Kitāb-ı Hedāyā: Studien zum Osmanischen Reich und seinen Nachbargebieten [1 ed.] 9783737011013, 9783847111016

Citation preview

Ottoman Studies / Osmanistische Studien

Band 8

Herausgegeben von Stephan Conermann, Sevgi Ag˘cagül und Gül S¸en

Die Bände dieser Reihe sind peer-reviewed.

Sevgi Ag˘cagül / Henning Sievert (Hg.)

Kita¯b-ı Heda¯ya¯ Studien zum Osmanischen Reich und seinen Nachbargebieten

Zu Ehren von Hedda Reindl-Kiel Mit 31 Abbildungen

V&R unipress Bonn University Press

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. Veröffentlichungen der Bonn University Press erscheinen bei V&R unipress. © 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Umschlagabbildung: Beyazıt-Moschee Istanbul, Adobe Stock (#134699058) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2366-3677 ISBN 978-3-7370-1101-3

Inhalt

Zu diesem Band . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel (Stand: Juli 2019) . . . . . . . . .

13

Pferde und Plagen im 13.–14. Jahrhundert Birgitt Hoffmann Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration: Sources of the Ilkhanid Period on Horses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Sevgi Ag˘cagül Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem ˘ Schwarzen Tod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Das Osmanische Reich und Europa im 16.–17. Jahrhundert Machiel Kiel Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II. An Early Classical Ottoman Mosque on the Peloponnese. Historical Background and Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

Nenad Moacˇanin The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice. The Ottoman sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Hans Georg Majer Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

6

Inhalt

Ulrich Vollmer Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus von Ioannes Boemus (1520) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Wissen und Weltsichten im 17.–18. Jahrhundert Seyfi Kenan Holding the Truth in Balance: Kâtib Çelebî’s Mîzânü’l-Hakk and his Conception of Knowledge and Education in the 17th Century Ottoman Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit . . . 151 Constantin A. Panchenko The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 18th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Kemal Beydilli III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi . . . . . . 189

Kontinuitäten und Umbrüche im 19.–20. Jahrhundert Suraiya Faroqhi The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it: Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso in Anatolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Klaus Kreiser Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Christoph Ramm Simply Divide-and-Rule? The Impact of the British Civilizing Mission on the Ottoman Communities of Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Ali Suat Ürgüplü Did Talat Pasha really want war? Two slightly different versions of Ottoman entry into the World War by Mustafa Hayri Efendi, wartime S¸eyhülislam of the Ottoman Empire and author of the “jihad fatwa” . . . 311

Zu diesem Band

Für die Entstehung des vorliegenden Bandes könnten viele Gründe aufgeführt werden: Die vor einigen Jahren erfolgte Pensionierung der hier Geehrten oder die besonderen Geburtstage, anlässlich derer Publikationen dieser Art herausgegeben werden. Mehr als solche Anlässe ist es aber die von den Herausgebern und den Autoren der Beiträge tief empfundene Achtung für Hedda Reindl-Kiel und ihr Werk, die den Anlaß zu dieser Festschrift gab. Hedda Reindl-Kiel verbrachte nach ihrer Promotion an der Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München den größten Teil ihres akademischen Lebens an der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, zunächst am neu gegründeten Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen und später in der Abteilung für Orientalische und Asiatische Sprachen des Instituts für Orient- und Asienwissenschaften, in welches das Seminar im Jahre 2006 integriert wurde. Mehrere Generationen dankbarer Absolventen wurden in dieser Zeit im professionellen Übersetzen zwischen dem Deutschen und dem Türkischen ausgebildet – und ein inoffizielles „Studium“ der Osmanistik gab es gleich dazu. Die Herausgeber dieses Bandes kamen in ihrer leider sehr kurzen gemeinsamen Zeit an der Universität Bonn zudem in den Genuss zahlreicher anregender Gespräche – nicht selten zwischen zwei Lehrveranstaltungen –, die einem wissenschaftlichen Kolloquium in nichts nachstanden. Obwohl Hedda Reindl-Kiel über 28 Jahre hinweg bis zu zwölf Wochenstunden an Lehrveranstaltungen gab und zusätzlich mit administrativen Aufgaben betraut war, setzte sie ihre Forschung zur osmanischen Geschichte, Gesellschaft und Kultur kontinuierlich auf höchstem wissenschaftlichen Niveau fort – wie ihr das gelang, ist den Verfassern dieser Zeilen bis heute ein Rätsel geblieben. Angesichts der hohen wissenschaftlichen Ansprüche, die sie an ihre Arbeiten stellt, sind die Anzahl und die Reichhaltigkeit der Themen ihrer Publikationen umso bemerkenswerter. An erster Stelle ist hier Hedda Reindl-Kiels Dissertation über die „Männer um Ba¯yezı¯d“ zu nennen, die als Standardwerk für die Prosopographie der Zeit um 1500 auch ins Türkische übersetzt wurde. Ausgehend von der Prosopogra-

8

Zu diesem Band

phie solcher postbyzantinisch-osmanischen Persönlichkeiten befaßte sich Hedda Reindl-Kiel immer wieder mit transkulturellen Biographien wie der des Renegaten Wilhelm Ernst (alias Mehemmed) Schmid im frühen 18. Jahrhundert oder von modernen Fachwissenschaftlern. Kulturgeschichtliche Themen wie Ehre und Beleidigung oder die Grenzen und Möglichkeiten von Frauen der osmanischen Oberschicht fanden ebenso Eingang in Reindl-Kiels Werk wie Studien zur materiellen Kultur. Diese erschienen oft unter trefflichen Titeln wie „Der Duft der Macht“, „Diamonds are a Grand Vizier’s Best Friends“ oder „Kaugummi für den Sultan“. Zur materiellen Kultur hat Hedda Reindl-Kiel eine Reihe von wegweisenden Studien vorgelegt, die Juwelen und Luxusgüter, Speisen und Kulinarik, Tuche und Kleidung oder Zelte, Pferde und exotische Tiere aufgrund einschlägiger Register der Verwaltung erschließen. Dabei handelte es sich meist um Geschenke, sei es zwischen Würdenträgern oder zwischen Klienten und Patronen, sei es in der Diplomatie. Aus diesen Mosaiksteinen fügt sich Stück für Stück ein Bild des Gabentausches oder auch eines innerosmanischen Redistributionssystems zusammen, das wichtige neue Einblicke in die osmanische Kultur eröffnet. Dazu können die in diesem Bande versammelten Gaben in Form von Aufsätzen aus der Feder von Freundinnen und Freunden, Kolleginnen und Kollegen nur bedingt beitragen. Dafür nehmen sie Bezug auf Hedda Reindl-Kiels außerordentliche Leistungen auf dem Gebiet der osmanischen Geschichte, und zwar mit Blick auf die materielle oder Alltagskultur oder auf transkulturelle Kontakte, immer aber als Gaben. Hedda Reindl-Kiel bewegt sich ganz selbstverständlich im internationalen Feld der Osmanistik, was auch in der Mischung der Beiträge zum Ausdruck kommt. Sie reichen von von Iran bis nach Mitteleuropa und von vorosmanischer Zeit bis ins 20. Jahrhundert und umfassen ein breites Themenspektrum, wie es auch bei Hedda Reindl-Kiels eigenem Œuvre der Fall ist. Hier begegnen uns zum Beispiel Tiere (so etwa Pferde, Katzen und Ziegen) und materielle Kultur in Form von Bauwerken; Kulturkontakt in Form von individuellen Beobachtern oder auch Spionen, Wissenswelten und Schriftkultur von hoher und etwas weniger hoher Politik bis zur Populärkultur. So divers die Themen der einzelnen Beiträge auch sein mögen – sie alle verbindet das Grundelement jeglicher historischer Forschung, nämlich die intensive Auseinandersetzung mit Quellen. Hedda Reindl-Kiel vermag es, jeder vermeintlich noch so belanglosen Textstelle das maximal Mögliche zu entlocken. Dieser ausgeprägten Quellenorientierung verschreiben sich auch die in diesem Band vereinten Beiträge. Am Beginn des Bandes stehen zwei Aufsätze, die in chronologischer bzw. geographischer Hinsicht außerhalb des osmanischen Kontexts anzusiedeln sind. Birgitt Hoffmann beleuchtet in ihrem Aufsatz „Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration: Sources of the Ilkhanid Period on Horses“ materielle Aspekte und immaterielle Bedeutungen des Pferds für die Mongolen als Nutztier

Zu diesem Band

9

und Kulturgut gleichermaßen. Dabei zieht sie persische Quellen der ilchanidischen Zeit, zeitgenössische Beschreibungen aus dem arabischen Sprachraum und externe Berichte wie zum Beispiel denjenigen des Marco Polo zu Rate. Sevgi Ag˘cagül untersucht in ihrem Aufsatz „Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas ˘ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod“, welche Bilder dieser Dichter in zweien seiner Gedichte einsetzt, um die Auswirkungen des Schwarzen Todes auf ihn selbst und auf die von ihm literarisch entworfene Gesellschaft zu beschreiben. Unter der Rubrik „Das Osmanische Reich und Europa im 16.–17. Jahrhundert“ sind vier Beiträge vereint, die dem osmanischen Europa bzw. dem Osmanischen in Europa gewidmet sind. Machiel Kiel unternimmt in seinem Aufsatz „Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II. An Early Classical Ottoman Mosque on the Peloponnese, Historical Background and Reconstruction“ eine baugeschichtliche Reise durch das osmanische Patras und skizziert ausgewählte Gebäude und Persönlichkeiten dieser Stadt. Von Nenad Moacˇanin erfahren wir in „The Great Bridge of Osijek as a Post-Süleymanic edifice. The Ottoman Sources“, welche baulichen Stadien besagte Brücke seit ihren Anfängen durchlebt hat. Der Autor schlägt anhand der Untersuchung einer Reihe von Dokumenten aus dem Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi (Istanbul) sowie einiger erzählender Quellen ein jüngeres als bisher angenommenes Errichtungsdatum der Brücke vor. Hans-Georg Majer geht in seinem Aufsatz „Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee“ der Frage nach, wie auf Feldzügen die Staatsgeschäfte durch die Produktion und die Zirkulierung von Schriftlichem fortgeführt wurden und was mit diesen Dokumenten nach Beendigung der militärischen Unternehmungen geschah. Quasi nebenbei liefert der Autor einen Bestandsnachweis dieser Originalquellen in Bibliotheken und Archiven des deutschsprachigen Raums. Ulrich Vollmer zeichnet in „Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus von Ioannes Boemus (1520)“ das Wissen dieses Autors über die Türkei nach, stellt dieses in den Kontext der zugrunde liegenden Quellen und liefert dadurch ein Beispiel für das Bild der Osmanen und ihrer Religion in der abendländischenWahrnehmung des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts. Die darauffolgende Rubrik „Wissen und Weltsichten im 17.–18. Jahrhundert“ führt Seyfi Kenan mit „Holding the Truth in Balance: Kâtib Çelebî’s Mîzânü’lHakk and his Conception of Knowledge and Education in the 17th Century Ottoman Empire“ an. In seinem Aufsatz geht Seyfi Kenan auf Kâtib Çelebîs Ansichten und Forderungen zu Wissen und Bildung ein und stellt diese in den Kontext der staatlichen und gesellschaftlichen Verfasstheit des Osmanischen Reiches im 17. Jahrhundert. Henning Sievert und Natalia Bachour konzentrieren sich auf die individuelle körperliche Verfasstheit eines durch seine Erlebnisse mehrmals gesundheitlich leidenden Gelehrten. Ihr Aufsatz „Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit“ gibt Aufschluss über den

10

Zu diesem Band

Leidensweg Nuʿma¯ns, wie er ihn anschaulich in seinen eigenen Schriften wiedergibt. Zudem schildern sie, wie Nuʿma¯n sich für den Tabakgenuss ausspricht und dies nach den Regeln der Rechtsprechung juristisch untermauert. Constantin A. Panchenko deckt in seinem Beitrag „The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire in the Middle of the 18th Century“ anhand von russischem Archivmaterial Spionageaktivitäten im Osmanischen Reich auf. Dabei geht der Autor auch auf Rekrutierungsmethoden, die Fluktuation der Angeheuerten sowie deren Betragen und Bezahlung ein. Kemal Beydilli schließt diesen Teil mit seinem Aufsatz „III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi“ ab. Der Aufsatz stellt nicht nur ein Portrait Mustafas III. (sowie seiner Angehörigen) dar – der Autor beschreibt auch Zeremonien und protokollarische Abläufe bei Hofe, die baulichen Hinterlassenschaften des Herrschers sowie seine innen- und außenpolitischen Staatsgeschäfte. Die große thematische Bandbreite des Aufsatzes spiegelt sich in der beachtlichen Anzahl der konsultierten Quellen. Den Abschluss dieses Bandes bildet die Rubrik „Kontinuitäten und Umbrüche im 19.–20. Jahrhundert“. Suraiya Faroqhi beschreibt in ihrem Aufsatz „The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it: Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso in Anatolia“, wie eine italienische Adelige das Alltagsleben und den Lebensstandard in der osmanischen Provinz im 19. Jahrhundert wahrnahm. Neben Ansichten von Behausungen und deren Ausstattung, dem Besitz von als Luxusgütern betrachteten Objekten wie Spiegel oder Kerzen, und Aussagen über dekorative Kosmetik und Kleidung sowie Lebensmitteln sind es Tiere und deren Bedeutung für ihre Besitzer, denen die Verfasserin des Beitrags besondere Beachtung schenkt. In dem Dokument, das Klaus Kreisers Aufsatz „Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿaziz“ zugrunde liegt, spiegelt sich das Verhältnis zwischen Mensch und Tier auf andere Weise wieder. Der Autor führt mit seinem Aufsatz ein bisher kaum bekanntes Genre osmanischer Quellen ein, aus dem nicht nur Anzahl und Empfänger der für das Opferfest des Jahres 1863 von der Sultansmutter vorgesehenen Opfertiere hervorgehen. Das defter ist gleichzeitig eine Quelle für Untersuchungen über die Beziehungen der Herrscherfamilie zu Personen und Institutionen außerhalb des Palasts. Christoph Ramm gibt in seinem Aufsatz „Simply Divide-and-Rule? The Impact of the British Civilizing Mission on the Ottoman Communities of Cyprus“, die Diskussion über den britischen Beitrag zur Herausbildung türkischer und griechisch-zypriotischer nationalistischer Tendenzen wieder. Der Autor zeichnet die Entwicklungen nach, wie sie vor allem eintraten, nachdem Zypern 1925 zur britischen Kronkolonie erklärt worden war. Ali Suat Ürgüplü stellt in seinem Aufsatz „Did Talat Pasha really want war? Two slightly different versions of Ottoman entry into the World War by Mustafa Hayri Efendi, wartime S¸eyhülislam of the Ottoman Empire and author of the ‚jihad fatwa‘“ zwei verschiedene Versionen der Begründung für den Eintritt des Osmanischen Reiches

Zu diesem Band

11

in den Ersten Weltkrieg einander gegenüber. Zum einen ist da die publizierte Aussage von Mustafa Hayri Efendi, die zusammen mit den Aussagen weiterer Personen im letzten Kriegsjahr veröffentlicht wurde. Zum anderen stellt der Autor erstmals die handschriftlichen Aufzeichnungen des Scheichülislams vor, die Aussagen enthalten, welche in der gedruckten Version nicht vorkamen und welche als Ansatzpunkt für neue Untersuchungen zu den Beziehungen der drei Mitglieder des Triumvirats untereinander dienen könnten. Die Herausgeber sind allen Beitragenden zu tiefstem Dank verpflichtet – vor allem für die Geduld, die sie bis zum Erscheinen dieses Bandes aufbringen mussten und die zu unserem Bedauern nicht selten strapaziert wurde. Henning Sievert & Sevgi Ag˘cagül

Bonn, im August 2019

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel (Stand: Juli 2019)

Bücher Leisure, Pleasure – and Duty. The daily Life of Silahdar Mustafa, éminence grise in the final years of Murad IV (1635–1640) (Otto Spies Memorial Lecture, vol. 2). Berlin 2016. II. Bayezid ve Çevresi: Hükümdarın Adamları (Übers. Ali Suat Ürgüplü). I˙stanbul 2014. (Mit Seyfi Kenan) Deutsch-türkische Begegnungen / Alman Türk Tesadüfleri. Festschrift für Kemal Beydilli / Kemal Beydilli ˙Için Armag˘an. Berlin 2013. Männer um Ba¯yezı¯d. Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Sultan Bayezids II. (1481–1512). Berlin 1983. (Mit Hartmut Rahn und Uta Lange), Förderung des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses: Eine Analyse der Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes (Teil 5). Bonn 1981.

Artikel, Enzyklopädie-Einträge „Willi Heffening (1894–1944): Ein historischer Kopf aus der zweiten Reihe. Türkische Studien an der Universität Bonn“, in: Meyer, Harald & Schirrmacher, Christine & Vollmer, Ulrich (Hrsg.), Die Bonner Orient- und Asienwissenschaften. Eine Geschichte in 22 Portraits. Orientierungen 2018: 201–214. „Zeki Velidi Togan (1890–1970). Ein großer Gelehrter auf bescheidenem Posten. Bonner Zwischenspiel“, in: Meyer, Harald & Schirrmacher, Christine & Vollmer, Ulrich (Hrsg.), Die Bonner Orient- und Asienwissenschaften. Eine Geschichte in 22 Portraits. Orientierungen 2018: 167–190. „Diamonds are a Grand Vizier’s best Friends or: Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa’s Jewelry Assets“, in: Faroqhi, Suraiya & Akcetin, Elif (eds.), Living the Good Life: Consumption in the Qing and Ottoman Empires of the Eighteenth Century. Boston 2017: 409–432. „Kullara tayın, efendiye gümüs¸ takım: Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘unda dag˘ıtım ve bölüs¸türme düzeni (16.–18. yüzyil)“, Yemek ve Kültür 47 (I˙lkbahar 2017), 10–15. „The Empire of Fabrics: The Range of Fabrics in the Gift Traffic of the Ottomans“, in: Ertl, Thomas & Karl, Barbara (Hrsg.), Inventories of Textiles – Textiles in Inventories: Interdisciplinary Studies on Late Medieval and Early Modern Sources and Material Culture. Göttingen 2017: 143–164.

14

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel

„Matuz, Josef Eugen“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi Ek 2 (2016): 200–201. „Schweigger, Salomon“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi Ek 2 (2016): 483–485. „The Must-Haves of a Grand Vizier: Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha’s Luxury Assets“, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 106 (2016): 179–221. „Mahmud Pas¸a Angelovic´“, in: Georgeon, François et al. (Hrsg.), Dictionnaire de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris 2015: 742–743. „Ottoman Diplomatic Gifts to the Christian West“, in: Born, Robert & Dziewulski, Michał & Twardowska, Kamilla (eds.), The Ottoman Orient in Renaissance Culture. Papers from the International Conference at the National Museum in Krakow, June 26–27, 2015. Kraków 2015: 95–116. „Ottoman Courtly Tents and Turkic Tradition“, in: S¸ahin, I˙lhan & I˙sakov, Baktıbek & Buyar, Cengiz (Hrsg.), CIÉPO Interim Symposium: The Central Asiatic Roots of Ottoman Culture. Istanbul 2014: 641–655. „Some Notes on Hersekzade Ahmed Pasha, his Family, and his Books“, in: Kuru, Selim S. & Tezcan, Baki (Hrsg.), Defterology: Festschrift in Honor of Heath Lowry (= Journal of Turkish Studies 40). Cambridge, Mass. 2013: 315–326. „Osmanlı Yöneticileri, Lüks Tüketimi ve Hediyeles¸me“, in: Kenan, Seyfi (Hrsg.), ˙ISAM Konus¸maları: Osmanlı Düs¸üncesi, Ahlâk, Hukuk, Felsefe-Kelâm / ˙ISAM Papers: Ottoman Thought, Ethics, Law, Philosophy-Kalam. I˙stanbul 2013: 137–151. „Symbolik, Selbstbild und Beschwichtigungsstrategien: Diplomatische Geschenke der Osmanen für den Wiener Hof (17.–18. Jh.)“, in: Strohmeyer, Arno & Spannenberger, Norbert & Pech, Robert (Hrsg.), Frieden und Konfliktmanagement in interkulturellen Räumen: Das Osmanische Reich und die Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Stuttgart 2013: 265–282. „Breads for the Followers, Silver Vessels for the Lord: The system of distribution and redistribution in the Ottoman Empire (16th–18th c.)“, Osmanlı Aras¸tırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies 42 (2013): 93–104. „Welt des Islams“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 43 (2013): 157–158. „Das Ende einer Kavaliersreise – Beginn einer osmanischen Karriere?“, in: Reindl-Kiel, Hedda & Kenan, Seyfi (Hrsg.), Deutsch-türkische Begegnungen / Alman Türk Tesadüfleri. Festschrift für Kemal Beydilli / Kemal Beydilli ˙Için Armag˘an. Berlin 2013: 106–187. „Luxury, Power Strategies and the Question of Corruption: Gifting in the Ottoman Elite (16th–18th Centuries)“, in: Köse, Yavuz & Völker, Tobias (Hrsg.), S¸ehrâyîn: Die Welt der Osmanen, die Osmanen in der Welt. Wahrnehmungen, Begegnungen und Abgrenzungen / Illuminating the Ottoman World: Perceptions, Encounters and Boundaries. Festschrift Hans Georg Majer. Wiesbaden 2012: 107–120. „Ahmed Pas¸a, Hersekza¯de“ in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (Ed. Kate Fleet et al.) (2011). „Franz Taeschner“ in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 39 (2010): 368–369. „The Vakf of Moralı Bes¸ir Ag˘a in Argos“ (Measurements and Plan by Ida Scheltema, Lelystad), in: Hartmuth, Maximilian & Dilsiz, Ays¸e (Hrsg.), Monuments, Patrons, Contexts: Papers on Ottoman Europe Presented to Machiel Kiel. Leiden 2010: 107–128. „Dogs, Elephants, Lions and a Rhino on Diplomatic Mission: Animals as Gifts to the Ottoman Court“, in: Faroqhi, Suraiya (Hrsg.), Animals and People in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul 2010: 271–285.

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel

15

„Ahmed Pas¸a, Gedik“ in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (Ed. Kate Fleet et al.) (2009). „Ehre, Beleidigungen und Beleidigungsrituale im Osmanischen Reich (16. und 17. Jahrhundert)“, Bibliotheca Orientalis 66/3–4 (2009): 199–209. „No Horses for the Enemy: Ottoman Trade Regulations and Horse Gifting“, in: Fragner, Bert G. & et al. (Hrsg.), Pferde in Asien: Geschichte, Handel und Kultur / Horses in Asia: History, Trade and Culture. Wien 2009: 43–49. „Power and Submission: Gifting at Royal Circumcision Festivals in the Ottoman Empire (16th–18th Centuries)“, Turcica 41 (2009): 37–88. „Rum Mehmed Pas¸a“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 35 (2008): 226–227. „Osmanlıda Hediye (16.–17. Yüzyıl)“, in: Gürsoy-Naskali, Emine (Hrsg.), Hediye Kitabı. I˙stanbul 2007: 102–111. „16. Asırda Galatasaray’lı Olmak“, Sultani (Galatasaraylılar Derneg˘i yayını) 26 (2006): 28– 29. „No Pigeons for the Princes: Food Distribution and Rank in the Ottoman Palace, According to an Unknown Type of ta‘yinat defteri (late 17th Century)“, in: Conermann, Stephan & Heinze, Marie-Christine (Hrsg.), Bonner Islamwissenschaftler stellen sich vor. Schenefeld 2006: 327–335. „Cennet Taamları: 17. Yüzyıl Ortalarında Osmanlı Sarayında Resmi Ziyafetler“, in: Faroqhi, Suraiya & Neumann, Christoph K. (Hrsg.), Soframız Nur, Hanemiz Mamur: Osmanlı Maddi Kültüründe Yemek ve Barınak. I˙stanbul 2006: 55–100. „Der Duft der Macht: Osmanen, islamische Tradition, muslimische Mächte und der Westen im Spiegel diplomatischer Geschenke“, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 95 (2005): 195–258. „East is East and West is West, and Sometimes the Twain Did Meet: Diplomatic Gift Exchange in the Ottoman Empire“, in: Murphey, Rhoads & Kiyotaki, Keiko & Imber, Colin (Hrsg.), Frontiers of Ottoman Studies II. London, New York 2005: 113–123. „Mesih Pas¸a“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 29 (2004): 304–305. „The Tragedy of Power: The Fate of Grandvezirs of the Menakıbname-i Mahmud Pas¸a-ı Veli“, Turcica 35 (2003): 247–256. „The Chickens of Paradise: Official Meals in the mid-seventeenth century Ottoman Palace“, in: Faroqhi, Suraiya & Neumann, Christoph K. (Hrsg.), The Illuminated Table, the Prosperous House. Food and Shelter in Ottoman Material Culture. Würzburg 2003: 59– 88. „Gölcük ve Bozdag˘ Kasırları“, in: Uluslararası Sanat Tarihi Sempozyumu: Prof. Dr. Gönül Öney’e Armag˘an, 10–13 Ekim 2001. I˙zmir 2002: 371–374. „Tolerance in the Ottoman Empire: Concept and Reality“, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta 4, Serija 13: Vostokovedenje (2002): 35–50. „Kadının Adı Yok à la Ottomane. Ein darüssa‛ade defteri aus der Prinzenzeit Selims II.“, in: Prätor, Sabine & Neumann, Christoph K. (Hrsg.), Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrte: Sudien zu Gesellschaft und Künsten im Osmanischen Reich / Arts, Women and Scholars: Studies in Ottman Society and Culture: Festschrift Hans Georg Majer. Istanbul 2002: 125–137. „Fromme Helden, Wunder, Träume: Populäre Geschichtsauffassung im Osmanischen Reich des 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhunderts“, in: Schmidt, Jan (Hrsg.), Essays in Honour of Barbara Flemming / Barbara Flemming Armag˘anı II (= Journal of Turkish Studies 26/ 1). Cambridge, Mass. 2002: 187–191.

16

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel

„‚On Monday the Bread of the Baker Malcˇo Has to Be Written‘: Property, Maintenance, Market and Crime in the Early 17th-Century Court of Küstendil“, in: Temimi, Abdeldjelil (Hrsg.), Mélanges Prof. Machiel Kiel. Zaghouan 1999: 429–454. „Pracht und Ehre. Zum Geschenkwesen im Osmanischen Reich“, in: Kreiser, Klaus & Neumann, Christoph K. (Hrsg), Das Osmanische Reich in seinen Archivalien und Chroniken. Nejat Göyünç zu Ehren. Istanbul, Stuttgart 1997: 161–189. „A Woman Timar Holder in Ankara Province during the Second Half of the 16th Century“, Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 40/2 (1997): 207–238. „Gedik Ahmed Pas¸a“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 13 (1996): 543–544. „Wesirfinger und Frauenschenkel. Zur Sozialgeschichte der türkischen Küche“, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 77/1 (1995): 57–84. „Die Lippen der Geliebten. Betrachtungen zur Geschichte der türkischen Küche“, Mitteilungen der Deutsch-Türkischen Gesellschaft 116 (Dezember 1993): 13–23. (Mit Machiel Kiel) „Kaugummi für den Sultan. Ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Insel Chios im 17. Jahrhundert“, Osmanlı Aras¸tırmaları / The Journal of Ottoman Studies XI (1991): 181–214. „Mord an einer Haremsdame“, Münchner Zeitschrift für Balkankunde 7/8 (1991): 167–189. „Von Hekimbaschıs, Ärzten und Quacksalbern bei den alten Osmanen“, Mitteilungen der Deutsch-Türkischen Gesellschaft 112 (Dezember 1989): 38–45. „damet ismetüha – immer währe ihre Sittsamkeit: Frau und Gesellschaft im Osmanischen Reich“, Orientierungen. Neue Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen der Universität Bonn 1 (1989): 37–81. „Vorwort“, Hans Joachim Kißling, Dissertationes Orientales et Balcanicae collectae II: Sultan Bajezid II. und der Westen. München 1988: V–VIII. „‚…habiendo praticha in quella terra…‘ Über Sultan Bayezids II. Umgang mit den Renegaten“, in: Kißling, H. J. & Kretzenbacher, L. & Bartl, P. (Hrsg.), Serta BalcanicaOrientalia Monacensia in honorem Rudolphi Trofenik septuagenarii (= Münchner Zeitschrift für Balkankunde, Sonderband I). München 1981: 181–187. „Zu einigen Miniaturen und Karten aus Handschriften Matraqcˇı Nasuh’s“, Islamkundliche Abhandlungen (= Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients XVII). München 1974: 146–171.

Rezensionen Faroqhi, Suraiya N. & Fleet, Kate (Hrsg.), The Cambridge History of Turkey. Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire as a World Power, 1453–1603. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne 2013. Turcica (im Druck). Tezcan, Nuran & Tezcan, Semih & Dankoff, Robert (Hrsg.), Evliyâ Çelebi: Studies and Essays Commemorating the 400th Anniversary of his Birth. Ankara 2012, Sehepunkte 13/ 11 (2013). Andrews, Peter Alford, Felt Tents and Pavillions: The Nomadic Tradition and its Interaction with Princely Tentage (2 Bde.). London 1999. Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies VII (2004), http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/EJOs-VII.O.htm.

Schriftenverzeichnis Hedda Reindl-Kiel

17

Kreiser, Klaus, Istanbul: Ein historisch-literarischer Stadtführer. München 2001, Die Welt des Islams 43/1 (2003): 113–115. Stavrides, Theoharis, The Sultan of Vezirs: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovic´ (1453–1474). Leiden, Boston, Köln 2001, Turcica 34 (2002): 288–290. Andrews, Peter Alford, Nomad Tent Types in the Middle East. Part I: Framed Tents (with contributions by M. Centlivres-Demont and R. L. Tapper, 2 vols.), (= Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 74/1/1u. 74/ 1/2) Wiesbaden 1997, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 89 (1999): 355– 358. Laqueur, Hans-Peter, Osmanische Friedhöfe und Grabsteine in Istanbul. Tübingen 1993, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 85 (1995): 369–372. Kreiser, Klaus, Kleines Türkei-Lexikon. München 1992, Mitteilungen der Deutsch-Türkischen Gesellschaft 115 (Dezember 1992): 48–49. Samic´, Jasna, Divan de Ka’imi. Vie et oeuvre d′un poète bosniaque du XVIIe siècle. Paris 1986, Welt des Islams XXXII (1992): 287–290. Kreiser, Klaus & Karasek, Dieter (Hrsg.), Germano-Turcica. Zur Geschichte des TürkischLernens in den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Bamberg 1987, Welt des Islams XXXI (1991): 280–282.

Populärwissenschaftliche Beiträge „Miniaturen – süße Früchte“, Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 276 (1.12. 1983): 45. „Östliche Harmonie. Die Künste der Muslime und Europa“, Süddeutsche Zeitung Nr. 247 (26.10. 1983): 52. „Der Große Basar. Das Herz Istanbuls“, in: Barisch, Klaus & Barisch, Lissi, Richtig reisen: Istanbul. Köln 1976: 106–114 (1988: 146–154).

Pferde und Plagen im 13.–14. Jahrhundert

Birgitt Hoffmann

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration: Sources of the Ilkhanid Period on Horses1

Whosoever studies Persian chronicles, epics or book paintings will notice that horses and riders are in a way omnipresent. There is a lot of mounting, dismounting, hunting or racing on horseback, escaping and pursuing, covering impressive distances fast or slowly, ruining mounts by forced rides and of course attacking and fighting on horseback. Aside from this kind of evidence references to horses are scattered over a variety of literary genres like mirrors for princes and dı¯wa¯n poetry. Since horses in those days were a fundamental feature of life this comes as no surprise. In particular the importance of horses for pastoral nomads is hardly to be overestimated. They were indispensable as mounts for hunt and warfare, means of transport, merchandise, sustenance, providers of skins and hair for clothing and other articles of daily use. But most importantly in the framework of the “Steppe Warrior System”2 an efficient cavalry was indispensable to get control over an area, to establish and maintain an empire. For the 13th and 14th centuries the Mongols of Genghis Khan and his successors as conquerors and empire builders mark a special point in case.3 The light cavalry was the backbone of their whole military machine, and there were many more horses than Mongols because every warrior had at least three to four but even up to five or eight horses to be ridden in rotation, not to mention pack horses.4 Hippologists would probably point out that what the Mongols (and also other Central Asian pastoralists) had at their disposal with regard to their small stature 1 In 2006 the Institute of Iranian Studies of the Austrian Academy of Science in Vienna hosted a conference on the role of horses in the history, economy and culture of Asia. Hedda ReindlKiel and I had the pleasure to present a paper on this occasion. While Hedda’s paper has been published in the proceedings of this conference (cf. Fragner et al. (eds.), Pferde in Asien), I missed the chance to do so. Now I am glad to have this piece to present to Hedda’s Festschrift with congratulations. 2 Lee, Waging War: 164–171. 3 For general overviews cf. Sinor, “Horse and Pasture in Inner Asian History”; Lee, Waging War: 163–171. 4 Smith, “From Pasture to Manger”: 63f. On the Mongol army in general cf. Morgan, The Mongols: 74–83; Lane, Daily Life: 95–116; Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 348–354.

