour of Domokos Kosáry on his 90th birthday]. Budapest, 2003, 90. 84 Ondar se je londža pokupila, u Kajnidži u planoj mehani, A đe se je vazda naučila … Vino služe do dva bajraktara … Sve naizred pohaju glavare, Hasan-pašu i prvjence carske. Kako kojem čašu dodavahu, Ruke svoje pod kušak turahu, Age svoje ićram činijahu, Da him age slađe piju pivo. Dok se age vina napojile, Pa vinovske čaše poturili, Jer him vince ulilo u lice, A rakijske taze dofatili. Kad se vino smeša i rakija, Rakija je vazda englendžija. Age klete i begovi carski, Muhtač ništa bezi ne bijahu, in Međedović, Ženidba Smailagić Meho, 35–39; 62, lines 68–81. 85 I must admit that the epic Boj pod Temišvarom is still a riddle to be solved for me. There are so many concrete allusions in it and it depicts the Turkish–kuruc–Habsburg relations so subtly that it cannot be subsumed under the far more simply built folklore texts. It is known that several Serbian soldiers served in Rákóczi’s army, so possibly the basic motifs were taken to the Inner Balkans by them – although this is highly questionable. On Serbian military elements, see István Seres, ‘Rác katonák II. Rákóczi Ferenc hadseregében [Serbian soldiers in Ferenc Rákóczi II’s army]’, in Tamás Fedeles – Szabolcs Varga (eds.), A Pécsi Egyházmegye a 17–18. században [The Pécs Diocese in the 17th–18th centuries]. (Seria

178

THE IMAGE OF OTTOMAN HUNGARY IN BOSNIAN HEROIC EPICS

image of the Muslim warrior of the faith must be contemporaneous at most, or perhaps derive even later. The image of Ottoman Hungary in the Bosnian heroic epics remained a torso, oral memory retaining few of the locations and events in the area. The one hundred years spent here was too short to have it organically incorporated in folk epic, but long enough to leave a mark on it. As can be gleaned from the epics, the vision of a Greater Bosnia including Kanizsa, Mohács and Temesvár already appears in the epics. The question is how accurately it tallies with reality. The investigations of the past years indicate that the Bosnian elite of the seventeenth century did regard occupied Hungary as theirs. That was how the Bosnian Franciscans looked upon it, as they did not recognize the supremacy of the Hungarian church hierarchy over the occupied areas, 86 and the Bosnian artisans and merchants must have felt the same way when they monopolized trade, and, among other crafts, goldsmith’s art. 87 What is far more important, however, is that the cream of the Ottoman elite in the occupied Hungarian areas came from Bosnia, and looked upon the Carpathian Basin as a northern extension of their native Balkans. 88 We come closer to reality if we speak of a South Slav, or more closely Bosnian, rather than an Ottoman Turkish realm in seventeenth-century Hungary while it was ruled by the Porte. The newcomers began to mentally conquer the new area with their literary tools, so that not only the Ottomans but also they could feel at home in this region. The western forces fighting to recapture the country crushed this Historiae Dioecesis Quinqueecclesiensis, I.) Pécs, 2005, 67–92. It appears certain that this is the latest of all studied pieces. 86 István György Tóth, ‘Kié Buda? Az esztergomi érsek és a belgrádi apostoli vikárius vitája a hódolt Budáról 1678-ban (Forrásközlés) [Whose is Buda? Dispute of the Archbishop of Esztergom and the Apostolic Vicar of Belgrade about Ottoman Buda in 1678]’, in Péter Tusor – Zoltán Rihmer – Gábor Thoroczkay (eds.), R. Várkonyi Ágnes emlékkönyv születésének 70. évfordulója ünnepére [Festschrift for the 70th birthday of Ágnes R. Várkonyi]. Budapest, 1998, 251–257. 87 Antal Molnár, ‘Struggle for the Chapel of Belgrade (1612–1643). Trade and Catholic Church in Ottoman Hungary’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 60:1 (2007) 73–134. The decisive majority of craftsmen in Ottoman Pécs in 1686 originated from Bosnia. Szabolcs Varga, Irem kertje. Pécs története a hódoltság korában 1526–1686 [Irem’s garden. History of Pécs in the age of Ottoman rule]. Pécs, 2009, 127. 88 Pál Fodor, ‘Egy pécsi származású oszmán történetíró: Ibrahim Pecsevi [An Ottoman chronicler originating from Pécs: İbrahim Peçevi]’, in Ferenc Szakály – Vonyó József (eds.), Pécs a törökkorban [Pécs in the Ottoman age]. (Tanulmányok Pécs történetéből, 7.) Pécs, 1999, 107–132. Balázs Sudár, ‘Ki volt Jakováli Haszan pasa? [Who was Jakovali Hasan Pasha?]’, Pécsi Szemle (Spring 2006) 27–34.

179

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE AGE OF OTTAMAN RULE

ambition, and fortunately for Hungarians, nothing remained of it but some folklore chanted by the fire to the accompaniment of the gusle.

180

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

GABRIELLA ERDÉLYI

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS IN THE HUNGARIAN–OTTOMAN FRONTIER REGION* This essay seeks to explore the ways the agency of individuals, including women emphatically, changed in the regions of Christian–Ottoman coexistence. The region in question is the frontier zone between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth century. We have a nuanced picture of those whose agency was totally destroyed as a consequence of Ottoman rule in the middle regions of the late medieval Kingdom of Hungary: danger and fear, mass killings, deserted and depopulated areas, refugees, captivity and enslavement of huge masses or, at best, paying taxes to both Ottoman and Hungarian authorities.1 Here I want to highlight another face of “contact zones,” the spaces of cross-cultural encounters in which historically separated peoples establish ongoing relations, involving coercion, unequal power relations and conflict. 2 The protagonists of this essay are the less familiar figures of Ottoman Hungary who voluntarily crossed the Christian– Muslim border. Standing at the centre are stories of a woman and of a man, both of whom opted to go from Christian regions to lands occupied by the Ottomans, leaving a Christian spouse for the sake of a Muslim one. The liberty of their decision thus cannot be compared to those renegades who subjected themselves to the Ottomans, either voluntarily or by force, while living under their authority. The present study aims to better understand the rationality underlying their exceptional choices.

*

1

2

This is the revised version of the article published in The Hungarian Historical Review 4 (2015) 314–345 entitled ‘Turning Turk as Rational Decision in the Hungarian–Ottoman Frontier Zone.’ Éva Sz. Simon, ‘Flight or Submission: Changing Identities in the Ottoman–Hungarian Borderlands. The County of Zala in the 1570s’, in Robert Born – Andreas Puth (eds.), Osmanischer Orient und Ostmitteleuropa. Stuttgart, 2014, 33–46. Géza Dávid – Pál Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery along the Ottoman Borders (Early Fifteenth – Early Seventeenth Centuries). (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 37.) Leiden–Boston–Brill, 2007. On the concept of “contact zone”, see Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. New York, 2008 (first edition 1992), esp. 7–8.

183

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Their actions were portrayed by their abandoned spouses in the form of a written petition of pardon (supplicatio) to the pope.3 The way they presented the story of their first, broken marriages was a tactic in the process of negotiating the validity of their second marriages with local and central authorities. Abandoned spouses hence charged their wives or husbands with “apostasy” – with a broad interpretation of canonical regulations – in order to have their first marriage declared void. 4 But petitions also had to be both efficacious and credible so as not to lose their convincing potency. In other words, women and men turning Turk in the Christian–Muslim contact zone of Hungary were authentic figures for both the authors and the readers of these stories. Unsurprisingly enough, domination and agency were both inherent in the complex scenario of pardoning, just as the dialectic of the same two processes shaped the intercultural social practices – most importantly Christian women freely marrying Turks – discussed here. This documentation of the late medieval papal regulation of Christian–Muslim relations is exceptionally illuminating, since it opens a window unto an early phase (otherwise underrepresented in the local source material) of Christian–Muslim interactions in Hungary. Historians have recently found interest in women leaving a Christian marriage for the world of Islam, since in these stories women exceptionally appear as active agents capable of shaping their own lives. Additionally, their voluntary marriages with Muslim men seem to question the subordination of women to men in the Islamic world. It is crucially the figure of litigating women appearing in court documents that dominate the scholarly literature, which portrays women as having spheres of autonomous action (economic transactions, pious endowments, divorce suits) in contrast to the traditional image of their subordination and passivity.5 The vivid historical narratives of distinguished Venetian women remarrying in Istanbul highlighted the strategic 3

4

5

The requests were handled by the officers of the Holy Apostolic Penitentiary. On the workings of the office, see Kirsi Salonen – Ludwig Schmugge, A Sip from the “Well of Grace.” Medieval Texts from the Apostolic Penitentiary. Washington, D.C., 2009. Difference in religion did not represent an impediment to marriage in canon law, though it could serve as the basis for marriage annulment (without the possibility for remarriage). Péter Erdő, Egyházjog a középkori Magyarországon [Church law in Medieval Hungary]. Budapest, 2001, 292. The classic work on this theme: Donald C. Jennings, ‘Women in the Early SeventeenthCentury Ottoman Judicial Records: The Sharia Court of Anatolian Kayseri’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (1975) 53–114.

184

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

use of converting to Islam: a way for young people to escape from arranged marriages or get rid of unpleasant spouses.6 Writing recently about litigant female serfs who possessed their own property and played the role of head of family, Katalin Péter stated that the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries represented a particularly advantageous period in terms of the exercise of independence for such women in Hungary. 7 However, the Christian woman choosing a Muslim husband is, to the contrary, an unknown or obscure figure that occasionally emerges only incidentally as a minor character in both contemporary and modern historical narratives. It has been suggested that women who chose Turkish husbands, alongside the socially diverse cross section of men who entered Turkish military service, represented one of the territory’s small groups of voluntary renegades perceptible in Ottoman sources.8 Marriage contracts concluded before kadıs, for example, in some instances suggest that the wife had previously been a Christian (that is, a Hungarian or an Orthodox Christian South Slav). 9 This observation is compatible with the 1550s description of the school rector from Tolna, a wealthy market town in Ottoman Hungary. For Farkas Pál Thuri, Christian women who married Muslims represented the sole group of voluntary renegades: unmarried women who had given birth to the children of Turkish men, ladies who had fled from their well-to-do husbands on the council to Turks and, typically, widows.10 6

Eric Dursteler, Renegade Women: Gender, Identity, and Boundaries in the Early Modern Mediterranean. Baltimore, 2011. 7 Katalin Péter, ‘Nők önállósága, férfiak önállósága a társadalomban [Women’s authonomy, men’s authomomy in society]’, in Eadem, Magánélet a régi Magyarországon [Private life in early modern Hungary]. Budapest, 2012, 17. Eadem, ‘Női családfők Sárospatakon a 16. és a 17. században [Female heads of household in the market town of Sárospatak in the 16th and 17th centuries]’, Századok 123 (1989) 563–604. 8 Klára Hegyi, ‘Kereszténység és iszlám az Oszmán Birodalom balkáni és magyar tartományaiban [Christianity and Islam in the Hungarian and Balkan provinces of the Ottoman Empire]’, Korunk 7 (1996) 38. 9 Records of the activity of the kadıs in Ottoman Hungary are very fragmentary. According to Klára Hegyi, the Karánsebes-Lugos records suggest the conversion of a few wives of Hungarian origin. I would like to thank Klára Hegyi for reviewing these Turkish sources from this perspective for me. 10 Farkas Pál Thuri, Idea Christianorum Hungarorum in et sub Turcismo [1556–57], printed first in 1613 and 1616. Edited in Latin and Hungarian by Géza Kathona, Fejezetek a török hódoltsági reformáció történetéből [Chapters from the history of the Reformation in Ottoman Hungary]. Budapest, 1974, 61–69.

185

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

The woman and the man in our story became renegades in the first years of Ottoman rule in central Hungary and some decades before the first law against renegades was encoded. In other words, at the very beginning of the legal process of constructing criminals of renegades, in contemporary words people who were de societate Turcica suspectus, as the first such law sanctioning the selling of Christian children to the Turks and the spying for the Turks in 1567 put it.11 The estates gathered at the national assembly held in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) in 1574 attempted, in cooperation with county officers, to inhibit the custom, spreading among both serfs and nobles living in border zones, of voluntarily (sponte) subjugating themselves to the Turks – that is, voluntarily paying taxes to them. 12 In addition to the inhabitants of border zones who ensured their survival through the payment of taxes to Ottoman authorities, but did not change their religious identity, the fate in Ottoman Hungary which has long engaged historians is that of captives and slaves. 13 In the writings of Sándor Takáts, who in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was the sole historian to deal with the lives of everyday people in Ottoman Hungary, voluntary renegades – spies, guides, henchmen, scribes performing in the service of the Turks, women marrying pashas and beys – appear as characteristic, unexceptional figures. 14 The voluntary renegades, among them women who left their Christian husbands for Muslim men and chose to live under Ottoman rule – be they exceptional or characteristic figures of the age – do not conform to the notion that religious identity formed the foundation of personal identity in the age of Ottoman Hungary and was one that could be changed only under compulsion.15 The question thus emerges: do texts from this period suggest that religion can be interpreted as a situative identity? 16 The recent analyses of religious conversions, setting a broader social and cultural context in place of 11 Dezső Márkus (ed.), Corpus Juris Hungarici. Magyar Törvénytár 1000–1526 [Hungarian code of law]. Budapest, 1899, anno 1567, art. No. 30. 12 Ibid., anno 1574, art. No. 15. This was reconfirmed in the following laws: art. 1575/10 and 1588/23. 13 See studies in Dávid –Fodor (eds.), Ransom Slavery. 14 See above all: Sándor Takáts, Rajzok a török világból [Sketches from the Turkish World]. Vols. I–III, Budapest, 1915–1917. 15 Pál Fodor, ‘Török és oszmán: az oszmán rabszolga-elit azonosságtudatáról [Turkish and Ottoman: on the identity of the Ottoman elite of slave origin]’, in Idem, A szultán és az aranyalma [The sultan and the golden apple]. Budapest, 2001, 29. 16 For theories of identity, see Stuart Hall, Questions of Cultural Identity. London, 1996.

186

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

the traditional Christian narrative of conversion entailing the total transformation of the self,17 interpret it as a social practice and a tactic used by people in the context of their everyday encounters with a dominant system. 18 In other words, when the religious difference was neutral for them and they followed a different rationale?19 Did they, for example, consider the world in which they found security or social advancement to be stronger? And what kinds of previous experiences and capabilities helped them to adapt to another culture? Who was able to turn the constraints and opportunities lying within the new system at the intersection of Christianity and Islam to their own advantage, how were they able to do so and under what circumstances? If we approach the issue of voluntary conversion from below and regard it as a rational act aimed at taking control of one’s own destiny amid external constraints, then Christian–Muslim conversion does not appear to be abnormal and deviant, but a mode of operating in everyday life, thus making the issue of representativity irrelevant. At this juncture we can refer to Peter Burke, who argues that exceptional cases are suggestive since they show moments when social mechanisms fail to work.20 Is it possible that the social integration of those who went over to the Turks ended up in failure?

A Runaway Christian Wife Marries a Turk in Buda Ferenc Csiszár, who lived in the diocesan town of Várad (today Oradea in Romania), was abandoned by his wife for the sake of a Turkish man living in Buda. The events were subsequently narrated by the abandoned husband in his supplication addressed to the pope: his wife, who was the mother of his child, “instigated by diabolic inspiration, during the time he stayed away from his homeland, sold all their goods and ran away. She went to the city of Buda, in the regions of infidels, where she married a Turk.” He was unable to divert her 17 Paula Fredriksen, ‘Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions, and the Retrospective Self’, Journal of Theological Studies n. s. 37 (1986) 3–34. 18 On the concept of everyday “tactics”, see Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, 1984. I will quote below the most relevant literature on conversions from the perspective of cultural history or historical anthropology. 19 Klára Hegyi outlined the general reasons for which the majority of Hungarians did not embrace Islam: Hegyi, ‘Kereszténység és iszlám’. 20 Peter Burke, History and Social Theory. Ithaca, 1992, 42.

187

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

from this intention, although “he sent many of his men after her, calling her back, some of whom were killed by the Turk, which put him to huge expenses.”21 We have no reason to doubt his words. It is uncharacteristic of men to take pride in being cuckolded. Moreover, Ferenc appears as a man of strict morals. Contrary to others, in 1548 he turned to the pope not in order to obtain permission to remarry, but for permission to take the sacraments despite his disordered marital affairs. Obviously there must have been many people who got into similar situations, but never wanted or needed to restore their legal and spiritual status. These briefly described events suggest that a dramatic conflict of interest and emotion lay in the background. Csiszár seems to have been not only a stern and disappointed man, but a stingy one as well, as if he valued the goods his wife was taking more than his wife herself. Material losses could play an important role in the conflict between husband and wife, as it did in similar cases for example in early modern England. 22 It seems likely that the hapless messengers that Csiszár sent to Buda also demanded a return of the “stolen property,” which his wife obviously believed was rightfully hers. What might have prompted Mrs Csiszár to abandon her husband? She appears to have planned and prepared her daring move in advance, utilizing the temporary absence of her husband to make her escape. What enticed her to leave the prosperous episcopal city Várad for Buda, the foreign-occupied former capital of the Kingdom of Hungary where the müezzin’s call to prayer could be heard in place of the ring of church bells? Was she seduced by the higher social standing, power and prestige of her new husband, whose resolute, aggressive conduct suggests that he was more likely a member of the Buda garrison or a member of the new civil service rather than a trader? Based on his name, her first husband may have been a gunsmith, likely a respected member of the local blacksmith or spurrier and bladesmith guild. 23 How might she have met 21 Archivio Poenitentiaria Apostolica (Roma), Registra Matrimonialium et Diversorum [APA], Vol. 121, fol. 64r-v (January 1548). 22 Sara M. Butler, ‘Runaway Wives. Husband Desertion in Medieval England’, Journal of Social History 40 (2006) 342–343. 23 On the guilds: András Kubinyi, Városfejlődés és városhálózat a középkori Alföldön és az Alföld szélén [Urbanization and urban network in the Hungarian Great Plain and on its peripheries]. Szeged, 2000, 92. Prior to 1565 we find among the smith guild masters a man named Oszvald Csiszár, who may have been a relative of Ferenc Csiszár. Jolán Balogh, Varadinum. Várad Vára [Varadinum. The Castle of Várad]. Vol. 2 of 2, Budapest, 1982, 338.

188

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

her new husband? Had she already been to Buda or the “Turk” in Várad? She may have obtained first-hand information about the horrors of slavery from people like Bertalan Georgievics, who precisely in 1547 travelled to Várad, where he engaged in a public religious debate at a Franciscan cloister with a dervish who was in the city to hold talks with the bishop. 24 That is, Magdolna was searching primarily for security, fleeing from the hostile sword as a survival strategy into the bed of the enemy? One cannot exclude the possibility either that love inspired her to leave her Christian husband. However, regardless of whether emotion, necessity or cold calculation served as the primary motive for her flight, the question emerges: what made it possible for the woman of Várad to adapt to another culture with such apparent ease?

The Practice of Local Second Marriages and the Making of Christian Bigamy King Matthias Hunyadi (1458–90) drew the attention of the Roman Curia to the impact of the Ottoman–Hungarian wars on marriages in the Kingdom of Hungary: “There are several inhabitants of the various parts of our country, whose spouse had been dragged away by the Turks. Husbands mourn their wives and wives lament over the unhappy fate of their husbands; they do not live in a marriage any more, but they are left in uncertainty concerning the life or death of their spouse, which makes them unwilling to remarry… Many, losing hope of ever being able to give birth to children, leave or ruin their inheritance and go to other regions, often to those held by the enemy, while others give rise to scandals.”25 In the opinion of the authorities, those who did not move elsewhere to remarry because they were attached to their old homes, villages and relatives caused the scandals. Thus the king requested that the pope should give license to remarry for those who lost their spouse and looked for him/her in vain among the infidels. According to the king’s diagnosis, some of those who lost 24 Zsigmond Groszmann, Georgievics Bertalan XVI. századbeli magyar író élete és művei [The life and work of Bertalan Georgievits, a 16th-century Hungarian author]. Budapest, 1904, 9, 28–31. 25 Letter of King Matthias, written in 1480, addressed to Cardinal John of Aragon, protector of Hungary at the Curia. Sándor V. Kovács (ed.), Mátyás király levelei 1460–1490 [Letters of King Matthias, 1460–1490]. Budapest, 1986, 118: No. 61.

189

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

spouses took the difficult step of leaving their homes for foreign lands, often those under Ottoman Turkish dominion, in order to start new families. The wife of Illés Klokocsi apparently did this. Upon returning to his home in Zagreb following seven years of captivity in Turkey, Klokocsi did not find his wife, who must have had enough of waiting for him and decided to move away to find another spouse.26 In 1500 Klokocsi thus wrote a petition to the pope to legalize his second marriage. Seen within the context of everyday life in the Ottoman–Hungarian border zone, the actions of the woman from Várad were therefore not at all exceptional. It is conceivable that she went so far in order to escape an undesirable husband; though it is also possible that she believed that her “husband absent from the homeland” had been forever lost and she was aware that local Catholic authorities would not officially recognize her remarriage and could charge her with bigamy if her husband’s death could not be proven.27 Várad was the most important town in eastern Hungary at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Many women living in Várad under the lordship of either the bishop or the chapter, nevertheless decided to take the risk of remaining in the city to remarry, thus placing themselves in a very difficult position. The commissioned lawyer took care of another matter at the Roman Curia at the same time as that of Ferenc Csiszár: Anna Vadasi and Máté Agasi were reported at the court of the diocesan vicar because Anna had been betrothed to Máté when she was still married to her previous spouse. 28 Her first husband may well have been the person who reported her to the vicar’s court. The decision of Anna and Máté to marry was rather heedless, 26 APA Vol. 48, fol. 536r (Helias de Clokocz laicus habitator opidi Grecz Zagrabiensis diocesis). 27 Several men from Slavonia requested that the Church regard their second marriages and resulting children to be legitimate after their first wives had fallen into Turkish captivity. These petitioners lived in their second marriages without being bothered for decades, which illuminates the general social acceptance of remarriage as well as the degree of official control. Petrus de Podagaris: APA Vol. 48, fol. 485r-v. Valentinus Piscete laic. de villa Toplice: Ibid., Vol. 48, fol. 490r. 28 In both cases the name of the lawyer was Aspra, who authorized them on 15 January 1548. APA Vol. 121, fols. 63v–64r. There is little chance that petitioners from Várad can be identified, since in 1660 janissaries destroyed the city’s medieval cathedral, chapter, and municipal archives. Zsigmond Jakó, ‘Váradi siralmas krónika. Könyvtár- és levéltárügy Nagyváradon a múltban és a jelenben [Woeful chronic of Várad. The past and present state of libraries and archives in Nagyvárad]’, Magyar Egyháztörténeti Vázlatok 16:1–2 (2004) 93–114.

190

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

entailing the foreseeable consequence of their forced separation and legal prohibition on living together again. However, their petition reveals that they nevertheless continued to reside under the same roof and even produced children. They were thus excommunicated from the Church on the grounds of bigamy and could not therefore attend mass or take sacraments. However, this did not bother the couple as much as the fact that their children were considered to be illegitimate. Thus when Anna’s first husband died, they requested papal absolution, the legitimation of their children and permission for their legal remarriage. The vicar of Várad, István Ilosvai, 29 may have prompted Anna and Máté to address their petition to the pope, though it is also possible that they simply decided to bypass the local court that had already passed judgement against them and turned directly toward Rome. However, in the end they were not able to avoid the Várad court, since prior to their absolution the vicar had to conduct an examination to verify their allegations. That is, the court questioned local residents about the death of Anna’s first husband and the related circumstances. György Korláth’s daughter, Anna, belonged to an entirely different social group – the distinguished urban nobility. Anna thus found herself in a more difficult position when as an adult she balked at living in marriage with the man to whom she had been betrothed as a child – as she claimed at least. 30 Several factors provide an indication of the family’s social standing. The guardian of the girl, who became an orphan at an early age, was the canon of the cathedral chapter and archdeacon of the diocese. He engaged the five-yearold Anna in marriage to Pál Szabó, whose name suggests that he was a master artisan, a member of the tailor’s guild. Following her engagement, Anna was placed under the tutelage of Poor Clare nuns at the Saint Anne monastery in the Venice district of Várad. According to Anna, the nuns persuaded her to formally confirm her engagement to Pál Szabó at the age of ten (which is more likely to have happened when she reached canonical adulthood at the age of twelve): which probably means that the betrothal and the marital vow took place.31 However, the betrothed couple was never united in matrimony, 29 Vincze Bunyitay, A váradi püspökség története alapításától jelenkorig [The history of the Diocese of Várad from the time of its foundation to the present]. Vol. 2, Nagyvárad, 1883, 55–57. 30 APA Vol. 93, fol. 162r-v (1536). 31 Dicta sponsalia manum eidem Paulo porrigendo confirmasset; cf. Dániel Bárth, Esküvő, keresztelő, avatás: egyház és népi kultúra a kora újkori Magyarországon [Marriage

191

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

because either Anna or her canon guardian presumably reconsidered the betrothal a few years later, in view of a more favourable match.32 Likely at the instigation of the forsaken fiancé, this case was subsequently heard at the court of the vicar of Várad and, in the second instance, at that of the archbishop of Esztergom and both Anna and her guardian were excommunicated. The noble origin of Anna Korláth is proven by the fact that this matter was also brought to the royal court of appeal (that is, to the Szapolyai court that spent much time in Várad), which decided that she must marry Pál Szabó. According to the customary law of the nobility, breaching the vow of marriage constituted infidelity and entailed the forfeiture of property.33 In a state of both Church and secular illegitimacy, Anna and her guardian looked to the papal court for support against local authorities in their effort to gain permission for her to marry a man other than Pál Szabó. Regardless of the outcome of the above cases, they clearly demonstrate that both Church and secular supervision over the local residents of Várad operated efficiently even during the civil war in the country. Those who maintained a significant degree of mobility caused the greatest amount of trouble for local authorities.34 The previously mentioned Mrs Csiszár was quite aware of this situation and acted smartly: in order to live legitimately and free of official harassment with her chosen husband, she moved from Várad to the Islamic world in the neighboring state of Ottoman Hungary. It thus appears that under these circumstances, the difference in religion was of relatively little impor tance to Mrs Csiszár, who would have qualified as a bigamist had she remained at home and therefore been subjected to excommunication from the Church for decades on end. ceremony, baptism, ordination. The church and popular culture in early modern Hungary]. Budapest, 2005, 106–107. 32 Her petition reads: ad pubertatem deveniens dictis sponsalibus et confirmationi contradixit et dictum Paulum in virum suum habere nolle asserit. 33 See, for example, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [Central Archive of the National Archives of Hungary, Budapest – hereafter: MNL OL], Diplomatikai Levéltár [hereafter DL] 99775. 34 Synod decrees urging the lower clergy to retain pre-wedding announcements because many husbands were leaving their wives and remarrying abroad serve to substantiate this. László Solymosi, A veszprémi egyház 1515. évi zsinati határozatai [The synodal decrees of the Diocese of Veszprém in 1515]. Budapest, 1997, 67. The Council of Trent took similar measures: Josepho Alberigo et al. (eds.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta. Bologna, 1973, 758.

192

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

What might have those Christians who voluntarily moved to Ottoman Hungary known about this world? Did Mrs Csiszár fear the well-known subjugation of women in the Islamic world? Did she know anything about how Islamic law (sharia) regulated the conditions of women before running into the arms of a Turkish man, one might suppose, out of true love? To what degree did she perceive the religion and culture of Ottoman Hungary to be contrasting and foreign?

The Experience of Religious and Ethnic Coexistence The woman who placed herself under Ottoman authority in order to switch her Christian husband for a “Turk” was likely neither audacious nor enamored, but had simply made a rational appraisal of the benefits and drawbacks of doing so.35 As a resident of the Ottoman–Hungarian border zone, she may have possessed concrete experience regarding the status of women in Islamic religion and law. She could have seen that the Turkish polygamy about which Christians who had returned from the interior of the Ottoman Empire had written so much, did not exercise an influence on everyday life on the periphery of the empire. Ottoman ordinary men and soldiers were happy if they could support even a single wife. 36 She may have also been aware that Islamic law permitted women to remain Christians even after marrying Ottoman Turkish husbands.37 The latter right proceeded in paradoxical fashion precisely from the social differentiation between men and women in terms of religion and marriage: the Islamic state was not interested in the religion of wives, because the religion of children depended exclusively on that of their 35 Such rational decision making also characterised communal choices: according to recent research, the significant reduction in taxes played a great role in the mass Islamization of village communities in the Balkans. Nenad Moačanin, ‘Mass Islamization of Peasants in Bosnia: Demystifications’, in Abdeljelil Temini (ed.), Melanges Prof. Machiel Kiel. Zaghouan, 1999, 353–358. 36 Cf. Klára Hegyi, ‘Etnikum, vallás, iszlamizáció. A budai vilájet várkatonaságának eredete és utánpótlása’, [Ethnicity, religion, Islamization. Origins and recruitment of garrison troops in the province of Buda]. Történelmi Szemle 40 (1998) 229–256. 37 Ibid., 428. According to Lajos Fekete, women were not forced to convert due to the common belief that they automatically became Muslim when they had contact with Muslim men. Lajos Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban [Budapest in the Ottoman age]. Budapest, 1944, 267.

193

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

father.38 The husband of the runaway woman was not unlikely a converted new Muslim, himself the offspring of Balkan peoples who continued to observe Christian customs and rites.39 New Muslims were not, however, more tolerant in terms of religion: in fact, as a result of the increasing interconnection between Ottoman identity and Islam, they were often more insistent upon the conversion of their wives.40 It may have also been the case that the family of “the Turk living in Buda” was religiously split, which was a common strategy among the Balkan peoples living under Ottoman authority.41 Of course Mrs Csiszár may not have been able to make a clear distinction between Muslims and Eastern Orthodox. She had likely encountered people of the Eastern Orthodox faith during her life in the Partium region, where by the sixteenth century Hungarians, Romanians, Serbs and Bosnians had long lived together.42 The Western Church officially referred to Eastern Christians as schismatics (scismatici), though they were often called heretics and pagans at this time as well.43 A letter to the papal office of the Penitentiary in 1512 asking for the legalization of Tamás Tót’s second marriage stated, for example, that his first wife, Magdolna Rachaz, had “left Tamás and, guided by an evil spirit and forgetting about the salvation of her soul, run off to a pagan and schismatic with whom she united in marriage, which they consummated.” 44 38 Contrary to that, renegade men had to convert to Islam before marrying, since Muslim women were permitted to marry only Muslim men in order to ensure that their children would be of the Islamic faith. Baer, ‘Islamic Conversion’, 428, 431–432. 39 On the South Slavic (coming from Hercegovina, Bosnia, northern Serbia, Syrmium and the regions of Pozsega and Vidin) ethnic origin of the military forces in the province of Buda, see Hegyi, ‘Etnikum’. On the religious indifference and syncretism of new Muslims in the Balkans with further literature, see Pál Fodor, ‘“A kincstár számára a hitetlen a leghasznosabb”. Az oszmánok magyarországi valláspolitikájáról [“For the treasury an infidel is the most useful”. On the religious politics of the Ottomans in Hungary]’, in Mária Ormos (ed.), Magyar évszázadok. Tanulmányok Kosáry Domokos 90. születésnapjára [Hungarian centuries. Studies in honour of Domokos Kosáry on his 90th birthday]. Budapest, 2003, 89–91. 40 Bartolomé Bennassar – Lucile Bennassar, Les Chrétiens d’Allah. L’histoire extraordinaire des renégats (XVIe–XVIIe siècles). Paris, 1989, 290–291. 41 Antal Molnár, ‘La Schiavona. Egy bosnyák lány viszontagságai a 17. században [La Schiavona. The vicissitudes of a Bosnian girl in the 17th century]’, Történelmi Szemle 49 (2007) 245–247. 42 Gyula Kristó, Nem magyar népek a középkori Magyarországon [People other than Hungarian in Medieval Hungary]. Budapest, 2003, 81–120, 191–218. 43 The designation “pagan” clearly refers to the Eastern Orthodox: Elemér Mályusz – Iván Borsa, Zsigmondkori oklevéltár [Cartulary from the time of King Sigismund’s reign]. Vol. 5, Budapest, 1997, 65: No. 33 (1415–16). 44 APA Vol. 57, fol. 697v.

194

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

Who might Magdolna’s “pagan and schismatic” husband have been? An increasing number of Romanians, Eastern Orthodox South Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, and Bosnians) moving northbound from the Turks as well as Hussite “heretics” from the north and Patarenes and Bogomils from the south took refuge in the Csanád Diocese in which Magdolna and Tamás lived, particularly in the southern portion of the district. 45 As a result of the Catholic missionary activity, the number of converted Catholics from among the new immigrants was considerable. “Turkish” soldiers who made incursions across the Hungarian–Ottoman border along the lower Danube were either Eastern Orthodox or converted Muslims. Magdolna Rachaz’s new “pagan and schismatic” husband may well have been a South Slav conqueror who had converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Islam, though an Eastern Orthodox Romanian or South Slav seems a more likely possibility. Mátyás, the son of Lőrinc Antusui, crossed the boundary separating religions and ethnicities not in flight from a bad marriage, but from an Observant Franciscan cloister in Transylvania. He went among the pagans, where passing himself off as a pagan he married Axpianna, a pagan woman of another religion. They consummated the marriage conducted according to the customs and rituals of his wife’s religion. However, the fear then overtook him that it might become known that he was, in fact, a Christian and they would therefore try to take his life. Though his conscience also inspired him to leave his pagan wife and come to Rome. In Rome, Mátyás asked the pope to annul both his monastic vow and his marriage because he wanted to marry a Christian woman. 46 I believe that Mátyás probably did not flee to Ottoman lands, but moved to a Romanianinhabited territory within Transylvania or, perhaps, to one of the adjacent Romanian principalities. In this case, the paganus that Mátyás had married was likely an Eastern Orthodox Romanian rather than a Muslim. In Mátyás’s story, geographical mobility and the traversing of boundaries between cultures represented a conscious survival strategy and a means of taking cover. Dissimulation and the change of identity, achieved by disguising himself as a “pagan” and, subsequently, as a “Christian” were also part of this survival strategy. For others, conversion between Eastern and Latin 45 For an overview of South Slav immigration in the period before 1526, see Ferenc Szakály, ‘Remarques sur l’armée de Jovan Tcherni’, Acta Historica (1978) 59–63. 46 APA Vol. 55, fol. 196r (1510).

195

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Christianity served as a vehicle for social advancement. Margit, daughter of the late János Nadabor Hunyadi, travelled from Transylvania to Rome in 1517 in order to petition at the Office of the Apostolic Penitentiary for permission to marry Nan, the son of Dan Bérci Török (Naan filio Daan Thererk de Beercz). Nan was not only a distant cousin, but a “schismatic” who, based on his Christian name, was likely Romanian. Margit requested that the marriage be permitted despite their kinship because Nan would thus be won over to the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ (orthodoxe fidei et Domino nostro Jhesu Christo lucrifacto), that is, he would be baptized as a Latin Christian. 47 Margit was taking the prescriptions of canon law into account when she promised that her schismatic fiancé would be re-baptized in the course of marriage. The Roman Church did not recognize the validity of marriages to non-Christians, a category to which Eastern Christians belonged.48 However, in addition to the Church, Hungarian secular authority also expected Margit’s fiancé to be re-baptized as a Catholic. King Sigismund issued a decree in 1428 that was intended to promote the conversion of Eastern Orthodox Romanians and South Slavs living in Transylvania and the “Southern Parts” (Délvidék), who frequently allied themselves with the Turks, through the prohibition of baptisms conducted by Eastern Orthodox priests and the requirement that all Eastern Rite Christians be baptized pursuant to Catholic ritual upon marriage to a Latin Rite Christian. 49 Matthias Corvinus enacted a similar measure in 1478, suggesting that marriages between people of different religions and ethnicities were still common at that time and served as a means of converting Romanians. 50 The Nadaboris of Hunyad were distantly related Romanian kenez (cneaz in Romanian, meaning distinguished) families owning adjacent lands in Hunyad County.51 The fact that János Cseh, 47 APA Vol. 61, fol. 20r (1517). 48 Szabolcs Anzelm Szuromi O. Praed., ‘Az egyházi házasságra vonatkozó kánoni szabályok történetének vázlata [A historical outline of the canonical regulations concerning mar riage]’, Iustum Aequum Salutare 4:3 (2008) 39–48. 49 Ignác Batthyány (ed.), Leges Ecclesiasticae Regni Hungariae et Adjacentiarum Provinciarum. Vol. 3, Albae-Carolinae, 1827, 405–408. 50 MNL OL DF 275475, 26 July 1478. For information regarding the Catholic Romanian nobility beginning in the fifteenth century, see Antal Molnár, ‘Jezsuita misszió Karánsebesen (1625–1642) [Jesuit mission in Karánsebes]’, Történelmi Szemle 47 (1999) 127–156. 51 Dezső Csánki, Magyarország történeti földrajza a Hunyadiak korában [The historical geography of Hungary in the Hunyadi era]. Vol. 5, Budapest, 1985, 211–212, 241. Nadabor (today Nădrap, Romania) belonged to the Vajdahunyad domain continually until the

196

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

the husband of Margit’s sister, Anna, was a Hunyadi vice-castellan in 1515 and the familiaris of the owner of the estate, George the Brandenburg-Ansbach (1484–1543) provides an indication of the status of the Nadaboris, whose family name indicates that they were Catholic and had become Magyarized through marriage.52 The social ascent of the Nadabori family is also reflected in their land purchases. The kenez Török family also travelled along the path of enrichment from the neighboring village of Bérc. 53 The marriage between the families and the conversion to Catholicism of the Eastern Orthodox spouse represented a customary strategy of ambitious Romanian noble families, one that also promoted their assimilation. István Vajda’s 1510 petition from the Várad Diocese records an instance in which Romanians living in the Partium were Catholicized in the course of marriage. Vajda, whose name suggests that he was a Romanian noble, married his “schismatic” lover following the death of his first wife.54 His new wife, Margaret of Wallachia (Margaretha Valache) was rebaptized a Catholic at the time of their marriage. 55 The previous cases provide a clear reflection of instances in which the boundaries between the faiths and ethnicities of those living in the Partium, Transylvania and the Southern Parts shifted as a result of intermarriage and religious conversion. The essential difference between the second husbands of the woman of Várad and Magdolna Rachaz lay not in their religions (new Muslim and Eastern Orthodox) and ethnic affiliations (presumably either Bosnian or Serb), but in the radical disparity in their social status. The fact that the second husband of the woman of Várad served as a representative of the Ottoman conquerors and new lords of the land indicates that she may have been the type of woman who was attracted to strong and influential men. 56

52 53

54

55 56

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Iosif Pataki, Domeniul Hunedoara la începutul secolului al XVI-lea. București, 1973, 133, 142, 158, 215. I would like to thank Géza Hegyi for his help in charting the Nadabori family. MNL OL DL 22696. Bérc also belonged to the Vajdahunyad domain (1482: DL 37653; Pataki, Domeniul, 133, 142, 158, 215), though the village no longer exists. A total of five kenezes and 21 serfs lived in Bérc around the year 1512 (ibid., 166). For the family’s land acquisitions, see MNL OL DL 29655. Unless the name referred not to his residence, but to the Hungarian-serf-inhabited Bihar County village of Vajda. Zsigmond Jakó, Bihar megye a török pusztítás előtt [Bihar County before the Ottoman devastation]. Budapest, 1940, 377. APA Vol. 55, fol. 532v (1510). Constructivists argue that the role of status in mate selection is culturally determined: men are attracted to beauty and women to social and economic status, while strong personality is

197

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

The convergences and commonalities arising from religious and ethnic heterogeneity softened the differences between people living in the previously cited regions, thus making it possible for Christian women to consider marriage to a “Turkish” husband and conversion to another faith. Moreover, Mrs Csiszár did not go abroad, but to Buda, which just a few years previously had been the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary. Perhaps she even had relatives and acquaintances living in the city. The connections between Buda and Várad manifested themselves in the large number of people who moved from the former to the latter in order to get away from the Turks. 57 However, not everybody attempted to flee from the Turks when they took Buda in 1541. In 1546, the Turks registered 238 Christian (with the departure of the Germans, primarily Hungarian) families in Buda, thus making Latin Christianity the most common faith in the increasingly heterogeneous city ahead of Judaism, Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy.58 Many residents of Buda, both poor and rich, had therefore made the understandable decision to remain in the city even after it had come under Ottoman dominion. Christians living in the city were at this time still permitted to practice their faith communally, in public and with their own clergy at the Mária Magdolna Parish Church. The Turks had only prohibited the ringing of the church bells. That Mrs Csiszár wound up in Buda is also unsurprising if one considers the fact that many of the several thousand Ottoman garrison soldiers and civil servants in the city were either single or had left their wives at home, thus increasing the local demand for women.59 Complications did, however, surface when the abandoned husband sent his men to Buda to recover property and, perhaps, even the unfaithful wife. In this event, wives who had not previously adopted the religion of their Muslim husbands could do so in order to invoke the Islamic law invalidating previous marriages in the event of conversion. 60 Thus if the kadı “celebrating” marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man at the empire’s borderlands had not been interested in the woman’s past (her

57 58 59 60

a cross-cultural tendency. Ayala Malakh-Pines, Falling in Love: Why We Choose the Lovers We Choose. New York, 2005, 83–104. Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban, 146–47. Ibid., 149–50. Géza Dávid, Pasák és bégek uralma alatt [Under the rule of pashas and beys]. Budapest, 2005, 79–84. Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban, 149–155. See the story of Fatima Hatun, who remarried and converted to Islam in Istanbul in order to parry the demands of her first husband from Venice: Dursteler, Renegade Women, 1–33.

198

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

undissolved marriage) and was willing to conduct the secular rite of the Muslim wedding without her religious conversion (but in return for a fee), it was still worthwhile for her to adopt Islam.61

A Slavonian Nobleman Turning Turk Just as the woman of Várad, István Velikei (today Velika, Croatia) of Radovanc made a free and deliberate decision to stand among the Turks. At least this is what his abandoned wife, Fruzsina Kasztellánfi of Szentlélek (Sveti Duh, in Croatia) claimed. However, contrary to Ferenc Csiszár, Fruzsina, daughter of the nobleman János Kasztellánfi, turned to Catholic authorities in order to gain permission to remarry. Fruzsina presented two versions of her petition. The first, submitted to the Apostolic Penitentiary during the first half of 1541, was founded upon two pillars: first, that she had vowed to marry (sponsalia iuramento vallata) István Velikei of Radovanc as a minor, at the age of only nine or ten years old, though they never slept together due to her young age and she had not reconfirmed the betrothal when she had reached the age of majority; and second, that following their betrothal, her fiancé had “gone to the Turks, donned their clothing, and together with them attacked and plundered the settlements of the Christians and perhaps even delivered his own castle, Velike, into the hands of the Turks.”62 Fruzsina claimed in her first petition that she was not obliged to honour her betrothal vow because Velikei “committed adultery, keeping a Turkish woman as a concubine, who had borne him daughters”. She thus requested that, taking these circumstances into consideration, her vow of betrothal be annulled in order that she might marry another man. Fruzsina’s case was complicated by the fact that she initially submitted her petition to Bishop of Modena Johannes de Morono, who served as the papal nuncio in the royal court of King Ferdinand I of Hungary and Croatia. 63 The nuncio decided that 61 Klára Hegyi, Egy világbirodalom végvidékén [On the borderland of a world empire]. Budapest, 1976, 119–126, 145–157. 62 APA Vol. 106, fols. 667v–668r (Zagreb, 27 August 1541). The date indicates that on which the office approved the petition, not on which it was submitted. 63 Johannes de Morono (Giovanni Morone), bishop of Modena (1536–1542) and beginning in 1542 cardinal. Conradus Eubel (ed.), Hierarchia Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevii. Vol. 3 (1503–1592), Regensburg, 1913, 252.

199

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

the betrothal of Fruzsina and István had, in fact, represented a valid marriage and that the remarriage of the former was therefore impermissible. The nuncio’s verdict suggests that Fruzsina, who was born around 1521, 64 had been an adult at the time of her betrothal – that is, at least twelve years old. Fruzsina’s first petition therefore represented an appeal to Pope Paul III of the nuncio’s decision. Fruzsina submitted a second petition to the Apostolic Dataria, undoubtedly in order to increase her chances of gaining a positive decision. In light of the papal nuncio’s rejection of her first petition, this seems to have been a completely understandable and rational decision. People of Fruzsina’s social standing could afford to apply for the more expensive and authoritative Dataria permits issued with the pope’s personal seal. The Kasztellánfis, who were named after one of their two Körös County castles – either Szentléleki or Bikszádi (Bisag, Croatia) –, were an old and locally distinguished family of medium-range land owners.65 Fruzsina, though she identified herself as a simple noble (nobilis) in her petition, in fact bore the title of egregius, or “well-to-do noble,” as the daughter of János Kasztellánfi of Szentlélek and Barbara Ősi.66 Her father – who by 1541 was no longer living – had stood in royal military service in addition to performing the family’s customary countylevel offices and serving as the familiaris of an aristocrat.67 We know of Fruzsina’s second petition only through the apostolic response to it: in March 1542, the Pope Paul III instructed Bishop of Zagreb Simon Erdődy to invalidate the betrothal. This decision was exceptionally favourable for the petitioner because it did not call for further examination of the case as 64 For the date of Fruzsina’s birth, see Pavao Maček – Ivan Jurković, Rodoslov Plemića I Baruna Kaštelanovića od Svetog Huda (od 14. do 17. stoljeća) [The genealogy of the aristocratic Kasztellánfi family between the 14th and the 17th centuries]. Slavonski Brod, 2009, 180. 65 For the most recent version of the family history, see Tamás Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite of the County of Körös (Križevci), 1400–1526. Budapest, 2014, 179–89. This book corrects the following in several respects: Maček – Jurković, Rodoslov, 152–161. They gained possession of Bikszád from the residents of the village via marriage around the year 1474. 66 On the Ősi family, see Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 186, 189. (The Ősi and the Kasztellánfi families were bound by repeated marriages.) 67 Regarding his offices (court familiaris, royal tax collector, member of the light cavalry attached directly to the royal court) during the reign of King Louis II (1516–1526) and King Ferdinand I (1526–1564), see Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 189. Emilij Laszowski (ed.), Monumenta Habsburgica Regni Croatiae Dalmatiae Slavoniae. Vol. 2 (1531–1540), Zagreb, 1916, 36, 72, 80, 105–106, etc.

200

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

was customary. We do not know if somebody intervened personally at the papal court on behalf of Fruzsina or if the arguments contained in her petition had alone convinced the pope to order that her betrothal be annulled. Her story was framed in this second petition completely differently. It portrayed the marriage not as an affair between two individuals, Fruzsina and István, but in a more accurate reflection of actual events as a family matter. The head of the family, János Kasztellánfi, played the primary role in organizing the first marriage rather than Fruzsina herself. The petition clearly reveals that Kasztellánfi gave his daughter to the neighboring noble from Pozsega (today Požega, Croatia) before she had reached adulthood. The two families knew each other well, their estates were located close to one another and they were related by marriage via the most prominent family in the region, the Szencseis. 68 The Velikeis held parts of Velike and Petnyevára castles, though evidence suggests that by this time these portions had begun to decrease since the daughters inherited them following the extinction of the male line and they had thus become very much in demand.69 The kinship between the Radovancis and the Velikeis of Pozsega also emerged as a result of such a marriage: at the end of the fifteenth century, the royal chancellery notary, László Radovánci, married Dorottya Velikei.70 This Kasztellánfi–Velikei marriage therefore may have served to strengthen the alliance between two families of relatively equal status.71 68 Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 448, 466–467. 69 The Szencseis and the Fáncsis, who had previously married Velikei daughters, had their own castellans at both Velike and Petynevára castles in 1502. Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 328. The Velikeis and the related Bekefis shared possession of Velike castle and market town in 1435. 70 MNL OL DL 88511. I would like to thank Tibor Neumann for sharing his collection of data regarding the Velikeis with me. For the medieval family tree (the Velikeis of Zsadán clan), see Pál Engel, Magyar középkori adattár. Középkori magyar genealógia [Hungarian medieval data store. Hungarian medieval genealogy]. CD-ROM. Budapest, 2001. 71 Our István Velikei was the son of Benedek Velikei (deceased before 1519), who was the product of the marriage between Dorottya Velikei and László Radovánci, while his siblings were Ferenc and Katalin. MNL OL DL 74679 (1507, 1519). Following the death of his father, Péter Markos Kerekszállási, ispán (comes) of Pozsega from 1524 to 1526, became his stepfather. After the battle of Mohács in the latter year, Péter Markos Kerekszállási became a supporter of János Szapolyai as king of Hungary. Richárd Horváth – Tibor Neumann – Norbert C. Tóth, ‘Pontot az ‘i’-re. A Magyarország világi archontológiája című program múltja, jelene és közeli jövője [The past, present and near future of the project “Secular archontology of Hungary”]’, Turul 86 (2013) 49.

201

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

In the case of the prestigious noble family from Slavonia, parental compulsion was not an issue: according to the established custom, the father made the decision about the marriage of his young daughter. Fruzsina’s petition does not mention a single word about the fact that she had not yet reached the recognized age of adulthood and had not consummated their marriage upon betrothal (which were important arguments against the validity of their matrimony in her first petition). In the system of arranged marriages this was considered to be self-evident. And of course it was also the father who, according to the petition, had “wanted to defend the honour of his daughter and give her in marriage to another” following the apostasy and betrayal of the husband he had selected for her. It remains a question why he chose to request the papal nuncio rather than the locally competent bishop of Zagreb, Simon Erdődy, who, as he, was a supporter of King Ferdinand I, that the marriage be officially annulled. Anyway, it turned out to be an unwise decision. The father of Fruzsina died in the interval between the submissions of the two petitions. However, Fruzsina remained a minor figure in the narrative of the second petition as well, playing a secondary role to her widowed mother. Fruzsina’s old widowed mother, as the petition that won papal approval stated, cannot herself take care of six young children and at the same time defend three castles – Szentlélek, 72 Bikszád and Zelnyak (Sirač, Croatia) – under threat from the Turks, which if lost, would gravely undermine the security of the region. She therefore needed a forceful and energetic sonin-law to be the husband of her seventh child and eldest daughter, Fruzsina. Barbara Ősi, who oversaw the affairs of her large family with extraordinary skill, thus presented herself as a hapless widow in the request for the pope’s annulment of her daughter’s marriage. While playing the role of the “miserrima orphana”, she gained the backing of one of the most prestigious aristocratic families in the region, the Batthyánys, in the defence of her property and support of her children.73 72 In fact, they had already been pushed out of Szentlélek by this time. Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 188. King Ferdinand I donated Zelna castle in Zagreb County to János Kasztellánfi in 1537, though it is doubtful that the family ever actually gained possession of the stronghold. MNL OL Libri Regii, Vol. 1, 324. 73 The success of Barbara Ősi in governing the affairs of her family is shown by the fact that in 1569 her then-eldest son, Péter, earned the baronial title for the family through his courtly and military services. MNL OL, A Batthyány család hercegi ágának levéltára, Missiles (P 1314), Nos. 24255–24260: The letters of Barbara Ősi between 1542 and 1552 to Kristóf Battyhány and his wife, Erzsébet Svetkovics. Géza Pálffy, A Magyar Királyság és a

202

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

As a result of the fiancé’s betrayal, the family context in the petition became interconnected with the issue of defending Christianity. The narrative supplemented with new details the story of the fiancé turning Turk: yielding to the temptation of the Turks, István abandoned not only the Catholic faith that he had received upon baptism, but when the Ottomans invaded the territory in which Pozsega was located in 1536, he delivered provisions to the attackers and even ceded to them his own, well-fortified Velike castle, in betrayal of the relatives with whom he held joint possession of the stronghold; moreover, István adopted a Turkish voivode as his brother and maintained friendly relations with many Turks.74 The pope’s annulment of Fruzsina’s marriage so that she could wed a Catholic man therefore served to not only to preserve her personal honour and that of family, but to promote the interests of Christianity in general. Fruzsina’s marital affair could presumably be depicted as an issue related to the overall state of the Christian faith because the fall of the capital of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, Buda, on 29 August 1541, has awakened European public opinion and decision makers to the magnitude of the Turkish threat: in the spring of 1542, when Fruzsina’s case appeared before the pope in Rome, the German imperial estates in Speyer were discussing the issue of the Turkish aid (Türkenhilfe). This common trauma may well have guided the pen of both the author of the petition – likely Fruzsina’s widowed mother for the most part – as well as that of the adjudicator, Pope Paul III and his officials. Although Pozsega had long suffered the depredations of the Turks, it suffered its greatest losses in 1536 and 1537, when the Ottomans again ravaged the region, defeating the armies of King Ferdinand I near the River Gara early in the latter year and took Pozsegavár located just 20 kilometres south of Velike. 75 Habsburg Monarchia a 16. században [The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the 16th century]. Budapest, 2011, 170. According to Maček and Jurković, Ősi had eight children – five boys and three girls, the oldest of whom was, indeed, the 21-year-old Fruzsina. In her petition, she specifies seven children – four girls and three boys. Fruzsina presumably died soon thereafter, because she is not listed among her siblings designated as the beneficiaries of property endowments that the family received in the 1540s and 1550s. MNL OL, Libri Regii, for example Vol. 2, 122–123 (1546) and Vol. 3, 649 (1559). 74 Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Dataria Apostolica, Brevia Lateranensia, Vol. 33, fols. 76r–77v, 20 March 1542. 75 Ferenc Battyhány wrote the following regarding the Ottoman destruction of Slavonia, above all neighbouring Kőrös County, in 1538: regnum vero Sclavoniae iam fere totum est desolatum et depopulatum. Pálffy, A Magyar Királyság, 71.

203

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

However, it was not until the fall of Buda in 1541 that the fate of the southern region of Pozsega became a matter of European importance and István Velikei, who had “removed his Christian clothing and dressed as a Turk” and maintained a Turkish concubine, was deemed unworthy of marriage to a Christian woman. There are several morals to this story. First, as the cases in Várad also demonstrated, official control of marriages functioned efficiently even amid the conditions of civil war. The calculation of the Kasztellánfis that the fiancé’s turning Turk would be an effective argument in favour of dissolving the marital bond in the first case proved mistaken. The papal nuncio in Vienna, acting in accordance with canon law, did not permit the disgraced girl to remarry. We thus see again the family and the girl who wanted to remarry locally in a difficult position. This story likewise clearly demonstrates how giving daughters in marriage was an important tool of forging family alliances of the landed nobility. It is furthermore clear that even if we do not know what truly happened, Velikei was portrayed as a trickster crossing Christian–Muslim boundaries with ease. Since the petitioners aspired to maintain their authenticity, people who transformed their personal identity, joining the Ottoman conquerors, converting to their religion and living with their women, must have been familiar figures of the time. The description of the process of conversion conforms to that which is known about it, thus increasing the authenticity of the narrative. In this case as well, outsiders were able to discern religious conversion primarily in terms of external factors. In both of her petitions, Fruzsina mentions that Velikei “dressed as a Turk, abandoning his Christian clothing.” At other times they referred to the change of names in connection to the change of religions. 76 It is a well-known fact that adoption of a Muslim name constituted part of the formal, though very simple, rite of switching religions: following the pronouncement of the one-sentence confession of faith, the assumption of a Muslim name symbolized a break with the past and the rebirth of the individual in question in the true religion. The newly converted then received gifts, among them, according to long-established custom, clothes. 77 The 76 With regard to Körmend noble Gergely Bakó: “his wife similarly dropped the name Erzsé bet hoping that her husband would be promoted as a pasha.” Letter of vice-comes István Keserű to Ferenc Batthyány, 11 September 1605. MNL OL, Batthyány család levéltára, Missiles (P 1314), No. 26397. 77 Anton Minkov, Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve Bahası Petitions and Ottoman

204

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

perception of outsiders actually offers a clear reflection of the essence of the process of conversion, which in practice consisted solely of external forms and appearances. Contrary to the ideals and practices of Christian conversion, adoption of Islam did not require internal transformation: the Muslim community did not attempt to determine the motives or sincerity of those who converted to Islam, requiring only that converts followed their customs. 78 Ottoman Muslims did everything under their power to integrate newcomers: not only did they provide them with clothing and monetary gifts, but also attempted to promote their integration through provision of a spouse and material livelihood.79 The complaints of the Kasztellánfis regarding the converted Velikei also reflect the receptive behaviour of the Ottomans that facilitated conversion to Islam: “he adopted as his brother (in fratrem sibi iuravit) a voivoide, a leader of the Turks and to such an extent behaves on friendly terms with him and other Turks.”80 The integrative attitude of the Ottomans must have smoothed the conversion of István Velikei. But what prompted the Pozsega noble to leave his family and property behind in order to stand among the Turks? The story of the abandoned fiancée suggests that his decision was driven by the prospect of social and economic advancement. He obviously weighed his prospects in the Christian world at the frontier of the advancing Ottoman Empire and determined that he had better career opportunities as a Turk. Velikei had two choices: flee to territory that was better defended from the Ottomans, thus abandoning his lands in Pozsega; or remain in place. 81 Unlike the majority of nobles, he chose the latter option. Family memory may have played a role in Velikei’s decision to cooperate with the conquerors rather than resist: two generations previously, one of his distant relatives, Katalin Velikei, was the Social Life, 1670–1730. Leiden, 2004, 152–153, 156–157. 78 Evgeni Radushev, ‘The Spread of Islam in the Ottoman Balkans: Revisiting Bulliet’s Method on Religious Conversion’, Oriental Archive 78 (2010) 363–384. 79 Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History. Cambridge, MA–London, 1979, 33–64. 80 On the custom of adopting Turkish–Hungarian brothers in Ottoman Hungary, see Takáts, Rajzok, Vol. 1, 315. Balázs Sudár – János B. Szabó, ‘A hatalom csúcsain. Magyarországi származású renegátok az oszmán birodalom politikai elitjében [On the peak of power. Renegades from Hungary in the political elite of the Ottoman Empire]’, Korunk 25:11 (2014) 24–30. 81 On the movement of the Croatian nobility to territories protected from the Turks, see Géza Pálffy – Miljenko Pandžić – Felix Tobler, Ausgewählte Dokumente zur Migration der Burgenländischen Kroaten im 16. Jahrhundert. Eisenstadt–Željezno, 1999.

205

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

wife of Prince Radivoj, the illegitimate brother of King Stephen Thomas of Bosnia and claimant to the throne. 82 Following the seizure of Jajce in 1463, which brought the Kingdom of Bosnia to an end, the victors executed Radivoj. Though this is just speculation, relinquishing the castle of Velike, the ancient family base, to the Turks may have actually represented a means of reacquiring the castle within the context of a conflict between members of the family. Unfortunately, we do not know if István Velikei’s decision to join the Turks served to promote his interests in the Ottoman sancak of Pojega formed around the year 1538.83

Conclusion Historians argue based on their knowledge of renegade life-histories in the Mediterranean region that women most often converted to Islam for family reasons, while men most often did so to gain greater socio-economic opportunity.84 However, individual strategies were more complex than this. On the one hand, marriage was an important channel of upward social mobility. Was the wife of Ferenc Csiszár driven primarily by emotions or material prospects when she chose a more influential and wealthy Turkish husband in Buda?85 The nobleman of Pozsega, on the other hand, may have regarded 82 Pálosfalvi, The Noble Elite, 220, 276. 83 Ferenc Pribék (alias Hüseyn Bey), who orchestrated the transfer of Fülek castle to the Turks in 1562 and in return was named the commander of the Ottoman castle in Szabadka, was also a voluntary renegade. In the 1570s, Pribék lived in the capital of Ottoman Hungary, Buda, as the influential head of the Turkish spy-network; see Ferenc Szakály, Mezőváros és reformáció. Tanulmányok a korai magyar polgárosodás kérdéséhez [Market town and Reformation. Studies on questions of early Hungarian embourgeoisement]. (Humanizmus és reformáció, 23.) Budapest, 1995, 271–272. Notwithstanding some more individual examples, very few among the Ottoman high dignitaries and the administrative and military leaders of Ottoman Hungary can be identified as Hungarians. Cf. Ferenc Szakály, ‘Magyar diplomaták, utazók, rabok és renegátok a 16. századi Isztambulban [Hungarian diplomats, travellers, prisoners and renegades in 16th-century Istanbul]’, in Idem, Szigetvári Csöbör Balázs török miniatúrái (1570) [The Turkish miniatures of Balázs Csöbör of Szigetvár (1570)]. Budapest, 1983, 45–47. See further Pál Ács’s study in the present volume. 84 Dursteler, Renegade Women, 13. See also the retrospective stories of women who later reconverted to Catholicism from Islam in Venice: Nathalie Rothman, Brokering Empire: Trans-Imperial Subjects between Venice and Istanbul. Ithaca, 2012. 85 The dilemma whether action and motivation is determined by interest or emotion becomes irrelevant if we consider both as socially constituted. Cf. Hans Medick – David Warren

206

MARRIAGE AND VOLUNTARY CONVERSIONS

conversion to Islam as a means of regaining possession of family property. I would therefore contend that traversing the Christian–Muslim boundary provided women with the possibility to achieve radical social advancement that would have been otherwise inconceivable. Both men and women who were willing to cooperate with the new proprietors of power were able to switch faiths in the interest of security and social improvement. 86 For women, marriage represented the gateway to crossing the boundary in the course of transforming their identities. The figure of the woman exchanging her Christian marriage for a Muslim one also helps us to take a more nuanced approach to the issue of female agency. Mrs Csiszár acted autonomously and outside of social expectations when she escaped her husband. The fact that she immediately remarried, however, challenges the often underlying scholarly assumption that women, independent of time and place, strove to break loose from their subordination to men within the patriarchal family.87 Her empowered position to negotiate new social relations and change her life – similar to that of women converting before sharia courts in Istanbul in order to divorce 88 – was temporary. This enabled women to rid themselves of problematic husbands; however as the wife of a Muslim man in the Islamic world, it also brought them under an even greater degree of control. Although escape was an act of exerting their free will, it did not represent an attempt to gain independence: to the contrary, flight from a man whose violation of the norms of husband–wife relations assumed dangerous proportions provided women with protection and security alongside another man, even if his Muslim religion served to curtail her rights in comparison to those she had possessed in the Christian world. The optimistic view of female agency becomes further “tamed” if one acknowledges that the meeting of cultures and religions offered greater room for manoeuvre to both men and women who were endowed with sufficient daring and the ability to orient themselves within the system of legal and institutional plurality, though this change was more conspicuous and surprising Sabean (eds.), Interest and Emotion. Essays on the Study of Family and Kinship. Cambridge, 1984, 3. 86 This is what Bulliet called “social conversion” (Conversion to Islam, 35–41). 87 For a criticism of this “feminist approach”, see Saba Mahmood, ‘Anthropology’, in Suad Joseph (ed.), Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures. Vol. 1: Methodologies, Paradigms and Sources. Leiden, 2003, 307–314. 88 Baer, Islamic Conversion, 427.

207

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

in the case of women due to the traditional notion of their greater passivity. We observed this situation when women attempted to escape an unwanted marriage. Some such women moved far away from their previous place of residence and remarried abroad, thus evading Christian marriage regulations; while others, those who faced different conditions, among them the wife of Ferenc Csiszár, relocated to the Ottoman world, where they could legally remarry. We also observed the factors that enabled these individuals to become boundary-crossers. The ethnic and religious diversity of the eastern and southern regions of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, primarily the daily coexistence of Latin and Eastern Christians, as well as the receptive behavior of the Ottoman Turks who appeared in these regions made it possible to cross the Christian–Muslim boundaries and to thereby transform personal identity. Further research is necessary to explore the actions of rational and wellinformed individuals who were able to exploit the differences in the Christian and Islamic systems of norms in order to increase the security and stability of their lives and improve their socio-economic status by turning Turk. Also, it seems more fruitful to focus our attention on the mediating role of Christian women marrying Muslim men and to observe the ways in which such mixed marriages shaped the boundaries of divergences and similarities between cultures in clash.