22

Birgitt Hoffmann

were not real horses but ponies.5 Be that as it may, as we will see, what matters more than body size was the hardiness of the Mongolian horses in comparison to other Middle Eastern or Western breeds. While lexical evidence on horses and horsemen is abundant in our sources, passages dealing systematically or at least explicitly with horses as an essential element of economy, society and culture are rare.6 This paper presents a—nonexhaustive—synopsis of textual evidence for horses in the Mongol period of Iran and adjacent territories which sheds light on the respective social and cultural contexts. Besides principal Persian chronicles like ʿAla¯ ad-Dı¯n ʿAta¯ Malik Ju˙ waynı¯’s Ta¯rı¯kh-i Jaha¯ngusha¯-yi Juvaynı¯ [“The History of the World Conquer7 or”], Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n Faz˙lalla¯ h Hamada¯ nı¯’s Ja¯miʿ at-Tawa¯rı¯kh [“Compendium of Chronicles”]8 and Wassaf ’s History (Ta¯rı¯kh-i Wassa¯f)9 I also consulted some ˙˙ ˙˙ other contemporaries like Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Battu¯ ta, Bar Hebraeus, and European ˙˙ ˙ travellers like John Plano Carpini, William of Rubruck and Marco Polo. It is these latter “outsiders” who dealt with the special features of Mongolian horses in some detail. In the eyes of these observers the invaders’ horses because of their undemanding nature, their stamina and their agility were one of the secrets of the Mongols success. To cite Ibn al-Athı¯r: “The mounts on which they are advancing crush underfoot the earth with their hooves and consume the roots of plants. They are not dependent on barley and that is why they do not need any supplies as long as they are campaigning”.10

This is confirmed by the statement of Marco Polo: “And his [i. e. the Mongol warrior’s horse] will graze on the simple grass that he shall find in the fields by the 5 The dividing line between horses and ponies ranges between 58 inches / 147 cm (or even 148 cm) and 56 inches / 142 cm from hoofs to withers. Smith, “From Pasture to Manger”: 63, n. 5. For Mongolian horses from China even lower heights are testified: 127–128 cm, cf. http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/mongolian/index.html. But besides sheer height also phenotype and genetic evidence is a criterion for classifying, cf. http://www.equine studies.org/mammalian_species_2008/mammalian_species_equus_caballus_pdf1.pdf. On problems of taxonomical classification cf. http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Equus_caballus/. 6 An exception are highly specialised treatises on horse breeding, horse keeping, equine medicine, horsemanship, polo, warfare etc. For a general overview on Persian sources cf. Solta¯ nı¯ Gordfara¯marzı¯, “Asb. iii in Islamic Times”: 724–734, where the author occasionally ˙ to what he collected from a variety of literary genre like mirror of princes, dı¯wa¯n poetry, refers fara¯sna¯mas etc. 7 [Juwaynı¯/Qazwı¯nı¯], Ta¯rı¯kh-i Jaha¯ngusha¯-yi Juwaynı¯; English translation: Ata-Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror (cited as [Juvaini/Boyle]). 8 Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n Faz˙lalla¯ h Hamada¯ nı¯, Ja¯mı¯ʿ at-tawa¯rı¯kh (cited as [JT]); English translation: Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n Faz˙lalla¯ h Hamada¯ nı¯, Jamiʿuʾtawarikh. Compendium of Chronicles (cited as [JT/Thackston]). 9 Wassa¯ f al-haz˙rat, ʿAbdalla¯ h b. Faz˙lalla¯h, Ta¯rı¯kh-i Wassa¯f al-haz˙rat (cited as [Wassa¯ f/Bom˙ ˙ ˙ German ˙˙ as ˙[Wassa¯ f/Wentker]). ˙ ˙ bay]); translation: id., Geschichte Wassa¯f ’s (cited ˙ ˙ ˙˙ 10 Ibn al-At¯ır, Al-Ka¯mil fı¯ ʿt-ta¯rı¯kh: vol. 12, 235. ¯

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration

23

way so that he need not carry barley and other grain or hay or straw”.11 Other, for instance Western breeds could not keep up with this frugality: John of Plano Carpini (d. 1252), the papal envoy to the Great Khan, relates that on his arrival in Kiev “They told us that if we were to take to the Tartars the horses which we had they would all die, for the snow was deep and they would not know how to dig up the grass from under the snow like the Tartar horses, nor would we be able to find anything else for them to eat since the Tartars have neither straw nor hay nor fodder.”12

On the other hand a report by Juwaynı¯ makes it clear that even Mongol horses did not live on nothing. When Genghis Khan and his son Tolui took Bukhara in 1220 they climbed on the pulpit of the Great Mosque and Genghis Khan addressed the people of that city: “The countryside is empty of fodder; fill our horses’ bellies”.13 The horses’ agility and the Mongols’ riding skills also were worth mentioning. Marco Polo points out: “And they have so trained their horses that at a sign they turn themselves here & there at the will of the riders as quickly as a dog would do.”14 About Genghis Khans youngest son Tolui we learn from Juwaynı¯: “[…] in his horsemanship he was the lightning-flash which leaps out from the veil of clouds, and renders the place where it falls like unto ashes”.15 It was not by chance that Westerners thought the Mongol horsemen to be “Tartars”, people from hell, the Mongols themselves cherished this image. The intimidating force of attacking Mongol horsemen was part of their “psychological warfare”. When Hülägü’s general Ketbugha was defeated by the Mamluk Qutuz at ʿAin Jalu¯ t in Palestine 1260—by the way only because his horse ˙ stumbled—and was put to death in due course his last words—given in a presumably fictitious dialogue between poor Ketbugha and the Mamluk victor—are rendered by Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n as following: “…when the news of my death reaches Hülägü Khan, the ocean of his wrath will boil over, … and from Azerbaijan to the gates of Egypt [the earth] will quake with the hooves of Mongol horses. They will take the sands of Egypt from there in their horses’ nose bags”.16

And when the Mongols’ barbarism is branded, their horses contribute to this negative image. After Genghis Khan had ordered the people of Bukhara to feed the Mongols’ horses 11 Marco Polo, The Description of the World (further cited as [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]): 171. 12 John of Plano Carpini, “Ystoria Mongolarum” (further cited as [Carpini/Dawson]): 52. 13 [Juvaini/Boyle]: 104. The scene is echoed in a report by Bar Hebraeus, The Cronography of Gregory Abu¯ʾl-Faraj 1225 Bar Hebraeus (further cited as [Bar Hebraeus/Budge]): 376. 14 [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 174. 15 [Juvaini/Boyle]: 150. 16 [JT/Thackston]: 505–506.

24

Birgitt Hoffmann

“… they [the Mongols] brought the cases in which the Korans were kept out into the courtyard of the mosque, where they cast the Korans right and left and turned the cases into mangers for their horses.”

And finally “… the leaves of the Koran were trampled in the dirt beneath their own feet and their horses’ hoofs”.17 What Western envoys and merchants obviously appreciated was the Mongol ya¯m system, i. e. the network of horse relay stations which extended along the principal routes of the Mongol empire and its successor states.18 The ya¯m stations provided fresh horses, provisions and accommodation for military staff, officials, envoys, privileged merchants etc. On well frequented routes there were post stations every 18–25 km. Information on the number of fresh horses varies considerably between 15 and 500. The ya¯m was run by the army but food and fodder had to be supplied by the local population. For those who wanted to travel quickly the ya¯m system allowed changing horses several times a day.19 Horses’ contribution to the Mongols’ diet was another topic readily expounded. They provided the highly esteemed mare’s milk, which in its fermented, alcoholic version (qumis) was the favourite beverage of the Mongols, indispensable when feasting.20 William of Rubruck (d. ca. 1270), another European envoy to the Great Khan, gives a detailed account of its production and consumption.21 Mare’s milk was only available in the summer months. During the rest of the year sour dried milk was mingled with water before consumption and was a principal supply for long distance campaigns. On such occasions and also for feasting and in times of distress the Mongols ate horse meat. Rashı¯d alDı¯n reports on Khura¯sa¯n in the year 691 / 1292 that because of starvation Mongol soldiers stole each other’s horses and ate them.22 Marco Polo even relates that when food was short “they live on the blood of their horses; for each pricks the vein of his horse and puts his mouth to the vein and drinks of the blood till he is satisfied …”.23 17 [Juvaini/Boyle]: 104. This scene is also rendered by [Bar Hebraeus/Budge]: 376. 18 The most detailed exposition is Olbricht, Das Postwesen in China; cf. also Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran: 349–352. 19 John of Plano Carpini sometimes changed horses from three to seven times, cf. [Carpini/ Dawson]: 55, 58, 61. Juwaynı¯ provides an early Persian report on the subject ([Juvaini/Boyle]: 33–34). Marco Polo gives a very detailed description on the functioning of the ya¯m system ([Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 242–247). The abuse of the ya¯m system by non-officials like merchants and others became a heavy burden for the locals who had to entertain these people and their mounts. For this and for more general information cf. Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 258–259 and Lane, Daily Life: 120–122. 20 Cf. [Juvaini/Boyle]: 571, 573. 21 William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck (cited as [Rubruck/Jackson]: 76–77, 81–83). Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran: 367, 369 gives further references. 22 [JT/Thackston]: 603. 23 [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 173.

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration

25

But the consumption of qumis and horse meat also had dimensions beyond sheer sustenance. Qumis was used in libation ceremonies which meant that before drinking some mare’s milk was sprinkled outside the dwelling to the four cardinal directions.24 Libation was part of daily life but became obligatory before starting a military expedition, on occasion of enthronements or celebration of the Mongol New Year and other festive occasions.25 And horse sacrifice was part of Mongol funerary customs.26 In view of the importance of horses in Mongol life—especially for the army and the ya¯m postal system—the acquisition of horses was a vital concern. This demand could be satisfied by taking horses as booty, by breeding, purchase, confiscation, tax, tribute or gifts. Obtaining horses by plunder was most significant in times of territorial expansion. The booty—among others in horses— gained on occasion of the fall of Baghdad, for instance, was spectacular.27 To take horses from the conquered peoples not only meant to deprive them of means of conveyance and warfare but also to obtain foreign “better” horses in terms of comfort.28 Although the Mongols owed their success to not a minor extent to their small but tough horses, they were attracted to other breeds and became especially fond of the Arabian ones. The Great Khan Ögedei’s interest in fine horses of foreign origin is documented in the Secret History. In the course of the Western campaign of the years 1236–1242, he ordered to bring “horses with long legs and long necks”, i. e. “Arabian” horses from the conquered Middle Eastern regions to his capital Qara Qorum every year as tribute besides gold, jewels, precious textiles.29 A story told by ʿAta¯ Malik Juwaynı¯ underlines the great appreciation of ˙ these foreign breeds. When a troupe of actors from Khitai (i. e. Northern China) in a performance before Ögedei ridiculed a “rebellious Muslim”, the Great Khan stopped the performance and had brought from his treasures precious objects and also Arab horses of Khurasanian and Western Iranian origin and contrasted them with inferior products and small horses from Khitai.30 Horse breeding was another way to safeguard supplies in horses. Government owned stud farms are evidenced for Yuan China.31 Ibn Battu¯ ta who was travelling ˙˙ ˙ 24 [Rubruck/Jackson]: 75f.; [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 190. 25 Cf. Rossabi, “All the Khan’s Horses”; Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 466. On Qubilais annual milk ceremonial in the end of the summer cf. [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 187. 26 [Carpini/Dawson]:12–13; Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 189. 27 De Nicola, “The Economic Role of Mongol Women”: 91. 28 Smith, “From Pasture to Manger”: 67. 29 [Rachewiltz], The Secret History of the Mongols: 194. Probably different kinds of Oriental thoroughbreds of Arabian, Persian or Turkmen origin. Cf. Druml, “Functional Traits in Early Horse Breeds of Mongolia”: 9–16; Kretschmar, Pferd und Reiter im Orient. 30 [Juvaini/Boyle]: 207. 31 Yokkaichi, “Horses in East-West Trade between China and Iran”: 88. Rossabi, Khubilai Khan: 99 reports on horsebreeding for Khubilai by his Korean vassals.

26

Birgitt Hoffmann

in the first half of the 14th century was impressed by the huge size of the herds of Tatar horses which were “as numerous as the sheep in Morocco”—a statement which suggests extensive breeding.32 Since the times of the Great Khan Ögedei (r. 1229–1241) a life stock tax was imposed on nomadic groups (mong. qobchiri; in Persian sources qubchur), which meant one of one hundred heads was collected. This kind of taxation was continued by the Yuan and the Ilkhanids alike although under the latter it became known as mara¯ʿı¯. Besides this regular levy, ad hoc requisition of horses was common practice under the Yuan, i. e. people and government officials had to deliver their horses if needed. It seems that in Ilkhanid Iran this ad hoc requisition was termed qubchur.33 On certain occasions, the Yuan government used to buy horses in large quantities and forced on the sellers fixed prices markedly below fair market value.34 The Ilkhanids used to buy horses in large numbers from privileged Mongol traders (Turkish ortaq, Mongolian ortogh).35 To safeguard their own requirements, the export of horses was forbidden at times. Carpini reported from the Golden Horde under the reign of Batu (1240s) that the prince of Kiev, Andrew of Chernigov, was accused of selling Tatar horses outside the country and therefore was executed in due course.36 According to Ibn Battu¯ ta the situation ˙˙ ˙ had changed a century later. Tatar traders exported thousands of horses to India every year. Although many animals were stolen or died on the long way to Northern India via Khorazm, the Tatar traders realized enormous and unparalleled profits.37 While the Yuan strictly prohibited horse exports, the Ilkhanids in contrast allowed or even favored such transactions, probably because they were a benefiting party. Trading horses to India via the Persian Gulf was a highly profitable business. To a minor extent horses were exported via India even to China. According to Wassa¯ f, the governor of Fars exported about 400 expensive mares from ˙˙ the Persian Gulf to India every year, which were so perfect that compared to them 32 [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb]: vol. 2, 478f. ˙˙ ˙“Horses in the East-West Trade”: 88f. In other contexts, however, qubchur was the 33 Yokkaichi, term for the poll tax on the sedentary population. Cf. Morgan, The Mongols: 77–88. 34 Yokkaichi, “Horses in the East-West Trade”: 88. 35 For the term cf. Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen: vol. 2, 25–27. The ortaq / ortogh (lit. “partners”) acted as agents of the ruling Mongol aristocracy, were allowed to use the ya¯m and at certain periods even were exempted from taxation. Cf. Allsen, “Mongolian Princes and their Merchant Partners”; Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 429. Yokkaichi, “Horses in East-West Trade”: 89 refers to Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n’s Ja¯miʿ al-tawa¯rı¯kh without giving the number of the pages but obviously this should be vol. 2, 1446 of the Rawshan and Mu¯ savı¯ edition and [JT/Thackston]: 715. 36 [Carpini/Dawson]: 10. Exporting horses was a sensitive issue also for the Ottomans. Cf. Reindl-Kiel, “No Horses for the Enemy”: 43–44. 37 [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb]: vol. 2, 478. ˙˙ ˙

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration

27

the legendary horses of the heroes of the Sha¯hna¯ me were nothing but woodcarved chessmen. He claims that the total of exports in Arabian horses from the Gulf region to India was 10000 items anually.38 The Delhi Sultanate and other Indian principalities had a tremendous demand in horses for their cavalries but also for horseracing and other pastimes and representation. Most of these horses were thoroughbreds of Arab, Persian or Turkmen origin.39 According to Wassa¯ f, in ˙˙ India the horses were fed with roasted peas and cooked milk instead of barley, and while they were fattened they were confined to the stables, and in the end they were ruined by relentless racing.40 So it was Indian inexperience with horse keeping which resulted in maltreatment and a poor survival rate of the imported horses which created this constant need in supplies. The lords of Hormuz and Kish were among the big merchants in this oversees horse exporting trade and functioned as ortaq / ortogh with close business relations to the court. At the same time they were part of the Ilkhanid political system and in that function paid taxes to the government.41 The approach towards ortaq / ortogh differed over time due to deceptive practices of those who overstrained their privileges e. g. by making excessive use of official courier horses and provisioning at the ya¯m postal stations. Many of them sniffed a chance to get rich quickly by receiving high interest from lending money to people who could not pay their taxes.42 These dubious profiteers raised loans, invested in horses and armors and sold them to the court. Some of them even bribed Mongol amı¯rs to obtain receipts for more horses than actually delivered or even for mounts they had not delivered at all, but received billets against cash money in taxes when they presented these fake receipts to the dı¯wa¯n officials.43 The high esteem “good”, “Western”, i. e. Arab / Persian / Turkmen horses44 were held in made them a premium object of prestige. To ride such horses and equip horses lavishly was a typical nouveau riche phenomenon to be noticed with

38 39 40 41

[Wassa¯ f/Wentker]: vol. 3, 108f. ˙ ˙ “Horse Exports from the Persian Gulf”: 130–131, [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb]: 478f. Kauz, ˙˙ ˙ [Wassa¯ f/Wentker]: vol. 3, 108f. ˙ ˙ a¯ f/Bombay]: 505f. Atwood, The Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 201–205. Cf. Yokkaichi, [Wass ˙ ˙ in the East West trade”: 89–90 and Kauz, “Horse Exports from the Persian Gulf”: 130, “Horses 132–134. Both articles make references to the historians Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n and Wassa¯f as their ˙˙ main sources. 42 For a general overview on the relationship between ortaq / ortogh and the Mongol elite cf. Allsen, “Mongol Princes and their Merchant Partners, 1200–1260”; Atwood, Encyclopaedia of Mongolia: 429–430. 43 This abuse is described by Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n as prevailing under the Ilkhan Abaqa and his successors until Ghazan put an end to it by his reforms: [JT/Thackston]: 736–736. 44 For a definition of different horse breeds cf. Druml, “Functional Traits in Early Horse Breeds of Mongolia”.

28

Birgitt Hoffmann

the Mongol aristocracy and the ortaq / ortogh.45 As status symbol horses were adorned with precious saddles and trappings made of gold and bestowed with pearls and jewels and blankets of gold embroidered silk.46 According to Ibn Battuta, in the Golden Horde the wives of the Khan had their coach horses ˙˙ ˙ covered with blankets of brocaded silk.47 Horses were perfect items of tribute and gift. It is, however, not always easy to distinguish between the two categories. To present horses to a ruler or a rival was a demonstration of loyalty and submissiveness and therefore could be regarded as tribute. When Marco Polo relates that the Great Khan Qubilai annually received 100000 white horses on occasion of the Mongol New Year this should of course be interpreted as a kind of regular tribute.48 Recurrent occasions for presenting horses besides the New Year were victories, enthronements, welcoming and farewell ceremonies. Horse gifting was a common element of diplomatic gift exchange. In the Chinese annals (Yuan shih) we find horses and especially “Western” horses as part of the Ilkhan Abu¯ Saʿı¯d’s “tribute” to the Yuan emperor.49 When Berke, the Khan of the Golden Horde, decided to become an ally of the Mamluks, Sultan Baibars showered him with lavish gifts, among them Arabian stallions. Some decades later horses were among the presents which the Ilkhan Abu¯ Saʿı¯d had sent to the Mamluk court to confirm his willingness to negotiate peace.50 Presenting horses to emphasize one’s loyalty could be a fabulous investment —that is the moral of a story told by Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n: Before Ghazan became ilkha¯n, he was governor of the province of Khorasan. When his tutor, the Mongol Amir Nawru¯ z, rebelled no one came in support of him but Najı¯b ad-Dı¯n Farra¯ sh, the mihtar of Juwayn. “He presented extremely fine horses and provided all kinds of good service. (Of course, when the padishah became firmly seated on the throne he ordered that he be suitably rewarded. He made him an intimate at court […] gave him the village of Zerabad, which was enchü, gave him a decree making him tarkhan, and appointed him as treasurer…)”.51

In cases of uncompromising disfavour however, gifts were of no avail: When the city of Marw had to surrender before the Mongols the citizens sent an envoy with

45 Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n on such people: [JT/Thackston]: part III, 737. 46 For examples of remains in museum collections cf. Komaroff & Carboni (eds.), The Legacy of Genghis Khan: figs. 9, 10, 63. 47 [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb]: vol. 2, 485. ˙ ˙ 48 [Marco ˙Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 222f. 49 Allsen, Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia: 44. 50 Little, “Diplomatic Missions and Exchange by Mamluks and Ilkhans”: 39, 41. 51 [JT/Thackston]: 596f.

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration

29

horses and other quadrupeds to Tolui as an offer of submission. In vain—in the end they were all put to the sword.52 To give few presents of minor value could be seen as an open offence. When Hülägü on his advance to Baghdad repeatedly sent envoys to the Abbasid caliph with the request to surrender, the caliph’s vizier proposed to placate the Mongol conqueror with lavish gifts, and send him amongst other things “a thousand Arabian horses with accoutrements”.53 But following the advice of other counsellors the caliph had only a few gifts presented to Hülägü which we may assume contributed to the disastrous end of the Abbasid caliphate.54 In a detailed report of Rashı¯d al-Dı¯n on the rebellion of Bara¯q, a frustrated prince, who was a descendant of Genghis Khans second son Chaghatai, horses figure as a point of serious and ultimately fatal dissent, because one of Bara¯qs allies snared the fine horses that were meant for Bara¯ q and wanted to send him horses of less value instead.55 But horses were also given by rulers to show favor. They were a common item of reward for services already rendered or expected. Horses were among the rewards Qubilai assigned to his military commanders.56 Ibn Battu¯ ta claims to ˙˙ ˙ have received ordinary and extraordinary horses from Mongol Khans and their wives every now and then. For instance Özbeg Khan, the ruler of the Golden Horde, presented him many horses because he was ready to escort that ruler’s third wife, the daughter of the Byzantine emperor; to Constantinople for delivery. And that lady likewise donated several horses to him.57

Bibliography Sources [Bar Hebraeus/Budge] = Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, The Cronography of Gregory Abu¯ʾl-Faraj 1225 Bar Hebraeus. London 1932, reprint Amsterdam 1976. [Carpini/Dawson] = John of Plano Carpini, “Ystoria Mongolarum”, translation in: Dawson, Christopher (ed.), Mission to Asia. Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New York 1955: 3–72. Online: https://ia801200.us.archive.org/8/items/Dawson1966Mission ToAsia/Dawson_1966_Mission_to_Asia.pdf (access November 1, 2016). Ibn al-At¯ır, Al-Ka¯mil fı¯’t-ta¯rı¯kh (Ed. Carl Johan Tornberg, vol. 12). Leiden 1853. ¯ 52 53 54 55 56 57

[Juvaini/Boyle]: 161. [JT/Thackston]: 490. [JT/Thackston]: 487–491. [JT/Thackston]: 524. [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: 203. [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb]: vol. 2, 497f. ˙˙ ˙

30

Birgitt Hoffmann

Ibn Battu¯ ta, Voyages d’Ibn-Batoutah. Texte arabe accompagné d’une traduction (Eds., tr. ˙˙ ˙ Charles Defrémery & Benjamin Raphael Sanguinetti). Paris 1877. [Ibn Battu¯ ta/Gibb] = Ibn Battu¯ ta, The Travels of Ibn Battu¯ta, AD 1325–1354. Translated ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ with Revisions and Notes from the Arabic Text Edited by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Tr. H. A. R. Gibb, 5 vols.). Cambridge 1958–2000). John of Plano Carpini, Ystoria Mongalorum (Ed. Enrico Menestò et. al.) Spoleto 1989. [JT/Thackston] = Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n Faz˙lalla¯ h Hamada¯ nı¯, Jamiʿuʾtawarikh. Compendium of Chronicles. A History of the Mongols (Translated and annotated by Thackston, W. M.; 3 parts). Harvard 1998–1999. [JT] = Rashı¯d ad-Dı¯n Faz˙lalla¯ h Hamada¯ nı¯, Ja¯mı¯ʿ at-tawa¯rı¯kh (Eds. Muhammad Raushan & ˙ Mustafa¯ Mu¯ sawı¯, 4 vols.). Tehran 1373 h.sh. (= 1994). ˙˙ [Juvaini/Boyle] = Ata-Malik Juvaini, Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror, translated from the text of Mirza Muhammad Qazwini by J[ohn] A[ndrew] Boyle with a new introduction and bibliography by David O. Morgan. Manchester 1997. [Juwaynı¯/Qazwı¯nı¯] = ʿAla¯ ad-Dı¯n ʿAta¯ Malik Juwaynı¯’, Ta¯rı¯kh-i Jaha¯ngusha¯-yi Juvaynı¯ (Ed. ˙ Muhammad Qazwı¯nı¯, 3 vols., 3rd. edition.) Tehran 1382 h.sh. (= 2003); reprint of vol. 16, ˙ 1–3 Leiden, London 1912. [Marco Polo/Moule/Pelliot]: Marco Polo, The Description of the World (Translated by A. C. Moule & Paul Pelliot). London 1938. Rachewiltz, Igor de (tr.), The Secret History of the Mongols. A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (2015). Shorter version edited by John C. Street, University of Wisconsin—Madison. Online: http://cedar.wwu.edu/cedarbooks/4 [Rubruck/Jackson] = William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck. His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Möngke, 1253–1255 (Translated by Peter Jackson). London 1990; reprint Indianapolis 2009. [Wassa¯ f/Bombay] = Wassa¯ f al-haz˙rat, ʿAbdalla¯ h b. Faz˙lalla¯ h: Ta¯rı¯kh-i Wassa¯f al-haz˙rat ˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙ [= Tajziyyat al-amsa¯r wa-tazjiyyat al-aʿsa¯r]. Bombay 1269 h. (= 1853); reprint Tehran ˙ ˙ 1338 h.sh. (= 1959 / 1960). [Wassa¯ f/Wentker] = Wassa¯ f al-haz˙rat, ʿAbdalla¯ h b. Faz˙lalla¯ h: Geschichte Wassa¯f ’s. Persisch ˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ herausgegeben und deutsch übersetzt von Hammer-Purgstall (Neu herausgegeben von Sibylle Wentker nach Vorarbeiten von Klaus Wundsam, vols. 1–3). Wien 2010, 2012.

Studies Allsen, Thomas, “Mongolian Princes and Their Merchant Partners, 1200–1260”, Asia Major (Third Series) 2.2 (1989), 83–126. Allsen, Thomas, Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia. Cambridge 2001. Atwood, Christopher P., Encyclopaedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York 2004. De Nicola, Bruno: “The Economic Role of Mongol Women: Continuity and Transformation from Mongolia to Iran”, in: De Nicola, Bruno & Melville, Charles (eds.), The Mongols’ Middle East: Continuity and Transformation in Ilkhanid Iran. Leiden: 2016, 79–105.

Booty, Commodity, Objects of Prestige and Veneration

31

Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. 4 vols. Wiesbaden: 1963–1965. Druml, Thomas: “Fuctional Traits in Early Horse Breeds of Mongolia, India and China from the Perspective of Animal Breeding”, in: Fragner et al. (eds.): 9–16. Fragner, Bert G. et al. (eds.), Pferde in Asien: Geschichte, Handel und Kultur. Horses in Asia: History, Trade and Culture. Wien 2009. Jackson, Peter, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410. Harlow 2005. Kauz, Ralph, “Horse Exports from the Persian Gulf until the Arrival of the Portugese”, in: Fragner et al. (eds.): 129–135. Komaroff, Linda & Carboni, Stefano (eds.), The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353. New York 2002. Kretschmar, Marit, Pferd und Reiter im Orient. Zur Reiterkultur Vorderasiens in der Seldschukenzeit. Hildesheim 1980. Lane, George, Daily Life in the Mongol Empire. Westport, Conn. 2006. Online: https://www. academia.edu/8855875/Encyclopedia_of_Mongolia_and_the_Mongol_Empire (access November 1, 2016). Lee, Wayne E., Waging War. Conflict, Culture, and Innovation in World History. Oxford, New York 2015. Little, Donald P., “Diplomatic Missions and Exchange by Mamluks and Ilklhans”, in: Komaroff, Linda (ed.), Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan. Leiden 2006, 30–42. Morgan, David, The Mongols (Second Edition). Oxford 2007. Olbricht, Peter, Das Postwesen in China unter der Mongolenherrschaft im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden 1954. Reindl-Kiel, Hedda, “No Horses for the Enemy: Ottoman Trade Regulations and Horse Gifting”, in: Fragner et al. (eds.), 43–49. Rossabi, Morris, “All the Khan’s Horses”, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols (accessed November 1, 2016), (reprint of Natural History, October 1994). Rossabi, Morris, Khubilai Khan. His Life and Times. Berkeley 1988. Sinor, Denis, “Horse and Pasture in Inner Asian History”, Oriens Extremus 19 (1972), 171– 183. Smith, John Masson Jr., “Dietary Decadence and Dynastic Decline in the Mongol Empire”, Journal of Asian History 34.1 (2000), repr. afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/pastoral/ masson-smith.pdf (access November 1, 2016). Smith, John Masson Jr., “From Pasture to Manger: The Evolution of Mongol Cavalry Logistics in Yuan China and its Consequences”, in: Fragner et al. (eds.): 63–73. Solta¯nı¯ Gordfara¯marzı¯, ʿAlı¯, “ASB iii. In Islamic Times,” Encyclopædia Iranica, 2/7: 731– ˙ 736; online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/asb-islamic-times (accessed November 1, 2016). Spuler, Bertold: Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220– 1350 (4. Auflage). Berlin 1984. Veit, Veronika: “Das Pferd – Freund und Gefährte der Mongolen”, in: Heissig, Walter & Müller, Claudius C. (eds.), Die Mongolen. Innsbruck, Frankfurt a. M. 1989: 163–169. Yokkaichi, Yasuhiro: “Horses in East-West Trade between China an Iran”, in: Fragner et al. (eds.), 87–96.

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit ˘ dem Schwarzen Tod

„Weh mir, was muß ich erdulden? Welch heftige Qual steht durch das Schicksal mir bevor? Ich seh’ eine Zeit, in der sich die Welt rasend ihrem Ende nähert, wo Jung und Alt um mich herum in Scharen dahinsterben. Kein sicherer Ort bleibt mehr, kein Hafen tut sich mir auf. Es gibt, so scheint es, keine Hoffnung auf die ersehnte Rettung. Unzählige Leichenzüge seh’ ich nur, wohin ich die Augen wende, und sie verwirren meinen Blick. …“1

Mit diesen Worten beschreibt Francesco Petrarca (1304–1374) die dramatischen Auswirkungen der Pest in Parma.2 Es ist das Jahr 1348 n. Chr. und Europa verliert binnen kurzer Zeit große Teile seiner Bevölkerung an den sogenannten Schwarzen Tod.3 Die Seuche hatte zuvor auch in Anatolien gewütet und sich dann vermutlich über Konstantinopel auf dem Balkan und in Europa verbreitet.4 Auf anatolischem Gebiet dürften die Auswirkungen dieser Epidemie zwar genauso verheerend gewesen sein wie in Europa.5 Dennoch ist die erste Phase dieses zweiten großen Ausbruchs der Pest in türkischsprachigen Quellen so gut wie nicht belegt.6 1 Zitiert nach Bergdolt, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa: 101. 2 Petrarca gehört mit Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) zu den prominentesten Zeitzeugen des Schwarzen Todes in Italien. Während Boccaccios Zeugnis in Form seines Decamerone, genauer gesagt der Vorrede dazu, vorliegt, sind die Aussagen Petrarcas in verschiedenen Teilen seines Werks zu finden; s. hierzu Bergdolt, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa: 98–107 sowie Bergdolt, „Petrarca und die Pest“. 3 Für eine Geschichte des Schwarzen Todes in Europa sei beispielhaft genannt Bergdolt, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa: 30–98. 4 Schamiloglu, „The Rise of the Ottoman Empire“: 264–266; Varlık, Plague and Empire: 97–107 diskutieren mögliche Ausbreitungsrouten. 5 Davon geht zum Beispiel Schamiloglu „The Rise of the Ottoman Empire“: 270 in seiner ersten These über den Beitrag der Pest zur osmanischen Expansion im 14. Jahrhundert aus; ähnlich sieht es Varlık, Plague and Empire: 211. 6 Die frühen osmanischen Geschichtswerke ignorieren den Schwarzen Tod nahezu vollständig. ¯ s¸ıkpas¸aza¯de und Nes¸rı¯ berichten knapp über den Tod des Lediglich die Chroniken von ʿA ˙ zur Hohen Pforte: 72; [Mehmed Nes¸rı¯], Kitâb-ı CihanPrinzen von Karesi; Vom Hirtenzelt ˙ Todesursache zu nennen. Nümâ: 166–167. Beide Verfasser begnügen sich damit, die Pest als Darüber, wie der Schwarze Tod sich auf die Gesellschaft außerhalb der politischen Elite aus-

34

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

Angesichts der spärlichen Quellenlage sticht ein Abschnitt aus dem Werk des anatolischen Dichters S¸eyya¯d Hamza (13.–14. Jahrhundert) 7 besonders hervor, ˘ in dem der Autor das Wüten der Pest ähnlich bildreich beschreibt wie sein Zeitgenosse Petrarca. Und wie Petrarca hat auch S¸eyya¯d Hamza Familienange˘ hörige an die Pest verloren.8 Es gilt als gesichert, dass S¸eyya¯d Hamza eine Tochter ˘ namens Aslı Hatun hatte, die dem Schwarzen Tod zum Opfer gefallen ist;9 der ˙ ˘ Dichter dürfte auch mindestens einen Sohn gehabt haben, der ebenfalls an der Seuche starb. S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Gedichte dürften zu den ältesten türkischsprachigen Belegen ˘ über den Schwarzen Tod gehören.10 Metin Akar hat diese Gedichte 1987 veröf-

7 8

9

10

gewirkt hat, äußern sie sich nicht. Dass die Pest auch in den folgenden Jahrzehnten im osmanischen Herrschaftsgebiet präsent war, bezeugt das Selâtîn-Nâme, in dem der Tod von Bayezids I. Söhnen Ahmed, Mahmud und Yusuf erwähnt wird; [Kemal], Selâtîn-Nâme: 135. Von Ausbrüchen der Pest außerhalb der sich gerade formierenden osmanischen Herrschaftsgebiete wird in den Quellen – türkischen wie nicht-türkischen – ebenfalls nur sporadisch berichtet. Varlık, Plague and Empire: 99–107 und Schamiloglu, „The Rise of the Ottoman Empire“: 262–266 geben einen Überblick über die bisher bekannte Quellenlage. Über das Leben des Dichters gibt es nur wenige gesicherte Informationen; Tavukçu, „S¸eyyad Hamza“: 104–105 fasst das bisher Bekannte zusammen. Petrarca erfährt im Jahre 1361, dass sein Sohn Giovanni in Mailand gestorben ist; Bergdolt, „Petrarca und die Pest“: 68. In seinen Schriften beklagt er insbesondere den Tod von Laura, der von ihm in seinen Dichtungen zum Ideal stilisierten Frau, die 1348 der Pest erlag; Bergdolt, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa: 100–101. Dies geht aus Inschriften auf zwei Grabsteinen hervor, die auf einem Friedhof in der zentralanatolischen Stadt Aks¸ehir entdeckt wurden. Die Inschriften besagen, dass im betreffenden Grab eine Frau namens Aslı Hatun liege und dass diese die Tochter eines S¸eyya¯d ˙ Hamza sei; darüber hinaus ist ihr˙Todesjahr mit 749 h. angegeben; Akar, „S¸eyyad Hamza ˘ Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“: 7–8; Meriç, „Aks¸ehir Türbe ve Mezarları“: 179, Nr. 80–81 sowie Abb. Nr. 55. Die Inschriften lassen vermuten, dass S¸eyya¯d Hamza in der Gegend von Aks¸ehir gelebt ˘ haben könnte; Tavukçu, „S¸eyyad Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen bir S¸iiri Münasebetiyle“: 183. Diese Ansicht wird von Adamovic´, „Ein weiteres Gedicht von S¸eyyâd Hamza“: 89 stark bezweifelt. Allerdings scheint Adamovic´ keine Kenntnis von Akars Aufsatz und somit von den hier untersuchten Gedichten gehabt zu haben. Neben S¸eyya¯d Hamza hat sich auch Ahmed Fak¯ıh zur Pest geäußert – wenn sich seine ˙ ˙ der in dem ihm zugeschriebenen ÇarhÄußerung auch ˘lediglich auf einen Vers beschränkt, ˘ nâme enthalten ist: gözüñile ne˙ce gördüñ e˙ uslu / ki ma¯ʿsu¯mlar kırılmıs¸dur veba¯dan – „Mit ˙ ˙ eigenen Augen hast Du, der Du Dich für einen klugen Mann hältst, gesehen, wie die Pest Unschuldige dahingerafft hat“; Mansurog˘lu, Ahmed Fakih. Çarhname: 11, Vers 50. Die Zeile stammt aus einer Passage, in der der Autor die Menschen (und möglicherweise sich selbst) dazu auffordert, angesichts der Vergänglichkeit dieser Welt ein rechtschaffeneres Leben zu führen, da ja – wie es in der Realität der Fall ist – selbst Unschuldige an der Pest sterben können. Für Semih Tezcan war dieser Vers ausschlaggebend für die zeitliche Einordnung des Dichters. Da die anatolisch-türkische Literaturgeschichte mehrere Autoren mit demselben Namen kennt, war die eindeutige Zuordnung des Werks zunächst umstritten. Sertkaya, „Ahmed Fakih“ geht auf weitere Autoren desselben Namens und die ihnen zugeschriebenen Werke ein. Tezcan, „Anadolu Türk Yazınının Bas¸langıç Döneminde Bir Yazar ve Çarh-na¯me’nin Tarihlendirilmesi Üzerine“: 87–88 räumt nach eigener Aussage mit dieser Verwirrung auf und argumentiert – u. a. mit der Erwähnung der Pest – für die Einordnung des Verfassers

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

35

fentlicht11 und aufgrund der Erwähnung der Pest den Dichter dem 14. Jahrhundert zugeordnet.12 Akar fand die Gedichte auf den letzten Seiten einer mecmu¯ʿa, welche unter der Signatur 06 Mil Yz A 377213 in der Türkischen Nationalbibliothek aufbewahrt wird. Das erste der von Akar untersuchten Gedichte ist unvollständig, da an dieser Stelle der mecmu¯ʿa ein oder mehrere Blätter fehlen. Auf den Blättern, die den von Akar untersuchten Seiten unmittelbar vorangehen, befindet sich ein weiteres Gedicht, in dem S¸eyya¯d Hamza zwar die Pest nicht ˙ erwähnt, aber vom Tod seiner Kinder und seiner Trauer darüber berichtet. Es handelt sich hierbei um die auf fol. 114b–120b niedergeschriebenen Verse.14 Aufgrund ihrer inhaltlichen Nähe werden diese beiden Gedichte als zusammengehörige Einheit behandelt, da sie durch gemeinsame Motive miteinander verbunden zu sein scheinen.

11 12 13

14

des Çarh-na¯me in das 14. Jahrhundert, was diesen Ahmed Fak¯ıh zu einem Zeitgenossen ˙ ˙ S¸eyya¯d Hamzas machen könnte. ˘ Akar, „S¸eyyad Hamza Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“. In diesem Punkt stimmt Adamovic´ mit Akar überein, wobei er seine Einschätzung mit anderen, vornehmlich sprachhistorischen Argumenten untermauert; Adamovic´ „Ein weiteres Gedicht von S¸eyyâd Hamza“: 89–91. Das Dokument enthält neben einem S¸efa¯ʿa¯t-na¯me (fol. 1a–68a) eines Pı¯r Muhammed fol˙ (fol. 79b– gende Werke von S¸eyya¯d Hamza: Ahva¯l-ı kıya¯met (fol. 68b–79b), Miʾra¯c-na¯me ˙ ˙ ˘ 100b) und Vefa¯t-ı haz˙ret-i Muhammed ʿaleyhi’s-sela¯m (fol. 100b–120b). Das von Akar un˙ tersuchte Gedicht befindet sich˙ auf fol. 121a–124a. Zwischen diesem Gedicht und der vorangehenden Vefa¯t-ı haz˙ret-i Muhammedʿaleyhi’s-sela¯m scheinen eine oder mehrere Seiten zu ˙ fehlen; s. Akar, „S¸eyyad Hamza˙Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“: 5, Fn. 6. Die mecmu¯ʿa wird von der Türkischen Nationalbibliothek in digitalisierter Form bereitgestellt und kann mittels eines Benutzerkontos abgerufen werden. Die in Akar, „S¸eyyad Hamza Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“ enthaltenen Gedichte sind von Ag˘cagül, „Der Schwarze Tod. Seine Auswirkungen im Osmanischen Reich“ ins Deutsche übersetzt worden. Vom Dichter sind noch eine der frühen türkischen Bearbeitungen des Josef-Stoffes (eine neuere Edition ist Tas¸, Yu¯suf ve Zelı¯ha¯) sowie ein Da¯sita¯n-ı Sulta¯n Mahmu¯d überliefert; Buluç, „S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen˘bir ˙ ˙ Mesnevisi“. Darüber hinaus sind eine Reihe weiterer einzelner Gedichte bekannt; eine Übersicht bietet Tavukcu, „S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen Bir S¸iiri Münasebetiyle“. S¸eyya¯d Hamzas bisher bekanntes Werk ist in einer Reihe von Untersuchungen erschlossen, die sich ˘ dem Autor unter verschiedenen Aspekten nähern. Tavukçu, „S¸eyyad Hamza“ bietet einen relativ umfassenden Überblick über die Literatur. Diese Verse werden in der Literatur als Schluss der Vefa¯t-ı haz˙ret-i Muhammedʿaleyhi’s-sela¯m ˙ ˙ betrachtet (s. Fn. 13); Turhal-Güner, Vefât-ı Hazret-i Muhammed Aleyhisselâm: 58–72, dort Verse 357–522.

36

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

S¸eyya¯d Hamzas „Trauergesang“ um seine Kinder ˘ Ob es sich bei den hier untersuchten Gedichten tatsächlich um einen Trauergesang im Sinne einer mers¯ıye15 handelt, wird im Rahmen dieses Beitrags nicht ¯ untersucht, da – wie oben erwähnt – eines der Gedichte unvollständig ist und unter diesen Umständen keine eingehende Analyse erfolgen kann.16 Daher konzentriert sich dieser Beitrag auf die sprachlichen Bilder in den Gedichten, um sich darauf aufbauend dem Dichter und seiner Welt zu nähern. Hierzu wird der Dichter notwendigerweise mit dem lyrischen Ich gleichgesetzt, d. h. dem „sprechenden“ Subjekt der Gedichte. Diese Gleichsetzung scheint trotz ihrer Fraglichkeit angemessen zu sein, da die Verse in der ersten Person gehalten sind und über Persönliches berichten. Die Gedichte werden damit keinesfalls als historische Quellen reinterpretiert. Vielmehr eignen sie sich aufgrund der Referenzen auf die aussersprachliche bzw. -literarische Realität dazu, Aussagen über den Autor und seine Zeit zu ermöglichen. Es sollen somit diejenigen Aspekte der Gedichte hervorgehoben werden, die sich auf die sprechende Instanz sowie die von ihr berichteten Zustände und Ereignisse der den Gedichten immanenten Welt beziehen. Kennzeichnend für S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Werk sind starke religiöse, mystische ˘ Züge; vanitas und Tod sowie eine ausgeprägte Verehrung für den Propheten Muhammed spielen dabei eine große Rolle.17 Daneben scheut sich der Dichter nicht, sich kritisch über Misstände in der Gesellschaft zu äußern und das Fehlverhalten von Autoritäten zu verurteilen. Hinzu kommen schließlich die hier untersuchten, sehr persönlich gehaltenen Gedichte, in denen er seine der Pest zum Opfer gefallenen Kinder betrauert. Diese Gedichte nehmen aufgrund der Schilderungen des persönlich empfundenen Schmerzes eine besondere Stellung unter den Werken S¸eyya¯d Hamzas ein. Ihr Inhalt lässt sich folgendermaßen ˘ zusammenfassen:

15 Akar, „S¸eyyad Hamza Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“: 14 will in den von ihm untersuchten Zeilen Merkmale eines terkib-i bend, der für mers¯ıye typischen formalen Struktur von Gedichten, ¯ erkannt haben, kann dies allerdings aufgrund der Unvollständigkeit der Gedichte nicht hinreichend belegen. 16 Eine umfassende Untersuchung des Werks von S¸eyya¯d Hamza, die sprach- und literatur˘ lohnenswert, da es in einer Zeit wissenschaftliche Elemente vereint, wäre allerdings durchaus entstanden ist, in der einerseits das Türkische gerade zu einer Literatursprache avancierte und andererseits literarische Traditionen der vorislamischen Zeit und osttürkische, d. h. tschaghataische Formen und Techniken die anatolisch-türkische Dichtung noch erkennbar prägten. 17 Zur Charakterisierung seiner Dichtung siehe u. a. Köprülü-Zade, „Anatolische Dichter in der Seldschukenzeit I“: 187–188; Mansurog˘lu, „Drei Gedichte S¸ayya¯d Hamza’s“: 79; Tavukçu, ˙ ´, „Ein weiteres Ge„S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen Bir S¸iiri Münasebetiyle“: 181; Adamovic dicht von S¸eyyâd Hamza“: 92.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

37

In einem ersten Abschnitt beschreibt der Dichter seine persönliche Lage, indem er über den Tod seines Sohnes berichtet und darüber, wie sich der Schmerz auf ihn auswirkt (fol. 114b:3–115a:2).18 Es folgt eine Passage (fol. 115a:3–116a:4), in der die Unumgänglichkeit des Todes am Beispiel von verschiedenen Persönlichkeiten aus dem islamischen Kontext und der Mythologie aufgezeigt wird. Der Dichter betont dabei wiederholt, dass auch die genannten Personen nicht vom Tod verschont wurden. Er ermahnt die Menschen, sich das Geschilderte zu vergegenwärtigen und anzuerkennen, dass die Vorsehung alles bestimmt. Die Verse in den Zeilen 116a:5–117a:2 dienen vor allem der erneuten Betonung der Unumgänglichkeit des Todes, der weder vor Reich noch Arm noch vor Groß oder Klein Halt macht und dessen vergiftetem Pfeil niemand entkommen kann. Der Tod holt sich sogar unschuldige Kinder (maʿsu¯m), die ihren Eltern teurer ˙ waren als Geld und von diesen wie noch nicht aufgegangene Knospen in einem Garten liebevoll gepflegt wurden. In einer erneuten direkten Anrede ruft S¸eyya¯d Hamza dazu auf, sich auch diesen Umstand vor Augen zu führen und keinen ˘ Wert auf materiellen Besitz zu legen, da der Tod nach Belieben auch Kinder holen kann und die Eltern verzweifelt zurückbleiben. In den folgenden Versen (fol. 117a:3–13) setzt der Dichter Himmel und Erde einer Mühle gleich, die vom Engel Azrael betrieben wird und in der die Kinder gemahlen werden, wobei auch hier den Eltern nichts als Verzweiflung bleibt. In der längsten inhaltlich geschlossenen Passage (fol. 117b:1–120b:13) schildert S¸eyya¯d Hamza im Rahmen einer Geschichte,19 wie diese zu Tode gekom˘ menen Kinder auf der Suche nach ihren Eltern in die Hölle hinabsteigen, um sie von dort herauszuholen. Sie schlagen das Paradies aus und bitten Gott darum, ihnen ihre Eltern zurückzugeben, da sie ihrer noch bedürfen und die Trennung nicht ertragen. Sie stellen sich an das Tor zum Paradies und fragen alle, die es beschreiten, nach ihren Eltern. Endlich erfahren sie, dass ihre Eltern in der Hölle sind, dass dort ihre Taten aufgewogen wurden und dass die Höllenwächter sie schließlich auf Gottes Befehl in die Feuer geworfen haben. Daraufhin flehen die Kinder Gott an, sie wenigstens im Jenseits nicht von den Eltern zu trennen, wo sie doch bereits im Diesseits auseinandergerissen wurden. Zudem habe der Prophet zum Zeitpunkt ihres Todes den Eltern versprochen, dass sie im Jenseits vereint würden. Und da der Prophet von Gott erschaffen wurde, müsse das Versprechen nun eingelöst werden, andernfalls wäre der Prophet ein Wortbrüchiger. Sogleich sagt ihnen Gott zu, ihre Eltern zu verschonen. Er beauftragt den Erzengel Gabriel, 18 Die Seitenangaben richten sich nach der Nummerierung im Original 06 Mil Yz A 3772. Hiervon weichen die Arbeiten von Akar und Turhal-Güner ab. 19 Diese Geschichte bleibt in diesem Aufsatz unberücksichtigt, da sie keines der für S¸eyya¯d Hamza charakteristischen Motive enthält und sich somit in inhaltlicher Hinsicht deutlich ˘ Rest absetzt. vom

38

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

die Kinder zu den Toren der Hölle zu führen, wo sie Malik, den obersten der Höllenwächter, erblicken. Es folgt eine Beschreibung Maliks, die ihn als besonders hässlich und höchst furchteinflössend charakterisiert. Gabriel fordert Malik auf, das Tor zur Hölle zu öffnen, um die Eltern der Kinder zu sehen. Die Kinder sind über den Anblick der in den Flammen brennenden Eltern so entsetzt, dass sie sie nicht wieder erkennen und kehrtmachen wollen. Die Eltern jedoch rufen ihre Kinder zurück und bitten sie um Mitleid, denn sie haben es in ihrem Leben an Frömmigkeit fehlen lassen und müssen nun dafür in der Hölle schmoren. Die Kinder erkennen ihre Eltern an ihrer Stimme, führen sie aus der Hölle und bringen sie an den Fluss des Lebens, in dem sie baden und aus dem sie als schöne Menschen wieder heraussteigen. Auf den nachfolgenden Seiten (fol. 121a:1–121b:9) spricht der Dichter die (verstorbenen) Kinder persönlich an und schildert, was ihr Tod bei den Eltern angerichtet hat und wie groß deren Leid ist. S¸eyya¯d Hamza wendet sich dann an seine Mitmenschen, indem er Endzeit˘ szenarien heraufbeschwört und die Pest in diesem Kontext zu einem Zeichen des Himmels erklärt (121b:10–122a:6). Es folgen Zeilen (122a:7–122b:9), in denen die Aufmerksamkeit erneut auf die Hinterbliebenen und ihren Umgang mit der Erfahrung des Verlusts gelenkt wird. Die Toten selbst sowie der Zustand ihrer Körper sind Gegenstand der Zeilen 122b:10–123a:7. Auf den letzten Seiten der mecmu¯ʿa (123a:8–124a:6) richtet der Dichter erneut seinen Blick auf die Gesellschaft, deren Übel er beklagt. Im Anschluss daran beruft er sich trotz der Widrigkeiten in der Welt auf Gottes Gnade, um schließlich den Ausbruch der Pest anzuzeigen und sein Gedicht zu beenden.

S¸eyya¯d Hamza, der Tod und die Pest ˘ Der Dichter führt sich selbst als trauernden Vater ein, den der Schmerz um seine verstorbenen Kinder förmlich zerreisst. Seinen Schmerz und wie er diesen auslebt beschreibt er unter anderem in den folgenden Versen: beni yandurdı og˙uluñ fira¯kı / içümdedür ölince20 is¸tiya¯kı ˙ ˙ katı odlara yandum dirı¯g˙a¯ / og˙ul derdine boyandum dirı¯g˙a¯21 ˙ „Die Trennung vom Sohn ist ein brennender Schmerz, und in meinem Herzen bleibt die 20 Turhal-Güner, Vefât-ı Hazret-i Muhammed: 58, Vers 360 verzeichnet „olanca“. Im Original ist der Buchstabe ‫ ﻝ‬eindeutig mit kesre vokalisiert. Daher und aus inhaltlichen Gründen bevorzuge ich ölince ‚bis ich sterbe‘, da diese Form sich für den Kontext besser eignet. Zu dem in dieser Verbform enthaltenen Konverb auf -inca / -ince und seinen Funktionen in Texten des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts s. Mansurog˘lu, „Das Altosmanische“: 176–177. 21 fol. 114b:6–7.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

39

Sehnsucht nach ihm, bis ich sterbe. In mir lodern die Flammen – o weh! – und ich bin vom Leid gezeichnet – o weh!“ yakamı yırtuban yoldum sakalum / ye˙re urdum bu dülbendüm dirı¯g˙a¯22 ˙ ˙ „Ich habe [aus Kummer] meinen Kragen zerfetzt und mir den Bart ausgerissen, habe diesen Turban auf die Erde geschleudert – o weh!“

Schilderungen ähnlicher Art folgen in späteren Passagen, die allerdings weniger deutlich als die hier zitierten sind (s. u.). S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Dichtung ist ferner gekennzeichnet durch eine facettenrei˘ che Auseinandersetzung mit dem Tod, der als Leitmotiv große Teile seines Werks 23 prägt. Dabei spielt zunächst die Unabwendbarkeit des Todes eine bedeutende Rolle, die der Dichter auch in den hier untersuchten Gedichten wiederholt betont. Dies ist beispielsweise in einer Reihe von ubi sunt-Versen formuliert – hier durch das türkische Fragepronomen kanı ‚wo‘ kodiert, in denen Persönlich˙ keiten aus dem Koran aufgezählt werden: kanı A¯dem kanı Nu¯h sa¯hib-i gemi / bulmadı ölüme bunlar da emi ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ „Wo ist Adam, wo Noah, der Herr über die Arche? Auch sie haben das Mittel gegen den Tod nicht gefunden.“ kanı_ya¯ Davud Süleyma¯n emı¯n / ölüme bulmadılar ça¯re hemı¯n ˙ „Und wo sind David und Salomon, die Furchtlosen? Auch sie fanden keinen Ausweg.“ kanı Karu¯n kanı_ya ma¯lı ey ya¯r / us¸ bu sırrıʿa¯kil olanlar tuyar24 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ „Und wo ist Korach mit seinem Reichtum? Siehe, dieses Geheimnis hören die mit Verstand.“

Selbst vor dem Propheten Muhammed hat der Tod nicht Halt gemacht: kanı ol sulta¯n-ıʿa¯lem Mustafa¯ / dü-ciha¯nda halka olʿayn-ü vefa¯25 ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˘ ˙ „Wo ist Mustafa, der Herrscher der Welt? Er, der Quell der Verbundenheit für die Menschen im Diesseits und im Jenseits?“ aldı ölüm anı da g˙am yemedi / bu Muhammed Mustafa¯dur de˙medi26 ˙ ˙˙ „Auch ihn hat sich der Tod genommen und sich nicht bekümmert, dass es Muhammed Mustafa sei.“

Bemerkenswert ist, dass S¸eyya¯d Hamza im Bezug auf den Propheten den Wunsch ˘ äußert, der Tod hätte doch wenigstens ihn verschonen sollen. Dass der Dichter dies nicht einmal für seine eigenen Kinder fordert, spricht für die tief empfundene Liebe zum Propheten: 22 fol. 115a: 1. 23 Eine Ausnahme bilden zwei von Necmettin Onan veröffentliche Gedichte; Onan, „S¸eyyat Hamza’nın I˙ki Yeni Gazeli Dolayısiyle“. 24 fol. 115a:5–7. 25 fol. 115b:6. 26 fol. 115b:7.

40

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

ger vefa¯ kılsa aña kılayıdı / bu ciha¯nda sermedı¯ kalayıdı27 ˙ ˙ ˙ „Hätte er [der Tod] doch wenigstens ihm [Muhammed] ein Weiterleben ermöglicht, so dass er ewig auf dieser Welt weilte.“

Besonders grausam und unerbittlich erscheint der Tod, wenn er sogar unschuldige Kinder (maʿsu¯m) holt: ˙

is¸bu maʿsu¯mları dahı ol alur / ata_ile anasın hasret kılur28 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ „Auch diese Unschuldigen greift er sich und lässt die Eltern voller Sehnsucht zurück.“

In diesem und weiteren Versen erscheint der Tod personifiziert als handelndes Subjekt, das sich die Menschen mühelos greift. Eine Personifikation erfährt der Tod auch in den folgenden Zeilen: yayı vardur kurulu ka¯mil ey ya¯r / zehr-i ka¯tilden dahı hem okı var ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ behliva¯ndur kimse anı basamaz / yayını kimse anıñ yasamaz ˙ ˙ gözi vardur kamusın bakar görür / ol oku ki cümlesini hep urur ˙ ˙ ˙ urur okun hiç birin esirgemez / bu nebı¯dür ya¯ bu maʿsu¯mdur de˙mez29 ˙ „Er [der Tod] hat einen gespannten Bogen und einen Pfeil mit tödlichem Gift. Niemand kann ihn überwältigen noch ihn bezwingen. Sein Auge erfasst alle Menschen und er trifft sie alle mit seinem Pfeil. Er verschont niemanden – sei er auch ein Prophet oder ein unschuldiges Kind.“

Die folgenden Verse zeigen die Tendenz, den Tod von Angehörigen nicht explizit als solchen, d. h. mit Wörtern wie beispielsweise dem türkischen ölüm zu bezeichnen, wenn es darum geht, den Schmerz und die Trauer der Hinterbliebenen zu schildern. Neben dem oben bereits zitierten Vers 114b:6 ist auch in den folgenden Zeilen die Rede von fira¯k / furkat (‚Trennung‘) oder hicret / hicra¯n ˙ ˙ (‚Fortgang, Trennung‘).30 Dabei scheint der Dichter keinen Unterschied zwischen seinem eigenen Verlust und dem seiner Mitmenschen zu machen: kuzılar odıñız yavlak katıdur / fira¯kuñuz tamunuñ a¯fetidur31 ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ „Ihr Schäfchen, das Feuer lodert in uns, die Trennung von Euch ist wie die Hölle über uns hereingebrochen.“ bize hicrüñüz odı tamu oldı / siziñ yeriñiz cennetdir kuzılar32 ˙ ˙ „Die Trennung von Euch bereitet uns die Hölle auf Erden, doch Ihr verweilt nun im Paradies, Ihr Schäfchen.“ 27 28 29 30

fol. 115b: 8. fol. 116b:5. fol. 116b:1–4. Nach Tavukçu, „Türk Edebiyatı’nda Ölüm S¸iirlerinin Bazı Üslûp Özellikleri“: 63 sind Umschreibungen dieser Art für den Tod eines Angehörigen oder einer nahestehenden Person ein typisches Merkmal der mystischen Dichtung, in der ansonsten der Tod als eine Vereinigung konzipiert ist. 31 fol. 121b:1. 32 fol. 121a:10.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

41

bizümile ag˙lasuñ gelsun yıkılsuñ / bu derde mübtela¯ olan kis¸iler ˙ og˙ul kızuñ fira¯g˙ınıñ okuna / cig˘eri pa¯relü olan kis¸iler33 ˙ ˙ „Sie sollen mit uns weinen und verzweifeln, die Menschen, die diesem Leid verfallen sind. Und deren Herzen vom Pfeil der Trennung von ihren Kindern durchbohrt sind.“ bular ol bı¯-ça¯re bülbül fira¯kın / elinde gülleri solan kis¸iler34 ˙ ˙ „Dies sind Menschen, die ihre unglücklichen Nachtigallen verloren haben und deren Rosen nun verwelkt sind.“

Auf den letzten Seiten der mecmu¯ʿa setzt sich S¸eyya¯d Hamza eingehender mit ˘ dem Schwarzen Tod auseinander. Die Seuche nennt der Dichter zunächst dennoch nicht beim Namen, stattdessen spielt er zunächst mit einem ihrer Symptome, mecel ‚Beule‘ auf die Krankheit an. Der betreffende Vers stammt aus einer Passage, in der S¸eyya¯d Hamza den verstorbenen Kindern das Leid der Hinter˙ bliebenen schildert. Hier scheint auch die kurze Dauer zwischen der Ansteckung und dem Eintreten des Todes thematisiert zu werden: mecel komaz size ecel kaz˙a¯sı / kırar komaz bugün mühlet kuzılar35 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ „Die [Pest-]Beulen verwehren Euch die Erfüllung der Vorsehung. Sie töten rasch und gewähren Euch [nicht einmal] den heutigen Tag.“

S¸eyya¯d Hamza geht nun dazu über, sich konkreter über die Seuche zu äußern. ˘ Hierzu setzt er zum Beispiel Metaphern aus dem Kontext meteorologischer Erscheinungen ein – hier als Komposita realisiert: ecel yag˘murı yag˙dı yire gög˘den / göz açdurmaz nidelüm bı¯m-i ca¯ndur ölüm ye˙li kime kim tokunursa / düs¸er toprag˙a nitekim haza¯ndur36 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ¯ „Der Regen des Todes ist auf die Erde niedergeprasselt. Er lässt uns nicht zur Ruhe kommen und versetzt uns in Todesangst. Wen auch immer der Hauch des Todes streift, der fällt auf die Erde herab, da der Herbst nun einmal angebrochen ist.“

Diese beiden Verse, insbesondere der zweite, könnten als Hinweise auf den sicheren Tod durch die Pest interpretiert werden. Wie im wirklichen Herbst der Wind sorgt in diesem Vers der Hauch des Todes dafür, dass jedes einzelne Blatt, d. h. jeder einzelne Mensch auf die Erde niederfällt und schließlich stirbt. Durch die Verwendung der spezifischen Ausdrücke ecel und kaz˙a¯ʾ-i asıma¯n bettet ˙ der Dichter die Pest, die er nun namentlich nennt, zudem in den Rahmen der Vorsehung ein:

33 34 35 36

fol. 121b:3–4. fol. 121b:6. fol. 121a:8. fol. 122a:2–3.

42

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

ecel nolur ki takdı¯r-i ezeldür / veba¯ nolur kaz˙a¯ʾ-i asıma¯ndur37 ˙ ˙ „Wie könnte die Todesstunde anders sein als seit jeher vorherbestimmt? Was könnte die Pest anderes sein als das Eintreten der himmlischen Vorsehung?“

Diese rhetorischen Fragen, die auch gleich die Antworten enthalten, sind der Schlüssel zu einer Vorstellung von der Ursache und dem Wesen der Pest. Als Element der Vorsehung gedeutet, wird die Pest aller irdischen – und damit durch und für den Menschen erklärbaren – Faktoren ihres Auftretens, ihrer Verbreitung und auch ihrer Folgen entledigt. Als vom Himmel gesandtes Phänomen bleibt sie für den Menschen nicht begreifbar. Trotz der unmittelbar erfahrbaren Folgen bleibt die Seuche als Ursache für das erlebte Leid außerhalb der menschlichen Wahrnehmung – zumindest der Wahrnehmung des Subjekts, das in den hier untersuchten Zeilen spricht. S¸eyya¯d Hamza deutet vor diesem Hin˘ tergrund das Erscheinen der Pest als einen Vorboten des Jüngsten Gerichts38 und nimmt dies zum Anlass, seine Mitmenschen dazu zu bewegen, ihren Sünden abzuschwören: müselma¯nlar meg˘er ahir zama¯ndur / kıya¯metmi kopar ne nis¸a¯ndur39 ˙ ˙ ˘ „Ihr Muslime, es ist wohl das Ende der Zeit. Ob das Jüngste Gericht anbricht? Was ist das für ein Zeichen?“ ʿala¯metler belürdi dürlü dürlü / gelüñ tevbe kılalum ki hema¯ndur40 ˙ „Die Vorzeichen sind zahlreich, lasst uns sogleich den Sünden abschwören.“

Um dieser Aufforderung weiteres Gewicht zu verleihen, konstruiert der Dichter anhand konkreter Darstellungen das Szenario einer Gesellschaft, die sich gerade mit den unmittelbaren Auswirkungen der Pest auseinanderzusetzen hat. So macht S¸eyya¯d Hamza zunächst auf die große Anzahl der Toten aufmerksam: ˙ bugün yetmis¸ iki millet içinde / bela¯ vü mihnet renc ü kıra¯ndur41 ˙ ˙ „Heute wurden die zweiundsiebzig Völkerschaften [= die ganze Welt] von Unheil, Kummer, Schmerz und der Seuche heimgesucht.“

öñü yire batar soñu dükenmez /ʿaceb bu ka¯file ne ka¯rıva¯ndur ˙ ˙ ag˙ac at bas¸ı yok a¯dem ayaklu / tas¸ır sinleye bu halkı reva¯ndur ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˙ saba¯hın sinleye var kim göresin / kıya¯met mi kobar yohsa tu¯fa¯ndur42 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˙ „Was für eine Karawane mag diese Gemeinschaft sein, deren Anfang in der Erde versinkt und deren Schluss kein Ende kennt? Ein hölzernes Pferd ohne Haupt, doch auf

37 fol. 122a:6. 38 Vgl. Varlık, Plague and Empire: 211–212 für eine Interpretation dieser Verse im Rahmen einer islamischen Perzeptionsgeschichte der Pest. 39 fol. 121b: 11. 40 fol. 122a:1. 41 fol. 122a:5. 42 fol. 122b:1–3.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

43

menschlichen Beinen trägt die Menschen in Scharen auf den Friedhof. Geh am Morgen dorthin und sieh, ob der Jüngste Tag hereingebrochen ist oder die Sintflut.“

Familien verlieren ihre Angehörigen und sorgen dafür, dass die Toten in angemessen hergerichteten Gräbern beigesetzt werden: kimi og˙ul deyü yartar yakasın / kimi kardas¸ de˙yü a¯h ü figa¯ndur ˙ ˙ kimi babacıg˙um deyüben ag˙lar / kimi kızcug˙azından ayrılandur43 ˙ „Manch einer trauert um seinen Sohn und zerreisst sich den Kragen; manch einer klagt herzzerreissend um seinen Bruder. Manch einer weint um den geliebten Vater, manch einem wurde die geliebte Tochter genommen.“ tonatmıs¸lar yig˘it_cükler sinini / velı¯ tenleri toprakda niha¯ndur ˙ ˙ ˙ gelin_cük sinin ¸söyle bezetmis¸ / yes¸il kızıl sanasın gülista¯ndur ˙ ˙ saru barçın kızıl atlas tutuklar / gelin_cük_ler sininde sa¯yıba¯ndur44 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ „Sie haben die Gräber der jungen Männer geschmückt; ihre Körper aber sind in der Erde versteckt. Die Gräber der jungen Mädchen gleichen bei all dem Grün und Rot einem Blumengarten. Vorhänge aus gelbem Seidenstoff und rotem Atlas spenden Schatten für die Gräber der jungen Bräute.“

Doch auch der Schmuck auf den Gräbern kann weder die Trauer vertreiben noch die Verwesung der Leichen aufhalten: ¸su nergis gözlü ay yüzlü yig˘itler / yañakları gülile arg˙uva¯ndur ˙ karınca ini olmıs¸ ol ag˙ızlar / ki bunlaruñ todag˙ı laʿl ü ka¯ndur45 ˙ ˙ „Diese jungen Männer mit den schönen Augen und Gesichtern und Wangen wie Rosen und die Blüten des Judasbaums: aus ihren Mündern sind Ameisenhöhlen geworden, waren ihre Lippen doch einst so rot wie Blut.“

In einer erneuten Aufforderung an seine Mitmenschen, sich angesichts der Vergänglichkeit alles Weltlichen wieder Gott zuzuwenden, offenbart sich die Ergebenheit in Gottes Willen, die der Dichter trotz des Verlusts seiner Kinder zu bewahren weiß: gelüñ hakka dönelüm ey hala¯yık / ki vakt-i kull manʿalayha¯ fa¯ndur46 ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ „Ihr Geschöpfe, wir sollten uns wieder Gott zuwenden, denn es ist die Zeit, in der alle, die auf der Erde sind, vergehen werden.“

Mit einer kurzen, aber aussagekräftigen Skizze über die Verrohung in der Gesellschaft will der Dichter beweisen, dass der einzige Ausweg aus dem Unheil, das die Menschen gerade erleben und aus dem sie sich nicht aus eigener Kraft befreien können, im Vertrauen auf Gottes Gnade liegt: 43 44 45 46

fol. 122a: 7–8. fol. 122b: 6–7. fol. 122b: 11–12. fol. 123a: 10. Die Wendung kull manʿalayha¯ fa¯n stammt aus dem Koran: Sure 55, Vers 26. Die deutsche Übersetzung ist angelehnt an Paret, Der Koran: 55, 26.

44

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

Beg˘üñ yohsula hiç hayrı tokunmaz / rencber dög˘meg˘e key behliva¯ndur ˙ ˙ ˘ ˘ ne og˙lanuñ atasından odı var / ne kardas¸ birbirine mihma¯ndur ˙ ¸seyh zerra¯k mürı¯dleri müna¯fık / hacılar ha¯cına hu¯d pes¸¯ıma¯ndur ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ iki hemsa¯ye bir mahalle içinde / biri öldüg˘ine biri ¸sa¯zuma¯ndur47 ˙ „Die Herren zeigen den Armen keine Gunst, aber sie sind stark wie Ringer, wenn sie sich an den Bauern vergreifen können. Der Sohn kennt keine Ehrfurcht vor dem Vater, Brüder statten einander keine Besuche ab. Scheiche und ihre Anhänger entpuppen sich gleichermaßen als Heuchler und Pilger bereuen ihre eigene Pilgerfahrt. Von zwei Nachbarn im selben Viertel erfreut sich der eine am Tod des anderen.“ meg˘er hakkdan ola bizeʿina¯yet / zı¯re kim ol kerı¯m ü müsteʿa¯ndur48 ˙˙ „So möge uns von Gott Gnade zuteil werden, denn er ist gnädig, und ihn rufen wir um Hilfe an.“ bizi hıs¸müñ odına yakmag˙ıl sen / ki rahmetüñ deñizi bı¯-kera¯ndur49 ˙ ˙ ˘ „Liefere uns nicht dem Feuer Deines Zornes aus, Du, dessen Ozean seiner Gnade grenzenlos ist.“

Zwar lässt sich nicht mit Sicherheit sagen, ob diese Missstände in den Augen des Dichters die Heimsuchung durch die Pest verursacht haben. Die Schilderungen zeigen allerdings eine gewisse Nähe zu gängigen zeitgenössischen Deutungen, gemäß derer gesellschaftlicher und moralischer Verfall das Auftreten von Epidemien verursacht.50 Recht nüchtern, gleichsam prosaisch mutet die Datierung des Geschilderten in einem der letzten Verse der Gedichte an: yedi yüz kırk tokuzunda resu¯lüñ / veba¯ geldi hala¯yıkaʿaya¯ndur51 ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ „Im Jahre 749 des Propheten ist die Pest gekommen und sie ist für die Geschöpfe offenkundig.“

Hierin könnte eine indirekte Ansprache an die Menschen liegen, das Ausbrechen der Pest als notwendige Konsequenz dessen zu betrachten, was der Dichter zuvor so bildreich an Verwerflichem aufgezählt hat. Der Kontrast zum oben zitierten Vers 122a: 6, in dem die Pest metaphorisch als Erfüllung der Vorsehung umgedeutet wird, könnte – wiederum stilistisch motiviert – als Hinweis auf die Faktizität des Inhalts dienen.

47 48 49 50 51

fol. 123b: 1–4. fol. 123b: 6. fol 123b: 9. Siehe hierzu Varlık, Plague and Empire: 213–214. fol. 124a: 3.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

45

Schlussbemerkungen Die Heranziehung eines literarischen Werks als Beleg für historische Ereignisse ist zweifellos ein heikles Unternehmen. Dass sich die hier untersuchten Gedichte von S¸eyya¯d Hamza dennoch dazu eignen können, liegt in den darin enthalte˘ nen Referenzen auf die Welt außerhalb der von ihm in seinem Werk entworfenen Wirklichkeit begründet, wobei diese Wirklichkeit auch sein eigenes Empfinden und seine Wertvorstellungen einbezieht, welche hier in verdichteter Form erscheinen. Das sprechende Subjekt der Gedichte manifestiert sich als trauernder Vater, der ein Klagelied auf seine Kinder singt, als frommer Muslim, der trotz seines persönlichen Schmerzes am Glauben festhält und schließlich als mahnender Zeitgenosse, der seine Mitmenschen angesichts der vom Himmel gesandten Seuche zur Rückbesinnung auf den Glauben aufruft. Auch wenn sich aus den Zeilen S¸eyya¯d Hamzas keinerlei topographische Informationen bezüglich ˘ konkreter Orte herleiten lassen, so entwirft der Dichter dennoch eine spezifische Topologie, in der die räumliche Struktur der Gedichte auf den Werten und Normen des sprechenden Subjekts basiert. In abwechselnd monologischen und dialogischen Sequenzen baut diese Instanz das Bild einer Gesellschaft auf, die vornehmlich durch die Präsenz von Tod und gesellschaftlichem Verfall und den Mangel an moralischer Integrität gekennzeichnet ist. Durch die Nennung des konkreten Datums schließlich, an dem die Pest ausgebrochen ist, überschreitet der Sprecher die Grenzen des verfassten Textes, wodurch das Geschilderte in die außersprachliche Wirklichkeit transferiert wird und der Dichter mit mahnenden Worten an sich selbst in Erscheinung tritt: söz e˙dici delim S¸eyya¯d Hamza / senüñ sözüñʿa¯lemde desta¯ndur ˙ bu ne sözler olur bı¯-ça¯reden ki gelür diline böyle asa¯ndur52 „Ich bin nicht der, der Verse schmiedet. S¸eyya¯d Hamza, Deine Worte sind in der Welt ˘ wohlbekannt. Was sind das für Worte über die Verzweifelten, die Dir so leicht von der Zunge gehen?“

Literaturverzeichnis Primärquellen [Kemal], Selâtîn-Nâme (1299–1490) (Haz. Necdet Öztürk). Ankara 2001. Mansurog˘lu, Mecdut, Ahmed Fakih. Çarhname. I˙stanbul 1956.