208

PÁL ÁCS

THE RISE AND FALL OF A NOTORIOUS RENEGADE THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY, 1580 After his appointment in September 1578, Kara Üveys Pasha was discharged from Buda under so far unclarified circumstances in May 1580. 1 To whom can he have been an obstacle? The aged and seasoned Ottoman politician was – to quote Sándor Takáts, the renown historian of the Ottoman Hungary – “like the pea planted by the footpath. Trodden down now, and then repeatedly revived, its tendrils wound themselves round even a strong tree trunk… He knew he’d better only talk under the cloak, for if he spoke his mind straightforward, he would break his neck. He had his enemies do in each other, let dog bite dog”, yet he was given the sack. 2 The ambassador of the “Viennese king” (that is, the Habsburg emperor) to the Porte, Joachim Sinzendorf attributed the sudden fall of the governor-general (beylerbeyi) of Buda, earlier chief treasurer of the Ottoman Empire, to “intrigues in Constantinople”. 3 A different story was told here, in the Turkish and Hungarian marches: a successful plot by the district governors (beys) of Ottoman Hungary underlay, allegedly, his rapid fall out of favour. Conspiracy, a plot, finally dismissal – all could, of course, be steps in a logical story line. What could have been the underlying truth? Apparently, certain events in the period of the “wartime peace years” (1568–1591)4 were perpetuated most meticulously and suggestively by literary sources, and a Hungarian language versified story may help answer the questions so cautiously evaded by Sándor Takáts. The embroilments around 1

2

3 4

I am much indebted to Anna Horváth Szilágyi and Géza Pálffy for assisting my work with a store of data. Antal Gévay, A’ budai pasák [The pashas of Buda]. Bécsben, 1841, 11–12. Géza Dávid, ‘Incomes and Possessions of the Beglerbegis of Buda in the Sixteenth Century’, in Gilles Veinstein (publ.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps. Actes de Colloque de Paris. Galeries Nationales de Grand Palais 7–10 mars 1990. Paris, 1992, 389. Sándor Takáts, ‘Kara Ovejsz basa [Kara Üveys Pasha]’, in Idem, A török hódoltság korából. Rajzok a török világból [From the period of Ottoman rule in Hungary. Sketches from the Turkish world]. Vol. IV, Budapest, [1928], 135–136. Ambassador Joachim Sinzendorf’s reports to Archduke Ernest of Austria (26 May and 8 June 1580). Cf. Takáts, ‘Kara Ovejsz basa’, 149. About the concept, see Géza Pálffy, A tizenhatodik század története [History of the 16th century]. (Magyar Századok, 6.) Budapest, 45–46.

209

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

the fall of Üveys Pasha are re-examined here with the help of a versified account of the Turkish menace at Nádudvar in 1580, the Historia cladis Turcicae ad Naduduar, written in the manner of Sebestyén Tinódi’s epic poems.5 Relatively few Hungarian letters by the pashas of Buda about the events of the territory under Ottoman rule survive from the year 1580. One reason is that after Kara Üveys left, the new governor-general Kalaylıkoz Ali Pasha appointed on 3 June only arrived with great delay,6 and the Buda chancery did not function with the usual intensity during the interregnum. 7 On 21 April 1580, the Hungarian and German warriors of the forts of Ónod, Szatmár (today Satu Mare, Romania) and Eger – reportedly around 5,000 in number – organized a major raid on the town of Hatvan, which was 5

6

7

Pál Ács (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára. 16. századbeli költők művei [henceforth RMKT XVI]. Tizenegyedik kötet – Az 1580-as évek költészete 1579–1588 [Collection of early Hungarian poetry. The works of the poets of the 16th century. Volume eleven – the poetry of the 1580s]. Budapest, 1999, 157–172, 429–443. On Sebestyén Tinódi, the “Hungarian bard”, see Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. New York–London, 1978, passim. Ali Pasha received his appointment as beylerbeyi on 3 June 1580: Géza Dávid, Török közigazgatás Magyarországon [Ottoman administration in Hungary]. Doctoral thesis, Budapest, 1995, 213–215. For a biography of Ali Pasha, see Sándor Takáts, ‘Vezír Kalajkiloz [sic!] Ali basa [Vezír Kalaykiloz (sic!) Ali Pasha]’, in Takáts, A török hódoltság korából, 153–179 and Pál Fodor – Balázs Sudár, ‘Ali Paşa’nın Evlilik Öyküsünün Tarihsel Geri Planı ve Osmanlılarla İlgili Yanları’, Belleten 70:259 (2006) 963–1000. On the activity of the Buda chancery at that time, see Sándor Takáts – Ferenc Eckhardt – Gyula Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése (1553–1589) [The correspondence of the pashas of Buda in the Hungarian language]. Budapest, 1915, 216. Between No. 186 and No. 187, that is, 3 May and 1 December there is no issuance of letters. Since the relevant archival sources in Vienna are not yet fully explored, the military events of the summer and autumn of 1580 have been reconstructed from Miklós Istvánffy’s chronicle and the reports of Friedrich Breuner, envoy of the Habsburg court to Buda. László Szalay, Magyarország története [A history of Hungary]. Vol. IV, Leipzig, 1854, 376. Ferenc Salamon, Magyarország a török hódítás korában [Hungary in the age of the Ottoman conquest]. Pest, 1864, 94. Sándor Takáts, Régi magyar kapitányok és generálisok [Hungarian commanders and generals in days of yore]. Budapest, 1922, 163–164. Idem, Rajzok a török világból [Sketches from the Turkish world]. Vol. III, Budapest, 1917, 169. József Nagy, Eger története [A history of Eger]. Budapest, 1978, 105–108. Csaba Csorba, Várak a Hegyalján. Szikszó–Ónod–Szerencs [Fortresses in Hegyalja]. Budapest, 1980, 84. József Kelenik, ‘A kézi lőfegyverek jelentősége a hadügyi forradalom kibontakozásában. A magyar egységek fegyverzete a tizenötéves háború időszakában [The significance of the hand gun in promoting the military revolution. The armament of the Hungarian troops at the time of the Long War]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 104 (1991) 31.

210

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

occupied by the Ottomans. 8 The surprise attack, in which the greatest Hungarian poet of the age, Bálint Balassi 9 was also involved as a cavalry lieutenant of the fort of Eger, achieved considerable Christian success. As the minstrel narrates in the poem, the attackers withdrew richly laden with treasures, leading Turkish women and “high-ranking Turkish captives” on chains, and in the stronghold of Eger “the bargaining immediately began”. In one of his last letters from Buda, Üveys Pasha bitterly complained to Archduke Ernest of this “horrible” breach of peace, suspecting that the action had been carried out with the consent of the Viennese military command. 10 The Ottoman fiasco at Hatvan was the beginning of the fall for the Ottoman governor. According to the epic poem, Üveys Pasha had already thought of the worst – “fearing he would end up strangled” 11 – as he remembered the sad fate that befell his immediate predecessor Sokollu Mustafa Pasha who was strangled upon the order of the sultan in autumn 1578. 12 The beys in the occupied territory blamed the pasha for the failure and convened in May to get rid of him. To cite the minstrel: “Stealthily, the beys sat in conference / To ponder about their immense disaster, / But all they could conclude / was the 8

This Ottoman stronghold supervised the route from Upper Hungary to Pest-Buda. Mór Kárpáthy-Kravjánszky, Vác és Hatvan a hosszú török háború idejében [Vác and Hatvan during the Long Turkish War]. (Offprint from the bulletin of the grammar school of the Premonstratensian monastery of Jászóvár for 1935/36.) Budapest, 1936, 5, 9. 9 Lajos Dézsi, Tinódi Sebestyén (1505?–1556) [Sebestyén Tinódi]. (Magyar Történelmi Életrajzok) Budapest, 1912, 192. Sándor Eckhardt, Balassi Bálint [Bálint Balassi]. (Magyar írók) Budapest, [1941], 78–80. Idem, Az ismeretlen Balassi Bálint [The unknown Bálint Balassi]. Budapest, 1943, 95. István Bitskey, ‘Balassi Bálint egri éveiről [On Bálint Balassi’s years in Eger]’, Agria. Az Egri Dobó István Vármúzeum Évkönyve 33 (1997) 630. Idem, ‘“Eger, vitézeknek ékes oskolája”. Balassi Egerben [Eger, fine school of valiant soldiers. Balassi in Eger]’, in Idem, Virtus és religió [Virtue and religion]. Miskolc, 1999, 106. 10 Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 215. István Szamosközy also deemed the rich loot of the Hungarians in the outer fortress of Hatvan worth mentioning: Praeda ingens asportata pecudumque ingens numerus. In his XXV cameli, in Sándor Szilágyi (ed.), Szamosközy István történeti maradványai [Historical remains of István Szamosközy]. (Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Scriptores, 28.). Vol. I, Budapest, 1876, 210. 11 RMKT XVI/11, 162. 12 Gévay, A’ budai pasák, 11. Sándor Takáts, ‘Vezír Szokolli Musztafa basa (“A nagy Musztafa”) [Vizier Sokollu Mustafa Pasha (“Mustafa the Great”)]’, in Takáts, A török hódoltság korából, 118. Gyula Káldy-Nagy, Harács-szedők és ráják. Török világ a l6. századi Magyarországon [Haraç collectors and reayas. The Ottoman world in 16th-century Hungary]. (Kőrösi Csoma Kiskönyvtár, 9.) Budapest, 1970, 99. Fodor – Sudár, ‘Ali Paşa’nın Evlilik Öyküsünün’, 985.

211

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

incompetence of the pasha. // They immediately wrote to the emperor, / Reporting on the disaster of his army, / They accused the fortune of the pasha, / Blaming him for the great disaster. // The emperor grew furious, / He let the pasha be dismissed from Buda / and sent to Constantinople.” 13 * For the time being, the plot against the governor-general of Buda can only be known from this historical song, but source materials of the Ottoman central administration will most probably substantiate the statements occurring in the narrative.14 The author of the epic poem does not make it explicit, but insinuates who the mastermind behind the letter informing against Üveys Pasha was: it cannot have been anyone but the protagonist of the epic poem, the “strong man” of the Ottomans in occupied Hungary, the commander of Szolnok renowned for his cruelty, Şehsuvar Bey. The poem says – unsupported by other sources – that “nobody was pasha by then, … but Şehsuvar Bey acted in his behalf.”15 This means that the violent district governor of Szolnok acted as executive in Buda (kaimakam) until the new pasha (Ali) arrived. The poet apparently suggests that Şehsuvar, who “could not find anyone on par with himself”, wished to occupy the governor’s chair, and he was not mistaken: that was undoubtedly Şehsuvar’s ultimate, lifelong goal. But who, actually, was he? Lajos Dézsi proposed that the poem about the onslaught on Nádudvar be renamed “the story of Şehsuvar Bey”, for he is the real protagonist of the narrative.16 A key figure of the Ottoman Hungary at the time, Şehsuvar Bey was the most hated leader of the Ottomans in the “peace period” of the 1580s. His biography is unwritten, his person hardly known. 17 His original Turkish 13 Alattomban bégek tanácskozának, / Ő nagy romlásokról gondolkodának, / De egyebet benne nem találának, / Hanem szerencsétlenségét basának. // Azért mindjárt írának az császárnak, / Megjelenték veszedelmét hadának, / Igen vádlák szerencséjét basának, / Okát mondák lenni az nagy romlásnak. // Császár azért mindjárt igen haragvék, / Basát hagyá, hogy Budából kivetnék, / És Konstancinápolyban beküldenék. RMKT XVI/11, 163. 14 On research possibilities in this field, see Dávid, Török közigazgatás. 15 [I]mmár basa senki nem vala, … csak képében Sásvár bég vala. RMKT XVI/11, 163. 16 Dézsi, Tinódi, 194. 17 Géza Dávid’s study based on recently explored sources only discusses the last phase of his life. Géza Dávid, ‘Die Bege von Szigetvár im 16. Jahrhundert’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82 (1992 [1993]) 67–96.

212

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

name was Şehsuvar, but in the contemporaneous Hungarian sources the name was distorted to “Sásvár” or “Sasvár” through folk etymology (“Sásávár” and “Sásvár” are Hungarian place-names).18 He himself used this name for his correspondence in the Hungarian language. 19 Only those who were more familiar with the Turkish language, for example Bálint Balassi, wrote the dreaded Ottoman commander’s name correctly (Saszuvar).20 Rather than having been transferred from remote areas to the westernmost marches of the Ottoman Empire, that is, the Ottoman-ruled Hungarian territory, Şehsuvar had been brought up in the Hungarian Great Plains, in Szolnok – according to the historian Miklós Istvánffy – under the care of the famous sancakbeyi Mahmud, who held the noted protestant preacher, István Szegedi Kis captive.21 Şehsuvar spent his childhood and youth in the border area between the Danube and the Tisza, constantly fighting. He and his younger brother, Baba Hasan, were heroes of the clashes around Eger. 22 As far as we know, he first distinguished himself in 1562, in defence of the Ottomanoccupied Szécsény, as adversary to János Balassi, captain-general of the 18 Zsuzsa Kakuk, A török kor emléke a magyar szókincsben [Memory of the Ottoman era in the Hungarian vocabulary]. (Kőrösi Csoma Kiskönyvtár, 23.) Budapest, 1996, 334. The rhymes of the story of Şehsuvar Bey tend to support the Sásvár name variant: Ezek között mind híresebb az Sásvár, / Kit csak azért szeret vala a császár (Most famous of them is Şehsuvar, / Who is favoured by the emperor…). RMKT XVI/11, 158. 19 Takáts, ‘Vezír Kalajkiloz Ali basa’, 179. 20 Sándor Eckhardt (ed.), Balassi Bálint összes művei [Collected works of Bálint Balassi]. Vol. I, Budapest, 1951, 368. 21 Miklós Istvánffy mentions several times that Şehsuvar was the alumnus, pupil of Mahmud Bey. Nicolaus Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis libri XXXIV. Köln, 1622, 416, 489–490, 526. On Aranid Mahmud Bey, known from Máté Skaricza’s biography of István Szegedi Kis, see László Földváry, Szegedi Kis István élete s a Tisza–Duna mellékeinek reformácziója [The life of István Szegedi Kis and Reformation in the areas along the Tisza and the Danube]. Budapest, 1894, 175–188. Géza Kathona, Fejezetek a török hódoltsági reformáció történetéből [Chapters from the history of Reformation in Ottoman Hungary]. (Humanizmus és reformáció, 4.) Budapest, 1974, passim. János Belitzky, ‘Adatok hídépítő Mahmud bég életéhez [Addenda to the life of the bridge-building Mahmud Bey]’, Jászkunság 12:3 (1966) 132–138. Ferenc Szakály, Mezőváros és reformáció. Tanulmányok a korai magyar polgárosodás kérdéséhez [Market town and Reformation. Studies on questions of early Hungarian embourgeoisement]. (Humanizmus és reformáció, 23.) Budapest, 1995, passim. On the origins and military stations of Mahmud Bey, see Géza Dávid, ‘Mohács–Pécs 16. századi bégjei [The 16th-century beys of Mohács–Pécs]’, in Ferenc Szakály – József Vonyó (eds.), Pécs a törökkorban [Pécs in the Ottoman age]. (Pécsi Mozaik, 2.) Pécs, 2012, 109–111. Mahmud was transferred from Pécs to Szolnok in 1562 and was the commander there until 1564. 22 Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 193.

213

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

mining towns (1555–1562), whose ignominious failure caused his fall as well.23 Later he fought valiantly against György Karácsony, who hurled Debrecen into a “spiritual crisis”; he fought without arms, relying on the power of God, but Şehsuvar dispersed the troops of the fanatic Anabaptist rebel, called the Black Man at Balaszentmiklós (today Törökszentmiklós) in 1569. 24 Şehsuvar is then temporarily lost from sight only to return as the sancakbeyi of Szolnok in 1580, which the minstrel of the epic poem attributes to his excellent local knowledge. He “boasted to the sultan as follows: / Give me the post of bey of Szolnok / and I will give you, sultan, Hungary! // I’ll smash the gate of Tokaj with one foot / That of Kálló with the other, / With my brigade I’ll stop the people of Ecsed, / I’ll make the whole population surrender to you.”25 23 As the deputy of Mahmud Bey, Şehsuvar successfully defended the fortress of Szécsény against the troops from the frontier forts of the Hungarian Kingdom in 1562. In 1566 he was still at the side of Mahmud Bey, then the commander of Székesfehérvár. Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, 416–417, 489–490. Cf. László Bártfai Szabó, Ghymesi Forgách Ferenc (1535–1577) [Ferenc Ghymesi Forgách]. (Magyar Történelmi Életrajzok) Budapest, 1904, 68, 102. 24 Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, 526. Friedrich Lampe – Pál Debreceni Ember, Historia Ecclesiae Reformatae in Hungaria et Transylvania. Utrecht, 1728, 280. Imre Révész, ‘Debrecen lelki válsága, 1561–1571 [The spiritual crisis of Debrecen]’, Századok 70 (1936) 194. 25 Császár előtt ilyen szókkal kérkedett: / Adjad nekem a szolnaki bégséget, / Néked adom, császár, Magyarországot. // Egyik lábommal kapuját Tokajnak, / Az másikkal betészem az Kállónak, / Dandárommal megállatom Ecsednek / Népét, mind meghódoltatom az földnek. RMKT XVI/11, 15. The fort of Szolnok was an important Ottoman stronghold and river crossing at the confluence of the Tisza and the Zagyva built in 1550 by the Christians against intensive Ottoman incursions and expansion. János Illésy, ‘Adatok a szolnoki vár építéséhez és első ostromához [Addenda to the construction of Szolnok fort and its first siege]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 6 (1893) 635–666. Imre Szántó, Küzdelem a török terjeszkedés ellen Magyarországon. Az 1551–52. évi várháborúk [Struggling against the Ottoman expansion in Hungary: The siege wars of 1551–52]. Budapest, 1985, 184. On the construction of the stronghold, see Ferenc Szakály (ed.), Bernardo de Aldana magyarországi hadjárata [1548–1552] [The Hungarian military campaign of Bernardo de Aldana (1548–1552)]. (Bibliotheca Historica) Translated by László Scholz. Budapest, 1986, 54, 116–128. A strategically important military road – and the route taken by Ottoman tax collectors – led through Szolnok; see Gábor Ágoston, ‘A szolnoki szandzsák 1591–92. évi adóösszeírása, I–II [The survey register of the sancak of Szolnok, 1591–92]’, Zounuk. A Szolnok Megyei Levéltár Évkönyve 3 (1988) 221–296; 4 (1989) 191–288. The fort was the centre of the district of Szolnok, thus the occupied area beyond the Tisza, the theatre of constant warfare, belonged to the jurisdiction of the district governor of Szolnok. In the nahiye of Debrecen, which was part of the sultan’s domains (has), he was entitled to collect the tax and forward it to Buda. István Szendrey (ed.), Debrecen története [A history of

214

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

Innumerable complaints against Şehsuvar Bey can be found in the correspondence of the pashas of Buda. Hardly any Ottoman raids, ambushes, assaults on markets, or pillaging, fires started without the involvement of Şehsuvar Bey. The Hungarians branded him a cruel marauder, violator of peace, “breaker of the truce”, while in Ottoman circles he was seen as a powerhungry careerist. Meanwhile, the Ottoman troops within his jurisdiction and in his retinue loved Şehsuvar Bey devotedly: “He was granted Szolnok as his post, / He gathered great many Turks around him / Who loved the bey as their father” – to cite the narrative poem again. 26 His successes rested on his military entourage, whose members depended on him personally.27 He could be far more indulgent with the local troops than, for example, Üveys, the beylerbeyi of Buda who, having been chief tax collector tried, counter to general practice to fill, rather than “fleece” the sultan’s treasury.28 Not only the Hungarian soldiers but also the Turks lamented the arrears in pay and clothes incessantly. Nearly all the revolts of Ottoman troops in occupied Hungary broke out, because – as they put it – their superiors “had eaten their money”. 29 Nobody

Debrecen]. Vol. I, Debrecen, 1984, 137. 26 Adták vala néki hellyül Szólnakot, / Gyűjtött vala mellé nagy sok töröket, / Kik szeretik mint atyjokat az béget. RMKT XVI/11, 159. 27 The households of pashas and beys had a great appeal for volunteers serving in the Ottoman army, since the senior dignitaries offered a sure living for their loyal subordinates, sometimes even granting prebends. There was a tight relationship of dependency between the local military elite and its retinue. Pál Fodor, ‘Making a Living on the Frontiers: Volunteers in the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Army’, in Géza Dávid – Pál Fodor (eds.), Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe. The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest. (The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage. Politics, Society and Economy, 20.) Leiden–Boston–Köln, 2000, 243–247. 28 Notorious for his severe monetary policy and austerity measures, Kara Üveys held the title of chief treasurer of the Ottoman Empire three times. He pursued a similar tax policy even as the pasha of Buda. Takáts, A török hódoltság korából, 141–142. Pál Fodor, ‘An AntiSemite Grand Vizier? The Crisis in Ottoman–Jewish Relations in 1589–1591 and Its Consequences’, in Idem, In Quest of the Golden Apple. Imperial Ideology, Politics, and Military Administration in the Ottoman Empire. (Analecta Isisiana, 45.) Istanbul, 2000, 201. Idem, ‘Üvejsz pasa hagyatéka. Pénzügypolitika, vagyonelkobzás és az oszmán hatalmi elit a 16. század végén [The bequest of Üveys Pasha. Monetary policy, confiscation of property and the Ottoman power elite in the late 16th century]’, Történelmi Szemle 44:3–4 (2002[2004]) 209–253. 29 Lajos Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban [Budapest in the Ottoman age]. (Budapest története, 3.) Budapest, 1944, 136.

215

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

accused Şehsuvar Bey of such offences. He shielded his men, who would have followed him to hell and back. He owed them his meteoric career.30 In 1583 Şehsuvar tried to seize the post of the beylerbeyi of Temesvár (today Timișoara in Romania) – with support from the chancellor of Transyl vania Farkas Kovacsóczy among others – but failed. In 1585, however, he acquired the title of pasha by becoming the governor-general of Bosnia. Though he only occupied the post for a mere eight months, from this time on he tended to call himself – and have himself called – Şehsuvar Pasha. 31 Whenever the seat of the pasha of Buda became vacant, Şehsuvar was always included among the candidates and the self-nominees, even as he loudly voiced his competence. After the death of Ali Pasha, certain of his impending appointment, he signed one of his letters as “Şehsuvar Pasha, chief governor of the Turkish emperor and protector of Hungary by will of the Lord God.”32 But his ambitions were not realised, he had to be content with the post of the district governor of Szigetvár.33 30 Cf. Antal Velics – Ernő Kammerer (eds.), Magyarországi török kincstári defterek 1543– 1699 [Ottoman treasury registers about Hungary]. Vol. I, Pest, 1886–1890, 144, 357, 350– 351, 356, 369–370; Vol. II, 561, 563, 565–566, 573. 31 Endre Veress (ed.), Báthory István király levélváltása az erdélyi kormánnyal, 1581–1585 [Exchange of letters between king István Báthory and the Transylvanian government, 1581–1585]. (Monumenta Hungariae Historica, 1, Okmánytárak, 42.) Budapest, 1948, 105– 106, 114, 177, 189, 201, 206, 239, 281. Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 326. According to Ottoman sources, Şehsuvar was the pasha of Bosnia from March to October 1585. Dávid, ‘Die Bege von Szigetvár’, 85–87. 32 The letter written to Emperor Rudolf on 7 March 1587 is cited: Takáts, ‘Vezír Kalajkiloz Ali basa’, 179. 33 He was removed from the province of Bosnia because of the objections against him for breaching the peace. He could not resign himself to the lower rank and to the prebend of lower value: he wished to be the pasha of Buda, and almost succeeded. In 1585 he also called attention to himself by plundering the villages under Ottoman rule, which had refused to pay the imposed tax. Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 362, 364. In 1586 it was again he who ran the administration in Buda in the interregnum between the leave of Sinan Frenk Yusuf and the arrival of Ali Pasha, and did his utmost to secure the soon vacated seat of Ali for himself. He had to retreat again and rest content with the post of the bey of Szigetvár. Gévay, A’ budai pasák, 13. Takáts, ‘Vezír Kalajkiloz Ali basa’, 174, 178. Dávid, ‘Die Bege von Szigetvár’, 86–87. Előd Vass, ‘Szigetvár város és a szigetvári szandzsák jelentősége az Oszmán-Török Birodalomban, 1565–1689 [The importance of the town and sancak of Szigetvár in the Ottoman Empire, 1565–1689]’, in László Szita (ed.), Tanulmányok a török hódoltság és a felszabadító háborúk történetéből. A szigetvári történész konferencia előadásai a város és a vár felszabadításának 300. évfordulóján [Studies in the history of Ottoman Hungary and the wars of liberation. Proceedings of the conference on the 300th anniversary of the liberation

216

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

Şehsuvar generated vitriolic hatred in Hungarians throughout his life. The imperial envoy David Ungnad von Sonnegg opined that “Şehsuvar, the mastermind and leader of all wickedness” had to be severely punished, “he would have to be strangled by the sultan’s rope as he had long deserved to be.”34 Although the Hungarians must have seen many looting, ravaging Turks apart from him, the passions elicited by the bey did not subside even years after Şehsuvar’s death: “Şehsuvar Pasha had an only son, whose head was put up on the main gate,” as Bálint Prépostvári wrote in 1592. 35 Şehsuvar Bey’s son was killed at the time of the battle of Szikszó in 1592, and his head kept as a highly valued trophy. What had lashed passions up around Şehsuvar to such heights? The song about the Peril of Nádudvar may suggest some explanation. The notorious Ottoman bey was not always called Şehsuvar – sometime in the past he had a name that rang more familiar to Hungarian ears. He was born

of the town and the fort]. Pécs, 1993, 203. From Szigetvár too he kept inciting the neighbouring beys “against the alliance” only to be finally defeated next to Kanizsa in the battle of Kacorlak on 9 August 1587 by the joint forces of György Zrínyi, Boldizsár Batthyány and Ferenc Nádasdy. It was the most famous “battle” of the peacetime, two of the participating sancakbeyis being captured (one of them, of Pécs, was the son-in-law of the sultan) and one killed. Şehsuvar, however, managed to escape through the swamp of nearby Sárkánysziget. The sultan ordered his arrest, but by sacrificing his wealth he obtained grace. He tried allegedly to throw the responsibility for the defeat upon the pasha of Buda. By contrast, the Ottoman historian Mustafa Selaniki thinks that he owed his rescue to Yusuf Pasha. Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, 576–580. Salamon, Magyarország a török hódítás korában, 100. Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 401–402, 406, 413, 457. Takáts, Rajzok, Vol. II, 153; Vol. III, 147, 171. Idem, ‘Szeinán Frenk Juszuf’, in Idem, A török hódoltság korából, 202–204. “Neue Zeitung” about the same event: Gedeon Borsa – Ferenc Hervay – Béla Holl – István Käfer – Ákos Kelecsényi (eds.), Régi Magyarországi Nyomtatványok I (1473–1600) [Early Hungarian prints]. Budapest, 1971, No. 599. Dávid, ‘Die Bege von Szigetvár’, 87. There is a hoard of uncovered material about the battle of Kacorlak in Vienna: Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Wien, Haus- Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Hungarica, Allgemeine Akten Fasc. 119– 120. Géza Pálffy, ‘Egy szlavóniai köznemesi família két ország szolgálatában. A Budróci Budor család a 15–18. században [A lower noble family of Slavonia in the service of two countries. The Budor family of Budróc in the 15th–18th centuries]’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 115 (2002) 946–947, with further references. Not much later Şehsuvar Bey died under unclarified circumstances. Bálint Balassi, who reported on the event to Sándor Kapy, noted “it is rumoured, though it is not sure, that he was poisoned”. Eckhardt, Balassi Bálint összes művei, Vol. I, 368. 34 Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 406. 35 Sándor Takáts, ‘Balázsdeák István [István Balázsdeák]’, in Idem, Bajvívó magyarok [Hungarian champions]. Budapest, 1979, 116.

217

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

into a simple Christian family and must have been converted to become a “Turk”, that is, Muslim in his childhood.36 Hungarian poets usually had a lot of insight into Ottoman “domestic affairs”. What was presumably a known fact at the time in Hungary – namely that Şehsuvar Bey was one of the famous renegades also tagged “henchmen” (Hung. pribék)37 – can be learned only from the historical song about him today: “Şehsuvar issued from peasant ancestors, / From a Christian he turned into a cruel pagan. / His anger against us grew enormously, / For otherwise he wouldn’t have won the bey’s post.”38 What does it mean, when it is said that he could not have become the bey of Szolnok otherwise? Şehsuvar Bey spoke Hungarian, and the poem also makes clear that he was not only of Christian, but also of Hungarian origin. His career was not customary at all: Hungarian renegades, rarities in the Ottoman Empire on the whole, would seldom be appointed to Ottoman-ruled Hungarian territories. 39 Hungarian-born Şehsuvar brought up in Szolnok and other Ottoman frontier forts must therefore have won the district governor’s post in Szolnok in recognition for his extraordinary merits: “He was granted the fort of Szolnok as his post / So that the Magyars would fear more in this land.” 40 Angrily renouncing his Hungarian origins – as the narrative would have it – Şehsuvar sets the superiority of the Islamic faith against the bond of “blood”, thereby revealing his real roots: “Were but a single drop of Hungarian blood in me, / I

36 Pál Ács, ‘Tarjumans Mahmud and Murad. Austrian and Hungarian Renegades as Sultan’s Interpreters’, in Bodo Guthmüller – Wilhelm Kühlmann (eds.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance. (Frühe Neuzeit, 54.) Tübingen, 2000, 307–316. Tijana Krstić, Contested Conversions to Islam. Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Stanford, CA, 2011, passim. 37 Sándor Takáts, ‘A pribékek [The pribéks]’, in Idem, Rajzok. Vol. I, 304–335. 38 Paraszt nemzetségből Sásvár származott, / Keresztyénből kegyetlen pogánnyá lött, / Rajtunk való dühösségért úrrá lött, / Mert különben nem nyerheté bégségöt. RMKT XVI/11, 157. This is the only piece of information suggesting that Şehsuvar Bey was a Christian, and presumably a Hungarian renegade. This possibility has remained unnoticed in historical scholarship, although Lajos Dézsi discussed it at length a long time ago. Dézsi, Tinódi, 191. 39 Ferenc Szakály, ‘Magyar diplomaták, utazók, rabok és renegátok a 16. századi Isztambulban [Hungarian diplomats, travellers, prisoners and renegades in 16th-century Istanbul]’, in Szigetvári Csöbör Balázs török miniatúrái (1570) [The Turkish miniatures of Balázs Szigetvári Csöbör (1570)]. (Bibliotheca Historica) Budapest, 1983, 45–46. 40 Tisztöl néki adattaték Szolnok vár, / Hogy ez földen inkább félne az magyar. RMKT XVI/11, 158.

218

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

would cut it out, I swear to great Allah, / For I would not wish it to lure me from the faith.”41 * This episode prompts the chronicle to leave the grounds of factual historical narrative and rise to the sphere of Protestant religiosity interlaced with moralizing propaganda. It recently turned out, in the course of annotations added to the Régi Magyar Költők Tára (Collection of Early Hungarian Poetry) that the present poem was written by a Protestant minister – as were nearly all historical songs of the 1580s–1590s. Most probably, the acrostic of the poem, “SEEPESI” alludes to the preacher of Mezőtúr, György Szepesi. 42 It is easy to understand why the parallels between the destiny of Jews and Hungarians, as well as the divine providence implied in their fate are included in nearly every event of the historical poem. As deus ex machina, it is God who inflames the Hungarians against the Turks, walking ahead of them and acting towards the Magyars as he had acted toward his chosen people, Israel. The “wicked” and “cruel” Şehsuvar Bey is the protagonist of a protestant Biblical parable. It conjures up the renegade Jewish traitors of the Maccabean revolt 43 who caused “greater damage to the Jews” than the pagan enemy. While on one, Christian, side of the coin, there are palpable, realistic episodes, fictitious motifs supported by Biblical parables appear on the other, Turkish side. One may rightly wonder whether the religious order of values and great degree of ideologisation of the work impaired its historical authenticity. Yes, and no would be a diplomatic answer, but it seems more accurate to say that in this versified chronicle turned protestant parable even the driest facts assume allegorical meanings, and the tendentious, incredible moments also have some ties to reality. It appears credible that – to avenge the Hungarians’ sack of Hatvan – Şehsuvar Bey’s troops ransacked the village of Maklár, within Ottoman 41 Ha magyar vér csak egy csepp bennem volna, / Kimetszeném, mondom az nagy Allahra, / Nem akarnám, hogy ez hitből kivonna. RMKT XVI/11, 158. 42 On the authorship of the poem in more detail, see RMKT XVI/11, 429–430. Biographical data on György Szepesi has been compiled by András Szabó, Johann Jacob Grynaeus magyar kapcsolatai [On the Hungarian contacts of Johann Jacob Grynaeus]. (Adattár 16– 18. századi szellemi mozgalmaink történetéhez, 22.) Szeged, 1989, 163. 43 RMKT XVI/11, 434.

219

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

domain, capturing and slaying the local Calvinist minister along with the local teacher.44 This report, however, immediately turns into a parable. The author encourages the inhabitants of Hungarian villages not to pay tax to the Turks. In practice, it was hardly possible to refuse to pay the dues to the Porte, while it frequently occurred that catching sight of marauding Hungarian soldiers, “the villagers rang the alarm-bells and the Turks came to their help attacking the Hungarian intruders.”45 It is also realistic that to withstand unbearable Ottoman plundering the Christians had to join forces. First, the German mounted gunners of Upper Hungary beat back Şehsuvar at the earthwork of Rakamaz. 46 Then the castellan of the fortress of Diósgyőr, Ferenc Geszthy joined the forces marching against the bey, as is mentioned in Miklós Istvánffy’s chronicle. 47 It is hard to believe, however, that the joint forces awaited Geszthy “like the angel”, or the ways the Jews awaited Moses, to choose Geszthy their commander with the exclamation: “To you we subject ourselves as second only to God.” The historical song massively exaggerates the martial merits of the commander of Diósgyőr – the German song of the battle of Nádudvar does not even mention his name. 48 Miklós Istvánffy claims that the battle was decided by the gunfire of the German cuirassiers.49 The versifying vicar of Mezőtúr wished to please Geszthy, the landlord of Mezőtúr at that time. The dwellers of Mezőtúr frequently complained to the pasha of Buda about the commander of Diósgyőr fortress, who harrowed them with the practice of “double taxation”. 50 György 44 45 46 47

Ibid., 163–164. Takáts, ‘Kara Ovejsz basa’, 146. RMKT XVI/11, 166–167, 439–440. For the biography of Ferenc Geszthy, see ibid., 430–431. For his military career, see Géza Pálffy, ‘A veszprémi végvár fő- és vicekapitányainak életrajzi adattára (16–17. század) [Biographical data of the chief and vice commanders of the frontier fortress of Veszprém (16th–17th centuries)]’, in G. Péter Tóth (ed.), Veszprém a török korban [Veszprém in the Ottoman age]. (Veszprémi múzeumi konferenciák, 9.) Veszprém, 1998, 140. 48 Contemporaneous with the Hungarian historical poem, the German narrative poem printed in Prague tells the story of the battle “between the Hortobágy and the Tisza” on 16–17 July 1580, that is, the battle of Nádudvar. Ein news liedt dem Scharmützel und Niderlag, so fast einer Schlacht zuvergleichen, wider den Blutdürstigen Türcken geschehen in Ober Hungern den 16. und 17. Tag Julii. Prag, 1580. The colophon says it was written by Caspar Bschlagngaul (lit.: ‘shod horse’) in Eger. On the poet possibly of Tirolian origin, see Bitskey, ‘Balassi Bálint egri éveiről’. On the historical comparison of the Hungarian and German poems, see RMKT XVI/11, 433–443. 49 Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, 555. 50 It is known that in 1575 the estates of the Dercsényi family in Mezőtúr were acquired by

220

A NOTORIOUS RENEGATE: THE STORY OF SÁSVÁR/ŞEHSUVAR BEY

Szepesi extols his patron Geszthy to the height of an epic hero like Homer’s Achilles and compares his own poetic role with that of Vergil in relation to Octavian.51 Thus, two superheroes clashed at Nádudvar, the angelic and the diabolic (“God did unto Şehsuvar Bey no differently / Than unto Sennacherib, / He had his army defeated by a few men, / As in times of yore by a single angel”).52 The bey is sent fleeing by the first thrust of Geszthy, his troops are smashed, while he himself and his horse trudge home to Szolnok across the reedy puddles of Sárrét region “choking on tears”. “The cruel infidel” Şehsuvar Bey is simply called “wicked Satan” by the author,53 which corresponds to the customary but undifferentiated representation of the Ottomans in historical songs.54 This time, however, reality apparently coincides with fiction. So it seems that this Hungarian peasant turned Ottoman pasha actually resembled, or wanted to resemble this far from realistic image of the Turks. His restless, confrontational behaviour must certainly be attributed to his being a renegade and his service in his native country. His figure incurred two-fold hatred on the part of Hungarians and two-fold mistrust on the part of the Ottomans. This led him to constantly prove his worth, displays of force against the Hungarians and shows of competence to the Ottomans. Quoting Miklós Istvánffy’s apposite words: “He spent his life in cruel wars – fired by his cruel hatred of the Christians: although fate thwarted his weapon during his life, he picked it up stubbornly each time, but

51 52 53 54

the castellan of Diósgyőr (and a judge in Eger) Ferenc Kövér of Csomor. János Győző Szabó, ‘Az egri vár főkapitányainak rövid életrajza [Short biographies of the captaingenerals of Eger fort]’, Az Egri Vár Híradója 17 (1982) 10. Zoltán Bodoki Fodor – Zsigmond Bodoki Fodor, Mezőtúr város története, I. (896–1944) [A history of Mezőtúr]. Mezőtúr, 1978, 14. The inhabitants of Mezőtúr repeatedly complained to Mustafa Pasha of Buda of the predatory commander of Diósgyőr. Takáts, Rajzok, Vol. I, 133–134. Takáts – Eckhardt – Szekfű (eds.), A budai basák magyar nyelvű levelezése, 146. No doubt this practice of Ferenc Kövér was resumed by his successor Geszthy as the commander of the fortress. Cf. József Bessenyei (ed.), Diósgyőr vára és uradalma a 16. században. Források [The fortress and domain of Diósgyőr in the 16th century. Sources]. (Tanulmányok Diósgyőr történetéhez, 2.) Miskolc, 1997. As can be read in the Latin distich eulogizing Ferenc Geszthy at the head of the historical poem: RMKT XVI/11, 157. Nem különben Isten az Sásvár béggel / Cselekedék, mint a Szennáheribbel, / Levágatá hadát csak kevés néppel, / Miként annak régenten egy angyallal. Ibid., 171. Ibid., 172. József Jankovics, ‘The Image of Turks in Hungarian Renaissance Literature’, in Guthmüller – Kühlmann (eds.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance, 267–273.

221

BORDER-CROSSERS: MULTIPLE IDENTITIES DURING OTTOMAN RULE

was always defeated and beaten back, and eventually he won the reward his savagery deserved.”55 The tree sprung from the lands under subjugation could not reach to the skies in Ottoman Hungary, either: however hard he may have tried to satisfy the Ottoman great power occupying Hungary, a Hungarian renegade with his “alien heart” could not become the highest Ottoman dignitary on his native Hungarian soil.

55 Isthvanfi, Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis, 580.

222

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE: IMPACTS AND MUTUAL EFFECTS

ÁRPÁD MIKÓ

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT OF LATE MEDIEVAL CATHEDRALS IN HUNGARY IN THE EARLY MODERN AGE Great works of art can be found in the ecclesiastic treasuries of Hungary today.1 They include very few medieval pieces, the bulk dating from the baroque (mostly from the eighteenth century) and from historicism. Nor were the majority of medieval pieces transferred to their current location before the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries. It is not only the ecclesiastic collections in Hungary today that have this kind of composition; all areas that belonged to the Hungarian Kingdom and were part of its ecclesiastic hierarchy in the middle ages and the early modern age fared similarly. By the early sixteenth century the medieval Hungarian state became the buffer zone of two world powers: all of its episcopal seats – with the exception of Gyulafehérvár (today Alba Iulia, Romania) and Zagreb – were taken and practically occupied for varying lengths of time by the Ottoman conquerors. 2 Esztergom, the centre of the Hungarian church, fell in 1543, Pécs was seized in the same year, Vác was taken by the Turks in 1544, Veszprém and Csanád in 1552. Győr was under Ottoman occupation between 1594 and 1598, but around its castle guarding the road to Vienna, hostilities became permanent soon after the battle of Mohács. The conquerors could not take Eger before 1596, but since the seizure of Buda (1541) it had been a frontier fortress and the chancel of the cathedral with the radiating chapels was converted into a bastion of the stronghold back in the 1540s. The Ottomans briefly (1663–64) even occupied faraway Nyitra (today Nitra, Slovakia) in the north. They did not manage to take Várad (today Oradea, Romania) at the gate of Transylvania before 1660, but the protestant Transylvanian estates had already secularized the cathedral chapter together

1

2

A considerable number of old liturgical objects and textiles can be found in the cathedral treasuries of the following towns: Esztergom, Győr, Veszprém, Pécs, Szombathely, Székesfehérvár, Vác, Kalocsa, Szeged, and Eger. For a brief survey, see István Zombori (ed.), Katolikus múzeumok és kincstárak Magyarországon [Catholic museums and treasuries in Hungary]. Budapest, 2001. Árpád Mikó, ‘Liturgical Objects in the Cathedrals of Early Modern Hungary’, in Erika Kiss (ed.), A Celebration of Hungarian Gold and Silver. London, 2004, 12–19.

225

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

with the treasury in 1557. Similar was the case with Gyulafehérvár: not much of the treasury remained there by the end of the sixteenth century. The magnitude of loss is incredible, which is primarily associated – not only by art historians – with the Ottoman expansion. Not without justification, of course: opportunity makes the thief. The majority of silver liturgical objects were not taken by the “pagan Turks”, but often by the Christians themselves, making use of the ex lex situation. First among them were the aristocrats and their servants. The royal court and the official war machine plainly regarded the church treasuries as sources of income. By the end of the sixteenth century the Catholic church had lost most of its positions in the country, the clergy was reduced to a tenth of its former size, 3 and spreading Protestantism often did not know what to do with the inherited relics of the luxurious, late medieval ars sacra. Let us briefly survey the fate of the cathedral equipment in the sixteenthseventeenth centuries after the collapse of the medieval Hungarian state, relying on recently published and a few unpublished sources. The history of the centre of the church, Esztergom is documented most thoroughly, and many of its treasures – as a rare exception – still survive. 4 This treasury was the richest in the country. It suffered losses earlier, too, for example in the fifteenth century; constantly under financial pressure, the Jagiellonian court tried to seize the whole treasury – in addition to the bequests of high priests (for example, that of Cardinal Tamás Bakócz). After the battle of Mohács – in which the primate László Szalkai was also killed – the situation worsened; John I (Szapolyai) expropriated large amounts of silverware for military goals. Amidst general chaos and civil war, some of the paraments, gold- and silverware, and the archive were rescued by the new archbishop, Pál Várday, and taken to the castle of Drégely (1527). After they were returned to Esztergom, some of the treasures were later transported to Pozsony (today 3 4

Antal Molnár, A bátai apátság és népei a török korban [The abbey and ethnic groups of Báta in the Ottoman age]. (METEM Könyvek, 56.) Budapest, 2006, 13–24. Catalogues and exhibition guides: Antal Lepold, Az esztergomi főszékesegyházi kincstár katalógusa [Catalogue of the treasury of Esztergom cathedral]. Budapest, 1942. István Genthon (ed.), Esztergom műemlékei. I. Múzeumok, kincstár, könyvtár [Historic monuments in Esztergom I. Museums, treasury, library]. (Magyarország műemléki topográfiája, I/1.) Budapest, 1948, 215–286. Pál Cséfalvay, Az esztergomi főszékesegyházi kincstár [The treasury of Esztergom cathedral]. Budapest, 1984. See Antal Lepold, Adatok az esztergomi főszékesegyházi kincstár történetéhez [Addenda to the history of Esztergom cathedral]. Offprint from the journal Esztergom, 1928. Esztergom, 1929.

226

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

Bratislava, Slovakia) before the town fell in 1543. The new seat of the chapter and the archiepiscopacy was Nagyszombat (today Trnava, Slovakia), but the valuable liturgical equipment was retained by Archbishop Várday in his palace in Pozsony. Upon his death in 1549, Grand Provost Ágoston Sbardellati and Provost of Óbuda Pál Bornemisza had it all transferred to the sacristy of the main church of Pozsony, St Martin Church. The inventory taken on that occasion clearly includes the calvary of King Matthias Corvinus, the cross of the Coronation Oath, and perhaps the Apostolic cross (all three extant in Esztergom today). The inventory features many objects, which have since vanished: five head reliquaries, reliquaries of King St Stephen’s and St Emeric’s arms, an old Gospel book with metalwork cover, several mitres adorned with beads and gems. Many of the church textiles were still extant: chasubles, dalmatics, copes, etc. several of them embroidered with beads. A small bagful of relics and crystal plates was all that remained from the many silver reliquaries that had been inventoried intact back in 1527. When Miklós Oláh became the new archbishop in 1553, only the most valuable objects were left in Pozsony (for instance, Matthias’ calvary), the rest were transferred to Nagyszombat.5 These liturgical objects and textiles were obviously in use. Very little is known of some of the rest of the medieval cathedrals. Though of lesser importance, the Csanád centre was plundered by crusaders (the troops of György Dózsa) in 1514. 6 No information is available of the equipment of Vác cathedral. The chapter transferred its movables and archive to the fortress of Nógrád in 1541, but nothing is known about what happened to them after the fall of the fortress in 1544. 7 5

6

7

Árpád Mikó, ‘Várday Pál esztergomi érsek hagyatéki leltára (1549) és az esztergomi egyház kincseinek sorsa Mohács után [Inventory of archbishop of Esztergom, Pál Várday’s estate (1549) and the post-Mohács fate of the Esztergom treasures]’, Ars Hungarica 21 (1993) 61–89. Samu Borovszky, Csanád vármegye története 1715-ig. II. A vármegye részletes története [History of Csanád County until 1715. II. Detailed history of the county]. Budapest, 1897, 77. Kálmán Juhász, A csanádi püspökség története, 6 (1434–1500) [History of the Csanád episcopacy, 1434–1500]. (Csanád vármegyei Könyvtár, 43.) Makó, 1947, 43. Most recently on the military operations of the crusaders of György Dózsa in the area, see Norbert C. Tóth: ‘Az apátfalvi–nagylaki csata. A keresztes fősereg útja Pesttől Nagylakig [The battle of Apátfalva–Nagylak. The route of the mainstay of the crusaders from Pest to Nagylak]’, in Norbert C. Tóth – Tibor Neumann (eds.), Keresztesekből lázadók. Tanulmányok 1514 Magyarországáról [Crusaders turned rebels. Studies on the Hungary of 1514]. Budapest, 2015, 81–101. Gyula Szarka, Vác katolikus intézményei és épületei a török hódítás korában [The Catholic

227

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Data has only survived on the extremely rich treasures of the Pécs episcopacy. In 1526 the Ottomans failed to set the castle and the cathedral on fire, but the chapter had earlier fled with the treasury, upon the news of the defeat at Mohács. On their way, however, they were fleeced by the palatine himself, István Báthory. He only gave back a part of the objects in 1528, when the chapter had returned.8 After the battle of Mohács, Pécs became a sanctuary: for example in 1537, the treasures of the Bosnian chapter kept in Diakovár (today Đakovo, Croatia) – including 24 chasubles, 8 dalmatics, 5 altar cloths, a bead-embroidered mitre, as well as 15 chalices, 5 crosses, 4 pairs of cruets, 2 crosiers, 3 pyxes – were rescued and kept here. 9 Pécs was taken by the Ottomans six years later, in 1543, and the bulk of the treasures was taken along by the fleeing Bishop Szaniszló Váraljai. 10 It is unfortunately not known where he took them; he died as the provost of Szepeshely (today Spišská Kapitula, Slovakia) in 1548 and was buried in the St Martin Church there. 11 Eventually, a considerable part of the treasures were spared, and they eventually arrived in Pozsony. They were guarded by the bishop of Pécs, György Draskovich (1557–1563), but when he was appointed to head the bishopric in Zagreb, he gave them over to his successor in the Pécs episcopacy, Andreas Dudith Sbardellati. Dudith soon left the church and got married in 1567. A good part of the Pécs treasures vanished while in his hands. The head reliquary of St Peter inventoried in 1567 must have been among the main reliquaries of the St Peter Cathedral of Pécs. In addition, a gem-adorned mitre, crosier, monstrance and other treasures were claimed from Dudith. 12 What remained must have been mixed up with the other treasures deposited in Pozsony. institutions and buildings of Vác during Ottoman rule]. (Vácegyházmegye múltjából, 5.) Vác, 1948, 14–15. 8 Géza Entz, ‘A pécsi székesegyház kincseinek sorsa [The fate of the treasures of Pécs cathedral]’, Pannonia 7 (1941–1942) 329–341. 9 Source: Entz, ‘A pécsi székesegyház’, 339–341. 10 Szabolcs Varga, Irem kertje. Pécs története a hódoltság korában (1526–1686) [Irem’s garden. History of Pécs in the Ottoman age (1526–1686)]. Pécs, 2009, 60–61. 11 Zuzana Ludiková – Árpád Mikó – Géza Pálffy, ‘A szepeshelyi Szent Márton-templom, egy felső-magyarországi katolikus központ késő reneszánsz és barokk sírkövei és halotti címerei [Late Renaissance and Baroque tombstones and funerary coats of arms in the St Martin Church at Szepeshely]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 56 (2007) 314–315, 317–318. 12 Szabolcs Varga: ‘Das Schicksal der Schätze des Fünfkirchner Doms in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Zsuzsanna Cziráki – Anna Fundárková – Orsolya Manhercz – Zsuzsanna Peres – Márta Vajnág (eds.), Wiener Archivforschungen. Festschrift für den ungarischen Archivdelegierte in Wien, István Fazekas. Vienna, 2014, 87–95.

228

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

Győr, along the route to Vienna, soon fell into ruin after the battle of Mohács. The cathedral burnt down in 1539, the medieval treasury possibly perished then.13 No relevant data can be found. The wealth of medieval liturgical objects in today’s collection – the richest ecclesiastic treasury in Hungary second only to Esztergom – is owed to the fact that recaptured from the Ottomans at the end of the sixteenth century, it remained in Christian hand throughout the seventeenth century and became the reservoir of stray ecclesiastic equipment. When the treasury became a museum toward the end of the nineteenth century, the two bishops János Simor and János Zalka, with a keen interest in the relics of the past and also outstanding art collectors, brought further goldsmith’s masterpieces to the episcopal palace from the diocese of Győr.14 Posterity is far better informed about Veszprém. Its treasury was rescued in time and moved westward, first to the castle of Sümeg, then to Sopron. From 1539, before he renounced his faith and got married, Bishop Márton Kecheti put several pieces in pawn, but even so, incredible wealth remained in a single cache until the end of the sixteenth century. Owing to Ottoman advances, Veszprém also became a collection point: the remnants of the liturgical equipment of the Óbuda district were preserved here. Upon news of the approaching Ottomans, the treasures of the provostal district were hurried to the fortress of Szanda from where Tamás Varkocs, commander of Eger seized them. Some of them were redeemed by Provost Pál Bornemisza; 15 these would find their way to Veszprém through him (and through his successor, Provost András Köves). The fate of the salvaged material was typical: in the inventory taken in Sopron in 1571 the pieces of Veszprém and Óbuda were still carefully separated, but regarding the textiles in the last trunk, nobody could tell anymore where they belonged originally.16 The last known inventory of the Veszprém treasury was taken in Pozsony in 1591 (where the chapter’s archive 13 Ferenc Jenei – Tibor Koppány, Győr [Győr]. Budapest, 1964, 20, 82–84. 14 Judit H. Kolba – Krisztina Pintér-Rácz, ‘Katalógus [Catalogue]’, in A Győri Egyházmegye kincsei [Treasures of Győr Diocese]. Győr, 2000, 9–10. 15 Árpád Mikó, ‘Bornemisza (Abstemius) Pál végrendelete 1577-ből. Adatok a nyitrai, az óbudai, a veszprémi és a gyulafehérvári egyház középkori kincseinek sorsához [The last will of Pál Bornemisza (Abstemius) from 1577. Data on the fate of the medieval treasures of the churches of Nyitra, Óbuda, Veszprém, and Gyulafehérvár]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 45 (1996) 203–221. 16 Ibid., 207.

229

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

was at the time). 17 After that, the objects were scattered, but all did not perish, because Pál Bornemisza’s bead-embroidered mitre (1550; fig. 2)18 and Bishop Albert Vetési’s three horn cups to hold oil, eventually came to settle in Győr.19

Fig. 2. Mitre of Pál Bornemisza (Abstemius) 1550 (Győr, Diocesan Treasury and Library)

The single surviving item identified as having once belonged to the provost district of Óbuda, a pair of candlesticks carved from brownish red agate, were preserved in Nyitra (fig. 3).20 The red velvet chasuble of Venetian embroidery, 17 Gyula Erdélyi, Veszprém város története a török idők alatt [History of Veszprém in the Ottoman age]. Veszprém, 1913, 189 18 Győr, Egyházmegyei Könyvtár és Kincstár [Diocesan Treasury and Library], Inv. No. 75.50. Árpád Mikó – Mária Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége. Késő reneszánsz művészet Magyarországon (16–17. század) [The legacy of King Matthias. Late Renaissance art in Hungary, 16th–17th centuries]. Vol. I, Budapest, 2008, 143–144. (No. IV–10, Árpád Mikó) 19 Győr, Egyházmegyei Könyvtár és Kincstár, Inv. No. 75.94.a–c. Árpád Mikó – Katalin Sinkó (eds.), Történelem – kép. Szemelvények múlt és művészet kapcsolatából Magyarországon [History – image. Selected examples of the interplay between past and art in Hungary]. Budapest, 2000, 443–444. (No. VII–16, Judit H. Kolba) 20 Nitra, Diecézne Múzeum. Mikó, ‘Bornemisza (Abstemius) Pál végrendelete’, 210, 220, fig. 5. Evelin Wetter, ‘Neskorogotické zlatníctvo. Úvahy o remeselných a umelecko-geografických súvilostiach’, in Dušan Buran (ed.), Gotika. (Dejiny Slovenského výtvarného umenia, [2.]) Bratislava, 2003, 535–536. Zuzana Ludiková (ed.), Renesancia. Dejiny Slovenského vytvarného umenia. Bratislava, 2009, 62 (II.3. Nos.11–12) (Zuzana Ludiková). Štefan Haviar (ed.), Kolíska kresťanstva na Slovensku. Nitriansky hrad a Katedrála sv. Emeráma v premenách času. Bratislava, 2011, 30.

230

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

adorned with the coat of arms of Albert Vetési and now kept in Veszprém must have been among these items, but we do not know when and how it was returned to the city.21

Fig. 3. Pair of Candlesticks from Óbuda Last third of the 15th century (Nitra, Diecézne Múzeum)

The chapter of Eger was also forced to flee at an early date. When Buda fell (1541), the episcopal castle became a frontier fortress whose defenders heroically beat back the Ottoman onslaught. The treasury was removed much earlier from the town, 22 a part of it in the care of Miklós Oláh (1562), and another part taken to Eperjes (today Prešov, Slovakia) by Antal Verancsics (bishop of Eger) in 1559. His successor, Bishop István Radéczi (Radecius), royal governor, entrusted half of the remaining liturgical paraphernalia to the care of the chapter of Pozsony (1574–75) and kept the other half, together with pieces from elsewhere. The latter included silver censers, a monstrance, chalices – one of the latter adorned with the arms of the Báthory family. After 21 Edit Egyed, ‘Vetési Albert püspök velencei kazulája [The Venetian chasuble of Bishop Albert Vetési]’, in Veszprém Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei. Vol. II, Veszprém, 1964, 209– 219. Árpád Mikó, ‘A reneszánsz művészet emlékei Veszprémben [Relics of Renaissance art in Veszprém]’, in László Kilián – Pál Rainer (eds.), Veszprém reneszánsza [Renaissance in Veszprém]. Veszprém, 2008, 80. 22 The sources are to be published soon in my forthcoming article on the art patronage of István Radéczi.

231

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Radéczi’s death, the chapter of Eger had difficulties in getting back their property from Pozsony (in 1587). One of the protagonists of the story is the silver head reliquary of St Barnabas with the apostle’s beard and hair gilded. It weighed some 20 marks. From Eperjes it was also taken to St Martin Church in Pozsony where it was kept together with another two head reliquaries, silver candlesticks, embroidered altar frontals and other items before they were returned. Reviewing the inventories and receipts, it is plainly apparent that the number of treasures kept decreasing over time, though sometimes an item earlier not mentioned would begin appearing in the records at a certain point of time. However it may be, over the seventeenth century the goldsmith’s works once held in Eger also disappeared without a trace. Almost nothing was known about the other archiepiscopal centre, Kalocsa, until most recently. An inventory published lately reveals that in 1557 several paramenta from Kalocsa (chasubles, copes, dalmatics), silverware, and two tapestries were kept in Várad. 23 The chasubles included highly valuable ones adorned with beadwork, among them one depicting the scenes of the Passion. Apparently, most of the equipment was rescued from Kalocsa quite early (perhaps right after the battle of Mohács), and the provenance of many – textiles – was still registered in 1557. Thus, Várad – one of the richest episcopacies in Hungary – became another store of ecclesiastic goods forced into flight. In 1557, there were vestments here not only from Kalocsa, but also from nearer Egres (today Igriş in Romania) and from Pankota (belonging to the diocese of Eger). There was a very large collection textile goods: 140 chasubles (with accessories), 60 dalmatics, 70 copes, 30 altar frontals, as well as rugs, altar cloths, tapestries. The number of metalwork objects was smaller, but several items of each type were kept there. The opportunity for the inventory to be taken was the secularization by the Transylvanian estates of the chapter of Várad, which involved transporting the overwhelming majority of liturgical equipment to the fortress of Ecsed. The precious metal objects were soon to disappear; some went to Gyulafehérvár, including St Ladislaus’ herm, the only treasure of the one-time treasury of Várad that can be identified as such (kept in the cathedral of Győr today; fig. 4).24 There is much uncertainty about the fate of the Várad 23 Árpád Mikó – Antal Molnár, ‘A váradi középkori székesegyház kincstárának inventáriuma (1557) [The inventory of the treasury of the medieval cathedral in Nagyvárad (Oradea) (1557)]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 52 (2003) 303–318. 24 Mikó – Molnár, ‘A váradi középkori székesegyház’, 304–305. Imre Takács (ed.),

232

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

paraments. In the estate of the bishop of Várad, Gergely Bornemissza (1572– 1584), valuable silver objects and bead-embroidered textiles were found in 1588, including a chasuble adorned with the coat of arms of King Matthias Corvinus and one decorated with Hungarian sainted kings in raised embroidery. The figures had silver crowns on their heads and silver sceptres in their hands. These objects cannot be found in the inventory of 1557. 25 By the second decade of the seventeenth century the treasury of the Várad bishopric had been scattered, including the treasures from Kalocsa.

Fig. 4. Reliquiary Bust of St Ladislaus After 1406 (Crown: 1600) (Győr, Cathedral)

Sigismundus Rex et Imperator. Kunst und Kultur zur Zeit Sigismunds von Luxemburg 1387–1437. Translated by Anikó Harmath. Budapest, 2006, 378–382. (No. 4.91, Terézia Kerny, Evelin Wetter) 25 Árpád Mikó, ‘A középkori váradi székesegyház gyöngyhímzéses paramentumai és ezüsttárgyai Bornemissza Gergely püspök hagyatékában (Kassa, 1588) [Bead embroidered textiles and silver objects of the mediaeval cathedral of Várad in the estate of Bishop Gergely Bor nemissza (Kassa, 1588)]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 60 (2011) 285–292.

233

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

A detailed register of the treasures of the cathedral of Gyulafehérvár, the seat of the Transylvanian episcopacy, survives from 1531. 26 Thirty chalices, eleven pairs of cruets, two monstrances, crosses, candlesticks and lots of textiles are listed. As far as we know, however, only two extant chalices can be identified with items in the list: one is Benedek Suki’s chalice in the treasury of Esztergom cathedral,27 and the other is Udalrik Budai’s chalice adorned with pagan coins in the treasury of Nyitra cathedral. 28 All the rest have disappeared or lie hidden. The medieval chalices now preserved in the treasury of Gyulafehérvár cathedral are later acquisitions. 29 That fate befell – grosso modo – all the late medieval ecclesiastic treasuries of Hungary, except the one in Zagreb. 30 Apparently, all movable works were rescued westward, to the defended peripheries of the country (Sopron, Pozsony, Kassa [today Košice, Slovakia], Eperjes) where the bulk got scattered and disappeared. The trivial conclusion that can be drawn is that the medieval art works preserved in the (cathedral) treasuries of historical Hungary are probably typical of the whole of the country including areas devastated by the Ottomans, and not only of the local region. 31 The rate of losses is obvious from a collation of the surviving stock with the written sources. The balance sheet of the Ottoman conquest shows an enormous deficit in Hungarian art historiography – and the artistic culture of old Hungary. And this is not only true strictly for the occupied territories, although that area fared worst. This picture, which tallies with the trope mentioned at the beginning, can hardly be retouched.

26 Géza Entz, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház [Gyulafehérvár cathedral]. Budapest, 1958, 142– 143, 215–220. 27 Entz, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház, 174. Evelin Wetter, Objekt, Überlieferung und Narrativ. Spätmittelalterliche Goldschmiedekunst im historischen Königreich Ungarn. (Studia Lipsiensia, 8.) Ostfildern, 2011, 240–241. 28 Mikó, ‘Bornemisza (Abstemius) Pál végrendelete’, 209. Ludiková (ed.), Renesancia, 61 (No. II.3.9, Zuzana Ludiková). Wetter, Objekt, Überlieferung und Narrativ, 58, 251. Haviar (ed.), Kolíska kresťanstva na Slovensku, 452–453. 29 Entz, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház, 144. 30 Cf. Zdenka Munk (ed.), Riznica Zagrebačke katedrale. Zagreb, 1983. Tugomir Lukšić – Ivanka Reberski (eds.), Sveti trag. Devetsto godina umjetnosti Zagrebačke nadpiskupije, 1094–1994. Zagreb, 1994. 31 In detail, with conclusions for art historiography: Wetter, Objekt, Überlieferung und Narrativ, 55–66.

234

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

What we may do is discover life – artistic activity – in the Ottoman-ruled areas too. That would, however, require a novel art historical approach, which refutes that a work of art can only illustrate the age in which it is made. Let us take the market town of Gyöngyös as an example. It is not widely known that in today’s Hungary the treasury of St Bartholomew Church in Gyöngyös has the third richest catholic collection after the cathedrals of Esztergom and Győr. It has one enamelled and seven filigree-adorned chalices, three altar crosses (fig. 5), and a monstrance from the late middle ages, this being all that remained from the ecclesiastic institutions of the town. 32

Fig. 5. Standing Cross 1507 (Gyöngyös, Treasury of St Bartholomew Church)

32 Angéla Héjj-Détári, ‘A Szent Bertalan templom kincstára [Treasury of St Bartholomew Church]’, in Dezső Dercsényi – Pál Voit (eds.), Heves megye műemlékei [Historic monuments of Heves County]. (Magyarország műemléki topográfiája, IX.) Vol. III, Budapest, 1978, 81–114.