52 fol. 124a: 4–6.

46

Sevgi Ag˘cagül

[Mehmed Nes¸rı¯], Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ. Nes¸rî Tarihi 1–2 (Herausgegeben von Faik Res¸it ˙ Unat und Mehmet A. Köymen). Ankara 1949–1957. Vom Hirtenzelt zur Hohen Pforte. Frühzeit und Aufstieg des Osmanenreiches nach der Chronik „Denkwürdigkeiten und Zeitläufte des HausesʿOsman“ vom Derwisch Ahmed, genannt ʿAs¸ık-Pas¸a-Sohn (Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Richard F. Kreutel). Graz u. a. 1959. Turhal-Güner, Fatma, S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın „Vefât-ı Hazret-i Muhammed ʿAleyhi’s-selâm“ Adlı Mesnevisi (Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Aras¸tırmaları Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, I˙stanbul 1996). Türkische Nationalbibliothek Ankara, MS 06 Mil Yz A 3772.

Sekundärliteratur Adamovic´, Milan, „Ein weiteres Gedicht von S¸eyyâd Hamza“, Materialia Turcica 17 (1996): 87–102. Ag˘cagül, Sevgi, „Der Schwarze Tod. Seine Auswirkunen im Osmanischen Reich“, im Druck. Akar, Metin, „S¸eyyad Hamza Hakkında Yeni Bilgiler“, Türklük Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi 2/5 (1987): 1–23. Bergdolt, Klaus, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa. Die große Pest und das Ende des Mittelalters (3. Aufl.). München 2011. Bergdolt, Klaus, „Petrarca und die Pest“, Sudhoffs Archiv 76/1 (1992): 63–73. Buluç, Sadettin, „S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen bir Mesnevisi“, Türkiyat Mecmuası 15 (1968): 247–264. Köprülü-Zade, Mehmed Fuad, „Anatolische Dichter in der Seldschukenzeit I. Sˇejja¯d ʿHamza“, Korösi Csoma-arcivum 1 (1922): 183–190. [Türkische Version: „Selçuk¯ıler ˙ devrinde Anatolı ¸sa¯ʾirleri 1. S¸eyya¯d Hamza“, Türk Yurdu 1/1 (Tes¸rı¯n-i s̲a¯nı¯ 1340): 27– ˙ ˙ 33.] Mansurog˘lu, Mecdut, „Das Altosmanische“, in: Deny, Jean et al. (Hrsg.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 1. Aqiuis Mattiacis 1959: 161–182. Meriç, Rıfkı Melûl, „Aks¸ehir Türbe ve Mezarları“, Türkiyat Mecmuası 5 (1935): 141–212. Onan, Necmettin Halil, „S¸eyyad Hamza’nın I˙ki Yeni Gazeli Dolayısiyle“, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cog˘rafya Fakültesi Dergisi VIII/4 (1949): 529–534. Paret, Rudi (Übers.), Der Koran (5. Auflage). Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln 1989. Schamiloglu, Uli, „The Rise of the Ottoman Empire: The Black Death in Medieval Anatolia and its Impact on Turkish Civilization“, in: Yavari, Neguin et al. (eds.), Views from the Edge. Essays in Honor of Richard W. Bulliet. New York 2004: S. 255-279 + Corrigenda. Sertkaya, Osman Fikri, „Ahmed Fakih“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 2 (1989): 65–67. Tas¸, I˙brahim, S¸eyya¯d Hamza. Yu¯suf ve Zelı¯ha¯. Giris¸ – Metin – Çeviri – Notlar – Sözlük. ˙ ˘ Ankara 2017. Tavukcu, Orhan, „S¸eyyâd Hamza’nın Bilinmeyen Bir S¸iiri Münasebetiyle“, Journal of Central Asian Studies 10/1 (2005): 181–195 [= Prof. Dr. Mustafa Canpolat Armag˘anı]. Tavukçu, Orhan Kemal, „S¸eyyad Hamza“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 39 (2010): 104–105.

Dichtung und Plage: S¸eyya¯d Hamzas Auseinandersetzung mit dem Schwarzen Tod ˘

47

Tavukçu, Orhan Kemal, „Türk Edebiyatı’nda Ölüm S¸iirlerinin Bazı Üslûp Özellikleri“, Motif Akademi Halkbilim Dergisi 2/3–4 (2009): 59–73. Tezcan, Semih, „Anadolu Türk Yazınının Bas¸langıç Döneminde Bir Yazar ve Çarh-na¯me’nin Tarihlendirilmesi Üzerine“, Türk Dilleri Aras¸tırmaları 4 (1994): 75–88. Varlık, Nükhet, Plague and Empire in the Early Modern Mediterranean World. The Ottoman Experience, 1347–1600. Cambridge 2015.

Das Osmanische Reich und Europa im 16.–17. Jahrhundert

Machiel Kiel

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II. An Early Classical Ottoman Mosque on the Peloponnese. Historical Background and Reconstruction

The largest city of the Peloponnese and third port of Greece, Patras, is situated on gently sloping ground on the northern coast of the peninsula near the narrow outlet of the Corinthian Gulf. Since remote antiquity Patras was the most important place in the historical landscape of Achaia and could throughout its long history maintain its place as one of the leading centres. Throughout its multimillennium existence the city kept its name. The Ottomans called it Balyabadra from the Greek Palaio Patras, to distinguish it from Neo Patras (Badracık in Ottoman and Hypate in Ancient Greek), that in the Middle Ages and especially in the Ottoman period was much more important than in the 19th and 20th centuries (in 1570, 2,570 inhabitants, in 1810, 7,000 inh.,1 in 1920, 1,260 inh., in 1961, 819 inh.). Byzantine and Frankish Patras appears to have been restricted to the large hilltop castle that still overlooks the city. It was here that the combined Slav and Arab attack on and siege of Patras of 805–807 was beaten back (as popularly believed) with the help of Saint Andrew, the Patron Saint of the town, who in the time of Emperor Nero (54–68 AD), had died as a martyr on an x-shaped cross that since then is known as St Andrew’s Cross. The victory of 807 marks the turning point of Slavic settlement on the Morea and from Patras, the Greek “reconquista” of the Morea began. After the event the bishopric of Patras (known since 347 AD) was elevated to the lofty rank of Metropolis and from there the process of christianization of the Slavs and their subsequent hellenisation began. At the foot of the castle, a small open town flourished and declined following the particularly agitated medieval history of the place. From 1205 to 1408 it was included in the Frankish principality of Achaia, founded by the Crusader knight Geoffroy de Villehardouin. In 1408 it was in Venetian hands until 1430, when it was re-conquered by the army of the Byzantine despotate of the Morea under the command of Constantine Palaiologos, who, as Constantine XI, became the last Byzantine Emperor in 1449. Late Byzantine Patras had at least 12 churches and 1 Pouqueville, Voyage dans la Grèce: 42–45.

52

Machiel Kiel

was the seat of an Orthodox Archbishopric throughout the entire ByzantinoFrankish period. In the decades following the Byzantine re-conquest the town was taken several times during Ottoman incursions under Murad II. The Ottomans took Patras in 1458 as part of the campaign of Sultan Mehmed II to finally subdue the turbulent Morea. The early-Ottoman chronicler Âs¸ıkpas¸azâde (d. 1480s) mentions as a justification of the conquest that in and around Patras a large number of Muslim women were kept as wretched slaves who had to do heavy work on the fields.2 The other important early historian, Mevlana Nes¸rî (d. ca. 1520), has a very similar story.3 In fact the real reason for the final capture of Patras was purely political. The existing historiography of Patras gives a grim picture of how the town in the late-Frankish period was rich, big and prosperous but then suffered terribly during the Turkish conquest and did hardly recover. Before describing the development of the town of Patras it will therefore be appropriate to have a brief look at the size of some important other towns of the Morea at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century. In this way we can compare and see the town from a different perspective. The source material about this topic was compiled by the French historian and specialist on medieval Greece, Antoine Bon, in his unsurpassed La Morée Franque.4 The most important Frankish port town in the Morea, Glarentsa, “covered a surface of 8,8 hectares”.5 The town was taken in 1430 by the Byzantines under despot Constantine Palaiologos as mentioned above. Constantine had the entire town destroyed to prevent the Franks from using it again. Extensive ruins are preserved and the circuit of town walls can still be followed. When we apply as a rule of thumb that in an average European town 150 people lived on a space of one hectare—as established by the pain-staking research of Roger Mols—we can conclude that the population of the town must have been between 1,200 and 1,300 people. Many small towns had considerably less people per hectare, others had more. Compact Italian towns with narrow streets and high houses sometimes reached 200–250 people per hectare. The town of Erbil in northern Iraq, situated on a flat plateau and bordered by steep cliffs all around had 500 inhabitants per hectare in houses of four to five stories high and along very narrow streets. This situation could still be seen and studied until the 1970s, after which most of Erbil’s old houses were demolished. On the walled space of Glarentsa 1,200–1,300 people could live, as mentioned. When divided by 300 houses one arrives at 4.4 inhabitants per house, which for the 14th and first

2 3 4 5

[Âs¸ıkpas¸azâde], Teva¯rı¯h-i A¯l-i ʿOsma¯n: 149–150; Vom Hirtenzelt zur Hohen Pforte: 210–212. ¯ ˘ Cihânnümâ: [Mevlana Nes¸rî], Kitâb-ı vol. II, 728–729. Bon, La Morée Franque. Bon, La Morée Franque: vol. II, 602, large map.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

53

half of the 15th century looks very acceptable for a time known for its low population increase.6 In 1391, Glarentsa numbered “300 hearths”. This number and the numbers of several other towns in the Morea are given by Amadeo of Savoy, the famous “Green Count” who inspected vast areas of Greece and gave a list of households of many settlements. Antoine Bon gave the number of houses of several other Morean towns as handed down by the Green Count: Kalamata 300 houses, the Venetian Koron in 1401, 380 houses, Vostítsa 200, Crèvecœur 400 and the largest of all, Santameri in 1391, 500 houses.7 An even better example than Glarentsa for the vice–versa control of build-up surface and household numbers of the written sources is given for the important late-Byzantine town of Kherson on the Crimea, 3 km west of Sebastopol. Here the site of the ruined town was entirely excavated by Alla Romancˇuk and her team in 1955–1982. The ruins of Kherson are situated on an easily defendable site of 300 x 1000 m, on three sides surround by the waters of the Black Sea. The town is built on a regular grid plan, dividing the built-up space in 109 blocks. The town occupied a space of 30 ha. Most of the houses had several rooms and small gardens and were almost all single-storeyed. Romancˇuk concluded that 3,600 to 5,000 persons could have lived in the town. The number of 3,600 inhabitants gives 120 persons per ha. The 5,000 inhabitants give 167 persons per ha.8 The German scholar Ammann summarizes the entire problem with the statement that the vast majority of medieval towns in Europe had between 1,000 to 2,000 inhabitants. Towns of 2,000–10,000 inhabitants formed only 10 % of the total number of towns.9 The above-mentioned names and numbers bring Patras back to the real importance it had in the Byzantino-Frankish period. In August 1458 the two Byzantine despots of the Morea, the brothers Thomas and Demetrius Palaiologos, were forced to make a treaty with Sultan Mehmed II, to surrender Corinth to the Ottomans and to give up the other fortified towns along the Gulf of Corinth, Patras and Vostítza (Aigion), and the fortress of Kalavryta more inland. The Sultan came to Patras in person. According to his panegyrist, Kritovoulos, he found the town deserted and abandoned, as most inhabitants had moved to places in the Morea that had remained in Venetians hands. The Sultan saw that Patras was a place that could very well be used as a commercial port to trade with the West and invited the former inhabitants to

6 Mols, Introduction à la démographie historique; Russell, “Die Bevölkerung Europas, 500– 1500”: 9–58; Mols, “Population in Europe, 1500–1700”; Herlihy, Medieval Households. 7 Bon, La Morée Franque: vol I, 646–647. 8 Romancˇuk, Chersones XII–XIV v. Istoricˇeskaya Topografiya: 185. 9 Ammann, “Wie groß war die mittelalterliche Stadt?”: 413.

54

Machiel Kiel

return to their homes and offered them special privileges and tax reduction.10 They evidently did return. The oldest preserved Ottoman source of the Morea is the tahrir defteri (T.D.) 10 from 1461, preserved in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul (Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi, BOA). This register has for decades been incomplete, and a sizeable part of it showed up in the Sofia National Library. The first seven pages of the Istanbul copy are “lost”. Patras, Balyabadra for the Ottomans, being the most important settlement in the region covered by this defter, stood in the now missing first pages, followed by the small town of Vostítsa (Aigion) and the castle of Holomiç / Chlemoutsi, south of Patras. What we have for 1461 is the “region of Balyabadra”, the villages surrounding the town, which had a total of 569 households of whom 184 were inhabited by Albanians. In the 12 districts belonging to the town were 9,881 households of whom 2,882 were Albanians, or 34 % of the total population. The mentioned Albanians are the descendants of colonists of the 14th century who were settled in the vast territories that had been completely depopulated by the endless wars between the Byzantines and Frankish principalities. They had been invited to come by the Greek leaders as well as by the Frankish lords.11 In some parts of the Peloponnese, such as the area around Corinth, the local population still speaks Albanian today (own observation). For the town of Patras in 1461, the excellent research of the Beldiceanus from almost 40 years ago gives 458 households, 54 unmarried adult males (mücerred) and 56 incomplete households headed by a woman, all Christians. The high number of widows is a result of the Greek custom for widows not to remarry after the death of their husbands. The very low percentage of mücerreds (10 %) reflects the small family size so characteristic for the 14th and 15th centuries (until about 1460 when the population, slowly, started to grow again). In 1461 the total population of Patras ranged between 1,920 and 2,040 inhabitants.12 In the spring of 1464 the development of Patras was briefly interrupted by a Venetian attack of Iacopo Barbarigo, Provveditore of the Morea and his fleet. They were successfully beaten back by the Ottomans under the governor Turahanog˘lu Ömer Bey. The next preserved register—having our town—is T.D. 390 from 1514 (in the middle of Sultan Selim I’s rule); this register shows a very different pattern. It mentions for the town of Patras itself a Christian community of 546 households, 183 mücerreds and 92 widows. Then there was a Muslim community of 76 households, 29 mücerreds, as well as a Jewish community of 252 households, 10 [Kritovoulos], History of Mehmed the Conqueror: 131. 11 Jochalas, Über die Einwanderung der Albaner in Griechenland: 89–106 (with map). 12 Beldiceanu & Beldiceanu-Steinherr, “Recherches sur la Morée 1461–1512”.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

55

26 mücerreds, and 22 widows. Besides these groups there were 28 Christian guards of the sea shore (müsellem-i yalı) and 25 müsellem-i iskele (guards of the harbour). Altogether this is 927 households with a total population of 4,080 to 4,630 civil inhabitants. On top of that came a garrison of 91 men including the commander, officers and two imams, all of them Muslims.13 Instead of stagnating or declining miserably, the population of the town had more than doubled in the 53 years between 1458 and 1514 and thus become the largest town of the entire Morea! The similarly important town of Corinth had 370 households in 1514. In 1521 Mistra, the capital of the Palaiologue Despotate of the Morea, had 611 households. In 1532, when Sultan Süleyman and the bulk of his army were busy in Hungary and besieging the small but strong walled town of Köszek / Günz on the Hungarian-Austrian border, the Knights of Saint John of Malta took the opportunity of attacking some of the rich fortified Ottoman port towns in the southern Aegean, an action that triggered an all-out war between the Western maritime powers and the Ottomans, in which Venice, the Pope, the Spaniards and the Genoese also became involved. Some of the Greek “Short Chronicles” give information that is lacking elsewhere. The bulk of these so-called Bracheia Chroniká were collected and published by Peter Schreiner in three sizeable volumes, with the original Greek texts, complete German translations and a critical apparatus. Chronicle No 63 A, part 5, says “In the year 7040 (1532 AD) the Maltese made a foray to Modon” (the former Venetian bulwark).14 Modon was taken in a surprise attack, breaking through the town wall, but the offenders could not take the ˙Iç Kale citadel. Before retreating the knights carried off 1,600 Muslim inhabitants as slaves.15 This number of slaves seems to be credible. According to the register T.D. 367 of 1530, Modon had 208 households of civilians, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Gypsies, or about 930 persons, and a garrison of 646 men, including officers and gunners, all Muslims, amounting to a total of 1775 persons.16 This could mean that indeed 1600 persons were carried off and that 175 men remained in the Citadel, which the Maltese were unable to take. It is well known that among slaves captured on Ottoman territory, no difference was made between Christians and Muslims. All were declared to be lawfully taken slaves, correct or not.17 Chronicle 63 A, art. 8 notes:

13 14 15 16 17

T.D. 390, 1514. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: vol. 1, 486; vol. 3, 101. Bées, “Modon”: 217. T.D. 367, 1530: 127, 132. Mikropoulos et al. (eds.) Elevating and Safeguarding Culture Using Tools of Information (Ioannina 2008): “Notarial Acts on Slave Trading” (130–146) and “Muslim slaves: Trade, Domestic slavery and Christianisation” (with rich bibliography): 272–275.

56

Machiel Kiel

“In 7041 (1533), on the 19th of September, on a Friday, came (the Genoese Admiral) Andrea Doria and conquered Koron. And he conquered it with 20 ships and 40 large sailing ships and further 20 large ships and 40 other large and small ships [= 120 ships].”18

A part of Doria’s troops landed on the flat foreland jutting out in the sea in front of the castle, and broke through the defenses. Before their retreat they carried off the entire garrison and civil population to Sicily. In 1530, the garrison consisted of 375 men, including officers, a contingent of Azabs and a group of artillerists. Beside them was a group of Muslim civilians, 25 households, 715 Christian households, 36 households of Jews, and 18 households of Gypsies, altogether 794 households, or about 36,000 civilians.19 The illuminated “History of Sultan Bayezid Han” kept in the Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi as Revan Kös¸kü No. 1272, fol. 28a, contains a very detailed miniature painting by the hand of the famous artist Matrakcı Nasuh showing the castle of Koron as it was on the eve of the conquest. Chronicle 63 A, Part 9 mentions: “And on the third of October he (Doria) came with the fleet to Patras. It was on a Wednesday and he plundered the district around the town and captured young and old (adults and children). And the fortress, that is the Janissaries, capitulated on October eighth. And he took the Turks that where in it, and found women and children in an encampment and he took with him all what they had with them and everything else that was in the castle. And the Jews he sold them (as slaves) for 4,000 Florin in Zakyntos.”20

Part 10 of the same Chronicle: “And on the 29th of October he (Doria) sailed away with his fleet and went to the Castle of the Morea (the castle built in 1499 / 1500 by Sultan Bayezid II to control the entrance of the Gulf of Corinth). It capitulated and he took the Turks who were in it. And he also went against the castle on the other side near Naupaktos, fought and conquered it with violence and killed 312 men who were inside, and destroyed both fortifications.”21

In Ramadan 941 / July 1534 an army under command of Yahya Pas¸azâde Mehmed Bey, commander of Semendire (Smederevo) and conqueror of Slavonia, attacking from land and from sea, succeeded to regain Koron by treaty. The Spanish garrison was guaranteed free conduct. After this event the weakly fortified suburb of Livadia on the flat foreland was abandoned and a new line of very heavy fortifications was erected in front of the weak Venetian defenses. A part of these new defenses, two enormous rondelles, still standing today, with one of them in ruins, because it was blown up in World War II by the Wehrmacht, and the other one fully intact. 18 19 20 21

Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: vol, 1, 484; vol. 3, 101. BOA, Muhasebe Defter 367: 136 and 142. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: vol. 1, 484; vol. 3, 101. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: vol. 1, 484; vol. 3, 101.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

57

The result of all these events was that the Ottomans strengthened and modernized a large number of coast fortifications and fortified towns beginning with the “Kastel Mora” just a few miles east of Patras, and including the castles on the west coast of Anatolia (Çes¸me), at the mouth of the Dardanelles, in the great port town of Thessaloniki, along the coast of the Peloponnese (Morea) and the Ionian and Adriatic Sea (Koron, Modon, Navarino, Preveza, Avlonya / Valona) in Albania and Hersek Novi at the entrance of the Boka Kotorska, now Montenegrin territory. Most of these fortresses still exist today and the Ottoman building accounts of some of them have been preserved and even published.22 The raids of the Western maritime powers ended after the Battle of Preveza in 1538, where the Ottoman Admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa destroyed the Armada of Andrea Doria and made the coasts of the Empire safe for the following 30 years (until the disastrous Battle of Lepanto). The last sixteenth-century tahrir of the Morea, containing information on Patras and its district, is T.D. 607, an almost completely preserved detailed (mufassal) register from 1583. It shows that the city had continued to grow but the composition of the population had changed greatly. Traces of Andrea Doria’s raid in 1532 are still visible in the number of Jewish households (down from 252 households in 1514 to 150 in 1583). The Christian community, however, had grown from 927 households to 1,303 (including 68 müsellemân). Curious enough the civil Muslim households do not appear in 1583. The defter seems to be complete, starting with the tug˘ra, the monogram of the ruling Sultan, than a survey of the various books of law (kanunnâmes) followed on p. 12 to 29 by a detailed description of all the different groups of people, including a long note of the status of these people. Then follow the 20 mahalles of Christians with the names of the heads of households and the unmarried adult males given person by person. From another source we know that there were three Muslim mahalles in the town. On p. 117 a survey of the Muslim pious foundations (vakf) is given, 9 vakfs in all. The revenue producing property of these vakfs is mentioned, in almost all cases first of all plots of land planted with olive trees, plots of arable land, gardens and houses inside the castle. Unfortunately the names of the objects for whose maintenance the vakfs were made are not mentioned. For this kind of information we have to wait until Evliya Çelebi describes Patras. The patrons of the Muslim foundations largely came from the military: Beys, Pashas, and the Gunner Hamza, but also a Kadi and Helvacı Sinan Bey, maker or seller of the popular sweet helva. Helvacı Sinan must have been a wealthy man. He had a hamam built near the Great Mosque of Sultan Mehmed II. This bath was given to 22 Kiel, “The Building Accounts of the Castle of Vlorë / Avlonya (S. Albania) 1537–1539”, Kiel, “Kastel-i Mora – Mora Kasteli – Burgaz-i Cedîd according to the Ottoman building account B.O.A., MAD 523 from 1537”.

58

Machiel Kiel

exploitation for 4000 akçe rent per year. Finally a Mehmed Bey had founded a dervish convent, a zaviye, and donated the rent of houses and the production of 110 olive trees to the vakf of this convent. Taken together this information points to a sizeable and active Muslim community. We can safely assume that between 1514 and 1583 the civil Muslim community of Patras had grown from 76 households to 200, or a bit more. As a whole the city had grown from 927 to 1,633 households, or roughly from 4,200 inhabitants to 8,000. It is good to remember the description of Ottoman Patras in Wikipedia (“Generally, the first period of Turkish rule (1460–1687) was miserable”23) and compare it with the picture given by neutral administrative sources one can fathom how far Greece still has to go to come to a more realistic picture of its history. In the spring of 1668 Evliya Çelebi, coming via Corinth and Vostítza, and going southward to Arkadia, Navarino and twin towns Koron and Modon, visited Balyabadra and gives a fairly detailed description of it.24 His sections on the etymology of the town’s name and the remarks on its history are of interest for the folklorist. For the historian they are wrong and worthless (P. was founded by the Doge of Venice, and in 1457 conquered by Sultan Bayezid II (ruled 1481–1512, etc).25 Evliya then noted that Patras was a very well organized and prosperous city (gâyet mazbût ve ma’mûr ¸sehirdir). It was an open town situated near the shores of the “Venetian Gulf” and dominated by a castle 1000 paces inland on an almond-shaped elevation. The castle was built of large blocks of Sheddâdi26 stone and was very strong and beautiful. Evliya is clearly referring to the many ancient blocks (“as big as elephants”27) and giant drums of antique columns that everywhere are used in the construction. In the castle were hundred stone-built houses and a garrison of 200 men. Evliya also mentions a mosque built by Bayezid II just outside the inner citadel / ˙Iç Kale, with a small hamam nearby and (at the right lateral wall of the mosque) a fountain, a “source of life” (aynü’l-hayât).28 The castle of Patras was on three sides surrounded by the houses of the open town (varos¸) and on the site facing the sea was full of gardens and vineyards. He continues saying

23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patras#Middle_Ages_and_early_modern (consulted online in June, 2018). 24 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII, 130–133. 25 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII: 130. 26 Sheddâd was a mythological King, known to have made the likewise mythological Garden of I˙rem. 27 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII, 131. 28 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmes: VIII, 131.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

59

“this great harbour city has in all 3000 beautiful stone-built houses with one or two floors and roofs covered with roof tiles (keremidi), richly decorated and excellent and prosperous mansions, joyfull for its inhabitants.”29

The number of houses would give 12,000–13,000 inhabitants which is definitely exaggerated. More reliable is Evliya’s description of the public buildings of the town: “First is the Mosque of the Father of Conquest Sultan Mehmed at the beginning of the market district, an old place of worship which formerly was a church. Than follows the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II Veli at the I˙çkale. Than follows the Mosque of Pirî Kethüdâ in the Varos¸. It has lead-covered domes and a gilded half moon on top and a delicate and artistically made minaret. Than follows the newly made Mosque of S¸eyh Efendi near the Mosque of the Kethüdâ, whose pious founder is still alive, a richly decorated and prosperous building. Than follows the pleasant stone build, delicate and skillfully made Mosque of Ibrahim Çavus¸ and the Mosque of the Tannery (debbâg˘hâne) which has a large congregation. Besides these there are four mesdjids.”30

Until this point the description is controllably correct. What follows is not. Evliya continues stating there were four medreses in the town and overloads them with words of praise: Der alem-i dâru’l-ulûm-i müfessirân: Cümle dört aded medrese-i muhaddisân-i tâlibândır. He then continues writing down the number of the other institutions of Muslim life: 5 mekteps, four dervish convents, three hamams, two great hans for the merchants and up to 300 shops for the craftsmen.31 A shadow falls over this list when we see that the official Ottoman list of medreses in Rumeli, composed just two years before Evliya’s visit to Patras, has no medrese at all in this place.32 From the four dervish convents Evliya mentions one by name, that of S¸eyh Efendi which was newly made and must have been near his mosque in the town. The hamams are also given by name, from which we may conclude that they really existed and were not used as a tool to make the image of this town richer and more impressive. They were the Hamam of Bayezid II in the castle, the Hamam of Ahmed Efendi in the Tannery Mahalle and the Hamam of Pirî Kethüda. One of these hamams still exists today in the Upper Town (Ano Poli) on the Boukaouri Street 29 and still functions as bath. The building was restored at the beginning of the 20th century and lastly in 1997. A second hamam is known to have existed in the Kato Poli but was demolished because of lack of customers.33

29 30 31 32 33

[Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII, 131. [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII, 131. [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: VIII, 131. Özergin, “Eski bir Ru¯znâmeye göre I˙stanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”: 266, 281. Mikropoulos et al., Elevating and Safeguarding Culture: 432–433.

60

Machiel Kiel

In 1675, seven years after Evliya’s visit Dr. Jacob Spon and the English nobleman George Wheler visited Patras and left a similarly large account. Besides a description of the castle they confirm Evlia’s number of mosques in the town, six. They also noted the large Jewish population and that there were four synagogues. The Jews formed about one third of the entire population of the town. The two travelers estimated the total population at 4,000 to 5,000 persons, much less than Evliya’s inflated numbers but closer to reality. They also noted that there were consuls from England, France and Venice (to which Holland should be added).34 In the early 1680s Bernhard Randolph visited Patras and noted that the town stands on a hill about a quarter of a mile from the sea and covered a surface of two miles long, including the castle. Randolph, with a good eye for agriculture and with military experience, had different interests than Evliya, or the pharmacist Spon and the academic Wheler. He noted that: “The castle is well built having very high Walls, to the eastward is a dry ditch with a low Wall, towards the Sea is a round Tower well built, high and strong, which has Six very long Guns to command the Road, but they lye too high to do any harm to Ships, except a Shot should chance to hit any of the masts. … The Plain is very delightsome, having many pleasant gardens with all sorts of fruits. The largest, and best lemons are here of any place in the Morea. At the Seaside there are only a few Store houses … There are no Fortifications by the Sea side nearer than the Castles at the Gulph. In the Summer time there is a continual Watch by the Sea side, of both Horse and Foot; the town divided into several parties, one Party (of Guards) goes down every night scouting along the Marine, not suffering any boats to come ashore till it be Day.”35

In 1687, during the long war against the Christian coalition (1683–1699) the Venetians under the redoubtable admiral Francesco Morosini, Patras and the entire Morea was taken. The Great Mosque (from Mehmed the Conqueror) was changed into the church of the H. Andreas, the patron saint of the town. The Kurs¸unlu Cami, in the pre-Ottoman period the Church of the Pantocrator, was changed into the church of San Marco. This church-mosque was several times changed and partially rebuilt but still exists. The Muslim population of the town either fled or perished. The Jews of Patras diminished drastically, mainly through emigration (see infra). In 1702 the Venetians under their able commander Grimani had a new census made of the population of the entire Morea, describing in great detail the population of each town and each village, divided in males and females and in age groups. The Venetian Archivio di Stato keeps the result from this census as:

34 Spon & Wheler, Italienische/Dalmatinische/Griechische und Orientalische Reise-Beschreibung: 2–4 (also in English, French and Dutch translation). 35 Randolph, The Present State of the Morea, called anciently the Peleponnesus (Oxford 1686): 3–4.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

61

“Libro Ristretti della Famiglie e animi effettive in … territori del Regno di Morea”. The town of “Patrasso, citta i borgo” had 1041 (Christian) families and a total of 3,432 inhabitants, including the youngest children as well. This gives 3.38 people per family, which is very low and points to a slowly declining population. This decline is also shown by a number of the towns in the Morea. The villages had in general a slightly higher number of people, 4.2–4.4 per family. In the neighbour district of Vostítsa, with 876 households and 3,916 inhabitants it stood at 4.47 inhabitants per family but with a similar male-female relation. In all it can be seen that in 1702 the number of Christian inhabitants of Patras-town had more or less remained as seen by Spon and Wheler and by Randolph but that Muslims and Jews were reduced to zero. When in the summer of 1715 the Ottoman Army under Damat Ali Pas¸a returned to the Morea they took it in a “military walk”, without encountering great resistance and were usually welcomed or actually assisted by large sectors of the Orthodox population who detested their Venetian masters, described in 1704 so eloquently by a traveler, the French nobleman and diplomat Aubri De La Motraye. De La Motraye, staying in 1709 some days in port of Modon, found that the Greeks of Modon “prayed for their return under Turkish domination”, who demanded low taxes and left them to live the manner they wanted. They added that “Venetian soldiers are quartered in our houses, their officers rape or abduct our wives and daughters, their priests speak against our religion and constantly urge us to embrace theirs, which the Turks never did, leaving us all possible freedom”.

The helmsman of the ship told De La Motraye that the Greeks of the island of Zante (Zaklisse) had much the same complaints against Venetian rule.36 What the Moreot Christians really thought is difficult to say. Maybe the Ottomans were “the lesser evil”. On top of this came the behavior of the Ottomans. Instead of simply requiring provisions (as the Venetians had done) the Vizier paid very well for everything and treated the Moreot population not as beaten enemies but as Ottoman subjects.37 In Patras, as well as in other Morean towns, the churches changed again, this time into mosques. It was in the courtyard of the church / mosque Kurs¸unlu Cami that the renown Ottoman historian Na’îmâ, who in the function of bookkeeper came with the army to Patras and died there, was finally buried in the yard of this mosque.38

36 [Aubry De La Motraye], Voyages du Sr De La Motraye: vol. I, 462. 37 Brue, Journal de la campagne que le Grand Vesir Ali Pacha; see also: Finlay, Greece under Venetian and Ottoman domination: 269–271. 38 Thomopoulos, Istoria tis poleos Patrou; Bursalı Mehmed Tahir, Osmanlı Müellifleri III: 109– 110; I˙ps¸irli, “Naîmâ”: 316–318.