235

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

There is a chalice from the St Elisabeth Hospital Church, which was mended in 1661.33 (In 1685 they had a new monstrance made.) 34 Gyöngyös was a wealthy market town with the position of Catholics conserved by the Ottoman occupation; not only the Franciscan monastery, but the parish also remained active throughout the Ottoman era, 35 and in 1634 the Jesuits founded a school in the town. 36 The Gyöngyös Gradual of 1618 and 1623 is a relic of this religious life (fig. 6). The paper manuscript is embellished with colour initials. Though its quality is not outstanding, it illustrates what a municipality was capable of producing around the middle period of the Ottoman domination.37 It does not essentially differ from illustrated Protestant manuscripts of the age, for example the Béllye Gradual also from an Ottoman-ruled area. 38 The walls and possibly the ceiling of the Franciscan church were decorated in a similar manner.39 The Catholics of Gyöngyös used their medieval art objects continuously. The Jesuits had altarpieces brought from Nagyszombat, acquired new (more modest) goldsmith’s works, but the remains of the one-time wealth of the churches certainly helped the population preserve their Catholic identity. 40 In nearby Gyöngyöspata another filigree adorned chalice, 41 and in Pásztó a fine late gothic pyx survive.42 These items are usually interpreted as products of 33 Gyöngyös, Szent Bertalan-templom Kincstára [Treasury of St Bartholomew Church]. HéjjDétári, ‘A Szent Bertalan templom kincstára’, 90, fig. 70. 34 Gyöngyös, Szent Bertalan-templom Kincstára. Héjj-Détári, ‘A Szent Bertalan templom kincstára’, 100, fig. 91. 35 Antal Molnár, Mezőváros és katolicizmus. Katolikus egyház az egri püspökség hódoltsági területein a 17. században [Market town and Catholicism. The Catholic Church in the Ottoman-ruled area of the Eger Diocese in the 17th century]. (METEM Könyvek, 49.) Budapest, 2005, 35–42. 36 Molnár, Mezőváros és katolicizmus, 91–92. 37 Budapest, Egyetemi Könyvtár [University Library], Manuscripts, Inv. No. A 114. Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége, Vol. I, 76–77. (No. I–16, Árpád Mikó) 38 Debrecen, Tiszántúli Református Egyházkerületi és Kollégiumi Nagykönyvtár [Library of the Trans-Tisza Calvinist District and College], Manuscripts, Inv. No. R 507. Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége,Vol. I, 77–78. (No. I–18, Csaba Fekete) 39 Zoltán Fáy, A ferencesek Gyöngyösön. Fejezetek a gyöngyösi barátok életéből [Franciscans in Gyöngyös. Chapters in the life of the friars of Gyöngyös]. Budapest, 1999, 38. 40 Molnár, Mezőváros és katolicizmus, 141–142. 41 Dercsényi – Voit (eds.), Heves megye műemlékei, Vol. I, 224, fig. 256. Matthias Corvinus und die Renaissance in Ungarn, 1458–1541. (Katalog des Nö. Landesmuseums, Neue Folge, 118.) Schloß Schallaburg, Vienna, 1982, 482. (No. 491, Angéla Héjj-Détári) 42 István Genthon et al., Nógrád megye műemlékei [Historic monuments of Nógrád County]. (Magyarország műemléki topográfiája, III.) Budapest, 1954, 337–338, fig. 337.

236

FATE OF THE LITURGICAL EQUIPMENT

medieval art, without considering that in Ottoman Hungary in the early modern age they constituted a considerable part of artistic culture. In a certain sense, time stopped here.

Fig. 6. The Gyöngyös Gradual 1618, 1623 (Budapest, University Library)

This problem – the continued use of medieval works of art in the early modern age – concerns not only the Ottoman-ruled areas. Not long ago, Evelin Wetter discovered and published the wardrobe of the Black Church of Brassó (today Brașov, Romania) containing several intact late medieval chasubles, copes. 43 The Lutherans inherited them from Catholic times and sometimes used them. That was the case of other Protestant denominations as well; while the 43 Evelin Wetter, ‘Der Kronstädter Paramentenschatz. Altkirchliche Messgewänder in Nachreformationischer Nutzung’, Acta Historiae Artium 45 (2004) 257–315. Eadem, Liturgische Gewänder in der Schwarzen Kirche zu Kronstadt in Siebenbürgen. With contributions by Corinna Kienzler and Agnes Ziegler. Riggisberg, Abegg-Stiftung, 2015.

237

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

medieval liturgical textiles were less in use, the goldsmith’s objects were used daily. Let me adduce an example from the other end of the country, West Transdanubia, and refer to the late gothic chalice of the Lutherans of Celldömölk,44 or that of the congregation of Csönge on the southern end of the Kisalföld region nearby.45 Not infrequently a community converted, but either simply kept the chalice, or acquired old church vessels in other ways. This applied to Calvinist congregations, too: that is how the cup and lid of Bogyiszló (early sixteenth century) survived. 46 Of course, the exploration of the exact provenance would be important. The Calvinists also managed to create their own new art in the midst of the Ottoman occupation. The congregation of Tass, for example, received their communion cup in 1625 and use it to this day,47 while the Kecskemét congregation ordered a cup in 1626 and later a cruet, both made in Kecskemét. 48 Goldsmith’s work flourished in the town under Ottoman domination in the seventeenth century.49 But that is, according to tradition, another chapter of the story. Our knowledge of sixteenth–seventeenth-century art will never be consummate if we continue to ignore the medieval items (sculptures, paintings, goldsmith’s works) in active use at that time. Nor can we determine the historical place of the latter pieces, if we ignore their fate in the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries, and of course, later. Culture implied by the tangible objects – and the objects themselves – are just as important sources of an age as are the texts: tax registers, last wills, historical accounts. Only, it is somewhat more difficult to make them speak. 44 Budapest, Evangélikus Országos Múzeum [National Lutheran Museum] (deposit by the Lutheran district of Celldömölk). Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége, Vol. I, 157. (No. V–1, Zsuzsanna Zászkaliczky) 45 Budapest, Evangélikus Országos Múzeum (deposit by the Lutheran district of Csönge). Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége, Vol. I, 157–158. (No. V–2, Zsuzsanna Zászkaliczky) 46 Sándor Mihalik, ‘The Hungarian Cup of the Kremlin’, Acta Historiae Artium 6 (1959) 342, fig. 6. Matthias Corvinus und die Renaissance in Ungarn, 484. (No. 494, András Szilágyi) 47 Kecskemét, Dunamelléki Református Egyházkerület Ráday Múzeuma [Ráday Museum of the Danubian Calvinist District], Inv. No. 2003.1.1. Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége, Vol. I, 174–175. (No. VI–1, Zsuzsanna Fogarasi) 48 Kecskemét, Dunamelléki Református Egyházkerület Ráday Múzeuma, Inv. Nos. 87.60.1. and 87.63.1. Mikó – Verő (eds.), Mátyás király öröksége, Vol. I, 175 (No. VI–2, Zsuzsanna Fogarasi) and 176. (No. VI–5, Zsuzsanna Fogarasi) 49 Ida B. Bobrovszky, A XVII. századi mezővárosok iparművészete (Kecskemét, Nagykőrös, Debrecen) [Decorative art in 17th-century market towns]. Budapest, 1980, 29–38.

238

IBOLYA GERELYES

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY: TYPOLOGY AND SPREAD In his 1897 article publishing the finds at Tomasevác (today Tomaševac, Serbia), Denta (today Denta, Romania), and Ráczszentpéter (today Sânpetru Mare, Romania) as part of his research into the history of the filigree technique in Hungary, József Hampel called attention to a special group of sixteenth– seventeenth-century jewellery finds in what was then Southern Hungary which differed widely in form and technique from Hungarian jewellery in that era. 1 Looking for parallels, Hampel pointed out a hoard from Bánffyhunyad (today Huedin, Romania) kept at the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest and two relevant objects in the collection of the Hungarian National Museum, namely a disk-shaped ear pendant from Dunaföldvár and a brooch localised to Dombóvár after the person from whom it was purchased. 2 The dating of the groups of finds analysed here was facilitated partly by coins found together with two of the assemblages. The Bánffyhunyad finds were dated by coins minted in 1622–25,3 while the most recent coin belonging to the Denta hoard was minted in 1673.4 Hampel dated the Tomasevác find to the second half of the sixteenth century – early seventeenth century on the basis of a signet ring featuring a coat of arms which was also included in the assemblage. 5 Over the past one hundred years, this set of artefacts has been enriched with newly found, newly identified items and with objects subsequently assigned to 1

2

3 4

5

Béla Kövér [József Hampel], ‘Újabb adatok az ötvösség történetéhez hazánkban [New data on the history of goldsmiths’ work in Hungary]’, Archaeologiai Értesítő 17 (1897) 245– 249. Inv. No. MNM 1860.121; 1887.36.3. The latter object came to the Hungarian National Museum together with two silver drinking bowls and coins of different ages. The seller is probably identical with the blacksmith Ferenc Grabner of Dombóvár, who delivered in instalments several objects collected in the vicinity of Dombóvár Castle in 1886–1887. The bowls were inventoried as Inv. No. 1887.36.1–2. Later, they were re-inventoried as Inv. No. 55.443.C. Kövér, ‘Újabb adatok’, 251. Márton Gyöngyössy, Altin, akcse, mangir… Oszmán pénzek forgalma a kora újkori Magyarországon [Altın, akçe, mangır… Circulation of Ottoman coins in early modern age Hungary]. Budapest, 2004, 48–49. Kövér, ‘Újabb adatok’, 246.

239

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

this group on account of Hampel’s article. 6 It is, however, not numeric increase that gives this group of objects significance, but instead a change of approach in Ottoman archaeological research that places these finds in a new context. Key issues in these investigations are analysis of the ethnic stratification of the Ottoman-era archaeological material unearthed on the territory of historical Hungary, the most accurate definition possible of the material legacies of the different ethnicities and ethnic groups drifting northwards from the Balkan areas, and the separation of these legacies from the Hungarian finds of the Ottoman period. Study of the ceramic finds has yielded significant results, 7 while there are far fewer data regarding metalwork finds. The jewellery to be discussed here might contribute important information regarding the identification of persons interred in Ottoman-era cemeteries. This work is particularly difficult, because scholars who have published burials datable to the sixteenth–seventeenth century that cannot be associated with the Hungarian population connect them to various different ethnic groups on account of the burial rites and grave goods discovered. The first such cemetery published in the Hungarian research was discovered in the late nineteenth century on Sziga Island at Zombor-Bácsmonostorszeg, with the publisher of the finds claiming to have found part of a burial of a population of Šokac origin (a Roman Catholic, South Slavic ethnic group along the Danube 6

7

Some of the jewellery belonging to this group was transferred to the collection at the Museum of Ethnography in Budapest, see file No. 863-10-3/60 at that institution. The collection at the Hungarian National Museum is comprehensively summed up by Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘Török ékszerek [Ottoman jewellery]’, in Évezredek, évszázadok kincsei [Treasures of the millennia and the centuries]. Vol. VII, Budapest, 1994, 41–49. The stock of archaeological ceramic finds outlines relatively precisely the spread of individual vessel types in Ottoman Hungary. For instance, a decreasing proportion of crude handturned ceramic allegedly of Balkan origin occurs in the material from find-sites as one goes northwards from southern Transdanubia. This type of ceramic is clearly demonstrable up to the southern shore of Lake Balaton, with sporadic occurrences to the north of it, although some pieces have also cropped up in Buda also, mainly in seventeenth-century material. In the south of the Great Hungarian Plain, the type is known from Baja (Gyöngyi Kovács, ‘Hódoltság kori leletegyüttes Baja belvárosából [An assemblage of Ottoman-era finds from downtown Baja]’, in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest, 2006, 275– 295), but does not appear north of there on the Great Hungarian Plain. Similarly, the monochrome glazed red clay footed dishes characteristic of the material from forts in Ottoman hands are absent from the archaeological legacy of Hungarian-inhabited villages on the Plain. Cf. Géza Dávid – Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘History, Meet Archaeology. The Potter’s Craft in Ottoman Hungary’, in Suraiya Faroqhi (ed.), Bread from the Lion’s Mouth: Artisans Struggling for a Livelihood in Ottoman Cities. New York–London, 2015, 77–80.

240

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

and Sava rivers). In the mid-twentieth century, another cemetery was found in the vicinity of Zombor; this site is mentioned as Zombor-Bükkszállás or Zombor-Bukovácz. The researcher who excavated the site considered the persons buried there to be Šokac. Although the finds from the DombóvárBékató cemetery display many similar features, the publisher of the cemetery, unlike his predecessors, thought the people buried there were of Iflak-Vlach origin. Apart from the above-mentioned cemeteries, the identification of some burial sites said earlier to be Hungarian should also be revised. Examples are the cemetery section in Léránt-kert found near the fortress of Babócsa (in Ottoman hands in the periods 1555–1556 and 1566–1686) and the BabócsaBolhó Street cemetery part whose grave goods – necklaces with sheet-metal pendants and beads, glass beads, characteristic Ottoman-Balkan rings – and burial rites suggest they can be associated with a group of people who had migrated there from the Balkans. Similar problems are raised by a cemetery uncovered on the outskirts of Kaposvár (in Ottoman hands from 1555 until 1686). Despite the destruction of the church there around 1530, the churchyard continued in use for another two hundred years; with later burials, a marked change can be discerned in burial customs as manifest in the use of coffins, the manner of inhumation, etc. Ethnic change is suggested by some of the grave goods: Ottoman akçe coins, diadems with sheet-metal (“sequin”) pendants, glass beads, and Ottoman-Balkan rings. Early twenty-first-century researchers can reckon with the discovery of new cemeteries – and the re-attribution of others – on the basis of the increased number of antecedents. One such is the cemetery of FonyódBézseny which was excavated in 2003. In this, its researchers believe, members of a population group of Balkan origin, possibly Muslims, were buried. Those buried in the Ottoman-era cemeteries of the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain and the northern part of the Bácska (Serbian: Bačka) region with similar rites and grave goods have been identified by the researchers who excavated them as Orthodox Serbs and Vlachs, or simply as people from the Balkans.8 Confirmation must obviously come from collation 8

For the publication of the cemeteries listed above, see Kálmán Gubitza, ‘A Bodrogh-szigeti pálos monostor [The Pauline monastery at Bodrogh-sziget]’, Archaeologiai Értesítő 22 (1902) 1–7. József Korek, ‘A Zombor-bükkszállási 17. századi temető sírleletei [Grave goods from a 17th-century cemetery at Zombor-Bükkszállás]’, in Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 1989/90. Szeged, 1994, 181–202. Attila Gaál, ‘The Sixteenth- to Seventeenth-

241

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

of the archaeological finds with the historical sources. 9 In short, it may be stated that these cemeteries, and thus the appearance of a new population can, according to the present state of our knowledge, be demonstrated in Transdanubia up to the southern shore of Lake Balaton and on the Great Hungarian Plain up to the town of Baja. This paper attempts to trace the spread of Ottoman-Balkan jewellery in the areas of Hungary under Ottoman sway through comparison with treasures from the time found across the territory of historical Hungary and now kept in the main collection of the Hungarian National Museum, also utilising archaeological findings and the material of the above-mentioned cemeteries. At present, some thirty assemblages widely differing in size and significance from the period between the early sixteenth century and the late seventeenth century are preserved at the Hungarian National Museum. 10 Its large number of artefacts from documented find-sites is especially significant in the light of the circumstance that from the time of its foundation to the early twentieth century the Museum collected materials from the whole territory of historical Hungary. Consequently, owing mainly to finds from the former Southern Hungary districts, a considerable amount of comparative material is available to assist

Century Cemetery at Dombóvár-Békató’, in Ibolya Gerelyes – Gyöngyi Kovács (eds.), Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary. (Opuscula Hungarica, III.) Budapest, 2003, 221–230. Zsolt Gallina, ‘Fonyód-Bézseny-puszta (M7 S-33 lelőhely) [FonyódBézseny-puszta (site M7 S-33)]’, in Szilvia Honti et al. (eds.), A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszának megelőző régészeti feltárásai (2002–2003). Előzetes jelentés 3. [The archaeological excavations conducted prior to the building of the Somogy County section of the M7 motorway (2002–2003). Preliminary report 3.], Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 16 (2004) 34–40. Erika Wicker, Rácok és vlahok a hódoltság kori ÉszakBácskában [Rascians and Vlachs in the northern part of the Bácska region in the Ottoman period]. Kecskemét, 2008, 11–21. 9 Klára Hegyi warns that it is impossible to separate the Serbs, Bosnians, and Vlachs and therefore proposes using the term “Balkan” to designate all population groups moving in over the sixteenth century. Cf. Klára Hegyi, A török hódoltság várai és várkatonasága. I. kötet. Oszmán védelmi rendszer Magyarországon [Fortresses and fortress garrisons in Ottoman Hungary. Vol. I: Ottoman military defence system in Hungary]. (História Könyvtár. Kronológiák, Adattárak, 9.) Budapest, 2007, 301. 10 Despite some key studies in the second half of the twentieth century, the sixteenth– seventeenth-century hoards in the Hungarian National Museum have been written up only partially. For a more detailed treatment of the theme, see Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘The Metalwork Hoards Collection’, in Two Hundred Years’ History of the Hungarian National Museum and Its Collections. Budapest, 2004, 126–129.

242

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

research into the Ottoman era, meaning that the age and origin of individual finds can be determined with greater certainty. Without presenting concrete parallels, in his cited work Hampel perceptively pointed out the links of the Tomasevác, Denta, and Ráczszentpéter finds with folk jewellery from the Balkans. 11 His theory was superbly substantiated by jewellery found in a cemetery at Dubovác (today in Serbia) in 1901, just a few years after the publication of his finds, but not published until 1961. 12 In this Dubovác material, all the jewellery types found in the above-mentioned sites are represented. On the basis of all the material presently available to us, four types of artefact have been selected whose distribution geographically might help indicate the spread of Ottoman-Balkan jewellery types in Hungary.

Disk-shaped Ear Pendant Uniformly identified by researchers as an ear pendant, this hollow jewellery type hung from a ribbon or cord over the temple certainly held a piece of cloth made fragrant with perfume; this accounts for its distinctive structure. When the Tomasevác piece was found, just one other example of the kind had been discovered – at Dunaföldvár – but over the past century or so many such pieces have been brought to light. In 1897, the Hungarian National Museum acquired the so-called Glogon hoard (Glogon is today Glogonj, Serbia). It contained an example of this type of pendant along with a hair-pin decorated with filigree and a belt part that was embossed. 13 Another two examples came to light in the first half of the twentieth century; both were unearthed in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, in Mezőhegyes and Makó respectively (fig. 7).14 Also, the pair of lunular earrings from Katymár (Bács-

11 Kövér, ‘Újabb adatok’, 252–253. We have to agree with Hampel that certain kinds of objects are ultimately linked to Byzantine and to Persian (that is, Islamic) goldsmiths’ work. See below. 12 Marija Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog i kasnog narodnog nakita iz Dubovca. Eine Mittelalterliche und späte volkliche Schmucksammlung aus Dobubac (Volksmuseum in Vršac) 1961’, Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja Novi Sad 10 (1961) 25–48. 13 Inv. No. MNM 1897.1.1–3. Acquired from the alispán (vicecomes, deputy head of the county administration) in Torontál County. 14 Inv. No. MNM 1915.43 (Mezőhegyes); MNM 1932.86 (Makó).

243

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Kiskun County) – a sporadic find, unfortunately – can be assigned to this type of jewellery.15

Fig. 7. Disk-shaped Ear Pendant Vicinity of Makó, late 16th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

The disk-shaped ear pendant type of jewellery from the period of the Ottoman occupation has not been found north of the Mezőhegyes–Makó–Dunaföldvár line, and it is totally missing from the sixteenth–seventeenth-century collection at the National Museum. The above-mentioned example from Katymár can be dated to the second half of the sixteenth century or perhaps to the beginning of the seventeenth, in view of the age of the cemetery as determined by historical data. The origins of this particular type of ear pendant go back to Byzantine roots and classical antiquity. In the Middle Byzantine period (843–1261), it was in widespread use outside the Byzantine Empire, too, in the Islamic countries and in Eastern Europe.16 In Islamic art, it is demonstrable in Fatimid Egypt and 15 Wicker, Rácok és vlahok, 109, pl. VI, 1–2. 16 For a more detailed treatment of the theme, with additional analogies, see Helen C. Evans – William D. Wixom (eds.), The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261. New York, 1997, 247. Searching for the origin of the artefact type, Hampel arrived at the same conclusion.

244

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

Syria, obviously under Byzantine influence.17 The available data clearly reveal that this type of artefact lived on in the Balkans and in Anatolia for centuries more.18 The examples currently at our disposal are dated to the Ottoman period on the basis of stylistic considerations and on that of Southern Hungarian and Balkan parallels found in hoards dated by coins. Filigree-decorated pieces with or without sheet-metal pendants which are formally identical with those in Hungarian collections are dated by Serbian researchers to the sixteenth–seventeenth century and are linked territorially by them to Kosovo and Macedonia.19 In her analytical presentation of the Dubovác cemetery, Marija Birtašević, seeking parallels for the disk-shaped ear pendant pair she found there and dated to the seventeenth century, makes reference not only to an unpublished hoard that was found at Manasija Monastery (Serbia) and dated by means of seventeenth-century coins, but also to the Tomasevác pieces.20 The seventeenth-century dating is confirmed by two pairs of ear-rings from an assemblage found in the village of Peć in Kosovo and dated 1657 at the earliest, by means of a coin minted in that year.21

Filigree-decorated Dress Ornament – Brooch The ground of this type of artefact can be an openwork or non-openwork starshaped, circular, or polygonal piece of sheet metal which was fastened to the garment by means of a pin on the back. Shared features were, alongside the filigree decoration, granulated spheres, a glass stone in a protruding setting, and drop-shaped or rhomboid sheet-metal pendant parts (fig. 8). There are only three artefacts of this kind in Hungarian collections: two from the Tomasevác 17 Wilfried Seipel (Hrsg.), Schätze der Kalifen. Islamische Kunst zur Fatimidenzeit. Wien, 1998, 12, 127. 18 Concerning the Balkan analogies, cf. Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog’, 29. Numerous examples illustrate the living on of this jewellery in nineteenth-century Ottoman goldsmiths’ art. Cf. Türkische Kunst und Kultur aus osmanischer Zeit. (Exhibition catalogue) Vol. II, Recklinghausen, 1985, 315–316. 19 Bojana Radojković, Nakit kod Srba od XII do kraja XVIII veka. Beograd, 1969, 337, figs. 179–182, published also in English as Masterpieces of Serbian Goldsmith Work 13th–18th Century. London, 1981, 35–36. 20 Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog’, pl. I, 9–10, 29, 42. 21 Bojana Radojković, ‘Ostava iz Peći – kolecija slikara Milenka Serbana’, Muzej Primenjene Umetnosti Zbornik 12 (1968) 97–98.

245

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

trove and one probably from Dombóvár. The examples found in Ada in 1967 probably also belong to this type, as do two from the Dubovác cemetery that have been dated to the eighteenth century.22

Fig. 8. Filigree-decorated Dress Ornament – Brooch Tomaševac, late 16th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

Head Ornament with Sheet-metal Pendants The shared characteristics of this type of jewellery include a thin silver chain, drop- or rhombus-shaped pendants hanging from it, hair-pins with spherical heads inserted at certain points along the chain, and spherical or rather crescent-shaped pieces of sheet-metal adorned with filigree threads arranged radially, or in a net-like manner. At present, three such artefacts are known in the Hungarian archaeological material. The first was added to the National Museum collection in 1864; the entry says it was found in Tolna County, presumably in Kajdacs on the estate of its donors the Sztankovánszky family; 22 Wicker, Rácok és vlahok, 110, 116. As Erika Wicker states, in the assemblage that went to the municipal museum of Zenta “five openwork square brooches with glass insets were found”. Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog’, pl. IX.

246

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

it was – we learn – unearthed during ploughing work (fig. 9).23 Slightly different, the other piece is from Battonya (fig. 10). 24 The dating of this type of jewellery to the second half or end of the seventeenth century is supported by the fragmentary Peć item of jewellery defined by the researcher who published it as a dress ornament. From a circular piece of sheet metal adorned with filigree netting and glass beads hang small sheet-metal pendants worked in a way similar to that found on the pieces in the Hungarian National Museum. 25

Fig. 9. Head Ornament with Sheet-metal Pendants Kajdacs, late 17th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

I would also place in this group an artefact found in Dubovác: three structurally identical filigree-decorated disks encrusted with glass stones and linked by silver chains to which are attached sheet-metal pendants. 26 This type of jewellery lived on in folk costumes for a long time: the parallels in twentieth-century Anatolian ethnography are well known. 27 23 Inv. No. 1864.111. The artefact was inventoried again and could be identified only later on. When first published, it appeared with a new number: Ö/1. 1994.5. Gerelyes, ‘Török ékszerek’, 45, fig. 23/b. 24 Inv. No. 1943.31.1–2. Gerelyes, ‘Török ékszerek’, 44–45, figs. 22a–b, 23a. 25 Radojković, ‘Ostava iz Peći’, fig. 11. 26 Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog’, pl. V, 33. 27 Sabiha Tansuğ, Türkmen Giyimi – Türkmen Costumes. (Ak Yayınları Türk Süsleme Sanatları Serisi, 9.) İstanbul, 1985, 26–27.

247

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Fig. 10. Head Ornament with Sheet-metal Pendants Battonya, late 17th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

Filigree-adorned Hair-pins with Spherical Heads A characteristic common to this type of jewellery, defined in the literature as a hair-pin, is a spherical head created from two hemispheres. In some cases, filigree netting and granulation adorned only the upper hemisphere. On examples made from silver-gilt, garnets, rubies, glass elements or pearls can be seen, held in pronged settings. These may be supplemented with sheetmetal pendants, whether gemstone decorated or plain. Of the known finds of this type from Southern Hungary, those from the Tomasevác and Dubovác cemeteries include simpler-type examples without gemstone decoration. Also belonging to this type are the seven hair-pins with clasps from the Zombor-Bácsmonosterszeg cemetery that are known from descriptions only,28 and a find from the village of Ritopek in Serbia datable to 1678 at the earliest by means of an accompanying coin. 29 A hair-pin from the above-mentioned Glogon hoard – it is made from silver-gilt and features a 28 Kövér, ‘Újabb adatok’, 247. Birtašević, ‘Zbirka Crednevekovnog’, 35–36. Gubitza, ‘A Bodrogh-szigeti’, 1–7. 29 Marija Birtašević, ‘Srebna ostava nakita i novca iz cela Ritopeka’, Godišnjak Muzeja Grada Beograda 4 (1957) 54.

248

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

head decorated with filigree and pronged settings for gemstones, which are now missing – is different (fig. 11).30

Fig. 11. Filigree-adorned Hair-pins with Spherical Heads Glogon, late 16th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

Unlike the afore-mentioned jewellery types, these hair-pins exhibit a much wider spread in the Hungarian territories that were under Ottoman sway. 31 A fundamental difference as compared to the above kinds is that they occur in hoards containing West European and Hungarian goldsmiths’ work. The earliest occurrence of a filigree-decorated hair-pin without gems that we know of is an example found in Ozora Hoard II. No. 2, which contains goldsmiths’ artefacts made in West European and Hungarian workshops; it is datable to 1544 at the earliest by means of an accompanying coin. 32 The treasures found 30 Inv. No. MNM 1897.1. 31 The spread of this type of artefact in Hungary as a whole has been researched by Dóra Mérai; see her The True and Exact Dresses and Fashion: Archaeological Clothing Remains and Their Social Contexts in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Hungary. (BAR International Series, 2078.) Budapest, 2010, 59–65. 32 There is only a brief report on the unpublished find under investigation. Cf. Géza Dávid –

249

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

at Pécsbányatelep, and dated by a coin to 1580 at the earliest, likewise comprise West European jewellery mainly, but also include a silver-gilt hairpin with a garnet stone of the Glogon type (fig. 12), as well as a silver ring with an uncut carnelian likewise suggestive of Balkan links.33

Fig. 12. Filigree-adorned Hair-pins with Spherical Heads Pécsbányatelep, late 17th century (Budapest, Hungarian National Museum)

Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘Ottoman Social and Economic Life Unearthed. An Assessment of Ottoman Archaeological Finds in Hungary’, in Raoul Motika – Christoph Herzog – Michael Ursinus (eds.), Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic Life / Studien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Osmanischen Reich. Heidelberg, 1999, 57–58. György V. Székely, ‘Differentiation or Homogenisation? Structural Changes in the Composition of Coin Finds in Sixteenth-Century Hungary’, in Gerelyes – Kovács (eds.), Archaeology of the Ottoman Period, 342. The coin used for dating is a European one, because the Ottoman coins present have not yet been studied and written up. Since Ozora passed into Ottoman hands in 1545, the Ottoman coins would suggest a later burial. The inv. nos. of the hair-pin and the likewise filigree-decorated shanked button are Oz. 2005.7.1 and Oz. 2005.8.1, Wosinszky Mór Múzeum, Szekszárd. 33 Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘A Pécs-Bányatelepi XVI. századi kincslelet [A 16th-century hoard from Pécs-Bányatelep]’, in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest, 2005, 587– 594.

250

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

Hair-pins with spherical heads can be pointed out among the finds until the late sixteenth century, for example, a find at Esztergom-Szamárhegy (terminus post quem 1593)34 and a Tolna find believed by those publishing it to have been hidden in 1597.35 Another two hoards not dated by coins, one at Drégelypalánk and the other at Rákospalota, also include hair-pins of the Glogon type.36 Their similarity to the hair-pins found at Bánffyhunyad indicates that they were used in the early seventeenth century.37 An unusual example – a hair-pin with filigree decoration and sheet-metal pendants – can be linked to the hair-pins and to the silver jewellery with sheetmetal pendants; it was found in a documented excavation conducted in Bástya Street in Pest, in a layer dated to the first half of the seventeenth century.38

Summary The spread of Ottoman-Balkan jewellery in Hungary under Ottoman rule can be mapped by comparing the jewellery types that occur repeatedly in the assemblages described above with more recent finds that are known, and also with the sixteenth–seventeenth-century hoards belonging to the core material at the Hungarian National Museum. On the basis of these comparisons, some artefact types found in the southern border areas are also found in hoards discovered in other parts of the country, while certain other types cannot be demonstrated north of a given line. If we mark on a map the occurrences of the filigreed silver jewellery with sheet-metal pendants (disk-shaped ear pendants, filigree-ornamented brooches, head-chains with sheet-metal pendants), we see that – to the best of our knowledge – no such jewellery has been found north of the Battonya–Mezőhegyes–Makó–Bácsalmás–Bátmonostor line. A similar finding is arrived at when other artefact groups not discussed here are analysed. For instance, examples of the Ottoman-style Balkan ring type 34 Gyöngyössy, Oszmán pénzek, 52. 35 Zsuzsa S. Lovag – Annamária T. Németh, ‘A tolnai XVI. századi kincslelet [A 16th-century hoard from Tolna]’, Folia Archaeologica 25 (1974) 226. 36 Drégelypalánk: Inv. Nos. MNM 1891.57.14 and 1891. 51.4, and Rákospalota: Inv. No. MNM 1880.164.1–4. 37 Mérai, The True and Exact, 59, figs. 40–41. 38 Judit Zádor, ‘Régészeti adatok a török kori Pestről [Archaeological data on Pest in the Ottoman period]’, Budapest Régiségei 38 (2004) 217–229.

251

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

can be found at the Hungarian National Museum and in excavations that have occurred on the Great Hungarian Plain up to the Katymár–Bácsalmás– Bátmonostor line. The rings found during excavation of the Katymár and Bácsalmás cemeteries can be regarded as simplified, modest variants of the Ottoman ring type. So, too, can the bronze ring found in Bátmonostor: its drop-shaped seal-marking surface displays geometric ornaments that imitate Arabic script.39 This observation is supported by the circumstance that the northern boundary of the documented occurrence of Ottoman-Balkan drinking bowls in the former counties of Torontál (today in Serbia, Romania and Hungary) and Krassó (today in Romania) is Makó on the Great Hungarian Plain (the Makó trove contained a coin dated 1596).40 The demarcation of the spread of these jewellery types coincides with the picture revealed by the historical sources about the ethnic changes in the area. In the Danube–Tisza Interfluve, the incoming Balkan groups and the Hungarians were divided by a sharp line. Based on the 1591 poll-tax register (cizye defteri) of the sancak of Szeged, it has been established that “Along the Tisza, Hungarians remained only in the environs of Szeged; Slavs dwelt everywhere south of Zenta. The Szabadka sub-district (nahiye) was wholly inhabited by Rascians (Serbs) and the Baja one predominantly by them”.41 The Hungarians reappeared north of the villages around Baja. This ethnic distribution did not change during the seventeenth century. North of the Szeged–Baja

39 Wicker, Rácok és vlahok, pl. XI, 5–10. Similar rings came to the Hungarian National Museum from Vukovár (Szerém County, today Vukovar, Croatia) and Pancsova (Temes County, today Pančevo, Serbia). Inv. Nos. MNM 1909.145.21–22; 116/1888.8. Inv. No. of the Bátmonostor ring: MNM 1883.38.4. A variant of this form made of silver with an Ottoman inscription without a date is preserved in the HNM collection with Mohács as the named find-site. Inv. No. MNM 119/1877.II.c.256.p.1. Bronze or silver variants of the ring type without inscription or with imitation inscription entered the collection from several find-sites: Kisjenő (Arad County, today Chişineu-Criş, Romania), Pancsova, Krcedin (Szerém County, today Krčedin, Serbia). Inv. Nos. MNM 1883.110; 1880.16.11; 1908.2.9. Also, there is a piece (marked App. Jank. 129, no find-site given) in the Jankovich collection that can be assigned to this group. 40 Géza Fehér, ‘A Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum lelőhellyel jelölt hódoltságkori ezüstcsészéi [Ottoman-era silver drinking bowls from named sites in the Hungarian National Museum]’, Folia Archaeologica 15 (1963) 87–105, pls. X–XIX. Inv. No. of the drinking bowl from the Makó hoard: MNM 1910.22.3. 41 Klára Hegyi, Török berendezkedés Magyarországon [The Ottoman administrative establishment in Hungary]. (História Könyvtár. Monográfiák, 7.) Budapest, 1995, 194.

252

OTTOMAN-BALKAN JEWELLERY IN OTTOMAN HUNGARY

line the population was Hungarian; Serbs settled there only after the recapturing of these areas from the Ottomans.42 When we look at the find-sites in Transdanubia, the picture is not so clear. According to our present knowledge, to all intents and purposes filigreed silver jewellery with sheet-metal pendants have been excavated only in Tolna County (Dombóvár–Kajdacs–Dunaföldvár). This holds true for the silver drinking vessels, too, with a single – hypothetical – find-site (Dombóvár).43 More data is available regarding Ottoman-Balkan rings. We have four examples from Somogy County: two rings with Ottoman stylistic features without inscription, one from the Babócsa-Bolhó Street cemetery, and one from a cemetery at Kaposvár.44 The only known find – the earlier-mentioned ring with a carnelian – from Baranya County comes from the Pécsbányatelep hoard. The picture emerging from this sporadic and meagre information does not contradict the historical sources which have ascertained that in Transdanubia boundaries between Hungarian populations and people moving in from the Balkans cannot be sharply drawn. The sancak registers for the area reveal that in the strip of territory between the southern shore of Lake Balaton and the Kaposvár–Dombóvár line the influx of a large number of Balkan groups by the 1580s can be demonstrated.45 To all intents and purposes, this is the area in which the above-mentioned Ottoman-Balkan metalwork artefacts appeared. However, in the fourth quarter of the sixteenth century metal objects of Balkan origin were, it seems, sometimes used in Baranya also, whose population was Hungarian up until the mid-seventeenth century. Ottoman-style metalwork objects – copper versions of drinking bowls and items of jewellery with sheet-metal pendants – can be pointed out in Buda and Pest by the seventeenth century. Recent research has indicated that this is the case for certain ring types as well. Materials tests on eighteenth–nineteenthcentury silver artefacts that can be linked unequivocally to Balkan workshops have found a higher proportion of copper in the alloy used, and this proportion is also found in the Ottoman Turkish jewellery dated to the seventeenth century that is analysed above. A group of signet rings with Ottoman inscrip-

42 43 44 45

Hegyi, Török berendezkedés, 194. Inv. No. 1887.36.1–2. Gallina, ‘Fonyód-Bézseny-puszta’, 38, 40, fig. 6. Hegyi, A török hódoltság várai, 327.

253

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

tions found in Buda also displays alloy of the same composition. This indicates that these artefacts may have been produced in one and the same workshop. 46 The filigree-decorated hair-pins with spherical heads show a different distribution. Although the analogies clearly link these jewellery artefacts to the Balkans, such pieces have not been confined to the southernmost strip of Ottoman Hungary; their northernmost place of occurrence is currently Drégelypalánk in Hungary. While in Transdanubia their find-sites do indicate a southern line (Babócsa–Kaposvár–Tolna–Ozora), on the Great Plain only one site for them is known: the Kaszaper cemetery in Békés County.47

Conclusion The ethnic changes in Hungarian territories under Ottoman sway can be traced not only on the basis of historical source materials, for instance poll-tax registers, but – as demonstrated above – with the help of archaeological material as well. Proof of this is the appearance of cemeteries in the south of Transdanubia and on the Great Hungarian Plain that testify to burial rites and grave goods that differ from those of the Hungarian population, namely to the appearance of crude pottery made on a hand-turned wheel which is thought to be Balkan in origin and to the spread of the above-mentioned jewellery types in the same areas. The limits of the spread of archaeological material displaying links with certain Balkan regions and differing sharply from the materials used by Hungarians coincides with the map of ethnic changes in the region that emerges from the historical sources.

46 HNM, Ann. Jank. rings; Inv. Nos. 183–184. The formal identity of the Buda ring and a group of contemporaneous Belgrade rings suggests a common workshop. Cf. Marko Popović – Vesna Bikić, The Complex of the Medieval Metropolitan Church in Belgrade, Excavation of the Lower Town of Belgrade Fortress. (Archaeological Institute, Monographs, 41.) Belgrade, 2004, 156. The fabric of the HNM artefacts was examined by Miklós Kis-Varga at the Nuclear Research Institute in Debrecen. 47 Alajos Bálint, ‘A kaszaperi középkori templom és temető [The medieval church and cemetery of Kaszaper]’, Dolgozatok 14 (1938) pl. XVII. On the basis of this publication, the dating of the artefact is rather uncertain.

254

EMESE PÁSZTOR

FASHION A LA PORTE WAS THERE A TURKISH FASHION TREND IN HUNGARIAN ARISTOCRATIC HOMES DURING THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES?

“Turkish–Hungarian contact greatly influenced the evolution of colourful Hungarian dress” – Sándor Takáts writes in his study ‘Turkish-Hungarian Customs in the Frontier Regions’, to continue with: “Few people would think today that the so-called Hungarian gala dress is largely of Turkish origin. The mente, a short fur-lined braided overcoat was worn by the Ottomans and we borrowed it from them. Soldiers stationed in frontier fortresses frequently mention in their letters that the Turks were sending them the ready-made overcoats. Hungarian envoys sent to Buda also received Turco-Hungarian coats from the pashas as a present… Looking at drawings from the seventeenth century, it is clear that there is no difference between the dolmans of our aristocrats and the caftans of the Ottomans. Hungarians, mostly delegates, received innumerable caftans from the Turks and they gladly wore them at home.”1 Elsewhere, in his work on well-known Hungarian women, Takáts writes: “We received the most expensive fabrics from the Ottomans in Hungary. The captured Turkish girls (bulyas, T. bula) would teach our women Turkish and Persian embroidery, the use of drawn gold and drawn silver threads. That was why we had Turkish bulyas in every castle.”2 Such and more similar idealized images are entertained about the age of Ottoman domination by many people even today, partly because these opinions are republished unchanged again and again without the critical remarks they certainly need. Sándor Takáts’s historical essays make fascinating reading. Although some of his statements are true as they rely on historical sources, their generalization may often result in misleading or excessive conclusions. There are indeed data on Turkish embroiderers, captive women (bulyas) working in noblemen’s households, but the word 1 2

Sándor Takáts, Rajzok a török világból [Sketches from the Turkish world]. Vol. I, Budapest, 1915, 292–293. Sándor Takáts, Magyar nagyasszonyok [Great ladies of Hungary]. Budapest, 1926, 22.

255

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

bulya, of Turkish origin, mentioned in the sources did not always designate an embroiderer, but often just a Turkish woman; 3 as an adjective it meant “female” or “Turkish female” (for instance, bulya shirt,4 bulya coat).5 In a few cases it denoted a garment made from a loosely woven canvas with a ruffledsurface called bulya linen.6 It is also untrue that all captive women were good at needlework: lazy and heavy-handed captive women are also recorded. 7 It is pure fiction that they worked in every noble household. From the distance of about a century, we may ask whether in the Transylvanian Principality and the Hungarian Kingdom there was indeed such an extensive “Turkish fashion trend”8 as Takáts envisioned. Can a “vogue à la Porte” be demonstrated in the way of life of Hungarian and Transylvanian aristocrats? What kinds of Turkish textiles were present in Hungarian aristocratic households and were they used as was customary in the Ottoman Empire? The below attempt to answer these questions is based on a collation of written sources and surviving material relics. Dowry lists and last wills of the nobility, the inventories of aristocratic treasuries, diaries, autobiographies 3

4

5

6

7

8

On the original meaning of the word, see Zsuzsa Kakuk, Cultural Words from the Turkish Occupation of Hungary. (Studia Turco-Hungarica, IV.) Budapest, 1977, 18–20. Eadem, A török kor emléke a magyar szókincsben [The residue of the Ottoman age in the Hungarian vocabulary]. (Kőrösi Csoma Kiskönyvtár, 23.) Budapest, 1996, 251–252. In 1610 Zsuzsanna Maróthy’s movables included “cambric shirt Turkish bulya shirt”. Béla Radvánszky, Magyar családélet és háztartás a XVI. és XVII. században. Vols. I–III [Hungarian family life and household in the 16th–17th centuries]. Budapest, 1986 (reprint), Vol. II, 140. Among Thököly’s movables that remained in the fortress of Munkács (today Mukačeve, Ukraine) in 1683 there is “a long bulya mente, unlined” probably meaning a long Turkish female coat entari. Kálmán Thaly, Késmárki Thököly Imre naplói, leveleskönyve és egyéb emlékezetes írásai [Diaries, correspondence and other memorable writings of Imre Thököly of Késmárk]. (Monumenta Hungariae Historica, XXIV.) Vol. II, Budapest, 1873, 147. István Sugár, ‘Az egri bujavászon [The Eger bulya cloth]’, Agria 21 (1985) 215–224. Emese Pásztor, ‘Bulya vászon. A Type of Loosely Woven Cloth’, in Dinah Eastop – Cynthia Rockwell (eds.), Conserving Textiles. Studies in Honour of Ágnes Timár-Balázsy. (ICCROM Conservation Studies, 7.) Rome, 2009, 124–130. Kata Telegdy wrote from Kisvárda to her sister, the wife of Zsigmond Rákóczi in 1600, asking her to send a Turkish embroiderer because the Turkish girl she had got at the sale of booty in Kálló for a large sum could sew “but I cannot praise her saying that she is very good”. Sándor Eckhardt, Két vitéz nemesúr, Telegdy Pál és János levelezése a XVI. század végéről [Correspondence of two valiant noblemen, Pál and János Telegdy in the late 16th century]. Budapest, 1944, 203. In addition to clothing, the term “fashion” also encompasses Turkish customs adopted in everyday way of life, and in our case the use of Turkish fabrics, home textiles and other textile-based objects.

256

FASHION A LA PORTE

and other contemporaneous sources do indeed prove that several textiles of Ottoman Turkish origin including cloths, garments, home textiles were in use in Hungarian and Transylvanian aristocratic households, together with textile horse tack and military accessories. 9 In the present paper only the most frequently mentioned Turkish textile types and their use by Hungarians are discussed in an attempt to answer the above questions. As for textile fabrics, the most frequent Turkish materials were linen and cotton cloths. The finest and dearest type was the veil-like translucent patyolat “cambric” (T. dülbent), or “good and fine janissary cotton” 10 as the pricing documents call it. Cambric was used for aprons, shirts and kerchiefs of ladies,11 but the Hungarian households also included bulya linen, a similarly thin, more loosely woven Turkish canvas with a ruffled surface. 12 Among cheaper cotton cloths, thick and densely woven bagazia canvas13 (T. boğası/ bogası) was popularly mentioned as lining for simpler quilts or saddle cloths, or as curtains to darken rooms. Woollen cloths from the Ottoman Empire are not so frequent in aristocratic households. The aba,14 a thick, coarse cloth woven from spring wool was used for the clothes of butlers and servants and as a kind of coarse cloak; it is rarely included in property lists of the nobility due to its vulgar quality. By contrast, the granat broadcloth (T. çuha, çuka)15 rivalling dear Venetian broadcloths from which the Porte cloak – a dust or travel cloak – was made is frequent in the wardrobe lists.16 Also, the costumes of noble young men in the retinue of 9

10

11

12 13 14 15 16

Cf. also Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘Török viseletek és textilek 16–17. századi magyar hagyatéki leltárak tükrében [Turkish garments and textiles as reflected by 16th–17th-century Hungarian inventories of estates]’, Folia Historica 18 (1993) 75–87. Iván Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata 1627 és 1706 évekből. Adalékul a XVII. és XVIII. század ipar- és erkölcs-történetéhez [Regulations of commodities for 1627 and 1706. Addenda to the history of 17th–18th-century industry and morals]’, Magyar Történelmi Tár 2:6 (1871) 215. Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae azaz Erdélynek változása (1736) [M.T, or the transformation of Transylvania]. Ed. by Gyula Tóth. Budapest, 1972, 33. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. II, 314–315. See Pásztor, ‘Bulya vászon’. Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 215. Kakuk, Cultural Words, 74. Eadem, A török kor emléke, 248–250. Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 215. Kakuk, Cultural Words, 15–16. Eadem, A török kor emléke, 247–248. Kakuk, Cultural Words, 20–22. Eadem, A török kor emléke, 252–254. The Porte cloak probably designated the everyday wear of the Ottomans, a long-sleeved, ample, sometimes fur-lined ferace. Béla Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása [The court of Gábor Bethlen]. Budapest, 1888, 335.

257

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

the Transylvanian prince were made of this fabric. 17 In his Metamorphoses Transylvaniae published in 1736, Péter Apor recalls the use of the granat broadcloth as follows: “One ell costs four florins, it came mostly in red, green and wine colour, aristocrats and noblemen wore it, it was so durable that three or four suits of undercoat and overcoat of the English cloth were worn threadbare before a suit of this fabric was worn out.” 18 Turkish csemelet (T. sof) and Turkish muhar (T. muhayyer) were thin ribbed plain fabrics woven from finely spun yarns of Angora wool. More lustrous csemelet and mat muhar were used for women’s clothes, skirts19 and capes.20 The Transylvanian tariff of 1627 set the price of a “bolt of good colour csemelet from the Turkish Land at seven florins”, equal to the price of the best quality “janissary cotton”. In the same list a bolt of “very good muhar” cost half as much.21 Muhar was a known fabric outside Transylvania in the Hungarian Kingdom; according to his stock inventory taken in 1600, Kassa merchant István Almássy sold “colour Polish muhar” as well as “purple Turkish muhar”.22 Among cheaper silk fabrics the thin half-silk lining material kutnik (T. kutnu or kutni) woven of silk warp and cotton or silk weft in satin weave is documented as material for clothes, trimming of quilts – guilt-frames as they were called. For example, Prince of Transylvania György Rákóczi I (1630– 1648) had his coach lined with kutni in 1637,23 and among the goods of Mrs 17 Béla Szádeczky, I. Apafi Mihály fejedelem udvartartása, I. Bornemisza Anna gazdasági naplói (1667–1690) [The court of Prince Mihály Apafi I. Household diaries of Anna Bornemisza I]. Budapest, 1911, 263–264. 18 Apor, Metamorphosis, 33. 19 For instance, in the dowry of Sára Kapy (1568): “1 purple-blue csemelet skirt”. Among Mrs Ákos Barcsay’s goods seized in 1661 there was “a green muhor fabric with woven patten at the bottom for a skirt”. József Koncz, ‘Barcsay Ákosné lefoglalt javai összeírása 1661. május 10 [Inventory of the seized goods of Mrs Ákos Barcsay, 10 May 1661]’, Történelmi Tár 10 (1887) 387. 20 In the dowry list of Katalin Thurzó (1620): “Four black … ordinary capes from csemelet”. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. II, 225. 21 Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 216. 22 György Kerekes, ‘Nemes Almássy István kassai kereskedő és bíró, VII. Almássy mint kereskedő [The noble István Almássy, merchant and judge of Kassa, VII. Almássy as merchant]’, Magyar Gazdaságtörténelmi Szemle 9 (1902) 203. There is a remark in Almássy’s last will dated 1635, “1 Turkish muhar skirt, moth-eaten”, which proves that it was not a silk fabric, for moths only damage woollen cloths. Ibid., 366. 23 Antal Beke – Samu Barabás (eds.), I. Rákóczy György és a Porta. Levelek és okiratok [György Rákóczi I and the Porte. Letters and documents]. Budapest, 1888, 448.

258

FASHION A LA PORTE

Ákos Barcsai there was “a summer quilt kutnik, one side red, the other yellow” in 1661.24 Nearly all data on kutnik are from the area of the Transylvanian principality. That, of course, does not preclude its knowledge and use in the Hungarian Kingdom, only it was not called kutnik in the inventories, but simply atlasz “satin”, for its lustrous satin-weave surface. 25 The linen, cotton, woollen and cheaper silk fabrics such as taffeta, damask, kutnik, etc. arrived in the country through trade and were therefore included in the tariff lists, while there is no data on buying expensive silk fabrics inwrought with silver, silver-gilt and coloured silk threads by the meter. Taquetés interlaced with metal threads, called “drawn gold and drawn silver fabrics” (T. seraser) in Hungarian, and the lampas fabrics patterned with metal and silk threads (T. kemha) as well as patterned velvets (T. çatma) were not available in retail trade on account of their extraordinary value; Hungarian aristocrats acquired them as gifts, booty, or ransom, or purchased them directly from the Porte. One possibility “to procure” such luxurious Turkish silk fabrics was an indispensable act of Ottoman diplomatic receptions, “investing with the caftan”. During legation or the inauguration of Transylvanian princes the sultan or the grand vizier donated to the dignitaries present ceremonial caftans (T. hilat, “robe of honour”) of varying qualities, as a token of esteem. 26 This custom may explain why caftans are mentioned in Hungarian, and primarily Transylvanian lists of clothes. Though these silk caftans were highly valuable, no data has been found that any Hungarian or Transylvanian aristocrat wore them outside the official ceremonies, as Takáts suggested. The ceremonial robes received as gifts were kept either as “treasures” in the collections 27 or the material was reused. It was customary to have a caftan re-tailored in Turkey too. Captain-General of Udvarhelyszék (today Scaunul Odorhei, Romania) Ferenc Balassi (Balási), master of the horse in the prince’s court did so in 24 Koncz, ‘Barcsay Ákosné lefoglalt javai’, 387. 25 Examples to be mentioned are the lining of the seventeenth-century Turkish prayer rug and two caparisons in the Esterházy Treasury, which contemporaneous sources do not call kutnik. Cf. Emese Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury in the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts. (Thesaurus Domus Esterhazyanae, II.) Budapest, 2013, 176–178, kat. 31, 224–230, kat. 46–47, and pictures (Emese Pásztor). 26 János B. Szabó – Péter Erdősi, ‘Két világ határán. A hatalomátadás szertartásai az erdélyi fejedelemségben [On the border of two worlds. Rituals of conveying power in the Transylvanian principality]’, Acta Musei Militaris in Hungaria 4 (2002) 91–105. 27 In Gábor Bethlen’s treasury 20 caftans were inventoried in 1631. Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása, 256.

259

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

1613, when he had four quilts made still in Istanbul of the two caftans which he had received for his legation. 28 Envoy to the Porte, chief counsellor to the prince Mihály Tholdalagi acted similarly when from his mission to the Porte he returned with two caftans, six fine caftan-covered quilts and two pillowcases “made from a caftan”, among other things. 29 Apart from the mentioned quilt and pillow cases, 30 data can also be gleaned from Hungarian sources, on female garments (skirts and bodices) and men’s clothes (upper- and undercoats) as well as ecclesiastic vestments 31 made from caftans. Examples of the secondary use of Turkish caftans include a child’s overcoat kept in the Esterházy Treasury, possibly converted from a Turkish kemha caftan interwoven with gold thread, which was fashionable in the last third of the sixteenth century (fig. 13); 32 the fragment of a women’s bodice from the second half of the sixteenth century found in a grave unearthed in 1916 in Gyulafehérvár cathedral (today Alba Iulia, Romania);33 and the lining of a cape from kemha cloth discovered in a late sixteenth-century female grave in the Benedictine Kecske [Goat] Church of Sopron in 2010. 34

28 Tamás Borsos, Vásárhelytől a fényes portáig. Emlékiratok, levelek [From Vásárhely to the exalted Porte. Memoirs, letters]. Edited, Introduced, and Annotated by László Kócziány. Bucharest, 1972, 70. 29 Sándor Szilágyi, ‘Tholdalagi Mihály 1619-iki követjárásának történetéhez [Addenda to the history of Mihály Tholdalagi’s legation in 1619]’, Történelmi Tár 5 (1882) 474. 30 Of the “caftanned quilts”, that is, quilts sewn from caftans, which are so frequently mentioned in the sources, none survive. In the Esterházy Treasury there are, however, two quilts sewn from seventeenth-century clothes, whose fabric is Spanish but the form of the quilts help posterity form an idea of the Turkish variants. Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury, 149–154, kat. 23–24 and pictures (Emőke László). 31 In his letter of 12 March 1594 written to his wife from the Kistálya camp Pál Telegdy instructed her that should he die, some ecclesiastic vestments should be tailored “from the clothes given by the Turkish emperor”. Eckhardt, Két vitéz nemesúr, 50. 32 Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury, 73–75, kat. 2 and pictures (Lilla Tompos). 33 Béla Pósta, A gyulafehérvári székesegyház sírleletei [Grave finds in the cathedral of Alba Iulia]. (Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárából, VII.) Kolozsvár, 1916, 41–46, figs. 23–24. 34 Katalin E. Nagy – Andrea Várfalvi, ‘When Spain Dictated Fashion. A Hungarian Lady’s Richly Decorated Garments, c. 1600’, in S. Cather – A. Nevin – J. H. Townsend – M. Spring – J. K. Atkinson – D. Eastop (eds.), The Decorative. Conservation and the Applied Arts (2012 IIC Vienna Congress). London, 2012, 208–216, figs. 4–5.

260

FASHION A LA PORTE

Fig. 13. Child’s Overcoat (mente) Tailored from a Turkish Caftan 16th century (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Esterházy Treasury, Inv. No. 64.40. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

It is indicative of the extraordinary value of the silk caftans that when they were re-tailored, several tiny pieces were also utilized not always justified by the cut of the garment. Nor was it disturbing if the pieces did not make out the pattern exactly, but produced a “patchwork” effect (to use a more current expression). Just like secular garments, chasubles sewn from the silk material of Turkish caftans are also known. The Museum of Applied Arts received a chasuble made from a kemha caftan from the Armenian Catholic Church in Gyergyószentmiklós (today Gheorgheni, Romania) in 1894 (fig. 14).35 Another 35 Iparművészeti Múzeum [Museum of Applied Arts], Inv. No. 7375. Bálint Kovács – Emese

261

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

three chasubles made from Turkish fabrics survive in the Székely National Museum in Sepsiszentgyörgy (today Sfântu Gheorghe, Romania). The material relics prove that the phrases “sewn from a caftan’, “lined with a caftan”, “with caftan” did not designate a type of textile, but referred to the reuse of the material of the caftans.

Fig. 14. Back of a Chasuble Sewn from a Turkish Caftan Last third of the 16th century (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Inv. No. 7375. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

Pál (eds.), Távol az Araráttól. Örmény kultúra a Kárpát-medencében [Faraway from the Ararat. Armenian culture in the Carpathian Basin]. Budapest, 2013, 146–147, kat. IV. 16 and picture.

262

FASHION A LA PORTE

The second large group of Ottoman Turkish textiles comprises the costumes worn in Hungary and Transylvania. However, researching these textiles and their fashion is aggravated by the fact that a mere two Turkish leather cloaks 36 survive, so we can only rely on the textual sources. Sándor Takáts was right in establishing that two kinds of coat bear the imprint of Turkish influence in the wardrobe of Hungarian noblemen: a tighter undercoat snugly fitting the body, the dolmány (dolman, from T. dolama37) and an ampler overcoat, mente. However, a comparison of seventeenth-century dolmans and overcoats of Hungarian aristocrats – including the six dolmans and six mentes of the Esterházy Treasury in Fraknó (now Forchtenstein, Austria) kept in the Museum of Applied Arts38 – with Turkish under- and overcoats from the period 39 reveals that despite several kindred features, the two stock can easily be differentiated. In the inventories one comes across garments with “Turkish” attribute, for example, Turkish zubbony “jacket”, çavuş, divan, or Turkish mente, but there is no way to establish what they were like for lack of surviving items and laconic descriptions in the sources. Under the caftan called dolama, the costume of Turks living in Hungary included an under-caftan, the zıbun, in Hungarian zubbony.40 It is hard to define the wadded silk and most often bagazia cotton canvas garment accurately. The Turkish tariff lists of the age and the Hungarian sources name different types of zubbony 41 used in the occupied area, in Transylvania and Hungary as well, but they were also made by Hungarian zubbony tailors (zuboncsias) all over the country.42 Though the 36 The leather cloaks are preserved in the Historical Museum of Braşov and the Hungarian National Museum. On the latter, cf. Ibolya Gerelyes, ‘Neue Aspekte zur Datierung eines türkischen Ledermantels aus dem Bestand des Ungarischen Nationalmuseums’, Waffenund Kostümkunde 43:1 (2001) 1–9. 37 Kakuk, A török kor emléke, 268–270. 38 Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury, 112–131, kat. 13–18. (Lilla Tompos) 39 Cf. the fifteenth–seventeenth century outer caftans and under-caftans in the costume collection of Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, Istanbul: J. M. Rogers (ed.), Topkapı Sarayı-Museum. Herrsching am Ammersee–Lausanne, 1986, kat. 1–53. 40 On the origin and occurrence of the word, see Kakuk, Cultural Words, 58–59. Eadem, A török kor emléke, 272–274. 41 In the Transylvanian tariff list of Turkish goods for 1651 there is a “long-sleeved zubbony” in addition to the “ordinary Turkish zubbony”. Sándor Szilágyi, ‘A magyar árak történetéhez. Török partékának igaz árúja, Gr. Battyhány József köpcsényi levéltárából [On the history of Hungarian prices. Real prices of Turkish ware, from Count József Batthyány’s archive in Köpcsény]’, Magyar Történelmi Tár 1 (1878) 360. 42 Mária Flórián (ed.), Az Mester Emberek Míveinek árazása. Váltó- és vásármíves magyar szabók, német szabók és zubbonyosok árszabásai (1626–1820) [Pricing the works of

263

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Turkish zubbony was a ready-made garment sold at the market in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, even aristocratic household documents include references to it. For the court of Miklós Esterházy, “5 Turkish Szubonis” were bought at a time in 1624,43 which means that this Turkish commodity was clearly differentiated from the rest of the undergarments and as a cheap commodity, it could be bought in larger quantities. Most items of çavuş overcoats are found among the costumes of Gábor Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania.44 Bethlen’s çavuş overcoats were sewn from silk velvet or satin, interwoven with drawn silver, lined with pine-marten or lynx fur, from some fabric inwrought with silver or silver-gilt threads, or from bagazia cotton cloth. They closed with 18-24 buttons in front. In other sources they are called çavuş or coachman’s overcoats.45 It is not clear from available data if these çavuş coats were Turkish or in Turkish style, and what the coachman’s coat was actually like. It seems that the attribute çavuş alluded to the costumes of the Ottoman state officials, messengers in the service of the court, so the garment was probably a full-length fur-lined overcoat buttoned in front, with long sleeves made in Hungary but resembling the Ottoman version. It was only in fashion in Transylvania and the name çavuş was also only used there until the first half of the seventeenth century. No later occurrence is known. It is also questionable what contemporary Hungarians understood by divan overcoat. Among the goods of Prince of Transylvania János Kemény (1661– 1662) inventoried in Aranyosmeggyes (today Medieșu Aurit, Romania) in 1662 there are fur-lined velvet and broadcloth overcoats like çavuş mente but called divan mente.46 One may presume that the garment called çavuş mente in the first half of the century (as among the belongings of Bethlen) were designated by the term divan mente (like in the Kemény inventory) in the second half of the century.

43

44

45 46

different Hungarian bespoke tailors, makers of ready-made garments, German tailors, zubbony makers]. Budapest, 1998, 245–249. Az Esterházyak számadásai és textilszámlái a XVII. századból [Accounts and textile bills of the Esterházys in the 17th century]. (Bibliotheca Humanitatis Historica, 16.) Edited, Introduced and Annotated by Lilla Tompos. Budapest, 2000, 103. The inventory taken of the prince’s garments left in Munkács in 1631 includes seven çavuş mentes among the outer garments, with detailed descriptions. Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása, 254, 384. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. II, 303. Károly P. Szathmáry, ‘Egy Magyar fejedelmi kincstár [Treasury of a Hungarian prince]’, Történelmi Tár 4 (1881) 773–774.

264

FASHION A LA PORTE

There is written information about a Turkish mente,47 another overcoat with buttons in front, sometimes fur-lined, without a collar, the sleeves reaching to the elbows, being “truncated” to a term of that time. Overcoats with truncated sleeves were worn widely in Hungary and Transylvania in the seventeenth century, but it was a favourite garment of Prince Gábor Bethlen. 48 Since there is no documentation of any Hungarian aristocrat ordering a Turkish mente from the Porte, and among the Turkish goods available at the markets at home this item was not named, probably a group of Hungarian overcoats with “truncated” sleeves and without a collar was called Turkish mente on the analogy of short-sleeved Ottoman caftans. The presumption is verified by a purple velvet collarless overcoat with twelve pairs of tablet woven “stemmed” buttons and loops from the Esterházy Treasury of Fraknó in the Museum of Applied Arts (fig. 15). The garment from István Esterházy’s wardrobe (1616– 1641) has elbow-long sleeves with semicircular cuts to allow free movement for the arms. It is called “Turkish-style mente” in 1641 and “mente with Turkish sleeves” in 1654.49

47 In a register written in Kolozsvár (today Cluj-Napoca, Romania) in 1650 the following item is included: “A purple mente with truncated sleeves or Turkish mente, with fifteen buttons interlaced with silver-gilt threads on it.” Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. II, 303. 48 According to Béla Radvánszky’s calculations, out of Bethlen’s fifty overcoats thirty-four had truncated sleeves. 49 Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury, 115–117, kat. 14 and pictures (Lilla Tompos).

265

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Fig. 15. István Esterházy’s mente with “Turkish Sleeves” Ca. 1640 (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Esterházy Treasury, Inv. No. 52.2771. Photo: Gellért Áment)

While concerning the men’s garments called çavuş, divan and Turkish overcoats in the clothes lists of Hungarian aristocrats the Ottoman origin is highly uncertain, and the probability that they were “of Turkish style” is far greater, among the accessories one finds goods undoubtedly from the Ottoman Empire.

266

FASHION A LA PORTE

In men’s wear such are the “à la Porte” or Turkish silk cord belts and sprang belts called majc, and the Turkish leather footwear. Similarly to the garments, little is known of the exact form, method of making, or place of origin of the different belts, as the sources are sparing of information and the illustrations often overlap. Researchers can at best rely on archaeological fragments. Among the belts of diverse colours and forms some original Turkish works are also included, although the clothes lists rarely indicate their origin from Turkey. Turkish belts mainly arrived in the Transylvanian principality 50 and the Hungarian Kingdom along trade routes, but there is information of belts bought at the Porte or ordered from there. In 1625, Zsigmond Mikes purchased a body-coloured silk belt51 weighing 142 grams for Prince Gábor Bethlen in Istanbul, which means that a belt was sold by weight and not by length. In the Türkenbeute collection in Karlsruhe there is a Turkish silk cord belt 52 (T. ibrişim kuşak) made of 6 strands of 380 cm long dark red cords, segmentally held together by rings woven of silver-gilt or silver wires, seized in the antiOttoman fights in Hungary. A similar, hence presumably original Turkish cord belt is worn by Pál Esterházy in his full-length portrait painted in 1655. 53 Another type of Turkish belt used for dolmans or undercoats was the so-called “net belt” woven with the sprang technique, 54 which looked like a thick bundle of silk wound round the waist. The correspondence of the Prince of Transylvania György Rákóczi I reveals that the sprang belt was made by Jewish craftsmen in the Peloponnesus peninsula upon commission, and they 50 According to the Kolozsvár customs register, silk, cord, camel-hair, tiny flat, strapped flat belts, nettle linen sashes and silk futa sashes were transported to Transylvania between 1599 and 1637 from the Ottoman Empire or directly from Istanbul. Cf. Ferenc Pap, Kolozsvári harmincadjegyzékek (1599–1637) [Customs registers of Kolozsvár (1599– 1637)]. Bucharest–Cluj-Napoca, 2000. 51 Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása, 106. 52 Ernst Petrasch – Reinhard Sänger – Eva Zimmermann – Hans Georg Majer, Die Karlsruher Türkenbeute. Die “Türckische Kammer” des Markgrafen Ludwig Wilhelm von BadenBaden. Die “Türckischen Curiositaeten” der Markgrafen von Baden-Durlach. München, 1991, 293–294, kat. 254. 53 Benjamin von Block: Count (later Prince) Pál Esterházy, oil, canvas, 218 × 109 cm, Ester házy Privatstiftung, Eisenstadt, Esterházy-Ahnengalerie, Burg Forchtenstein, Inv. No. B302. András Szilágyi, Esterházy-kincsek. Öt évszázad műalkotásai a hercegi gyűjteményekből [The Esterházy treasures. Art works of five centuries in princely collections]. Budapest, 2006–2007, 112–113, kat. 49a and picture. 54 It owes to the brevity of the sources that Béla Radvánszky reckoned with the háló [sprang] belts among the háló [sleeping] clothes, the two words being homonyms in Hungarian. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. I, 39.

267

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

were dyed to the required hue in Istanbul. Remains of such sprang belts were found in graves,55 and such belts are worn by István Esterházy in his portrait painted before 164156 and by Prince of Transylvania János Kemény in his portrait of around 1661.57 The Turkish majc58 was button maker’s work: in addition to belts, it was used as strapping for swords, carbines and powder-holders, or a type of harness for horses. Transylvanian princes Gábor Bethlen and György Rákóczi I often had majc bought from or made in Istanbul. 59 Woven of silk, gold or silver threads, sometimes adorned with gems, the expensive Ottoman majc belts or straps were valuable goods “for ceremonial occasions” in Hungarian aristocratic treasuries, so they were also applied to the Hungarian sabre, saddle cloth, or saddle. Among the accessories of Hungarian aristocratic costumes some Ottoman slippers, stockings and boots are also documented. 60 However, it cannot be established now whether the blue, red or purple karmazsin leather, black or yellow cordovan leather, or yellow and red morocco leather footwear in the portraits of Hungarian aristocrats painted in the studied age 61 were indeed from the Ottoman Empire, or whether they were made in Turkish style, 62 because 55 Examples include belts explored in the crypt of the parish church of Sárospatak and now in the Hungarian National Museum: Mária V. Ember, ‘XVI–XVII. századi ruhadarabok a sárospataki kriptákból [16th–17th-century clothing items from Sárospatak graves]’, Folia Archaeologica 19 (1968) 151–183, and the early eighteenth-century belt fragments found in a female grave in the Dobozi cemetery of Debrecen in 1923 (now in the Déri Museum, Debrecen, inv. no. IV.1923.27). 56 Count István Esterházy, 1641, oil, canvas, 217.5 × 111.2 cm, Esterházy Privatstiftung, Ei senstadt, Esterházy-Ahnengalerie, Burg Forchtenstein, Inv. No. B343. Szilágyi, Esterházykincsek, 79–80, kat. 17 and picture. 57 Anonymous artist, c. 1650, today in the Hungarian National Museum. 58 In more detail on the majc: Emese Pásztor, ‘Száz év múltán – ismét a “majc-kérdéshez” [The ‘majc’ issue revisited – a century on]’, Ars Decorativa 18 (1999) 7–35. 59 Ibid., 11–12. 60 For example, in 1592 László Szalánczi purchased “janissary” stockings and hobnailed boots in Constantinople for Zsigmond Báthory. Samu Barabás, ‘Portai följegyzések a XVIik századból [Notes taken down in the Porte in the 16th century]’, Történelmi Tár 4 (1881) 177–178. In the tariff for goods to be brought into Transylvania by Turkish, Greek and Jewish merchants in 1627 blue, purple and red karmazsin leather boots, slippers, stockings and solya slippers, yellow and black cordovan leather sewn boots and stockings and red and yellow morocco slippers are mentioned. Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 214. 61 For instance, the mentioned full-length portraits of István Esterházy (1641) and Pál Esterházy (1655); cf. notes 53 and 56. 62 Márta Kissné Bendefy, ‘Eastern and Western Influences on Hungarian Footwear of the

268

FASHION A LA PORTE

Hungarian boot- and stocking-makers also produced footwear for Hungarians from imported Turkish leather.63 As for underwear, Hungarian wardrobes included Turkish cotton shirts imported by merchants; they were mentioned as sleeping, 64 bathing65 or women’s shirts,66 although undershirts or shirts67 sewn from Turkish linen in Hungary were more frequent. To sum up the above-said: there is not a single evidence that would verify that Hungarian or Transylvanian aristocrats wore Turkish caftans or regularly put on any Turkish piece of clothing, apart from the ceremony of donating caftans. In addition to belts and footwear, other Turkish items of clothing (like cheaper ready-made goods: quilted Turkish jackets, shirts, etc.) can only be found in small numbers. Wearing them was dictated by practical needs and not by fashion. In addition to clothes, Ottoman works can also be found among home textiles. Apart from the mentioned quilts and bedding sewn of Turkish linen and embroidered, data can often be found in aristocrats’ inventories on Turkish pillow cases with printed pattern,68 felt bed-covers called kecse (T. keçe) and

63

64 65 66 67

68

Thirteenth–Seventeenth Centuries’, in Eastop – Rockwell (eds.), Conserving Textiles, 87– 96. The regulation of Transylvanian goods for 1627 mentions among the boot makers’ ware “boots made in this country from fine and good crimson leather from Turkey”, and “large and tall boots made from yellow Turkish cordovan leather”, “crimson leather boots shaped like Turkish infantrymen’s boots” as well as stockings and slippers. Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 222. Their use in the early eighteenth century can be documented in Upper Hungary, too: the tariff of the boot makers of Zsolna (today Žilina, Slovakia) in Trencsén County in 1706 includes “deli or janissary boots”, at Alsó Prébely (today Dolné Prébely, Slovakia) in Hont County the price list includes “a pair of Turkish or janissary boots from cow hide.” Flórián (ed.), Az Mester Emberek Míveinek árazása, 99, 101. Among Gábor Bethlen’s belongings (1633) there was “a Turkish sleeping shirt”. Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása, 287. In 1661 Mrs Ákos Barcsay’s goods included “a Turkish bathing shirt”. Koncz, Barcsay Ákosné lefoglalt javai, 386. Zsuzsanna Maróthy’s movables included “a cambric shirt, a Turkish bulya shirt” in 1610. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet. Vol. II, 140. Among György Berényi’s movables deposited in the fortress of Ugróc (today Uhrovské Podhradie, Slovakia) there were “3 new peasant [simple] Turkish cotton shirts”. Radvánszky, Magyar családélet, Vol. II, 343. The kerchiefs with printed pattern purchased for pillowcases were usually bought in Turkey by the bolt. For instance, János Rimay bought, among many other things, “a bolt of printed panelled cambric kerchief material with light red floral pattern to be used for pillow covers” for Prince Gábor Bethlen in 1621. Arnold Ipolyi, ‘Rimay János portai vásárlásai.

269

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

woven woollen blankets with fluffy surface like cserge called velence (T. velense, velençe). Their prevalent use in Transylvania is proven by their inclusion in the lists of Turkish goods imported to Transylvania. 69 The ornate silk cushions, used in Ottoman homes and tents instead of chairs or low couches, were also known in Hungary. Péter Apor recorded that Hungarians used these oblong velvet cushions 70 called “Turkish cushions for the coach”71 especially when travelling (fig. 16), but we have data on their original use as well. Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II, for example, liked to sit on some of them “in Turkish style” in front of the fire, and during winter hunts he used them in his sledge.72

Fig. 16. “Turkish Cushion for the Coach” Early 17th century (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Inv. No. 14434. Photo: Ágnes Soltész-Haranghy)

69 70 71 72

Művelődéstörténeti adatok, IV [János Rimay’s purchases at the Porte. Culture historical data IV]’, Magyar Történelmi Tár 1 (1878) 153, 158. Nagy, ‘Áruczikkek szabályzata’, 216. Emese Pásztor, ‘“Hintóba való portai vánkos” [Turkish cushions for coaches]’, Keletkutatás (1995 Spring) 137–145. Apor, Metamorphosis, 49. Kálmán Thaly, ‘A hazai képzőművészet, műipar, nemzeti viselet, fegyvergyártás és háztartás történetéhez II. Rákóczi Ferencz udvarában s korában, 1706–1711 [Addenda to the history of Hungarian arts, crafts, national costumes, manufacture of arms, and housekeeping in the court and age of Ferenc Rákóczi II]’, Magyar Történelmi Tár 5 (1882) 757– 758.

270

FASHION A LA PORTE

Among tablecloths the square or oblong embroidered Turkish table linens were popular. Embroidered in silk or gold on cambric or fine linen, Turkish headscarves (makrama), serviettes (yağlık), wrapping cloths (bohça) and turban covers (kavuk örtüsü) (fig. 17) were favoured in Hungarian noble households.73 The dowry of noble brides often contained more than ten Turkish embroidered kerchiefs, from which – as custom required – they donated one or two exquisite pieces to Hungarian or Transylvanian Protestant churches where some still survive as altar cloths.74

Fig. 17. Turkish Turban Cover, Table Cloth of the Communion Table in the Calvinist Church of Ónod Ca. 1600 (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Inv. No. 11307. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

The largest single group of Turkish textiles, and also the most significant group, comprises knotted carpets. The highly valued prayer, bathing or “audience” rugs were used, unlike in their native environment, as table cloths, 73 In 1631 “twenty-eight different fine Turkish kerchiefs embroidered in silver-gilt and silver wires” were registered in Prince Gábor Bethlen’s treasury. Radvánszky, Bethlen Gábor udvartartása, 257. 74 The largest number of these embroideries are preserved in the Calvinist church collections of Debrecen and Sárospatak, as well as in the Museum of Applied Arts and the Hungarian National Museum.

271

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

wall furnishings, or to cover travel cushions in coaches in the Hungarian aristocratic households.75 A particularly popular prayer rug type in Transylvania was first named “Transylvanian rug” in an Exhibition of Turkish Carpets from Transylvania held in the Museum of Applied Arts in 1914 (fig. 18). The pattern of the prayer rug originally adorned with the customary niche were modified upon local requirements by doubling the peak of the niche along the central axis, since the resulting two-point niche looked more spectacular on the tables than the original asymmetrical pattern.

Fig. 18. “Transylvanian Carpet”, Uşak Ca. 1600 (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Inv. No. 7967. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

75 Emese Pásztor, Ottoman Turkish Carpets in the Collection of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts – In Memoriam Ferenc Batári. Budapest, 2007, 15–19.

272

FASHION A LA PORTE

It also applies to home textiles – similarly to clothing – that unlike in the occupied areas, in Hungary and Transylvania the Hungarian customs did not adapt so closely to the Turkish as was thought earlier; quite to the contrary, the Turkish textile items were adjusted to the Hungarian fashion irrespective of their original function. Prayer rugs covered the tables, white-ground bathing rugs decorated the walls, the turban covers and wrapping kerchiefs of secular functions were used to cover the Communion Table in Protestant churches; the velvet cushions were in use, but unlike the Turks, the Hungarians used them in coaches and sledges or had chasubles (fig. 19), stoles, and maniples sewn from the expensive fabrics. Similarly, chasubles were cut from floor covers, men’s, women’s and children’s wear, or quilts were made from the luxurious fabrics of the caftans. When on a mission to the Porte, the Transylvanian envoys looked purposefully for fine cotton kerchiefs to be used as pillow-cases, silk kerchiefs for quilt covers, ignoring the original function of the items.

Fig. 19. Back of a Chasuble Sewn from a Turkish Velvet Blanket 17th century (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Inv. No. 8397. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

273

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Adaptation to the Hungarian life style is aptly illustrated by the use of Turkish canvas tents. Transylvanian Prince György Rákóczi I regularly ordered light, easy-to-pitch and transport canvas tents adapted to his requirements from Turkish craftsmen. Envoy to the Porte, Mihály Maurer wrote to the prince on 1 August 1640: “They did not make the windows of the tents as on the previous one I had ordered, the windows were put too low, adequate for Turkish couches, so I had them removed and will have them done as in the previous tent.”76 That means Maurer had the tent windows shifted higher because the Hungarian lords did not sit on cushions on the floor, but on chairs. While the so-far mentioned Turkish textiles, garments and home textiles, etc. were used adapted to local requirements and customs, differently from their original functions, the expensive, velvet-covered, silver-gilt, and gemadorned Ottoman horse tack and military equipment were highly appreciated in Transylvania and the Hungarian Kingdom, and their use did not differ from how the Ottomans used them – as can be seen from the armoury inventories of the Hungarian magnates. In the Hungarian Kingdom the aristocrats, for example, the Esterházy palatines acquired such valuables as booty, diplomatic gifts or dowry, while the Transylvanian princes, particularly Gábor Bethlen and György Rákóczi I often purchased and ordered ornate horse gear and other utensils – not only for themselves but also as presents – from Turkey, besides also receiving them as diplomatic gifts. Horse equipment was given a separate chapter in the Hungarian aristocrat’s inventories where the Ottoman items were not separated from the rest. It was perfectly natural for them to use Ottoman saddles, saddle-cloths, caparisons, quivers, etc. together with West European and home-made items, so the origin of the items were often left unmentioned.77 A look at Miklós Esterházy’s Ottoman horse tack (fig. 20) and the full Ottoman horse equipment Prince Gábor Bethlen bequeathed in his last will dated 1629 to his brother-in-law, Gustavus Adolphus II, King of Sweden (kept today in Stockholm’s Livrustkammaren collection) 78 will convince 76 Sándor Szilágyi, Levelek és okiratok I. Rákóczi György keleti összeköttetései történetéhez [Letters and documents to the history of György Rákóczi I’s oriental connections]. Budapest, 1883, 614. 77 From among the horse tack in the Esterházy Treasury eight European and twenty-five Ottoman saddles, caparisons, and saddle-cloths survive. Cf. Pásztor (ed.), Textiles from the Esterházy Treasury. 78 On the Ottoman horse equipment, see Csaba Csörge – László Töll, Bethlen Gábor, Erdély aranya és Észak oroszlánja [Gábor Bethlen, the gold of Transylvania and the lion of the North]. Budapest, 2004.

274

FASHION A LA PORTE

anyone that both Hungarian and Transylvanian high lords appreciated and used these sumptuous Ottoman masterpieces.

Fig. 20. Ottoman Turkish Ornamental Horse Tack First half of the 17th century (Budapest, Museum of Applied Arts, Esterházy Treasury. Photo: Ágnes Kolozs)

275

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

276

BORBÁLA GULYÁS

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS IN HUNGARY AND THE COURT FESTIVALS OF THE HABSBURGS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY In the following, court festivals and tournaments of the members of the Habsburg dynasty in which the struggle against the Ottomans in Hungary was depicted, and their diverse forms are to be discussed. 1 The studied period lasted from the beginning of the sixteenth century until the outbreak of the Long Turkish War (1591–93), up to the emergence of a much more trenchant anti-Ottoman propaganda by Emperor Rudolf II. Especially in the second half of the century, when the Hungarian Kingdom was torn into three parts and the Ottoman menace loomed large, Habsburg rulers – who were in possession of the Hungarian crown at the time – and members of their family led by Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol, were increasingly determined to promote as effective an anti-Ottoman propaganda with the spectacular means of the court festivities as possible. At the onset of the century, during the reign of Emperor Maximilian I, outstanding among court festivities were the tournaments and the ensuing 1

On the latter subject, see most recently Claudia Schnitzer, ‘Zwischen Kampf und Spiel. Orientrezeption im höfischen Fest’, in Claudia Schnitzer – Holger Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds. Das Abendland und der türkische Orient. (Exh. Cat. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden.) Leipzig, 1995, 227–234. Veronika Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten aus dem Kunsthistorischen Museum. (Exh. Cat. Kunsthistorisches Museum [hereinafter: KHM] Schloss Ambras.) Innsbruck, 1997, 27–36. Borbála Gulyás, ‘“gegen den Bluedthunden und Erbfeindt der Christenhait”. Thematisierung der Türkengefahr in Wort und Bild an den höfischen Festen der Habsburger in der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahr hunderts’, in Robert Born – Sabine Jagodzinski (eds.), Türkenkriege und Adelskultur in Ostmitteleuropa vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. (Studia Jagellonica Lipsiensia, 14.) Ostfildern, 2014, 217–236. Herewith I should like to express my thanks to the Austrian– Hungarian Action Foundation (AÖU) and to Österreichischer Austauschdienst (ÖAD), to Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas (GWZO), Leipzig, as well as to the “Lendület” Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project (2012– 2017, led by Prof. Géza Pálffy) of the Institute of History, Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences for the help lent to the completion of the paper. The author is affiliated with the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Art History and is a member of the mentioned “Lendület” research team.

277

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

banquets with masquerades (Mummereis). The ruler had a penchant for holding tournaments introduced to his court upon Burgundian examples, and he also tried to keep inventing newer forms. 2 Ample material has been preserved for posterity by the three autobiographical works on Maximilian’s life (Weißkunig, Theuerdank, Freydal).3 The process of tournaments held during his reign can be inferred most vividly from Freydal. The protagonist of the chivalric romance, Freydal – that is, Maximilian – has to give proof of his competence in chivalric spectacles in 64 courts to win the hand of the desired lady (Mary of Burgundy). The illustrations made for this work are known from a manuscript with hand-coloured drawings once kept in the Kunstkammer of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol, at Ambras. 4 They are mainly depictions of jousts, tilts and foot tournaments, but the Ottomans have no role in them yet. Where figures in oriental clothes did appear were the so-called Mummereis, spectacular masked balls organized upon predesigned scenarios, often based on Maximilian’s inventions. They were usually held to mark the end of tournaments. During the banquet a line of figures in a vast variety of fancy dresses moved in to ask the banqueters at the tables for a dance or to perform small scenes.5 In the pertinent illustrations of Freydal one can see figures in oriental attire or “Turkish” costume6 as well, not as a separate group but as one

2

3

4

5

6

Christine Niederkorn, Der Hof Maximilians I. und das höfische Leben. Ein Beitrag zur höfischen Kulturgeschichte. (Dissertation) Graz, 1985, 168–182. Veronika Sandbichler, ‘“Übungen, die edeln Kavalieren ziemen”. Habsburger Turniere im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert’, in Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden. Habsburgische Feste in der Renaissance. (Exh. Cat. KHM Schloss Ambras.) Wien, 2005, 65–66. Lukas Madersbacher (ed.), Hispania et Austria. Kunst um 1492. Die Katholischen Könige Maximilian I. und die Anfänge der Casa de Austria in Spanien. (Exh. Cat. KHM Schloss Ambras.) Milan, 1992, Nos. 123–127. Vienna, KHM, Kunstkammer, Inv.-No. KK 5073. Madersbacher (ed.), Hispania et Austria, Nos. 126–127. Schnitzer–Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds, No. 287. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 29. Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.19. Borbála Gulyás, ‘“Achtet Casten, darinnen allerleÿ Büecher”. Prints and Manuscripts in the Kunstkammer of Ferdinand of Tyrol’, in Andrea M. Gáldy (ed.), Collecting Prints and Drawings. Newcastle upon Tyne (forthcoming). Niederkorn, Der Hof, 183–187. Claudia Schnitzer, Höfische Maskeraden. Funktion und Ausstattung von Verkleidungsdivertissements an deutschen Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit. (Dissertation) (Frühe Neuzeit, 53.) Tübingen, 1999, 81–92. Larry Silver, Marketing Maximilian. The Visual Ideology of a Holy Roman Emperor. Princeton, 2008, 182–189. Schnitzer–Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds, No. 287. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 29.

278

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

of the nations (for example, “Italians” or, for that matter, “Hungarians” 7 rendered in a peculiar light). Ladies in oriental costumes (fol. 64) and men dressed in janissary uniform, wearing birds’ masks with long beaks in parody of the Asian physiognomy (fol. 203), or “Turks” with turbans and false beards (fol. 172) can be seen in these pictures. The aim of these conspicuous and astounding costume designs was not to be historically authentic but to enthral the audience composed often of the highest-born guests, rulers, diplomats. As mentioned above, the Ottomans included in the group of national costumes did not have a salient role, but the exoticism of the oriental costumes, the strange accessories, and the rich colour scheme qualified them as the group of most fanciful masqueraders. There is a single illustration, in Weißkunig,8 where the “Turks” are not only one of the colourful nations, but the fight against them and the emperor’s policy against the Ottoman Empire are also thematised. In the woodcut of Hans Burgkmair the Elder (No. 30) turbaned and bird-masked figures move in during a Mummerei. The procession is received by the Weißkunig, that is, Maximilian himself: the emperor “confronts” the group of armed participants in Turkish costumes single-handed. The odd thing is that Maximilian’s figure is doubled: the young man with the torch leading the procession is clearly reminiscent of the earlier hero of Freydal. Unlike in the previous scenes, where Freydal/Maximilian always appeared alone in a sumptuous habit characterizing him, here there are other figures dressed like him and equipped with arms, as if to counterbalance the numerical superiority of the adversary.9 In the studied period it was not unfamiliar in Hungary, either, to represent the fight against the Ottomans in festivities. At a ceremony in the Buda court of King Vladislav Jagiellon II, clear signs were given of the desire to overcome the “archenemy of Christianity”, the Ottoman Empire. In the procession on the Feast of Corpus Christi in Buda on 10 June 1501, 10 two highly 7

Fol. 92. In the picture of the “Ungarische Mummerei” nine “Hungarian” men can be seen in the company of Freydal in golden clothes displaying the three Hungarian colours (red, white, and green). Two of them are playing music, the other seven in bird-masks are dancing a circle dance wearing sabres and spurs. All are dressed in ankle-length coats lined with white fur and pointed caps. 8 Madersbacher (ed.), Hispania et Austria, No. 123. 9 Schnitzer–Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds, No. 288. Schnitzer, Höfische Maskeraden, 93–95. 10 The feast was of signal importance for the Habsburg rulers, too; cf. Karl Vocelka, ‘Habsburg Festivals in the Early Modern Period’, in Karin Friedrich (ed.), Festive Culture

279

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

spectacular scenes referred to the prospective crusade, and the recently concluded triple alliance of Hungary, Venice, and the Papal State against the Ottomans.11 The events of the procession are known from two accounts. They are narrated by a German-language print issued in four different towns (Die ordenu[n]g zu Ofen wider den Thürcken..., Strassburg, Augsburg, München, Nürnberg, 1501)12 and a report by the ambassador of Modena who attended the procession (Tomaso Dainero, La Festa del Corpus Domini a Buda, 1501).13 The first scene was staged at the cemetery next to the Church of Our Lady in Buda. The basic idea was rooted in the belief of that era that the destruction of the coffin of the Prophet Muhammad would mean the end of the Ottoman Empire. In an ephemeral edifice symbolizing a mosque the “coffin of Muhammad” filled with gunpowder was hung up and puppets clad in Turkish costumes were placed round it. According to Dainero’s account when the king and the procession came in front of the mosque, an immense burst of flame hit the coffin setting fire to it and to most of the Turks around it. What was not consumed by fire was attacked by huge crowds of Hungarians and crushed to smithereens with sticks and stones, some using their teeth even. 14 Then a figure

11

12

13

14

in Germany and Europe from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century. Lewiston–Queenston– Lampeter, 2000, 133–135. Géza Galavics, Kössünk kardot az pogány ellen. Török háborúk és képzőművészet [Let us gird ourselves with swords against the pagans. Wars against the Ottomans and fine art]. Budapest, 1986, 13. Pál Fodor, ‘The View of the Turk in Hungary: the Apocalyptic Tradition and the Red Apple in Ottoman–Hungarian Context’, in Benjamin Lellouche – Stéphan Yerasimos (eds.), Les traditions apocalyptiques au tournant de la chute de Constantinople. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul (13–14 avril 1996), publiés par l’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil d’Istanbul. (Varia Turcica, XXXIII.) Paris–Montréal, 1999, 111. Gedeon Borsa, ‘A törökök ellen Magyarországon hirdetett 1500. évi búcsú és az azzal kapcsolatos nyomtatványok [The indulgence of 1500 granted against the Turks in Hungary and the related prints]’, Az OSzK Évkönyve (1960) 241–279. Carl Göllner, Turcica. Die europäischen Türkendrucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Vol. I, MDI–MDL, Bucharest–Berlin, 1961, Nos. 9–10. Gedeon Borsa, ‘Egy 1501. évi budai tudósítás kiadásai és azok nyomdászai [Editions and typographers of an account of Buda 1501]’, Magyar Könyvszemle 101 (1985) 141–149. Cesare Foucard (ed.), ‘Lettere di Tommaso Dainero ad Ercole Duca di Ferrara, 1501–02’, in Descrizione dell’ Ungheria nei secoli XV. et XVI. Modenai és velenczei követek jelentései Magyarország földrajzi és culturai állapotáról a XV. és XVI. században [Reports of the ambassadors of Modena and Venice on the geographic and cultural state of Hungary in the 15th and 16th centuries]. Budapest, 1881, 16–17. Ecco apuncto, quando giunse ne dicto loco questa Ma[ies]tá cum la processione, se spicò

280

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

clad as a Sibyl announced a noted prophesy, thereby also inciting those present for the planned crusade against the Ottoman Empire. To end the procession, another scene with a similar message was staged. In the afternoon, the Venetians present dragged two galleys set on carts, up the castle hill in Buda. In the presence of King Vladislav Jagiellon II and the ambassadors, a symbolic combat on sea was acted out amidst the thunder of cannonade between the galleys, one packed with “Turks”, the other with “Christians”. 15 Dainero’s report also reveals that in the first scene the sultan and several pashas were also among the puppets around the blown up coffin. Unless the ambassador of Modena misinterpreted the episode, this was not only a spectacular and shocking scene, but at the same time the very first occurrence of fireworks in Europe destroying the effigies of the Ottoman enemy. Also related to the fight against the Ottomans, the victory of Emperor Charles V at Tunis was celebrated with a similar spectacular firework display in Nuremberg in 1535.16 The municipality had a large wooden fortress built, made more lifelike by puppets dressed as Turks and including the commander of the Ottoman forces, Hayreddin Barbarossa. The castle was packed full of rockets and explosives and during a spectacular siege it was blown up in the firework. A broadsheet with a woodcut and a detailed versified account was issued about the event. It showed the enormous figure of turbaned Hayreddin Barbarossa with a long beard on the peak of the fortress amidst small Turkish puppets. 17 da alto uno gran raggio de fuocho, in similitudine de uno fulgure, et percosse la dicta archa, la qual era congegniata cum raggi, tal che brusò gran parte de epsa et dicti Turchi circustanti. Il residuo autem che restò, che non puote brusiare, fu da gran moltitudine de Ungari circumstanti, che stavano a vedere, assalita, come da cani arabiati; et chi li bateva cum legni, chi li gietava pietre, chi cum mane, chi cum denti li straciava, tal che de la Moschea, archa et Turchi, non li restò peccio de la quantità de uno palmo. Foucard (ed.), ‘Lettere’, 16. 15 Borsa, ‘A törökök’, 252. 16 Arthur Lotz, Das Feuerwerk. Seine Geschichte und Bibliographie. Leipzig, [1941], 21, 98. For fireworks in general in the studied age, see Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly, ‘Entries, Fireworks and Religious Festivals in the Empire’, in Pierre Béhar – Helen Watanabe-O’Kelly (eds.), Spectacvlvm Europævm. Theatre and Spectacle in Europe. Histoire du spectacle en Europe. 1580–1750. (Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung, 31.) Wiesbaden, 1999, 732–738. 17 Erhard Schön’s woodcut with the versified account by Hans Sachs (Max Geisberg, The German Single-Leaf Woodcut 1500–1550. Ed. by Walter R. Strauss. Vol. IV, New York, 1974, G1266–G1267). On the Nuremberg events in more detail, see Borbála Gulyás, ‘Huszár–török viadalok a szász választófejedelmi udvarban (1548, 1553) [Tournaments of “Hussars” and “Turks” at the Dresden court of the Electors of Saxony (1548, 1553)]’, in

281

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

This fortress, the so-called firework fortress (Feuerwerksschloß) was the most frequent variant of this kind of spectacle in German territories during the sixteenth century. A similar firework fortress with a Turkish figure will be discussed apropos the coronation of Archduke Maximilian as king of Hungary in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) in 1563. As far as we know, the incorporation of the fight against the Ottomans, the “archenemy of the Christians”, in tournaments by the Habsburgs can be attributed to Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol. Ferdinand led two campaigns against the Turks in Hungary (1556, 1566) and was invested with the Order of the Golden Fleece for the more successful first attempt in 1557. Though the military operations, particularly in 1566, had little success, he cherished them as the highest achievements of his life, under a cult of heroism fed by the medieval ideal of chivalry.18 The famous Turcica collection (Türkenkammer) of Ferdinand at Ambras Castle was based on the Ottoman weapons and artefacts he had collected, partly in the Hungarian theatre of war. Unusually for a sixteenth century princely collection, he arranged the exotic objects into a separate stock within the armoury, especially Ottoman and Hungarian weapons and trophies that had come to Ambras as war booty or acquisitions. The Türkenkammer (5th Armoury) opened from the 3rd Armoury. Next to the doorway there was a life-size equestrian figure of wood wearing Ferdinand’s “Silver Hussar Armour” (Silberne Husarische Rüstung), the one he presumably ordered upon return from the Hungarian theatre of war in 1556. Opposite this figure was among others a standing “Turkish man” (Türggisschen Mann) in costume.19 In addition to the establishment of the separate Turcica collection, the image of the hero triumphing over the Ottomans also played an important role in the court festivities of the archduke, particularly in the costumed tournaments. As governor of Bohemia, Ferdinand had his seat in Prague between Orsolya Bubryák (ed.), “Ez világ, mint egy kert…”. Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére [“This world is like a garden...” Studies in honour of Géza Galavics]. Budapest, 2010, 98–100. 18 Veronika Sandbichler, ‘Festkultur am Hof Erzherzog Ferdinands II’, in Heinz Noflatscher – Jan Paul Niederkorn (eds.), Der Innsbrucker Hof. Residenz und höfische Gesellschaft in Tirol vom 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert. (Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, 138.) Wien, 2005, 164. 19 Laurin Luchner, Denkmal eines Renaissancefürsten. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des Ambraser Museums von 1583. Wien, 1958, 40, 49–50, 102–106. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, 11–26. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 221, see also note 27.

282

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

1547 and 1567. In this period at least twenty contests are known to have been organized by him for Prague, Pilsen and Vienna. 20 The primary source of the dates, the forms taken by the tournaments, and participants is the Tournament Book of Archduke Ferdinand II (Turnierbuch), which includes full-page coloured illustrations of many of the participants. 21 The manuscript was modelled on the earlier mentioned Freydal, which was owned by the archduke at that time. It reveals that the participants of the tournaments were primarily Czech, Moravian, German, and Austrian noblemen, including some who had accompanied Ferdinand on his mentioned anti-Ottoman campaign in 1556. There are very few other European (for instance, Italian, French), or even Hungarian participants who were salaried members of the Vienna court or the princely household of the archduke at that time. 22 The mentioned twenty or so tournaments were held in various forms: jousts, tilts, and group combats on horseback (Roßturnier, Plankengestech, Schrankengestech, Scharmützel) as well as foot tournaments of individuals and teams (Freiturnier, Fußturnier). Between 1548 and 1557 there were at least five Hussar tournaments (husarisches Turnier) among these contests.23 The Christian fighters were clothed in 20 Jaroslav Pánek, ‘Der Adel im Turnierbuch Erzherzog Ferdinands II. von Tirol. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hoflebens und der Hofkultur in der Zeit seiner Statthalterschaft in Böh men’, Folia Historica Bohemica 16 (1993) 79–80, 86–91. Václav Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol zwischen Prag und Innsbruck. Der Adel aus den böhmischen Ländern auf dem Weg zu den Höfen der ersten Habsburger. Wien–Köln–Weimar, 2009, 207–219. 21 Vienna, KHM, Kunstkammer, Inv.-No. KK 5134. Schnitzer–Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds, No. 289. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 30. Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.1. Gulyás, ‘Achtet Casten’. 22 Pánek, ‘Der Adel’, 83, 92–96. Hungarian participants (2 June 1549, Prague): Péter Mace dóniai, János Balassa, János Enyingi Török; cf. Géza Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century. (East European Monographs, DCCXXXV; CHSP Hungarian Studies Series, 18.) New York, 2009, 206. 23 23 May 1548, Prague (Plankengestech oder Hussarisches Turnier), 30 May 1549, Prague (Husarisches Rennen), 1 March 1557, Prague (Husarischer Turnier), 2 May 1557, Prague (Husarischer Turnier), 12 February 1553, Pilsen (Husarisches Turnier). In another five cases the form of tournament is not recorded, so they may have included Hussar tourna ments too: 14 February 1548, 22 November 1552, 1–8 February and 22 September 1562 (Prague), and 15 February 1563 (without recording the venue): Pánek, ‘Der Adel’, 79–81. Cf. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, 27–36. Schnitzer, Höfische Maskeraden, 135– 137. Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol, 216–218. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 221–224. For the equipment of the Hussars of the studied age, see S.Tibor Kovács, Huszárfegyverek a 15–17. században [Hussar weapons in the 15th–17th centuries]. Budapest, 2010. János B. Szabó, A honfoglalóktól a huszárokig. A középkori magyar könnyűlovasságról [From the Hungarian conquerors to the Hussars. Light cavalry in medieval Hungary]. (A Hadtörténeti Intézet és

283

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

the uniforms of the light cavalry of Hungary, the Hussars, who contested with participants clad in “Turkish” costumes. The Hussar tournament was most probably invented by Ferdinand. At any rate, there were another two, thematically similar tournaments around the same time, held in the court of Maurice, Elector of Saxony (1548, 1553) who – similarly to Ferdinand – took part in the anti-Ottoman campaigns in Hungary in 1542 and 1553. 24 A “Hussar” wore a red and green braided overcoat and dolman (in Hungarian: mente and dolmány),25 a shako (Hung. csákó) with plume or a helmet adorned with motifs in oriental style, a mask with a long false moustache, a mace (Hung. buzogány) or sabre and lance, as well as a Hungarian shield and spurs. In the best-known illustration of the mentioned Tournament Book (fol. 167), as the caption says, the archduke himself is shown as a “Hussar” in the Hussar tournament held in the courtyard of Prague Castle on 2 May 1557. The red Hussar costume of the hero of the fight against the Ottomans, recently returned from the Hungarian battlefields, is paired with horse equipment embellished with oriental motifs. 26 The same applies to another Hussar garniture (Silberne Husarische Rüstung)27 of the archduke mentioned in connection with the Türkenkammer in Ambras Castle, which is decorated with oriental motifs (arabesques). The aim was similar to that of the masquerades staged by Maximilian I: to make a highly decorative overall impression with colourful oriental accessories to the costumes. No representation of the costume of the “Turks” survives: the Tournament Book – intentionally – only carried portraits of individual Christian heroes: various combatants and “Hussars”. The only exception is the depiction of a “Moorish” contestant (fol. 53) shown in a turban, with a lance and sabre. On the other hand, there are lots of material relics in the Ambras armoury that give account of the equipment of the Hussar tournaments. 28 In addition to a variety of Hungarian shields and weapons dozens of chased steel masks of

Múzeum Könyvtára) Budapest, 2010, 136–147. 24 9 and 11 October 1548 (Torgau). Carnival 1553 (Dresden): Schnitzer, ‘Zwischen Kampf und Spiel’, 230–231. Gulyás, ‘Huszár–török viadalok’. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 220. 25 On these, see Emese Pásztor’s study in the present volume. 26 Another similar piece with oriental decoration: Vienna, KHM, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Inv.-No. C 147. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 38. 27 Vienna, KHM, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Inv.-No. A 878. Schnitzer–Schuckelt (eds.), Im Lichte des Halbmonds, No. 290. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 37. Schnitzer, Höfische Maskeraden, 136. Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.6. 28 Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, Nos. 32–38. Sandbichler, ‘Festkultur’, 163–164.

284

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

“Hussars” as well as “Turks” and “Moors” survive. 29 The “Hussars” wore long horsehair moustaches. The masks painted dark for “Turks” and “Moors” imitating eastern physiognomy were also moustached, and probably on top, a turban was fastened to each. In Ferdinand’s Tournament Book the emphasis is on rendering the luxurious costumes of the participants, so there are no pictures of the actual unfolding of a contest. All that can be inferred from the titles of the contests is that in the Hussar tournaments there were different combats on horseback such as tilt over a barrier and joust (Plankengestech oder Husarisches Turnier, Husarisches Rennen).30 A probable explanation is that at costumed tournaments not only winners of the contest but also the best costumes were awarded prizes. Some contemporary written documents also inform posterity of the forms of husarisches Turnier. The list of the participants in the tournament held in Prague in March 1557 is entitled Beschreybung des Freyen Hussärischen Thurniers,31 which reveals that it was a Freiturnier, that is, a combat on foot with sword or lance. The text, similarly to the Turnierbuch, renders the costumes in minute detail and spares no word for the process of the combat itself. An illustration in the diary (fol. 19r), depicting a member of the Czech household of Archduke Ferdinand – and later participant in Ferdinand’s tournaments – Johann Zajič von Hassenburg32 provides some clues for how to envision a Hussar tournament. On 27 December 1552, Zajič von Hassenburg staged a grand tournament in his central estate in Budyně nad Ohří (in German: Budin an der Eger) with the title Mummerei und Sarmatie, Komödie und Turnier, in which contestants dressed as “Slavic knights” and “Turks”

29 Vienna, KHM, Hofjagd- und Rüstkammer, Inv. No. B62, B94, B96 etc. (7 pcs), Innsbruck, KHM Schloss Ambras, Inv. No. WA 185ff. (12 pcs). Matthias Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier als Instrument der Habsburgischen Politik’, Waffen- und Kostümkunde 1992, 21. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 36. 30 See note 23. 31 Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesarchiv [hereinafter: TLA], Ferdinandea, Kart. 181. 32 Memoiren von Johann Zajič von Hassenburg, 1553, Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 8091. Österreich und die Osmanen. (Exh. Cat. ÖNB, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv [hereinafter: ÖStA].) Wien, 1983, No. 12. For the full text see: Jaroslav Pánek, ‘Paměti ceského šlechtice z polozviny 16. stoleti. “Sarmacie” Jana Zajíce z Házmburka’, Folia Historica Bohemica 14 (1990) 17–98, published lately by the author in a separate volume as well: Jaroslav Pánek (ed.), Jan Zajíc z Házmburka. Sarmacia aneb zpověď českého aristokrata. Praha, 2007.

285

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

fought each other.33 As the illustration reveals, joust and foot tournament of individuals and teams were held. Several decades after his Hungarian campaigns, during festivities in Innsbruck following his wedding with his second wife, Anna Katharina Gonzaga (1582), Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol did not forget about the Hussar tournament either. At this time the prevalent dramaturgy of a court festival was based on a highly intricate, allegorical-mythological plot. As the Hochzeitskodex34 capturing the events reveals, Ferdinand deemed it important to make an entry at his wedding not only covered in ornate armour all’antica (fol. 44r), but also as a hero of the fight against the Ottomans, a “Hussar” in red and green braided uniform mounted on a white horse (fol. 20v). The written program of the costumed tournament says that the contests following the wedding included a joust “in Hungarian style” (Spießbrechen auf ungerisch).35 Having been proclaimed Holy Roman Emperor in Frankfurt, Ferdinand I made a solemn entry into Vienna on 14 April 1558.36 He marched into the town at the helm of innumerable troops, and a Te Deum was celebrated at St Stephen’s Cathedral. After that, in the tournament field set up in front of the Swiss 33 Václav Bůžek, ‘Theater zwischen Unterhaltung und Propaganda. Ein adeliges Turnier in Böhmen in der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Brigitte Marschall (ed.), Theater am Hof und für das Volk. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Theater- und Kulturgeschichte. Festschrift für Otto G. Schindler zum 60. Geburtstag. (Maske und Kothurn, 48.) Wien–Köln–Weimar, 2002, 64–66. Václav Bůžek, ‘Türkische Motive in der Selbstdarstellung von Adeligen in den böhmischen Ländern zu Beginn der Neuzeit’, in Gabriele Haug-Moritz – Ludolf Pelizaeus (eds.), Repräsentationen der islamischen Welt im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit. Münster, 2010, 99–100. 34 Vienna, KHM, Kunstkammer, Inv.-No. KK 5270. Sandbichler, Türkische Kostbarkeiten, No. 37. Veronika Sandbichler, ‘Der Hochzeitskodex Erzherzog Ferdinands II.’, in Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien N.F. 6–7 (2004–2005) 46–89. Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.30., Nos. 4.1–4.3. Veronika Sandbichler, Der Hochzeit Erzherzog Ferdinands II. Eine Bildreportage des 16. Jahrhunderts. (Exh. Cat. KHM Schloss Ambras.) Wien, 2010. Gulyás, ‘Achtet Casten’. 35 Autograph concept of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol (14 April 1582), TLA, Innsbruck, Ferdinandea, Pos. 41(1). Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.31. 36 Petrus a Rotis, Triumphi, quo D. Ferdinandus I. Ro. Imperator ... Viennae a suis exceptus est. Descriptio. Viennae, 1558. Joseph Feil, Kaiser Ferdinand’s I. Einzug in Wien, 14. April 1558. Wien, 1853. Karl Vocelka, ‘Die Wiener Feste der frühen Neuzeit in waffenkundlicher Sicht’, Jahrbuch des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Wien 34 (1978) 135–138. Borbála Gulyás, ‘Triumphal Arches in the Court Festivals under the New Holy Roman Emperor, Habsburg Ferdinand I’, in Krista De Jonge – J. R. Mulryne – Richard Morris (eds.), Occasions of State. Early Modern European Festivals and the Negotiation of Power. London (forthcoming).

286

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

Gate of the Hofburg, which had been built only a little earlier in the style of a Roman triumphal arch upon commission of Ferdinand I, various tournaments were held ending with the spectacular siege of a firework fortress. The oftmentioned Archduke Ferdinand II, governor of Bohemia, organized the emperor’s entry into Prague on 8 November of the same year. 37 Along the route of the procession, designed like Roman triumphs, several temporary triumphal arches were raised in homage to the emperor. Archduke Ferdinand had an immense arch built, adorned with “colossi” of the Biblical giants Samson and Gideon, in the company of the figures of the emperor’s predecessors (Rudolf I, Frederick III, Maximilian I, Charles V), reliefs of their famous battles and allegorical figures of the virtues. Of interest to our theme is another triumphal arch that was exclusively adorned with Ottoman trophies, such as horse equipment and flags.38 In the tournament that ensued the mythic fight of ancient deities was acted out, with allusions to current practical politics. 39 Two years later, in 1560, Archduke Maximilian organized the famous “Viennese Tournament” (Wiener Turnier)40 in and around Vienna in honour of 37 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations on the Imperial Theme. Studies in Ceremonial, Art, and Collecting in the Age of Maximilian II and Rudolf II. (Dissertation) New York–London, 1978, 22–24. Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, 24. Marina Dmitrieva-Einhorn, ‘Ephemeral Ceremonial Architecture in Prague, Vienna, and Cracow in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries’, in James Ronald Mulryne – Elizabeth Goldring (eds.), Court Festivals of the European Renaissance. Art, Politics and Performance. Aldershot, 2002, 363–365, 381, 385–386. Václav Bůžek, ‘Der festliche Einzug Ferdinands I. in Prag am 8. November 1558’, in Friedrich Edelmayer – Martina Fuchs – Georg Heilingsetzer – Peter Rauscher (eds.), Plus ultra. Die Welt der Neuzeit. Festschrift für Alfred Kohler zum 65. Geburtstag. Münster, 2008, 289–304. Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol, 168–188. Gulyás, ‘Triumphal Arches’. 38 Hatte man eine zweyte sehr schöne Triumphpforte errichtet... war mit purpur farbenen Venezianischen Seidenstoff und mit Türkischen Trophäen, so wie mit verschiedenem Stirnschmuck der Pferde ausgeziert. von dem Gipfel wehten drey Fahnen von verschiedenem Farben. Matthaeus Collinus, Beschreibung des feyerlichen Einzugs Kaiser Ferdinands I. in die Hauptstadt Prag den 8ten November 1558. Translated by Ignaz Cornova. Prag, 1802, 87–88. 39 The fight between Jupiter and the giants was the allegorical rendering of the battle of Mühlberg in 1548. A diminished form of the Vesuvius was erected, which the costumed participants fought to occupy amidst a firework display. The event ended with a Moorish horse ballet. DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 23–24. Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, 24. 40 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 24–26. Vocelka, ‘Die Wiener Feste’, 143–144. Matthias Pfaffenbichler, ‘Die habsburgischen Hoffeste von 1560 und 1571’, in Roberto Capucci (ed.), Roben wie Rüstungen. Mode in Stahl und Seide einst und heute. (Exh. Cat. KHM.) Wien, 1990, 23–25. Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, 23–28. Bůžek, Ferdinand von Tirol, 219– 223.

287

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

his father Emperor Ferdinand I and his brother-in-law Albert V, Elector of Bavaria. The festivities lasted for a month (24 May–24 June) with a diversity of foot combats and equestrian contests, among them the foot tournament, joust, tilt (12 and 19 June: Fußturnier, 13 and 23 June: Roßturnier [fig. 21], 17 June: Rennen über die Planke). Even the siege of a “marine fort” – a firework fortress (Feuerwerksschloß) built of wood by the Danube – was performed (24 June [fig. 22]). The Wiener Turnier duly became one of the best-known Habsburg court events of the age on account of the attending notabilities and the large number of participants, as well as the diversity of the forms of contests. Hans Francolin put down a detailed account of the month-long festivities in a festival book in German and Latin containing large foldout etchings of the main combats.41 The participants include a few Hungarian names (for example, János, András and Farkas Balassa, János Pethő, Elek Thurzó II), mostly former or contemporary members of the Habsburg princely courts (of Ferdinand I, and of Archdukes Maximilian, Charles, and Ferdinand), although their number is insignificant among all the attendants. 42

41 Hans Francolin, Thurnier Buech..., and Hans Francolin, Rerum praeclare gestarum... Wien, 1560. Budapest, Országos Széchényi Könyvtár [hereinafter OSzK], Régi Nyomtatványok Tára [National Széchényi Library, Department of Old Prints], App. H. 363, 2548 (2), and 2548 (1). Georg Winkler, ‘Das Turnierbuch Hans Francolins’, Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus dem Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseum 1 (1980) 105–120. 42 Farkas Gábor Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus, avagy a Balassák az udvari ünnepélyeken [Il Mago rilucente, or members of the Balassa family at court festivities]’, in Idem (ed.), Balassi Bálint és a reneszánsz kultúra [Bálint Balassi and Renaissance culture]. (Traditio Renovata, 1.) Budapest, 2004, 91–92.

288

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

Fig. 21. Tournament on the Periphery of Vienna (Hans Francolin, Rerum praeclare gestarum… Viennae, 1560. Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Department of Old Prints, App. H. 2548 [1])

289

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Archduke Ferdinand also took his share of the tournament. Francolin gives a separate account in his festival book of the archduke’s arrival in early June. Greatly experienced in holding Hussar tournaments, the archduke was present throughout the contests. In the last tournament on the outskirts of Vienna his presence made it unambiguous that the staged combats were to be interpreted, along with the mythological-allegorical content – like the earlier release of Cupid and the final day’s fight between Mars and Venus – as the Christians’ fight against the Ottomans. The last equestrian contest held on the periphery of Vienna in the field called “Field of Mars and Venus” is represented by a large etching in Francolin’s work (fig. 21). 43 Though the group combat ending the day is not included in the depiction, Francolin’s account provides minute details.44 It says that at the end of the “Folia” two archdukes (Ferdinand and Charles)45 together with the other participants made sword strokes to remind the audience that the contest was not only a competition for a prize, but also a display of intrepid courage with which the danger threatening feeble Christians – the “blood hound” (bluedthund), that is, the sultan and the “archenemy of Christianity” (Erbfeindt der Christenhait), in a word, the Ottomans – must be faced up to. The latter designations were two of the most frequent proverbial phrases denoting the Ottoman Empire and its ruler in the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, rhyming with the dichotomy of antagonism between Christians and heathens, God and Satan. 46 No one in the audience, including the emperor, the Bavarian elector, and other dignitaries, could have any doubt 43 41.6×52 cm, unsigned, inscription: PRAELIVM EXHIBITVM IN APERTO CAMPO MARTI ET VENERI SACRO 1560. Francolin, Rerum, without foliation. 44 Wie sie nun ir Rennen tapfer unnd herzlich volbracht, haben sie angefangen in grosser menig durcheinander zurennen in die Folia, wie manß gemainglich nennet, in welcher auch die Hochgenenten zwei Fürsten Erzherzogen zu Osterreich u[nd] sambt etlichen Rittern im Spießbrechen und anderen Wheren, als Schwertschleg sich dermassen erzaigt, das sie von einem ganzen umbstandt anhelligelich ein lob erlangt, unnd mit dem selben der swachen Christenhait angezaigt, unnd ein beyspill geben, wie sy ire Fürst[liche] Durch[laucht] mit sambt iren Rittern mitler zeit, so es die Not erfordern wurd, gegen den bluedthunden und Erbfeindt der Christenhait Fürstlich unnd unverzagt halten wurden. Francolin, Thurnier Buech, fol. LXXIIIIv. 45 In another festival book the two archdukes are named but the Ottomans are not mentioned: Prospero Brutto, Le giostre, i trionfi et gli apparati mirabili fatti in Viena alla corte de ... Ferdinando imperatore. Bologna, 1560, fol. 6v. Budapest, OSzK, Régi Nyomtatványok Tára, App. H. 355. 46 Maximilian Grothaus, Der “Erbfeindt christlichen Namens”. Studien zum Türken-Feindbild in der Kultur der Habsburgermonarchie zwischen 16. und 18. Jahrhundert. (Dissertation) Graz, 1986, 86–88.

290

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

that the closing chord of the tournament well-nigh passing for a military exercise, reiterated the actual objective of the entire Wiener Turnier: effective action against the Ottoman Empire. A day later the whole tournament culminated in the spectacular siege of the “marine fort”, the mentioned wooden fortress built on a small island in the Danube for this purpose. Three hundred infantrymen and fifty mounted troops defended the fortress against an equal number of “Christian” besiegers. Although neither in Francolin’s account nor in the etching perpetuating the siege (fig. 22)47 can “Turks” be discerned, there is a thought-provoking passage in the text about masked straw effigies dressed like the enemy and shot from the cannons, many of them to be finally hurled into the Danube. 48 As earlier mentioned, a similar spectacle with firework display was staged in Buda in 1501 and in Nuremberg in 1535; it is not impossible that the masks – called Schembart at the time – put on the puppets used during the siege were also supposed to be “Turks”.49

47 41.8×51.9 cm, Johann Twenger, inscription: PICTVRA OPPIDVLI, NAVALI ET PEDESTRI PRELIO EXPVGNATI 1560. Francolin, Rerum, without foliation. Seipel (ed.), Wir sind Helden, No. 3.13. 48 Weitter zu grossem Spot un[d] schanden namen sie die gemachten Thoten khörper so im Sturm im Graben beliben waren und warffen sie in die Thuenaw hinein, ja das auch schentlicher unnd böser war namen sie den Feinden zu schmach die Thoten Leichnam und lue dens in die Mörser (welches doch grausam unnd erschrecklich zu sehen gewesen) unnd schossens heraus, maint auch einer nicht anders wenn ein Mörser mit einem thoten Cörpel abgieng, der lufft wäre vol leibhaffter Tefffel, Solche bilde die gestaldt eines thoten Leichnams, waren nichts anders denn hosn unnd wamas mit stro ausgefilt unnd ein Schenpart vorm Gesicht welchs so artlich und Sinreich gemacht, das, wers ansahe mainet nicht anders es wäre thote Leichnam. Francolin, Thurnier Buech, fol. LXXXIIIr. 49 In March 1563 there was a similar fortress siege with – possibly Turkish – puppets of the enemy, held in the earlier mentioned field in front of the Hofburg during the tournament finishing the triumphal entry on the occasion of the election of Archduke Maximilian as King of the Romans. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 228.

291

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Fig. 22. Naval Battle and the Siege of a Firework Fortress on an Island of the Danube (Hans Francolin, Rerum praeclare gestarum… Viennae, 1560. Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Department of Old Prints, App. H. 2548 [1])

292

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

As has been seen, representation of the Ottomans in the court festivities of the Austrian Habsburgs served in a symbolic rendering of the crucial fight against them. Hereafter, it is to be discussed how the same was manifest in the most representative state event, the coronation, in the Kingdom of Hungary, the Habsburg Monarchy’s bulwark against the Ottoman Empire. The coronation of Archduke Maximilian – later Emperor Maximilian II – as King of Hungary took place in Pozsony in September 1563, three years after the Wiener Turnier. Since the coronation of Ferdinand I as Hungarian king in Székesfehérvár in 1527 it was the first grandiose court event in the Kingdom of Hungary to get mobilized the entire country, so great care was taken for the arrangements on both the Viennese and Hungarian side. 50 It is interesting to note that preparations for the coronation inspired a fear of real military action in the Ottomans. They thought that the temporary pontoon bridge built at Pozsony would open the road for Maximilian and his retinue to cross the river and push as far as Székesfehérvár, the Hungarian town of coronations, and having captured it, he would have himself crowned there. 51 It 50 For a summary of the crowning ceremony, see Géza Pálffy, ‘Krönungsmähler in Ungarn im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Weiterleben des Tafelzeremoniells des selbstständigen ungarischen Königshofes und Machtrepräsentation der ungarischen politischen Elite’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 115 (2007) 85– 111; 116 (2008) 60–91. For more detail on the coronations in 1563 and 1572, see Géza Pálffy, ‘Kaiserbegräbnisse in der Habsburgermonarchie – Königskrönungen in Ungarn. Ungarische Herrschaftssymbole in der Herrschaftsrepräsentation der Habsburger im 16. Jahrhundert’, Frühneuzeit-Info 19 (2008) 50–52, 55–56. Géza Pálffy, ‘Staré tradície a nové zvyky v novom hlavnom meste Uhorského kráľovstva: korunovácia Maximiliána Habsburského v Bratislave 1563’, in Ivan Rusina et al. (eds.), Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia. Renesancia. Umenie medzi neskorou gotiku a barokom. Bratislava, 2009, 151–161, 932–933. More recently these have been the focus of research by the “Lendület” Holy Crown of Hungary Research Project. 51 Az törekek az koronázatkoron oly igen megiettenek hogy Pozson előtt az hedat csinálták, hogy az basa nyilván azt vélte, hogy az király Fejérvárra megyen nagy erővel, és Fejérvárat megveszi, és magát ott akarja megkoronáztatni, az török ezt vélte (When there was the coronation, the Turks were terribly frightened by the bridge built near Pozsony: the pasha must have thought the king would advance with a large army to [Székes]Fehérvár and he would take [Székes]Fehérvár and he would have himself crowned there, that’s what the Turk thought). József Bessenyei (ed.), 1504–1566 Memoria Rerum. A Magyarországon legutóbbi László király fiának legutóbbi Lajos királynak születése óta esett dolgok emlékezete (Verancsics-évkönyv) [Memory of events that happened in Hungary since the birth of the latest King Louis, son of the latest King Ladislas (Verancsics-annals)]. (Bibliotheca Historica) S. l., 1981, 112. See also Tivadar Ortvay, Pozsony város története. A város politikai szereplése a XVI-ik század első felében, a mohácsi vésztől I. Ferdinánd király haláláig 1527–1564 [History of the city of Pozsony. The political role of the town in

293

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

is evident that this could realistically not even have been deliberated, but it was clear that the impressive amount of Hungarian and foreign troops rallying for the coronation and encamped around Pozsony served to symbolically express the Habsburg superiority, just as the Wiener Turnier had done earlier. In the parade preceding the coronation, Hungarian cavalrymen alone numbered 2,300. This was a considerable number taking into account Ferdinand I’s order decreeing that only unpaid soldiers could escort dignitaries from the border fortresses. This Hungarian deputation was to receive Archduke Maximilian and his train of another several thousand horsemen from Vienna 52 outside Pozsony. Clad in sumptuous Hussar uniform and equipped with glittering silver and gold weapons, the Hungarians were led by Captain-General Miklós Zrínyi, the future hero of the defence of Szigetvár against the Ottomans in 1566.53 It was here by Köpcsény (today Kittsee, Austria), surrounded by the Hungarian troops, that Archbishop of Esztergom Miklós Oláh (Nicolaus Olahus) delivered his salutatory address to the future king of Hungary and his retinue. Using a clever rhetorical device right at the beginning, he said that the king to be might be surprised why so few Hungarian noblemen had come to receive him. He explained: “The greater part of the Hungarian nobility and army still alive after the many grave and lasting wars have remained in the confines in defence of the country and guard the border fortresses, against the foes of our faith the Turks, so only a small segment could come here with us.”54 Welcoming the future King Rudolf on 21 September 1572 then Archthe first half of the 16th century from the defeat at Mohács to the death of King Ferdinand I, 1527–1564]. Vol. IV/1, Pozsony, 1912, 402–403. 52 For instance, the delegation of the Viennese citizens numbered about 4,000: Pál Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi koronázási ünnepély [The crowning ceremony of 1563]’, Századok (1877) 29. The Czech delegation was about 3,000 strong: János Liszthy, ‘II. Miksa beiktatásának rövid leírása’ [A brief account of the inauguration of Maximilian II]. Translated by Győző Kenéz, in Tamás Katona (ed.), A korona kilenc évszázada. Történelmi források a magyar koronáról [Nine centuries of the crown. Historical sources on the Hungarian crown]. Budapest, 1979, 181. Johannis Listhius, ‘Commentariolus de coronatione Maximiliani II.’, in Martinus Georgius Kovachich (ed.), Solennia inauguralia… Pestini, 1790, 15. 53 Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, 31–32. 54 [A]z oly sok és annyira súlyos és tartós háborúkban még megmaradt magyar lovagi rend és magyar katonaság nagyobbik része az ország védelmére és a végvárak őrzőjeként a végvidékeken maradt, a mi szent hitünk kegyetlen ellenségei, a törökök ellen, és csak nagyon kis része jött el ide velünk. Liszthy, ‘II. Miksa’, 180–183. Listhius, ‘Commentariolus’, 15. The account carries a detailed list of the participating Hungarian aristocrats and the number of horsemen accompanying them, that is, their banderia: Liszthy, ‘II. Miksa’, 179– 180. Listhius, ‘Commentariolus’, 13–14.

294

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

bishop of Esztergom Antal Verancsics (Antonius Verantius) also touched emphatically on the Ottoman menace.55 From among the ephemeral structures of the coronation in September 1563 two triumphal arches are known in detail. They were erected on a new pontoon bridge lined with saplings on the edge of the town. 56 The marbleized arches were adorned with the coats of arms of the emperor and the soon-to-be king and queen. The Italian Pietro Ferrabosco, who had also probably been involved in the construction of the mentioned Swiss Gate by the Hofburg, designed both. Maximilian made his solemn entry into Pozsony with his numerous train passing the temporary arches. Following the agreement of the Hungarian diet, 57 the crowning ceremony took place on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 8 September. After the church ceremony at St Martin Church, the new king performed the ceremonial elements of the secular section at various points of town (passing judgment and accolades in the Franciscan church, taking the oath at St Michael’s Gate).58 The next element – the four sword strokes symbolizing the king’s intention to protect the country – took place outside town. Maximilian rode up the coronation mount and brandished his sword in the direction of the four cardinal points. In the interpretation of the onlookers this scene had 55 Vienna, ÖStA, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv, Hofkammerarchiv, Reichsakten, Fasc. 203. (Krönungen), 34v. I am grateful to István Fazekas for directing my attention to this source. 56 Mattheo Francken, Kurtze und Warhaffte beschreybung… Augsburg, 1563, 36. Budapest, OSzK, Régi Nyomtatványok Tára, App. H. 376. Natale Conti, Delle historie de’ suoi tempi. Venetia, 1589, fol. 381v – cited by Péter Farbaky ‘Pietro Ferrabosco in Ungheria e nell’impero asburgico’, Arte Lombarda 139 (2003) 130. Géza Galavics, ‘The Hungarian Royal Court and Late Renaissance Art’, Hungarian Studies 10:2 (1995) 308–309. Árpád Mikó, ‘Pietro Ferrabosco számadásai a Miksa király koronázására épített pozsonyi diadalívek munkálatairól’ [Pietro Ferabosco’s bill of costs concerning the triumphal arches erected for the coronation of Maximilian I as king of Hungary in Bratislava], in Árpád Mikó (ed.), Jankovich Miklós (1772–1846) gyűjteményei [Collections of Miklós Jankovich (1772– 1846)]. (Exh. Cat. Hungarian National Gallery.) Budapest, 2002, No. 280. Árpád Mikó, ‘Pietro Ferrabosco számadása a Miksa magyar királlyá koronázására épített pozsonyi diadalkapukról (1563) [Pietro Ferabosco’s bill of costs concerning the triumphal arches erected for the coronation of Maximilian I as king of Hungary in Pozsony (1563)]’, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 62 (2013) 323–328. Gulyás, ‘Triumphal Arches’. 57 Vilmos Fraknói (ed.), Magyar országgyűlési emlékek történeti bevezetésekkel. Vol. IV. 1557–1563. [Documents of the Hungarian diets with historical introductions]. (Magyar Történelmi Emlékek, Harmadik osztály, Országgyűlési emlékek, IV.) Budapest, 1876, 412– 415. 58 A detailed summary of the events of the day: Ortvay, Pozsony, 417–425.

295

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

salient importance in regard to the fight against the Ottoman Empire. As the deputy of Körmöcbánya (today Kremnica, Slovakia) noted, “those present noticed that the strokes made towards North, West and South were hardly noticeable while the stroke towards the East was powerful and challenging. From this all ranks present concluded that His Majesty’s firm intention was to fight against the main enemy, the Turks living in the east. This sword-stroke thus aroused general enthusiasm and the estates repeatedly cheered the king with acclamations of joy, several voices saying: ‘On to Buda, as soon as possible!’”59 Similarly, when in September 1572 Rudolf was crowned King of Hungary, according to the report sent to the Elector of Bavaria the attendants fêted the future king as a second Matthias Corvinus, ready for battle. 60 That the four sword strokes in Pozsony symbolizing the protection of the country were truly memorable for Rudolf is proven by the iconographic program of the crown (later the Austrian imperial crown) made upon his order in 1602: it put the focus on the imperial victory over the Ottomans in the Long Turkish War. Out of Paulus van Vianen’s four reliefs the first three show the coronations of Rudolf (Pozsony, Prague, Frankfurt am Main) and the Hungarian coronation scene depicting the sword strokes. The fourth relief is an allegorical representation of the emperor’s victory over the Ottomans.61 Both coronations in Pozsony terminated with a three-day tournament. 62 59 [É]szrevették a jelenlévők, hogy Észak, Nyugat és Dél felé ejtett vágás alig észlelhető volt, míg ellenben a Kelet felé szóló erőteljesen és kihívó módon ejtetett. E jelenségből a rendek következtették, miszerint ő felségének elhatározott szándéka legisleginkább a fő ellenség, t. i. a kelet felől lakó török ellen harcolni. E vágás tehát általános lelkesedést idézett elő, s a rendek ismételten örömujjongással üdvözölték a királyt, s több magyar hang kiáltotta: “Csak mielébb Buda felé!”. Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, 42–43. 60 Hilda Lietzmann, ‘Quellen zur ungarischen Krönung Rudolfs II. im Jahre 1572’, Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 42 (1992) 78: note 86. 61 R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World. A Study in Intellectual History 1576–1612. Oxford, 1973, 79–80. Karl Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda Kaiser Rudolfs II. (1576– 1612). (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Geschichte Österreichs, 9.) Wien, 1981, 127. Galavics, Kössünk kardot, 42. 62 More detailed accounts of the coronations: 1563: Account by the secretary of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol in Friedrich Edelmayer – Leopold Kammerhofer – Martin C. Mandlmayr – Walter Prenner – Karl G. Vocelka (eds.), Die Krönungen Maximilians II. zum König von Böhmen, Römischen König und König von Ungarn (1562/63) nach der Beschrei bung des Hans Habersack. (Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Scriptores, 13.) Wien, 1990, 202– 204. Account by János Liszthy (Johannes Listhius), Hungarian court secretary in Liszthy, ‘II. Miksa’. Listhius, ‘Commentariolus’. Account by Lénárd Tilesch, delegate of Körmöc-

296

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

Similarly to the Hussar tournaments of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol and the Wiener Turnier, these spectacular chivalric exercises were specifically suitable for a show of the martial virtues of the participants, and primarily the strength of the Christian cavalry that could confront the Ottomans effectively. In this regard it has symbolic significance that the Hungarians present always appeared in ornate Hussar costumes at all events, from the solemn reception of the future king, through the ceremonial phases, to the chivalric contest. 63 On the third day of the tournament terminating the coronation of Rudolf in 1572 the new king and Archduke Ernest also made their entry in such “Hungarian style” (auff guet Ungerisch) accompanied by a hundred Hussars.64 As another report claims, they wished to represent Attila and the Huns with this costume (armatura pannonica).65 During both coronation festivities, of all tournament exercises it was the traditional siege of a firework fortress that implied direct reference to the Ottomans. On 12 September 1563, there was a joust in the designated field outside town, which was to have been followed by the storming of a fortress made of wood. The equestrian contest went well, but the Feuerwerksschloß packed full of fireworks burst into flames ahead of time through the mistake of an Italian gunner operating the fireworks. From the burning wooden fortress, the earlier mentioned Miklós Zrínyi and his men rescued the powder kegs and

bánya in Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, 46–48. Account by the delegate of Bártfa (today Bardejov, Slovakia) in Martinus Georgius Kovachich (ed.), Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum minores… Vol. 1, Budae, 1798, 137–145. Heinrich Wirrich, Ein warhaftige Beschreibung... Wien, 1563. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 61541-B, and 64.F.8. 1572: Account by the humanist Winandus Phigius, tutor of Charles Friedrich, Duke of JulichCleve, in Robert Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius and the Coronation of Rudolf II as King of Hungary’, in Maria Chiabó – Federico Doglio (eds.), Mito e realtà del potere nel teatro. Dall’Antichità classica al Rinascimento. Roma, 1988, 345–348. Lajos Tardy, ‘Koronázási riport útleírással (1572) [Report of a coronation with travel accounts (1572)]’, in Idem, Históriai ínyencfalatok [Historical titbits]. Budapest, 1989, 60–63. Account by the imperial court secretary Wolf Unverzagt sent by the Bavarian delegate Ludwig Haberstock to Albert V, Elector of Bavaria in Lietzmann, ‘Quellen’, 84–101. 63 Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, 32, 48. Commenting on the account of Unverzagt, Lietzmann, ‘Quellen’, 75: note 78, supposes that in 1572 a lot of Hungarian participants who were dressed entirely in black were alluding to the siege of Szigetvár in 1566. On the representative role of the Hussar costume more recently, see Pálffy, The Kingdom of Hungary, 206. 64 Lietzmann, ‘Quellen’, 80. 65 Winandus Phigius, Hercules prodicius. Antwerpen, 1587. Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius’, 346. Tardy, ‘Koronázási riport’, 61.