62

Machiel Kiel

In 1716, immediately after the re-conquest, an Ottoman commission wrote down a list of ruined or deserted houses of which the original owners were still traceable.39 They noted 232 deserted houses or ruins of houses of Turks, now partly rebuilt by Christians. 48 houses stood in the castle, the remainder in the open varos¸. After them came 57 houses of Jews of whom 23 were still occupied by Jews, the other 34 were partly in ruins, partly rebuilt by Christians. The latter had 379 houses. In all there were 668 houses that could still be recognized. The Muslims had thus before 1686 constituted 35 % of the town’s population.40 The same source mentions also 244 shops, the latter coming close the numbers of shops as given by Evliya. The Ottoman Archives in Istanbul also preserved a special register made in 1716 about the number of “tax houses” for the “Avâriz-i Divâniye ve tekâlif-i Örfiye.” The document, unknown hitherto, has the title ˙Icmal-i hâneha-iʿAvârizi Kaza-i mezkûrîn der Vilâyet-i Mora and has the signature Babi Defter, Mevkûfât Kalemi 28143. On p. 79 we find the town of “Balyabadra itself” counting nine mahalles and two separate groups. The Christians are registered as nefer-i zimmi (“number of non-Muslim subjects”) which in this specific context means a group of households forming a “tax house”. In total 319 of these units are registered of whom 296 were Christians and only 23 Jews. Very often—but not always—five real households formed one “tax-house”. 319 x 5 would give 1,595 real households. When multiplied this with 4.3 for the slow-growing population of that time we would arrive 6,860 inhabitants. If we assume that four real households formed one “tax-house” the population would have been around 5,600 persons. As example for the case of five houses in one tax-house the defter Kepeci 2915 (Mevkufat 369) from 1165 (1752) of the great Kaza of Nikopol on the Danube with two towns (Nig˘bolu and Zis¸tova) and 68 villages might be cited. At each settlement this register gives the number of households and the number of taxhouses, place by place. There are several other registers of the same kind and age preserved about Trikala and Larissa and more districts. In the year 1745 the English traveler Richard Pococke described Patras and its garden belt as an “unhealthy town in a swampy plain”. On the town’s population he has interesting information not found elsewhere. From the Archbishop he heard that Patras had 12 parish churches, each one having 80 families which gives a total of 960 families. This would be the equivalent of 4,000–4,500 Christian inhabitants. In the town were also “some ten Jewish families and roughly 250 families of Turks” to which Pococke adds in brackets “who are not the best 39 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v. 40 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

63

sort”.41 Together the town would have had 5,500 inhabitants or only a bit bigger than the level it had in 1514. This makes us suspicious about the numbers given by the Archbishop. When compared with the numbers of inhabitants given by Leake and Hobhouse (see below) the size of the numbers of Jews and Turks look rather minimized. In 1805 the English officer William Martin Leake, known for his rich information and reliable numbers, noted that “Patras is the most populous town of Greece southward of Ioánnina. It contains about 10,000 inhabitants, of whom a third are Turks, the rest Greeks with a few Jews”.42 It is interesting to see that a good observer as Leake came to the same estimate of the Muslim population as the 1716 tahrir. The economy of Patras was dominated by the export of currants, five million pounds every year. “Silk … was the next in importance to currants … The other articles exported from this district are wool, wax, leather, and … juniper berries … The plain produces also cotton and tobacco”.43 Three years later another English traveller, J. C. Hobhouse mentions that Patras had “about 8,000 inhabitants of whom 1,000 are Turks and the remaining Greeks with a few Jews and also some Franks.”44 In volume Vof his great Voyage dans la Grèce Pouqueville gives an overview of the economy of Patras of the year 1814. He noted that “Today Patras is the principal place of the Morea for trade. It has connections with Trieste, Ancona, Naples, Livorno, Genua, Marseille, and the Ionian Islands, which give it a special character”. Patras had also a lively contact with the Greek mainland with Lepanto (Navpaktos), (Salona (Amphissa) and Livadia. The main products exported, in order of importance were: raisins with a value of 840,000 piasters, wheat and barley, with 350,000, silk 120,000, cotton with 65,000 linen with 34,000 and cheese, with 60,000, with a total value of 1,469,000 piaster.45 Before the beginning of the Greek War of Independence, 1821, Patras is said to have had 18,000 inhabitants, two thirds Greeks and 6,000 Turks. At that time it was the biggest and most prosperous city of the Peloponnese, which was also observed by Leake.46 Patras was the first city that joined the revolt against Ottoman rule (April 1821), a movement that developed into the stubbornly fought Greek War of Independence and led to the almost total destruction of the town. When in 1822 the German traveler Ludwig Steub visited the town he noted: “Pátrai consists solely of the ruins of five mosques, fallen down churches, derelict houses and 41 42 43 44 45 46

Pococke, A descriptions of the East: 176. Leake, Travels in the Morea: II, 140. Leake, Travels in the Morea: 141–142. Hobhouse, Journey through Albania and other Provinces of Turkey: 212–237. Pouqueville, Voyage dans la Grèce: V, Péloponèse, 44. Leake, Travels in the Morea: II, 125–150.

64

Machiel Kiel

only a few repaired and inhabited dwellings.”47 This statement pertains only to the old town of Patras. The adjacent new town remained largely undamaged. In 1828, immediately after the end of the war, the rebuilding of Patras on a regular grit-plan started under the guidance of the first president of the New-Greek state, Capo d’Istrias. With its arcaded streets and squares the resurrected town attained a certain Italian flavor. In 1830 the French Expédition Scientifique de Morée made the first modern census of the population of all the settlements of the Peloponnese. Together with its 118 mostly small villages the Patras province contained 2,832 families of whom the town had 437 families, or about 1,900–2,000 inhabitants.48 In short: In 1830 Patras was again at the level it had three hundred years before. In his great work Kâmûsu’l-a’lâm Sami Bey Frashëri gives the total population of Patras as 26,000 and notes that the city had a very fine harbor and a great trade with dried grapes, figs and other fruits.49 By that time Patras had definitely recovered and was on the road to further expansion. In 1961 Patras had 95,000 inhabitants. In the 1960s the town got a modern new harbour and a number of industries as well as a university. At the end of the 20th century the growing number of ships led to the construction of a third harbour. In 2017 Patras had 168,034 inhabitants.50

Monuments The Castle of Patras As result of the many destruction of historical monuments Patras has only a few monuments preserved. From the antique times an odeon survived. If the church / mosque of the Pantocrator, alias Kurs¸unlu Mosque still contains surviving parts of the Byzantine church or even the Ottoman alterations and additions, can only be established when the entire inner plastering of the walls and domes is removed. This was actually done a decade ago in the venerable Church of St. Sophia in the Bulgarian capital, bringing to light the fact that almost the entire northern lateral wall of the church was not from the Early Christian time and not of the medieval Bulgarian period, but from a major repair by Siyavus¸

47 48 49 50

Steub, Bilder aus Griechenland: 229–230. Expédition Scientifique de Morée, Section des sciences physiques: II, 85–87. [S¸emseddin Sâmî], Kâmûsü’l-A’lâm: II, 1454. http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/greece-population/cities/ (consulted online on June 22, 2018).

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

65

Pasha, Beylerbey of Rumeli in 1580–1582 and Grand Vizier between 1582–1593.51 ˇ acˇak Something similar was done a few decades ago in the small Serbian town of C on the Zapadna Morava River, where the 14th century church of the Ascension of Christ changed two times into a mosque and three times to a church. In 1992 a thick coat of early 20th century plaster was removed from the choir of the church and the almost complete 14th century choir became visible again. This led to cleaning of the entire church and to the removal of the ugly early 20th century wooden dome on top of the original one. During the works it became clear that the greater part of the building was the 16th century single domed Ottoman Mosque of Turali Bey, Sandjak Bey of Pozˇega, which had incorporated the 14th century choir. The whole story of this church / mosque was told by Delfina Rajic´ and Milosˇ Timotijevic´ in a nicely illustrated booklet of 94 pages and a text of high scientific level.52 In Greece, with its very influential Greek Orthodox Church, a similar operation is most unlikely. The great monument of Patras’ long history is the great castle rising on a hill overlooking the city centre. It covers an irregular triangular space which form is dictated by the shape of the hill. It measures about 230 x 90 meters. The three corners are protected by round and polygonal bastions, able to bring out gun fire. The north-eastern of the castle contains a separately defendable citadel called ˙Iç Kale, which is protected by five towers. The castle as a whole is a jigsaw puzzle of repairs of the more than thousand years of its existence. It was studied and described in detail by Antoine Bon, Kevin Andrews and Myrto GeorgopoulouVerra.53 Andrews described in some detail the “Round Artillery tower” on the extreme northern end of the castle, than repeats Randolph’s clear description of it (well built, high and strong with six very long guns to command the road). Further on Andrews notes that “the bastion itself belongs to the artillery period, and may be a relic of the short Venetian occupations of 1406–1414 and 1417–1419, though the

51 Fingarova, Die Baugeschichte der Sophienkirche in Sofia: 160–164, fig. 282, 283. Fingarova picked the wrong person as restorer of the great church. The real one was Kanijeli Siyavus¸ Pasha, who with intervals was Grand Vizier between 1582 and 1593. Before 1582 he had been Beylerbeyi of Rumeli, residing in Sofia. During his Grand Vizierate he was certainly able to finance the far-reaching and expensive restoration of the venerable old building, which he must have known very well since his stay in Sofia. For the dates of the appointments and dismissal see the handy—but not entirely reliable—work of I˙smail Hâmi Danis¸mend: Osmanlı Devlet Erkânı: 22–24. ˇ acˇak. 52 Rajic´ & Timotijevic´, Crkva Svetog Vasnesenja Hristovo u C 53 Bon, La Morée franque; Andrews, Castles of the Morea: 116–134; Georgopoulou-Verra, The Kastro at Patras (well-produced 40-page booklet with excellent photographs and ground plans showing in colours the five main construction periods).

66

Machiel Kiel

parapets are a later Turkish addition.”54 In the following section Andrews tells more of the Turkish building activity at the castle: “The Turks added the entrance gate in the east side of the circuit (of walls), the hexagonal bastion, the taluts (slopes) adjacent to it on the west, and portions of the curtain (wall) just beyond, a 40-foot stretch of thickened curtain (wall) near the west end, the upper half of the north, and the round tower at its mid-point, the 35-foot stretch reconditioned for artillery, immediately to its east, and the parapets of all the curtains of the circuit. The Venetians of 1700 added nothing, but left the fortress in its state of advanced decay.”55

Myrto Georgopoulou, in her well-made booklet from 2000, shows in her descriptions, and very clear on her two detailed maps of the castle, that by far over the half of all the masonry we see today is of Turkish origin and summarizes the whole story in one sentence: “The period of Turkish domination was responsible for most of the modification in almost every part of the Kastro, as well as some important additions of various dates.”56 In the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul there is some source material preserved on the works of strengthening and modernizing the great castle, sources that have remained practically unknown or were not—or could not be—used by those writing about the castle. The volume of building accounts of construction work of the State and preserved in the Belediye Kütüphane as Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları contains the accounts of a large restoration of the “Castle of Balyabadra in the Vilayet of Mora,” written down on 27 Safer of the year 896 (9 January 1491).57 The work was done with a large number of workers between 10 Receb 895 and 17 S¸evvâl 895, or 30 May–3 October of 1490. The workers did their job in four months and five days. A sum of 228,781 akçe, estimated as the total expenditure for the work, was at hand for the work. In 1491 this amount is equivalent to 4,300 Venetian gold ducats.58 The money came from eight different sources in the province, turned over by eight different trusties (emin) to the centre at Patras before the actual work started. This was the asl mal, the initial money. The sums together give the same amount as mentioned at the beginning of the record. The money came partly from the harbour dues of Patras, turned over by the Emin Emrullah, responsible for the harbour dues, partly from a part of the Avariz tax from the kazas of Balyabadra itself, from the kazas of Mezistra / Mistra, Holomiç, Karitena, and Florina intended for the wages of the ırgadân (unskilled daily jobbers) 54 55 56 57 58

Andrews, Castles of the Morea: 126. Andrews, Castles of the Morea: 129. Georgopoulou-Verra, The Kastro at Patras: 25. Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları No O. 91: 584–586. Sahilliog˘lu, “Akçe”: 224–227 (esp. table on p. 227). Cf. also: Bowen, “Akcˇe”: 317–318.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

67

and money from two kazas, Arkadya and Kalamata, to pay for the transport horses, 60 animals in all. After the sources of the money are noted down a detailed list of the purchased materials follows among which we see: French iron, 562 sacks to carry water, and all sorts of tools, i. a. 620 pickaxes and shovels, and the salaries of the stone cutters, masons, carpenters, black smiths etc. The amount of building materials also gives an impression of the size of the work. For “various sorts of timber” 1,111 pieces were needed and 230 pieces of cross-timber and no less than 4,460 light beams / laths, 700 units of reddish paint to colour the lime mortar for plastering, jars or pots for soap, and barrels of cow leather, etc. The height of the various salaries for the craftsmen and day labourers gives a good insight of the social pyramide of the construction trade. The payment was done in akçe, the rate of which in the 1490s was 52 akçe per Venetian gold ducat. A few top quality carpenters received 10 akçe per day, the normal one 7 or 6 akçe, masons got 7, stone cutters 5, chaulk-burners got 6 to 7 and a man with a pack horse 4½, and one with a pack donkey 4 akçe per day. For the good understanding it has to be added that in the same time span an imâm in a mosque received 3–4 akçe per day, in important mosques 5, in mescids 2. A kâtip (secretary) 3–4 akçe etc. A long line of published foundation charters for mosques, mescids, schools and dervish convents gives abundant examples of these salaries. Skilled workers, builders, carpenters definitely received higher wages. Before describing the actual work and its expenditure the register gives a detailed description of the actual state of the castle, and what had to be done, is given, turning the whole existing literature on the castle (Bon 1969, Andrews 1978, Georgopoulou 2000) upside-down. In English translation this highly important text reads as follows: “Account of the repair of the fortress of Balyabadra in the Vilayet of Morea and others, done by Mehmed Bey, Sandjak Beg of the Morea and Hasan Kemânger [H. the Bow Maker], Trusty and Secretary, from the Janissary corps, from 10 Receb to 17 S¸evvâl of the year 895 [30 May–3 October 1490)]. Written on 27 Safer of the year 896 [9 January 1491]. Besides the execution of the order for the erection of the said main tower and the other [smaller] towers and trenches, inside the fortress itself, on the site of old houses, new and bigger residences have been erected for the Princess in accordance with the Imperial order. For the entrenchment of the mentioned ditch, surrounding the old fortress, mattocks and shovels have been provided and when the work was finished [they] all have been collected. This was written according to the letter of the aforementioned Mehmed Çelebi [the Sandjak Bey of the Morea].”59

59 Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları, O91: 584–586.

68

Machiel Kiel

Here a very different pattern arises. According to Andrews the round artillery tower / bastion on the north-western side of the castle was “perhaps a relic of the short Venetian occupations of 1406–1414 and 1417–1419”, but the upper part, the parapet, was “a later Turkish addition.”60 For Georgopoulou the entire round tower was a work of the Venetians. She noted: “At the north-west end of the fort the Venetians built an imposing circular bastion that dominates the town,” and also depicted this very clear on her detailed coloured map.61 The source of the idea that the round bastion was Venetian is evidently the supposition that this work of very fine and regular blocks of stone cannot be Turkish because they (the Turks) were unable to make such high quality work; a way of thinking one comes across often in Greece. The building account is very clear in its description: oldahi [the bastion] illeti olan yere dek yıkılub andan giru yeni yapılup, in English: “the cracked bastion was demolished to the ground and then built anew”.62 Other big points of difference are six heavy towers protecting the Citadel, and the dry ditch in front of the Citadel walls. According to Georgopoulou these towers were Palaeologan but had a Frankish core. The 1491 account has three of them newly built. Yet tower No. 5 at the northern point of the castle remained indeed entirely Palaeologan, and so did the small tower No. 10 on the south side. Georgopoulou tries to show that the entire ditch of the Citadel was Frankish. The 1491 building account is very clear that there was no ditch (hendek) at all. It had to be cut in the rocks and both the inside and the outside of it had to be revetted (covered) with stone and very strong lime mortar. After the exciting introductory words the individual expenditures follow: for the purchases of building material (mübâyât) 161,830 akçe, for the salaries of the carpenters (neccârân) 3,732 akçe, builders (bennanân) 7,279, chalk-burners (gec-rîzân) 4,873, stone-cutters 1,015, masons 18,612, carriers and donkeys for bringing water 3,286, carriers and donkeys for transporting chalk, and stone etc., 22,877, for the salaries of the unskilled workmen 93,834, and a few very small posts. After the expenditure for the repair and modernization of the castle the account from 1491 has a special section that for the Ottomanist historian will come as a surprise. Its content will be given at the end of the next chapter.

60 Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları, O91: 584–586. 61 Georgopoulou-Verra, The Kastro at Patras: 24. 62 Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları, O91: 584–586.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

69

The Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II In the castle of Patras, close to the walls of the citadel, are the ruins of the domed mosque of Sultan Bayezid II, described in the above-mentioned records and in the account of Evliya. As there was no other mosque in the castle the ruins we see today cannot be the building of someone else. Form and architectural elements show that we have to do with a work from the early classical period of Ottoman architecture. The ruins were studied by the Greek veteran-scholar Charalambos Bouras, who carried out a small excavation in the ruins of the mosque, cleaning the work and made visible the true shape of the building. In 2002 / 2003 Drs. Ida Scheltema, Lelystad, Holland, one of the best students of the writer of these lines at the Utrecht University, studied the ruins intensively and produced a very precise ground plan of the building. Together with my own repeated visits of Patras we can come to the following description of the building. All we see today is a piece of masonry of roughly 6.50 m long and 5.40 m high, which is the basis of the minaret and the adjacent parts of the walls of the porch and the prayer hall. In the middle of the place that has been the prayer hall half a dozen big, tons heavy, lumps of masonry lay around. From the document of 1716 we know that the building was not destroyed or demolished by the Venetians and its “four walls and the dome” were still standing.63 In the second Turkish period Patras suffered from a long line of earthquakes: 1743, 1785, 1804, 1805, 1809, 1811 and 1821.64 That of 1743 was by far the most destructive, damaged the castle as well as “the minarets of the mosque of Sultan Mehmed II and Sultan Süleyman and demolished some places of the mosques”.65 The big pieces laying around at the site look for the trained eye as the work of a very violent explosion of black gun powder seven or eight decades ago, or even more likely of TNT (Trinitrotoluol / Trotyl). Most probably the Greek army, using the castle until after 1945, must have used the mosque as a safe store for explosives which blew up either because of a mistake, or was struck by lightning. The same happened with the Mosque of Firuz Bey from 1435 in the castle of Tirnovo in Bulgaria. It could also have been the explosion of the depot of the (highly explosive) Black Gun Powder in 1811, as recorded by Georgopoulou (2000).66 This point has to be left open. The foundations of the entire building were made visible by Bouras’ excavation but are more or less covered again after his work. The total size of the 63 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v. 64 Ambraseys, Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: 559–562. 65 Related in a note in the Maliyeden Müdevver Defter 3609 from 26 Zilhicce of 1155 (21 February 1743), found by Caroline Finkel and used by Ambraseys, Earthquakes: 559. 66 Georgopoulou-Verra, The Kastro at Patras: 16.

70

Machiel Kiel

building was 16.30 m long and 11.40 m wide. The base of the minaret is nearly exact three square meters of which the greater part is incorporated in the mass of the building and juts out beyond the main line of construction just 0.45 m. The preserved masonry shows a curious kind of coarse opus mixtum, layers of little worked stone and boulders alternated by three layers of brick, and a kind of work which tends to become coarse cloisonné. The latter work is mostly used in the upper parts of the structure. The overall impression of the masonry is fairly smooth, executed with a considerable amount of care and skill and certainly belonging to the earlier period of Ottoman architecture. The work reminds us somewhere of that seen in the Macedonian city of Verria (Ottoman: Karaferya) on the still standing remains of the Mosque of Tuzcu Sinan Bey built in 896 (1490 / 1491). The work we see in the Patras mosque is in no way related to the coarse, artless masonry of the buildings of the time following the “reconquista” of 1715. The lower part of the minaret is remarkable for the quality of its fine masonry. This is not the brick-and-stone work of other parts of the building but fine seamless ashlar work, built up of large smoothly cut and polished blocks of gray stone. The part of the building is finished by a simple cornice, above which the work continues in the cloisonné technique. The corners of the minaret base were accentuated by half round colonnettes which give the work an air of well-groomed robustness. The interior of the mosque was not that of a simple domed square. The parts of masonry and the beginnings of arches still stand and tell us that this has been a domed hall of 9.55 square meters, which was preceded by a narrow corridor which must have been covered by a barrel vault. The base of the front hall is still visible. It had a central door, flanked by two windows, which in turn were flanked by five-sided mihrab niches on either side. The middle part of the prayer room proper, thus that behind the actual façade, is not preserved but must have been very similar to the façade, having a central entrance and two windows. The prayer room had two windows in each of the lateral walls. The mihrab wall was very probably blind. The present ruins do not point to the presence of windows there, although this is a rather uncommon feature. At the inside of the mosque the lateral walls of the prayer hall must have been enlivened by a shallow double arcade. The spring of a short arch can still be seen. If we continue the inward curve up and down we arrive at a point which must have been very close to the middle of the hall. So there must have been a corbel to support the arch. From this corbel a second arch started, an arch which reached the other end of the wall thus forming a harmonious symmetrical whole. From a point little above the preserved spring of the arcade springs another, much larger arch. This must have been the arch which once carried one of the pendentives of the dome. The radius of this arch enables us to find the point from where the actual dome started, nine

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

71

meters above ground level. If we cover a space of 9.55 m with a normal hemispheric Ottoman dome we arrive at an interior space height of 13.55 m from floor to summit. With a portico and a high minaret the relatively high structure must have made a stately impression. The portico itself was closed on the right side, formed by a wall in which was a window. The covering of the portico must have been with one central dome, covering the main entrance of the building and on both sides of it two sections with simple cross-vaults, all five elements resting on five round marble columns, as was obligatory for the time the building came into being, around 1500. The barrel vaulted corridor between the open portico and the dome prayer hall links this mosque with some mosques of a much earlier time, such as the famous Green Mosque in I˙znik from 1378, the S¸ah Melek Mosque in Edirne built in 1429, or the Sufilar Mosque in Yambol in Bulgarian Thrace, built in 1485. The latter building does not exist any more but a good photograph, taken when it was being demolished, shows the double porch very clear.67 These in turn go back to the 13th century architecture of the Seljuks of Konya and Central Anatolia where a whole group of examples has been preserved. The chosen form of the portico, with five vaulted sections, must have been used in Patras to give the otherwise relatively small buildings an air of monumentality and a richer inner space, as to stress the building’s quality of being a sultanic foundation. In the Kuyud-ı kadime of 1716 is also information on the fate of some of the mosques of Patras. Before the beginning of the enumeration a short introduction is written: Nefs-i Kale-i Balyabadra, derun-i Kalede olan müsulman haneleri hin-i istilâ harab olmag˘ın hâlî üzere tahrir olunmus¸dur. Câmi’-i S¸erif-iʿAtîk kubbe ve duvarları mevcûd. Hânehâ-ı müslümanân tahmimen 48, hamam 1, harab. “The castle of Balyabadra itself. Because the Muslim houses were ruined after the invasion they were registered as being empty. Houses of Muslims: approximately 48. From the noble Old Mosque the dome and the four walls are extant. (There is one) hamam, which is in ruins.”68

Further on the document mentions the Nefs-i Varos¸-i Balyabadra, Mahalle-i Câm’i-i Fethiye ma’ Mahalle-i Ayvasil, Gebrân 57, hâneha-i Müsleminʿaded 49, hala der yed-i ehl-i kasaba. The “Mosque of the Conquest” was still standing, transformed into church, as may be recalled. Then follow 19 Muslim houses, and 34 houses of Jews which were ruined and where some unbelievers had made

67 Kiel, Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kentsel Gelis¸imi ve Mimari Anıtlar: 99 (photo from 1908 in the collection of the architect Nikola Mushanov). 68 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v.

72

Machiel Kiel

new houses and live in them.69 In the Mahalle of Vlatros Ayo Yorgi 46 hâneha-i Müslümanân hala der yed-i ahali-i kasaba: “46 houses of Muslims, now in the hands of the inhabitants of the kasaba”.70 Then follows three small groups of houses formerly belonging to Muslims, together 29 houses that have been newly built. In the important Mahalle-i Cami-i Kurs¸unlu (also surviving) were 44 houses formerly belonging to Muslims, and a separate group of 4 former Muslim houses and another group of five former Muslims houses as well. The register than mentions a newly built church and a similarly new monastery, as well as a group of 23 houses of Jews, who were still living in Patras.71 There should be no problem with the date of construction and the identity of the founder of the Patras mosque. Sultan Bayezid II had been himself in the Patras area in the summer of 1499, during the Venetian-Ottoman War of 1497– 1502. The Sultan had come with a large army over land via Kavalla, Thessaloniki, Larissa, Thebe in Boeotia and Salona (Amphissa) and blockaded the strong Venetian naval base of Lepanto / Navpaktos and took the town by treaty after the Ottoman fleet had destroyed the Venetian fleet that had come to relieve the town. According to the contemporary historian Bihis¸ti the capitulation of Lepanto (I˙nebahtı for the Ottomans) took place on the 27th of August of 1499.72 According to the other contemporary historian, Oruç Edirnevi, it was on 21 Muharrem of 905 / 28 August 1499.73 After having appointed a Kadi and a dizdâr (fortress commander) and put a strong garrison in the castle the Sultan inspected the area just west of Lepanto where the mouth of the Gulf of Patras was the narrowest (less than two miles) and ordered the construction of two fortresses, one on the mainland side, and one on the Morean side, 8 km north-east of Patras. At the end of summer Bayezid returned with his army the same way they had come. According to the contemporary historian Kemalpas¸azâde the two new castles were completed on 13 Rebi I of 905 (18 October 1499). Provisions were brought in and soldiers of the Azab and Janissary corps were put in. In each of the two castles 20 cannon were placed. With the task completed the rest of the troops left and returned to their places. For the fleet it was too late to return to Istanbul. They wintered 120 km deep in the Gulf of Corinth near the famous Hexamilia. Only one week later the Venetian chancery secretary, Marino Sanuto received the

69 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v. 70 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v. 71 Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128, fol. 3v–20v. 72 [Bihis¸ti], Die Chronik des Ahmed Sinân Çelebi: 163–164. 73 Der Fromme Sultan Bayezid: 118.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

73

news of the completion of the two forts.74 It is not known to us if Bayezid himself came to Patras. He would have had enough time to visit it but it is more likely that the local Muslims from Patras asked him to provide the castle with a mosque because their community was small and had no means to do it themselves. This kind of initiatives “from the bottom up” are frequently found in the Ottoman records. In such cases the Sultan could hardly refuse it. The architectural features of the Patras mosque unanimously point to the early classical phase of Ottoman architecture. The Ottoman sources, noted before, mention that the mosque of Sultan Bayezid II stood inside the castle. Evliya Çelebi in his Seyahatnâme makes clear that it stood very near the entrance to the ˙Iç Kale and adds that attached to the mosque was a fountain with the “Water of Live” flowing out of it.75 At the right side of the mosque ruins, directly attached to it and touching the base of the minaret we still see a large cistern, on the inside covered with waterproof mortar. The hamam, however, mentioned in the Ottoman building accounts, and by Evliya, disappeared long ago and left no trace above earth. The mosque was large enough to accommodate up to 150 adult Muslims. The stylistic features and quality and character of the brickwork and the ashlar masonry fit with the written evidence we have. On top of it comes an Ottoman register from the first half of the 17th century, giving an overview of the Sultanic mosques in the southern half of the Ottoman Balkans that were maintained by the State. It mentions the name of the mosques and their builders, number and functions or the people who worked in these buildings and the source of their salaries. The register MAD 5625, officially called Vazife Defteri, contains 188 pages and includes the “Vilayets of Edirne, Sofya, Selanik, I˙lbasan, Ohrid, Eg˘riboz, Atina, Yenis¸ehir (Larissa), Manastir and Köstendil”. According to the introductory note the register lists “mosques, mescids and zaviyes of the Sultans and of private persons (es¸has)”. With the latter vakfs of Ottoman officials and army commander etc. that had insufficient vakf property to survive, or went “bankrupt” were taken over by the State to safeguard their further existence. On p. 21 of MAD 5625 we read: ʿAn Mukata’a-i Balya Badra: Cami’-i ¸serîf-i merhûm Sultan Bayezid Han der Kal’e-i Balya Badra Hatip, fi yevm 5 akçe, ˙Imâm 4 akçe, Mu’ezzin 2 akçe, ˙Ikince Mu’ezzin 2 akçe. Mu’arrif 3 akçe, Fi sene 1039. “From the (revenue of) the tax farm of Patras: The noble mosque of the late Sultan Bayezid Khan in the castle of Patras: Secretary

74 Barozzi et al. (eds.), I diarii di Marino Sanuto: III, 3840. 75 [Evliya Çelebi], Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi: VIII, 131.

74

Machiel Kiel

per day 5 akçe, the Imam, 4 akçe, the Muezzin 2 akçe, the Second Muezzin 2 akçe, the Mu’arrif 3 akçe, in the year 1039 [1630 AD].”

The money had to be taken from the revenue of the tax farm of Patras. Sultan’s mosques all over the Ottoman Empire had in general no vakfs for themselves but were paid from a part of the tax revenue of the town or district in which the mosque stood. This was from harbour dues, tax of salt pans and more common from the poll tax (cizye) of the Christian population. The presence of a second müezzin and a muarrif (a kind of chorister) point to a mosque of higher rank than normal, underlining its place as Imperial Foundation. It is interesting to see that the ruins of the mosque of the castle of Patras have long been regarded as being the remains of a church. This is related by Georgopoulou, who for tactical reasons left the question open, noting that “[m]any scholars have advanced the view that the preserved ruins belong to the Byzantine church of Ayia Sophia, known from historical sources to have existed inside the castle”.76 She then mentions that during the excavations (of Bouras) was shown that the eastern wall has no apse. In Orthodox church-architecture the apse, housing the altar, is a “must”. The likewise obligatory apse-window is placed in such a way that the early morning light, symbolizing the resurrection of Christ, shines directly on the altar.77 Therefore the church building must be orientated toward the East. This is a question sine qua non. In Roman Catholic and in Protestant churches this rule has been waived since the Enlightenment of the 18th century and seems to be unknown to most (Western) people. Mosques, on the other hand, must be orientated towards Mecca. In Patras this is almost exact the South-East, or 135o of the 360 degrees of the circle. In fact the orientation of the Patras mosque is 115o, or 20 degrees wrong. This is characteristic for mosques built before ca. 1590. Towards the approaching year 1000 of the Muslim calendar a rising fear for the end of the world could be seen in most of the Islamic World. This led to the development of an instrument to find the correct kıbla, exactly showing the degree of the place where one is, a kind of Kıbla Compass, that are now available for two or three Dollars all over the world. After 1000 Hidjri [1592 AD] almost everywhere in the Islamic world mosques are correctly oriented towards Mecca. This, in turn, seems to be totally unknown in the Greek Orthodox world. In her careful argumentation Georgopoulou adds that at the enormous lumps of masonry that lay around in the ruins of the Patras mosque can be seen a regular kind of cloisonné masonry, and parts of a frieze of dent de scie (brick dentil course), a decorative element called in Turkish kirpi saçak that cannot be seen at any other point of the Patras Kastro. The south-east orientation of the

76 Georgopoulou-Verra, The Kastro at Patras: 31. 77 Ouspenskij, “Symbolik des Kirchengebäudes”: vol. X, 56–68.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

75

Patras mosque could have been enough to understand that the ruins in the castle can never have been built as a church, but was a mosque from the outset. At the end of the account of the repair of the castle there is a separate section written in Persian, dealing with Be cihet-i merremet-i saray der nefs- Balyabadra, ma’ hâne ki new sâhte ¸sûd berây-i S¸ehzâde Hatun, zevce-i Mehmed Çelebi bin Ahmed Pasha, Mirlivâ-i Mora. In English this is: “For the repair of the palace in the town of Patras itself and the newly made house for the Lady, daughter of the Sultan and spouse of Mehmed Çelebi, son of Ahmed Pasha, Sandjak Bey of the Morea.”78 The surprise is not only the hitherto unknown presence of an Ottoman palace in Patras but more the people for whom it was made. This was the famous couple Mehmed Bey and Selçuk Hatun, daughter of Sultan Bayezid II, the great builders of the Macedonian city of Serres, Siroz for the Ottomans, who in that city erected some of the largest and most imposing monuments of Ottoman architecture of which the giant mosque still stands. Our document from 1491 is a bit vague about the identity of the princess. About her husband, Mehmed Bey, little is known and what has been written about his origin is mistaken. Yet with help of the vakfîye of the princess, published in 1952 by Tayyib Gökbilgin and the building inscription of the great Serres mosque from 1492 these problems can be solved. Selçuk Hatun, daughter of Sultan Bayezid II, was born about 874 / 1469 as sister of the later Sultan Selim I.79 She married at an early age with Ferhad Bey, an able soldier from Bosnian origin with whom she since 1480 had a son, Hüsrev, born in Serres (Siroz) the town where his father and mother resided.80 Hüsrev lateron became known as Gazi Hüsrev Bey, the great conqueror and patron of Islamic civilization and second founder of Sarajevo, where nearly all his buildings, including his fantastically rich Gazi Hüsrev Library, survived the Bosnian War of 1991 / 1995. Being married to a daughter of the Sultan Ferhad Bey automatically rose to the lofty rank of damad (son-in–law). Bayezid gave him 11 villages in Eastern Macedonia, around Serres and Zihni, as mülk (full property).81 Ferhad Bey fell in 1485 in the Battle of Adana against the Mamluks. The overthrow of the Ottoman army at Adana was by the West regarded as “the greatest defeat ever inflicted upon the Ottoman House.”82 After this event the property right over the 11 villages went partly to Selçuk Hatun, partly to Hüsrev Bey. Selçuk Hatun remarried soon (last months of 1485) with Mehmed Bey, son of Ahmed Pasha as also stated in the 1491 document. In the existing literature, 78 79 80 81 82

Muallim Cevdet Yazmaları No. O. 91: 586. Teksarı, ˙Istanbul Türbeleri: 197. Okiç, “Gazi Hüsrev Bey”: 453/54.3. Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Pas¸a Livâsı: 185. Har-El, Struggle for the domination of in the Middle East: 134–143 and 147.

76

Machiel Kiel

Mehmed is held to be a son of a not further identified Mustafa Pasha.83 The key to the correct identification of our Mehmed Bey is the large-size building inscription in Arabic, placed over the main entrance of the great mosque of Serres (locally often called “Aya Sophia Mosque” because of its enormous dome). This text was published by the writer of these lines in 197184 in a leading Greek historical periodical. The text is very clear. The lines giving the name of the founder and his father run as follows (Arabic): Jâmi’ hâdha Mehmed Bey banâ ibn Ahmed Pasha sultan al-ghuzât Asaf al-I˙slâm, nasr al-ʿâbidîn “This mosque has been built by Mehmed Bey Son of Ahmed Pasha, the Sultan of the Ghazis The Asaf of Islam, the help of the worshippers”

The year of construction is contained in a chronogram Jâmi’ al-abrâr dâr al hâmidîn “The Mosque of the pious, the house of the glorifiers” yielding 898 (1492 / 1493). The mentioned year begins on 23 October 1492 and ends at 12 October 1493. In fact the building is a monument to glorify his father, the great warrior and conqueror Gedik Ahmed Pasha who in a struggle for power was eliminated on order of the Sultan, November 1482. Gedik Ahmed was a Serbian by origin and was born in the village of Punosˇevci, 10 km south-east of the little town of Vranje (I˙vranye in Ottoman). He had a brilliant career in the Ottoman army, was from 1474 to 1477 Grand Vizier of the Empire and left behind him a large number of great buildings—mosques, schools, baths etc.—of which those in Afyonkarahisar are the most imposing and best preserved.85 His Friday Mosque in the town of Vranje and the mesdjid in his native village were demolished soon after the Serbian conquest of the Vranje-Presˇevo district in 1878. Gedik Ahmed was adored by the soldiers in a way comparable with Erwin Rommel in World War II, and is one of the favourites of the scholar to which this volume of Ottoman Studies is dedicated. Selçuk Hatun and Mehmed Bey (in the 1491 account also called Mehmed Çelebi, which better fitted the husband of a princess), must have lived a number of years in Serres before Mehmed was appointed governor of the Morea. They were at least in May of 1490 in Patras and must have come there at least a year earlier. They were still there in January of 1491. A term of four, five years as 83 Gökbilgin, Edirne ve Pas¸a Livâsı: 185; Uluçay, “Bayazid II.nin Ailesi”: 118; Teksarı, ˙Istanbul Türbeleri: 197. 84 Kiel, “Observations on the History of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule”: inscription on p. 435. 85 Reindl-Kiel, “Gedik Ahmed Pas¸a”: 543/54; Tanman, “Gedik Ahmed Pas¸a Külliyesi”: 544–547.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

77

provincial governor was rather common in the Ottoman system. Selçuk Hatun was at least in October 1508 back in Serres and had in that month the vakfiye for her foundation made. The great mosque of Mehmed Bey in Serres was the focal point of a large compound consisting of the mentioned mosque equipped with guestrooms, and a college of higher learning—medrese—of 12 student cells, a primary school, a large hamam and an imaret where free food was distributed to staff and students and to travelers and to the poor of the city. The medrese was in fact erected by Selçuk Hatun and is separately mentioned in the 1508 vakfiye of the princess. There are several examples of religious, social and educative compounds where both the founder and his wife together had made the buildings.86 The case of Selçuk Hatun was different. Besides sponsoring the medrese she planned a group of buildings in her own name: a dervish convent (zaviye), and a building with rooms that could be heated in the winter (tab-hâne) and in between these buildings a mescid. The three buildings are mentioned in the vakfiye she had drawn up in the month of Recep of 914 (26 October 1508). The medrese was financed by Selçuk and provisions for its maintenance and the salaries of the staff worked out in detail. It must have been functioning in 1492 / 1493. Medrese and mosque must have given the impression of one compound of which there were many in Ottoman architecture. It must have been opposite the great mosque but nothing is left above earth. The plot where it stood is still visible, now a wild garden. On the east side it was flanked by the mektep. The four walls of it and the springs of the dome (since long collapsed) are still visible, now a stinking ruin standing just behind a large benzine station. In 1508 the three buildings mentioned in the vakfiye still had to be built. “The expenditure for the zaviye that is to be built on a suitable place in Serres, and the mescid between the zaviye and the tabhâne, the salaries of its imam, muezzin, kayyum and serrac, and the ¸seyh of the zaviye and the expenditure for the food to be cooked”87

had to be paid by the surplus income of the foundation (including the revenue of the 11 villages near Serres and Zihne). Selçuk’s son Hüsrev Bey, than 28 years of age, was to be the mütevelli (trusty) of the complex. We do not know if all the three buildings were indeed made because from zaviye and tabhâne no trace remains. The mescid must later have been upgraded to a mosque, as happened at many places, especially since the 1530’s. The building was locally known as the Mosque of Selçuk Hatun. 86 Necipog˘lu, The Age of Sinan: complex of I˙smihan Sultan and Sokollo Mehmed Pasha in Kadırga (331–345) and complex of Shah Sultan and Zal Mahmud Pasha (368–376) both in Istanbul and dating from the second half of the 16th century, and both works of the great Mimar Sinan. 87 Gökbilgin, XV–XVI. Asırlarda Edirne ve Pas¸a livâsı: II, 185–186.

78

Machiel Kiel

In 1970 the city architect Nikolas Nikolaos brought the writer of these lines to the place where the mosque had been. This was half way on the main east-wests street, leading from the Kentriko Platia eastward to the great Mosque of Mehmed Bey. In his home on the main street of Serres, opposite the Municipality building the architect had a nice painting of about 30 x 40 cm made by a friend of him in the 1930s and depicting the “Mosque of Selçuk Hatun” as a middle-size single domed mosque with a porch covered with three small domes on four columns, flanked by ordinary houses of the 1930’s. We can be sure that an incorruptible man like Gazi Hüsrev Bey would have executed his mother’s will after 1508. Princess Selçuk Hatun died in 918 (1512) at an age of 45. He brother, meanwhile Sultan Selim II, had a monumental octagonal türbe built for her in the yard of the great Mosque of Bayezid II in central Istanbul, directly after the türbe of Bayezid II and looking as a smaller version of her father’s türbe, which gives ground to suppose that it was built by the same architect as the Sultan’s mausoleum, the well known Mimar Hayreddin. In 1537 Gazi Hüsrev Bey built a great school for higher learning in Sarajevo and called it Selcˇukiya Medrese in honour of his mother. It survived the 1991– 1995 Bosnia War practically undamaged. A sign from above? On the further career of her husband, the Sandjak Bey Mehmed Çelebi, almost nothing is known. He appears only once in the (unpublished) Prosopography of the Ehl-i seyf ve ehl-i kalam of the Ottoman Empire between 1512–1579, from which we learn that he died in 914 which runs between the second of May 1508 to 21 of April 1509.88

Bibliography Sources [Âs¸ıkpas¸azâde], Teva¯rı¯h-i A¯l-iʿOsma¯ndanʿA¯¸sık Pas¸aza¯de Ta¯rı¯hi. I˙stanbul 1332. ¯ ˙ ˘ ˘ [Aubry De La Motraye], Voyage du Sr De La Motraye en Europe, Asia et Afrique. La Haye 1727 (Athens 1888). Barozzi, Nicolò & Fulin, Rinaldo & Berchet, Guglielmo & Federico Stefani (eds.), I diarii di Marino Sanuto. Venezia 1879–1902. [Bihis¸ti,] Die Chronik des Ahmed Sinân Çelebi genannt Bihis¸ti (Übersetzt von Brigitte Moser). München 1980. Brue, Benjamin, Journal de la campagne que le Grand Visir Ali Pacha a faite en 1715 pour la conquète de la Morée. Paris 1870; reprint Athens 1976.

88 Uluçay, “Bayazid II.nin Ailesi”: 123, where the conversion of Hijri to Miladi year is mistaken.

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

79

Der Fromme Sultan Bayezid. Die Geschichte seiner Herrschaft (1481–1512) nach den altosmanischen Chroniken des Oruç und des Anonymus Hanivaldanus (Übers., eingel. und erkl. von Richard F. Kreutel). Graz, Wien, Köln 1978. [Evliyâ Çelebi (b. Dervis¸ Mehemmed Zıllî)], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bag˘dat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu – Dizini (Ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman & Yücel Dag˘lı & Robert Dankoff). I˙stanbul 2003. Expédition Scientifique de Morée, Section des Sciences Physiques, tome II, Geographie et Géologie. Paris 1834. Hobhouse, John C., Journey through Albania and other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia to Constantinople during the years 1809 and 1810 (2 vols.). London 1812. [Kritovoulos], History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Kritovoulos (Translated by Charles T. Riggs) Westport, Connecticut 1954; first Greenwood Reprinting 1970). Leake, William Martin, Travels in the Morea. London 1833. [Mevlana Nes¸rî], Kitâb-ı Cihânnümâ II (Ed. R. Unat & A. Köymen). Ankara 1957. Schreiner, Peter, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken = Chronica byzantina breviora I–III. Wien 1975–1979. [S¸emseddin Sâmî (Frasheri)], Kâmûsü’l-A’lâm. I˙stanbul 1306 / 1889. T.D. = Tapu Defter, 390 from 920 / 1514, p. 5. Published as 390 Numaralı Mora Livâsı I˙cmal Defteri (920 / 1514, Ankara, Defter-i Hâkânî Dizisi: XI, 2007. Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, Ankara, Kuyud-i Kadime, Defter-i Mufassal-i Mora, No 509/15, Cild II, H. 1128. Vom Hirtenzelt zur Hohen Pforte. Frühzeit und Aufstieg des Osmanenreiches nach der Chronik “Denkwürdigkeiten und Zeitläufte des Haus ʿOsman” vom Derwisch Ahmed, genanntʿAs¸ik-Pas¸a-Sohn (Übers., eingel. und erkl. von Richard F. Kreutel). Graz, Wien, Köln 1959. Yıldırım, Hacı Osman et al. (eds.), 5 Numaralı mühimme defteri (973 / 1565–1566). Özet ve ˙Indeks. Ankara 1994.

Studies Ambraseys, Nicholas, Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East. A multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity up to 1900. New York 2009. Ammann, H. “Wie groß war die mittelalterliche Stadt?”, in: Haase, Carl (ed.) Die Stadt des Mittelalters. Darmstadt 1966. Andrews, Kevin, Castles of the Morea. Amsterdam 1978. Babinger, Franz, “Baliabadra”, in: Encyclopedia of Islam (Second edition) I: 992–993. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, “894 (1488/89) yılı Cizye Tahsilâtına âit Muhasebe Bilânçoları”, Belgeler 1/1 (1964): 1–118. Bées, Nikos A., “Modon”, in: Encyclopedia of Islam (Second edition) VII (1993): 217. Beldiceanu, N. & Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irène, “Recherches sur la Morée 1461–1512” Südostforschungen 39 (1980): 17–74. Bon, Antoine, La Morée franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaie (1205–1430). Paris 1969. Bon, Antoine, Le Péloponnèse byzantine jusqu’en 1204. Paris 1953.

80

Machiel Kiel

Bowen, Harald, “Akcˇe”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition I: 317–318. Bursalı Mehmed Tahir, Osmanlı Müellifleri III. I˙stanbul 1975. Danis¸mend, I˙smail Hâmi. Osmanlı Devlet Erkânı. I˙stanbul 1971. Fingarova, Galina, Die Baugeschichte der Sophienkirche in Sofia. Wiesbaden 2011. Finlay, George, Greece under Ottoman and Venetian Domination. London 1856. Georgopoulou-Verra, Myrto, The Kastro at Patras. Athens 2000. Gökbilgin, M.Tayyib, Edirne ve Pas¸a Livâsı Vakıflar-Mülkler-Mukataalar. I˙stanbul 1952. Har-El, Shai, Struggle for the domination of in the Middle East, The Ottoman Mamluk War of 1485–1491. Leiden, New York, Köln 1995. Herlihy, David, Medieval Households. Cambridge Mass., London 1985. I˙ps¸irli, Mehmet, “Naîmâ”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 32 (2006): 316–318. Jochalas, Titos, Über die Einwanderung der Albaner in Griechenland. München 1971. Kiel, Machiel, “A Note on the exact Date of construction of the White Tower of Thessaloniki”, Balkan Studies 14 (1973): 352–357. Kiel, Machiel, “Kastel-i Mora – Mora Kasteli – Burgaz-i Cedîd according to the Ottoman building account B.O.A., MAD 523 from 1537/30”, in: Tuna, Tug˘g. Necdet (ed.) The Balkans and the History of the Balkans from the XIVth century to the Present, XIVth Congress of Military History, Papers 1. Ankara 2014: 131–156. Kiel, Machiel, “Observations on the History of Northern Greece during the Turkish Rule: Historical and Architectural Description of the Turkish Monuments of Komotini and Serres, their Place in the Development of Ottoman Turkish Architecture”, Balkan Studies 12 (1971): 415–444. Kiel, Machiel, “The Building Accounts of the Castle of Vlorë/Avlonya, (S. Albania) 1537– 1539”, in: Çaksu, Ali (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Congress on the Ottoman Culture in the Balkans, Tirana, December 2003. Istanbul 2006: 3–31. Kiel, Machiel, Bulgaristan’da Osmanlı Dönemi Kentsel Gelis¸imi ve Mimari Anıtlar. Ankara 2000. Lauffer, Siegfried (ed.) Lexikon der historischen Stätten von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. München 1989. Mikropoulos, Tassos et al. (eds.) Elevating and Safeguarding Culture Using Tools of Information. Ioannina 2008. Mols, R. J., “Population in Europe, 1500–1700”, in: Cipolla, C. M. (ed.) The Fontana Economic History of Europe, The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Glasgow 1974. Mols, Roger, Introduction à la démographie historique des villes d’Europe du 14e au 18e siècle (3 vols.). Louvain / Leuven 1954–1956. Necipog˘lu, Gülru, The Age of Sinan. Architectural culture in the Ottoman Empire. London 2005. Okiç, M. Tayyib, “Gazi Hüsrev Bey”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 13 (1996): 453–454. Ouspenskij, Leonid, “Symbolik des Kirchengebäudes”, in: Herrmann, F. (ed.) Symbolik der Religionen X. Stuttgart 1962: 56–68. Özergin, M. K., “Eski bir Ru¯znâmeye göre I˙stanbul ve Rumeli Medreseleri”, ˙Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Institüsü Dergisi 4/5 (1974): 263–290. Pococke, Richard, A description of the East. London 1745. Pouqueville, F. C. H. L., Voyage dans la Grèce (vols. III and V). Paris 1821. ˇ acˇak. C ˇ acˇak 2011. Rajic´, Delfina & Timotijevic´, Milosˇ, Crkva Svetog Vasnesenja Hristovo u C

Patras (Balya Badra) and the Mosque of Sultan Bayezid II

81

Randolph, Bernard, The Present State of the Morea, called anciently the Peleponnesus. Oxford 1686. Reindl-Kiel, Hedda, “Gedik Ahmed Pas¸a”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 13 (1996): 543–544. Romancˇuk, Alla I., Chersones XII–XIV v. Istoricˇeskaya Topografiya. University of Krasnoyarsk 1986. Russell, C. J., “Die Bevölkerung Europas, 500–1500”, in: Cipolla, C. M. & Borchardt, Knut (eds.), Bevölkeringsgeschichte Europas. München 1971. Sahilliog˘lu, Halil, “Akçe”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 2 (1989): 224–227. Spon, Jacob & Wheler, George, Italienische / Dalmatinische / Griechische und Orientalische Reise-Beschreibung. Nürnberg 1681. Steub, Ludwig, Bilder aus Griechenland. Leipzig 1885. Tanman, Baha, “Gedik Ahmed Pas¸a Külliyesi”, in: Türkyie Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 13 (1996): 544–547. Teksarı, Serhat, ˙Istanbul Türbeleri. ˙Istanbul’da tüm ziyaret yerleri rehberi. I˙stanbul 2005. Thomopoulos, S., Istoria tis poleos Patrou. Patras 1950 (reprint 1999). Topping, Peter, “The Post-Classical Documents”, in: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition. Reconstructing a Bronze Age Environment. St. Paul, MN 1972. Triantaphyllopoulos, K., Istorikon Lexikon ton Patron. Patras 1959. Uluçay, M. Çag˘atay, “Bayazid II.in Aylesi”, ˙Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi X/14 (1959): 104–124. Wagstaff, Malcolm & Frangakis-Syret, Elena, “The Port of Patras in the second Ottoman Period, Economy, Demography and Settlement c. 1700–1830”, in: Panzac, Daniel (ed.), Les Balkans à l’Epoque Ottomane = Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée 66 (1993): 79–94. ˇ elebi durch die Morea (Dissertation). München Wolfhard, Ulrich, Die Reisen des Evliya C 1966. Zakythinos, D. A., Le Despotat Grèc de Morée (second improved ed.). London 1975.

Nenad Moacˇanin

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice.* The Ottoman sources

A collosal Great Bridge whose construction was thought to have been ordered by Sultan Süleyman the Lawgiver is rarely mentioned in Ottoman narrative sources. Besides a detailed description and additional commentaries by Evliya Çelebi, the bridge is also mentioned by a few other authors, offering only laconic remarks. Until recently, the known and used Ottoman sources were almost entirely limited to the translated part of the I˙kdam edition of Evliya’s account and to a certain amount of references from the archives.1 Today the available source we can use is the latest “next-to-autograph” edition of “The Book of Travels”,2 as well as some new data which I have found during my research in the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archive (Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi, BOA) in Istanbul. To what extent can the new findings, together with what we already know, help us answer a number of basic questions concerning the bridge, such as the time of construction, reconstruction, technical features, exact location, etc? Ottoman architects most surely made plans for the buildings they constructed but it was not common to preserve such construction aid. There are various cost estimate registers, work logs and lists of people and materials for many undertakings, even for bridge repair and construction, but for Osijek there are only a few fragments, mostly referring to the last phase of the bridge. The first important point to mention is that as far as Ottoman-Turkish 16th century sources are concerned, not one explicitly and unambiguously mentions the construction of a “road on piers” from the time of Süleyman the Lawgiver. The word köprü (‘bridge’; sometimes cisr ‘bridge, crossing’) is mostly used in such a way that it can be without much difficulty understood as pontoon bridge. In large defters called kes¸if (construction and repair expenses) from the time of Süleyman’s rule containing cost estimate registers for reconstruction works on * This work has been fully supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project 9215. ˇ elebi, Putopis (transl. Hazim Sˇabanovic´, Sarajevo 1979); Moacˇanin, “Osijek u turskim 1 Evlija C izvorima”. 2 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi VI. Kitap.

84

Nenad Moacˇanin

fortresses and traffic installations across the empire in Europe, there is no trace of Osijek.3

The early phase At the beginning of the paragraph about the bridge in “The Book of Travels”, Sˇabanovic´’s translation of the first sentence has only this: “It existed in the Christian times”. However, according to the autograph, “the bridge existed before as well, in infidel times, but it was located a bit more downstream and it was used as a footbridge, so carriages coudn’t cross that way so they were transported on boats”.4 So, the pre-history of the bridge goes back a bit further, probably to the Late Middle Ages. However, the significance of such a crossing must have been more modest, with no military purpose and with a limited commercial function. Nevertheless, the appearance of the bridge can be placed into the context of the change in maintenance of ferries on the Danube and the Drava, when in the 15th century the keepers of such crossings became the nobles, bearers of the defence against the Ottomans. They had control over the nearby estates so traffic became heavier and the income increased. From what is known so far, the conclusion is that the bridge was built and destroyed at least twice during Süleyman’s rule, and one more time afterwards, during the reign of Selim II. The bridge was probably constructed for the first time in 1532. At least we know that at the beginning of the 1540s it was functional and must have been used during the 1541 and 1543 campaigns. However, already in 1545 the order came for the bridge to be destroyed. It was then rebuilt in 1566 and soon in 1568 it was destroyed again, partly on Bali Bey’s order and partly due to damage caused by severe weather conditions. Probably the last destruction of what had become a world wonder can be ascribed to Nikola Zrinski when he attacked the bridge in 1663, after which, it seems, it was put to use very soon again because in April, 1665 the new Buda Pasha was passing that way.5 The last repairs took place in the context of the last campaign against Vienna in 1683. Finally, the bridge was destroyed in 1686. Although there is information about the bridge before 1566, it is unclear what it was like, which might lead us to believe that there was nothing on the Baranya side, so that until the siege of Szigetvár only the pontoon bridge was used. When everything was dry the army could march without any difficulty towards the north and north-west. The great fair appeared only after 1600, and the town had 3 BOA, MAD 55, 157, 523. 4 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliya Çelebi Seyâhatnâmesi VI. Kitap: 108. 5 BOA, MAD d 18223_00003.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

85

altogether some three hundred houses. There is no final conclusion, but we shall see that there is strong indication that we can differentiate between two phases of the bridge: the first phase when the main task was to cross the Drava in the context of temporary military needs, and the second one when, nonetheless, it was necessary to ensure a permanent and undisturbed crossing at any time in the context of economic needs. In the mühimme defterleri from 1545, the entry nr. 30 from the 22nd of January, 1545, says (after the instructions to the sancakbeyi of Smederevo concerning the bridge which should be constructed near Belgrade) “How much wood is there for the bridge6 on the Drava, where is it stored, whether all the material is ready, and if not, whether anything is missing, and if so, then how much of what is missing is required, leave nothing to doubt, report on everything and make a list”.

The entry from the 1st of April, 1545 reveals even more information: “A command to the sancakbeyi of Semendire, Toygun Bey: (…) when the wooden material for the Buda bridge was inspected, it was established that more than half of the beams and boards are missing, and that the trees necessary for the construction of the bridge are cut in the kaza of Nemçe in the sancak of Sirem. A letter and a man should be sent to the kadı so that enough trees are cut and transported to the bridge, and after the wood from the fortress in Osijek7 and from the bridge8 is inspected, elements which are required for the bridge (the Buda bridge) but missing, the wood needs to be urgently transported to the site. A suitable person should do the job. The authorities have already received reports concerning the situation. All the wood necessary for construction is cut and delivered. May the order come about how the expense is to be covered.”

The style of the text is such as to suggest at least a partial “demounting” of the bridge in Osijek, no matter what kind of bridge it was or what it looked like. However, it is possible to interpret the text in a way that it means Osijek only had the stored materials for the construction (!).

The bridge in 1566 Ottoman sources are quite scarce concerning the construction of the bridge in 1566. The mühimme defterleri, usually rich in information concerning the 1566 campaign, reveal no information whatsoever about it, except for one order to the 6 “Of the bridge?” Both readings are possible. This most likely refers to the pontoon bridge, since it was explicitly said “on the Drava” (nehr-i Drava üzerinde), and not “across the Drava” (and perhaps even further). 7 Perhaps the wood which was used for paving the streets, which could mean that the town was already more developed than it might have appeared. 8 The Buda bridge?

86

Nenad Moacˇanin

sancakbeyi of Pozˇega that he should decide whether thirty boats is enough for the pontoon bridge on the Drava (1st June, 1566).9 This has somehow escaped the attention of E. Kovacˇevic´, who included in his work all the material from that collection relating to Süleyman’s last campaign, where there are lots of references to the bridge but they are too general to explain the key issues we are trying to resolve. However, one longer written record can be found in the Maliyeden Müdevver Fund (MAD). This is an important order of the ahkam type from AH 973, unnoticed until now (Ramazan / April 1566).10 The order was given to the sancakbeyi of Pozˇega, Nasuh Bey. Since it was important and necessary that there should be a bridge “in front of” Osijek, following the example of the existing bridge at Belgrade, the bey was ordered to commission the construction of a sufficient amount of bridges (!) and boats to the mentioned location. Moreover, enough pontoons should be supplied. There was no sufficient wooden material from the old bridge at all, but the imperial officer arranged for all the required material to be delivered. There was also a supply of boards for the deck, supports or beams and ropes.11 The bridge at Osijek was destroyed in the same place where it was earlier built, so an imperial order was expected for an urgent construction. The text continues as follows: “In the first twenty days of this month (10th April, 1566) thirty-five ¸saykas and thirtyfive boats were brought to Drava to carry supplies, as well as fifteen boats for transporting horses. With God’s help the remaining boats must not be ruined … according to the firman ….12 The command: when the order is issued, the remaining pontoons from the bridge which is to be set up on the mentioned location ….”13 The word ipler (ropes) requires some further consideration. According to Evliya the pontoons were connected by chains, which points again to a later work. This command is supplemented by a written record which says the boats cannot be constructed anywhere else in the sancak of Pozˇega but close to Osijek. 2462 gold coins were sent for the construction of forty pontoons (on a “narrow location of 160 feet”), a hundred and thirty supply vessels, twenty boats for transporting horses, fifty-six ¸saykas, including the wages for workmen and carpenters. However, that amount was insufficient, so another order was needed

9 BOA, A.DNV.MHM.d.005. 10 BOA, MAD_d_02775_00664; Kovacˇevic´, Muhimme defteri, has neglected to include this document. 11 In the reference to the Buda bridge in 1545 large nails or wedges are mentioned. It is not the case here, but probably it was implicit. 12 The following passage is hard to decipher. 13 BOA, MAD_d_02775_00664. The following text is severely damaged.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

87

for more money to be taken from mukataa taxes (customs, etc.), the haraç and the filori.14 Besides the pontoons, along the bridge there was always a permanent fleet of supply and combat vessels. Moreover, there is mention of ten “crossing boats” (geçit gemileri), which were probably used as a reserve in case of any problem with the pontoons.15 As for the skilled and unskilled workforce which was employed at the time, there is no reliable information, except that non-Turkish sources mention very large numbers, up to 25000 people, which sounds improbable. But perhaps these data are not too exaggerated, since big undertakings in the area truly required suprisingly large manpower. In comparison, in 1540 the required workforce for rebuilding the Pozˇega fortress was 28234 people (with the addition of an unknown number of wagoneers).16 The enigma can be partially resolved if we deduct the non-skilled workforce (cerahors), whose job was cutting trees, excavating stones, clearing access paths and the like. They constituted the majority of the employed men (in this case one third of the entire workforce). A lot of people could have been employed on the construction of the bridge Süleyman had commissioned, for example people who were cutting trees in the Spacˇva forest, not close to the actual construction site but they added to the figures on the payroll registers, increasing significantly the total, which then could match the non-Ottoman chronicles. Finally, as can be seen from a source from 1687, it is almost certain that the authorities had to have employed people from a much broader area than the lower Podravina (entire Slavonia and Syrmia, the nearby places in Bosnia and Serbia, all within the realm of the eyalet of Buda). Even if only pedestrian access pathways were being built, it still meant complex works and lots of workers. The total number was also increased by workforce required for military logistics. Moreover, the duration of works, with diversions and relocations, could well require up to three months, so it is not hard to imagine that large numbers of people were coming to work in shifts. It is interesting that towards the end of the Ottoman rule (AH 1097) there is a record concerning an additional expenditure for repairing the bridge which amounted to 2500 gurus¸, which was 300000 akçes in the official currency. This money was used to pay 1643 craftsmen. This would suggest that they worked for three weeks, their daily wage being 9 akçes.17 Therefore, since the addition must

14 15 16 17

BOA, MAD_d_02775_00686. BOA, MAD_d_2775_00019. BOA, MAD_d_00523_00016. BOA, MAD_d_ 03992_00003. A number of people listed in the document were afterwards crossed out, but that probably means that they were payed less, or that the means were found elsewhere.

88

Nenad Moacˇanin

have been quite a small amount in comparison with the total cost, there could have been several times more workers, perhaps as many as five to six thousand. The conclusion is that between 1545 and 1566 there might not exist a bridge with a long-lasting or integrative function. We could almost think the same for the 1566 bridge, although non-Ottoman sources about construction seemingly eliminate all doubt. Moreover, the entry from 9th June, 1566 explicitly says that the bridge near Osijek will not be constructed.18 Around that date it was mentioned many times that the Drava flooded the area so it was not possible to proceed upon the initial idea. There was a lot of insecurity concerning the real location; there was talk of a location upstream or downstream of Valpovo.19 Perhaps the short period of time required for the construction of the bridge at Osijek could be understood in the light of the order which was issued to sancakbeyis of Pécs and Mohács to build pedestrian access pathways (!) which lead to the pontoon bridge.20 Kovacˇevic´ provided a summary of the original text which mentions the order to the sancakbeyis to commission footbridges to the (pontoon) bridge. Since the flooding occurred due to the river’s course diversion of a mile and a half towards the Baranya side, the area needed to be made passable. Therefore, decks for infantry and cannons, as well as the listed cerahors and rowers were necessary. So, under any circumstances the eight kilometres to Darda could not have been crossed only on boards, as opposed to the 17th century road on beams, with trusses and towers!21 Obviously at the time a normal march on Szigetvár was possible after 3.2 kilometres. The work was finished in seventeen days.22 Are we left with making a guess that in the end the result was a kind of improvization, construction of a “partial” bridge, which was in fact much smaller than the one from the 17th century? Instead of forty pontoons which the bridge had later, now there were one hundred and eighteen. The inclarity here was resolved by Evliya’s autograph, since it shows that there were forty pontoons positioned on the opposite side, at Darda, and that this 160-feet crossing is shorter than the crossing at Osijek.23 The first bridge was on another location, perhaps a bit more downstream. The belief that the earlier bridge was destroyed (more accurately: that an order was 18 Kovacˇevic´, Muhimme defteri: 154. The author made a good abstract of the documents’ content, however, due to the interpretation some important details are missing. 19 Yıldırım et al. (eds.), 5 Numaralı mühimme defteri: order nr. 1912. 20 Kovacˇevic´, Mühimme defteri: 145. 21 Yıldırım et al. (eds.), 5 Numaralı mühimme defteri: order nr. 1797. 22 This and other information from the Ottoman chronicles in: [Nev’izâde Atayi], Hadâ’ik’ulHakâ’ik fi Tekmilet’üs¸-S¸akâyik: 163; [Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali], Heft Meclis: 17; [Lütfi Pas¸a], Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osmân: 280–281; Erendil, Topçuluk Tarihi: 71–72; Gökbilgin, “Kanunî Süleyman’ın Sigetvar Seferi sebepleri ve hazırlıkları”: 13. However, according to Seyâhatnâme the construction lasted for six days ([Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliya Çelebi Seyâhatnâmesi VI. Kitap: 108). 23 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliya Çelebi Seyâhatnâmesi VI. Kitap: 109.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

89

issued for its destruction) probably refers to the first bridge which was in use between 1530 and 1545. Does the word “bridges” (a sufficient amount of bridges) suggest that at times a more solid ground was required for support, since Latin and German sources use expressions such as “ad pontes Essekinos” or “die Brücken”? On the other hand, could we imagine a bridge as a composition of several parts, which would have movable parts on its joints in cases of emergency, as was suggested by Evliya? This Süleymanic bridge for the Szigetvár campaign seems to have been shortlived. Obviously, after the fall of Szigetvár, the former sancakbeyi of Pozˇega, Hasan, (the order was in 1568 passed on to the incumbent Malkoçog˘lu Bali Bey) had a part of the new Süleymanic bridge pulled down (“the bridge constructed as the army crossing”): “Then winter came and the rest was destroyed by the floods, and eighty boats were stuck in the mud”. The Süleymanic bridge was, therefore, in ruins soon after it was built! There is further information about the need to repair “fortresses in Osijek” (sic!; probably those which were made of brick and the suburb or palanka), and it is believed that (workers?) couldn’t have “stayed” in the area when the wetland expanded, so the (boats) rotted and no more work was done on them. Some (?) boats were guarded by “beys and Janissaries” and, because they were by the imperial order kept in the fortress, sixty-five of them were the boatbuilders’ responsibility, thirty were brought from “above” (downstreams), and another thirty-five of them are guarded near the Osijek fortress. Three boats were damaged by ice and the ones under construction had to have steering wheels, seats and a few other parts replaced. Two boats were used as a raft, five are made of fir and belong to the merchants, as well as ten others, so the owners maintain them and use them for business. Recently sixty more boats were built and sent to Buda.24 According to the data about the ten boats used for transport in 1565, as opposed to only two after the bridge was destroyed in 1568, we can assume that until the Szigetvár campaign there was no bridge of large dimensions across the wetlands.

The “World Wonder” (Mehmed III? Ahmed I?) It is entirely unclear whether the third bridge was built straight away, or much later, until 1610 when it was first depicted in a drawing and 1621 when it was first mentioned in archival documents. There is no sign of it, though, in the cadastral defter from 1579, and the damage caused by the hajduks (‘brigands’) in 24 Meaning for transport across the river (Yıldırım et al. (eds.), 7 Numaralı mühimme defteri II: 2323, No 1565. Until 1565 ten boats were used for transport!

90

Nenad Moacˇanin

1599 does not necessarily mean it was a kind of bridge which would impress travellers. It seems that the bridges from Süleyman’s time had almost exclusively a military function, which implies that dismantling, removing of some parts and rebuilding was self-understood. In such circumstances, guards, customs officers and repair workers were at least less necessary. It would be logical to expect that the bridge achieved its final outlook after the period of stabilization, i. e., after the “Long Turkish War” (or Thirteen / or Fifteen Years’ War, 1591/3–1606) when commercial activities increased, and the big fair was established close to the access road to the bridge. With regard to that, the 1610 depiction of the bridge could possibly refer to the newly built “Great” bridge in its final shape.25 Indeed, there is some evidence that such was the course of events. On a very good picture of Osijek from 1588 this structure is not visible. Then in 1596 the (now really) great bridge was mentioned for the first time, but as being “difficult for crossing”. Building of a palanka at the opposite end was requested too. In 1598 it was stated that the length was twelve kilometres, but the width was relatively small, not allowing for simultaneous movements of carts and pedestrians. And in 1600 it was stated that “the bridge was built along with two palankas at the both ends during the campaign against Kanije” (Nagykanizsa). A report from 1598 states that the length of the bridge was “iki farsah”, or about 50 % more than according to Evliya’s data, while the width was much less than nine metres, preventing passing of both the carts and pedestrians. Probably this was the last phase, because the guarding troops were mentioned in 1621. True, the whole structure belonged to the pious endownment of Sultan Süleyman at the time of Evliya’s visit, but the inclusion could have easily happened in later time.26

The Great Bridge as seen by Evliya Çelebi Evliya Çelebi described the bridge in a way which is quite confusing in Sˇabanovic´’s translation, but I believe an alternative interpretation can make the text more acceptable. Evliya ascribed the bridge, as he saw it, to Sultan Süleyman, just like everyone else in his time, already at the time of the campaign to Mohács. He believed the work was undertaken by the army under the command of the Grand Vizier Pargalı I˙brahim Pas¸a. Here I would like to insert a summary with a commentary and a note about the required changes: Length: two hours on foot. All around—beams made of oak (which “even two men can hardly embrace”). On the outside rail there are pedestrian passageways, two fathoms wide. More 25 Österreichisches Staatsarchiv; Inland C:VII d) Essegg No 1 (1610). 26 Popovic´, Na putu od Becˇa ka Carigradu 1587: 65–112; BOA, KK 2290. Topçular Katibi Abdülkadir (Kadri) Efendi Tarihi 1. [As¸ık Mehmed], Menâzırü’l-Avâlim 1–3.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

91

precisely: one fathom on each side.27 Doors on both sides of the bridge, towers to accommodate weary travellers and a part of the bridge which rises for the length of ten feet are not the result of writer’s fantasy. Evliya does not state that there are towers (not “kiosks” as in the Sˇabanovic´’s translation) in “the centre of the bridge” (Sˇabanovic´), rather that they stand as a resting place for travellers passing on the left and the right side of the bridge as opposed to the centre of the bridge (an imaginary line along the length of the entire bridge). These would, therefore, be watchtowers in the non-Ottoman reports.28 Then Evliya says the following about the ten-feet rising of the bridge: “From here around ten feet of the bridge is movable” (“measuring from those kiosks” is not written and the translator’s insertion is invented). Where is this location refered to as “here”? “From here” can only refer to one position, and not more, as if the bridge can be raised at every tower. The sentence which follows is “This is the place where the town’s soldiers stand and collect dues from the merchants.” So, the reference must be to one or both “strong gates” of the pontoon bridge, probably on both ends, both in Osijek and in Darda. If “from here” and “this is the place” referred to around twenty or more “watchtowers”, the entire armed force would have had to stay on the bridge, and the merchants would almost be left without their assets by the time they reached the other end. Furthermore, Evliya makes a very interesting comment, which brings about one significant technical detail: “The people in charge of repairs on this bridge are those working under the pasha of Pozˇega and Mohács sancaks, so when a pier in the swamp underneath the bridge becomes rotten, meaning when the base cylinders which support the pedestrian deck (for the use of “the crowds”) become frail, they immediately have to replace it with another cylinder (post / pole / bar).”29

According to the word used here, these could have been boards (dös¸eme) as well, but the final conclusion cannot be reached for now.

Guarding, repair works and else It is possible to get a somewhat clearer idea of the scope of work done on the construction of the bridge and the repairs. There is only one direct mention of the construction works on the great bridge ( just before it was destroyed) from 27 This does not contrast the non-Ottoman sources which say the width of the bridge was twelve feet or nine metres. Vlajinac, Recˇnik nasˇih starih mera vol. III: 440–441, “carriage” (as a measurement for width). ˇ elebi, Putopis: 373; [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Celebi Seyâhatnâmesi (1318): VI, 187–188. 28 Evlija C 29 [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliya Çelebi Seyâhatnâmesi VI. Kitap: 108.