297

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

several people were injured.66 When describing the miscarried spectacle those present emphasized, understandably, the devastating fire – the historian Ferenc Forgách, for instance, misinterpreted it as the burning of Troy 67 – but they did not describe the fortress itself. Another eyewitness account, however, makes clear that besieging and blowing up the fortress was to have symbolized the destruction of the effigy of the Ottoman enemy, as it had in Buda in 1501, and in Nuremberg in 1535. Let me quote a contemporary Hungarian chronicle: “John Maximilian had a wooden fortress built with great mastery; there was the image of a Turk on a corner packed full of rockets and prepared for fire works. When the tournament was coming close to a climax, the fortress caught fire, the gunpowder began burning, scorching lots of people, notable master gunners, lots of Italians, sending Emperor Ferdinand into a rage.” 68 A broadsheet69 printed on the occasion of the Pozsony coronation, with a poem 66 Habersack, Die Krönungen, 203. Kržko, ‘Az 1563. évi’, 46–47. 67 Post haec aliquot dies epulis, spectaculis, ludisque equestribus consumpti. Inter quae simulacro Trojae praebito, cum magister ignis artificialis ex pulvere tormentario parati, nihil prius significans succendisset, momentoque omnia corripuisset, neque confertissima multitudo uno saltem eoque augusto aditu elabi posset: multi igne periere; plerique sese praecipitarunt; et cum alii alios praevertere conantur, inter flammam et casum miserandum spectaculum de se praebuere. Fidél Majer (ed.), Forgách Ferenc Magyar históriája 1540– 1572 [Hungarian history by Ferenc Forgách, 1540–1572]. (Magyar Történelmi Emlékek, Második osztály, Írók, XVI.) Pest, 1866, 257–258. 68 Maximili János egy favárat csináltata az pozsonyi mezőn szép mestörséggel, egy törek kép vala egy sarkán, kik mind rakvák vótak apró puskákkal, kit játékhoz készítettek. Mikoron az játék mentül jobb korába vóna, az vár fölgyúlada, az puskapor erősen kezde égni, kiben sok nép ége meg, jeles pattantyús mesterek, sok olaszok, kin az Ferdinandus császár igen megharaguvék. Bessenyei (ed.), Memoria Rerum, 111. See also Wirrich, Ein warhaftige, fol. DIVr. Cf. DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 28. Galavics, Kössünk kardot, 61. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 227. As discussed above, Turkish puppets were also probably used in the siege of a firework fortress in Vienna in 1560 and 1563, cf. notes 48–49. 69 Bratislava, Galéria mesta Bratislavy, C7196. Vienna, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sammlung Woldan, Inv.-No. A-V(Bi):OE/Hun 8. Galavics, ‘The Hungarian’, 308–309. Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Ferdinand I. 1503–1564, Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie. (Exh. Cat. KHM.) Wien, 2003, No. VII.27. Zuzana Ludiková (ed.), Renesancia. Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia. (Exh. Cat. Slovenská Národná Galéria.) Bratislava, 2009, No. II.1.11–12. On the broadsheet, for more detail, see Zuzana Ludiková, ‘Zsámboky János röplapja Miksa magyar királlyá koronázásáról [Broadsheet of Johannes Sambucus on the coronation of Maximilian as king of Hungary]’, Századok 143 (2009) 975–980. Éva Gyulai, ‘Von Sachen gros, von Angsicht klein. Zsámboky János verse Pozsonyról a Habsburg Miksa koronázásáról készült metszeten 1563/1566 [Johannes Sambucus’s poem about Pozsony on the woodcut of the coronation of Maximilian of Habsburg 1563/1566]’, Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis, Sectio Philosophica 17 (2012) 125–151.

298

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE OTTOMANS AND THE COURT FESTIVALS

by Johannes Sambucus (in Hungarian: János Zsámboky), confirms the same spectacle. The woodcut by Donat and Martin Hübschmann accompanying the poem summarizes the festive events in a single large representation. In the top left corner the tournament field can be seen, with a fortress spurting fireworks above it. On the peak of the fortress a large Turkish figure in a turban is clearly shown. The dramaturgy of the Pozsony tournaments in 1572, presumably designed by Giuseppe Arcimboldo included elements all’antica with greater emphasis. 70 On the first day, 27 September, for example, a costumed running at the ring (Ringrennen) was staged with the participants featuring as antique figures (Minerva, Mercury, Flora, Castor and Pollux, Julius Caesar, etc.). 71 That was the already noted event attended by the newly crowned King of Hungary, Rudolf, and Archduke Ernest, in the “Hungarian” or “Pannonian” costume. The fortress siege took place on the last day, 30 September. At first there was a foot tournament of Czech and German groups and Hungarian Hussars, 72 followed by the siege of a firework fortress 73 performed with toy weapons, wooden swords and guns launching wooden cannonballs. The fortress was defended first by infantrymen and then by young suttling wenches. In the notes appended by Simon Forgách to the text of historian Ferenc Forgách, he writes that after the successful siege, the fortress “having been captured, false heads were displayed and puppets were hung from the ramparts.” 74 These must have been similar to the Turkish figures in Nuremberg in 1535 and in the firework fortress at the coronation festivities in 1563. The Ottomans were thus permanent characters in the events of the Habsburg court festivities. At first they were representatives of a strange and exotic nation, gradually becoming the “archenemy” of the Christian world (Erbfeind der Christenheit). After the partition of the Kingdom of Hungary into three 70 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 41–43. Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda, 128. Borbála Gulyás, ‘Die Turniere am Hof der ungarischen Könige im 16. Jahrhundert’, in Matthias Pfaffenbichler – Stefan Krause (eds.), 1000 Years of Tournament. Wien (forthcoming). 71 Giovanbattista Leoni, Le solennissime feste, et gloriosissimi trionfi fatti nella città di Possonio… Venezia, 1572. Budapest, OSzK, Régi Nyomtatványok Tára, Röpl. 286. Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius’, 351–352. Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, 276–279. 72 Leoni, Le solennissime. Lindell, ‘Hercules prodicius’, 353–354. Pfaffenbichler, ‘Das Turnier’, 31. Kiss, ‘A Ragyogó Mágus’, 279. 73 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 42. Lietzmann, ‘Quellen’, 81. 74 [H]ogy már az viadaltul, megvevék, hamis fejeket rakának fel, és csinált embereket akasztanának fel az fokokon. Forgách, Magyar história, 512.

299

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

parts (1541) and the acquisition of the imperial title (1556/58) the Austrian Habsburgs increasingly propagated themselves as the main protectors of the Christian world – and Hungary – against the Ottoman Empire. Accordingly, the Ottomans were represented as overtly negative figures in the court festivities. The costumed tournaments and sieges of firework fortresses with Turkish puppets were highly effective means to disseminate this position. At the end of the century, during the Long Turkish War, these manners of presentation were still the decisive elements in Emperor Rudolf II’s anti-Ottoman propaganda. Recent victories against the Ottomans were now popularized by festive triumphal processions brandishing the trophies seized in the battlefields, and by equally symbolic fortress sieges.75

75 DaCosta Kaufmann, Variations, 48. Vocelka, Die politische Propaganda, 275–279. Galavics, Kössünk kardot, 40–41. Gulyás, ‘Thematisierung’, 229.

300

RUMEN ISTVÁN CSÖRSZ

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP Trumpeters and pipers progressing in a row, Followed by the drummers and cymbals galore, When they begin playing, ears burst with clamour, Even Echo our neighbour comes to join the furore.1

The lines above, by István Gyöngyösi, evocatively describe the attitude of the Hungarian “audience” to the Turkish military band, mehterhane. Several hundred musicians in a sultanic procession must have been a fascinating, impressive spectacle, but even a band with a few members at a frontier fortress of the occupied territory could effectively represent the might of the Ottoman Empire. The corps, also including the standard-bearers, was headed by the mir-i alem (master of the standard) with the musicians forming groups (bölüks) by instruments. The band leader, mehterbaşı, was also the head of the zurna players (pipers), that is, of the melody-playing instrumentalists. The rest of the instruments included trombones (nefir, boru), pairs of small kettle drums (nakkare), large kettle drums (kös), double-headed bass drums (davul) and cymbals (zil).2 On official occasions and in the battlefield, the musicians always performed classical music, peşrevs and semais, but in peacetime they occasionally played at wedding festivities. Relevant data on Ottoman military 1

2

My research was supported by an OTKA F 48440 research grant and the Bolyai János scholarship granted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. István Gyöngyösi, Porábúl megéledett Főnix avagy Kemény János emlékezete [The Phoenix reborn from its ashes. The memory of János Kemény]. (Régi Magyar Könyvtár, Források, 10.) Ed. by József Jankovics – Judit Nyerges, Afterword by József Jankovics. Budapest, 1999, 146. Some historical sources and bibliography on the tárogató: Zoltán Falvy – Bernhard Habla (eds.), A tárogató: történet, akusztikai tulajdonságok, repertoár, hangszerkészítők / Das Tárogató: Geschichte, akustische Merkmale, Repertoire und Instrumentenbauer. Budapest–Oberschutzen, 1998. Balázs Sudár – Rumen István Csörsz, “Trombita, rézdob, tárogató…” A török hadizene és Magyarország [“Trumpet, copper drum, tárogató”. The Turkish military music and Hungary]. Enying, 1996, 33–38.

301

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

musicians are available for fortresses in Ottoman Hungary from the 1540s (pay-rolls, travel accounts), which suggests that music of this kind was probably continuously present for the next 150 years. 3 In Europe, the music of the mehterhane appeared strange and frightening. In the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries depreciatory words were not spared by western travellers or Hungarians, who compared the music to howling wolves and disparaged the performance of the musicians as wretched and primitive. 4 Around the mid-seventeenth century, however, the evaluation of the mehters apparently changed. Although this kind of music still belonged to the enemy, in Transylvania certain political gestures were made through which the official reception of these instruments preceded their slow and spontaneous influx. Prince of Transylvania Imre Thököly, for instance, kept a mehterhane to express his status as a vassal of the Turks. 5 This factor of identity was thus turned inside out: in his own best interest he adjusted his representation to the Ottoman manner, pretending that this was his music too (while he also kept French baroque musicians…). Further rumours about the identity-forming strength of Turkish music also circulated. A later legend purports that a Turkish bey driven off from Szabadka-puszta in the Long War (1593–1606) was hiding around Rimaszombat (today Rimavská Sobota, Slovakia). Two citizens of Szombat, Lopocsy and Zarkóczi, saved him and escorted him to Istanbul. There the bey gave them a pipe, hearing the sound of which the Ottomans would refrain from harassing the town. To achieve this, the pipe was played every quarter hour in the tower of the church. There are indeed two instruments perhaps of Turkish origin in Rimaszombat, but the authenticity of the story itself is doubtful. 6 This fad of the Turkish style was unusual and repulsive for many people. A Transylvanian nobleman István Wesselényi wrote in his diary that in the time of Ferenc Rákóczi II’s war of independence, the Ottomans themselves were surprised by all that drumming with “dog-spirited devotion”. 7 The diary of 3 4 5 6 7

Ibid., 64–68, 117–122. Ibid., 7–65. Ibid., 72. Imre Findura, Rima-Szombat szabadalmas város története [The history of the exempted city Rimaszombat]. Budapest, 1894, 145–147. 28 March 1707. István Wesselényi, Sanyarú világ. Napló (1703–1708) [Pressured world. Diary 1703–1708]. Ed. by András Magyari – Lajos Demény. Vol. II, Bukarest, 1983–1985, 126.

302

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

István Halmágyi reveals that “when Ogelli’s regiment entered, they brought along Turkish drums and cymbals; they say many a regiment owns such things; some people do not make anything good of this tendency to adopt customs of the enemy without a reason”.8 Wesselényi recorded the following case of German troops in Transylvania: “The same pipers, the customary pipers of the regiment who had served music for the banqueters, came forth with 6 big Turkish drums with cymbals and seven pairs of smaller drums and started to blow and beat Turkish tunes for the gentlemen, and the gentlemen listened to them with keen attention.” We learn that earlier, the Hungarians used to order Turkish music to annoy the Germans, “and now they are making fun of our loyalty by having Turkish music performed”. The Hungarians took delight in this derisive music, “which made me despair and weep, but the Germans – seeing the attention of the gentlemen – found it laughable”.9

The Instruments and Their Names Although the terminology of instruments was not unified in the sixteenth– seventeenth centuries or later, I adduce language-based examples. Pipe (síp) never denoted a single instrument, but usually stood for double reeds. All these data would rightly belong to the subject matter, but my specific aim is to systematize the available information on the Turkish pipe (töröksíp) and the tárogató (on the basis of the caption of an eighteenth-century print and usage of the word in the nineteenth century). The Turkish pipe is the only Hungarian instrument whose name refers to Turkish origin. It is highly likely, however, that the specimens kept in museums today and those only known from written sources designate a group of kindred reed instruments instead of a single unified type. The analogous Hungarian words törökbúza (lit. Turkish wheat = corn) and törökméz (lit. Turkish honey = honeycomb toffee) warn that not all things called Turkish are of Turkish origin, even if they denote cultural goods coming from afar. 8 9

Cf. Marián Réthei-Prikkel, ‘A tárogató sip eredetisége [The originality of the tárogató pipe]’, Nyelvőr 47 (1918) 4. 22 September 1704. Wesselényi, Sanyarú világ, Vol. I, 230. György Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’, Studia Musicologica 13 (1971) 61–72.

303

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

Reliance on the written sources does not make things easier. The two names of the instrument type – töröksíp and tárogató – are sometimes side by side (in such cases they are not identical), and sometimes they are synonyms; the nineteenth-century press articles usually fed on memories and not on the facts of the present; the enthusiasm for the national cause often overcame precision. Around 1859 everyone turned out to be experts on the tárogató and scores of utopian essays were written, for it was believed to be a national relic, related even to the legendary horn of Lehel, the Hungarian chieftain who lived in the tenth century (after András Dugonics, see below). Taking the tárogató for a literary motif may throw some light on the evolution of our conception of the past. Below I would like to review the Hungarian career of this instrument type, with an outlook to the mentioned aspect as well. In Asia and this region of Europe a variety of oboe-type folk instruments can be found. They divide into two subtypes: the conic schalmey (shawm) type and the zurna type with a (more or less) cylindrical body and a short wide bell at the end. We can neither confirm nor confute László Lajtha’s hypothesis that the Hungarians arriving in the Carpathian Basin had borrowed it from the Turkic groups using double-reed instruments. 10 It is presumed that the shawm was known here in the middle ages. Woodwind players were generally called pipers (sípos) (on the model of Latin fistulator) at that time, just as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the seventeenth century mentions are made of German and Polish pipes in sources, which might have been relatives of the schalmey or bombarde (pommer). Played foremost by German and Polish musicians, they were carefully differentiated from the Turkish pipes. One German and four Turkish pipers were included in Thököly’s orchestra in 1685.11 It is not unlikely that in seventeenth-century Hungary a shawm family and a freshly borrowed zurna type lived on side by side. The name Turkish pipe does not occur in Hungarian sources before 1643. Obviously, at first the zurna was called by this name, initially in the form of a noun phrase (as compared to the later compound word töröksíp). In legation in 1687, Márton Boér mentions a Bulgarian wedding at Dragoevo where “a Turk10 László Lajtha, ‘A tárogatóról [About the tárogató]’, in Lajtha László összegyűjtött írásai [Collected papers by László Lajtha]. Ed. by Melinda Berlász. Budapest, 1992, 201. 11 Bence Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje [Hungarian aristocratic court music in the 17th century]’, in Idem, A magyar zene évszázadai [Centuries of the Hungarian music]. Vol. I, Budapest, 1959, 248.

304

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

ish piper and a drummer were invited.” 12 István Almády mentions these instrumentalists in the band of the pasha of Buda receiving Thököly in 1692. 13 Thököly sent Ferenc Horvát “to the gate keeper (kapucı başı) Ahmet Ağa” in 1691 to acquire six Turkish pipes and four Hungarian trumpets. 14 The prince also had native Turkish musicians, so he might have wanted to get instruments for them. The origin of the word tárogató is also obscure. The name of the tarakawa of the Sorbs of Lausitz15 suggests onomatopoeic origins; one hypothesis is that Hungarians borrowed it and tried to make it comprehensible by folk etymology. The word form can be retraced in sixteenth–eighteenth-century dictionaries, but these entries are far from being unambiguous. In Murmellius’ glossary of 1533 it stands for the bagpipe. 16 In 1572, a musician in Márkó Horvát’s employ is said to be a tárogató piper and a “good player of the bagpipe, too”. 17 In 1597 and in Wagner’s dictionary (1750) it stands for fistula (“pipe”).18 In the dictionary of Calepinus (1585) and that of Albert Szenci Molnár (1604, 1611) the Latin equivalent of tárogató or billegető síp (lit. tilting pipe) is tibia, a double-reed instrument.19 Comenius says it was an instrument for military music: “the trumpeters doubled with the blare of the tárogató pipes encourage

12 Márton Boér, ‘Historia…’, in József Jankovics (ed.), Énekek és versek 1686–1700 [Songs and poems 1686–1700] (Régi Magyar Költők Tára, XVII. század [henceforth RMKT XVII], 14.) Budapest, 1991, No. 17, line 960. 13 István Almády’s diary (Palánka, 1 July 1692). Cf. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 239. 14 Ibid., 248. 15 See the article “tárogató” in Loránd Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti–etimológiai szótára [Historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language]. Vols. I–IV, Budapest, 1967–1976. Cf. Leopold Haupt – Johann Ernst Schmaler, Volkslieder der Sorben in der Ober- und Nieder-Lausitz. Grimma, 1841, 218, image 4 (instrument without keys, with oboe-like reed). The modern clarinet-like tarakakwa has 9+1 tone holes and 4 keys. 16 Ascaula. Sackpfeyff. Tarogato syp. See the article tárogató in Benkő (ed.), A magyar nyelv történeti–etimológiai szótára. The identification of the instruments must be an error. 17 Emil Haraszti, ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc a zenében [Representations of Francis Rákóczi II in music]’, in Rákóczi-emlékkönyv [Book in memory of Rákóczi]. Vol. II, Budapest, 1934, 246. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. 18 unum fistulatorem cum fistula, quae vulgo tarogato sip nuncupatur (1597). Réthei Prikkel, ‘A tárogató sip eredetisége’, 3. 19 See the entries Tibia, Tibicen, Billegetösip, Tárogato sip, Tarogato sipos in the Calepinusdictionary published in 1585, and Albert Szenci Molnár, Dictionarium Latinoungaricum. Nürnberg, 1604. Facsimile edition. (Bibliotheca Hungarica Antiqua, XXV.) Budapest, 1990.

305

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

redoubled activity”;20 elsewhere schalmey is used.21 Ferenc Pápai Páriz clearly speaks of a double-reed instrument, a Turkish pipe: “Tárogató pipe: tibia, eine Schyalmey, Pfeife. Türkische Flöte [!].”22 This is taken over by Dávid Baróti Szabó: “Turkish or ancient Hungarian pipe.”23 References to the tárogató in the literature are earlier than those of the Turkish pipe. In 1606 “the tárogató pipe was being blown with joy”.24 A poem of 1636 says that at a banquet of the prodigal son, the enormous orchestra Shall have nine fiddlers, virginal players fourteen, Excellent harpists ten, tárogató players four…25

Seventeenth-Century Musical Occasions Involving the Turkish Pipe One of the main roles of the Turkish pipe was in military music. The Turkish piper of János Kemény, Prince of Transylvania, János Bossó, had his arm shot through in the battlefield and his drummer companion was also wounded. 26 In the epic of László Listius about the battle of Mohács (reflecting upon his own age, the seventeenth century), both the Hungarian and the Ottoman troops included Turkish pipers. Of Louis II he writes: He had the trumpets blare, his tent undone, his flags raised, [He ordered] his fine Turkish pipers and tárogató players to play, and the drums to roll.27 20 On page 149 of Johannes Amos Comenius’ Janua. Cf. Réthei Prikkel, ‘A tárogató sip eredetisége’, 3. 21 Johannes Amos Comenius’ Orbis sensualium pictus is cited by Izabella Biró, ‘Tárogató’ [Tárogató], Magyar Nyelv 65 (1965) 208. István Pávai, Az erdélyi és a moldvai magyarság népi tánczenéje [The folk dance music of Hungarians in Transylvania and Moldavia]. Budapest, 1993, 26. 22 Ferenc Pápai Páriz’s Dictionarium is cited by Réthei Prikkel, ‘A tárogató sip eredetisége’, 3. 23 Ibid. 24 Imre Mikó, Erdélyi Történelmi Adatok [Transylvanian historical data]. Vol. III, Kolozsvár, 1858, 84. 25 János Szentmártoni Bodó’s versified story ‘A tékozló fiú históriája [History of the prodigal son]’ (1636) is quoted in Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 233. 26 July–August 1644, along the Nyitra. ‘Kemény János Önéletírása (1664) [Autobiography of János Kemény]’, in Éva V. Windisch (ed.), Kemény János és Bethlen Miklós művei [Works of János Kemény and Miklós Bethlen]. (Magyar Remekírók) Budapest, 1983, 238. 27 László Listius, Magyar Mars [Hungarian Mars]. Vienna, 1653, Part V, couplet 52. Further

306

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

As for the Ottoman camp: Everywhere in the front and rear the signal was sounded, Trumpets blared forth, and in the crowd Turkish pipes were blown…28 As the lists of orchestras in the court of Transylvanian princes reveal, 1 or 2 Turkish pipers were employed (with a larger number of trumpeters). The account books of Prince György Rákóczi I for 1655 does not name an exact number, but mentions “Turkish pipers” in general. In 1666, Prince Mihály Apafi I had 1 Turkish piper, in 1672 he had two. 1 Turkish piper, 1 Polish piper and 4 piper apprentices are known to have been employed in Ferenc Rákóczi I’s court (1668).29 Aristocrats also only kept a Turkish piper or two. One was in the service of László Rákóczi (imprisoned for an offence committed on 29 August 1654). 30 In the fortress of Munkács (today Mukačeve, Ukraine) there were two Turkish pipers (tereksípos) (1686).31 When the bride of Leopold I was received in Vienna in 1666, the pipers were in pairs too,32 similarly to a funeral in Nagyszeben (today Sibiu, Romania) organized by István Wesselényi. The list of Pál Esterházy’s troops includes two tárogató players in 1684, one of them accompanied by a piper apprentice.33 The instrument was a permanent participant in the processions and festive occasions of the courts of the Transylvanian princes and aristocrats. Entries, paying homage. When Prince Ákos Barcsai entered Beszterce in 1659, he proceeded in concert with drums and trumpets. 34 When in the same reference to the Turkish pipe: Part IV, couplet 5 (in general). 28 Ibid., Part XI, strophe 33. 29 Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 247, 277. Kornél Bárdos (ed.), Magyarország zenetörténete. Vol. II: 1541–1686 [History of the music in Hungary, 1541–1686]. Budapest, 1990, 114. 30 29 August 1654. Rákóczi László naplója [Diary of László Rákóczi]. (Magyar Hírmondó) Ed. by Ildikó Horn. Budapest, 1990, 62. 31 4 June 1686. Sándor Szilágyi, ‘Zrinyi Ilona levelei [The letters of Ilona Zrínyi]’, Történelmi Tár (1880) 422. Gábry ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. 32 Lajos Szádeczky, ‘I. Lipót mátkájának bevonúlása Bécsbe (1666. december 5-én) [The entry of the bride of Leopold I into Vienna (5 December 1666)]’, Századok 18 (1884) 143– 145. 33 Frigyes Bubics (ed.), Cornaro Frigyes velencei követ jelentése [Report of the Venetian ambassador Federico Cornaro]. Budapest, 1891, 376. 34 2 March 1659. The Latin text uses the term fistula Turcica, which alludes to the knowledge

307

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

year Prince György Rákóczi II entered Marosvásárhely (today Târgu Mure ș, Romania), a Turkish piper played the “tune of the Wallachian girl”. 35 In 1684, Prince Mihály Apafi II went to the Ottoman envoy and later to the old prince for dinner to the sound of Turkish pipes, trumpets and drums. 36 Péter Apor claims that when a young lord “had his horse jump with fine moderation, Turkish pipes and trumpets were sounded”.37 In 1707, wounded Ferenc Gyulai was escorted by his captive piper and a German musician. 38 In 1708, Ferenc Rákóczi II was greeted several times with dawn music played by his pipers and trumpeters, the pipers playing both Turkish pipes and salezmai (shawm).39 Table music. Péter Apor mentions several times that the Transylvanian aristocrats “were very fond of the Turkish pipe as a musical instrument, together with the drum; there were fine Hungarian tunes which they played and the best of the people were drinking by that music. The tunes they played on the pipe made the people drink and make merry; now those beautiful Hungarian tunes cannot be played by anyone any more in Transylvania.” Everyone had table musicians: “trumpeters, Turkish pipers, fiddlers, bagpipers, recorder and dulcimer players, singers, table entertainers or fools, as they were called.”40 of the Hungarian term. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje”, 276. 35 Andreas Franck’s account (29 September 1659). Ferenc Pesovár, ‘Az elveszett juhait sirató pásztor története. Újabb adalék egy táncpantomim elterjedéséhez [The story of the sheperd who lost his sheep. New data about the spread of a dance-pantomime]’, Táncművészeti Értesítő 1969, fasc. 2, 87. Ernő Pesovár, A magyar tánctörténet évszázadai [Centuries of the Hungarian dance history]. Budapest, 1972, 37. 36 18 September 1684, Gyulafehérvár; reception of the sultanic insignia acknowledging Mihály Apafi II as Prince of Transylvania. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 223. Bárdos (ed.), Magyarország zenetörténete, Vol. II, 115. 37 Péter Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae (1736). Ed. by László Kócziány – Réka Lőrinczy. Bukarest, 1978. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 241. 38 23 August 1707. Wesselényi, Sanyarú világ, Vol. II, 275. 39 On 1 January 1708 the New Year is greeted (in György Körössy’s accounts of 2 January: Töröksíposoknak cantálásba 1 arany; … salezmai síposoknak 2 [For the New Year music presentation to Turkish pipers 1 gold; … for salezmay pipers 2]). On 1 May 1708 in Szerencs, the start of the martial year is greeted with music, on 1 January 1709 the New Year was greeted with music at Munkács. Tamás Esze, ‘Zenetörténeti adataink II. Rákóczi Ferenc szabadságharcának idejéből (1703–1712) [Music history data from the period of the war of independence of Ferenc Rákóczi II (1703–1712)]’, in Bence Szabolcsi – Dénes Bartha (eds.), Zenetudományi tanulmányok. A magyar zene történetéből [Studies in musicology. From the history of Hungarian music]. Vol. IV, Budapest, 1955, 73–75, 77. 40 Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae, 42–43, 78.

308

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

Wedding processions. The earliest data is from 1643. During the reception of the bride for the wedding of Prince György Rákóczi II and Zsófia Báthory, eyewitnesses emphasized the playing of Turkish and Polish pipers in their recollections.41 As Péter Apor reports, in a wedding procession “the kin of the bride and groom usually marched at the head of the party, preceded by the Turkish pipers and trumpeters with drums”.42 Dance accompaniment. It can be read in the 1703 diary of Ferenc Gyulai that on a stormy night Hungarian and German officers danced to the music of 6 (!) tárogató pipers. “The louder it was thundering and lightning … the louder music the German officers ordered from the pipers.” In November the kuruc fighters made merry to the music of the Turkish pipe and tárogató pipe several nights; it means that the two instruments were not identical. 43 Funerals. Imre Thököly escorted István Borbély to his grave “to the music of drums, trumpets, and Turkish pipes”. 44 In 1708, István Wesselényi hired two pipers for a funeral procession; they played alternating with three trumpeters. 45 They followed a coach, although Péter Apor recorded that in the procession “Turkish pipers and trumpeters were followed by the coaches of the nobility, and then came the commoners. … A couplet was sung by the students, another was played by the trumpeters and Turkish pipers, who had such plaintive laments for funerals that even the men were made to weep, and the women kept sobbing. And the students sang, the musicians played right up to the burial place…”46 The literary, metaphorical occurrence of the Turkish pipe alludes to Transylvania’s pro-Ottoman politics. Towards the end of the seventeenth 41 2 February 1643. Bárdos (ed.), Magyarország zenetörténete, Vol. II, 114: 16 trombitás, két töröksípos, két lengyel sípos (16 trumpeters, 2 Turkish pipers, 2 Polish pipers). Legate’s report to Palatine Miklós Esterházy in Gábor Várkonyi (ed.), II. Rákóczy György esküvője [The wedding of György Rákóczi II, Prince of Transylvania]. (Régi magyar történelmi források, 2.) Budapest, 1990, 66. 42 Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae, 98. 43 Szatmár, 28 June 1703; 10, 11, and 12 November 1703. Sándor Márki (ed.), Gróf Gyulai Ferenc naplója (1703–1704) [Diary of Count Ferenc Gyulai]. Budapest, 1928, 11–12, 114. Esze, ‘Zenetörténeti adataink’, 53–54. 44 Diary of Imre Thököly (23 March 1693). Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 234. 45 Nagyszeben, 14 April 1708. The musicians walked after the coaches. Wesselényi, Sanyarú világ, Vol. II, 491, 494. The two pipers and the drummer got 6 florins, and the three trumpeters got 10. Ibid., 496. 46 Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae, 132–133.

309

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

century the image of “who pays the piper calls the tune” (in Hungarian, literally you must dance to the tune played for you) is more and more frequent. 47 In a verse insert of an eighteenth-century history book it is included in this sense, but there is a versified line put down as late as the 1870s, saying: “Transylvania will dance as the Turkish pipe plays.”48 Around 1660, in a song about the conflict with the Tatars, the Tatar pipe for military and dance music is used in this context, explicitly alluding to the Hungarian troops “being led on a cruel dance”: I will not forget earthen defence, Where the Tatar pipe was blown, There the Tatars owned the floor, And the Magyar had a wretched dance to dance.49

1711–1835 The legend saying that after the war of liberation led by Ferenc Rákóczi II the Habsburgs collected and burnt all tárogató pipes, looking upon them as symbols of independence, has not been substantiated so far. Most likely it was a product of the kuruc romanticism in the nineteenth century.50 The popularity of the instrument did not decrease with time passing. It can be read in a letter of 1734 that Sándor Károlyi’s “Turkish pipe was taken along for the recruitment by Captain Imre Irányi”. 51 The inauguration of Sámuel 47 RMKT XVII/14, No. 87, verse 82. 48 István Bartalus, Magyar Népdalok Egyetemes Gyűjteménye [General collection of Hungarian folk songs]. Mezőkövesd, 1873–1896. 49 ‘Miért sírsz a hegyen, Sebes? [Why are you crying on the mountain, Sebes?]’, in Imre Varga, Az 1660-as évek költészete [Hungarian poems of the 1660s]. (RMKT XVII/10.) Budapest, 1981, No. 48, couplets 122 and 124. In a similar sense: couplet 52. 50 It first appeared in the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung of Leipzig in 1814. Ervin Major, ‘A Rákóczi-kor zenéje. Adatok a XVIII–XIX. század magyar zenetörténetéhez [The music of the Rákóczi period. Data to Hungarian music history of the 18th–19th centuries]’, in Fejezetek a magyar zene történetéből [Chapters from the history of Hungarian music]. Budapest, 1967, 113. Pávai, Az erdélyi és a moldvai magyarság népi tánczenéje, 26. Béla Tóth, ‘A tárogató [The tárogató]’, in Idem, Magyar ritkaságok [Hungarian curiosities]. Budapest, 1899, 294. 51 Letter to Sándor Károlyi (12 May 1734). Géza Papp (ed.), Hungarian Dances (1784–

310

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

Kemény as főispán (supremus comes) of the county at Bilak on 11 April 1737 was celebrated “by the noble county with drums, trumpets, and Turkish pipes”.52 The caption of a picture says the Hungarian Hussars mounted their horses to tárogató music.53 In 1740 in the fortress of Erdőd the New Year was greeted with the sound of drums, trumpets, and Turkish pipes. 54 In István Tóth’s poem of 1742 the nobility of Szabolcs55 Mounted frisking steeds like soaring birds, And made merry with tár[o]gató pipes. When in 1784 the Holy Crown of Hungary was returned, the tárogató was frequently included in the festivities. In Buda, the keepers of the crown headed the ceremonial procession, “followed by the Cumans, Jazygians and people from Kecskemét with Turkish pipes”. 56 In Nagyvárad (today Oradea, Romania) the noblemen gathered “amidst sounds of tárogató pipes and trumpets”.57 In 1790, on the occasion of the diet in Buda the tárogató was played in front of the mounted troops of Tolna, Zala, and Szabolcs Counties. 58 The tárogató was also played at the coronation of Leopold II in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) when the crown was carried across the bridge. Several mentions are 1810). (Musicalia Danubiana, 7.) Budapest, 1986, 13. 52 Szabolcsi, ‘A XVII. század magyar főúri zenéje’, 241. Bence Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje [Hungarian college music in the 18th century]’, in Idem, A magyar zene évszázadai [Centuries of Hungarian music]. Vol. II, Budapest, 1961, 91. 53 Piper of the Hungarian regiment (first half of eighteenth century), in Martin Engelbrecht (ed.), Theatre de la Milice etrangere... Augsburg, 1742: Ich pfeiff dazu den Marsch, wann all’ zu Pferde sitzen, quoted in Sándor Domanovszky (ed.), Magyar művelődéstörténet [History of Hungarian culture]. Vol. III, Budapest, 1939–1943, 26, 613. 54 László Szalay (ed.), Gróf Károlyi Sándor önéletírása és naplójegyzetei [Count Sándor Károlyi’s autobiography and diary notes]. Vol. II, Pest, 1865. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 91. 55 Géza Orlovszky (ed.), Toth István költői művei [Poems by István Toth]. Budapest, 2001, No. 1, Part 8, couplet 43. Cf. Biró, ‘Tárogató’, 208. 56 21 February 1784. Ede S. Hoffer, Krónika Magyarország polgári és egyházi közéletéből a 18-dik század végén. Keresztesi József eredeti naplója [Chronicle about the public life of the civic and ecclesiastic spheres of Hungary at the end of the 18th century. Original diary of József Keresztesi]. Pest, 1868, 201. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 94. 57 15 March 1784. Hoffer, Krónika Magyarország polgári és egyházi közéletéből, 212. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 94. 58 Hoffer, Krónika Magyarország polgári és egyházi közéletéből, 249. Gábor Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története és egyéb írások [General history of music and other writings]. (Magyar Hírmondó) Ed. by György Gábry. Budapest, 1984, 131.

311

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

made of Hungarian soldiers blowing the tárogató pipe to play “Turkish music” in the versified account of József Gvadányi. 59 There are also indications of a fashion for the western variant of music alla turca as we find it in compositions by Gluck, Mozart, and Haydn.60 At the wedding of László Székely and Kata Bánffy (on 7 August 1742) the festive procession included two Turkish pipers and a copper drummer with a string band behind them and two trumpeters bringing up the rear.61 In György Rettegi’s report of 1760 the Turkish piper also played in a wedding procession: “The crowds set out, with a Turkish piper if they had one, and other musicians such as fiddlers, gardon and dulcimer players, and headed where the parents of the bride or she herself lived.”62 The vociferous instrument was used to accompany dances in the eighteenth century too. The writing of János Laczkovics and Ignác Martinovics mocking the boorishness of the nobility (1790) also alludes to dancing: “In addition to their tárogató pipe, they are satisfied with the Jew’s harp, bagpipe, and recorder to whose ear-splitting grousing and screaming you can click your ankles enough.”63 The tárogató also occurs in poems by Mihály Fazekas and Márton Etédi Sós.64 In the memoirs of András Fáy there is mention of the military assembly (“insurrection”) of the regional nobility at Sárospatak, during which he first heard this instrument. The tárogató had an “extremely shrill penetrating sound, to such a degree that we, standing by the Catholic church, heard its notes blown a considerable distance away from us, at the College, as clearly as if it had been played next to us”.65 In the first half of the nineteenth century there are several accounts of the surviving instrument. The name Turkish pipe gradually disappeared, but 59 József Gvadányi, A’ mostan folyó ország gyűlésinek satyrico criticé való leírása [A satiricocritical account of the ongoing diet]. Lipsia, 1791, 64, 205, 207, 265. Cf. Délibáb (1853) 126–127. 60 Cf. Sudár – Csörsz, “Trombita, rézdob, tárogató…”, 72–81. 61 Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 91. 62 Ibid., 92. 63 The work of Ignác Martinovics, A Magyarország gyűlésiben egybengyűlt… [Oratio ad proceres et nobiles regni Hungariae…]. Translated by János Laczkovics. S. l., 1791, is quoted in Haraszti, ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc a zenében’, 180–181. Szabolcsi ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 280. 64 Biró, ‘Tárogató’, 208. 65 András Fáy, ‘Sáros-Patak 1794 tájban [Sáros-Patak around 1794]’, Nefelejcs (1859) 5. Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 95.

312

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

tárogató remained. Kristóf Simai (1792, 1809) mentions “tárigató and tárogató pipers” and Antal Szalkay speaks of the “táragató”. 66 István Sándor and Sámuel Gyarmathi mention it as a synonym for tarot (the French archetype of the bassoon).67 Kálmán Thaly’s story about Hungarians enraged to such a degree by the sound of the tárogató that they killed forty Germans is probably mere fanciful raving.68 The Hungarian composer János Fusz (Johann Evangelist Fuss) describes the instrument in his Letter from Pest in 1809: “The oldest instrument of the Hungarians is the War pipe [sic!], a screeching, penetrating, earsplitting relative of the shawm audible from a large distance, and resembles the oboe but is somewhat shorter. … In a region of Hungary people still dance to its sound after a wedding, although it has a plainly rough, barbarous tone.” 69 The cult of the tárogató in literature began at this time. The authors mainly refer to it as a military instrument, alluding to its alleged origin at the time of Magyar Conquest. In András Dugonics’s novel Etelka (1788), it is identical with the legendary horn of the Magyar chieftain, Lehel. 70 In 1807 Antal Szirmay also describes it as a military instrument used by the infantry together with the drum, but he identifies it with the Etruscan and Roman trumpet called lituus.71 In 1800, the grammarian József Márton used it to designate “Schalmey”, “Feldschalmey”.72 Gábor Mátray describes it as a clamorous instrument similar to the clarinet, sounded before battles. 73 It was also used in the Napoleonic wars: it was named in a speech given during festivities of the Stipits Hussars in Zsombolya in 1810. 74 In 1812, Lieutenant General László Jakkó 66 Fáy, ‘Sáros-Patak 1794 tájban’, 5. Szabolcsi ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 95. 67 Cf. Sámuel Gyarmathi, Vocabularium in quo plurima hungaricis vocibus consona variarum linguarum vocabula collegit S. Gy. / Szótár, melyben sok magyar szókhoz hasonló hangú, idegen nyelvbeli szókat rendbe szedett Gy. S. Vienna, 1816, 77. István Sándor, Sokféle [Miscellaneous]. Vol. XII, Győr, 1808, 139. Biró, ‘Tárogató’, 209. 68 Gy. B. (?), ‘A bujdosó tárogató’ [The hiding tárogató], Magyar Vasárnap 1951, 5. 69 János Fusz, ‘Pesti levél [Letter from Pest]’, Allgemeine Musikzeitung 1809. Haraszti, ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc a zenében’, 182. 70 András Dugonics, Etelka. Vol. I, Pozsony–Pest, 1788, 266. Biró, ‘Tárogató’, 208. 71 Musica Hungarorum: Lituus Tárogató síp, et tympana peditum, tuba equitum bellica musica fuit. Antal Szirmay, Hungaria in parabolis sive commentarii in adagia et dicteria Hungarorum. Buda, 18041, 18072, §.101. 72 Biró, ‘A tárogató’, 211. 73 Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története, 59, 142. 74 Hazai és Külföldi Tudósítások 1810, fasc. 22; Haraszti, ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc a zenében’, 249.

313

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

writes (metaphorically) of “light pipes of the meadow”. 75 In Ádám Pálóczi Horváth’s Ötödfélszáz énekek (Four-hundred and fifty songs) the name of the instrument is included in titles and (his own) poems. 76 He stresses that “Magyars do not dance, but go to battle to the sound of the tárogató”.77 Mihály Piringer says that noblemen had them played ahead of them in procession when they went out to the fields.78 The instrument is particularly frequent in the traditional area of the Jászkunság. During the Seven Years’ War, the cavalry of this area had their own tárogató players.79 During the inauguration of archbishops of Eger, Károly Eszterházy (1790), Ferenc Fuchs (1804), and István Fischer (1807), Jazygians and Cumans played the tárogató.80 When around 1814–15 Antal Somogyi was inaugurated as captain-general of the Jászkunság area, István Selyem of Kunszentmiklós played the tárogató.81 It was around this date that the later “spokesman” of the instrument István Fáy met Ferenc Kazinczy who called his attention to an 80-year-old cattle-herd and tárogató player in Fony (Abaúj County). Unfortunately, by the time Fáy arrived there, the musician had died and as his son refused to follow in his footsteps, the piper had burnt his instrument before his death.82 Lajos Szilágyi “discovered” the 74-year-old tárogató player András Sós of Hegyközpályi in 1822. The aged musician was invited to Nagyvárad to play: his night music allegedly attracted a thousand or so people to the window of 75 Letter of László Szalárdy Jakkó to Gábor Döbrentei (Újpécs, 6 March 1812). Ágnes Gupcsó, ‘Jakkó László tábori dalgyűjteménye. Egy ismeretlen kézirat nyomában [The military song collection of László Jakkó. In the wake of an unknown manuscript]’, in Mária Domokos (ed.), Zenetudományi Dolgozatok [Studies in musicology]. Budapest, 1982, 123. 76 No. 11, Tárogató [Haj, Rákóczi, Bercsényi]; No. 46, Tiszamellyéki mars, ekhós tárogató [March from the Tisza, tárogató with echo]; No. 47, Túl-a-tiszai mars [March beyond the Tisza], line 22: …Fújd meg a tárogatót! [Blow the tárogató]; No. 81, A kiszabadúlt madár [The freed bird], Trumpet, copper drum, tárogató or military tilting pipe. 77 Dénes Bartha – József Kiss (eds.), Ötödfélszáz Énekek. Pálóczi Horváth Ádám dalgyűjteménye az 1813. évből [450 songs. The song collection of Ádám Pálóczi Horváth]. Budapest, 1953, 761: No. 45. 78 Michael von Piringer, Ungarns Banderien, und desselben gesetzmäßige Kriegsverfassung überhaupt. Bd. II, Vienna, 1816, 388. 79 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 512. 80 G. I.’s (?) report, Délibáb 1853, 126–127. Tóth, ‘A tárogató’, 295. Kornél Bárdos, Eger zenéje (1687–1887) [The music of Eger]. Budapest, 1987, 213, 215, 217. 81 Lajos Virág’s report. Délibáb 1853, 186. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. 82 Délibáb 1853, 126–27.

314

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

Captain Simonyi.83 There was an intention to copy his instrument in Debrecen, but the attempt was foiled.84 At the inauguration of the főispán of Arad County József Wenckheim in 1825 a tárogató player in a black shirt and loose pants from Nógrád County played, but “he played poorly, and the instrument was cracked, anyway”. 85 When Gábor Keglevich was inaugurated in Balassagyarmat (6 November 1827), two tárogató players played as the cavalry marched in. 86 When the főispán of Abaúj County Lajos Károlyi entered into office, tárogató pipes were played again (1830).87 A musician of Rimaszombat, Márton Radics (Raditt) claims that in Eger, around 1830, a tárogató player from Debrecen called Boka was in service.88 In Szatmár the last tárogató player died in 1832, but until then the craft was passed down from father to son. 89 The two tárogatós allegedly of Turkish origin kept in the town hall of Rimaszombat were used for tower music (to indicate the clock strokes) until 1835; they were played when Duke Koháry entered the town and főispán Zichy was inaugurated.90 During the inauguration of Imre Palugyai as Bishop of Nyitra (1839) a tarittyú player called Ligats performed, having learned to play in his family.91 The Age of Reforms (1825–1848) and the years of the dualist monarchy from 1867 onwards abound in deliberate attempts to keep the old Turkish pipe alive.92 In his incidental music for József Gaál’s play Svatopluk, Károly Thern had it appear with orchestral accompaniment on 23 February 1839. For the inauguration of György Károlyi as főispán of the county, the Túrkeve lawyer 83 Zenészeti Lapok 1862, 246. 84 Bihar 1863, fasc. 29. A Hon 1863, fasc. 83. 85 Zenészeti Lapok 1862, 246. Ottó Lakatos, Arad története [History of Arad]. Vol. I, Arad, 1881, 92. 86 Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története és egyéb írások, 307. Pávai, Az erdélyi és a moldvai magyarság népi tánczenéje, 26. 87 Tóth, ‘A tárogató’, 295. 88 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 571. Magyar Sajtó 1859, 1122–1123 (he thought it was Recsky who played). He might perhaps be identical with András Boka, the uncle of the band leader Károly Boka, who was the trumpeter of the cavalry regiment of Szabolcs in 1809. Bálint Sárosi, Cigányzene [Gypsy music]. Budapest, 1971, 111. Not included in the list of musicians in Bárdos, Eger zenéje. 89 Magyar Sajtó 1859, 1122–1123. 90 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 571. 91 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 476. Pesti Napló 1859, fasc. 260. Tóth, ‘A tárogató’, 295. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. 92 In more detail: Sudár – Csörsz, “Trombita, rézdob, tárogató…”, 95–98.

315

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

László Hajdú, a famous advocate of the instrument in the press, was asked to play the tárogató on 16–17 May 1842. His articles inform posterity of several, now lost, instruments.93 When in Nyitra, Count Lajos Károlyi was installed, a reconstructed copy of János Ligats’s instrument (inherited from his father) was also involved.94 In 1843, Gergely Czuczor mentions it as a peasant instrument. 95 From an account of a wedding near Miskolc we learn that “next to the flag walks the Turkish piper whose pipe is identical with Rákóczi’s lost and now wholly unknown tárogató. The Turkish pipe has a brass pipe inside: its sound is plaintive and intense. I heard such a Turkish pipe when I was a child, and when Count Reviczky visited Borsod again, the Turkish pipe was played to honour the ceremonial procession of the mounted men in blue shirts from K… The poor old piper wanted to play one of Rákóczy’s old tunes, but his chest was too weak to blow. Nobody can blow the Turkish pipe today”.96 In 1848, the tárogató cropped up again as fuel to patriotic feelings. Band leader Károly Boka (died in 1853)97 acquired an instrument around that time. The band leader of Gömörharkács (today Hrkáč, Slovakia), Marci Dombi (1801/8–1869), who joined the national guard with his sixteen-strong band also had a tárogató.98 The title of a famous chapbook of Debrecen printed during the war of liberations is Tárogató.99 Deliberate collection of the instrument began in the 1850s. In 1853, István Fáy proposed that as “an original ancient Hungarian instrument” the tárogató 93 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 534. Ferenc Scherer, Gyula város története [History of the town of Gyula]. Vol. I, Gyula, 1938, 466–467. 94 Napkelet 1859, 733–734. Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 476. 95 Pesovár, A magyar tánctörténet évszázadai, 37. 96 Szeredy’s account in Vol. 1844 of Életképek; cited by Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 266. 97 Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története és egyéb írások, 331–332. He says that in Károly Boka’s Gypsy band winds were also played. 98 Magyar Vasárnap 1951 (B. Gy.’s writing). The band leader is also mentioned by Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története, 333. Sárosi, Cigányzene, 110. László Marosi, Két évszázad katonazenéje Magyarországon [Military music of two centuries in Hungary]. Budapest, 1994, 56. 99 Péter Pogány (ed.), Riadj magyar! 1848–1849 fametszetes ponyvái, csatakrónikái [Wake up, Magyar! Chapbooks and battle chronicles of 1848–1849 with woodcuts]. (Magyar Hírmondó) Budapest, 1983: No. 78. In note 634 it states that between 1 July and 31 December 1848 the news column in Kossuth’s Hírlap was titled like that. In the supplement Nemzetőr of Imre Vahot’s Budapesti Divatlap and also in Pécs, there was a similar column.

316

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

be researched and popularized. 100 Lajos Virág had an instrument from Kunszentmiklós copied and gave it to the Hungarian National Museum, 101 and in 1864 the original – so-called Beliczay tárogató – was also deposited there.102 In 1854, he deposited a more puritanical instrument. 103 In 1857, Ferenc Bethlen donated a tárogató to the museum in a leather case – possibly the instrument that had belonged to András Sós. In response to a call published in Vasárnapi Ujság in 1859, several accounts were submitted. István Fáy called on Gypsy musicians to learn to play the tárogató and incorporate the instrument in their bands. 104 The initiative had repercussions in other circles as well. On 8 December 1859 the oboist of the National Theatre, András Suck presented the Beliczay tárogató, fitted with an English horn reed, at the ceremonial hall of the National Museum. Reviews emphasized that “the sound of the tárogató has a moving tone of grief. Particularly the mid-range tones are fine. In the upper registers it could still be improved”.105 “Its sound closely resembles that of the clarinet, but it is more penetrating and more pleasant, coming perhaps closest to the singing voice from among all wind instruments.” 106 But Suck did not have the courage to play the Rákóczi march on that occasion… Suck’s later development of the instrument, alloying qualities of the oboe and the clarinet could not save the old double-reed tárogató. Gyula Káldy sought out Vencel József Schunda, an instrument maker of international renown for his improvement of the cimbalom (Hungarian pedal dulcimer), and convinced him to build the instrument known today (1894–1895). That was the end of the history of the traditional Turkish pipe. The shift from doublereed instruments to instruments with a single reed – clarinet or saxophone – is demonstrable all over the Balkans (Greeks, Serbs, Turks, Dobrudja Tatars). 107

100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Délibáb 1853, 126. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. György Gábry, ‘A tárogató [The tárogató]’, Folia Archaeologica 18 (1966–1967) 254. Ibid., 254. Délibáb 1853, 186–87. Gábry, ‘A tárogató’, 254. Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 501. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. Pesti Napló 1859, 11 December. Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 549. Aradi Híradó 1859, fasc. 48. Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’. 107 Pávai, Az erdélyi és a moldvai magyarság népi tánczenéje, 27. He mentions here his own collection of Dobrudja zurnas.

317

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

In the markets of the Székely land a beggar playing the tárogató could still be found in the 1860s.108 In 1863, István Fáy reported that the tárogató could only be found in Jászberény, where it was played in the midnight mass at Christmas.109 A watchman in Balmazújváros blew his instrument from the tower every hour in the 1870s and its sound carried far to the farmsteads. After his death, this job was not continued.110

Repertoire There is hardly any information on what was played on the Turkish pipe. The tunes at that time were not notated for wind instruments but for keyboard instruments, and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, mainly for the violin. There is a single title indicating a piece for a woodwind instrument, Sípos (Piper) in the Vietoris tablature.111 In 1659, in a procession in Marosvásárhely, the Turkish piper “incessantly played the well-known Wallachian tune called the song of the Wallachian girl in Hungarian, who lost her goats in the mountains, and lamented her loss, even kept mourning her lost goats during the search”.112 Let us recall Péter Apor’s sentence: “Nobody could perhaps play those fine tunes now in Transylvania.” That means the archaic tune stock was already declining, decreasing in the mid-eighteenth century. Apor 113 and Mihály Cserei wrote nearly identically about funeral music: “Turkish pipers, trumpeters had separate music for funeral occasions, which they played so sadly and grievously that even strange men, and particularly the women were all made to cry.”114

108 109 110 111

Kolozsvári Közlöny 1860, 38. Nemzeti Képes Újság 1863, fasc. 14 (from István Fáy’s letter). Tóth, ‘A tárogató’, 297. Ilona Ferenczi – Márta Hulková (eds.), Tabulatura Vietoris saeculi XVII. (Musicalia Danubiana, 5.) Bratislava, 1986, No. 14. 112 Andreas Franck’s report (29 September 1659): Pesovár, ‘Az elveszett juhait sirató pásztor története’, 87. Pesovár, A magyar tánctörténet évszázadai, 37. Although Bálint Balassi’s ad melodiam reference to a similar tune is known, it cannot be ascertained exactly what tune it actually was. 113 Apor, Metamorphosis Transylvaniae, 132. 114 Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’.

318

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

Apropos the patriotism of the nobility in the late eighteenth century, a tune with the incipit Haj, Rákóczi, Bercsényi was often mentioned. As Martinovics and Laczkovics put it, “the tunes of Bercsényi, Rákóczi, Bezerédi are played on the tárogató pipe, dreadful to the ears, or sung” by the noblemen. 115 On the morning of the mentioned ceremony in Nagyvárad in 1784 this tune was also played, together with the late seventeenth-century exile’s song with the incipit Őszi harmat után (After the autumn dew). Its first notation is incomplete, consisting of a single line, though it might also have been played like that. 116 The fact that it was played on the Turkish pipe suggests the expansion of its original context (of love, farewell to the lover). 117 The text of the Rákóczi song first crops up in handwritten songbooks around 1750; the earliest notation of the tune is in the Vietoris tablature (of the 1670s) and in the dance tune collection of Anna Szimayné Keczer (first half of the eighteenth century).118 In 1816 it was published in the Allgemeine Musikzeitung of Leipzig by János Fusz (for tárogató or Rákóczi pipe).119 It was notated with the title Tárogató by Ádám Pálóczi Horváth, indicating the original performing instrument (1813).120 All András Sós of Hegyközpályi could play “was the sad song of Rákóczi and Bercsényi, and Felemelé Kádár szemeit az égre (Kádár lifted his eyes to the sky)”. 121 The latter is a narrative of seventeenth-century origin, but also printed in popular publications until the nineteenth century and spread in folk variants as well, describing the death of a certain István Kádár (Szörnyű nagy romlásra készült Pannónia [Pannonia was on the verge of a dreadful disaster]). In the nineteenth century it is often noted that the instrument is favourable for “portamento and andante”. Not suitable for merry tunes, it was consequent-

115 Szabolcsi, ‘A XVIII. század magyar kollégiumi zenéje’, 280. 116 ‘Tél, szél [Winter, wind]’, in Bartha – Kiss (eds.), Ötödfélszáz Énekek, No. 252. 117 Rumen István Csörsz, ‘Történelmi hősök helyzetdalai a 18–19. századi magyar közköltészetben [The situated songs of the historical heroes in the 18th–19th century Hungarian popular poetry]’, in Ágnes Szemerkényi (ed.), Folklór és történelem [Folklore and history]. (Folklór a magyar művelődéstörténetben, 3.) Budapest, 2007, 129–130. 118 Bence Szabolcsi: ‘A XVII. század magyar világi dallamai [Hungarian secular tunes in the 17th century]’, in Szabolcsi, A magyar zene évszázadai, Vol. I, 332–333. 119 Allgemeine Musikzeitung 1816, 13 March. Introduced: Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története, 137. Major, ‘A Rákóczi-kor zenéje’, 113. 120 ‘Tárogató’, in Bartha – Kiss (eds.), Ötödfélszáz Énekek, No. 11. 121 Zenészeti Lapok 1862, 246.

319

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

ly reserved as an instrument of lamentation. 122 This role was unquestionably inherited by Schunda’s variant of the instrument…

Turkish Pipers – By Name Below I give a short list of the Turkish pipers known by name. Though several mentions of pipers without further specification are known, particularly from the seventeenth century, here only the expressly Turkish or tárogató pipers are named, who were certainly not German pipers or shawm players. Mention was already made of the Turkish piper János Bossó, who was wounded in the fights of János Kemény in Upper Hungary in 1644. Márton Tárogató Sípos with an apprentice and Péter Tárogató Sípos were in service with the troops of Pál Esterházy in 1684. 123 Among Thököly’s court musicians there were Márton and András Sípos, as well as Ferenc Pribik and János Horvát:124 they were the non-German pipers. Tamás Esze claims that the Turkish pipers of the kuruc troops must have been of peasant origin, while the German pipers and trumpeters came from among the tower musicians of German towns and were paid far better than their Hungarian colleagues. 125 Several pipers are mentioned in Ferenc Rákóczi II’s accounts: at first András Sípos and Mihály Sípos (with different pay scales), 126 later János Kún head piper and Sámuel Tolnai vice piper.127 In 1711, two pipers were in service around the prince: the son of László Bai (presumably identical with the shawm piper) and an anonymous Turkish piper. The former received 42 florins, the latter 17.128 The piper of Ferenc Gyulai (from Méhész, Torna County), István Sípos of peasant origin, died in Villanova in 1704; his employer looked after his orphans.129 In 1705, János Horváth, the captain of the Serbs in Nagyszeben kept a stableman by his side called Péter; “as he could play a little on the 122 123 124 125 126

Aradi Híradó 1859, fasc. 48. Kolozsvári Közlöny 1860, 38. Bubics (ed.), Cornaro Frigyes velencei követ jelentése, 376. Sárosi, Cigányzene, 47. Esze, ‘Zenetörténeti adataink’, 87. Vetés, camp, 25 August 1703. The different conventio of the two pipers is noted by the prince. Ibid., 54. 127 24 June 1706–27 January 1707. Ibid., 64–66. 128 Accounts of György Körössy (5 April 1711). Ibid., 82. 129 Villanova, 12 March 1704. Ibid., 57. Márki (ed.), Gróf Gyulai Ferenc naplója, 202.

320

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

Turkish pipe, he was needed.”130 A nineteenth-century account says that András Bóné, captain of (Nagy)Várad had a tárogató player called János Darabont, whose instrument was preserved by András Sós. 131 In a Bihar County document of 1720 there is mention of a Johannes Drabant. 132 The Kunszentmiklós musician, István Selyem played for a captain called Bercsényi in the 1810s, believing that he was a descendant of the kuruc general.133 He blew the tárogató alternately with a dweller of Dabas at the inauguration of the captain-general of the Jászkunság, Antal Somogyi, in 1814.134 The last known tárogató player of the banderium was György Kováts, whom the fighters nicknamed Sípos (Piper) in recognition of his achievements. His instrument was still extant in Jászberény in 1859. 135 In 1827, two tárogató players are named in Balassagyarmat, János Pénzes and a hajdú (heyduck) called Illés. Gábor Mátray allegedly knew of the latter that he was later a fieldguard in Hugyag, then night-watchman in Gyarmat before he died of the cholera.136 The last tárogató player of the town hall in Rimaszombat (around 1835) was a musician called Budai. 137 The mentioned musician of Hegyközpályi, András Sós was 74 years old in 1822, so he must have been born in 1748. He claimed to be a descendant of the mentioned kuruc piper János Darabont on his mother’s side. After his death, his instrument was donated to the National Museum by Ferenc Bethlen.138 In 1830, a tárogató player called Boka appears in Eger; perhaps he was the uncle of Károly Boka, the trumpeter of Szabolcs County cavalry in 1809. 139 He might have taught László Hajdú to play wind instruments in Debrecen in the late 1830s. In 1839, János Ligats jr. of Nyitra (today Nitra, Slovakia), scion of a dynasty of tárogató players had a damaged old instrument cherished by the family copied and then used it. 140 At

130 4 March 1705. Wesselényi, Sanyarú világ, Vol. I, 369–370. 131 Zenészeti Lapok 1862, 246. 132 Miklós Kázmér, Régi magyar családnevek szótára (XIV–XVII. század) [Vocabulary of early Hungarian surnames, 14th–17th centuries]. Budapest, 1993, 281. 133 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 572. 134 Délibáb 1853, 186–187. 135 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 512–513. 136 Mátray, A Muzsikának Közönséges Története, 307. 137 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 571. 138 Zenészeti Lapok 1862, 246. Bihar 1863, fasc. 29. 139 Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 571–572. Sárosi, Cigányzene, 111. 140 Napkelet 1859, 733–734. Pesti Napló 1859, fasc. 260.

321

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

the time of András Suck, a clarinetist Gypsy from Szatmár called Arany (Gold) also played the tárogató, both in pubs and on the stage.141 Túrkeve lawyer László Hajdú, who wrote several articles about the tárogató, also played on it. He was born around 1817–1818. In Debrecen, Gypsy musicians Miska and Károly Boka taught him various wind instruments. In 1842, he was officially asked to play for an inauguration. 142 Hajdú mentions a doctor of Kunhegyes, Benjámin Németh, who had an instrument of his own in 1842. The last tárogató player in Árokszállás was a local person called Sóski. A tárogató player called György Uram lived in Táb, Nógrád County, in 1859.143 As far as Mihály Mosonyi was aware, someone who could make the reed for the instrument lived in Félegyháza in 1869. 144 The latter piece of information is particularly intriguing because the present author had the chance to play the instruments kept in the Hungarian National Museum with different reeds (as assistant in János Pap’s instrument acoustic research). With the long copper tube and an oboe-like hard and narrow reed, the Beliczay tárogató had a stifled sound and inaccurate scale. When, however, the reed of a simple Turkish zurna was fitted to it, which was broad, short and fairly flexible, it had a great volume of sound and crystal clear notes. This makes it probable that such a reed was practicable for outdoor events in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Depictions of the Turkish Pipe (Seventeenth–Eighteenth Centuries)145 Representations of the instrument carry associations with a variety of instruments, similarly to the specimens kept in museums. All cannot be discussed here in detail, but the proportions revealed by the depictions are worth touching on.

141 Kolozsvári Közlöny 1860, 38. Nemzeti Képes Újság 1863, fasc. 14. 142 Katalin Szőnyi-Szerző, ‘Hajdú László cikke elé… [Prologue to the paper of László Hajdú]’, in Mária Domokos (ed.), Zenetudományi Dolgozatok [Studies in musicology]. Budapest, 1981, 399. 143 All data: Vasárnapi Ujság 1859, 534. 144 Zenészeti Lapok 1860, 117. 145 I refrain from a detailed description of the museum instruments for lack of space. See the relevant chapter in Sudár – Csörsz, “Trombita, rézdob, tárogató…”, 104–111.

322

FROM THE TURKISH PIPES TO THE HUNGARIAN TÖRÖKSÍP

In a military band of 1652, two mounted Turkish pipe players are shown between trumpeters and drummers. The instrument is relatively long and the finger holes are open, so they can be observed quite well. 146 An engraving of the fortress of Kapronca with soldiers dancing in front of it (1686) shows a very similar instrument providing music alone, without drums, for the dance. 147 The illustrator of Mátyás Bél’s Notitia must have relied on it using it for the title illustration of the chapter on Nógrád County, in mirror inversion as dictated by the engraving technique. This confirms that two generations later, in further reaches of the country, the Turkish pipe was still a typical instrument. In a mid-eighteenth-century drawing one can see an instrument with a long thin tube ending in a short bell, accompanied by a double-headed drum. 148 A mounted musician also has a similar instrument. In the series of Martin Engelbrecht’s engravings several different instruments resembling the Turkish pipe can be discerned. One type is represented by a piper of the Tisza region and a pipe in the hand of a child accompanying an elderly woman playing the hurdygurdy: they are short stocky instruments with a small bell, the latter perhaps with a cylindrical bore. The other type resembles the peasant instrument in the Kapronca picture more closely: its long tube tapers out visibly, and it has a long narrow bell adorned with lathed rings. Unfortunately, Engelbrecht depicts the instrument in flute position, which is impossible. In another eighteenthcentury drawing, a short stout instrument can be seen. 149 It might have been drawn in the knowledge of Engelbrecht’s engraving (the face and instrument type are similar). In a painting dating from kuruc times a piper is seen in a company making merry around a table. This instrument has a long thin tube and a narrow bell.150 *

146 Funeral of four Esterházys in Nagyszombat with music (1652), engraving: Bárdos (ed.), Magyarország zenetörténete, Vol. II, plates No. 11–14. 147 Ibid., plate 25. 148 Alexander Móži, Szlovák–magyar zenei kapcsolatok [Hungarian–Slovakian musical connections]. Bratislava, 1977, 25. 149 Gábry, ‘Le “tárogató”, ancien chalumeau hongrois’, image No. 117. 150 Miklós Asztalos, II. Rákóczi Ferenc és kora [Ferenc Rákóczi II and his age]. Budapest, 1934, plate near page 273.

323

ARTS AND HANDICRAFTS DURING OTTOMAN RULE

The sketchy overview above illustrates how a military pipe got removed gradually from its natural context, first becoming a ceremonial, occasional instrument, and later the relic of a national romantic trend. The long-lived tradition of Hungarian ceremonial bands emulating the Ottoman form of representation (occasions for using the Turkish pipe in a more familiar context) indicates that the terrifying image of the enemy gradually sank into oblivion, and they became an expression of the eighteenth-century self-awareness among the nobility looking with increasing pride upon their eastern roots, thus providing a counter-pole to German music and the Habsburg imperial identity. Re-discovery of the instrument in the Age of Reforms and attempts – after the 1848 Revolution – to reconstruct it were meant to conceptualize and salvage this entire cultural conglomerate. However, another 120 years had to pass before the Turkish pipe came into use again in Hungary: it became widespread through the folk dance-house movement, primarily adaptations of folk tunes (Kolinda, Vízöntő, Muzsikás bands, etc.) as well as the early music ensembles.151 The nineteenth-century ideals were best served by the modern Schunda tárogató. Its great success owed (apart from its ingratiating tone) to its timehonoured but – admittedly – unjustly used name, which belonged to an instrument said to have had a harsh sound even in its own age, even if it had become a symbol: the Turkish pipe.

151 With the soprano and alto saxophone making headway, its role also decreased here. In the Hungarian world of music ensembles in the 1990s and 2000s the tárogató was only used as a curiosity.

324

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

EMŐKE RITA SZILÁGYI

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI HISTORY OF AN IDEOLOGICALLY LADEN DESIGNATION IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY LATIN WORKS

Introduction The beginning of the so-called Ottoman Age in Hungary is conventionally dated to 1526, whereas awareness of the Turks need not be tied to the disaster at Mohács. The appearance of the Turks in the Christian world dates centuries earlier, the first written traces can be found in earlier travel accounts, followed by eleventh-century works on the crusades. Hungary’s first encounters with the Ottoman Turkish army were at the battle of Kosovo (1389) and the battle of Nicopolis (1396).1 From then on, the Ottoman peril had first priority in military strategy and diplomacy, as is confirmed by the correspondence still available. This interest in, and hostility to the Ottomans can be traced throughout the fifteenth century, including an intriguing phenomenon in the use of a designation of the Turks. The Latin word for Turkish is Turcus, but a part of the fifteenth-century Latin sources describe them by the term Teucrus, that is, Trojan. It needs no explaining that a foe is given negative epithets or nicknames, and it was a time-tested practice to call the Turks savage, Tatar, or pagan.2 Trojan, however, is not necessarily a mocking nickname or negative epithet.

1

2

In scholarly literature the Wallachian campaign of 1375 is usually not mentioned, for more detail, see L. Bernát Kumorovitz, ‘I. Lajos királyunk 1375. évi havasalföldi hadjárata és “török” háborúja [The Wallachian campaign in 1375 and the “Turkish” war of King Louis]’, Századok 117 (1983) 919–979. It is not the subject of this paper to define which ethnic group was meant by the collective name Turk, since in Latin all Turkic, Seljuk, and Ottoman Turkish groups are simply called Turcus. See Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Zur historisch-politischen Semantik asymmetrischer Gegenbegriffe’, in Idem, Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main, 1979, 211–259. With special regard to the methodological aspect, see ibid., 211–218, 218– 243.

327

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Turks and/or Trojans – The History of a Fashionable Name in Fifteenth-Century Europe and Hungary Calling the Turks Trojans and presuming the Trojan origin of the Turks is not a humanist invention.3 It was fashionable from the late middle ages to retrace the origins of aristocratic families or ethnicities to the Trojans – legends of the Trojan origin of the French and the Italians are familiar, 4 but it is less widely known that the English also boasted of Trojan ancestry in the seventh century,5 as did the Icelanders, 6 Castilians,7 and Germans. The French myth of origin, which survives in Gesta regum Francorum under Fredegar’s name became the source of all medieval compilations.8 The Turco-Franco theory. The French myth of Trojan origin has its roots in Gallic times: the Galls of the Roman province, notably the inhabitants of 3

4

5

6 7 8

Cf. Robert Schwoebel, The Shadow of the Crescent. The Renaissance Image of the Turk (1453–1517). Nieuwkoop, 1967, 148. In Latin, Trojan might also be called Troianus, the Teucer ethnonym is typical for Vergil’s Aeneis, since Teucer being the ancestor of the Trojans, the name of the people is derived from him, see Aeneid, I. 235. See also Michael J. Heath, ‘Renaissance Scholars and the Origins of the Turks’, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 41:3 (1979) 453–471. I would like to thank Pál Fodor for drawing my attention to this article. The main source from which medieval texts took the Trojan origin of the Italians is Vergil’s Aeneid, but summaries of the Aeneid and works written upon the influence of the Aeneid, for instance Benoît de Sainte-Maure’s Roman de Troie must also be accounted with. Sándor Eckhardt thinks that the author of Gesta Francorum, too, only knew the names of Aeneas, Priamus and Antenor from a summary of Aeneid: Sándor Eckhardt, Sicambria. Egy középkori monda életrajza [Sicambria. The biography of a medieval legend]. Budapest, 1928, 9. On the knowledge of the Troy narrative, first of all the Aeneid in Hungary, and the parallel fates of Trojans and Hungarians that evolved in the sixteenth century, see Gábor Kecskeméti, ‘Alapítók. A trójai menekülés motívumainak hazai ismeretéhez [Founders. How motifs of the Trojan flight came to be known in Hungary]’, Publicationes Universitatis Miskolciensis, Sectio Philosophica 9:4 (2004) 101–118. Around 630 the dynasty of King Dagobert claims to be ex nobilissimo et antiquo Trojanorum sanguine nati or “from the highly noble and ancient blood of the Trojans”. Charles the Bald also professed to issue from the Trojans. Cf. Steven Runciman, ‘Teucri and Turci’, in Semi A. Hanna (ed.), Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honor of Aziz Suryal Atiya. Leiden, 1972, 346. Ibid., 347. Cf. James Hankins, ‘Renaissance Crusaders. Humanist Crusade Literature in the Age of Mehmed II’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995) 139. For the spread of the Trojan-Frank myth in France, see Eckhardt, Sicambria, 16–20. Cf. Levente Seláf, ‘Nagy Sándor és a trójaiak a burgundi irodalomban [Alexander the Great and the Trojans in Burgundian literature]’, Aetas 4:3 (1999) 95–122.

328

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

Alverni (today Auvergne) prided themselves on Trojan origin. 9 Adopting this legend, the Franks also professed Trojan ancestry, elements of which can be found in the mentioned Gesta regum Francorum by Fredegar. It claims that after the burning of Troy, the Trojans fled westward and split into two groups. One group became Macedonians, the other Phrygian group moved more to the west under the leadership of King Francio and became the forefathers of the Franks: “It is said that the Turks came about from a third group.” 10 Thus, the French myth of origin – unlike that of other successor groups – mentions kindred peoples as well. The Trojan origin of the Turks was also known in twelfth-century France, several literary works being written on its basis. In the fourteenth century, Jean de Paris reiterates the origins of the Turkish-French kinship and refers to Baldicus’ Historia Hierosolymitana, which reveals that during the crusades the Turks also learnt about their Trojan origin and from then on they also reckoned with it.11 Though this view held several inherent contradictions, there are quite a lot of sources reiterating it. The theory went its rounds of Europe gradually expanding with kinship of one group after another. Let me only cite a later, but highly typical example: in his Illustrations de Gaule et Antiquitez de Troyes (1512), Jean Lemaire de Belges writes that the Turks, Hungarians, French and English are relatives with the difference that the Turks are pagans, and the English and French are of nobler birth than the rest.12 One of the theories of the Trojan origin of the Turks claims that the fleeing Trojans split into two groups, one branch headed by king Francio-Francus pushing westward – to become the ancestors of the French – and the other group led by King Torquotus or Torcoth remaining east of the Danube and becoming the ancestor of the Turks. 13 Etymologies being in fashion since Isidorus of Seville, the ethnonym Turcus also became popularly derived from 9 10 11

12 13

Eckhardt, Sicambria, 3: refers to Sidonius Apollinaris and Propertius among the Romans, see Sid. Apoll. Ep. VII. 7, 2. Prop. II. 13, 48 ff. Tercia ex eadem origine gentem Torcorum fuisse fama confirmat. Cap. VII, quoted and translated Eckhardt, Sicambria, 7. Sándor Eckhardt, ‘La legende de l’origine troyenne des Turcs’, Kőrösi Csoma Archívum 2 (1927) 429–430. In Jean de Paris’ writing the Turks defend themselves with reference to their Christian origin. In Runciman’s view, the Turks learnt about their common Trojan origin from the Varangians (i. e. Vikings) fighting in the first crusade, which is also perpetuated by the Poetic Edda. Runciman, ‘Teucri’, 347. Eckhardt, ‘La legende’, 431. Cf. Heath, ‘Renaissance Scholars’, 455. Eckhardt, ‘La legende’, 423.

329

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

various words including truculentus (“rough, savage”), which might also have contributed to the strengthening of the stereotypic image of the Turks as “cruelty incarnate”.14 There is, however, another theory of the Turkish-French fraternity datable to the tenth century, possibly connected to the work surviving under the name of Dares Phrygius.15 This theory traces the Turks to the son of Trojan Troilus, Turcus, and the Franks to Francio, the son of Hector.16 The Turks as the lawful avengers of the Trojans. More popular than the Turco-Franco theory was another view (sometimes related to, sometimes independently of the former): it held that the Turks were the rightful avengers of Troy. For those who were averse to the Greeks in medieval and renaissance Europe this theory came in handy, for in the Trojan War the ravagers were the Greeks, and that was the grievance for which the Turks allegedly took revenge two and a half millennia later.17 In the mid-fifteenth century, the Greeks were judged unfavourably owing to the failure of the Florentine Union, and although the Turkish peril was recognized, it was thought that the contemporary Greeks were the degenerate descendants of the ancient heroes and so did not deserve help.18 The derivation of the Turks from Troy was unavoidable, partly because the Turks, like the Trojans of antiquity lived in Asia Minor, and partly because the similarity of the names (Turci-Teucri) inspired the pun and 14 Cf. Otto Prinz (ed.), Die Kosmographie des Aethicus. Munich, 1993, 120. 15 De excidio Trojae historia surviving under the name of Dares Phrygius meant to be the continuation of the Iliad, and although Cornelius Nepos translated it into Latin from an alleged Greek work, it is usually dated to the fifth century AD on account of its language. Hector and Troilus were brothers or half-brothers in the myth of Troy. 16 The definition given by Vincent de Beauvais who lived in the thirteenth century is included in Eckhardt, ‘La legende’, 427–428. 17 Innumerable sources try to find analogies between the destruction of Troy and that of Constantinople; one example is Filippo da Rimini’s account, which parallels the raping of a Greek virgin in Hagia Sophia with the violation of Cassandra. Cf. Hankins, ‘Renaissance Crusaders’, 139. See also Pál Fodor’s paper (note 74) in the present volume. 18 Cf. Terence Spencer, ‘Turks and Trojans in the Renessaince’, The Modern Language Review 47 (1952) 330. Schwoebel, The Shadow, 148. In his letter to Nicholas V, the bishop of Mytilene, Leonardus blames the pope, and mainly the Greeks, who breached the terms of the Union: Non ergo unio facta, sed unio ficta, ad fatale urbem trahebat excidium (It was not the union itself, but the falseness of the union that ushered the city to its doom). Agostino Pertusi, La caduta di Constantinopoli. Le testimonianze dei contemporanei. Vol. I, Milano, 1990, 128. Apart from the breaching of the oath and their pride, the Greeks probably looked with less antipathy or hatred upon the Turkish turban than the Roman tiara. Schwoebel, The Shadow, 16.

330

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

unfounded etymology and lastly, it was based on the statements of certain medieval chronicles.19 Thus, there is a play with words and a deliberate use of names at issue here, rather than a lapsus calami or accidental mixing of words. Although it gave rise to further contradictions, this designation of topographic and etymological derivation became fashionable and prevalent, a real commonplace, over the fifteenth century.

“Trojan Turks” in Fifteenth-Century Latin Works With Relevance to Central and Eastern Europe The “Trojan Turks” – that is, the custom to write Trojan (Teucer/Teucrus) for Turk (Turcus) – can be found in two types of sources. One group signifies the main means of information dissemination at that time, “the ancestor of modern-time newspaper”: a wide variety correspondence. 20 There is an observable tendency that certain authors regularly use Teucer in their mutual exchange of letters, while others, or the same letter-writers writing to a third party, do not necessarily use this term. To an extent this tendency can be plotted both in time and space, though caution needs to be administered here. Two major events divide the fifteenth century into three segments: the battle of Varna (1444) and the fall of Constantinople (1453). While Trojan Turks appear sporadically from their first occurrence (1420) until the battle of Varna, from the latter event the data multiplies, the Trojan name of the Turks becoming a household word. The fall of Constantinople then came as a sobering blow; from then on the evidence decrease in number, only to disappear from the correspondence of the chanceries by the 1470s. But at the same time it comes to appear in other, more popular genres (chronicles, sermons, epitaphs, hymns). The authors of the fifteenth-century sources to be presented below are either Hungarian rulers, politicians, high priests, war lords, and noblemen, or foreigners mostly from Central Europe who took up the pen at the time because of the Ottoman threat and offensive against Hungary and Central and Eastern Europe.21 19 Spencer, ‘Turks’, 331. Runciman, ‘Teucri’, 345. Heath, ‘Renaissance Scholars’, 455. 20 Margit Waczulik, A török korszak kezdetének nyugati történetirodalma a 16. században [16thcentury Western historiography on the beginnings of the Ottoman age]. Budapest, 1937, 3–4. 21 I herewith express my thanks to Kornél Szovák, who kindly helped me with collecting the sources.

331

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Correspondence (1420−1470). The first sources date from the time of Sigismund of Luxemburg. The writers include the Polish King Vladislav Jagiellon II, Sigismund and not least Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, the later Pope Pius II. In the letter of Vladislav II to Sigismund, and in those by Sigismund to Cardinals Castiglione da Branda and Henry Beaufort the fight against the Porte is positioned parallel to the struggle against heretics. A typical example is Sigismund’s letter to Cardinal Cartiglione da Branda: “We shall have no claim to glory if we do not want to annihilate the followers of Wycliffe and Huss, the worst kinds of all heretics, when after the Christian Church has been united we have often beaten back the Trojans too (who are the enemies of the Christians and frequently incur upon Christian territories).”22 There are several kindred traits in the letters of Sigismund and Vladislav, but Piccolomini’s letter on this occasion addresses the town of Siena with a new theme: he asks the municipality to send armed assistance to Constantinople in case there were a clash with the Ottomans there. The letter is evidence of great foresight in 1436, as we realise with knowledge of later developments. For Hungary, the years 1443−1444 were the years of the Long Campaign in the Balkans. The dates are important in the correspondence of the chancery as well: from 1442 Piccolomini was the private secretary of German King Frederick III and he wrote several letters about diplomatic matters on behalf of Frederick and Chancellor Kaspar Schlick between 1443 and 1445, and he also wrote personal letters, thus he had an extensive circle of correspondence partners. They include Giuliano Cesarini, Cardinal of Sant’Angelo, who died later in the battle of Varna; Lőrinc Hédervári, Palatine of Hungary; Pope Eugene IV; Archbishop of Esztergom Dénes Szécsi; Giovanni Campisio, Piccolomini’s best friend; Kaspar Schlick; and not least Filippo Maria Visconti, Duke of Milan – only to name the most prominent ones. In the letters to the above named partners, Piccolomini always calls the Turks Trojans, and since he kept a close watch on the military events in Hungary, many of his letters are highly informative sources of these years. However, it is also characteristic of his letters that factual information is overshadowed by the personal messages 22 Quam gloriam reportare possemus, si, unione ecclesie Chistianorum facta Teucrisque (inimicis Christifidelium, intrantibus crebro Christianorum partes) repulsis sepissime, Wiklephistarum et Hussitarum pessimum omnium hereticorum genus nollemus destruere? Dietrich Kerler (Hrsg.), Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Sigmund. Bd. 2. 1421– 1426, Gotha, 1883, 77 (Ep. 63).

332

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

and comments. It is still discernible in his letters that during the Long Campaign there was fear of a Turkish offensive but no sense of panic yet. After the battle of Varna was lost on 10 December 1444, the general atmosphere changed.23 Several authors perpetuated the battle in their works, and there are three letters or reports for the years 1444−1445, the first (in time as well) being Piccolomini’s.24 In his letter to the Duke of Milan Filippo Maria Visconti he forwards the information available to him possibly unbiased, in a sober tone; perhaps the most interesting part of the letter reveals that the Long Campaign – the military victories of Vladislav I and János Hunyadi – kindled fears in the west lest the Hungarians, intoxicated by their victories, should turn their arms westwards. Piccolomini does not name a scapegoat, does not blame any single person, attributing the defeat to the numeric superiority of the Ottomans: “Then they recovered their strength, their enthusiasm returned and they continued the battle, but eventually the Trojans were victorious through valiance, good fortune, or simply because they had numeric superiority.” 25 Next in importance is the letter written by Andreas de Palatio of San Lorenzo in Damaso in May 1445. 26 Having participated in the fighting, Andreas de Palatio could report on it with the authenticity of an eye-witness. He touches on special details such as the illness of King Vladislav (an ulcer developed on his left leg), which would have kept him from the battle, had he not fought with superhuman courage. Unlike Piccolomini and János Vitéz, he mentions the camels of the Turks that frightened the horses of the crusading army. He ridicules the pitiable bishop of Várad (today Oradea, Romania), who fled to a nearby lake and drowned, nor does he spare the bishop of Eger who wanted to flee from the battle, but since he was not admitted into Varna at the gate, he turned back and fought valiantly until he was killed. In the overall neutral tone of the report, his bias toward the Poles is conspicuous; it is also striking that he does not show János Hunyadi as a positive actor. At several loci he mentions the Tatars: he does not equate the Tatars with the Turks 23 On the battle of Varna in more detail, see Tamás Pálosfalvi, Nikápolytól Mohácsig. 1396– 1526 [From Nicopolis to Mohács]. Budapest, 2005, 84–96. 24 For Piccolomini’s correspondence, see Rudolf Wolkan (Hrsg.), Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. (Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, 61–62, 67–68.) Vienna, 1907–1918, with the quoted passage in 61, 487–490 (Ep. 167). 25 Donec resumptis viribus ac spiritibus redeuntibus instauratum est prelium, in quo vicit ad extremum Teucrorum, sive virtus fuit sive fatum, sive quod numero plures erant. 26 For the letter, see Andreas de Palatio, Litterae de clade Varnensi ad Ludovicum cardinalem datae. Ed. by Antoni Prochaska. Lviv, 1882.

333

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

explicitly, but uses the ethnonym almost synonymously.27 Although the authenticity of Palatio’s account can be doubted at several points, for instance in the description of the battle array,28 the minute details and formal elaboration of the letter make it an entertaining reading. In his notes to the collected letters of János Vitéz, Pál Ivanich remarks that although Vitéz refers to an earlier letter, it is missing and this one was written in May 1445.29 In his letter to Pope Eugene IV written on behalf of János Hunyadi,30 he is far from being as verbose as Palatio, and instead of writing about the details of the battle, his main purpose is to call on the pope and ask for his help, even though Vitéz had first-hand experience of the details of the battle. Further information is revealed by Ivanich’s comments to the letter. In the name of Hunyadi, Vitéz attributed the defeat to the sins of the Christians, to divine will, and consequently, he is optimistic about the future, provided that the Christians learn from the consequences of their sins and joining forces, clash again with the Turks: “Possibly, the current events have not been caused either by our enervation or the valiance of the Trojans, for in the battlefield nearly deserted by people and arms it was not the enemy troops but the divine judgement that has placed a blow on us, and the barbarians only remained stronger for our sins.”31 Another one followed this letter half a year later, in which the request was repeated. 32 There are innumerable recollections of the battle of Varna, traces of it detectable even a decade later. The bishop of Várad killed in the battle of Varna was replaced by János Vitéz, who was the private secretary of János Hunyadi between 1441 and 1452. The book of his collected letters published and annotated by Pál Ivanich contains his correspondence between 1445 and 1451 pursued on behalf of Governor János Hunyadi and himself. This is undoubtedly the most valuable collection among the Hungarian sources. In the name of János Hunyadi, he wrote letters to Pope Nicholas V, congratulating him on his election and ensuring him that Hunyadi would support him, provided that in return, he 27 Palatio, Litterae, 32–33. 28 See Pálosfalvi, Nikápolytól, 92. 29 Iohannes Vitéz de Zredna, Opera quae supersunt. Ed. by Iván Boronkai. Budapest, 1980, 43. 30 For the whole letter, see Ep. 3. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 43–46. 31 Quamquam et id, quod nunc accidit, neque mollicia nostra, neque Teucrorum virtus effecerit, dum pene vacuefacto viris et armis campo non hostilis milicie, sed iudicii divini plagam retulimus, nostrisque peccatis barbari tunc mansere forciores. 32 Ep. 4, tit. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 47.

334

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

would give support against the Turks. 33 He reiterates the request in his own name – as wished by Governor Hunyadi – in 1449. In this letter, he gives an account of the conditions of the country and the governor, including the external perils (Turks, Hussites) and the internal difficulties (beginnings of a domestic strife).34 Vitéz names the Turks Trojans in his letter to Pál, the notary of the royal chancery, too.35 Boronkai’s edition of Vitéz’s letters contains pieces of dubious authorship in addition to the above collection. There is a letter written allegedly by Vitéz to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Palaiologos in the name of Ladislaus V,36 and a speech delivered on behalf of the Hungarian estates in honour of Ladislaus V in 1452.37 Ladislaus V praised the merits of János Hunyadi in several letters some of which can be found in the tenth tome of József Teleki’s monumental work, A Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon.38 This volume contains the diploma by which Ladislaus V grants the right to mint golden florins to the town of Ragusa (today Dubrovnik), and a deed by which he corroborates the deed of gift issued by Sigismund in 1398 to his relative, Palatine László Garai, the son of the Ban and Palatine Miklós Garai. It is common to all letters that the Turks are called Trojans, and the style of the long, sophisticated periodic sentences also suggests Vitéz’s hand. Most of the information on this period can be gleaned from the letters of Vitéz; apart from him several facts can be learnt from Piccolomini, Poggio Bracciolini,39 and also Nicolò Barbaro’s diary and letters to the Senate of Venice, although these sources are not necessarily reliable. 40 What is safe to 33 34 35 36 37

Ep. 36, 10. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 88. Ep. 37, 5. 37, 24. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 90, 92. Ep. 51, 5. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 112. Ep. 2, 38. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 39. Ep. var. 6, 1. Vitéz de Zredna, Opera, 177. The letters dated later than 1451 are of dubious origin in Boronkai’s collection. However, it cannot be questioned that after 1451 Vitéz took the side of Ladislaus V, so it is not unfounded to presume that the next letters were authentic. When in 1452 Vitéz stood up for the released young king, Hunyadi threatened him, in vain. Vitéz remained on the side of Ladislaus V. Cf. István Draskóczy, A tizenötödik század története [History of the fifteenth century]. Budapest, 2000, 198. 38 József Teleki, A Hunyadiak kora Magyarországon [The age of the Hunyadis in Hungary]. Vol. X, Pest, 1853, 349–350, 352–353, 358–362, 404, 466, 468, 520. 39 For example, Poggio Bracciolini, Epistolae. Opera omnia I–III. Ed. coll et emend. by Thomas de Tonellis. Torino, 1963, Vol. II, 310, 353–354. I am grateful to Klára Pajorin for pointing this source out to me. 40 Nicolò Barbaro, Giornale dell’ assedio di Constantinopoli 1453, corredato de note e documenti. Ed. by Enrico Cornet. Vienna, 1856, 67, 68–69, 74–76. In the Pertusi edition

335

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

state is that after the shock caused by the battle of Varna the “Trojan Turks” appeared more frequently in both the diplomatic documents and the letters. On 29 May 1453 the Ottomans conquered Constantinople and crushed the power of the Byzantine Empire. Both the West and the East had been aware of the danger, yet the shock and fright caused was boundless. The West was informed of the fall of Constantinople by numberless letters and eye-witnesses.41 The first eyewitness, a pilgrim from Basle, arrived in Venice on 12 June, followed by many in the summer, and refugees kept arriving until November. That was also when Cardinal Isidorus of Kiev – who had taken part in the declaration of the Union as the papal legate in 1452 – arrived in Venice. He was accompanied by his friend Leonardus, Archbishop of Mytilene, whom he had possibly made the acquaintance of at the Council of Florence discussing the Union.42 Obviously, the more valuable and authentic information on the fall of Constantinople comes from the eyewitnesses. Such are the notes of Angelo Giovanni Lomellino, the account of Jacobo Tedaldi, the report of delegate Nicola Sagundino, and that of Leonardus of Chiosi, Archbishop of Mytilene, and Cardinal Isidorus of Kiev to be presented briefly below.43 Cardinal Isidorus’ famous report Audite, omnes gentes… was written on Crete on 8 July 1453.44 It is among the earliest accounts, rather short without meticulous descriptions and, whenever possible, the writer resorts to the poetic device of conspiracy of silence to hold the reader in suspense, and uses naturalistic details to inspire shock and awe. Although in Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and the more recent Pertusi edition Turcus is the ethnonym throughout, in Bzovius’ collection of ecclesiastic works the name Teucer is included.45 Nicolò Barbaros’s Giornale is only given in Italian; see Pertusi, La caduta, Vol. I, 8–38. 41 On the fall of Constantinople and the works about it, see Marios Philippides, ‘The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Bishop Leonardo Giustiniani and His Italian Followers’, Viator 29 (1998) 192. 42 Ibid., 199. 43 For the works on the fall of Constantinople, see Pertusi, La caduta. Another collection on the theme: J. Melville Jones, The Siege of Constantinople 1453. Seven Contemporary Accounts. Amsterdam, 1972. 44 Leonardi Chiensis, ‘Historia Constantinopolitinae urbis a Mahumete II captae’, in Pertusi, La caduta, Vol. I, 124–171. Isidorus, ‘Universis Christifidelibus’, in Pertusi, La caduta, Vol. I, 80–90 and Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CLIX, 923–944, 953–956. Since the editions of Pertusi and Migne differ at several points, it is necessary to use both text variants. 45 Abraham Bzowski (Bzovius), Annalium ecclesiasticorum post illustrissimum et reverendissimum dominum D. Caesarem Baronium S. R. E. Cardinalem Bibliothecarium Tomus XVII. Rerum in orbe Christiano ab anno Domini 1447. usque ad annum 1471. gestarum

336

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

Walter Röll has proven that a day before the famous letter of 8 July, Isidorus had written another report to Bologna on 7 July. 46 In it he uses Theucer for the Ottomans; although the tone is calmer than that of the letter sent a day later, he gives no more details about the disaster of the city: “But now, alas, this dignified city has been defeated by the Trojan Mehmed, the basest servant of the Antichrist, at the cost of such sins, it is not with human power but with the permission of God that it came into his power.” 47 The Pertusi edition also includes other letters attributed to Isidorus, from both 1453 and later, in which he calls the Turks Trojans. It is therefore presumable that he always called the Ottomans Teucer and only later editors “corrected” the word usage. 48 The letter of 16 August 1453 by the Archbishop of Mytilene, Leonardus, contains more details about the siege and is far longer than Isidorus’. The letter starting with Flere mihi magis placet… and is known by the title Historia Constantinopolitanae Urbis a Mahumete II captae gives a detailed account of the precedents to the siege including the Union and the siege itself. Leonardus addresses the letter to Pope Nicholas V, so as to be the first to inform him of the details of the grievous event. In the letter he calls the Turks Teucer. Although he includes a parable of Troy in it, he does not find it contradictory to call a contemporary enemy and the actors of a legend by the same name. The news gave rise to several works, including Ubertino Pusculo’s Constantinopolis with its contradictory dedication, written around 1455−1456.49 After the fall of Constantinople the humanist authors felt an urge to clarify the origins of the Turks. There were still several works to be written in support of their Trojan origin – an amusing example being Giovanni Mario Filelfo’s epic Amyris 50 – or even in defence of the Turks, as exemplified by a letter to narrationem complectens. Köln, 1625. 46 The text is given in transliteration: Walter Röll, ‘Ein zweiter Brief Isidors von Kiew über die Eroberung Konstantinopels’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 69 (1976) 13–16. 47 Sed nunc prochdolor urbs illa dignissima sic cogentibus peccatis ab illo iniquissimo precursore antichristi Theucro Machmet debellata non humana potencia sed sic permittente deo iam tandem sub potestate sua reducta est. 48 Pertusi, La caduta, Vol. I, 100, 106, 108. 49 Pertusi, La caduta, Vol. I, 202, 204, 210, 212. 50 In his bravura epic Amyris (1478) Giovanni Mario Filelfo perpetuated the life of Mehmed II from the beginnings (ab infantia) upon the request of Othman Lillo Ferducci. Apart from its stunning intertextual references, it is outstanding in that it was first dedicated to Mehmed II, then to Galeotto Mario Sforza, Duke of Milan with an encouragement for a crusade. Cf. Schwoebel, The Shadow, 148–149 and Hankins, ‘Renaissance Crusaders’, 141. In the first

337

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Pius II written in the name of Mehmed II.51 Although the name Teucer was still often applied to them, a growing number of writings condemned this “misunderstanding”. A consistent user of Teucer till then, Piccolomini was ordained in 1446, and when he reconsidered his secular life, he realized how much harm this fashionable word usage caused to the organisation of a crusade. Most regrettably, this recognition came too late, after the fall of Constantinople. 52 In a letter written between 1447 and 1450, in which he reminisces on the late pope and sums up Eugene IV’s efforts, he still calls the Turks Trojan. 53 From then on, Piccolomini not only refrains from using this pun, but also indignantly rejects it, launching into tirades whenever the name comes up. When Constantinople fell, he was the bishop of Siena. In a letter he writes about the event to Nicolaus Cusanus: “For they are not Trojans – or Persians – who are called Turks today. This barbarous people is one of the Scythian groups who are said to have had their native land beyond the Euxinus and the Pirricheus Mountains, by the Eastern Sea, as wise Aethicus thinks.” 54 The same is included in his Cosmographia written during his papacy.55 Thus, from 1453 he consistently used Turcus, even though his corresponding

51

52

53 54

55

canto of the epic there are several allusions to the origin of Mehmed II from the Trojan rulers, although the Trojans are called Trojanus and not Teucer here, see J. Mar. Philelfi, Amyris. (Monumenta Hungariae Historica, XXII/1.) Ed. by C. Hopfio – Ph. A. Dèthier. S. l., s. a. For the approach of Mehmed II to Troy, see Robert Osterhout, ‘The East, the West, and the Appropriation of the Past in Early Ottoman Architecture’, Gesta 43:2 (2004) 165– 176. I would like to thank Pál Fodor for drawing my attention to this article. ‘Epistola Morbisani magni Turcae ad Pium papam II’, in Pio II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini), Lettera a Maometto II (Epistola ad Mahumetem). Trad., ed. by Giuseppe Toffanin. Napoli, 1953. Cf. Heath, ‘Renaissance Scholars’, 455: “Ironically, this work was usually published as a letter to Pope Pius (Aeneas Sylvius himself), although it had been addressed originally to his predecessor Nicolas V.” He officially admitted the aberrations of his secular works in his papal bull entitled In minoribus agentes dated 26 April 1463. By aberrations, his Euryalus and Lucretia are usually mentioned, but it is justified to presume that he also meant his use of Teucer when declaring: “Our writings are not ours, they got to many hands and have been read widely. If only those we published had remained in obscurity.” For the bull, see Aeneae Silvii Piccolominei, Opera quae extant Omnia. Basel, 1571, 2r. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, 67, 253. Non enim, ut quidam rentur, Teucri sunt neque Perse, qui nunc Turchi dicuntur. Scitharum ex media barbarie genus profectum est, quod ultra Euxinum Pirricheosque montes ad oceanum septentrionalem sedes prius habuisse traditur, ut ethico philosopho placet. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, 68, 209. Piccolominei, Opera, 383 (Cosmographia, Europa, cap. 100), as well as 383 and 384–385 (Asia, cap. 4.).

338

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

partners and contemporaries might call the Ottoman Teucer for some more time. That applies to the students at the school of Guarino of Verona, as for example the Hungarian Simon and Georgius Augustinus Zagabriensis. All we know of them is what they reveal in their letters. Simon discloses that he is a friend and pupil of Guarino of Verona and writes his letter to János Vitéz in September 1453, from his sojourn in Ferrara. (Simon was one of the young men whose studies abroad were supported by Vitéz.) 56 The letter narrates his meeting with Pál Ivanich, who tells his story from when he left Vitéz’s court and tried his luck in Rome. When the topic is the Ottomans, he quotes Ivanich as saying: “Since I had stayed here long and could safely declare that I was well versed in the matters of the Trojans and even had learnt their script well, news of it – he said – got to the pope, who backed me up for my knowledge with an admiring affection and I understood that he was not merely kindly disposed toward me but also thought of some benefit for me.” 57 Georgius Augustinus Zagabriensis’ name is only known from a published letter; it reveals that he studied in Guarino’s school in Ferrara from where he wrote a letter to his patron the Grand Provost of Esztergom, Miklós Ostffy, calling the Turks Trojans.58 Nicholaus V was followed by Callixtus III on the papal throne; he managed to organise a united European army for the battle of Nándorfehérvár (Belgrade). He was thus successful in his purposeful activity, though in his writings he is not so consistent, sometimes using the term Teucer too.59 After the siege of Nándorfehérvár the danger that loomed large over Europe seemed to be relieved. Callixtus III was succeeded by Pius II (1458–1464), the former Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, who exerted all his efforts to organise a crusade 56 On Simon in more detail, see József Huszti, ‘Magyar humanista mint török tudós V. Miklós pápa udvarában [A Hungarian humanist as Turkish scholar in the court of Pope Nicholas V]’, Századok 61 (1927) 344–350. Cf. Vilmos Fraknói, ‘Mátyás király magyar diplomatái [The Hungarian diplomats of King Matthias]’, Századok 32 (1898) 1–14. 57 Cumque ibi diutius stetissem et me inter Teucros satis longo temporis intervallo versatum profiterer, notitiam quoque litterarum illius gentis me peroptime tenere, subito, inquit, res est ad summum pontificem delata, ob cuius quidem rei studium mirifico me amore est complexus et eum non solum ex animo bene velle mihi intellego, sed etiam alicuius bene ficii opem brevi praestiturum. Nicolaus Barius – Georgius Polycarpus de Kostolan – Simon Hungarus – Georgius Augustinus Zagabriensis, Reliquiae. Ed. by Ladislaus Juhász. Leipzig, 1932, 14. 58 Juhász (ed.), Reliquiae, 20. 59 Philip Joshua Jacks – William Caferro, The Spinelli of Florence. Fortunes of a Renaissance Merchant Family. Pennsylvania, 2001, 298.

339

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

against the Ottomans in vain. Fed up with the tarrying, in 1464 he set out to take command of the papal fleet against the Ottomans, but he died on the way. In Hungary, Matthias Corvinus ascended to the throne in 1458; his high priority diplomatic and military goals included the Turkish question during his whole reign, though with varying weight. In his diplomatic and private correspondence he was consistent concerning the Turks, never putting down Teucer but always calling them Turcus. In his correspondence there is a letter written to him by Pope Paul II (1464−1471) in 1470 in which, ignoring his predecessor’s warning, he returns to a now fairly outmoded usage and calls the Turks Trojans.60 There are some other diplomatic documents from the time of King Matthias that also name the Turks Trojans.61 The above letter terminates the block of sources gleaned from correspondence. One reason may be that Vitéz, from whom the highest number of Hungarian sources derive, died in 1472. Though Pius II’s anti-Ottoman politics failed, his fight against the “Trojan Turks” was successful: this usage went out of fashion in Europe, at least in the correspondence of the chancelleries. In Europe, the authors who insisted on using Teucri were branded as “oldfashioned and ill-informed” from the 1480s, as Hankins points out. 62 The fad permeates other genres too (1470−1499). There is a work by an anonymous author from this period, usually dated to the 1470s. It is the Song on St Ladislaus, excerpts of which survive in the Gyöngyösi and Peer Codices. After collation and philological correction, the two fragments were published in volume I of the Collection of Old Hungarian Literature, edited by Áron Szilády in 1877.63 This edition was rectified in several places by Cyrill Horváth for the revised edition of the book in 1921, then Rabán Gerézdi, among others, added important commentaries to the text. 64 The poem is unique and 60 Vilmos Fraknói (ed.), Matthiae Corvini Hungariae regis epistolae ad Romanos pontifices datae et ab eis acceptae 1458–1490. Budapest, 1891, 81 (Ep. 61). 61 Iván Nagy – Albert B. Nyáry (eds.), Magyar diplomácziai emlékek Mátyás király korából 1458–1490 [Monuments of Hungarian diplomacy from the age of King Matthias]. Vol. I, Budapest, 1875, 213. 62 Hankins, ‘Renaissance Crusaders’, 139. 63 Szent László-ének [Song on St Ladislaus], in Áron Szilády (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára. Vol. I [henceforth RMKT I.]: Középkori magyar költői maradványok [Collection of old Hungarian literature. Remains of medieval Hungarian poetry]. Budapest, 1877, 277–279. 64 De sancto Ladislao, in Cyrill Horváth (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára. Vol. I 2 [henceforth RMKT I2.]: Középkori magyar verseink [Medieval Hungarian poems]. Budapest, 1921, 220–234. Rabán Gerézdi, A magyar világi líra kezdetei [Beginnings of the Hungarian secular poetry]. Budapest, 1962, 140–192.

340

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

has generated several arguments for and against translation versus originality.65 It eulogizes King St Ladislaus as the champion of Christianity, which is – in Gerézdi’s view – “proven”, or illustrated by stanza 16, only included in the Gyöngyösi Codex: Tu tartarorum terror eorum, crebro debellans in alpibus eos, tu bassarum pavor eorum, tu metus orbis Theucris vocabaris. 66 When taken literally, Ladislaus was the enemy of Tatars, pashas and Trojans. By tartarus used for ‘Tatar’ Cumans are to be understood, as Szilády rightly pointed out; bassanus is a clerical error for Pechenegs, so up to that point there is no anachronism.67 But Theucris is problematic: first Szilády identifies them with the Turks, citing a Pelbárt of Temesvár excerpt to prove that in the fifteenth century it was customary to call the Turks Trojans. 68 It is quoted by Cyrill Horváth, but he is wrong in presuming that the name usage was the invention of the humanists. He adds that the line is most probably anachronistic, for in St Ladislaus’ time Hungary cannot have had the slightest notion of the Turks.69 Gerézdi tries to resolve this anachronism in two ways: Theucris is either derived from the misspelling of terre – which, in my opinion, is quite unfounded –, or it is used to designate the Saracens, and he refers to a fifteenth-century German source in which the Turks are labelled Saracens. That, however, cannot be a decisive argument, for the designation works here in reverse order: true, there were several names in use to denote Turks – among others, Trojan, barbarous, pagan, Tatar – and Saracen would fit this list, 65 On the genre and verse form, see József Vekerdi, ‘Szent László-ének [Song on St Ladislaus]’, in Tibor Komlovszki (ed.), A régi magyar vers [The old Hungarian verse]. Budapest, 1979, 11–21. For a summary of the question of primacy, see Adrienne Dömötör (ed.), Gyöngyösi-kódex az 1500-as évek elejéről, a nyelvemlék hasonmása és betűhű átirata bevezetéssel és jegyzetekkel [The Gyöngyösi Codex from the early 1500s, facsimile and transliteration, with introduction and notes]. Budapest, 2001, 24. 66 The letter-perfect transliteration of the Hungarian version of the early 1500s from the Gyöngyösi Codex, see ibid., 45: Te thataroknak wag meg tereÿe / Magokath zagatad az hawas[on] / the poganoknak wag rethenetÿk / therekek mondotak feld felelmen[ek] (You are the terror of Tatars, / Who lost themselves on the snowy alps, / all pagans are frightened of you / the Turks regard you as the threat of the world). 67 RMKT I, 279. RMKT I2, 233. Gerézdi, A magyar világi líra kezdetei, 156–158. 68 RMKT I, 279. 69 RMKT I2, 233–234.

341

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

too. It does not mean that Theucris, meaning primarily Trojans and only secondarily the Turks, could have been applied to the Saracens: it would suffice to write Turkish instead of Saracen. Gerézdi rightly notes at the end of his reasoning that the name Teucer is used with deliberate allusion to the present.70 The unidentified author wrote a panegyric about the glory of St Ladislaus some 400 years later by bringing the saint king’s enemies closer to the enemy image of his own age. The Dubnicz Chronicle by an anonymous author appeared in 1479. 71 It relates the history of the Hungarians from the beginning to 1479 on the basis of several narratives.72 Up to Louis I the Buda Chronicle of 1473 and a shorter version of the Illustrated Chronicle can be read, then he narrates the story of Louis I on the basis of János Küküllei, then his source is again the Buda Chronicle up to King Matthias. 73 He adds to it what has happened since, but not always in chronological order:74 the massacre of the population of Várad, the burning down of the city (1474), and the battle of Kenyérmező (today Câmpul Pâinii, Romania) in 1479. The author of the Dubnicz Chronicle – Sándor Domanovszky claims – recorded events that showed King Matthias in a negative light, and consequently it is like a pamphlet pitted against the Buda Chronicle, which – on the other side of the coin – showed Matthias Corvinus in a favourable light.75 The sad events of Várad are perpetuated in caput 228, followed by an epitaph in hexameter:

70 Gerézdi, A magyar világi líra kezdetei, 159. 71 Flórián Mátyás (ed.), Chronica Dubnicense cum codicibus Sambuci, Acephalo et Vaticano Cronicisque Vindobonensi Picto et Budensi accurate collatum. Budapest, 1884. 72 Cf. with the most recent description of the chronicle: Balázs Kertész, ‘Dubnici Krónika’ [Dubnicz Chronicle], in Ferenc Földesi (ed.), Csillag a holló árnyékában. Vitéz János és a humanizmus kezdetei Magyarországon [Star in the shadow of the raven. János Vitéz and the beginnings of Humanism in Hungary]. Budapest, 2008, 78–79. 73 Although he relies on the Buda Chronicle, he is silent about the years between 1468 and 1474. Cf. Sándor Domanovszky, ‘A Dubniczi krónika [The Dubnicz Chronicle]’, Századok 33 (1899) 226–256, 342–355, 411–451. 74 For examples, see ibid., 76. 75 Kertész says this is the first work in Hungarian historiography in which a still living ruler is criticized.

342

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

Dor febru sanctis succumbit plebs pia teucris Peccatum populi plangit clades Varadini.76 Since this poem is in quantitative meter while the former is in qualitative meter, the question arises: was the choice of the word required by the number of syllables or the length?77 Disregarding here the possibility of metri causa, the two examples show well that it makes no difference metrically whether the poet wrote Teucris or Turcis. In the epitaph the choice between the two words might have made a difference if it had been a chronogram, but this is not the case here. This is the only locus where the writer of the Dubnicz Chronicle calls the Turks Teucer: Why? The answer might perhaps be found in Várad. In Hungary, the keenest user of Teucer was Bishop of Várad János Vitéz, who was involved in the conspiracy against King Matthias in 1471 and died out of grace in 1472. If the writer of the Dubnicz Chronicle was indeed so deeply opposed to Matthias as Domanovszky claims he was, then applying the word usage of the former bishop of Várad and later conspirer against King Matthias was a tour de force to express his own political views. 78 János Magyi’s collection of formulae with additions by Tamás Nyírkállai (therefore often called Magyi or Nyírkállai Codex) also includes two János Hunyadi epitaphs which contain Teucer instead of Turcus. 79 One – a prosaic epitaph – is usually dated to 1476 and was written by a Franciscan monk of Ragusa, and the other datable to 1480−1490 is versified, but there is even less information of its author than the former. The versified epitaph displays close connections with the Song on St Ladislaus, probably it was written in knowledge of it.80 76 “This pious folk fell victim to the Trojans on 6 February, the day of St Dorothy. / This disaster is the outcome of the sins of the people of Várad.” 77 The number of syllables and the word order are particularly intriguing as this is a cisiojanus poem, the anonymous poet indicating 6 February with the day of Dorothy. True, according to Gusztáv Heinrich’s definition this poem does not belong to the cisiojanus poems, for a cisio is not identified by hexameter but by observing the principle of “sillaba quaeque diem”, the correspondence of syllable and day. Here, it is not satisfied, for the syllable Dor ought to be the sixth. 78 This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the work is supposed to have been written in Várad (based on the abundance of events taking place in and around Várad); cf. Kertész, ‘Dubnici Krónika’, 78. 79 M. G. Kovachich, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum minores inediti. Vol. II, Buda, 1798, 1, 7. 80 On the two epitaphs, see Gerézdi, A magyar világi líra kezdetei, 169–170.

343

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

More or less contemporaneous with the later epitaph is János Thuróczy’s Chronica Hungarorum printed in 1488. As mentioned earlier, since the fall of Constantinople there was increasing demand for the clarification and dissemination of the origins of the Turks. Thuróczy tried to satisfy this demand by writing about their roots too; he ignores the Trojan fable and puts forth the Scythian origin of the Turks. He is writing about the inhabitants of Scythia when he remarks that the last people to derive from there were the Turks: “Besides, Scythia has nurtured and given to the world many other peoples, most recently the Turks. Though many believe that they are descendants of the Trojans and received their name from King Teucros, who went to the assistance of the threatened city during the devastations of the Trojan war, not in the form Turk, but Teucri (‘Trojan’).”81 In the wake of Aeneas Silvius, he then describes the Scythian origin of the Turks citing Aethicus.82 Eckhardt opines that Thuróczy combined the theories of Aethicus and Fredegar, that is, knowledge on geographic location and the legend of King Teucer were fused. Thuróczy was already among those who adopted the Scythian origin of the Turks. His work has source value for the present paper, indicating that the Turks were less and less called Trojans when it was written. My latest source evidences that the word usage appears in yet another new genre: a sermon. Pelbárt of Temesvár wrote his sermon in which he calls the Turks Trojans for 6 August, the feast of the Transfiguration: “But in the next year, in the year 1456 of the Lord, when the disgusting Trojan beleaguered Nándorfehérvár [Belgrade] with his army so as to destroy Hungary whole and the entire Christian world afterwards, the crusading force withstood successfully, God gave the victory to the Christians by routing the Trojans on this day, the day of the Transfiguration of Our Lord.”83 81 Multas preter has Scitia gentes suo in gremio enutritas fudit, quarum novissimi Thurci esse perhibentur, quamvis nonnulli illos Troyano de genere propaginem ducere et nomen a Thewcro rege, qui Troyani belli in fervore ruiture urbi auxiliaturus venerat, nomen non Thurci, sed Thewcri recepisse putent. Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum. Ed. by Erzsébet Galántai – Gyula Kristó. Vol. I, Budapest, 1985, 10. cap. De laude Scitarum et de gentibus de Scitia ortis, 89. sent., 31. 82 He must have received his knowledge of Aethicus from Piccolomini, who quotes Aethicus amply, cf. with the commentary to the text: Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum, 79–81. For Aethicus’ text see Die Kosmographie des Aethicus, 119–120. 83 Sed postea anno domini MCCCCLVI., cum fetidissimus theucrus obsedisset exercitu validissimo castrum nandor alba dictum, ut exinde totam demoliretur vngariam ac

344

TEUCRI SIVE TURCI

Pelbárt is mistaken when he dates the routing of the Ottomans to 6 August, as it happened earlier: the victory is customarily put to 21 July. 6 August became notable because the news of the victory arrived in Rome by then and Pope Callixtus ordered the ringing of the noon bells to the glory of the Christian troops on that day, and it was only a year later, in 1457, that the day was declared to be the day of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Pelbárt’s collected sermons, Sermones pomerii de sanctis, was published in 1499 in Hagenau, the third and fourth editions came out there in 1501. 84 These editions include Teucer in the cited passage, but the sixth edition of 1504 already has Thurcus here – a clear indication that the time of the Trojan Turks is over.

Conclusion Summing up the voluminous source material one can conclude that the role of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini had a salient role in both disseminating the studied word usage at first, and in prohibiting it later: until the 1450s the largest number of occurrences are covered in his oeuvre, while after the fall of Constantinople not only the Ottomans themselves, but also the word Teucer/ Teucrus becomes a mortal enemy. Despite the prohibition, this word usage became fashionable in the more popular genres in the last third of the century, and since the authors of these works were not involved in the correspondence of the chancery, their attitude is attributable either to their protesting against the prohibition, or their ignorance of it. At any rate, this pun appears to be an intriguing phenomenon of the fifteenth century. The sixteenth is the century of the spread of vernacular literature, and since most languages, including Italian consequenter christianitatem totam, cruciferis ex adverso resistentibus, deus dedit victoriam christianis theucro turpiter effugato isto die transfigurationis. Pelbartus de Themeswar, De transfiguratione Domini IV. sermo. Sermones pomerii de sanctis, pars. aest. s. XLV. Ed. by Johannes Rynmann. Hagenau, 1499. Károly Szabó – Árpád Hellebrant (eds.), Régi Magyar Könyvtár. Magyar szerzőktől külföldön 1480-tól 1711-ig megjelent nem magyar nyelvű nyomtatványoknak könyvészeti kézikönyve [Old Hungarian Literature. Bibliographic manual of printed works by Hungarian authors printed abroad between 1480 and 1711]. Budapest, 1896. The volume of 1499 (III. 49/2) is identical with that of 1501 (III. 93/2). The edition of 1504 presents Thurcus in the passage in question. 84 For editions of the works of Pelbárt of Temesvár, see Gedeon Borsa, ‘Laskai Osvát és Temesvári Pelbárt műveinek megjelentetői [The publishers of the works of Osvát Laskai and Pelbárt of Temesvár]’, Magyar Könyvszemle 121 (2005) 1–24.

345

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

which is closest to Latin, derives Trojan from Troianus and not from Teucer, the Turkish-Trojan (Teucri-Turci) pun could not survive in any language.

346

ÁGNES DROSZTMÉR

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS: EVALUATING PARALLELS BETWEEN A HUNGARIAN AND AN OTTOMAN TURKISH ROMANCE

Researchers have long been engaged in polemics about the origins of the Szilágyi and Hajmási romance.1 There is no question about the romance being a translation, as the text itself makes that explicit. 2 The origin of the text, however, is unknown. In this paper I call attention to parallels between the Szilágyi and Hajmási romance and an Ottoman epic poem, and make an attempt to explain them. Research has already considered the possible Slovakian, South Slavic and Latin sources and parallels of the theme and the motifs. Rezső Szegedy 3 looked at the Croatian variants (such as Marko Kraljevic and the history of Banus Zrínyi and the Emperor’s Daughter); Antal Hermann4 presented Transylvanian Saxon, Gypsy, and Serbian songs; János Honti 5 postulated a Latin precedent, also hypothesized by Béla Varjas, 6 while Slovakian variants of the story were also considered.7 1

2

3 4

5 6 7

I hereby express my gratitude to Pál Fodor, Balázs Sudár, Szabolcs Oláh, István Csörsz Rumen, Imola Küllős, Pál Ács, and Iván Horváth for their help with the completion of the paper. I also owe my thanks to Ezgi Dikici for acquainting me with Gazavatname and making the relevant literature accessible for me. Critical edition of the romance: ‘Szilágyi Mihály és Hajmási László históriája [The story of Mihály Szilágyi and László Hajmási]’, in Áron Szilády (ed.), Régi Magyar Költők Tára XVI/7 [Collection of early Hungarian poetry]. Budapest, 1912, 169–174. Rezső Szegedy, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási mondája a horvát népköltészetben [The legend of Szilágyi and Hajmási in Croatian folk poetry]’, Ethnographia 22 (1911) 41–47. Antal Herrmann, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási népballada és rokonságai [The Szilágyi and Hajmási folk ballad and its relatives]’, Budapesti Szemle 16 (1888) 284–297. Károly Bod examines the Transylvanian German folk ballads in ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási mondához [To the Szilágyi and Hajmási legend]’, Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny 37 (1913) 288–290. János Honti, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási monda szövegtörténete [History of the text of the Szilágyi and Hajmási legend]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 40 (1930) 304–321. Béla Varjas, A magyar reneszánsz irodalom társadalmi gyökerei [The social roots of Hungarian Renaissance literature]. Budapest, 1982, 13–18. Sándor Csanda, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási széphistória szlovák és magyar változata és a ballada eredetének kérdése [The Slovakian and Hungarian variants of the Szilágyi and Hajmási

347

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Imre Katona8 and Bertalan Korompay also thought it probable that the theme was originally South Slavic. Korompay 9 presented the Slovenian versions of the myth (King Matthias in a Turkish Prison – a parallel motif of the plot to the Szilágyi romance is Matthias being liberated by the daughter of the Turkish emperor, Margetica), and relying on János Honti’s criterion, he defined the condition for the relation between two textual variants: evidence being the similarity of certain elements of the story line (for example, quarrel of two good friends over a girl). Honti also defined the basic type of the plot, identifying it with a type within the Walther legend cycle of the German epic realm. In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the possible oriental origin of the theme and the plot, and in parallel variants. In his latest study connected to the romance,10 Előd Kovács looked for a Turkish equivalent of the story. The type of the story, he agrees, is retraceable to the German Waltharius manu fortis, and the source of the legend is possibly a tenth-century Byzantine epic, Digenes Akritas. The elaboration of this epic as the possible source of the Szilágyi romance is still to be accomplished, but it is certain that the text was highly popular around the increasingly stretched borders of the Ottoman Empire,11 with documented data from the period when Byzantine territories were brought into the realm. In Előd Kovács’s view, the Szilágyi romance is an alloy of two smaller stories: one is known from Central and Eastern Europe, the other from Eastern Anatolia and Iran. As a possible analogy, he also describes the spread of a Persian story subsisting from the sixth century and also found in later Byzantine and Arab sources, the legend of Ardakhshir.12 He hypothesizes that a pre-tenth-century oriental theme drifted to romance and the question of the ballad’s origin]’, in Valóság és illúzió: irodalomtörténeti tanulmányok [Reality and illusion: studies in literary history]. Bratislava, 1962, 37–79. 8 Imre Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Mária Kiss (ed.), Folklór és Tradíció VI. [Folklore and tradition]. Budapest, 1988, 131–144. Imre Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’ in Lábánál holdvilág, Fejénél napsugár... [Moonlight at her feet, sunlight at her head…]. Osijek, 1996, 29–50. 9 Bertalan Korompay, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási históriája a szlovéneknél és a magyar monda eredetkérdése [The story of Szilágyi and Hajmási among the Slovenians, and the question of the Hungarian legend’s origins]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 63 (1953) 218–226. 10 Előd Kovács, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Török népdalok Európától Szibériáig [Turkish folksongs from Europe to Siberia]. Debrecen, 2005, 244–268. 11 See ‘Düsturname’, in P. J. Bearman – Th. Bianquis – C. E. Bosworth – E. van Donzel – W. P. Heinrichs (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Leiden, 1960–2005. 12 Előd Kovács, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási műcsoport eredetéről [On the origin of the Szilágyi

348

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

Western Europe, and in Germanic cultures it was merged with a local plot to produce the Walther legend. This legend has Croatian, Slovenian, Romanian, Gypsy, Kurdish, Persian, and Georgian versions, with a common element of the stories that the heroine frees the captive. A similar story is also found in the Gesta Romanorum. Előd Kovács thinks that the roots of the Szilágyi and Hajmási legend 13 must be traced back to three traditions: German, South Slavic, and Slovakian. However, the first version of the text was in Hungarian, which passed on to the Slovakian and South Slavic traditions later. The author of the romance was a person of Latin erudition, who spoke both Hungarian and Slovakian. He must have read Waltharius (or its Polish version) and the poem written in Smederevo (Hungarian Szendrő), a place in Serbia, and when he returned to his home in Slovakian language territory, he took it with him. Upon Lajos Vargyas’ recommendation, Kovács admits, he tried to find the Ottoman Turkish variants of the ballad, without success so far. Earlier, Vargyas pondered a possible Central Asian link during his research of an epic topos for the romance,14 but this epic formula is only found in folk ballads, so being irrelevant for the text written in 1560, the present study is not concerned with it. Mihály Szilágyi’s figure crops up in an early sixteenth-century Ottoman Turkish epic poem, Suzi Çelebi’s Gazavatname, of which I learnt from a study by Ezgi Dikici.15 One of the protagonists is Mihály Szilágyi, and there is also a and Hajmási group of texts]’, in Ardakhsír perzsa nagykirály. A perzsa krónika és a magyar népballadák [Persian great king Ardakhshir. The Persian chronicle and the Hungarian folk ballads]. Debrecen, 2005, 69–99. 13 Előd Kovács, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási eredetéről I [On the origin of Szilágyi and Hajmási]’, Néprajzi Látóhatár 15 (2006) 203–211. 14 Lajos Vargyas, A magyar népballada és Európa [The Hungarian folk ballad and Europe]. Budapest, 1976, 328–337. Vargyas started out from an examination of the motif also found in variants of Szilágyi and Hajmási: “a foot path on the way there – a cart road coming back.” 15 A. Ezgi Dikici, ‘Christian Imagery in an Ottoman Poem: The “Icons” of Muslim Holy War riors in Suzi’s Gazavatname’, in Katalin Szende – Judith Rasson (eds.), Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 14 (2008) 9–22. Gazavatname was looked at more closely by Aleksej A. Olesnicki (Mihajlo Szilágyi i srbska despotija. Akcija Szilágyijeva za oslobođenje Smedereva od Turaka i njegov poraz od Ali-bega Mihaloglije kod Bazjaša 8. studenoga 1460. Zagreb, 1943). He published excerpts from the work in Croatian and Serbian translation. For this paper I used these translations and the excerpts rendered by Ezgi Dikici in English. The critical edition of Gazavatname appeared in 1956: Agâh Sırrı Levend (ed.), Ġazavātnāmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Ġazavāt-nāmesi. Ankara, 1956, 228–358. For this study I also used A. Ezgi Dikici’s dissertation: Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi: an Exploration

349

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

love story in it, involving the love and marriage of a Muslim hero, Mihaloğlu Ali Bey and a Christian princess, the daughter of the voivode of Wallachia to be exact. It is not only the figure of Mihály Szilágyi in a central role, but also the basic situation of the love story that are common in the two works, so it seemed worthwhile to take a closer look at the two texts and their analogies. Planned to have fifteen thousand strophes, now 1,795 beyts of it are known to survive in four fragments, the earliest from the second half of the sixteenth century. The name Gazavatname indicates the genre: the gaza narrative is close to a chronicle, a historical genre reporting on an event of the recent past, sometimes with fictitious elements as well. 16 The form is the two-lined strophe of 6-5 division, with couplet and internal rhymes (beyt).17 The work’s exact place of composition is unknown, but since the commission and the writing are connected to the estates of the Mihaloğlu family, the possible venues are Plevna (Pleven), Smederevo (Szendrő), and Vidin. The client who ordered the work was most probably the son of Ali, Mihaloğlu Mehmed Bey, who patronized Suzi Çelebi, among many other artists. The text was written at the beginning of the sixteenth century, after the death of Ali Bey in 1507. In this period, the politics of centralization in the Ottoman Empire divested several aristocrats of their positions. 18 This poem has therefore a political goal in depicting the hero as a strong-handed person who could defeat the Christians with arms and with his intellect, too. Ali Bey, scion of the powerful Mihaloğlu family, distinguished himself as leader of the akıncıs, the “marauders” and light cavalry19 in the war manoeuvres along the frontiers during the Balkan expansion of the empire in the fifteenth century, gradually rising in the military hierarchy.

16 17 18 19

of the Cultural Meanings of the Love Affair Episode in Suzi Chelebi’s Gazavatname of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey; online version accessible at http://www. library.ceu.hu/ETD.html. Levend says it may mean different gaza narratives that perpetuate the military triumphs of the Ottomans, see ‘Ghazal’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam. J. T. P. De Brujin, ‘Mathnawi’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam: the form evolved under Persian influence, it usually has a love theme but may also contain religious teachings. On the centralizing politics of the Ottomans in more detail, see Halil İnalcık, ‘Mehemmed II’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam. In everyday Ottoman usage, akıncı is also used to designate gazi (a person who took part in gaza, a military operation against the infidels. Later the rank became a title of the Ottoman rulers). A. Decei, ‘Akinji’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam. Cf. Pál Fodor, ‘Akıncı’, in Kate Fleet – Gudrun Krämer – Denis Matringe – John Nawas – Everett Rowson (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Three. Leiden–Boston, 2014, 14–16.

350

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

As the surviving fragments suggest, the work focuses on two main events. One is the campaign of Mihaloğlu Ali Bey in 1460 20 and the capture of Mihály Szilágyi, while the other is the love of Ali and Meryem (daughter of Erdel Bey, the voivode of Wallachia). The historical sources of Gazavatname are Ottoman chronicles, and it also relies on Ottoman Turkish, Persian, and Christian traditions. To the latter belong the worship of icons and the possible Christian associations of the name of the Wallachian princess Meryem. 21 Looking for parallels between Gazavatname and Szilágyi and Hajmási, one self-evidently compares the love stories of the two works. In the former, the love line is inserted as an episode into the heroic poem. 22 The factual background to the romance is that Mihaloğlu Ali did have two wives, both of Christian origin.23 One was the mother of Suzi’s patron Mehmed; the name of the princess can be taken as tribute to her Christian descent and even allusion to the Virgin Mary as a popular mother figure in Islam as well. The memory of the romance of Ali and the Christian princess survived in the family folklore of the Mihaloğlu dynasty until the nineteenth century, preserving the motif of the marriage with a “foreign” princess. Mehmet Nüzhet, a descendant and chronicler of the Mihaloğlu family24 narrated that Ali had also captured the daughter of King Matthias together with Mihály Szilágyi and later he married her. Structurally, the amorous episode is separated from the greater narrative of the text, which is emphasized by a separate title of its own. 25 Its significance lies first of all in the conveyance of Sufi spirituality: it depicts Ali Bey as a gazi ideal, a hero who can overcome his religious antagonists as well. Ali, 20 This campaign earned Ali Bey the post of district governor (sancakbeyi) of Vidin from the sultan. Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 7. 21 Dikici, Christian Imagery, 14. 22 The main elements of the plot of the episode are the following: upon her friend Banu’s advice Meryem turns to a monk to help decipher her dream. In the monastery, in a room lined with the images of warriors (gazi leaders), Ali’s picture arouses Meryem’s interest. The monk tells her the story of the picture: in Jerusalem he met another monk who always had the image with him. The latter was actually a European prince who once witnessed his father receiving an envoy of the (Hungarian) King. The envoy complained of the cruelties of the Turks, particularly of Ali Bey, but also talked in appreciative terms about their war feats. Hearing this, the prince joined the monks and decided to serve Ali. He was the painter of Ali’s portrait. The story made Meryem fall in love with Ali; the monk also paints a picture of Meryem which kindles amorous sentiments in Ali who later marries her, and also takes Banu as his wife afterwards. 23 Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 8. 24 Ibid., 7. See also Mehmed Nüzhet, Ahval-i Gazi Mihal. İstanbul, 1896. 25 The narrative part of the love episode is titled Şevkname. Olesnicki, Mihajlo Szilágyi, 12.