92

Nenad Moacˇanin

28th March, 1687. “The kadı of Srebrenica sent a letter: the people of the Srebrenica kaza came to the court: under general mobilization 200 people are in charge of rebuilding the bridge in Osijek, the length of which should be 200 ars¸ıns, but they cannot carry out the order.”30 There is a preserved list of paid workers and carts for undertakings on the Osijek bridge from different kazas based on Vizier Hasan pas¸a’s defter dated 30th May, 1687. In total, there were 979 cerahors and 205 carts.31 The difference in figures in the case of the kaza Srebreniçe (200 as opposed to 60) points to a possibility that work could have been in different ways imposed on a total number of subjects, which probably came to several thousand people. To support this there is an expenditure record from 1686, according to which the works required 300000 akçes, which means up to 2000 individual daily wages in a month. The bridge was in one very specific way connected to Osijek’s communal needs. The records hold an order issued to Ali,32 the “keeper” of the Osijek bridge, and to the Osijek kadı, dated 8th August, 1683, which goes as follows: “The dwellers of the Osijek kasaba have sent a man with a petition to the court: before, the inhabitants of the kasaba of Osijek always used to build a bridge33 inside the city, as if it was a street. But since this year, due to frequent passing of the Islamic army, the bridge in question has become too damaged. So, after the request to issue an order for the upkeep of the wooden construction removed from the great bridge, it was ordered—so that the inhabitants of the said kaza (!) would build the mentioned bridge in their usual way by using the old boards from the great bridge, which need to be stored somewhere safe—that the old boards from the great bridge should be kept and numbered on a safe place inside the mentioned kasaba.”

Evliya Çelebi also wrote about paving the town’s streets with boards, but he didn’t know that it was at least partly the “recycled” damaged material of the great bridge. Around 1679 the records mention a group of 60 cerahors twice. They were locals and supervised by the mimarbas¸ı Ahmed. They were repairing the bridge in Osijek and, moreover, from Saint George’s Day to Demetrius’ Day they were “guarding bridges”.34 At the time they were asked to repair the bridge at Isaccea, close to the confluence of the Danube in the Black Sea. In total there must have been many more such specialized waged force because the orders were made so as to suggest that those 60 people are yet to be appointed, because on one occasion the addressee was the Pozˇega mütesellim, the other time it was a kadı, the kethüda 30 31 32 33 34

BOA, A.DVNS.S¸KT.d.10_00094. BOA, MAD_d_ 08479, 190. See also A.DVNS.S¸KT.d.10. BOA, MAD_d_ 03992_00003; 03130_00036. A crossing decked with boards. BOA, Mühimme defterleri 97.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

93

(knez?) and all of them were experienced experts (ayans and is¸ erleri). There is a possibility that many settlements and families of bridgekeepers from old tax lists kept that status. It is also interesting to mention the order which was given to kadıs, emins and officials on the Sava in order to avoid crowding. The Islamic army was about to cross the bridge so both people on horseback and pedestrians were not allowed to cross without an order. This was a notice to all kadıs, emins and other officials on the banks of the Danube and the Drava from Osijek to Belgrade in the year of 1685 (22 Juni–2 July).35

The commercial function There are still several open questions concerning the economic function of the great bridge. First of all, the problem refers to the relation between the ferry and the customs (gümrük) and the bridge toll as a separate duty. Can we interpret the entry about the ferry custom from the 1579 tahrir so that it refers to the bridge?36 Evliya says the merchants had to pay bac when crossing the bridge, using the most general term. The bac, an ambiguous term, or simply ‘duty’, usually appeared as bac-ı siyah, which can be translated as ‘land custom’ as opposed to ‘water custom’ or gümrük. Bac could be collected anywhere, in towns, villages, and gümrük only at the docks where goods crossed international, or at least regional borders. The bac is mostly a type of import custom, while the gümrük is export and transit custom. According to examples from Hungarian towns of the time, as well as according to the kanun for the ferry at Osijek from 1579, the term bac is more commonly used for charges made on food and beverages, and gümrük for livestock and other merchandise. There were many boats which transported, to and from Osijek, large quantities of wheat, livestock, wine, weapons and warfare materials, as well as other types of goods which wasn’t always necessary, or possible, to transport across the bridge. For example, it was more suitable to ship goods to Buda via the Danube, and for destinations downstream the bridge definitely couldn’t have been of much use. The place where goods were “tied or untied” and where merchants payed gümrük for it did not necessarily have to be by the bridge. If however, this was taking place at the entrance of the pontoon bridge, which would have made sense since the çars¸ı, the bazaar and the fair were close to each other, there would still have been two types of taxes, ways of transport, types and locations of the crossing. There must have been huge herds of cattle crossing the Drava at Osijek, and they would hardly ever, if at all, use the 35 BOA, A.DVNS.S¸KT.d.10_00027. 36 Srsˇan, Sandzˇak Pozˇega 1579. godine: 237.

94

Nenad Moacˇanin

pontoon bridge, narrower than the “road on piers” and without direct contact with it.37 Therefore, the construction of the bridge opened up new possibilities for land traffic, but it did not significantly influence the scope of activity at the docks. There the amount of business could increase. The pontoon bridge could have taken over a larger part of the ferry activity, such as transport to the opposite bank, which was termed resm-iʿöbur, but the boat traffic did not entirely cease. In the kanunname from 1579 the description of the term resm-i ʿöbur is hardly considered as a bridge crossing. Towards the end of the Ottoman rule there were two gümrüks, one connected to the crossing and the general one in case of illegal tax collecting on the ferry from the merchants who used to trade in saltpeter.38 It is clear from the existing data from 1620 and 1674 that the traffic on the Drava, connected with the Danube navigation, still brought in much more profit than the land traffic (110500 akçes from the bridge).39 However, the bridge could earn much more, especially when slaves were purchased. In 1663 there was mention of the annual income collected from the mukataa of the “bridge and its belongings”, which amounted to 400000 akçes. Those means were spent for paying the Pécs garrison, as well as for paying the bridge keepers. This is the only possible explanation for the amount, that the above-mentioned dues be understood as a quartal amount. A part of the amount payed for the crossing could have still come from transport across the river. The ferry was often hired by all sorts of different people, mostly the members of the army, but not always. The conclusion is that the bridge, boat crossing and the ferry (the docks) were largely one organic whole.

Conclusion The bridge, as it was depicted on seventeenth-century illustrations, and described in numerous records, cannot be with certainty prescribed to the Szigetvár campaign of Süleyman the Magnificent. At best, the preserved sources from the 16th century give reason to think that some sort of work was taking place at the access paths, perhaps such as building a pavement. So for now, the hypothesis is that the construction of this “world wonder” took place after the peace of Zsitvatorok in 1606, possibly even upon the fall of Nagykanizsa in 1600, or imme37 For example, the cattle herded either on the Slavonian side, to be sold somewhere in Hungary or further away, or on the Baranya side for the cattle fair, which was surely taking place outside the varos¸ walls, had to march through the palanka first and again out of the palanka. Transport to place opposite the end of the “road on piers” seems like a simpler solution. 38 As gümrük-iʿöbur, 110500 akçes. BOA, MMD 3289, 114; BOA, KK Evamir-i Maliye 2470, 109 from 1681. Emins, who governed these businesses as the collectors of customs duties, often committed illegal acts, such as collecting duty on state food supplies (for example rice). 39 Income collected from the Osijek mukataa, note 44; BOA, MMD 3289, 4.

The Great Bridge at Osijek as a post-Süleymanic edifice

95

diately afterwards. Admittedly, Evliya said that “now” the bridge was belonging to Sultan Süleyman’s endownments, but the building might have been included later into his evkaf as well.40 Outside of the contexts of great campaigns, information concerning the construction of bridges did not so easily enter collections of imperial orders, and even less narrative sources. Such a bridge played a huge part in commercial life, and it was governed from the newly established eyalet of Kanije. In any case, research on the period around the year 1600 remains a true challenge for the future.

Bibliography Sources A.DVNS.S¸KT.d.10. [As¸ık Mehmed], Menâzırü’l-Avâlim 1–3 (Ed. Mahmut Ak). Ankara 2007. BOA, A.DN... BOA, A.DVNS.S¸KT.d.10. BOA, KK 2290. BOA, KK Evamir-i Maliye 2470. BOA, MAD 55, 157, 523. BOA, MAD d 18223_00003. BOA, MAD_d_ 03992_00003; 03130_00036. BOA, MAD_d_ 03992_00003. BOA, MAD_d_ 08479, 190. BOA, MAD_d_00523_00016. BOA, MAD_d_02775_00664. BOA, MAD_d_02775_00686. BOA, MAD_d_2775_00019. BOA, MMD 3289, 114. BOA, MMD 3289, 4. BOA, Mühimme defterleri 97. ˇ elebi], Putopis (Transl. Hazim Sˇabanovic´). Sarajevo 1979. [Evlija C [Evliyâ Çelebi], Evliyâ Celebi Seyâhatnâmesi. Altıncı cild. I˙stanbul 1318. [Evliyâ Çelebi (b. Dervis¸ Mehemmed Zıllî)], Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi VI. Kitap. Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bag˘dat 308 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu – Dizini (Ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Dag˘lı & Robert Dankoff) I˙stanbul 2002. [Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali], Heft Meclis. Dersaadet / I˙stanbul 1316 / 1898. Kovacˇevic´, Esˇref, Muhimme defteri – dokumenti o nasˇim krajevima, Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu. Sarajevo 1985. [Lütfi Pas¸a], Tevârîh-i Âl-i Osmân (Ed. Kayhan Atik). Ankara 2001. 40 See note 4.

96

Nenad Moacˇanin

[Nev’izâde Atayi], Hadâ’ik’ul-Hakâ’ik fi Tekmilet’üs¸-S¸akâyik (Ed. Abdülkadir Özcan). I˙stanbul 1989. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv; Inland C:VII d) Essegg No 1 (1610). Topçular Katibi Abdülkadir (Kadri) Efendi Tarihi 1–2 (Ed. Ziya Yılmazer). Ankara 2003. Yıldırım, Hacı Osman et al. (eds.), 5 Numaralı mühimme defteri (973 / 1565–1566). Özet ve ˙Indeks. Ankara 1994. Yıldırım, Hacı Osman et al. (eds.), 7 Numaralı mühimme defteri II. Ankara 1997.

Studies Erendil, Muzaffer, Topçuluk Tarihi. Ankara 1988. Gökbilgin, Tayyib, “Kanunî Süleyman’ın Sigetvar Seferi sebepleri ve hazırlıkları”, Tarih Dergisi 16 (1966): 1–14. Moacˇanin, Nenad, “Osijek u turskim izvorima”, Povijesni prilozi 16 (1997), 33–56. Popovic´, Marko, “Na putu od Becˇa ka Carigradu 1587. godine – Lajdenski album”, Saopˇstenja XLII (2010): 65–112. Srsˇan, Stjepan. Sandzˇak Pozˇega 1579. godine. Osijek 2001. Vlajinac, Milan, Recˇnik nasˇih starih mera vol. III. Beograd 1968.

Hans Georg Majer

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

Wie Waffen und Mannschaften gehörten Schreibrohr und Papier zur osmanischen Armee. In einem schriftlich verwalteten, bürokratischen Staat war das kaum anders möglich. Das dominierende militärische Erscheinungsbild der Osmanen gibt aber nur selten den Blick frei auf diesen unentbehrlichen Aspekt der osmanischen Armee.1 Der Gegner nahm wenig davon wahr, aber auch in der Vorstellung der Osmanen blieb dieser Aspekt sekundär, was sich in der osmanischen Miniaturmalerei widerspiegelt. In all den Miniaturen, die osmanische Feldzüge illustrieren, gibt es kaum einen Hinweis auf Schreibrohr, Schreiber und Papier. Lediglich eine Miniatur stellt diesen Aspekt sogar in den Mittelpunkt. Sie erlaubt einen besonderen Blick auf die Verbindung von Militärischem und Schriftlichem in der osmanischen Armee:2 nach dem verheimlichten Tod Süleymans des Prächtigen vor Szigetvár im Jahr 1566 sitzt Großwesir Sokullu Mehmed Pascha vor seinem Zelt und lässt die abgeschlagenen Köpfe der Feinde, die Soldaten als Nachweis ihrer militärischen Tüchtigkeit gerade eingeliefert haben, in ein Register (defter) eintragen. Der Schreiber zur Rechten des Großwesirs ist in der Komposition durch Größe und Nähe zum Wesir hervorgehoben, vielleicht auch, weil mit ihm der Autor des dabei illustrierten Werkes, der Geschichtsschreiber, Geheimsekretär und Vertraute des Großwesirs, Ahmed Feridun selbst gemeint sein könnte.3 Auch im 17. Jahrhundert, etwa beim Feldzug Kara Mustafa Paschas gegen Wien 1683, wurden Köpfe eingeliefert und gewiss auch registriert. Das Kriegstagebuch des Zeremonienmeisters, weithin bekannt

1 Erste, tastende Gedanken zu diesem Thema habe ich einst bei einem Kara Mustafa Pascha Symposium in Wien vorgetragen. Das nun zielbezogen ausgearbeitete Produkt legt bu fakir der Jubilarin mit hinein in den sie feiernden Geschenkkorb. 2 Feher, Türkische Miniaturen: Tafel XLIV (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, Hazine 1339, fol. 41 b). 3 Zu ihm siehe: Feher, Türkische Miniaturen: 16–18; Mordtmann & Ménage, „Ferîdûn Beg“; Özcan, „Feridun Ahmed Bey“.

98

Hans Georg Majer

durch die meisterliche Übersetzung Richard F. Kreutels, macht das ganz deutlich.4 Schriftlichkeit durchdrang die osmanische Armee in vielen Bereichen. Umfang und Intensität unterschieden sich allerdings, je nachdem wer jeweils an der Spitze des Heeres stand. Führten nämlich der Sultan selbst oder der Großwesir die Armee, so hatte dies Einfluss auch auf den Einsatz von Schreibrohr und Papier. Süleyman der Prächtige (1520–1566) hatte auf seinen Feldzügen immer wieder Grund prächtige Siegesschreiben (fethnâme) zu versenden. Heute befindet sich eines davon, das 1535 aus Täbris nach der Einnahme weiter safawidischer Gebiete zwischen Bagdad und Täbris an König Ferdinand I. versandte Exemplar in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen.5 Kriegstagebücher wurden geführt, frühe stammen auch schon aus Süleymans Zeit.6 Feldzugsgeschichten wurden verfasst oft als Teil einer umfassenderen Geschichte, wie die Ungarnfeldzüge des Großwesirs Köprülüzade Fâzıl Ahmed Pascha 1663–1664 durch seinen Siegelbewahrer (mühürdar) Hasan Ag˘a7 oder die Feldzüge Sultan Mustafas II. 1695–1697 durch seinen Waffenträger (silâhdar) Fındıklılı Mehmed Ag˘a.8 Die Verfasser waren gebildet, im Heer anwesend, beobachteten, machten Notizen, sprachen mit Teilnehmern, selbst mit dem Sultan und schrieben an ihren Texten. Manchem, etwa Silâhdar Mehmed Ag˘a waren sogar Akten zugänglich. Feldzüge, die lediglich einer der Wesire als Feldherr anführte, weisen eine weniger umfangreiche Schriftlichkeit auf, da das schreibende und lesende Gefolge, das Sultan und Großwesir begleitete, darunter Kanzlisten, Ulema und Schejche, dann fehlte. Nichtsdestotrotz gab es amtliche und literarische Schriftlichkeit auch in einem solchen Heer. So hat der Siegelbewahrer Ali in seinen Erinnerungen an Ca’fer Pascha auch die kriegerischen Unternehmungen des Paschas im Großen Krieg zwischen 1688 und 1697 meist miterlebt und farbig geschildert.9 Ein osmanischer Feldzug war zunächst auch ein Produkt schriftlicher Aktivitäten. Hunderte Sultansbefehle, von der Tug˘ra gekrönte Fermane, zugestellt durch berittene Boten, riefen Kommandeure in Anatolien, im Irak, in Ägypten ebenso wie in Rumelien oder Bosnien mit ihren Truppen auf die Ebene von 4 Kara Mustafa vor Wien: z. B. 25–28; nachgedruckt auch in: Kreutel & Teply, Kara Mustafa vor Wien: 110–113. 5 Kornrumpf, „Eine Urkunde Süleyma¯ns des Prächtigen“. Farbig abgebildet in: Karolewski & Köse (Hrsg.), Ausstellungskatalog „Wunder der erschaffenen Dinge“: 178. 6 Schaendlinger, Feldzugstagebücher. 7 Krieg und Sieg in Ungarn. Die Ungarnfeldzüge des Großwesirs Köprülüzade Fâzıl Ahmed Pascha. 8 [Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmet Ag˘a], Nusretnâme; neue, kritische Edition in Lateinschrift: Topal, Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmet Ag˘a, Nusretnâme. 9 Der Löwe von Temeschwar. Erinnerungen an Ca’fer Pascha den Älteren, aufgezeichnet von seinem SiegelbewahrerʿAlî.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

99

Edirne, wo sich das nach Norden bestimmte Heer stets versammelte.10 Nach Edirne verlagerte sich mit der Ankunft von Sultan und Großwesir auch der Sitz der Regierung.

Die zentrale Reichsverwaltung im Heer Häufig begleiteten die Sultane des späten 17. Jahrhunderts den Großwesir und die Armee noch über Edirne hinaus in Richtung Front, aber nur Mustafa II. (1695–1703), Sohn Mehmeds IV., nahm die alte Tradition seines Hauses wieder auf und führte seine Armee persönlich auch in die Schlacht.11 Die von Sultan und Großwesir gemeinsam, oder auch vom Großwesir allein geführte Armee wurde in einem solchen Fall Sitz der Regierung: Kanzleien und Kanzlisten der zentralen Reichsverwaltung wurden mobilisiert, wurden Teil der vorrückenden Armee. Eine osmanische Besonderheit, die im 17. Jahrhundert keine habsburgische Parallele kennt. Eine Miniatur aus dem 16. Jahrhundert12 veranschaulicht diese Präsenz der Staatsführung in der Armee: nach der Eroberung von Szigetvár 1566, das bereits osmanisch besetzt ist, findet inmitten einer militärischen Szenerie, abgegrenzt auf einem großen Zeremonialteppich13 vor dem Zeltpalast des Sultans eine Sitzung des Reichsrates, des Divan-ı hümayun statt, geleitet vom Großwesir in Anwesenheit der Wesire, der beiden Heeresrichter (kazasker), dem Großadmiral und anderer Würdenträger. Schriftstücke, in den Händen zweier hochrangiger Sekretäre, heben die Schriftlichkeit der Geschäftsführung hervor und weisen damit auf die ansonsten meist unsichtbare Kanzlei des Reichsrates. Die Sitzung fällt schon in die Zeit der Verheimlichung von Süleymans Tod (1566) durch den Großwesir. Die Geschäfte gingen weiter als ob nichts geschehen wäre, Urkunden, die Süleymans Tug˘ra krönte, wurden weiterhin ausgestellt, ein Beispiel hat sich in Wolfenbüttel erhalten.14 Ein ähnliches Bild boten wohl auch die Divan-Sitzungen im Heere Mustafas II. bei seinen Feldzügen zwischen 1695 und 1697. Im Heere eines Großwesirs aber fehlten im Divan die Kadiasker, die nur mit dem Sultan ins Feld zogen. Statt ihrer sorgte ein Ordu Kadısı, ein zum Heer entsandter höherer Kadi, für das Recht.15 10 Registriert wurden diese Befehle in den Mühimme Defterleri, die für den Feldzug von 1695 etwa befinden sich in Mühimme Defteri Nr. 106 des Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi (BOA). 11 Siehe dazu das in Anmerkung 8 erwähnte, in seinem Auftrag von Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ag˘a verfasste Nusretnâme. 12 Feher, Türkische Miniaturen: Tafel XLIII (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi, Hazine 1524, fol. 279 b). 13 Vgl. dazu Shalem, „Forbidden Territory. Early Islamic Audience Hall Carpets“. 14 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Hs. Blankenburg 307.3b. 15 Siehe Uzunçars¸ılı, Osmanlı Devletinin ˙Ilmiye Tes¸kilâtı: 131–132.

100

Hans Georg Majer

Man könnte nun vermuten, die Kanzlei des Divan-ı hümayun habe sich auf Feldzügen ausschließlich auf Kriegsangelegenheiten konzentriert. Dem ist aber nicht so. In großer Breite wurde die im Sultanspalast zu Istanbul übliche amtliche Tätigkeit fortgeführt. Der großherrliche Divan verhandelte und entschied über die verschiedensten politischen, militärischen, rechtlichen und fiskalischen Angelegenheiten. Sekretäre und Schreiber waren zuvor damit beschäftigt, Sachverhalte zu überprüfen. Nach der Entscheidung stellten andere die Urkunden und Briefe im jeweils typischen Formular und der dazugehörigen Schrift aus, besondere Spezialisten (tug˘rakes¸) brachten die tug˘ra an und weitere trugen die Texte in die entsprechenden Register ein, besonders in die Protokollbücher der wichtigen Angelegenheiten (mühimme defterleri). Um dabei gezielt arbeiten zu können und um den Geschäftsgang nicht aufzuhalten, mussten auch frühere defter verfügbar sein, und so wurden stets auch ältere defter mitgeführt. Vom Gegner während der ungarischen Feldzüge erbeutete und dann von ihm verwahrte Archivalien bestätigen diese osmanische Praxis. Der mehrmalige Verlust von Teilen der Reichskanzlei bei Niederlagen von Großwesiren hatte dann aber Konsequenzen. Es wurde vorgeschrieben, an welcher Station Richtung Front welcher Teil der Kanzlei zurückzubleiben hatte.16 Die Außenpolitik des Reiches wurde auch in der auf dem Marsch befindlichen Armee weitergeführt, das Stuttgarter Bruchstück eines Ecnebî Defter17 über die Beziehungen zu Venedig im Jahre 1683 dokumentiert es, ebenso ein Göttinger Name Defteri18 das Korrespondenzen mit dem Zaren, dem Kaiser, dem König von Frankreich, dem Krimchan, dem Scherifen von Mekka, dem Fürsten von Siebenbürgen und anderen enthält. Die Einträge enden erst kurz vor der Niederlage des Großwesirs Süleyman Pascha19 bei Mohacs im Jahre 1687. Beschwerden aus dem ganzen Reich, die an den Divan gerichtet und vor ihm verhandelt wurden, erfasste man seit 1649 in den S¸ikayet Defterleri,20 den Registerbüchern der Beschwerden. Ein Exemplar mit Flecken, die auf ein bewegtes Schicksal deuten, fand seinen Weg in die Österreichische Nationalbibliothek.21 Der benachbarte Band, der sichtbar in gleicher Weise gelitten hatte, gelangte 16 Majer (Hrsg.), Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“: Bd. 1, 16; dazu Beydilli in Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 13: 609–611. Eingehend behandelt wird der Fragenkomplex in Emecen, „Sefere Götürülen Defterlerin Defteri“. 17 Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, Cod. or. 68. Eine Edition und Bearbeitung dieses Bruchstückes habe ich in Arbeit. 18 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Cod. turc. 30. 19 Über ihn siehe: Majer, „Bavyera ve I˙stanbul’da I˙zleri Olan Bir Osmanlı Sadrıazamı“, eine überarbeitete und stark erweiterte deutsche Version ist Majer „Spuren des osmanischen Großwesirs Sarı Süleyman Pascha in Bayern und Istanbul“. 20 Siehe dazu Majer (Hrsg.), Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“: Bd. 1, 17–23. 21 Cod. mixt. 683; er liegt der Faksimile-Edition Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“ zugrunde.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

101

erstaunlicherweise zurück nach Istanbul.22 Dies waren keine aktuellen defter, sie datierten schon 1675 und waren mitgeführt worden, um eine reibungslose Verwaltungsarbeit zu ermöglichen. Ein etwas späterer Band aus der Amtszeit Kara Mustafa Paschas – in wessen Kanzlei er mitgeführt worden war ist unklar – hat sich in Dresden erhalten.23 Zu den wichtigsten Bereichen der Reichsverwaltung gehörten die Personalangelegenheiten, die zahlreiche Urkunden und Bescheinigungen erforderlich machten. Alle wurden wiederum in deftern registriert, denn Streit um Stellen war keineswegs eine Seltenheit. Im Falle des Streits um die Stellung des Schejchs eines Derwischkonvents bei Amasya hatte der zuständige Kadi eine Bittschrift (arz) verfasst und ihr eine alte Prinzenurkunde von 1501 über die Privilegien des Konventes beigelegt. Beide Schriftstücke fielen während Ahmed Köprülüs Feldzug in Ungarn in die Hände Münsteraner Truppen.24 Der Bote war offenbar dem Großwesir auf den ungarischen Kriegsschauplatz gefolgt. Ob es noch zu einer Behandlung vor dem Divan gekommen ist, ob noch die entsprechende Urkunde ausgestellt und der Eintrag im defter gemacht wurde, wissen wir nicht. Einer der erstaunlichsten Züge der osmanischen Verwaltung war, dass noch die unbedeutendsten Posten an Stiftungen, besonders an Moscheen, auch wenn kein Streit vorlag, die Reichszentrale beschäftigten, denn alle mussten schriftlich bestätigt werden. Die Freitagsprediger (hatibs) mussten zudem wegen ihrer staatsrechtlichen Funktion der Nennung des Herrschernamens im Freitagsgebet vom Sultan eigenhändig bestätigt werden. Solche Ernennungen registrierte Kara Mustafa Paschas Kanzlei noch bis zum 17. Juni 1683 in einem defter, das sich heute in der Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart befindet.25 An einem anderen Defter endete die Tätigkeit später, nämlich erst am 8. September 1683, vier Tage vor der Entsatzschlacht: vor allem wurden darin Knaben als Nachfolger ihrer verstorbenen oder gefallenen Väter zu Lehensreitern (sipahi) ernannt unter der Bedingung, eine bestimmte Zahl von bewaffneten Knechten (cebelü) für die Armee zu stellen. Dieses Wiener defter26 weist für das Jahr 1683 über 300 Einträge auf, das heißt, dass in den Monaten des Feldzuges schon allein nach diesem Defter über 300 Sultansbefehle (hüküm) ausgefertigt und über 22 S¸ikâyet Defteri 187 des Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi. Siehe dazu Majer (Hrsg.), Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“: Bd. 1, 16–17. 23 Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden, Hs. Eb 372 (beginnt mit dem 2. 2. 1680). 24 Veröffentlicht in: Majer, „Ein Nisˇân des Osmanenprinzen Ahmed“. Ehemals im Archiv Graf von Galen, Haus Assen. Heute im Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (LWL), Archivamt für Westfalen in Münster, Archiv Assen, Best.-L. Nr. 445a. 25 Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart, Cod. or. 2° 41. Zu diesem defter siehe meinen Aufsatz „Ulema und ‚kleinere Religionsdiener‘ in einem Defter vom Jahre 1683“: 104–119, besonders 105–106. 26 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Cod. mixt. 1305. Zu diesem Defter siehe meinen Artikel: „Von der Heeresfolge freigestellte osmanische Timar-Inhaber“ (im Druck).

102

Hans Georg Majer

300 tug˘ras dafür gemalt worden sind. In weitere defter wurden natürlich auch die zahlreichen Beförderungen tüchtiger Soldaten auf freigewordene Stellen eingetragen. Zwei Seiten aus einem defter mit solchen Einträgen nahmen sächsische Soldaten vor Wien an sich, heute sind sie in der Herzog August Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel.27 Ein weiteres Bruchstück dieser Art, das noch beim Anmarsch auf Wien geführt wurde, besitzt die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg.28 Die den Einträgen in den Deftern entsprechenden originalen Urkunden, die berate, wurden auch in Kriegszeiten oft kalligraphisch ansprechend gestaltet. Die Staatsbibliothek München besitzt solche Stücke aus dem Krieg 1663 / 166429 und vom kretischen Krieg 1666.30 Die Form eines schlichten Fermans Mehmeds IV. in schwarzer Schrift hat ein Göttinger Original,31 durch das Kara Mustafa Pascha, elf Tage nach der Niederlage vor Wien, die Stelle des gefallenen Alay Beyi von Bozok wieder vergibt. Die Kanzlei hatte die Arbeit wieder aufgenommen.

Die schriftliche Tätigkeit der Armee selbst Mit diesen beraten und deftern stoßen wir bereits an die Grenze zu einer zweiten Ebene, auf der in der Armee Schriftliches verwendet und produziert wurde, auf die Ebene der Armee selbst und der Kriegführung. Natürlich lassen sich die Ebenen des Staates und der Armee bei den Osmanen nicht immer klar scheiden, aber zur Übersichtlichkeit erscheint mir diese Trennung hier doch praktisch. Islamrechtlich zwingend war es, förmlich, in der Regel schriftlich, eine belagerte Festung zur Kapitulation aufzufordern. Das bekannteste Beispiel ist das Aufforderungsschreiben Kara Mustafa Paschas an die Wiener, das bis zum 2. Weltkrieg in Hamburg verwahrt wurde und seither verschollen ist.32 Es hat die Form eines offiziellen Wesirsschreibens, auf dem rechten Rand hervorgehoben durch Pençe, Siegel, und sahh-Vermerk. Der Schreiber zeigt sich als Könner, seine Schrift hat das dem Rang des Absenders angemessene Niveau, was man von einem ähnlichen Schreiben des Krimchans Murad Giray an Wiener Neustadt33 27 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Hs. Helmstedt 1038 (lose Beilage) mit einem Beiblatt, auf dem steht: „In der Schlacht von Wien ao 83. von … sächsischen Soldaten bekommen“. Es ist wohl ein Stück aus einem Ruznamçe-i timarha, einem Timarvergabe-Register. 28 Cod. orient. 17.5, siehe dazu: Majer, „Defter“: 196–197. 29 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Cod. turc. 131, dazu sehr knapp Aumer, „Türkische Handschriften“: 39. 30 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Cod. turc. 132, dazu Aumer, „Türkische Handschriften“: 39. 31 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Cod. turc. 31/1. 32 Das schon häufig gedruckte Stück ist am bequemsten zugänglich in: Kreutel & Teply, Kara Mustafa vor Wien: 247–256, wo es auch übersetzt und kommentiert ist. 33 Wiedergegeben in Kreutel & Teply, Kara Mustafa vor Wien: 167.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

103

nicht gerade sagen kann. Kapitulierte ein Ort dann auch, musste ihm Schutz gewährt werden. Dies geschah durch einen Sultansbefehl, der, wie im Fall von Bruck an der Leitha weitere Schriftstücke von Unterbefehlshabern nach sich ziehen konnte.34 Musste eine osmanische Festung, wie Gran (Esztergom) im Herbst 1683, kapitulieren, so wusste man auch damit schriftlich umzugehen. Höflich, als Offizier und Gentleman, bedankte sich Ebubekir Pascha, der Kommandant, in einem eigenhändigen Billet beim Kurfürsten Max Emanuel von Bayern für den Geleitschutz auf osmanisches Gebiet.35 Das förmliche Wesirsschreiben war besonders angesagt, wenn sich der osmanische Oberbefehlshaber an den Hofkriegsratspräsidenten oder kaiserliche Heerführer wandte. Mit einem solchen Schreiben beantwortete Großwesir Kara Mustafa Pascha einen Brief des Hofkriegsratspräsidenten Markgraf Hermann von Baden beim Anmarsch auf Wien im Feldlager zu Esseg (Osijek).36 Der Heerführer (serdar) Yeg˘en Osman Pascha bat 1688 in einem Schreiben derselben Art den bayerischen Kurfürsten, der in diesem Jahr die Kaiserlichen kommandierte, um eine salva guardia für eine zahlreiche Gesandtschaft. Sie sollte mitten im Krieg Kaiser Leopold die Thronbesteigung Sultan Süleymans II. (1687–1692) mitteilen. Unter diesem gesichtswahrenden Vorwand sollte sie aber vor allem den Frieden verhandeln.37 Schreiben, die als Friedensfühler fungierten, hatte auch davor schon mancher Wesir an die kaiserliche Seite gesandt.38 Der schriftliche Kontakt zwischen dem Großwesir und anderen Kommandanten hatte die Form eines einfacheren, unscheinbaren Wesirsbriefes ohne pençe, Siegel, und sahh-Vermerk. In München hat sich ein von den bayerischen Truppen aufgefangenes Schreiben gefunden, in dem der Großwesir Sarı Süleyman Pascha 1687, vor der Schlacht bei Mohacs, den Kommandanten von Szigetvár Mehmed Pas¸a teilweise eigenhändig über die Kriegslage unterrichtet.39 Sarı Süleyman Pascha verlor wenig später die Schlacht. In seinem Lager aber fand sich, neben dem erwähnten Göttinger Register der auswärtigen Angelegenheiten und einem defter mit einer Aufstellung von Heeresausgaben, heute in Zittau,

34 Wiedergegeben in Kreutel & Teply, Kara Mustafa vor Wien: 83. 35 Geheimes Staatsarchiv München, Kasten schwarz 8027, fol. 376. Veröffentlicht in: Majer, „Zur Kapitulation des osmanischen Gran (Esztergom) im Jahre 1683“. 36 Babinger, „Qara Mustafâ-Paschas Esseger Sendschreiben an den Markgrafen Hermann von ˙ ˙ in: Babinger, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen: Bd. 2, 17–26 und Abb. 4. Baden“, nachgedruckt 37 Geheimes Staatsarchiv München, Kasten schwarz 8216, veröffentlicht in: Majer, „Ein Brief des Serdar Yeg˘en Osman Pascha“. 38 Güllüog˘lu, „Büyük Bozgun’un I˙lk Senelerinde Osmanlı Diplomasisi (1683–1685)“. 39 Geheimes Staatsarchiv München, Kasten schwarz 8028. Siehe dazu Majer, „Bavyera ve I˙stanbul’da I˙zleri Olan Bir Osmanlı Sadrıazamı“: 19–30 und Majer, „Spuren des osmanischen Großwesirs Sarı Süleyman Pascha in Bayern und Istanbul“: 191, 197–198.