351

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

however, succumbs to the love of the princess, which lends Gazavatname a unique colour: it is very rare among other texts of the genre that a heroic warrior, a gazi would not refuse the offered love, for refusal is a sign of control over emotions. One such text is Düsturname, in which Aydınoğlu Umur Bey turns down the love of Despina, daughter of the Byzantine Emperor John Kantakouzenos.26 (NB. this is also about the love of a foreign princess.) Two layers of the love episode of Gazavatname can be differentiated in Ezgi Dikici’s view:27 worldly and mystic love. The mystic stratum of the episode serves Ali’s gazi figure, his heroism in line with the traditions of the elite Ottoman literature – Meyrem goes so far as to beg Ali to conquer her father’s country. The layer of this worldly love is most probably of oral origin: stories of this kind, the main aim of which was to motivate the warriors, were very popular along the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Such is the mentioned Düsturname, or the text about the capture of the fortress of Aydos 28 in which the Ottomans take a Byzantine stronghold with the help of the castellan’s daughter who marries one of the besiegers. In Gazavatname, Suzi Çelebi also interwove the classic Muslim love story of Khosrow and Shirin, who fell in love with each other’s image.29 The Hungarian Szilágyi romance also implies an internationally known story type in which the love of the pagan princess and the hero of “our side” is an elaboration of the “us vs them” antagonism. 30 We have to refrain from listing the long row of European examples, but it is worth noting that the plot is particularly frequent in the literature connected to the crusades. 31 The story 26 Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 21. 27 Ibid., 23. 28 William Hickman, ‘The Taking of Aydos Castle. Further Considerations on a Chapter from Aşıkpaşazade’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 99 (1979) 399–407. 29 1793rd beyt, Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 33. 30 The daughter of a pagan king is also found in Lajos Vargyas’ work, as a type of ballad – with a different story. Vargyas, A magyar népballada és Európa, 353–357. 31 A few examples: Floripas, sister of the Saracen knight, daughter of Sultan Laban falls in love with a knight of Charlesmagne, Gui de Bourgogne, and eventually converts to Christianity and becomes the ancestress of a great ruling dynasty (cited by Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Idols in the East. European Representations of Islam and the Orient, 1100–1450, Ithaca–London, 2009, 175, 189). In Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Willehalm, Guillaume d’Orange in captivity falls in love with Arabel, daughter of the lord who imprisoned him; they elope, the girl converting to Christianity; in Eschenbach’s other work, Parzival, the hero marries a Muslim princess (Jerold C. Frakes, Vernacular and Latin Literary Discourses of the Muslim Other in Medieval Germany. New York, 2011, 59).

352

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

has a variant – and a specific one, to boot – in the Hungarian context as well: King Matthias mentions in a letter to Sultan Mehmed II that the wife of Murad II, that is, Mehmed’s mother, was the sister of his grandmother, who had been taken captive by the Ottomans.32 The basic situation in regards to the love theme is common to both texts, as is the motif of the dream connected to the romance, appearing both in Gazavatname and Szilágyi and Hajmási. In the Svilojevic song published by András Dávid,33 a maiden girl inquires with the moon about her lover, the imprisoned Szilágyi. Előd Kovács34 also knows of a narrative about a young nobleman, the young Banus Szekula in captivity of the Moors, in which the tsarina of the Prizren palace sees in her dream the capture of a grey falcon by ravens. In the Gazavatname, Meryem sees in her dream a beautiful rose in the middle of a garden, whose face radiates the light of Mohamed and its fragrance is like Jesus’ breath. The flower symbolizes Ali Bey, apparently. Although there is no room here to examine the dream motifs in detail, it can be stated that the dream motif is often, though not necessarily connected to a theme involving a foreign princess. The next matter to be looked at is the figure of Mihály Szilágyi. Regarding historical facts, Matthias’ uncle was last taken captive in 1460, after his clash with Ali Bey. This event is narrated by the Gazavatname. The historic framework for the story of Szilágyi and Hajmási might be his captivity in 1448, from which he was obviously freed.35 Owing to the popularity and folklore adaptation of the theme, the episodes of the two captivities could 32 Pál Fodor, ‘The View of the Turk in Hungary: The Apocalyptic Tradition and the Legend of the Red Apple in Ottoman–Hungarian Context’, in Benjamin Lelleouch – Stephane Yerasimos (eds.), Les traditions apocalyptiques au tournant de la chute de Constantinople. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Istanbul (13–14 avril 1996). Édités par Benjamin Lellouche et Stéphan Yerasimos et publiés par l’Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges-Dumézil d’Istanbul. (Varia Turcica, XXXIII.) Paris–Montréal, 1999, 113. 33 András Dávid, Egyazon égtájon. Fejezetek a magyar–délszláv és délszláv–magyar kapcsolattörténet köréből [In the same corner of the world. Chapters in the history of Hungarian–South Slavic and South Slavic–Hungarian relations]. Novi Sad, 1993, 135–137. In South Slavic epic Mihály Szilágyi’s name is Mihajlo Svilojevic. 34 Előd Kovács, A Szilágyi és Hajmási műcsoport eredetéről, 76. Meaning of the dream: the Saracens capture the young banus. 35 Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Lábánál holdvilág, 47. The historical basis of the romance might also be provided by the flight of some members of the sultanic family to Hungary (one of them was in Pest under the name Katalin Császár [lit. emperor], in 1453). This explanation is, however, insufficient as a historical basis.

353

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

easily be mixed up, but this seeming contradiction does not preclude the connection between the two texts. Szilágyi in Gazavatname is a negative figure driven by material-worldly interests. A counter-pole and the fiercest antagonist of Ali Bey, his capture was one of the bey’s greatest victories. There are other opponent figures in the poem, too, whose function is to indicate that Christians surrender to the might of Ali Bey. In Gazavatname, Szilágyi is the only thoroughly negative figure. By contrast, the Szilágyi of the Hungarian romance is a stylized figure, with few individualized features. It is important to note a further connection between the two romances: stressing Szilágyi’s features, the narrative also names him Black banus; József Thury also lists this among his names. 36 The two protagonists of the Hungarian romance have already been in the focus of debates among researchers: János Honti and Bertalan Korompay both defined the two figures as compulsory elements of this story type, while in some variants, only Szilágyi is present. Doubling the hero is thus not indispensable, but a frequent feature. A pair of men is also a common element in Gazavatname: two monks choose Ali as their spiritual leader, while there is another pair of characters, which parallels more closely the Hungarian romance: Meryem and her friend Banu, whose status is similar to the friend Hajmási’s. Eventually, Ali Bey marries both of them, involving both in the amorous story-line. The starting situation of the two heroes is also similar. In the Hungarian romance, imprisoned Szilágyi looks out of the prison window; in the Turkish story, Meyrem, by the prohibition of her father, is not allowed to go out to enjoy the delights of spring. The time of year also displays similarities: in both stories, the beginning of the love episode can be tied to the first day of spring. In Gazavatname, the first day of spring is expressly named, while the Hungarian story begins at Whitsun. 37 The motif of singing and music is also found in both texts: in the Hungarian romance, the princess’s attention is caught by 36 József Thury, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási históriája’ [The story of Szilágyi and Hajmási], Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 3 (1893) 293–306. He cites the description of the battle of Rigómező by an anonymous chronicler dated 1485 in which he is mentioned by the name Mikhál Kara Szilágyi. Recently, it has been pointed out that the person figuring in various Ottoman chronicles by this name has been erroneously identified with Mihály Szilágyi; in reality he was a nobleman and the alispán of Temes County and his name was Mihály Csornai. See Tamás Pálosfalvi, From Nicopol to Mohács: A History of the Ottoman– Hungarian Wars 1396–1526, forthcoming. 37 Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 18.

354

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

Szilágyi’s playing the cobza; in the Ottoman text, when she gets permission from her father to go out, Meyrem and her friend enjoy music played in the garden. A study of where the possible origins of the texts could be located is indispensable for an exploration of how they are interrelated. As regards Szilágyi and Hajmási, arguments for both Szendrő in Borsod County (Northern Hungary) and Szendrő (Smederevo) near Belgrade have been voiced. At first, on account of references to the fiddler’s song of Szendrő, the Szendrő in Borsod County was considered38 as the place more easily linked to the work, however recent research sees the latter option as more probable. Imre Katona points out39 that the fleeing warriors clash with the pursuers on a Danube island, and then arrive in Nagyszombat (which, in Katona’s view, is not identical with the Bulgarian Tirnava, as was earlier presumed, but is a small town in Szerémség (Syrmium, today district in Croatia [Srijem] and Serbia [Srem]). The Szendrő of former southern Hungary is also considered a possible place of origin for the Gazavatname, as Mihaloğlu Ali Bey was the first sancakbeyi of the town, and after his death, when the poem was written, Suzi Çelebi probably resided there. According to the text, Mihály Szilágyi was also held captive there after his battle with Ali Bey. Acceptance of the relatedness of the two texts means confirmation of Szendrő in Serbia being the possible place of origin for the Hungarian romance. What could further information about the author of the Gazavatname add to this picture? The native town of Suzi Çelebi, Prizren (Kosovo) came under Ottoman rule in 1455 as the centre of a sancak. Suzi probably converted to Islam after that, as evidenced by his epitaph naming his father as Mehmed bin Abdullah, a name the Ottoman administration used when a non-Muslim name was at issue, which implied that Suzi’s grandfather was possibly of Christian origin.40 Consequently, Suzi’s mother tongue was not necessarily Ottoman 38 Sándor Csanda, ‘Közös széphistóriánk a XVI. századból [A romance from the 16th century we share]’, in Idem, Magyar–szlovák kulturális kapcsolatok [Hungarian-Slovakian cultural relations]. Bratislava, 1959, 70–83. The paper argues for Szendő in Borsod as the place of origin of the romance on the basis of the text of the fiddler’s song from Szendrő (Issza Bebek jó borát, / Törölgeti tarkóját [Bebek’s drinking his good wine / He keeps wiping his nape]). Albert Kardos also argued for Borsod in ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási mondája a magyar költészetben [The legend of Szilágyi and Hajmási in Hungarian poetry]’, Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny 9 (1885) 585–616. 39 Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Lábánál holdvilág, 30. 40 Ferenc Szakály – Géza Dávid, ‘Újabb adalék Tinódi Sebestyén történetírói hiteléhez.

355

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Turkish, and he belonged to the first generation of Balkan intellectuals with some level of Ottoman literacy, though not speaking it as their mother tongue. Having studied at a medrese, his basic Islamic education was given, and within Islam he was a representative of Sufi spirituality, being a member of the Naqshbandi or Mevlevi Sufi dervish order.41 In 1513, after completing Gazavatname, Suzi Çelebi left the Mihaloğlu family and settled in Prizren to live there until his death in 931 (1524–25). 42 He was active as an imam, supporting a mosque and medrese through his pious foundation. Despite the Ottoman conquest, however, Prizren remained basically a Christian town: in 1530, 270 Ottoman and 396 Christian households were registered.43 Since Suzi’s family was among the newly converted ones, the inclusion of Christian elements, such as the worship of icons or Christian monks in the Gazavatname is not surprising. Moreover, it is also presumable that Suzi knew the South Slavic variants of the Waltharius story type and used them for his work – although, certain elements of the story are also included in Ottoman texts (for instance, the mentioned Düsturname or the Aydos story) having became popular after the conquests of Byzantine areas, and thus possibly known by Suzi. What conclusions can be drawn from the described parallels? There are three options: the first two being that one is the source of the other or vice versa, meaning that their relationship is hierarchical, subordinated; the third possibility is that the two texts have a common third source, or draw on a set of sources, meaning a coordinated relationship. Let us take a look at these options and their consequences in turn. Taking the former to be the case, that is, of subordinated relationship between the two texts, there are two explanations for the parallel elements. First: Gazavatname used an earlier version of the Szilágyi romance. This is highly unlikely: the plot, language and negative characterization of Szilágyi all contradicting it. Hajdar bin Abdullah timár-birtoka [New facts to add to the authenticity of Sebestyén Tinódi as a historian. The timar-holding of Haydar bin Abdullah]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 106 (1996) 486. 41 When introducing the love scene, the narrator emphasizes the importance of such episodes in the gaza works (beyt 1165), and compares their impact to the Mevlevi dervishes’ flute calling to dance. Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 17. 42 Aleksej A. Olesnicki, ‘Suzi Čelebi iz Prizrena, turski pesnik-istorik XV–XVI veka’, in Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva 13. Skopje, 1934, 69–82. 43 M. Kiel, ‘Prizren’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam.

356

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

The second possibility is that the Hungarian romance borrowed elements from the Turkish work. Considering this option, it must also be weighed as a possibility that the motifs did not come directly from an Ottoman source, but via South Slavic mediation. That was, obviously, the most probable scenario hypothesized by research so far, but no Ottoman Turkish text has been cited among possible sources until now. This alternative would be fascinating, if interpenetration between the two texts would not raise serious concerns. Indeed, there is only a meagre chance of an elite Ottoman text penetrating popular South Slavic and Hungarian poetry. This theoretical contradiction is joined by another: the clear anti-Ottoman stance of Szilágyi and Hajmási, which precludes with almost complete certainty that the author used the Gazavatname as his source. Therefore this option must be taken with reservations, similarly to the first one. As has been seen, hypothesizing a hierarchical relationship between the two texts raises substantial problems, but there is a third possibility: instead of assuming a linear connection between them, we may presume that the two works used identical sources, or more precisely, a stock of identical oral motifs, taken from the same tradition. On the basis of our knowledge so far and the listed similarities, it can be contended that around Szendrő/Smederevo near Belgrade, there were several popular texts in the sixteenth century which narrated Szilágyi’s captivity and incorporated a special love story involving an aristocratic lady professing a different religion from the central hero. This common oral tradition can be defined territorially as well as in terms of its narrative elements. The hypothesis is therefore the following: both the Szilágyi romance and Gazavatname used an identical repository of oral traditions, or more accurately, of essential oral elements existing in this common tradition as their source. However, this assumption is only acceptable when certain conditions have been met. First: the two texts only use parts of this tradition and rely on it to different extents, also drawing on other sources. Second: the common oral tradition as source must not be seen as homogeneous in any way, but rather conceived as parallel story elements, of which only a few are picked for the works concerned. To put it more palpably: on the input side there is a reservoir of oral sujet elements, and on the output side, there are numerous written texts making use of these elements. Examples of the latter are the two texts under scrutiny here, with lots of other realizations, including the folkloric versions of the Szilágyi romance.

357

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

The next statement of the hypothesis is that each work uses the motifs picked from the broad repository in a manner that best satisfies its purpose. Gazavatname is a work of high politics, its aim is the self-justification of the Mihaloğlu family and their glorification in the teeth of the politics of the House of Osman, which had squeezed them into the periphery.44 That is why the Mihaloğlus are depicted as powerful spiritual leaders and intrepid warriors: even Christian monks choose Ali as their spiritual leader. Suzi Çelebi calls Ali Bey Ali,45 Rustem, and Mars, and revives the family legend that the Mihaloğlus derived from Köse Mihal, the fourteenth-century ally of the Ottomans. Thus, the Ottoman text mainly uses the thematic elements in a political context, while the aim of Szilágyi and Hajmási is mainly entertainment. The oral foundations seem evident in both works, but each of them uses this background to promote divergent goals.46 The supposition that this oral tradition was probably in South Slavic is made more possible by the presumption that Suzi Çelebi’s mother tongue was most likely Serbian.47 The mentioned Christian elements of the Ottoman work also point towards a common stock of oral motifs and may also help date the Hungarian romance, since their existence proves the presence of these motifs in the oral epic at the time of writing Gazavatname, that is, in the early sixteenth century. It is thus feasible to presume that there is an extant interrelation between the texts: thus, at this point the character of the relationship will have to be clarified. How can this connection be represented? If we take Szilágyi and Hajmási for a specimen of the popular register, of popular literature, we may apply Imola Küllős’ strategy48 – popular literature being open in both directions, toward elite literature and folklore alike. This formula also justifies a possible reliance of the romance on oral epic, but there is no explanation as 44 Dikici, Christian Imagery, 11. Applying the methods of the genre of Gazavatname, the poem describes Mihaloğlu Ali Bey as an outstanding gazi and akıncı leader also using religious elements. 45 Ali ibn Abi Talib, the nephew of Mohamed. 46 Spinning this idea on, one may conclude that the same scenario applies to the earlier parallels of the legend, for instance, the German Waltharius manu fortis or Düsturname: they used the story motifs of an earlier oral tradition in different times for different pur poses. 47 Dikici, Christian Imagery, 10. 48 Imola Küllős – Rumen István Csörsz (eds.), Közköltészet 1, Mulattatók. [Popular poetry 1, Entertainers]. (Régi Magyar Költők Tára, XVIII/IV/1.) Budapest, 2000, 25.

358

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

to the relation between the Ottoman story and oral culture. In an attempt to settle the issue, it seems useful to review the mechanisms of interpenetration of orality and literacy in the first place, and of genres, forms and languages in the following. When the inquiry takes this course, the question to be asked is not whether an oral epic might have oozed upward into Ottoman elite literature and into Hungarian popular literature; the question is about the likeliness for one and the same oral tradition to appear in different written texts. Concerning the issue of mediality, the following questions can be raised: Under what conditions can texts of written and oral traditions be intermingled at all? What are the apparent characteristics of orality and literacy in the studied texts? As an analogy to the Hungarian romance, I would refer to several findings about the Cantio de militibus pulchra,49 as this text is akin to Szilágyi and Hajmási in several regards.50 Iván Horváth and Géza Orlovszky have both concluded that the lack of didactic allusions and Latin cultural material is unusual for the romances, including the Szilágyi and the Cantio.51 It is also a rare case that both texts survive in manuscripts, since the usual form of transmission of event poetry is in print. 52 The medium of the Cantio displays features of both written and oral traditions. In Béla Varjas’ view,53 the Cantio and the genre of event poetry in its entirety may be regarded transitional: the works were typically composed in writing, but performed (and presumably varied) orally; thus, the texts had written form(s), but illiterates also learnt and disseminated them. Varjas claims that the surviving version of Cantio is also one of the latter variants. Apart from this one, there is another, more feasible hypothesis: the text might have been composed orally, written 49 Cantio de militibus pulchra, in Áron Szilády (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára XVI/7. Budapest, 1912, 175–180. 50 See the most recent synthesizing study on the text, László Jankovits, ‘A szóbeli kultúra és a Cantio de militibus pulchra [Oral culture and the Cantio militibus pulchra]’, in Idem, Hazugok, fecsegők, álmodozók. Tanulmányok a régi magyar költészetről [Liars, gossips, dreamers. Studies on early Hungarian poetry]. Budapest, 2006, 32–54. 51 Iván Horváth, ‘Eötvös-füzetek (recenzió) [Eötvös booklets (review)]’, Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 92 (1984) 125. Géza Orlovszky, ‘A históriás ének 1574. Megjelenik a Cancionale [The historical song 1574. The Cancionale is published]’, in Mihály SzegedyMaszák – László Jankovits – Géza Orlovszky (eds.), A magyar irodalom történetei [The histories of Hungarian literature]. Vol. I, Budapest, 2007, 310–323. 52 Horváth, ‘Eötvös-füzetek’, 125. 53 Béla Varjas, ‘Szép ének a gyulai vitézekről [Beautiful song of the heroes of Gyula]’, in Béla Varjas, A magyar reneszánsz irodalom társadalmi gyökerei [Social roots of Hungarian Renaissance literature]. Budapest, 1982, 185–221.

359

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

down after dictation,54 similarly to the story of Szilágyi and Hajmási.55 On the cultural border area between orality and literacy, the mobility of texts is possible in both directions: “Both the transformation of Cantio from historical song into a variant of oral poetry, and its conversion in the opposite direction, from an oral form into a written medium can be envisaged.” 56 Though among the early researchers of mediality the existence of such intermediary categories was disputed, 57 more recent researchers do not regard these forms of creation to be exclusive. In Walter J. Ong’s view, a transitional case58 is when a certain written text evolves upon the creative principle of oral texts, using repetitions and formulae. To catalogue the specific features of texts created on the boundary of written and oral cultures, Varjas collected the fixed phrases, formulae in the Cantio and their occurrences in other texts. 59 Several of these are included in Szilágyi and Hajmási, too, their presence reinforcing the oral character of the text. The study of formulae has lately been proposed in connection with the romance, when Előd Kovács 60 used a similar method to 54 Horváth, ‘Eötvös-füzetek’, 125. 55 Orlovszky, ‘A históriás ének 1574’, 319. 56 Jankovits, ‘A szóbeli kultúra és a Cantio de militibus pulchra’, 34. Jankovits cites György Arató’s study ‘Cantio de militibus pulchra (1565). A históriás ének stilisztikai szempontú elemzése (A XVI. századi történeti epika stilisztikai és műfaji problémái) [Stylistic analysis of the historical song (Stylistic and genre problems of the 16th-century historical epic)]’, in István Bartók – István Monok (eds.), Régi magyar irodalmunk és európai háttere [Early Hungarian literature and its European background]. Szeged, 1980, 73–126. Here Arató adduces diverse levels of repetitions and the system of conceptual rhythms proving that Cantio is primarily of oral character. 57 Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the World. New York, 1982, 59. Albert Lord and Milman Parry separated the oral and written composition (the former based on improvisation, the latter based on thorough reflections). See in more detail Walter J. Ong, ‘Oral Memory, the Story Line and Characterization’, in Idem, Orality and Literacy, 139–155. 58 Ong, Orality and Literacy, 25. On the history of the theory of oral formulae, see John Miles Foley, The Theory of Oral Composition. History and Methodology. Bloomington, IN, 1988. 59 For parallel formulae, see Varjas, A magyar reneszánsz, Appendix: 349–353. The cited identical formulae include (in modern orthography): egy szép dolog (a nice thing); gyorsan nyergelének sok fő lovakat (they quickly saddled many fine horses); ez szót mondja vala (and this he said); azt mindnyájan tudjátok (you will all know); harmincadokon általmenének (they went through customs); mihelt ezt hallá (as soon as he heard this); És nagy viadalt vélök tartának (and they clashed with them in a great battle). 60 The method was worked out by Milman Parry, The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers. Oxford, 1971. Though Előd Kovács, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Török népdalok, 265 does not refer to Parry, the method he applies is unquestionably connected to the traditions of orality research introduced by Parry.

360

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

examine the verbatim correspondences in the texts while elaborating his theory of the story’s passage into German culture. It seems that formulae are indeed used in Szilágyi and Hajmási, but they raise a crucial problem concerning the historical background: if they prove to be formulae, can they be used in the way Imre Katona did, for the definition of the historical bases? 61 While there is no room to discuss this question here, it is important to stress that as sources of historical authenticity these text sections must be treated with reservations. There are other features in support of the oral origins of the Hungarian romance. One is the presence of name variants in different versions. In some, Mihály Szilágyi’s Christian name is Miklós. 62 Undoubtedly, such elements can easily change during the repeated recitals, and such variants can come about when a written story is being folklorized, however, name variants occur not in Hungarian exclusively, but also in South Slavic versions. The versification, the imperfect rhyming – which, Varjas argues, 63 must be attributed to the primacy of the melody over the rhymes – and the regularity of the inner division of the lines all allude to an oral origin. The less rigid formal construction may also point to the transmission of the text in the form of a manuscript, since the topic has priority over versification. Several folklorized versions of the romance and the presence of its form (5–5–7) in folk poetry 64 as well as in Bálint Balassi’s (1554–1594) oeuvre may be proof of its oral roots, as is the lack of acrostic, the use of the dialogic form and syntactic parallels as decisive structural elements. Dissemination in handwritten form also strengthens the oral character of the text. These features thus support Béla Varjas’ statement that Ottoman-ruled areas were characterized by a strong oral epic tradition. 65 61 Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, in Lábánál holdvilág, 30, also relied on the phrase harmincadokon általmenének (they went through customs) in arguing for Szendrő in Serbia. Though the rest of his reasoning is convincing and the present author also shares Katona’s opinion, the probative force of the cited formula is questionable. 62 A variant of Szilágyi and Hajmási recorded by Károly Szabó in Csíkszék, and another version collected by Samu Szabó also in the Székely land have Miklós Szilágyi as their hero. The folk ballads are published in Kovács, ‘A Szilágyi és Hajmási műcsoport eredetéről’, 105–107, and 107–109. 63 Jankovits, ‘A szóbeli kultúra és a Cantio de militibus pulchra’, 45, quotes Varjas’ explan ation (Varjas, ‘Szép ének a gyulai vitézekről’). 64 Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, 44, names the song Érik a szőlő... (The grapes are ripe…) as the parallel of the form, and moreover, the subdivision of the lines reminds him of the South Slavic bugartsicas. The form can be found in Balassi’s poetry, in the poem with the incipit Beteges lelkem... (My invalid soul…). 65 Béla Varjas, ‘A históriás énekfajták [Types of historical songs]’, in A magyar reneszánsz

361

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

Since Gazavatname belongs to elite Ottoman poetry stylistically, it is more difficult to discern peculiarities that characterize oral poetry. The gaza tradition on which it is based, is a transitional genre having roots primarily in the oral form.66 However, one may find formulae in it: the narration of the love episode echoes the plot of folk tales and several tale formulae are also part of the narrative.67 Some, already discussed storyline parallels, such as spring as the start of the love concern, are also formula-like. Elements of the Gazavatname plot also became folkloric: variants of the story were preserved in family chronicles up to the nineteenth century. Evidently, while it cannot be doubted that the text has a preponderance of traditional elements of literacy, at the same time, a certain measure of the motifs of the story might well derive from an oral tradition. Markers of literacy can also be found in the story of Szilágyi and Hajmási. These include utterances conveying the author’s self-consciousness in the first strophe and the colophon. It seems certain that the text from 1561 was translated from a written text, as the text itself claims that “it was written by a young man… from a poet’s verse”. The author’s remarks that refer to the written nature of the text by emphasizing the framed structure of the story may indicate that these notes are later additions. In a culture on the borderlands of oral and literary tradition it may be common that during the conversion of oral texts into written forms, features of the oral form remain in the story proper, but structures of analytic-synthetic revision are also added. 68 When a text is transferred into script, the structure of the message becomes reshuffled, with forward and backward allusions in structure and plot, as well as possible changes in the dramatic structure. After being written down, a text can be read not only linearly, but also in a synthetic manner. The frame of the romance in focus is a typical realization of this tendency, as the produced structure is retrievable, re-writable, and re-readable. Szilágyi and Hajmási is thus a story based on oral sources and further elaborated in writing. What was its writer’s attitude to the oral form? Varjas 69 claims that the writer of the romance certainly stood aloof of the oral tradition, irodalom, 125–149, 141. 66 Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds. The Construction of the Ottoman State. Berkeley– Los Angeles–London, 1995, 62. 67 Dikici, Painting an Icon of the Ideal Gazi, 18. 68 Ong, Orality and Literacy, 148. 69 Varjas, ‘A históriás énekfajták’, 129.

362

THE CAPTIVITY OF MIHÁLY SZILÁGYI AND THE LOVE OF THE PRINCESS

deeming it unreliable. If that is true, is it possible then that the poet of Szilágyi and Hajmási, who gave testimony of his self-awareness as an author ranking himself among those promoting the letter-based tradition, would draw so heavily on the oral tradition? On the basis of the above-said, it can be concluded that although he made it clear that he was working from a written source, and he thought of himself as a poet, oral elements did not disturb him. All this suggests that he had a special literacy that includes a strong authorconsciousness and aim to promote written tradition, and yet also allows for the inclusion of oral elements. This sort of erudition is apparently fairly rare; a similar example is perhaps the Cantio de militibus pulchra, which is also devoid of “the author’s intention to be historically authentic”. 70 That is obviously true for Szilágyi and Hajmási, since the text, as Balázs Pap 71 points out, does not label itself history – things that happened – a term literary historians have used to refer to it only since scholar Ferenc Toldy: its copiers refer to it as a “song”, forestalling the possibility of regarding it as a historical source. The choice of the topic is also revealing: speaking of Szilágyi, a figure of little relevance at the time of the writing of the text, it shifts the genre towards entertaining romance. The choice of genre also explains the low degree of didacticism in the text. The oral elements of the text suggest that the anonymous author of Szendrő was not a scholarly poet, but at the same time, the presence of oral elements and the supposition that he used oral elements that are also present in the Gazavatname, throws a special light on the literacy of the author.72 Characteristics of both oral and literary forms can thus be found both in the story of Szilágyi and Hajmási and the Gazavatname. The final conclusion of the present paper is that origins of the Szilágyi and Hajmási romance might be traced in the oral tradition, however, the actual text was based on a written source, whose original version derived from an oral epic tradition wherefrom the Ottoman Turkish Gazavatname also picked up oral story elements. This common oral tradition was flexible in terms of language, form, and manner of composition, and the two texts drawing on it are different in their languages, 70 For Varjas’ insight, see in Tibor Klaniczay (ed.), A magyar irodalom története 1600-ig [History of Hungarian literature until 1600]. Budapest, 1964, 394–395. It is cited in Jan kovits, ‘A szóbeli kultúra és a Cantio de militibus pulchra’, 33. 71 Balázs Pap, Históriák és énekek [Stories and songs]. Pécs, 2014, 53–55. 72 So far the author’s Latin culture was highlighted (for example, Katona, ‘Szilágyi és Hajmási’, 50); this may now be complemented and shown in a new light.

363

THE CHANGING IMAGE OF THE TURKS IN LITERATURE AND FOLKLORE

target audiences and their functions. The link between the two texts is the common oral basis; this connection is, however, difficult to interpret when by definition, origin must be the direct cultural source from which the entire text or the motifs of a work are drawn. The presented case, as has been seen, is a more complex one, since we have at hand only indirect and hypothetical origins. What might, and what might not be a variant is a crucial question of both philology and folklore: identical markers must be weighed both qualitatively and quantitatively. There is justification in presuming the existence of the common oral basis of an Ottoman Turkish and a Hungarian story, which may prove the interpenetration of languages and genres and the co-existence of written and oral traditions in the literature of Ottoman Hungary.

364

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

GERGELY TÓTH

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS MÁTYÁS BÉL ON OTTOMAN AND POST-OTTOMAN HUNGARY

Rector of the Evangelical school in Besztercebánya (today Banská Bystrica, Slovakia), then in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia), and later the minister of the German Lutheran congregation of Pozsony, Mátyás Bél was undoubtedly the most outstanding and versatile Hungarian historian of the first half of the eighteenth century.1 Educated in Halle and held in high esteem by the famous Pietistic scholar, August Hermann Francke, Bél wished to outline the geography and history of Hungary in his chef d’oeuvre, Notitia Hungariae Novae Historico-Geographica 2 following the signposts of German state 1

2

The most important studies, summaries on Mátyás Bél’s life and works: Lajos Haan, Bél Mátyás. Budapest, 1879. Imre Wellmann, ‘Bél Mátyás (1684–1749)’, Történelmi Szemle 22:2 (1979) 381–391. Imre Wellmann, ‘Bél Mátyás munkássága [The oeuvre of Mátyás Bél]’, in Mátyás Bél, Magyarország népeinek élete 1730 táján [The life of the peoples of Hungary around 1730]. Budapest, 1984, 5–32. Andor Tarnai, ‘Bél Mátyás (1684–1749)’, in Mátyás Bél, Hungariából Magyarország felé [From Hungaria to Hungary]. Budapest, 1984, 5–33. Ján Tibenský, Vel’ka ozdoba Uhorska. Dielo, život a doba Mateja Bela. Bratislava, 1984. István Zombori, ‘Bél Mátyás és a Notitia Hungariae [Mátyás Bél and the Notitia]’, in Mátyás Bél, Csongrád és Csanád megye leírása [Description of Csongrád and Csanád Counties]. Szeged, 1984, 113–162. Vladimír Matula (ed.), Matej Bel. Doba – život – dielo. Bratislava, 1987. László Szelestei Nagy, Irodalom- és tudományszervezési törekvések a 18. századi Magyarországon 1690–1790 [Efforts to organize literature and science in 18thcentury Hungary]. Budapest, 1989, 62–76. Bibliography of his printed works and special (mainly Slovakian) literature on him (until 1984): Blažej Belák, Matej Bel 1684–1749. Výberová personálna bibliografia k 300. výročiu narodenia Mateja Bela. Martin, 1984. Of fundamental importance is the publication of Bél’s correspondence: László Szelestei Nagy, Bél Mátyás levelezése [Correspondence of Mátyás Bél]. (Magyarországi tudósok levelezése, 3.) Budapest, 1993. Study-aids to his works in manuscript and to his manuscript estate in general: László Szelestei Nagy, Bél Mátyás kéziratos hagyatékának katalógusa [Catalogue of Mátyás Bél’s manuscript estate]. Budapest, 1984. Gergely Tóth, Bél Mátyás kéziratai a pozsonyi evangélikus líceum könyvtárában. Katalógus. – Catalogus manuscriptorum Matthiae Bel, quae in bibliotheca Lycei Evangelici Posoniensis asservantur. (Nemzeti Téka) Budapest, 2006. On his work as historian more recently, see Gergely Tóth, ‘Bél Mátyás, a történész [Mátyás Bél, the historian]’, in Enikő Békés – Péter Kasza – Réka Lengyel (eds.), Humanista történetírás és neolatin irodalom a 15–18. századi Magyarországon [Humanist historiography and neo-Latin literature in 15th–18th-century Hungary]. (Convivia Neolatina Hungarica, 1.) Budapest, 2015, 157–167. The published volumes: Matthias Bel, Notitia Hungariae novae historico geographica.

367

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

history.3 He presented the country by its basic administrative units, the counties. A county description is divided into two parts: a general and a special section. In the general part (Pars Generalis) the natural endowments, orography and hydrography, agriculture and mining, as well as the lifestyle, customs, and national composition of the population are presented. The general history, dignitaries, noble families and coat of arms of the county are also touched on in this section. In the special part (Pars Specialis) he describes individual towns, strongholds, villages. His work is imbued in historicity: this is proven by the aristocratic genealogies, ecclesiastic and secular archontologies, and most of all, by the presentation of towns and fortresses based on meticulous research. From these historical elements the history of an entire country emerges, which was – presumably – the definite aim of Mátyás Bél. He had collected an enormous amount of sources for this work including lots of diplomas and also many unpublished narrative works. Some of the latter, and the earlier printed works that were rare to come by in his time were

3

Vols. I–V, Vienna, 1735–1749 (?) (The date of publishing of the last – fifth – volume only containing Moson County is disputed). Preliminarily, he published a prodrome with a few elaborated chapters to introduce the plan of Notitia: Matthias Bel, Hungariae antiquae et novae prodromus. Norimbergae, 1723. He included the description of Szepes County, too. In the new critical edition, the county descriptions – still in manuscript – are published by a work team. The published volumes: Matthias Bel, Notitia Hungariae novae historico geographica ... Comitatuum ineditorum tomus primus, in quo continentur... Comitatus Arvensis et Trentsiniensis. Ed. Gregorius Tóth – Ladislaus Glück – Zoltanus Gőzsy. Budapest, 2011. Matthias Bel, Notitia Hungariae novae historico-geographica... Comitatuum ineditorum Tomus secundus, in quo continentur... Comitatus Soproniensis, Castriferrei, Szaladiensis et Veszprimiensis. Ed. Gregorius Tóth, textum recensuerunt notisque instruxerunt Bernadett Benei [et al.]. Budapest, 2012. Matthias Bel, Notitia Hungariae novae historicogeographica... Comitatuum ineditorum Tomus tertius, in quo continentur... Comitatus Iaurinensis, Comaromiensis et Strigoniensis. Ed. Gregorius Tóth – Bernadett Benei – Rudolphus Jarmalov. Budapest, 2016. A good summary of seventeenth–eighteenth-century German state history, its trends and development: Gabriella Valera, ‘Statistik, Staatengeschichte, Geschichte im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Hans Erich Bödeker (ed.), Aufklärung und Geschichte. Studien zur deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft im 18. Jahrhundert. Göttingen, 1986, 119–143. Bél’s relation to German state history is a commonplace in Hungarian research literature, although it is not yet wholly explored. Our investigations reveal that the structure and themes of Bél’s Notitia strongly resemble the prodrome outlined in Johann Andreas Bosius’ Introductio generalis in Notitiam Rerumpublicarum Orbis Universi. Jenae, 1676. See Gergely Tóth, Bél Mátyás „Notitia Hungariae novae...” című művének keletkezéstörténete és kéziratainak ismertetése [Creation history of Mátyás Bél’s Notitia… and presentation of its manuscripts]. PhD Dissertation. Vols. I–II, Budapest, 2007, Vol. I, 31–35.

368

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

gathered for a publication of sources.4 He also collected data on contemporaneous Hungary: he asked his acquaintances, former pupils residing in the northern counties to collect data by the criteria he had provided, while the farther areas of Hungary, such as those earlier occupied by the Ottomans, were toured by his collaborators. Only a fragment of his work (description of 11 counties) appeared in print, the rest remaining in manuscript. Since after the Ottoman period Bél was the first to make a historical review of Hungary – even though it is somewhat specific due to the emphasis on local history – it ought to be illuminating to see how he wrote about the Turks and how he presented the period of Ottoman domination in Hungary. 5 It is also important to see how he assessed the post-Ottoman country, what balance he drew up. By way of a start and also for historiographic reasons, it is to be reviewed what sources were available to Bél – and to the historians of his age in general – for a work on Ottoman Hungary, and what efforts Bél made to explore as many sources on the period as possible. In this section, I also discuss how Bél presented the Ottoman rule and the Turks in general. Finally, since Bél’s friends and assistants surveyed the entire country of his time for local data, it is to be seen what traces and relics the data-collectors found of the Ottoman period, and how the memory of the Turks lived on in the country as reflected in their reports.

Tropes and Exoticism: Ottoman Rule in Hungary as Reflected in Mátyás Bél’s Work A review of the passages on the Ottoman occupation of Hungary in Bél’s Notitia reveals that he had access to very few sources to describe the period, particularly to write the “domestic” history of the Ottoman-occupied area. The local historical aspect further enlarged this hiatus: nothing could be written of the life of several settlements under Ottoman rule. There was often nothing to say about a fortress, town or village unless it was involved in some military 4 5

Matthias Bel, Adparatus ad historiam Hungariae sive collectio miscella, monumentorum ineditorum partim, partim editorum, sed fugientium. Vols. I–II, Posonii, 1735(–1746). For a summary of the evolution of Ottoman rule in Hungary, see Pál Fodor, Magyarország és a török hódítás [Hungary and the Ottoman expansion]. Budapest, 1991. Klára Hegyi, Török berendezkedés Magyarországon [Ottoman administrative establishment in Hungary]. (História Könyvtár, Monográfiák, 7.) Budapest, 1995.

369

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

event and hence included in comprehensive historical works on the period. 6 Apart from these comprehensive works there were only a few written works at his disposal that depicted the rule of the Ottomans in a fairly biased way: the itineraries written during imperial and other legations. Below, first these two groups of sources – the comprehensive works and the travel accounts – are to be presented. For Bél and his contemporaries an indispensable narrative source about events from 1490 to 1613 was the annalistic chronicle Historiarum de rebus Ungaricis libri XXXVII by the statesman and historiographer Miklós Istvánffy (Isthvánffi) (1538–1615).7 It is fairly well documented, especially for the 6

7

A refreshing but solitary exception is the description of the town of Ráckeve in the account of Pest-Pilis-Solt County. In this settlement Bél’s colleague – almost certainly János Matolai – had the opportunity to enter the local archive and study important documents. They included letters patent given to the town, but Matolai found here the poem Keve várasáról való széphistória (History of the town of Keve) by the Calvinist preacher Máté Skaricza written in 1581, that is, under Ottoman domination, but in a prosperous period for the town. The critical edition of the work with ample annotation: Pál Ács (ed.), Régi magyar költők tára. Tizenegyedik kötet [Collection of early Hungarian poetry. Eleventh volume]. Budapest, 1999, 239–248 (texts), 465–472 (notes). For the copy of Skaricza’s poem in the municipal archive, see ibid., 465. Matolai, the writer of the basic account of the town, and then Bél drew heavily on the town historical data of the poem (names of streets, market places, etc.). Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 520–527. Bél also knew another work of Skaricza, the biography of István Szegedi Kis (and himself) (Matthaeus Scaricaeus, ‘Stephani Szegedini vita’, in [Stephanus] Szegedi, Theologiae sincerae loci communes... Basileae, 1585), for the Pozsony scholar spotted the multitude of data on Ráckeve in Vita. Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 523. Matolai also gleaned important information on the late seven teenthcentury history of Ráckeve, such as the grave famine in 1687 when the inhabitants had to eat cat and dog meat (he designates the archive as his source), but also mentions the recollections of the “burghers”. See ibid., 524–525. It is also worth mentioning that in his account János Matolai expressly states that when he was there (in 1730) the Hungarian Calvinists exercised their faith in the St Abraham church (Hungari sunt plurimi, religionis reformatae, quam libere, uno praeeunte ministro exercent in templo Abrahami. See [J. Matolai,] Sectio II. De Arcibus Processus Pilisiensis [Ústredná Knižnica Slovenskej Akadémie Vied – Lyceálna knižnica, Fragmenta, XIV.], 78). This piece of information appears to confirm Pál Ács’s view claiming that the St Abraham church also mentioned by Skaricza is not identical with the monastic church north of the town – as is believed by many scholars – but it was the parish church of former Szentábrahámtelke, the village that preceded Ráckeve, and it was later used by the Hungarian Calvinists (including Skaricza). Cf. Ács, RMKT XVI/11, 469–470, 472. On the role of János Matolai in the account of Pest-Pilis-Solt County, see Tóth, Bél Mátyás “Notitia Hungariae novae...”, Vol. I, 82–83; Vol. II, 61–72. Nicolaus Istvánffy, Historiarum De Rebus Ungaricis Libri XXXIV nunc primum in lucem editi. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1622. This edition was used by Mátyás Bél as the inventory of his books in his estate reveals: Libri litterarii varii generis, quae in bibliotheca Matthiae

370

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

subject being the author’s own times: as a soldier, then chancery official and later vice palatine, Istvánffy used a lot of first-hand sources and also witnessed several historical events himself. His work mainly contributes to diplomatic and war history; as regards his political affinities, he was evidently loyal to the emperor, regarding the Ottomans as the arch-enemy of Christianity, and Hungary as the stronghold of Christianity, in line with the prevalent trope of his time.8 Bél primarily relied on his work for the events of the sixteenth century. He consulted it with relish because Istvánffy preceded his accounts of beleaguered strongholds or towns with brief descriptions and historical overviews of the localities concerned; Bél usually quoted these passages in his work. However, Istvánffy wasted hardly any words on times lived under Ottoman domination, although he allegedly spoke Turkish and was sent on a mission to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha of Buda as well. What Bél gleaned from his work in this regard was the names of the pashas of Buda and their military exploits, which Istvánffy often registered.9 Another important source Bél used was Franz Wagner’s Historia Leopoldi Magni elaborating the reign of Leopold I (1640–1705), Holy Roman Emperor (1658–1705) and King of Hungary (1657–1705).10 Obviously, the Jesuit historian wrote about the age from an aulic viewpoint, too. His work is minutely detailed, particularly in the description of military events. For Bél, Historia Leopoldi Magni was just as important on the events of the second half of the seventeenth century, as was Istvánffy’s chronicle on the earlier period. The hiatus between the two authors – roughly the first half of the seventeenth century – is painfully obscure in Bél’s work, as he could only use less thorough and reliable minor sources for this interval of time, among them the Theatrum Europaeum, or he just skipped the period. Belii continentur. Manuscript, published in Tóth, Bél Mátyás kéziratai, App. VII. (Istvánffy’s work: No. 36.) 8 See Péter Benits, ‘Bevezető [Introduction]’, in Idem (ed.), Istvánffy Miklós magyarok dolgairól írt históriája Tállyai Pál XVII. századi fordításában [Miklós Istvánffy’s history on the matters of the Hungarians, in the seventeenth-century translation of Pál Tállyai]. Vol. I, Books 1–12, Budapest, 2001, 7–23. On Istvánffy’s life most recently, with so-far unknown biographic data: Gábor Nagy, ‘“Tu patriae, illa tuis vivet in historiis”. Előkészület egy új Isthvánffi Miklós-életrajzhoz [Preparations for a new Miklós Isthvánffi biography]’, Századok 142:5 (2008) 1209–1248. 9 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 325–327, 332–334, 337–338. 10 Franz Wagner, Historia Leopoldi Magni Caesaris Augusti. Vols. I–II, Augustae Vindelicorum, 1719–1731.

371

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

It applies to both major historical sources that they only concentrated on the outer crust of occupied Hungary, on the Ottoman frontier strongholds occupied by the Ottomans and the related military events, without providing factual information on the heartland of Ottoman Hungary. Bél had to find other sources to provide useful data on the settlements inside the occupied territory. From this area no written sources were available to him; he had rare and limited access to state and ecclesiastic archives. He had to find narrative works about Ottoman Hungary itself. The most important and accessible sources about the Ottoman-ruled Hungarian heartland were the travel accounts, reports of journeys written by some member of a legation to Constantinople. Most were written in German, some in Latin, and they drew heavily on former similar itineraries. The legations usually travelled by boat on the Danube along the Buda–Belgrade war route. Their laconic accounts outline utter devastation, but that is misleading, because though the stretch along the Danube was indeed deserted owing to the war route, it was not the case with the whole of occupied Hungary.11 From this group of sources Bél picked those in Latin, mainly using passages on Ottoman Buda, the centre of the Hungarian territory under Ottoman rule.12 There were probably two reasons. First, the legations usually stopped in Buda where the pasha received them; the sojourn in Buda generally lasted for several days. The writers of travelogues almost all described Buda and its conditions, touching on the Turkish inhabitants there and on everyday life. Consequently, the passages about Buda are the most useful parts of the mentioned itineraries in regard to Hungary. Secondly, Buda being the centre and symbol of the Ottoman rule over Hungary, Bél must have felt it imperative to give the most detailed account of its Ottoman phase. The latter must be a consequence of the former: Bél probably embarked on the history of Ottoman Buda in such great detail because he had found ample sources – the travel accounts, and partly Istvánffy’s work (data on the pashas of Buda). With his 11 Most recently on reports about legations, with an extensive bibliography: Antal Molnár, ‘A hódoltság francia szemmel. Louis Deshayes, baron de Courmenin utazása Konstantinápolyba és a Szentföldre (1621) [Ottoman Hungary through the eye of a Frenchman. Louis Deshayes, baron de Courmenin’s journey to Constantinople and the Holy Land]’, Történelmi Szemle 49:1 (2007) 35–61. 12 The best summary of Buda and Pest under Ottoman rule: Lajos Fekete, Budapest a törökkorban [Budapest in the Ottoman age]. (Budapest története, III.) Budapest, 1944.

372

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

scholarly interest in the Ottoman period he edited and assessed the sources carefully and kneaded them into a town history. It is illumining to explore how Bél used the travel diaries. The first was the imperial envoy Busbecq’s work who visited the Porte in 1554–1555 and described his mission in fictitious letters. 13 He suggestively described Buda held by the Turks and also touched on Turkish customs. Both must have intrigued Bél for he cites in full the pertinent details with commentaries. 14 Bél also borrowed Busbecq’s description of the dug-in huts and funeral rituals of the Serbs in Bács County,15 which means he did not restrict his interest in these sources to Buda. Similar is the theme of the versified account by Henricus Porsius, who was involved in an imperial mission in 1579, 16 but Bél could not use it so extensively. He borrowed the section on the sight of Buda in ruins and the fall of the city.17 Far later – and much more substantial – is the itinerary of an imperial mission dispatched in 1665, written by a member of the delegation, the Jesuit Paul Tafferner.18 He gave a relatively good account of occupied Buda, the baths, and King Matthias’ once widely renowned but by then badly deteriorated library of hardly 400 tomes kept in the Buda castle. 19 Bél only cites these sections,20 similarly to the description of imperial librarian Peter Lambeck about the Viennese court library.21 In it Lambeck also reports on his 13 Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, Augerii Gislenii Busbequii D. Legationis Turcicae Epistolae quatuor... adiectae sunt Duae Alterae. Eiusdem de re militari contra Turcam instituenda consilium. Francofurti, 1595. On the life and works of Busbecq, see Zweder Rudolf Willem Maria von Martels, Augerius Gislenius Busbequius. Leven en werk van keizerlijke gezant aan het hof van Süleyman de Grote. Een biografische, literaire en historische studie met editie van onuitgegeven teksten. Groningen, 1989. 14 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III. 327–332. 15 [Mátyás Bél], Comitatus Bácsiensis, et Bodrogiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár [Library of the Esztergom Archdiocese], Hist. I, 26, 28–29M 16 Henricus Porsius, Historia belli Persici, gesti inter Murathem III. Turcarum, et Mehemetem Hodabende, Persarum Regem. Conscripta ab Henrico Porsio. Eiusdem Itineris Byzantini Libri III, Carminum Lib. II, Epigrammatum II, Poeta. Frankfurt, 1583. 17 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 335–337. 18 Paul Tafferner, Caesarea Legatio, quam mandante Augustissimo Rom. Imperatore Leopoldo I. ad Portam Ottomannicam suscepit, perfecitque... Walterus S. R. I. Comes de Leslie... Succinta narratione exposita. Vienna, 1672. 19 Csaba Csapodi – Klára Csapodi-Gárdonyi, Bibliotheca Corviniana. Budapest, 1990. 20 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 362–366. 21 Peter Lambeck, Commentariorum de augustissima bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi libri I–VIII. Vienna, 1665–1679.

373

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

trip to Buda where he could choose three books, so-called Corvinae, from the former library of King Matthias for the imperial library in Vienna under the terms of the Habsburg–Ottoman peace treaty of 1664. Apart from the fate of the Corvina codices, Bél also quoted Lambeck’s description of the royal palace of Buda.22 It must be repeated: despite the geographic and thematic limitations of these itineraries, they were highly valuable for Bél and the primary sources of Hungarian historiography on Ottoman Hungary’s living conditions up to the early twentieth century.23 Typically, Bél himself published two such travel accounts in his source publication entitled Adparatus. The earlier is the work of Hieronymus Łaski (1490–1541), the envoy of John Szapolyai. He gives a colourful account of his talks in Constantinople in 1527–1528 in diary form – this is most captivating reading.24 Though Łaski related only the events in the venue of the negotiations, Bél cites it at length in his account of Buda among the precedents to the Ottoman campaign in support of John Szapolyai in 1529, in the course of which the town fell (again). 25 The other work Bél published was written by Johannes Bocatius (Johann Bock), mayor of Kassa (today Košice, Slovakia). It narrates the meeting of István Bocskai and the pasha of Buda whom he had also attended in the field of Rákos, and reports on the Ottoman-occupied towns of Pest and Buda he visited, giving a staggering

22 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 366–369. 23 Molnár, ‘A hódoltság’, 35–36. 24 Hieronymus Lasky, Historia arcana legationis, nomine Johannis regis, ad Solymannum Turcarum imperatorem susceptae..., in Bél, Adparatus, Vol. I, 159–189. On the author and his work, and the political situation in the age, see Gábor Barta, ‘Bevezetés [Introduction]’, in Gábor Barta (ed.), Két tárgyalás Sztambulban. Hieronymus Łaski tárgyalása a töröknél János király nevében, Habardanecz János jelentése 1528. nyári sztambuli tárgyalásairól [Two negotiations in Istanbul. Hieronymus Łaski’s negotiation at the Porte on behalf of King John, János Habardanecz’s report on his talks in Istanbul in the summer of 1528]. Budapest, 1996, 5–61. Pál Fodor, The Unbearable Weight of Empire: The Ottomans in Central Europe – A Failed Attempt at Universal Monarchy (1390–1566). Budapest, 2015, 56–93. 25 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 262–263, 267–286.

374

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

description of the conditions.26 Bél naturally cited Bocatius, too, in his histories of Pest and Buda.27 What lends these itineraries special significance in regards to Bél’s attitude to the Ottomans is that in the commentaries he added to them he gave overt expression to his opinion of the Ottomans in general and of the Ottoman rule of Hungary. His opinions can be grouped around a few trope-like statements. The Turks are “deceitful, unjust and sly” but they are “excellent diplomats” when it comes to bargaining or negotiating with Christians, Bél’s notes reveal. This is his comment added to Busbecq’s narrative: the envoy recorded that despite the truce the pasha of Buda was not willing to give back the seized areas and could give justification for this decision, too. This made Bél acknowledge the Turks’ excellent flair for diplomacy.28 He comments on a detail of Hieronymus Łaski’s negotiations in the same vein: the Ottomans are “shrewd and ponderous” when it comes to talks for some agreement. 29 The other common accusation – “perfidy” – is not missing from Bél’s narration, either. Perfida gens (perfidious folk) is a frequent phrase in Bél’s passages about the Turks, for instance about István Bocskai’s talks mentioned above, 30 26 Johannes Bocatius, Commentatio epistolica de legatione sua ad Stephanum Botskay, Transylvaniae principem, et suscepta cum eo, VI. Nov. Anno MDCV. in Campos Rákos, profectione... Accessit eiusdem Iaurinum redivivum, in Bél, Adparatus, Vol. I, 317–352. On the meeting, see Ferenc Szakály, ‘Amikor a bárány a farkassal társalgott... Bocskai István és Lalla Mehmed nagyvezír rákosmezei találkozójának hátteréről [When the lamb discoursed with the wolf… On the background to the meeting of István Bocskai and Grand Vizier Lala Mehmed in the field of Rákos]’, in Ferenc Csonka – Ferenc Szakály (eds.), Bocskai kíséretében a Rákosmezőn. Emlékiratok és iratok Bocskai István fejedelem és Lalla Mehmed nagyvezír találkozójáról. 1605. november 11 [In Bocskai’s retinue in the field of Rákos. Memoirs and documents of the meeting between Prince István Bocskai and Grand Vizier Lala Mehmed, 11 November 1605]. Budapest, 1988, 5–48. On the life and work of Bocatius, see Ferenc Csonka, ‘Utószó [Postscript]’, in János Bocatius, Öt év börtönben [1606–1610] [Five years in prison]. Budapest, 1985, 187–236. 27 In the description of Pest: Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 72–85. In the description of Buda: ibid., 351–354. 28 Egregii, scilicet, pacis & mutorum foederum, artifices Turcae, semper habiti sunt. Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 331. A little earlier, as if to introduce the words of Busbecq, he notes that the pasha behaved unjustly and deceitfully: Rem, ab urbis praefecto, sic satis inique, & cum eximia gestam fraude, memoravisse nunc iuverit. Ibid. 29 Ibid., 272. 30 Before the talks, Bocskai gives the following advice to a confidant, in case he did not return (translated into Latin by Bél): Meo exemplo moniti, cavete Turcarum infidae genti, vos unquam credatis. Ibid., 85. The word “infidel” (infidae) is missing from the original Hungarian text!

375

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

and in the section on Sopron County in Notitita, recounting the Ottoman letter calling on the town of Sopron in 1683 to surrender. 31 The Turks are not only treacherous but also “suspicious” (prona, ad male suspicandum, gens haec Barbara) – he concludes from another episode of Busbesq’s legation to Buda. The invalid pasha summoned the envoy’s physician, but as the pasha’s state kept deteriorating, Busbecq feared that upon the pasha’s death his subjects’ wrath would turn against him: eventually, the sick pasha recovered. Interestingly, Bél knew of a similar story he had heard from a friend: a Turkish dignitary in Constantinople fell ill and summoned Christian doctors who could not help him anymore. He died and the doctors were blamed for his death. 32 Another important role is played by exoticism in Bél’s image of the Ottomans: he is startled by the peculiar customs and way of life of the Turks. Although the tone is usually negative, the lengthy quotations suggest that Bél was intrigued by the theme. He cites Busbecq’s description of the janissaries and their costumes; he also puts down that the Ottomans like wine although their religion prohibits its consumption and they find all sorts of excuses and practices to make a compromise with their conscience. For instance, an old Turk – Busbecq wrote – shouted about before drinking wine to send his soul into hiding while he was trespassing.33 Bél finds this ridiculous and passes a mocking remark about the Islamic religion at the end of the episode. 34 This sarcasm is also fuelled by the Lutheran minister Bél’s contempt for the “pagan” religion. He also quotes Busbecq’s account of a ghastly scene: back from Constantinople the Turks receiving him displayed their valiance by piercing their limbs, inserting cuts in their body parts. Bél concludes the quotation declaring that these people are “the shame of humankind”. 35 From Tafferner’s work he cites the reception of the legation in Buda with great pomp and a splendid muster of the troops. He starts the account of the event by claiming that the Turks are fickle by nature: they are fond of slaughtering 31 Ut porro securior esset fides, simul litteras Vezirii reddit [sc. legatus], Turcis Athname vocatas, quibus, et urbi et his qui isthuc perfugerant, incolumitatem omnem, solita perfidae gentis gloriatione, compromittebat. Mátyás Bél, Sopron vármegye leírása. Descriptio Comitatus Semproniensis. Vols. I–III. Text edited and translated by Balázs Déri – Miklós Földváry – Gergely Tóth, volume edited by Katalin Kincses. Budapest, 2001–2006, Vol. III, 130. 32 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 327–328. 33 Ibid., 328–330. 34 Sic se habet religio, quam dolus Mahomedi finxit… Ibid., 330. 35 Ibid., 332.

376

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

while they also come close to exquisiteness sometimes. 36 Bél cannot help passing a remark on the alleged sloth and untidiness of the Turks. At the end of Bocatius’ narrative of Buda – in which the mayor of Kassa goes on at length about the tragic state of the city – the Pozsony scholar wonders how the Hungarians who liked cleanliness could live together with the Turks in such abominable filth.37 Thus in most cases Bél simply echoes the statements of his narrative sources, his image of the Ottomans – no differently from how they were seen in Europe on the whole – is that the Turks are blood-thirsty, cruel, shrewd, perfidious, barbarous and so on.38 It is an indication of Bél’s distance from the Ottomans in time and space that he is already interested in the exotic elements, although they still elicit his aversion.39 Nevertheless, he only recalls a single personal impression: the denigration of the Christian doctors in Constantinople, which was also second-hand information heard from a friend. Obviously too little for him to have a real image of the Ottomans. That said, Bél’s account of Ottoman Buda is still remarkable from the point of view of historiography. Even though he used little source material in the modern sense – mainly the relevant sections of great historical works (Istvánffy, Wagner, etc.) and the accounts of legation itineraries – he wrote a compact and round description of that period of the city. Nobody before the nineteenth century had ever written with similar intensity and at similar length about Hungary under Ottoman rule. The quality of the used sources is also noteworthy. As mentioned earlier, the itineraries of envoys were valuable sources in the age, so it is to Bél’s credit that he used them purposively. What is more, he published two works of great historical significance concerning the Ottoman occupation of Hungary: those of Łaski and Bocatius, which might be 36 Servavit nobis rei gestae memoriam, Paullus Taffernerus... quam heic excerptam dabimus, ut constet, quam sit Turcis versatile ingenium, &, cum ad crudelitatem pronum, tum etiam proclive ad elegantiam, si ita poscat occasio. Ibid., 362. For an account of the reception of the envoy, see ibid., 362–363. 37 Ibid., 353. 38 More recently on the European, specifically the German concept of the Ottomans and its changes, see Zsuzsa Barbarics, ‘“Türk ist mein Nahm in allen Landen…” Kunst, Propaganda und die Wandlung des Türkenbildes im Heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 54:2–3 (2001) 257–317. 39 Further literature on how Turkish culture came to be seen as exotic in Europe: Nóra G. Etényi, Hadszíntér és nyilvánosság. A magyarországi török háború hírei a 17. századi német újságokban [Theatre of war and publicity. News of the Ottoman wars in Hungary in 17th-century German papers]. Budapest, 2003, 74–77.

377

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

taken for a sign of his interest in the period. Bél’s achievement was not overlooked by his immediate successors: György Pray, István Katona, as well as others who knew and cited the two sources he published and his account of Ottoman Buda.

Assessment of the Degree of Devastation and Rescue of Finds – Post-Ottoman Hungary in Notitia One of the greatest assets of Mátyás Bél’s work is the collection of data about contemporaneous Hungary via his assistants. The information given of different regions and counties was not of evenly high quality yet the authenticity of the first-hand experience and impressions of the data-collectors, of eye-witnesses can be sensed. When contemporary conditions are presented, the memory of the Ottoman age crops up here and there, mostly in a negative tone. Remarks on the Turks may be grouped around three main themes: 1. changes caused by the Ottoman conquest, the outcome of Ottoman devastations; 2. Ottoman-age architectural remains; 3. Ottoman presence and cultural influence at the time of data collection, that is in Hungary in the 1720s and 1730s. In Bél’s work the most powerful experience was that of confrontation with the drastic changes caused by Ottoman conquest. This was manifest first of all in the radical transformation of the nationalities composing Hungary. 40 In his description of Újbánya (today Nová Baňa in Slovakia) in Bars County, the author mentions that the Saxons died out owing to the Turkish onslaught of 1664 and now Slovaks were living in the town. 41 He wrote of a similar transformation in Bakabánya (today Pukanec in Slovakia) in Hont County: the Saxon population perished when the Ottomans laid havoc to the town in 1664, then Slovaks settled in who no longer cultivated the mines. 42 He writes about 40 On demographic and nationality changes in Hungary under Ottoman domination, see István Rácz, A török világ hagyatéka Magyarországon [Legacy of the Ottoman age in Hungary]. Debrecen, 1995, 83–171. Géza Dávid, ‘Magyarország népessége a 16–17. században [The population of Hungary in the 16th–17th centuries]’, in József Kovacsics (ed.), Magyarország történeti demográfiája (896–1995). Millecentenáriumi előadások [Historical demography of Hungary (896–1995). Millecentennial lectures]. Budapest, 1997, 141–171. Géza Dávid, Studies in Demographic and Administrative History of Ottoman Hungary. (Analecta Isisiana, 25.) Istanbul, 1997. 41 Bél, Notitia, Vol. IV, 222–223. 42 Ibid., 709–710.

378

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

Komárom County: as the Ottoman war route to Vienna transected it, it suffered much devastation; after the forcing out of the Turks, the landowners “got back their estates almost without inhabitants” and had to call in new settlers. 43 In his account of Bács-Bodrog County he claims that the Hungarians were almost wholly wiped out during the Ottoman period, and in their place many Serbs settled in the area.44 In Közép-Szolnok County the Hungarians became so sporadic under the Ottoman desolation that Romanians had to be allowed to settle.45 The testimonies to destruction of material and architectural relics are also extensive. In the section on Buda it has been mentioned that Bél cited his sources on the dilapidated royal palace, the moth-eaten decrepit manuscripts, the remains of King Matthias’ library at length. He also described the demise of King Matthias’ favourite residence in Visegrád during the Ottoman presence and reminisced of its old-time radiance, 46 illustrating his words with engravings under the title Triste rudus Visegradi (The mournful ruins of Visegrád). 47 He writes in dramatic terms about the state of Székesfehérvár, the coronation and burial town of the Hungarian kings after its liberation from Ottoman rule: the Turks only cared for the fortifications of the city; hardly any trace of the churches could be found and the royal tombs had disappeared. 48 In addition, Bél’s work also reveals a phenomenon that was a vestige of Ottoman rule: the defect of historical memory. In this case it means that some counties fell into oblivion during the 150 years of occupation: after the recapture of the area there was simply no knowledge of their place. 49 Bél also faced this problem in his description of the country. Giving the etymology of 43 Mátyás Bél, Notitia Hungariae novae historico geographica ... Comitatuum ineditorum tomus tertius, 293–294. 44 Bél, Comitatus Bácsiensis et Bodrogiensis, 24–25. 45 Hungari regionem incolunt, sed qui in supplementum Valachos pridem coacti sunt accipere. Namque frequentibus, quas Turcae intulerunt, cladibus, in paucitatem redacti, hospitia genti peregrinae, et ex vicinia Valachia, huc propagatae, praebuere. [Mátyás Bél], Historia Comitatus Szolnok Mediocris. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. kkk., 18. 46 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 468–505. 47 Ibid., after page 470. 48 [Mátyás Bél], Descriptio Comitatus Alba-Regalensis cum effigiebus regum Hungariae cupro expressis. Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. c. 145. Cf. with Balázs Sudár’s study in the present volume. 49 A fundamental work on the question: Frigyes Pesty, Az eltűnt régi vármegyék [Vanished old counties]. Vols. I–II, Budapest, 1880.

379

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

the name of Bács-Bodrog County, united after the expulsion of the Turks, Bél derives the name Bodrog from Slavic vode roch (lit. “horn of the water”) saying that the beds of the confluent rivers (Tisza and Danube) are meant by it.50 Notably, after the driving out of the Turks, Bodrog County was erroneously resuscitated at the confluence of the Tisza and the Danube, whereas medieval Bodrog County was on the left bank of the Danube, across from Mohács Island. Bél accepted the mistaken etymology because of the equally mistaken localisation, which was also supported by the unknown original location of the one-time market town (and fortress) of Bodrog, which had also perished.51 He was luckier with Torontál County, also in the territory under the Porte’s rule. At first he misplaced it, too, thinking that it was the original name of Békés County.52 Later he received the copy of a diploma of 1442 from a friend, which revealed that Torontál County was actually around Nagybecskerek (today Zrenjanin in Serbia). In the account of Temes County (Banate of Temes) he explicates at length where to look for the one-time Torontál, to be found in the territory of Temes County.53 Bél writes about Turkish architectural remnants in the country on the basis of second-hand information from his data-collecting collaborators. 54 The Pozsony scholar usually expresses deep aversion to these Ottoman relics. Describing Baranya County, he remarks that the Muslim population “had odiously tarnished” the area and the filth could not be washed off for a long time; the vestiges of the barbarians were still “stinking” although they had been chased away a long while back.55 Obviously, Bél means not only edifices, 50 Ad hunc regionis habitum respexisse credo priscos, illos homines, qui Comitatum hunc Bodrogh appellavere, id enim nihil est aliud, quam Vode Roch, seu aquarum cornu isthic in unum alveum coeuntium: sicuti norunt Sarmaticae, Slavicaeque linguae gnari. Bél, Comitatus Bácsiensis et Bodrogiensis, 3. 51 On the history of Bodrog County, its revival in a mistaken area: Pesty, Az eltűnt régi vármegyék, 219–253. 52 Mátyás Bél, Historia Comitatus Békesiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I., 1. 53 Mátyás Bél, Comitatus Temesiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. mmm., 153–161. 54 On remains of Turkish architecture in Hungary in general: Győző Gerő, Türkische Baudenkmäler in Ungarn. Budapest, 1976. Idem, Az oszmán-török építészet Magyarországon (Dzsámik, türbék, fürdők) [Ottoman Turkish architecture in Hungary (mosques, mausolea, baths)]. (Művészettörténeti Füzetek, 12.) Budapest, 1980. Balázs Sudár, Dzsámik és mecsetek a hódolt Magyarországon [Djamis and mosques in Ottoman Hungary]. (Magyar Történelmi Emlélek, Adattárak) Budapest, 2014. 55 Mahumedanorum profecto incolatus, turpiter regionem foedavit, ut diu vix potuerit

380

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

but other factors, though undoubtedly he also thought of the remaining mosques, etc. This negative attitude luckily does not prevent him from writing about the remains of the Ottoman period. His observations refer in part to Ottoman buildings for military defence. 56 Speaking about the St Gellért Hill in Buda, he notes that there a church dedicated to St Gerhard was once converted by the Turks into a fortress. 57 Writing about the town of Szécsény, he notes that when it was in Turkish hands, the Ottomans enclosed the pasture with an earthwork towards the River Ipoly so that the Hungarians could not drive off the cattle, and the fortification was still visible.58 Regarding Érd, he writes that the Ottomans turned it into a fortified settlement and its commander was called Hamzsabeg; he also notes that a mosque with a minaret was still extant, but the Serbs were now practising their religion in it.59 He also touches on private dwelling houses. He quotes a former chronicler, Kristóf Parschitius who counted 278 “houses defiled by Turkish filth” (domos Turcica abominatione foedata) in Székesfehérvár in 1688.60 Bél had no high opinion of the Turkish dwellings. He writes about Pécs that the Turks had left a lot of houses built in their barbarous manner with shallow roofs and short walls, with tiny dirty flats insides. 61 But he did not take it ill that some Turkish buildings remained in use after the Turks left. Writing about Pécs, he notes that the mosque was now used by the Jesuits and also mentions that the salt depot and the saltpetre manufactory were housed in former circular Turkish buildings. 62 In his description of the fort of Szigetvár in Somogy (today Baranya) County, he says that there was

56

57 58 59 60 61

62

repurgari. Et profecto foetent adhuc vestigia barbarae gentis, tametsi iam pridem eiectae. Mátyás Bél, Comitatus Baranyiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. l. p. 15. On Ottoman fortress construction in Hungary, see Pál Fodor, ‘Bauarbeiten der Türken an den Burgen von Ungarn im 16.–17. Jahrhundert’, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35:1 (1981) 55–88. Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 5. Ibid., Vol. IV, 118. Bél, Descriptio Comitatus Alba-Regalensis, 171–174. Ibid., 145. Multas [sc. aedes] reliquerunt Turcae ex more suo barbare instructas, hoc est casularum instar, humiliore positu cum tecto plano, et modice edito, habitaculis exiguis, ac sordidis. Bél, Comitatus Baranyiensis, 26. On Ottoman Pécs and relics of Turkish architecture, see Pál Zoltán Szabó, A török Pécs [Turkish Pécs]. Pécs, 1958. Győző Gerő, Pécs törökkori emlékei [Ottoman-age relics of Pécs]. Pécs, 1962. Balázs Sudár, A pécsi Idrisz baba-türbe [The Idris Baba mausoleum in Pécs]. Budapest, 2013. Bél, Comitatus Baranyiensis, 26–27.

381

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

nothing in the recaptured fort except for the Ottoman “shrine” (Süleyman mosque) which became an arsenal.63 It is worth mentioning the church in the town of Szigetvár, which was re-consecrated and taken in use “after the expulsion of the godless Turk”.64 Appropriation and “down-grading” of the Turkish buildings – like the mosque in Szigetvár – suggest the final defeat and removal of the enemy, at least his words elicit this effect. Quite a different key is struck by Bél when he is describing Turkish baths. 65 When he comes to the town of Nógrád, he tells us that the Turks built water conduits and – “as is the custom of this people” – a bath, leading the water of the “King’s spring” and “Magyar spring” from the nearby hill to the town in underwater pipes, where the spring water burst to the surface in the form of fountains at “appropriate places”. In Bél’s words the same pipes supplied the “masterfully built” (adfabre factam) bath, too, where the visitors could let cold and warm water into the tubs through the pipes alternately. Bél and his informers established this fact on the basis of the ruins of the bath. 66 Bél 63 In medio arcis nihil, praeter delubrum visitur, quod iam in armamentarium abiit. Mátyás Bél, Comitatus Simegiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár Hist. I. ddd., 179. On the Süleyman mosque, see József Molnár, Szigetvár török műemlékei [Turkish monuments in Szigetvár]. Budapest, 1958, 18–22 (as far as he knew the mosque became a military hospital); Gerő, Az oszmán-török építészet, passim. Mehmet Emin Yılmaz, Sigetvar’da Türk Mimârîsi. Türbe Palankası: Kānûnî Sultan Süleyman’ın Makām Türbesi. İstanbul, 2015, 17–34. 64 Intra oppidum templa duo visuntur, alterum a Turcis relictum, turbinato vertice, atque plumbo intectum, cum gracili turricula, quod tamen depulsa impietate Turcica iam sacris oppidi communibus dedicatum est. Bél, Comitatus Simegiensis, 180. It is probably Ali Pasha’s mosque converted later into a parish church. József Molnár, Szigetvár török műemlékei, 22–27. Géza Dávid, ‘Adalékok Szigetvár török kori történetéhez [Data on the history of Ottoman Szigetvár]’, Keletkutatás 2007, 38–43. Yılmaz, Sigetvar’da, , 42–67. 65 An excellent summary of Turkish baths in Hungary, with a collection of the written mentions of each bath: Balázs Sudár, ‘Török fürdők a hódoltságban [Turkish baths in Ottoman Hungary]’, Történelmi Szemle 45:3–4 (2003) 213–263. 66 Turcae profecto, arce potiti, multum incolatu oppidi delectabantur, quod ex aquaeductibus, quos instituerunt, & positis, magno sumtu, ex gentis more, balneis, plane conieceris. Nimirum, geminum fontem, proximo in colle salientem, per tibias, humi defossas, in oppidum corrivaverant. Qui demum per silanos, locis opportunis, prosiliebant. Alteri, KirályKútja, quod Fontem Regium, sonat, alteri Magyar-Kút, sive Fontis Hungarici, nomen haerescit hodieque. Iisdem hisce ductibus, & balneo, aquae adfundebantur. Exstat eius molis rudus semiobrutum, ex quo, non obscure cognosci potest, adfabre factam, atque ita instructam fuisse, ut lavantes, quoties lubebat, per fistulas, iusto ordine discurrentes, nunc frigi dam, nunc iterum calidam, immittere potuerint, in lacus balneatorios. Bél, Notitia, Vol. IV, 144–145. Written mentions of Turkish baths in Nógrád, see Sudár, ‘Török fürdők’, 253– 254. (Bél’s account is not known.)

382

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

wanted to embark in detail on the famous Turkish baths of Buda in the planned, but unpublished “natural historical book” of Notitia (Liber III. Physicus), therefore he only touched on them tangentially; even here one feels that he had real admiration for this knowledge of the Turks. He claims that the so-called Spenger or Hospital Bath (balneae Spengerianae seu Xenodochiales) was built “in a splendid way” (nitide) upon Hasan Pasha’s order; elsewhere in a note he points out that the Turks also knew how to install underground water conduits.67 In the description of Heves County, Bél writes again about baths when introducing the town of Eger. It can be made out from the badly damaged (soaked) text that Bél’s informant saw two hot-water baths (thermae) in Eger which were circular, built of ashlars, and steps led into the basins. One was separated from the fort wall by a garden and had a dome. The other one was 200 steps downhill, opposite the episcopal garden and also had a dome, but when the informant saw it (probably in 1730) the roof had already collapsed though all the walls were still extant. This bath, the writer claims, had very many basins, the largest thirty steps in perimeter. It was visited by lots of people, not only because of the natural thermal water but also because there were dressing rooms, tubs, and brass cauldrons for heating water. The text also reveals that the bishop turned one of the baths (the second one), or a part of it into a mill, because owing to the hot water it could be operated in winter as well. Based on research literature, the mentioned baths can be identified as follows: the one closer to the fort wall was next to today’s racing pool in István Sugár’s view and was pulled down in 1855; the other is “Arnaut Pasha’s bath” whose name and origin are still debated.68 67 Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 456, 460. On Turkish baths in Buda, see Sudár, ‘Török fürdők’, 225– 244. 68 The passage of the manuscript, partly unintelligible due to soaked edges, reads as follows: In eodem praedio, sunt etiam thermae supra meminimus [in the general part, speaking of thermal water―author’s note, G.T.]; eaedemque duobus artificio a Turcis instructae, in simitae iacentis, saxo quadrato cinguntur: praebent decensum ad ima, oppor lavandi commoditate. Unum [sc. thermarum Turcicarum] prope ia est, unoque tantum interiaulo a muris distat; quod turbina elegantis fabricae olim instructae, alterum passibus plus quam ducen paullo inferius, estque contra hor episcopalem, fluvio tantum inter diremptum, quod pariter testudine obtectum erat, sed iam fornice , patet sub dio, tametsi muris undique inclusum sit; habetque complur baptisteria. Maximum unum, simile p ambitu passus circiter triginta comp reliqua sunt

383

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

Bél’s attraction to Turkish baths may partly be explained by his habit of visiting baths himself,69 and – as mentioned earlier – he wanted to write separately about them in the unrealised physical geography volume of Notitia. Probably his deep interest in the natural sciences, particularly medicine, must also have a share in it. In the Prodromus of his work he describes two baths with the fastidiousness of scientists.70 There are also notes and observations on the vestiges of the Ottoman rule and on Turkish presence in Hungary after the successful wars to expel the Turks.71 Some refer to culture, some to trade, the latter references being more numerous. In his description of Kecskemét, Bél notes that although the town is in a seemingly disadvantageous location, it is a popular commercial centre, its markets are also visited by Turkish merchants, bringing their goods. 72

69

70 71 72

minutiora. Atque houm a plurimis frequentatur, non rali tantum sua tepiditate, sed factum. Adsunt enim apodyteria, et di, seu vanni, quibus aqua aheno funditur, praebetque modum lavandnum. Utrumque hoc balneum sublu a quo etiam procul dubio subeunte humore, permiscetur, fitque ex cdum. Quare neque ab antistite , ut meliorem curam mereat, sed antiqua forma adhibetur moletri tanto magis prodest, quanto minus stringitur. Mátyás Bél, Comitatus Hevesiensis. Manuscript, Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. z. (2), 393–394. For the reconstruction of the text a later copy was also relied on, whose writer also tried to complement the damaged text (which was still in better condition at that time). For the manuscript, see Esztergomi Főszékesegyházi Könyvtár, Hist. I. z. (4) f. 74. Though István Sugár, the noted historian of Eger, did use Bél’s description of Heves County for his presentation of the Turkish baths in Eger, he had at his disposal a poor-quality abridged copy of an early edition (National Széchényi Library, Fol. Lat. 3376.). Its text provides less information than the above manuscript, also concerning baths. See István Sugár, ‘Az egri fürdőkultúra története [History of bathing culture in Eger]’, in István Sugár (ed.), Eger gyógyvizei és fürdői [Medicinal waters and baths of Eger]. Eger, 1983, 109–230, particularly 118, 123, 137. The same poor manuscript was the basis for a recent publication of Bél’s description of Heves County: Mátyás Bél, Heves megye ismertetése 1730–1735 [The description of Heves county; bilingual edition]. (A Heves Megyei Levéltár forráskiadványai, 8.) Translated by Erzsébet Kondor-Látkóczki. Ed. by Péter Bán. Eger, 2001. For the section on baths, see ibid., 124–125. For the identification of baths described by Bél, see Sugár, ‘Az egri fürdőkultúra’, 123. Sudár, ‘Török fürdők’, 245–247. The draft of the description of Bars County continues at one point with: Inchoatum die 10. Iulii, post reditum ex thermis Wyhnensibus, 1730. Mátyás Bél, Historia Comitatus Barchiensis. Manuscript, Ústredná Knižnica Slovenskej Akadémie Vied―Lyceálna knižnica (Bratislava), Vol. 427, 381. Tóth, Bél Mátyás kéziratai, No. 14/II. He presented the baths of Szklenó and Vihnye by way of illustration. Bél, Prodromus, 128– 139, 139–149. On the question, see Rácz, A török világ, 67–82. Bél, Notitia, Vol. III, 154.

384

VESTIGIA BARBARAE GENTIS

Speaking of a neighbourhood of Buda – Tabán – he says that many of the local Serbs go into trade, selling mostly Turkish goods, such as dresses, gowns, and making great fortunes.73 The Hungarian Serbs, some of whom had fled from still Ottoman-ruled Serbia and others, who had settled earlier during the Ottoman occupation of Hungary, still displayed several customs associated with the Ottomans – which also struck Bél’s data-collectors as conspicuous. In the introduction to Baranya County he writes that in the Turkish times Serbs who had adapted themselves to the Turkish customs mainly populated it. Their homes, clothing, and utensils were similar to those of the Turks and there were many Turkish words in their language.74 In his account of Bács-Bodrog County he claims that the Serbs and the inhabitants of the county in general use low Turkish style tables made of brass or other materials, by which they sit with crossed legs, tailor’s way (in Hungarian lit. in Turkish way). 75 There is a particularly great deal of information about the former presence of Turks and Turkish influence in Hungary in Bél’s description of the Banate of Temes. This has an obvious reason: while the greater part of Hungary was liberated from the Porte by the peace treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, the vilayet of Temesvár (today Timișoara, Romania) bounded by the Temes, the Danube, the Tisza and the western frontier of Transylvania was taken back by the Habsburg Empire as late as 1718, with the peace treaty of Passarowitz. That explains why Turkish effects and presence were more intensive here when Bél and his colleagues were collecting data in the 1720s and 1730s. The scholar of Pozsony grumbles that cattle breeding is neglected in the regions for which the “barbarians”, that is, the Turks are to blame because they abhorred beef. 76 As for game, he claims that in Turkish times there was an enormous amount of wild game in the area, again attributing it to the Turks’ dietary customs who – “as is customary among Jews” – only consumed the meat of live animals they themselves slaughtered with the knife. 77 He also names Turkish residents in 73 Ibid., 454. 74 Incolarum plerique Rasciani fuerunt; ideoque moribus Turcarum adhuc adsueti. Domicilia, vestitum reliquamque supellectilem ad eorum ritum conformant. Voces etiam Turcicas, in lingua eorum, quae Illyrica est, observes. Bél, Comitatus Baranyiensis, 15. 75 Bél, Comitatus Bácsiensis et Bodrogiensis, 27. 76 Nec dubito fore, quin successu temporum compensentur neglectus rei boariae, quem barbara gens, bubulae carnis fastidio, tot annorum tyrannide invexit. Bél, Comitatus Temesiensis, 27. 77 Olim affluebant omnia cervis, damis, capreis, lupicapris, leporibus et vulpibus, praesertim sub iugo Turcorum, qui animantibus feris haud vescuntur, nisi quas pro more Iudaico, ipsi,

385

THE CULTURAL MEMORY OF OTTOMAN RULE

Temesvár, but they were traders, he says.78 In another part of the description of Temes he passes an interesting remark on these Turkish merchants: Turks sold lots of melons and you could taste the ware free before purchase, while in Hungary that was only possible for money.79 * What is most surprising in Mátyás Bél’s Notitia is the scarcity of recollections about the Ottomans. Hardly a lifetime had passed and almost all of Bél’s information about them is from written sources. By the 1720s the Ottoman conquerors and their administrative establishment in the occupied areas had become history and the scholar began the historical assessment of the period. His steps were still somewhat hesitant, but at the highest level possible: he collected the available sources, published them, and wrote a case study about the history of Ottoman Buda. He also drew up a (negative) balance of the Ottoman domination, which appears authentic in retrospect and enriches our knowledge of Hungary at that time, as well as of the legacy of the Ottoman age and its aftermath.

cultro, vivas mactarunt. Ibid. 78 Ibid., 146. 79 Ibid., 26.

386

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Abaúj County ......................314–315 Abbasids .......................................26 Abu Talib ......................................53 Abulja ...........................................25 see also Bulja Achilles .......................................221 Ács, Pál .........................................14 Ada ..............................................246 Adrianople ....................................85 Adriatic Sea ..........................13, 175 Aethicus ......................................338 Africa ..................37, 62, 75, 85, 110 Agasi, Máté .........................190–191 Ahmed ...........................................46 Ahmet Ağa ..................................305 Albert V, Elector of Bavaria .......288 Alexander the Great . 26–27, 38, 39, 40, 62, 63, 67 see also Iskandar Ali, Caliph ....................................61 Alibánfa (Pölöske) ......................128 Almády, István ............................305 Almássy, István ...........................258 Alsólendva ..................................137 Alverni (Auvergne) .....................329 Alvinczi, Péter ............................159 Ambras .......................................278 Anatolia...19, 21, 24, 30, 37, 42– 45, 245, 247, 348 Anderson, Benedict ..............20, 142 Antusui, Lőrinc ...........................195 Antusui, Mátyás ..........................195 Apafi, Mihály I, Prince of Transylvania ..142, 144–145, 307

Apafi, Mihály II, Prince of Transylvania ..........................308 Apor, Péter ..258, 270, 308–309, 318 Arabia, Arabs .......20, 22, 25, 27–28, 36– 38, 40–41, 53, 69, 71, 73– 74, 78, 82– 84, 86–87, 89, 90– 95, 97– 99, 101–118, 252, 348 Arad County ...............................315 Aranyosmeggyes (Medieșu Aurit) .....................264 Arcimboldo, Giuseppe ................299 Ardakhshir ..................................348 Aristotle ............................62, 71, 73 Armenia ..............24, 83, 86, 97, 261 Arnaut Pasha ...............................383 Árokszállás .................................322 Asia Minor .....20, 21, 25, 33, 36–37, 42, 330 Aşık Paşa ......................................99 Assemani, Giuseppe Simone ..89–95 Atatürk, Kemal ...........19–20, 29, 31 Athens ...........................................63 Attila ...........................156, 158, 297 Augsburg .....................................280 Austria ...55, 63, 125, 129, 135–136, 158, 163, 263, 283, 293–294, 296, 300 Axpianna .....................................195 Aya Sofya ......................................46 Aydınoğlu Umur Bey ..................352 Aydos ..........................................352 Avdi Pasha ..................................176 Averroes ........................................73

387

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Avicenna .......................................73 Azerbaijan .....................................44

243, 245, 250–254, 317, 332, 350, 356 Balmazújváros ............................318 Bánffyhunyad (Huedin) ......239, 251 Bánffy, Kata ................................312 Banja Luka ..................................169 Banu ............................................354 Banu Asfar ....................................27 Banu Ishak ....................................27 Banus Szekula .............................353 Baranya County ..................380–381 Barbaro, Nicolò ..........................335 Barbarossa Hayreddin ....52, 53, 281 Barcsai, Ákos, Prince of Transylvania .........141, 144–145, 150, 154, 259, 307 Barkan, Ömer Lutfi ......................58 Baróti Szabó, Dávid ....................306 Bars County ................................378 Bartók, Béla ................................164 Basle ...........................................336 Báthory family ....................132, 231 Báthory, István ............................228 Báthory, Zsigmond, Prince of Transylvania ..........................158 Báthory, Zsófia ...........................309 Bátmonostor .......................251–252 Batthyány family ........................203 Batthyány, Ádám I .....127–128, 130, 132, 138–139, 151, 155, 158, 202 Battonya ......................247–248, 251 Bayezid II .....................................26 Bayezid mosque ............................46 Beaufort, Henry ..........................332 Békés County ......................254, 380 Bél, Mátyás .................323, 367–386

Baba Hasan .................................213 Babócsa .......................241, 253–254 Babócsa-Bolhó Street cemetery . 253 Bács ....................168, 172–173, 243 Bács County ................................373 Bács-Bodrog County . .379–380, 385 Bács-Kiskun County ...........243–244 Bácsalmás ...........................251–252 Bácska (Bačka) ...........................241 Bácsmonostorszeg ..............240, 248 Baghdad ......................................174 Baja .....................................242, 252 Bajezid I ........................................36 Bajza, József ...............................165 Bakabánya (Pukanec) .................378 Bakócz, Tamás ............................226 Balás ...........................................128 Balassa, András ...........................288 Balassa family .............................132 Balassa, Farkas ...........................288 Balassa, János .............................288 Balassa, Zsuzsanna .....................133 Balassagyarmat ...................315, 321 Balassi, Bálint .............211–213, 361 Balassi, Ferenc ............................259 Balassi, János ..............................213 Balaszentmiklós (Törökszentmiklós)................214 Balaton, Lake ..............................253 Baldicus ......................................329 Balivet, Michel ............................32 Balkans ....32–33, 36, 43–44, 58, 86, 163, 170, 173, 179, 194, 240–

388

Belgrade .......9, 56, 83, 94, 344, 355, 357, 372, see also Nándorfehérvár Béllye ..........................................236 Benetti, Antonio ............................75 Bérci Török, Dan ........................196 Bérci Török, Nan ........................196 Bercsényi, captain .......................321 Bercsényi, Miklós .......................319 Berger, Elias ................................158 Beszterce, Besztercebánya (Banska Bystrica) ..........307, 367 Bethlen, Ferenc ...................317, 321 Bethlen, Gábor. Prince of Transylvania .........159, 264–265, 267–268, 274 Bethlen, János .....................144, 153 Bezerédi ......................................319 Bihács (Bihać) ......56, 169, 170–171 Bihar County ...............................321 Bijelo Polje .................................166 Bikszád (Bisag) ..................200, 202 Bilak ............................................311 Birtašević, Marija .......................245 Bittye .............................................56 Blau .........................................79, 85 Bocatius, Johannes (Johann Bock) .......374–375, 377 Bocskai, István, Prince of Transylvania .........148, 152, 159, 374–375 Bodrog ........................................380 Bodrog County ...........................380 Boér, Márton ...............................304 Bogyiszló ....................................238 Bohemia ..............................282, 287

Boka, Károly ......315–316, 321, 322 Bologna .........14, 69–72, 79, 82–84, 86–87, 89, 91–97, 99, 100, 337 Bóné, András ..............................321 Borbély, István ............................309 Bornemisza, Pál ..........227, 229–230 Bornemissza, Gergely .................233 Boronkai, Iván ............................335 Borosjenő (Ineu) .................141, 155 Borsod County ....................316, 355 Bosnia ....44, 57, 163–180, 194–195, 197, 206, 216, 228 Bosnia and Herzegovina ......57, 164, 170 Bossó, János .......................306, 320 Bracciolini, Poggio .....................335 da Branda, Castiglione ................332 Brassó (Brașov) ..........................237 Brčkovo (Brčko) .........................169 Brezán (Berežani) .......................160 Brk Ibrahim .................................169 Buda, Buda Castle ....13–14, 55– 57, 59, 61, 63–64, 70– 74, 76–77, 80, 82– 84, 87, 90, 92– 96, 98– 100, 167, 169–170, 172, 174– 176, 187– 189, 194, 198, 203–204, 206, 209– 212, 215–216, 220, 225, 231, 253– 255, 279– 281, 291, 296, 298, 305, 311, 342, 371–379, 381, 383, 385–386 Budai, musician ..........................321 Budai, Udalrik ............................234 Budyně nad Ohři (Budin an der Eger) ......................................285 Bulgaria ......................195, 304, 355 Bulja, see also Abulja ...................25

389

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Burgkmair the Elder, Hans .........279 Burke, Peter ................................187 Bursa .............................................45 Busbecq ......................373, 375–376 Byzantium ...........27–33, 36, 38–39, 41–42, 63–64, Byzantine Empire .........36, 244, 336 see also Eastern Roman Empire Bzovius .......................................336

Constantinople .....27, 29, 34–35, 41, 62, 73, 75– 79, 85–86, 100, 209, 212, 331–332, 336–338, 344– 345, 372, 374, 376–377 Ćor Huso .....................................166 Coronelli, Vincenzo ......................75 Crete ...................171–172, 175, 336 Cristina of Sweden, Queen ...........80 Croatia .................56, 147, 156, 161, 164–165, 168– 170, 199, 201– 202, 228, 347, 349, 355 Csáky, László ..............................133 Csanád .......................195, 225, 227 Csapodi, Csaba .............................87 Cseh, János .................................196 Cserei, Mihály ............................318 Csiszár, Ferenc ..........187–188, 190, 199, 206–208 Csiszár, Mrs .......188, 192–194, 198, 207 Csönge ........................................238 Csörsz, Rumen István ...................14 Cupid ...........................................290 Cusanus .......................................338 Czeglédi, István ..........................144 Czuczor, Gergely ........................316

Cafer Iyani ..................................173 Cairo .............................................45 Calepinus ....................................305 Callixtus III, Pope ...............339, 345 Calvinus, John ............................147 Campisio, Giovanni ....................332 Canfield, Robert ............................42 Carli, Diogini ................................75 Castor ..........................................299 Cazin ...........................................170 Celldömölk .................................238 Central Asia ....................27, 62, 349 Central Europe ............................331 Cesarini, Giuliano .......................332 Cetina ..........................................170 Charles, Archduke ..............288, 290 Charles V of Habsburg, Emperor .........................281, 287 Charles VI of Habsburg, Emperor.86 Charles Gustav X, King of Sweden .....................141 China ............................................62 Cifrić Hasan ........................169–170 Civrani, Pietro ...............................77 Constantine Palaiologos, Emperor .................................335

Dainero, Tomaso .................280–281 Damascus ......................................45 Đana of Sarajevo ........................176 Danube ...........13, 83, 151, 195, 213, 240, 252, 288, 291–292, 329, 355, 372, 380, 385 Dara ...............................................62 Darabont, János (Johannes Drabant) ...............321

390

Dares Phrygius ............................330 Darius ............................................62 Dávid, András .............................353 Debrecen .....214, 315–316, 321–322 Delibegović of Eszek ..................169 Denta ...................................239, 243 Despina .......................................312 Dézsi, Lajos ................................212 Diakovár (Đakovo) .....................228 Dikici, Ezgi .................................352 Dioscorides ...................................86 Diósgyőr .....................................220 diyaru’r-Rum/biladu’r-Rum (land/country of Rum) .............36 Dobó family ................................132 Dobrudja .....................................317 Dombi, Marci ..............................316 Dombóvár ...........239, 241, 246, 253 Dombóvár-Békató ......................241 Domanovszky, Sándor ........342–343 Dominkovits, Péter .....................134 Dominovics, János ......................133 Donà, Donato (Donado), Giovan Battista, ........................72–77, 82 Donado, Pietro ..............................76 Dózsa, György ............................227 Drágffy family ............................123 Dragoevo ....................................304 Draskovich, György ....................228 Dráva ...........................................169 Drosztmér, Ágnes .........................14 Drégely .......................................226 Drégelypalánk .....................251, 254 Dubovác ......................243, 245–248 Dudith Sbardellati, Andreas .......228 Dugonics, András ...............304, 313

Dunaföldvár ........239, 243–244, 253 Eastern Europe ...........244, 331, 348 Eastern Roman Empire ....21, 41, 64, see also Byzantium, Byzantine Empire Eastern Sea .................................338 Ebubekir Efendi ............................79 Ebussuud Efendi ...........................48 Ecsed ...................................214, 232 Edirne ............................................45 Eger ......64, 163, 210–211, 213, 225, 229, 231–232, 285, 314–315, 321, 333, 383 Egres (Igriş) ................................232 Egypt .....................................52, 244 Engelbrecht, Martin ....................323 England ...........................86, 89, 188 Eperjes (Prešov) ..................231, 234 Érd ...............................................381 Erdel Bey ....................................351 Erdélyi, Gabriella .........................14 Erdőd ...........................................311 Erdődy, Ádám .............................131 Erdődy, Simon ....................200, 202 Ernest, Archduke ........211, 297, 299 Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) ............82 Esau ..................................27, 28, 40 Eszterházy, Károly ......................314 Eszterházy, László ......................130 Esterházy, Dániel ........................125 Esterházy, Farkas ........................125 Esterházy, Ferenc ........................124 Esterházy, Gáspár .......................124 Esterházy, István .........................134 Esterházy, László ................123–139

391

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Esterházy, Miklós ...............159, 274 Esterházy, Pál .....................307, 320 Esterházy palatines .....................274 Esterházy, Tamás ........................124 Esterházy Treasury ............260–261, 263–268, 275 Esze, Tamás ................................320 Eszék (Osijek) ....................166, 168 Esztergom ......57, 63, 192, 225–227, 229, 234–235, 251, 294–295, 332, 339 Esztergom-Szamárhegy ..............251 Etédi Sós, Márton .......................312 Eugene IV, Pope .........332, 334, 338 Euphrates ......................................36 European Union ............................31 Euxinus .......................................338 Evliya Çelebi .......38–39, 59, 64–65, 165, 170, 172

Ferencffy, Lőrinc ........................158 Feridun ..........................................65 Ferrabosco, Pietro .......................295 Ferrara .........................................339 Fetibegović .................................169 Filelfo, Giovanni Mario ..............337 Firenze ..........................................95 Firdausi .........................................43 Fischer, István .............................314 Flora ............................................299 Florence ......................................336 Florentine Union .........................330 Fodor, Pál ......................................14 Fony ............................................314 Fonyód-Bézseny .........................241 Forgách, Ádám ...........................150 Forgách, Ferenc ..................298–299 Forgách, Simon ...........................299 Fraknó (Forchtenstein) 125, 263, 265 France .............................86, 89, 329 Francio, King ......................329–330 Francke, August Hermann ..........367 Francolin, Hans ..........288, 289–292 Frangepán family ........................169 Frankfurt am Main ......................296 Fredegar ......................328–329, 344 Frederick III, Emperor ........287, 332 Fuchs, Ferenc ..............................314 Fusz, János (Johann Evangelist Fuss) ..............................313, 318

Fatić Omeraga .............................169 Fatima .........................................175 Fazekas, Mihály ..........................312 Fáy, András .................................312 Fáy, István ...................314, 316–318 Fehérvár ......................................128 Félegyháza ..................................322 Felyakus ........................................62 Ferdinand I of Habsburg, King of Hungary, Emperor ....55, 65, 199, 202–203, 293– 294, 298 Ferdinand II of Tyrol, Archduke.......277–278, 282–288, 290, 297 Ferdinand III of Habsburg, King of Hungary, Emperor .129, 132, 137

Gaál, József .................................315 Galen .......................................71, 73 Gara .............................................203 Garai, László ...............................335 Garai, Miklós ..............................335

392

Gavran, captain ...........................168 General Peter ......................168, 176 Genghisids ....................................26 George of Brandenburg-Ansbach ..........197 Georgievics, Bertalan .................189 Georgius Augustinus Zagabriensis ..........................339 Georgius de Ungaria .....................46 Gerelyes, Ibolya ............................14 Gerézdi, Rabán ...................340–342 Gerlach, Stephan ...........................61 Geszthy, Ferenc ..................220–221 Gideon .........................................287 Girgyo (Giurgiu) .........................151 Glacz, Michael ............................136 Glogon (Glogonj) .......243, 248–251 Gluck ...........................................312 Gömörharkács (Hrkáč) ...............316 Gonzaga, Anna Katharina ...........286 Görösgál ........................................60 Gorski, Philip S. .................142–143 Gradašac .....................................169 Grandi, Doctor ........................76, 77 Greater Bosnia ............................179 Greece, Greeks ....24, 27, 30, 43, 62, 63, 71, 73, 84, 85, 87, 89, 317, 330 Guarino of Verona ......................339 Gül Baba .......................................59 Gulyás, Borbála ............................14 Gün ...............................................26 Gundulić, Ivan ............................166 Gustavus Adolphus II, King of Sweden .....................274 Güvenç, Bozkurt ...........................19

Gyalu (Gilău) ..............................155 Gyarmat ......................................321 Gyarmathi, Sámuel .....................313 Gyergyószentmiklós ...................261 Gyöngyös ............235–237, 340–341 Gyöngyösi, István ......................301 Gyöngyöspata .............................236 Győr ...132–133, 136, 138–139, 225, 229–230, 232–233, 235 György Uram ..............................322 Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) ........141, 225–226, 232, 234, 260 Gyulai, Ferenc ............308–309, 320 Gvadányi, József .................157, 312 Habsburgs ..........13, 15, 39–41, 123, 124, 142, 145, 209, 277, 288, 293, 294, 299, 324, 374, 385 Hadrovics, László ...............165–166 Hafiz ............................................118 Hagenau ......................................345 Hajdú, László ......................316, 322 Halil ............................................170 Halle ............................................367 Haller, Gábor ......................144, 153 Haller, János ...............................157 Halmágyi, István .................302–303 Hammer, Giuseppe De .................93 Hampel, József ...........239–240, 243 Hamzsabeg ..................................381 Hankins .......................................340 Hasan Pasha ................................383 Haso of Ribnik ............................167 Hasumović ..................................170 Hatvan .........................210–211, 219 Haydn ..........................................312

393

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Hector .........................................330 Hédervári, Lőrinc .......................332 Hegyi, Klára ................................173 Hegyközpályi ......................314, 321 Hermann, Antal ...........................347 Heves County .............................383 Hezarfen Hüseyn Efendi ........77, 79 Hippocrates ...................................73 Hızır ..............................................58 Hobsbawm, Eric J. ..................... 148 Hofburg .......................................287 Hoffmann, Pál .....................125, 131 Holland .........................................89 Homer .........................163–164, 221 Hont County ...............................379 Honti, János ................347–348, 354 Horvát, Ferenc ............................305 Horvát, János ..............................320 Horvát, Márkó ............................305 Horváth, Cyrill ....................340–341 Horváth, Iván ..............................359 Horváth, János ............................320 Hoshang Shah, Persian King . .38, 65 Hosrau Anushirvan, Persian King 65 Hübschmann, Donat ...................299 Hübschmann, Martin ..................299 Hugyag ........................................321 Hungarian Great Plains .....213, 241, 243, 254 Hungarian National Museum ......71, 239, 242–244, 246–252, 317, 322 Hunyad County ..........................196 Hunyadi, John/János ..........150, 156, 333–335, 343 Huss ............................................332

Ibrahim Pasha, Grand Vezir ..........56 İdris Baba ......................................59 Igal ..............................................130 Ilkhanids .................................30, 43 Illés, hajdú/heyduck ....................321 Illyria .............................................90 Ilosvai, István ..............................191 İlyas, Gerez ...................................59 India .......................................37, 62, Inner Asia ......................................20 Iorga, Nicolae ...............................30 Iran ....25, 38, 42–44, 64, 65–66, 97, 348 Irányi, Imre .................................310 Iraq ................................................25 Iron Gate (Poarta de Fier) ...........155 Isaac ........................................27, 28 Isidorus of Kiev ..........................336 Isidorus of Seville .......................329 Iskandar ............................62–63, 67 see also Alexander Istanbul ...28–29, 34, 37, 45–46, 52, 56, 184, 207, 260, 267–268, 302 Istvánffy (Isthvánffi), Miklós ....213, 220–221, 370–372, 377 Italy .......................86, 93, 95–96, 97 Ivanich, Pál .........................334, 339 Izetbegović, Alija ........................174 Jagiellon dynasty ................147, 226 Jajce ............................169, 177, 206 Jakkó, László ..............................313 János, captain ..............................168 Japhet ......................................25, 27 Jászberény ...........................318, 321 Jászkunság ..........................314, 321

394

Jesus Christ ...........51, 196, 345, 353 John Kantakouzenos, Emperor ...352 John I Szapolyai, King of Hungary ........55–56, 65, 192, 226, 374 Julius Caesar ...............................299

Katymár ......................243–244, 252 Kayı Khan ...............................26–27 Kazinczy, Ferenc ........................314 Kecheti, Márton ..........................229 Kecskemét ..................238, 311, 384 Keglevich, Gábor ........................315 Keglevich, Péter .........................130 Kemény, János, Prince of Transylvania .........141, 144–146, 152, 264, 268, 306, 320 Kemény, Sámuel .................310–311 Kenyérmező (Câmpul Pâinii) .....342 Kézai, Simon ..............147, 152, 156 Khosrow ......................................352 Kiev .............................................336 King’s spring ...............................382 Kinizsi, Pál .........................150, 156 Kisalföld .....................................238 Kiskomár, Kiskomárom (Zalakomár) ...................127–128 Kismarton (Eisenstadt) .......125, 129 Kızıl Elma ...................................176 Kladuša ...............................169–171 Klaniczay, Tibor ..........................148 Klissa ..........................................170 Klokocsi, Illés .............................190 Kodály, Zoltán ............................164 Koháry, István .....................155, 315 Kolozsvár (Cluj) .................155, 158 Komárom County .......................379 Komnenos dynasty .......................39 Konya ............................................20 Köpcsény (Kittsee) .....................294 Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad . . .29, 30, 31 Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, Grand Vizier ..........141–142, 160

Kádár, István ...............................319 Kajdacs .......................246–247, 253 Kalaylıkoz Ali Pasha ............61, 210 Káldy-Nagy, Gyula .....................317 Kalocsa ...............................232–233 Kanizsa .......130, 168–176, 178–179 Kaposvár ....................241, 253– 254 Kapronca .....................................323 Kara Mustafa Pasha, Grand Vizier.............................75 Kara Üveys Pasha .......209–212, 215 Karácsony, György, the Black Man .......................214 Karlov .........................................176 Karlowitz ..............................86, 385 Karlsruhe ....................................267 Károlyi, György ..........................315 Károlyi, Lajos .....................315–316 Károlyi, Sándor ...........................310 Kassa (Košice) ...159, 234, 239, 258, 374, 377 Kaszaper .....................................254 Kasztellánfi family .....200, 204–205 Kasztellánfi of Szentlélek, Fruzsina .........................199–204 Kasztellánfi of Szentlélek, János ..............................199, 201 Katona, Imre .......348, 355, 361, 378 Katona, István .............................378

395

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Korláth, Anna ..............................192 Korláth, György ..........................191 Körmöcbánya (Kremnica) ..........296 Korompay, Bertalan ............348, 354 Körös County ..............................200 Kőrösi, Ferenc.............................137 Kőrösi, István...............................138 Köse Mihal..................................358 Kosovo, Kosovopolje ..........61, 174, 245, 327, 355 Kovács, Előd ..............348–349, 360 Kovács, Zsuzsa .............................14 Kovacsóczy, Farkas ....................216 Kováts, György ...........................321 Köves, András .............................229 Kraljević, Andrija .......................170 Kraljević, Marko .................170, 347 Krassó County ............................252 Küküllei, János ...........................342 Küllős, Imola ..............................358 Kún János ...................................320 Kunhegyes ..................................322 Kunszentmiklós ..........314, 317, 321 Kunt, Metin ...................................24

Leuter, Hans Friedrich ................137 Lewis, Bernard ..............................54 Leopold I of Habsburg, King of Hungary, Emperor .........307, 371 Leopold II of Habsburg, King of Hungary, Emperor .................311 Lički Tale od Orašaca ........170, 178 Ligats, János .......................315–316 Ligats, János, Jr. ..........................321 Lijevno ........................................169 Lika .....................................170–171 Lippa (Lipova) ......................59, 155 Linz .............................................138 Listius, László .............................306 Livorno .........................................85 Livrustkammaren collection .......274 Ljubović Bey ......................168, 170 Lomellino, Angelo Giovanni ......336 Lomigora Vuk .............................168 Lónyai, Zsigmond .......................159 Lopašić, Radoslav .......................170 Lopocsy ......................................302 Lord, Albert B. ............................164 Louis I of Anjou, King of Hungary ...................342 Louis II of Jagiellon, King of Hungary .............13, 306 Lower Austria .....................135–136 Lower Danube ..............................13 Lubenau, Reinhold .......................61 Lučić, Hanniban .........................166 Lugos (Lugoj) .............................154

Laczkovics, János .......................319 Ladislaus V, King of Hungary ....335 Lajtha, László .............................304 Lambeck, Peter .....................87, 373 Łaski, Hieronymus ......56, 374–375, 377 Lausitz .........................................305 Lehel ...........................................313 Leiden .........................................144 Lemaire de Belges, Jean .............329 Leonardus of Chiosi ...................336

Macedonia ..........................245, 329 Machaeva, Orazgözel .............96–98 Madjar ...........................................66

396

Magyar spring .............................382 Magyi, János ...............................343 Mahmud, sancakbeyi ..................213 Mahmud al-Kashghari ............25, 26 Mahomet ...............................99–117 Maklár .........................................219 Makó ...................243–244, 251–252 Mameluks .....................................30 Manasija Monastery ...................245 Mansfeld, Philipp Graf von .......133, 136, 139 Margaret of Wallachia ................197 Margetica ....................................348 Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureș) . 308, 318 Mars ....................................290, 358 Marsili, Luigi Ferdinando ......69, 72, 79–100, 118 Martinovics, Ignác ..............312, 319 Márton, József ............................313 Martí, Tibor ...................................14 Marulić ........................................166 Mary of Burgundy ......................278 Mátray, Gábor .....................313, 321 Matthias I Corvinus of Hunyad, King of Hungary ....71, 150, 156, 189, 196, 227, 233, 296, 340, 342–343, 348, 351, 353, 373– 374, 379 Maurer, Mihály ...........................274 Maurice, Elector of Saxony ........284 Maximilian I, Emperor ......277–279, 284, 287 Maximilian II, Archduke, King of Hungary, Emperor . .282, 288, 293–295

Mecca ..............45, 49, 103, 107, 111 Međedović, Avdo .......166–167, 172, 177 Medgyesi, Pál .............................157 Medina ..........................................49 Méhész ........................................320 Mehmed, „in bloody Tuzla” .......169 Mehmed II ...26, 36, 43, 46, 47, 337, 353 Mehmed IV .............................50, 85 Mehmed bin Abdullah ................355 Mehmed of Karaman ....................20 Mehmet Nüzhet ..........................351 Meho, son of Smail ............170, 175 Melek Ahmed Pasha .....................57 memleket-i/diyar-i/iklim-i Rum (the land[s] of Rum) ................36 memleket-i/memalik-i islamiye (the land[s] of Islam) ...............36 Menchar ........................................66 Menuchehr ..............................65–66 Mercury ......................................299 Meryem .......................351, 353–354 Mezőhegyes ................243–244, 251 Mezőtúr ...............................219–220 Mezzofanti, Giuseppe Gaspare ..............................91–95 Miani, Laura .................................97 Mihaloğlu Ali Bey ......350–351, 355 Mihaloğlu family .......350–351, 356, 358 Mihaloğlu Mehmed Bey .....350–351 Mikes, Zsigmond ........................267 Mikó, Árpád ..................................14 Minerva .......................................299 Miskolc .......................................316

397

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Modena .......................199, 280–281 Modona, Leonello .........................95 Mohács 13, 168, 171–172, 178–179, 225, 226–229, 232, 306, 327, Mohács Island .............................380 Mohamed, see also Muhammad ..51, 62–63, 353 Molla Kabız ..................................49 Moldavia .............141, 151, 160, 168 Mongolia .......................................47 Moravia .......................................283 Morocco ......................................174 de Morono, Johannes ..................199 Moscow .........................................39 Moses ..........................................220 Mosonyi, Mihály ........................322 Mostar .........................................170 Mozart .........................................312 Mrkonja Sirdar ............................168 Muhammad, see also Mohamed .280 Mumin Vlahovljak of Plevlje .....167 München .....................................280 Munkács (Mukačeve) .................307 Murad I .........................................61 Murad II ................................46, 353 Murmellius ..................................305 Mustafa Ali .....................27–28, 41, Mustaj Bey .........167, 169, 170, 176 Mytilene ......................................336

Nádudvar ....210, 212, 217, 220–221 Nagybecskerek (Zrenjanin) ........380 Nagyharsány .................................82 Nagyszeben (Sibiu) ............307, 320 Nagyszombat (Trnava/Tirnava) .124, 227, 236, 355 Nagyvárad (Oradea) . . .311, 314, 319 Nándorfehérvár ....13, 155, 339, 344, see also Belgrade Németh, Benjámin ......................322 Németújvár (Güssing) ................129 Neşri ........................................26–27 the Netherlands .............................86 Nevesinje ....................170–171, 174 Nicholas/Nicholaus V, Pope ......334, 337, 339 Nicopolis .....................................327 Noah ........................................25, 38 Nógrád ................................227, 382 Nógrád County ...........315, 322–323 North Africa ..................................62 Novi Pazar ..........................166–167 Nürnberg (Nuremberg) ......280–281, 291, 298–299 Nuşinrevan ....................................64 Nyáry, Krisztina ..........................123 Nyírkállai, Tamás ........................343 Nyitra ..225, 230, 234, 315–316, 321 Óbuda .........................227, 229–231 Ogelli ..........................................303 Oghuz .............20–21, 25–27, 44, 54 Oláh, Miklós ...............227, 231, 294 Oljay .............................................25 Ong, Walter J. .............................360 Ónod ...................................210, 271

Nadabori family ..................196–197 Nadabori Hunyadi, Anna ............197 Nadabori Hunyadi, János . . .196–197 Nadabori Hunyadi, Margit . 196–197 Nádasdy, Ferenc ................129–130, 146–147, 158

398

Orlanović, Mujo .................170–171 Orlić Mustafa Aga ......................171 Orlovszky, Géza ..........................359 Ortaylı, İlber .................................32 Ősi, Barbara ................................200 Osman I ...20–21, 24, 26–27, 33, 38, 45, 57, 358 Osmaniye ......................................35 Osmanlı .............................22, 37, 43 Ostffy, Miklós .............................339 Ozora ..................................249, 254

Peć (Ipek) ............................245, 247 Pécs ....59, 63–64, 91, 125, 173, 228, 250, 381 Pécsbanyatelep ............................253 Pelbárt of Temesvár ....341, 344–345 Pellengrinović of Posavlje ..........168 Peloponnesus peninsula ..............267 Pénzes, János ..............................321 Perényi family .............................132 Persia, Persians ....22, 36–38, 41, 42, 52, 53, 62, 65, 66, 69, 71, 74, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 255, 338, 348–349, 351, Pertusi, Agostino ........................ 336 Pest .......60, 251, 253, 313, 374–375 Pesti, János ..................................137 Petar od Bogdena/Bogdana ........168 Péter, stableman ..........................320 Pethő, János ................................288 Pethő, László ..............................127 Petnyevára ..................................201 Petru Rareş IV, Prince of Moldavia ................168 Philip II of Macedon .....................62 Piemontese, Angelo Michele .......96, 98–99 Pilsen ...........................................283 Piringer, Mihály ..........................314 Pirricheus Mountains ..................338 Pistoso, Maurizio ..........................97 Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini), Pope .......332–333, 335, 338–340, 345 Plato ........................................62–64 Poland .................................141, 144

Palaiologos dynasty ........33, 39, 335 de Palatio, Andreas .............333–334 Pálffy, Pál . . .129, 133, 135, 137, 157 Pálóczi Horváth, Ádám ......314, 319 Palugyai, Imre .............................315 Pamuk, Orhan .........................19, 28 Pankota .......................................232 Pannonia .......................63, 299, 319 Pap, Balázs ..................................363 Pap, János ...................................322 Pápa ...........................125, 132–139 Pápai Páriz, Ferenc .....................306 de Paris, Jean ..............................329 Parschitius, Kristóf .....................381 Parry, Milman .....163–164, 166–167 Partium ................................194, 197 Pašić Ibrahim ..............................169 Passarowitz .................................385 Pásztó ..........................................236 Pásztor, Emese ..............................14 Paul II, Pope ...............................340 Paul III, Pope ......................200, 203 Pázmány, Péter ............................159 Pazzaglia, Francesco Maria ..........75

399

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Poletti, Andrea ..............................77 Pollux ..........................................299 Popović, Ilija ...............................176 Porsius, Henricus ........................373 Portugal .........................................37 Pozsega (Požega), Pozsegavár . .201, 203–205, 206 Pozsony (Bratislava) ..........129, 133, 186, 226–229, 231–232, 234, 282, 293–296, 288–299, 311, 367, 377, 380, 385 Prague .........282, 283–285, 287, 296 Pray, György ...............................378 Pribik, Ferenc ..............................320 Prechac ..........................................75 Prépostvári, Bálint ......................217 Prizren .........................353, 355–356 Puchaim, Pucheim (Hans Cristoph Puchheim), captain ........128, 130 Pusculo, Ubertino .......................337

Rákóczi, Ferenc II, Prince of Transylvania .........168, 176, 270, 302, 310, 316–317, 319–320 Rákóczi, György I, Prince of Transylvania .........258, 267–268, 274, 307 Rákóczi, György II, Prince of Transylvania .141–142, 142–146, 150, 153–160, 308–309 Rákóczi, László ..................131, 307 Rákos field .........................154, 374 Rákospalota ................................251 Rashid al-Din ................................25 Rattendorf, General ......................61 Rettegi, György ..........................312 Révay, Péter ................................149 Reviczky, Count ..........................316 Rhédei, Ferenc ....................141, 145 Rhomania ......................................36 Rimaszombat (Rimavská Sobota ) ......302, 315, 321 Rimay, János ...............................159 Ritopek ........................................248 Rohonc (Rechniz) ...............129, 158 Röll, Walter .................................337 Roma, Rome ........28, 32, 38–39, 80, 95–97, 118, 131, 189, 190–191, 195–196, 203, 339, 345 Romania .......83, 131, 141, 154–155, 168, 187, 194–197, 210, 216, 225, 232, 237, 239, 252, 259–261, 264, 307–308, 311, 333, 342, 349, 379, 385 Rosen, Victor ....................91–95, 98 Rózsadomb ...................................59

Rachaz, Magdolna .............189, 195, 197–198 Ráczszentpéter (Sanpetru Mare)....... 239, 243 Radéczi, István ...................231–232 Radics (Raditt), Márton ..............315 Radivoj, Prince ...........................206 Radovánci family ........................201 Radovánci, László ......................201 Radovány, István 133–134, 138–140 Ragusa (Dubrovnik) ...165, 335, 343 Rakamaz .....................................220 Rákóczi, Ferenc I ........................307

400

Rudolf I of Habsburg ..................287 Rudolf II of Habsburg, King of Hungary, Emperor ........277, 294, 296–297, 299–300 Rum ..........20, 27–28, 35–42, 44, 52 Rumelia ...................................33, 45 Russia ......................................39, 94 Rustem ........................................358 Ruthenia ........................................90

Seljuks 20, 24, 30, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43 Selyem, István ....................314, 321 Semendire (Smederevo, Szendrő) 55 see also Szendrő Sempte (Šintava) ........................125 Sennacherib ................................221 Serbia .......55–56, 83, 164, 168, 239, 241, 243, 245, 248, 252, 347, 349, 355, 358, 380, 385 Šeremetović ................................168 Serényi, András ...........................154 Şeyh Mehemmed el-Hindi ............59 Shem .............................................27 Shibanids ......................................27 Shirin ...........................................352 Sibyl ............................................281 Siena ...................................332, 338 Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary ...196, 332, 335 Simai, Kristóf ..............................313 Simon, the Hungarian .................339 Simonyi, captain .........................315 Simor, János ................................229 Sinzendorf, Joachim ...................209 Sípos, András ..............................320 Sípos, István ................................320 Sípos, Márton ..............................320 Slavonia ..............................199, 202 Slovakia ...............82, 124–125, 129, 159–160, 186, 225, 227–228, 231, 234, 282, 296, 302, 311, 316, 321, 347, 349, 367, 374, 378 Smail (Ismail) Aga ......166, 175, 177 Smailagić Meho ..163, 166, 168–169 Smith, Anthony D. ......................143

Safavids ......................43, 46, 49, 66 Sagundino, Nicola .....................336 Šahić Ali Bey ..............................169 Saint Anne Monastery ................191 Sambucus, Johannes (János Zsámboky) .............................298 Samson ........................................287 Sándor, István .............................313 Sant’Angelo ................................332 Sarajevo ......................................170 Sáros County ...............................159 Sárospatak ...................................312 Sárrét ...........................................221 Sárvár ..........................................158 Sasvár, Sásvár .............................213 Sava ............................168, 170, 241 Sbardellati, Ágoston ...................227 Schlick, Kaspar ...........................332 Schliemann, Heinrich .................165 Schunda, Vencel József .....317, 320, 324 Scythia ................147–148, 338, 344 Šedi Pasha ...................................176 Šehidija .......................................169 Şehsuvar Bey ..............209, 212–221 Segesd .........................................128

401

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha of Buda . 57, 371 Sokollu Mustafa Pasha ...............211 Soliman (Süleyman) Pasha, Grand Vizier ............................82 Somogy County ..................253, 381 Somogyi, Antal ...................314, 321 Somogyi, Pál ..............133–134, 138 Sopron .................229, 234, 260, 376 Sopron County ............125, 134, 376 Sós, András .........314, 317, 319, 321 Sóski ...........................................322 South Transdanubia ....................173 Southeast Asia ...............................37 Southern Hungary ........63, 239, 242, 248, 355 Southern Parts (Délvidék) . .196–197 Speyer .........................................203 Szenci Molnár, Albert .................305 St Barnabas .................................232 St Bartholomew ..........................235 St Elisabeth .................................236 St Emeric ....................................227 St Gellért Hill ..............................381 St George ..............................58, 176 St Gerhard ...................................381 St Ladislaus ........232–233, 340–343 St Martin .....................................295 St Michael ...................................295 St Peter ........................................228 St Stephen I, King of Hungary ....80, 227, 286 Stephen Thomas, King of Bosnia ......................206 Stipits ..........................................313 Stockholm ...................................274

Strassburg ...................................280 Suck, András .......................317, 322 Sudár, Balázs ................................14 Sugár, István ...............................383 Suki, Benedek .............................234 Süleyman I .....43, 49, 55, 60, 64–65, 167, 174, 177, 382 Sulejman Fortić ..........................167 Sulejman Makić ..........................167 Süleyman mosque, Szigetvár .....382 Süleyman Şeyh Efendi .................90 Süleymaniye .................................46 Sümeg .........................................229 Suzi Çelebi .................349–350, 352, 355–356, 358 Syria ......................................25, 245 Svatopluk ....................................315 Svilojevic ....................................353 Sweden .........................80, 141, 274 Szabadka .....................................252 Szabadka-puszta .........................302 Szabó, András Péter ......................14 Szabó, Pál ...........................191, 192 Szabolcs County .................311, 321 Szalkai, László ............................226 Szalkay, Antal .............................313 Szamosújvár ..................................57 Szanda .........................................229 Szatmár (Satu Mare) ...210, 315, 322 Széchényi, György ......................131 Szécsény .............................213, 381 Szécsi, Dénes ..............................332 Szeged .........................................252 Szegedi Kis, István .....................213 Szegedy, Rezső ...........165–166, 347 Székely land ................................318

402

Székely, László ...........................312 Székesfehérvár 57, 64, 128, 293, 379 Szelepcsényi, György .................146 Szendrő (Semendire, Smederevo) 55, 349–350, 355, 357, 363, see also Semendire Szentgotthárd ................................82 Szentgrót .....................................130 Szentlélek (Sveti Duh) 199–200, 202 Szepeshely (Spišská Kapitula) ...228 Szepesi, György ..................219, 221 Szerém, Szerémség (Syrmium, Srem, Srijem) ...56, 57, 168, 172, 173, 355 Sziga Island .................................240 Szigetvár ........60–61, 166, 169, 177, 216, 294, 381–382 Szikszó ........................................217 Szilády, Áron ..............69, 340–341, Szilágyi, Emőke Rita ....................14 Szilágyi, Lajos ............................314 Szilágyi, Mihály .................347–363 Szimayné Keczer, Anna ..............319 Szirmay, Antal ............................313 Szolnok ...............212–215, 218, 221 Szolnok County ..........................379 Sztankovánszky family ...............246 Szűcs, Jenő ....................................20

Tárogató Sípos, Márton ..............320 Tárogató Sípos, Péter ..................320 Tass .............................................238 Taurus Mountains .........................36 Tedaldi, Jacopo ...........................336 Temes County .............380, 385–386 Temes River ................................385 Temesvár (Timişoara) ........167–168, 172, 176, 179, 216, 341, 344, 385–386 Tercüman Mahmud .................39, 63 Teucer, King .......336–340, 342–346 Teucros, King ..............................344 Thaly, Kálmán ....70–74, 77, 82, 313 Thern, Károly ..............................315 Thököly, Imre, Prince of Upper Hungary and Transylvania ...302, 304–305, 309, 320 Tholdalagi, Mihály .....................260 Thuri, Farkas Pál ........................184 Thuróczy, János ..........................344 Thurzó, Elek II ............................288 Thurzó, Imre ...............................123 Thury, József ...............................353 Timurlenk ......................................25 Tinódi, Sebestyén .......................210 Tiro Hasan Pasha ...............168–170, 172–173, 178 Tiro Omer ...................................170 Tisza .....65, 213, 252, 323, 380, 385 Toldi, Miklós ................................61 Toldy, Ferenc ..............................363 Tolna ...........................184, 251, 254 Tolna County ..............246, 253, 311 Tolnai, Sámuel ............................320 Tolnai Szabó, Mihály ..................150

Táb ..............................................322 Tabán ...........................................385 Tafferner, Paul ..................373, 376, Takáts, Sándor ...186, 209, 255–256, 259, 263 Talikizade ......................................26 Talman, Michael ...84, 86–87, 89–92

403

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Tomasevác (Tomaševac) . . .239, 243, 245–246, 248 Torna County ..............................320 Török family ...............................197 Torontál ...............................252, 380 Torontal County ..................252, 380 Torquotus (Torcoth), King ..........329 Tót, Tamás ..........................194–195 Tóth, Gergely ................................15 Tóth, István .................................311 Tóth, Márton ...............................138 Traini, Renato ...............................95 Transcarpathia ...............................65 Transdanubia .....139, 147, 151, 156, 159, 173, 238, 242, 253–254 Transylvania ............13, 55, 57, 141, 143–145, 147–149, 153, 155, 157–158, 160, 195–197, 216, 225, 232, 234, 256–259, 263– 265, 267–275, 302–303, 306– 308, 310, 318, 347, 385 Travnik ................................169, 175 Trebinje ...............................170–171 Troilus .........................................330 Troy, Trojans ..................37, 39, 298, 327–342, 344–346 Tunis ...........................................281 Turan .............................................65 Turcus .........................................330 Turkestan ................................26, 27 Túrkeve ...............................315, 322 Turkia ............................................21 Turkmen ................20, 25–26, 54, 96 Tursun Bey ..............................26, 40 Tuzla ...........................................169 Udbina .........................................171

Udvarhelyszék (Scaunul Odorhei) .................259 Ugljanin, Salih ............................167 Újbánya (Nova Baňa) .................378 Ukraine ...............................160, 307 Uljay .............................................25 Una (Unđurovina) .......................169 Ungnad von Sonnegg, David ......217 Upper Hungary ..........147, 149, 159, 220, 320 Uşak ............................................272 Úsz, István ..................................159 Úszfalu ........................................159 Vác ......................................225, 227 Vadasi, Anna .......190–192, 195, 197 Vajda, György .............................138 Vajda, István ...............................197 Várad (Oradea) ..........131, 141, 187, 188–192, 197–199, 204, 225, 232–233, 311, 314, 319, 321, 333–334, 342–343 Váraljai, Szaniszló ......................228 Várday, Pál ..........................226–227 Varga, Szabolcs .............................14 Vargyas, Lajos ...........................349 Varjas, Béla .................347, 359–362 Varkocs, Tamás ...........................229 Varna ...........................331–334, 336 Vázsony ......................................138 Véged ..........................................128 Velike (Velika) ............199, 203, 206 Velikei, Dorottya .........................201 Velikei family .............................201 Velikei, István .............199, 205–206 Velikei, Katalin ...........................205

404

Venice ..........72, 75, 77, 82, 98, 184, 191, 230, 257, 280–281, 335–336 Venus ...........................................290 Verancsics, Antal ................231, 295 Veress, Endre ................................73 Vergil ...........................................221 Veszprém ............131, 225, 229, 231 Veszprém County .......134–135, 139 Vetési, Albert ......................230–231 Vetranić, Ivan ..............................166 Vezekény (Veľké Vozokany) .....124, 131, 160 van Vianen, Paulus .....................296 Vienna .....40, 61, 63, 71–72, 79–83, 86–87, 98–99, 124, 126, 129, 134–135, 147, 160, 176, 204, 225, 229, 283, 286–287, 289, 290, 292, 294, 307, 373, 379 Villanova .....................................320 Virág, Lajos ................................317 Virgin Mary ........................295, 351 Visconti, Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan .....................................332 Visegrád ......................................379 Visoko .........................................170 Vitéz, János ........333–335, 339–340, 343 Vitnyédi, István ..........147, 156–157 Vizier’s Meadow .........................175 Vladislav I Jagiellon, King of Hungary ...................................33 Vladislav II Jagiellon, King of Hungary .................279, 281, 332 Vrljika .........................................169 Vryonis, Speros Jr. ........................31 Wagner ........................................305

Wagner, Franz .....................371, 377 Wallachia .....85, 141, 151, 160, 168, 197, 308, 316, 350–351 Walther (Waltharius) . .348–349, 356 Wenckheim, József .....................315 Werbőczy, István .........................147 Wesselényi, Ferenc ....146–147, 150, 302 Wesselényi, István ....302–303, 307, 309 West Europe, Western Europe .....13, 62, 86, 164, 249, 250, 274, 349 West Transdanubia ..............139, 238 Wetter, Evelin .............................237 Widemann, Elias .........................158 Wycliffe ......................................332 Yahyapaşazade Mehmed Bey .......55 Yugoslavia ..................................164 Zadar ...................................168, 175 Zagreb .........200, 202, 225, 228, 234 Zajič von Hassenburg, Johann ....285 Zala County ................................311 Zalakomár (Kiskomár, Kiskomárom) ....128, see also Kiskomár Zalaszentbalázs ...........................128 Zalaszentgrót ..............................130 Zalavég .......................................128 Zalka, János ................................229 Zajim Ali Bey .............................175 Zarkóczi ......................................302 Zelnyak (Sirač) ...........................202 Zemplén County .........................152 Zenta ...........................................252

405

INDEX OF NAMES AND PLACES

Zichy, főispán .............................315 Zichy, István ...............................138 Zilfi, M. .........................................46 Zlata ............................................170 Zlatna Jabuka ..............................176 Zombor ...............................240–241 Zombor-Bácsmonostorszeg ........240 Zombor-Bükkszállás (ZomborBukovácz) .............................241 Zrínyi, Ádám ..............................131 Zrínyi family .......................132, 169

Zrínyi, Miklós (1508–1566) ......166, 169, 294, 297 Zrínyi, Miklós (1620–1664) .....127– 128, 129–130, 147, 150–153, 155–157, 160–161, 170, 347 Zsombolya ..................................313 Zulfikar .........................................53 Zulkarnayn ..............................26, 62 see also Alexander the Great, Iskandar

406