104

Hans Georg Majer

auch sein prächtiges Zelt, das heute im Bayerischen Armeemuseum in Ingolstadt viel bewundert wird.40 Die Verwaltung der Armee selbst erzwang ebenfalls Schriftlichkeit, denn die Kosten, die die Armee verursachte, mussten ebenso transparent gehalten und verantwortet werden, wie der Mannschaftsstand. Darauf ein paar Schlaglichter: Häufig, vor oder während eines Feldzugs, wurden Militäreinheiten oder auch Festungsbesatzungen gemustert, die Anwesenheit jedes Soldaten schriftlich in einem yoklama defteri festgehalten. Eines für die Sandschake Anatoliens hat sich in Göttingen erhalten, es stammt, wie zahlreiche weitere defter dieser Art in deutschen Sammlungen aus der Zeit des Grossen Türkenkriegs.41 Noch immer spielten die Timarioten eine bedeutende Rolle im Heer und so wurden Timarverzeichnisse im Heer mitgeführt und zur Kontrolle des tatsächlichen Erscheinens eingesehen und aktualisiert. Manche wurden erbeutet, beispielsweise ein Band von 1673–1674, heute in Dresden.42 In Stuttgart43 liegt heute eine Türckische Roll oder Lista über eine Mannschaft [es sind gureba-i yemîn], von Ihrer Hochfürstlichen Durchl. Prinz Franz Fridrich Herzogen zu Wirtemberg kayserlichen Generaln zur fürstl. Kunst Cammer gegeben Anno 1684, sie geht also wahrscheinlich auf den Feldzug 1683 zurück, an dem der Prinz beteiligt war. Die Ausgaben für die Armee wurden in einer Vielzahl von deftern registriert, gelegentlich flossen sie zusammen in Aufstellungen der Gesamtausgaben für Janitscharen, Cebecis, Topçus etc., wie das Zittauer defter,44 das eineinhalb Jahre, von Februar 1684 bis August 1685 umfasst. 1687 wurde es erbeutet, in der Kanzlei des Großwesirs Sarı Süleyman Pascha. Vom Janitscharenag˘a Bekri Mustafa Pascha hat sich ein gesondertes Rechnungsbuch erhalten. Es wurde im verlassenen Lager vor Wien gefunden.45 Um die Verwaltung von Staat und Armee während eines Feldzuges zu gewährleisten, wurde Schriftliches in zahlreichen Kisten mitgeführt. All diese defter zählten zum Schatz (hazine) und wurden sorgsam gehütet. Wie umfangreich der Bestand allein an deftern aus den verschiedenen Abteilungen der Zentralverwaltung im Heer sein konnte, zeigt beispielhaft eine von Feridun Emecen veröffentlichte Aufstellung vom Jahre 1615. Sie umfasst 838 Bände. Eine dazu ge40 Abgebildet in: Osmanisch-türkisches Kunsthandwerk aus süddeutschen Sammlungen: Abb. 1; Atasoy, Otag˘-ı Hümayun: 262–263; Majer, „Bavyera ve I˙stanbul’da I˙zleri Olan Bir Osmanlı Sadrıazamı“: 31 und Majer, „Spuren des osmanischen Großwesirs Sarı Süleyman Pascha in Bayern und Istanbul“: 199. 41 Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen, Cod. turc. 28. 42 Landesbibliothek Dresden, Hs. E 356. Teilweise veröffentlicht in: Fekete, Die Siyâqat-Schrift: Bd. 1, 704–717, Bd. 2, Tafel LXXXII–LXXXIII. 43 Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, Cod. or. Fol. 6. 44 Christian-Weise-Bibliothek Zittau, Mscr. E 7. Ich bereite eine Publikation dieses defters vor. 45 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Cod. turc.141, dazu knapp Aumer, „Türkische Handschriften“: 40.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

105

hörige Liste enthält die Namen und die jeweilige Kanzleizughörigkeit von 60 besoldeten Kanzlisten und Schreibern mit dem nis¸ancı an der Spitze. Dazu kamen noch 19 mit Timaren belehnte Kanzlisten mit 34 Gehilfen (s¸agird).46 Somit waren in diesem Heer 113 Personen aus den Istanbuler Kanzleien im Einsatz. Dazu kam noch eine Anzahl von deftern und Schreibern einzelner Heereseinheiten. Dies mag ein Hinweis sein auf den möglichen Umfang des amtlichen Einsatzes von Schreibrohr und Papier in der osmanischen Armee.

Der individuelle Armeeangehörige Wie aber war das Verhältnis der Männer, die das Heer ausmachten, zum weiten Feld der Schriftkultur? Wer konnte überhaupt schreiben und lesen? Wer überhaupt verwandte und besaß Schriftliches und aus welchem Grund? Anders als manche ihrer Vorfahren konnten die Sultane des 17. Jahrhunderts selbstverständlich und nachweislich lesen und schreiben. Mehmed IV. schrieb gewandt und flott bis zur Unleserlichkeit47 und war darin durchaus seinem Zeitgenossen, Kaiser Leopold zu vergleichen, dessen Schrift nur wenige Spezialisten lesen konnten und können. Leserlicher ist die Handschrift Mustafas II. Von seinem ersten Feldzug 1696 schrieb er etwa eigenhändig48 an den Schwarzen Obereunuchen: er solle den Haremsdamen (kadıns) Geldgeschenke überreichen und er lässt der Valide Sultan, seiner Mutter, seine Verehrung sowie Nachrichten über den Kriegsverlauf übermitteln. Die Großwesire dieses Zeitraumes, vor allem die jüngeren Köprülüs und ihr Schwager Kara Mustafa Pascha waren recht gebildete Männer und weit mehr als rein amtliche Schriftkultur ist in ihrem Umfeld durchaus anzunehmen. Ähnliches gilt auch für andere Wesire. Zwei sehr schöne Handschriften, in Karlsruhe49 und Wien, die eine Kurzdarstellung der Weltgeschichte in osmanischer Sicht enthalten und reich mit den Porträts von Propheten, iranischen und islamischen Herrschern und solchen der osmanischen Sultane geschmückt sind, werden traditionell als Beutestücke angesehen. Die näheren Umstände sind ungeklärt, doch sind sie als sehr wertvolle Bücher gewiss als Eigentum von Wesiren zu sehen. Mehmed IV. schätzte illustrierte Handschriften. So hatte Kara Mustafa Pascha schon früher einmal befohlen, aus dem Nachlass der verstorbenen Canfeda Hanım illustrierte Bücher auszusor46 Emecen, „Sefere Götürülen Defterlerin Defteri“: 260–268. 47 Mehrere eigenhändige Schreiben des Sultans finden sich in: Babinger, Das Archiv des Bosniaken Osman Pascha: Tafeln 1–4. Über die Herkunft des Archivs siehe: Majer, „Verlorene Urkunden und Briefe aus der „Türckischen Kammer““: 359–362. 48 Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Ars¸ivi, E 2450/5. 49 Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Hs. Rastatt 201, siehe dazu: Majer, „Handschriften und Defter“: 369–378.

106

Hans Georg Majer

tieren und an den kaiserlichen Steigbügel einzusenden.50 Die Wiener Handschrift AF 5051 hat der Pascha sogar aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach als Geschenk für den Sultan selbst in Auftrag gegeben.52 Derart kostbare Handschriften machen deutlich, wie sehr sich osmanische Würdenträger auf den Feldzügen nicht nur mit erlesenen Textilien, prunkvollen Waffen und kostbaren Gerätschaften umgeben konnten, sondern auch mit Produkten der Buchkunst. Außerordentlich beliebt war im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert das Buch „Die Beweise des Prophetentums Muhammads“ von Miskin, in der osmanischen Übersetzung von Altıparmak. Eine ansprechende, wenn auch nicht erstklassige illuminierte Handschrift befand sich wohl ebenfalls im Besitz eines osmanischen Großen, ehe sie ein kriegerisches Schicksal beschädigte und in mehrere Stücke zerriss, von denen heute eines in Karlsruhe,53 ein zweites in München liegt.54 Ein weitverbreitetes Buch über Leben und Prophetentum Muhammads, die „Muhammadiya“ des ˙ Yazıcıog˘lu erbeutete 1664 ein Heinrich Rudolf Gerstenberg an der Brücke von Esseg (Osijek).55 Eine Abhandlung über die Wallfahrt nach Mekka (Menâsik ulHacc) erzählt auf der Innenseite des Vorderdeckels: ˙ „Dieses bey eröberung der Vestung Griechisch Weissenburg von meinem bruder erbeuthete buch ist mir bey Seiner wieder heraus-Kunfft von Ihm geschenket worden. Frankfurt an der oder den 22. Octobris 1688. George Adolph, Freiherr von Micrander, Obrister und Commendant“.56

Ein Koran-Kommentar wie auch das Bruchstück eines arabisch-türkischen Lexikons, beide 1683 vor Wien erbeutet, gelangten in die Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden. Dort befindet sich heute auch eine Anthologie persischer und osmanischer Gedichte, die 1688 bei der Einnahme von Belgrad erbeutet worden ist.57 Manch andere Handschrift, vor allem Sammelhandschriften (mecmuas) in europäischen Bibliotheken, dürften eine ähnliche Herkunft haben. Leider sichert nur selten ein eindeutiger Vermerk die Zuordnung. Ganz andere Schriften musste 1684 der Wesir Osman Pascha nach der Schlacht bei Hamzabeg in seinem Zelt zurücklassen. Es war sein persönliches Archiv und ist wohl das früheste erhaltene Archiv eines osmanischen Paschas. Dieses 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Babinger, Das Archiv des Bosniaken Osman Pascha: 43 und Tafel XXX. Subhatu’l-Ahbâr (Haberler Tesbihi); Rosenkranz der Weltgeschichte. Subhat al-Ahbâr. ˙ ˘ Majer, „Gold, Silber und Farbe“: 16–18. Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Hs. Rastatt 207, siehe dazu: Majer, „Handschriften und Defter“: 383–385. Aumer, „Türkische Handschriften“: 31, Nr. 104. Pertsch, Die orientalischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha: 186–187, Nr. 218; Orientalische Buchkunst in Gotha. Ausstellung zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha: 18. Pertsch, Gotha: 70, Nr. 73. Katalog Im Lichte des Halbmonds. Das Abendland und der türkische Orient: 200–201, Nr. 213, 214; 213, Nr. 252.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

107

Archiv enthielt ein ganzes Bündel von Schreiben, die vor allem seine Karriere, seine jeweiligen Obliegenheiten und seinen Besitz betrafen. Sie stammten zum großen Teil vom Sultan und Großwesir, eigenhändige Schreiben Mehmeds IV., Köprülüzade Ahmed Paschas und Kara Mustafa Paschas finden sich darunter.58 Osman Pascha war aber gewiss nicht der einzige Pascha, der eigene Schriftstücke mit sich geführt hat.59 Auch von Abdurrahman Pascha, dem letzten Kommandanten von Ofen (Buda), finden sich mehrere Stücke, allerdings aufgeteilt zwischen Karlsruhe und München.60 Zahlreiche in europäischen Sammlungen erhaltene Ernennungsurkunden (berat), vor allem von Lehensträgern, deuten darauf hin, dass viele der Inhaber auch im Feld noch solche Urkunden mit sich führten, oft genug, weil die Ernennung erst während des Feldzuges erfolgt war. Gelegentlich aber ist der Zusammenhang eher rätselhaft: warum hat einer bei Belgrad 1717 noch einen Ferman Murads III. von 1576 mit sich geführt,61 in dem einem Ahmed wegen seiner militärischen Tüchtigkeit eine Zulage gewährt wurde? Die Kaiserlichen hielten dieses Stück dann für „Ein order von dem GroßVezir an den Bassa von Bosnien …“. Eine Zahlungsanweisung an eine Ays¸e trug ein anderer mit sich. Vor Wien 1683 erbeutet,62 wurde das Blatt als „türkischer Paß“ gekennzeichnet. Dass auch mittlere militärische Ränge mit dem Schreibrohr umgehen konnten, erfahren wir aus den Memoiren des „Gefangenen der Giauren“ Osman Ag˘a aus Temeschwar.63 Bei ihm können wir dazu eine tiefe, wenn auch keineswegs dogmatische Frömmigkeit beobachten. Die Tröstungen der Religion im Gebet zu finden, war vielen osmanischen Soldaten wichtig. Teilweise recht abgegriffene Gebetbücher bewahren zahlreiche europäische Sammlungen. Obwohl die meisten keinen Hinweis auf ihre Herkunft enthalten, dürften sie größtenteils osmanischen Militärpersonen gehört haben und aus den Türkenkriegen stammen.64 Sie enthalten meist einen recht gemischten Inhalt: Gebete, Talismane, Koransuren etc., und offenbaren wie Florian Sobieroj festgestellt hat, ein weites, vielfältiges, magische, sufische, synkretistische, schiitische wie sunnitische Elemente 58 Leider ist dieses Archiv im 2. Weltkrieg verschwunden, doch ist durch die Faksimile-Edition Franz Babingers der größte Teil der Stücke wenigstens optisch gerettet. 59 Siehe dazu Majer, „The Papers of Bos¸nak Osman Pasha and the Problem of Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Archives“ (im Druck). 60 Majer, „Verlorene Urkunden“: 357–359; Aumer, „Türkische Handschriften“: 40, Cod. turc. 145. 61 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Hs. Blankenburg 308. 62 Stadtbibliothek Hamburg, Orient 268. Siehe Brockelmann, Katalog der orientalischen Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg: Teil 1, 139; auch dieses Stück ist seit dem 2. Weltkrieg verschollen. 63 Der Gefangene der Giauren. Die abenteuerlichen Schicksale des DolmetschersʿOsman Ag˘a aus Temeschwar, von ihm selbst erzählt. 64 Siehe dazu auch Sobieroj, „Gebete in Handschriften der ‚Türkenbeute‘“.

108

Hans Georg Majer

enthaltendes Verständnis des Islam.65 Durch ihr meist kleines Format konnten sie leicht eingesteckt und mitgenommen werden. Ich erwähne einige Gebetbücher mit gut belegter Herkunft. Eines besitzt die Karlsruher Bibliothek: „Dem Durchleüchtigenn Hochgebornen Fürsten vnnd Herrn Herrn Georg Friderichen Marggrauen zu Baden vnnd Hochberg, Hat Ihrer F.Gn. Cammer Junckher Kilian von Hager dieses Büchlein, so er in der Belegerung der Festung Gran in der Wasserstadt einem Türggen genommen vnderthenig Praesentiert. Actum Carlspurg den 25. Maij Anno 1608“.66

Die schlichte, kleinformatige (12,4 x 8,7 cm) vom Gebrauch abgegriffene Handschrift berührt, verbindet, lässt das fromme Tun über die Jahrhunderte hinweg erahnen. Etwas größer (14,7 x 10,2 cm) und hübscher geschrieben ist ein zweites Karlsruher Gebetbuch, das 1685 bei Gran erbeutet worden ist.67 Eine Handschrift dieses Typs in Tübingen trägt von christlicher Hand das Datum 1688, was ebenfalls auf Kriegsbeute hindeutet68 und Florian Sobieroj erwähnt je ein Gebetbuch in Wien und eines in Weimar. Beide stammen nach deutschen Eintragungen aus dem Lager vor Wien 1683.69 Die Gefährdung des Soldaten und seine Hoffnung auf Schutz symbolisieren sich in Amuletten und wie in anderen Religionen verbinden sich im osmanischen Amulett uralte magische Vorstellungen mit Bestandteilen der Hochreligion. Die Amulette bestanden meist aus einem sehr langen und schmalen Papierstreifen, der mit vielerlei religiösen Texten, den schönen Namen Gottes, einzelnen Versen oder ganzen Suren des Koran, und der Mantelkaside, oft schmucklos in schwarzer Schrift70 oder aber vielfarbig in wechselnder Schreibrichtung beschrieben ist. Dazu kann er bunt bemalt sein mit unterschiedlichsten Symbolen wie dem Salomonssiegel, magischen Quadraten, Sonnen, Mondsicheln, Zypressen und Blüten. All diesen Elementen wurden apotropäische Kräfte zugeschrieben, vor allem dem mächtigen Wort Gottes. Die Kombination verstärkte die Wirkung. Die Amulette müssen unter den Soldaten beliebt und sehr verbreitet gewesen sein, denn so zahlreich und in so unterschiedlichem Erhaltungszustand finden sie sich in den Bibliotheken von Berlin, Leipzig, Karlsruhe,

65 Sobieroj, „Gebete“: 68–78. 66 Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Hs. Durlach 36, siehe dazu Majer, „Handschriften und Defter“: 380–381. 67 Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Hs. Rastatt 202, siehe dazu Majer, „Handschriften und Defter“: 381–382. 68 Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, Cd.1853, siehe Ewald, Verzeichniß der orientalischen Handschriften der Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Tübingen: 30. 69 Sobieroj, „Gebete“: 64, Anm. 15. 70 Ein einfaches Beispiel dieser Art, das mit einiger Sicherheit 1683 erbeutet sein dürfte, befindet sich in Schloss Neuenstein. Siehe Panter (Hrsg.), Hohenlohe. Das Kirchberger Kunstkabinett im 17. Jahrhundert: 128–129.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

109

München, Stuttgart, Wien und anderwärts, dass sie nur als Beutestücke erklärbar sind. Leider geben sie nur sehr selten einen direkten Hinweis auf ihr Schicksal. Bei einem prächtig ausgeführten, durch die Tug˘ra Sultan Ibrahims (1640–1648) auf der Kapsel datierten Exemplar in Karlsruhe71 weist immerhin die Überlieferungsgeschichte auf eine Kriegsbeute. Koransuren, vor allem aber der vollständige Koran, als das Wort Gottes, gewährten dem Gläubigen den machtvollsten Schutz. Daher band man häufig einen kleinen, in winziger Schrift geschriebenen, meist achteckigen Koran, den Sancak Kuranı, in einem verzierten Metallbehälter geschützt, an die Spitze des Banners der Truppe. Die Einheit folgte ihrem Banner so unter dem Schutz Gottes. Die Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg besitzt wie auch andere Sammlungen einen solchen Koran.72 Individuellen Schutz sicherte sich der einzelne Soldat, indem er eine oder mehrere Suren oder auch einen vollständigen Koran an sich trug. Zahlreiche Korane in deutschen Sammlungen,73 vor allem kleinformatige Korane dürften daher Eigentum von osmanischen Armeeangehörigen gewesen sein. Manch einer wurde aber auch Einwohnern eroberter Städte weggenommen.74 Das ist aber meist kaum zu unterscheiden. Ausdrücklich durch Einträge belegt ist der Besitzwechsel nur selten, oft kann er nur durch Indizien erschlossen werden. Zwei 1688 erbeutete Suren besitzt aber die Fürstlich-Fürstenbergische Hofbibliothek zu Donaueschingen.75 Einen im Lager vor Wien 1683 erbeuteten und zwei 1686 bei der Eroberung Ofens erbeutete Korane verwahrt die Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,76 einen vor Wien 1683 und einen vor Corona 1685 erbeuteten Koran die Sächsische Landesbibliothek in Dresden.77 Weitere lassen sich in den Handschriftenkatalogen aufspüren. Der Koran ist der Mittelpunkt des Islam, er war sorgfältig bis kalligraphisch in arabischer Sprache geschrieben und damit teuer. Buchbesitz war allgemein nicht sehr verbreitet, wie punktuelle Untersuchungen aus allerdings viel späteren Nachlassregistern bestätigen.78 Im Heer waren Gebetbücher und Korane angesichts der Gefährdung der Menschen und ihrer Frömmigkeit verständlicherweise die häufigsten Bücher. Doch wer sie 71 Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Hs. Rastatt 204, siehe dazu: Majer, „Handschriften und Defter“: 382–383. 72 Daub, „Sancak Kura¯nı“. ˙ 73 Die Leipziger ˙Ratsbibliothek besitzt beispielsweise allein 63 Korane, die wie der größte Teil des Bestandes, als Türkenbeute gelten dürfen, siehe Liebrenz, Arabische, Persische und Türkische Handschriften in Leipzig: 17–33. 74 Siehe Sobieroj, „Gebete“: 65–66. 75 „Anno 1688 bracht ich Johan Martin Deuringer Der Zeit Felt Weibel Disz buoch von kriechisch weiszenburg vnd Mer von den Thüörckhen erbeuthet“, siehe: Barack, Die Handschriften der Fürstlich-Fürstenbergischen Hofbibliothek zu Donaueschingen: 5. 76 Cod. arab. 11, 17, 73, siehe Aumer, Die arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek: 4, 5, 12. 77 Katalog Im Lichte des Halbmonds: 201, Nr. 215 und 216. 78 Anastassiadou, „Des défunts hors du commun“.

110

Hans Georg Majer

besaß, bleibt im Dunkeln. Es lassen sich lediglich Vermutungen anstellen. Gewiss gab es Offiziere, die diese Bücher besaßen, aber auch Ulema, Imame, Derwische, Sekretäre, Kaufleute, Handwerker im Heer und manche Soldaten konnten lesen und hatten die Mittel, sich ein Gebetbuch oder den Koran leisten zu können. Zumal der Besitz von Heiligen Texten keineswegs die Fähigkeit voraussetzte, sie auch lesen zu können, vertraute man doch vor allem auf ihre Segenswirkung (bereket). Unter der Fragestellung „Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee“ habe ich die Präsenz von Geschriebenem und den Umgang mit Schriftlichem in der osmanischen Armee verfolgt. Zur Orientierung und Veranschaulichung dienten vor allem die authentischsten Zeugnisse, nämlich Schriften, die nachweisbar während der Feldzüge die Fronten gewechselt haben und in der Regel als konkrete Stücke noch immer vorhanden sind. Dabei wurde vor allem, aber nicht ausschließlich Material aus dem späten 17. Jahrhundert berücksichtigt. Obwohl das Gesamtmaterial noch nicht voll ausgeschöpft ist und so keineswegs alle möglichen Aspekte der Frage beleuchtet, wird doch deutlich, wie vielfältig und präsent Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee war und wie tief sie auch das Leben im osmanischen Heer prägte. Eingewendet werden muss allerdings, dass das schriftliche Beutegut sicherlich durch äußere Umstände, Unwissen und Interessen der Sieger gefiltert worden ist und damit die wirkliche Dichte des ursprünglichen Bestandes nur noch andeuten kann. Gebundene Bücher, prächtige Urkunden, auch Exotisches an sich, wurde gerne bewahrt, Unscheinbares, Alltägliches, so dürfen wir vermuten, ging eher unter. Doch noch heute kann uns die Fülle des einst Erbeuteten und durch die Jahrhunderte Bewahrten erfreuen und verbinden.79 Durch dieses Bewahren erweist sich das Interesse an der Nachbarkultur, erweist sich die Achtung vor den Leistungen dieser Kultur, schon in vergangenen Zeiten. Exponenten einer solchen, Grenzen überwindenden Einstellung waren Graf Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, der bei der Plünderung des osmanischen Ofen (Buda) zahlreiche Handschriften rettete80 oder auch der kaiserliche Dolmetscher Johann Baptist Podesta, der mitten im Kriegsjahr 1696 die zukunftsweisende Vision hatte, der Schriftkultur des Gegners eine Stätte in der eigenen Kultur zu verschaffen, als er sich an die militärische Führung wandte: „Umb Verwendtung an die Soldatesca in Hungarn damit sie die erbeutende

79 Ein vorläufiger Überblick über die osmanischen Archivalien in Deutschland wird versucht in Majer, „Almanya Ars¸ivleri ve Kütüphanelerindeki Osmanlı Belgeleri“; ein vorläufiger Überblick über die in München verwahrten findet sich in Majer, „Ottoman Documents in Munich Collections.“ Eine wichtige Zusammenstellung der erbeuteten religiösen Texte gibt Sobieroj, „Gebete in Handschriften“: 62–66. 80 Dazu: John Stoye, Marsigli’s Europe 1680–1730: 45–46.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

111

türkische Bücher zu aufrichtung einer türkischen Bibliothek zum Commisariat lieffern sollen“.81

Literaturverzeichnis Primärquellen Babinger, Franz, „Qara Mustafâ-Paschas Esseger Sendschreiben an den Markgrafen Her˙˙ mann von Baden“, Archiv Orientální, 4 (1932): 24–33. Babinger, Franz, Das Archiv des Bosniaken Osman Pascha. Berlin 1931. Badische Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe Hs. Durlach 36 Hs. Rastatt 201 Hs. Rastatt 202 Hs. Rastatt 204 Hs. Rastatt 207 Bas¸bakanlık Osmanlı Ars¸ivi, S¸ikâyet Defteri Nr. 187 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München Cod. arab. 11, 17, 73 Cod. turc. 131 Cod. turc. 132 Cod. turc. 141 Christian-Weise-Bibliothek Zittau, Mscr. E 7 Der Gefangene der Giauren. Die abenteuerlichen Schicksale des DolmetschersʿOsman Ag˘a aus Temeschwar, von ihm selbst erzählt (Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Richard F. Kreutel & Otto Spies). Graz, Wien, Köln 1962. Der Löwe von Temeschwar. Erinnerungen an Ca’fer Pascha den Älteren, aufgezeichnet von seinem Siegelbewahrer ʿAlî (Unter Mitarbeit von Karl Teply übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Richard F. Kreutel). Graz, Wien, Köln 1981. Geheimes Staatsarchiv München Kasten schwarz 8027 Kasten schwarz 8028 Kasten schwarz 8216 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel Hs. Blankenburg 307.3b Hs. Blankenburg 308 Hs. Helmstedt 1038 Kara Mustafa vor Wien. Das türkische Tagebuch der Belagerung Wiens 1683, verfasst vom Zeremonienmeister der Hohen Pforte (Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Richard F. Kreutel, 2. Aufl.). Graz, Wien, Köln 1960.

81 Kriegsarchiv Wien, Exped. 1696, 397, 48.

112

Hans Georg Majer

Kornrumpf, Hans-Jürgen, „Eine Urkunde Süleyma¯ns des Prächtigen aus dem Jahre 1535 in Bremen“, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 79 (1989): 139–154. Kreutel, Richard F. & Teply, Karl, Kara Mustafa vor Wien 1683 aus der Sicht türkischer Quellen. Graz, Wien, Köln 1982. Krieg und Sieg in Ungarn. Die Ungarnfeldzüge des Großwesirs Köprülüzade Fâzıl Ahmed Pascha 1663 und 1664 nach den „Kleinodien der Historien“ seines Siegelbewahrers Hasan Ag˘a (Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Erich Prokosch). Graz, Wien, Köln 1976. Kriegsarchiv Wien, Exped. 1696, 397, 48 Landesbibliothek Dresden, Hs. E 356 Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Archivamt für Westfalen in Münster, Archiv Assen, Best.-L. Nr. 445a Majer, Hans Georg (Hrsg.), Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“ (S¸ikâyet Defteri) vom Jahre 1675 Band 1. Wien 1984. Majer, Hans Georg, „Ein Brief des Serdar Yeg˘en Osman Pascha an den Kurfürsten Max Emanuel von Bayern vom Jahre 1688 und seine Übersetzungen“, in: Islamkundliche Abhandlungen aus dem Institut für Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Orients an der Universität München. Hans Joachim Kissling zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Schülern. München 1974: 130–145. Majer, Hans Georg, „Ein Nisˇân des Osmanenprinzen Ahmed, des Statthalters von Amasya, für die Zâviye des Schejch Bahâ’ed-Dîn vom Jahre 906/1501“, Südost-Forschungen 31 (1972): 319–331. Majer, Hans Georg, „Zur Kapitulation des osmanischen Gran (Esztergom) im Jahre 1683“, in: Südosteuropa unter dem Halbmond. Untersuchungen über Geschichte und Kultur der südosteuropäischen Völker während der Türkenzeit. Professor Georg Stadtmüller gewidmet. München 1975: 189–204. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen Cod. turc. 30 Cod. turc. 31/1 Cod. turc. 28 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien Cod. mixt. 1305 Cod. mixt. 683 Rosenkranz der Weltgeschichte. Subhat al-Ahbâr (Vollständige Wiedergabe im Original˙ ˘ format von Codex Vindobonensis A. F. 50, Kommentar Kurt Holter). Graz 1981. Sächsische Landesbibliothek Dresden, Hs. Eb 372 Schaendlinger, Anton C., Die Feldzugstagebücher des ersten und zweiten ungarischen Feldzugs Suleymans I. Wien 1978. [Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmet Ag˘a], Nusretnâme (Sprachlich modernisiert und herausgegeben von I˙smet Parmaksızog˘lu, 2 Bde.) I˙stanbul 1962–1966. Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Cod. orient. 17.5 Stadtbibliothek Hamburg, Orient 268 Subhatu’l-Ahbâr (Haberler Tesbihi). I˙stanbul 1968. Topal, Mehmet, Silâhdar Fındıklılı Mehmet Ag˘a, Nusretnâme. Metin ve Tahlil (1106–1133/ 1695–1721) (Diss., Marmara Üniversitesi). I˙stanbul 2001. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Ars¸ivi, E 2450/5

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

113

Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, Cd.1853 Württembergische Landesbibliothek Stuttgart Cod. or. 68 Cod. or. Fol. 6 Cod. or. 2° 41

Sekundärliteratur Anastassiadou, Meropi, „Des défunts hors du commun: les possesseurs de livres dans les inventaires après décès musulmans de Salonique“, Turcica 32 (2000): 197–251. Atasoy, Nurhan, Otag˘-ı Hümayun. Osmanlı Çadırları. I˙stanbul 2000. Aumer, Joseph, „Türkische Handschriften“, in: Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München mit Ausschluss der Hebräischen, Arabischen, und Persischen (Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1875). Wiesbaden 1970: 1–96. Aumer, Joseph, Die arabischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek. München 1866. Babinger, Franz, Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der Levante. München 1966. Barack, K. A., Die Handschriften der Fürstlich-Fürstenbergischen Hofbibliothek zu Donaueschingen. Tübingen 1865. Beydilli, Kemal, Rezension von: Majer, Hans Georg (Hrsg.), Das osmanische „Registerbuch der Beschwerden“ (S¸ikâyet Defteri) vom Jahre 1675, Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 13 (1983– 1987): 607–611. Brockelmann, Carl, Katalog der orientalischen Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg. Hamburg 1908. Daub, Frederike-Wiebke, „Sancak Kura¯nı – Ein „Standarten-Koran“: Cod. in scrin.199“, in: ˙ ˙ Karolewski & Köse (Hrsg.), Ausstellungskatalog „Wunder der erschaffenen Dinge“: 168– 171. Emecen, Feridun, „Sefere Götürülen Defterlerin Defteri“, in: Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükog˘lu’na Armag˘an. I˙stanbul 1991: 241–268. Ewald, Heinrich, Verzeichniß der orientalischen Handschriften der Universitäts-Bibliothek zu Tübingen. Tübingen 1839. Feher, Géza, Türkische Miniaturen aus den Chroniken der ungarischen Feldzüge. Wiesbaden 1978. Fekete, Lajos, Die Siyâqat-Schrift in der türkischen Finanzverwaltung. Budapest 1955. Güllüog˘lu, Abdullah, „Büyük Bozgun’un I˙lk Senelerinde Osmanlı Diplomasisi (1683– 1685)“, in: Reindl-Kiel, Hedda & Kenan, Seyfi (Hrsg.), Deutsch-türkische Begegnungen / Alman Türk Tesadüfleri. Festschrift für Kemal Beydilli / Kemal Beydilli’ye Armag˘an. Berlin 2013: 88–105. Im Lichte des Halbmonds. Das Abendland und der türkische Orient. Dresden 1995. Karolewski, Janina & Köse, Yavuz (Hrsg.), Ausstellungskatalog „Wunder der erschaffenen Dinge: Osmanische Manuskripte in Hamburger Sammlungen / Wonders of Creation: Ottoman Manuscripts from Hamburg Collections“. Hamburg 2016.

114

Hans Georg Majer

Liebrenz, Boris, Arabische, Persische und Türkische Handschriften in Leipzig. Geschichte ihrer Sammlung und Erschließung von den Anfängen bis zu Karl Vollers. Leipzig 2008. Majer, Hans Georg, „Almanya Ars¸ivleri ve Kütüphanelerindeki Osmanlı Belgeleri“, in: Köksal, Yonca & Polatel, Mehmet, Avrupa Ars¸ivlerinde Osmanlı ˙Imparatorlug˘u. Ankara 2014: 15–29. Majer, Hans Georg, „Bavyera ve I˙stanbul’da I˙zleri Olan Bir Osmanlı Sadrıazamı: Sarı Süleyman Pas¸a“, in: Emecen, Feridun M. & Akyıldız, Ali & Gürkan, Emrah Safa (Hrsg.), Osmanlı ˙Istanbulu III. I˙stanbul 2015: 19–51. Erweiterte deutsche Version: Majer, Hans Georg, „Spuren des osmanischen Großwesirs Sarı Süleyman Pascha in Bayern und Istanbul“, Eothen. Münchner Beiträge zur Geschichte der Islamischen Kunst und Kultur 7 (2018): 189–224. Majer, Hans Georg, „Defter“, in: Karolewski & Köse (Hrsg), Ausstellungskatalog „Wunder der erschaffenen Dinge“: 196–197. Majer, Hans Georg, „Gold, Silber und Farbe. Musavvir Hüseyin, ein Meister der osmanischen Miniaturmalerei des späten 17. Jahrhunderts“, in: Motika, Raoul & Herzog, Christoph & Ursinus, Michael (Hrsg.), Studies in Ottoman Social and Economic Life / Studien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Osmanischen Reich. Heidelberg 1999: 9–42. Majer, Hans Georg, „Handschriften und Defter“, in: Petrasch et al. (Hrsg.), Die Karlsruher Türkenbeute: 363–385. Majer, Hans Georg, „Ottoman Documents in Munich Collections. Origin and Fate, Type and Contents, Preservation and Whereabouts“, in: Osmanlı Cog˘rafyası Kültürel Ars¸iv Mirasının Yönetimi ve Tapu Ars¸ivlerinin Rolü Ulusarası Kongresi / International Congress of „The Ottoman Geopolitics Management of Cultural Archive Heritage and Role of Land Registry Archives“, 21–23 Kasım / November 2012, ˙Istanbul. Bildiriler. Ankara 2013: Bd. 1, 151–161. Majer, Hans Georg, „The Papers of Bos¸nak Osman Pasha and the Problem of Ottoman Vizier and Pasha Archives“ (im Druck). Majer, Hans Georg, „Ulema und ‚kleinere Religionsdiener‘ in einem Defter vom Jahre 1683“, in: Majer, Hans Georg (Hrsg.), Osmanistische Studien zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. In memoriam Vancˇo Bosˇkov. Wiesbaden 1986: 104–119. Majer, Hans Georg, „Verlorene Urkunden und Briefe aus der „Türckischen Kammer““, in: Petrasch et al. (Hrsg), Die Karlsruher Türkenbeute: 356–362. Majer, Hans Georg, „Von der Heeresfolge freigestellte osmanische Timar-Inhaber in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts“ (im Druck). Mordtmann, J. H. & Ménage, V. L., „Ferîdûn Beg“, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) II: 881–882. Orientalische Buchkunst in Gotha. Ausstellung zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Forschungsund Landesbibliothek Gotha. Gotha 1997. Osmanisch-türkisches Kunsthandwerk aus süddeutschen Sammlungen. München 1979. Özcan, Abdülkadir, „Feridun Ahmed Bey“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 12 (1995): 396–397. Panter, Armin (Hrsg.), Hohenlohe. Das Kirchberger Kunstkabinett im 17. Jahrhundert. Sigmaringen 1995. Pertsch, Wilhelm, Die orientalischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha. Wien 1864.

Schreibrohr und Papier auf dem Marsch: Schriftkultur in der osmanischen Armee

115

Petrasch, Ernst & Sänger, Reinhard & Zimmermann, Eva & Majer, Hans Georg (Hrsg.), Die Karlsruher Türkenbeute. Die „Türckische Kammer“ des Markgrafen Ludwig Wilhelm von Baden-Baden. Die „Türckischen Curiositaeten“ des Markgrafen von Baden-Durlach. München 1991. Shalem, Avinoam, „Forbidden Territory. Early Islamic Audience Hall Carpets“, Halı 99 (July 1998): 70–100. Sobieroj, Florian, „Gebete in Handschriften der „Türkenbeute“ als Quellen der islamischen Religions- und Sozialgeschichte“, Archivum Ottomanicum 24 (2007): 61–80. Stoye, John, Marsigli’s Europe 1680–1730. The Life and Times of Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli, Soldier and Virtuoso. New Haven, London 1994. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı, Osmanlı Devletinin ˙Ilmiye Tes¸kilâtı. Ankara 1965.

Ulrich Vollmer

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

In einem kurzen Überblick über die Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft bezeichnet Mircea Eliade das erstmals 1520 erschienene Werk Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus1 von Ioannes Boemus als „die erste allgemeine Religionsgeschichte“.2 Trotz dieser besonderen Stellung war das frühneuzeitliche Werk in den Übersichten über die religionswissenschaftliche Forschungsgeschichte zuvor nur kurz bei Henry Pinard de la Boullaye erwähnt worden,3 und neulich hat es Udo Tworuschka mit einigen Zeilen beiläufig gewürdigt.4 In den anderen Darstellungen der Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft – soweit sie auf die Renaissance und die frühe Neuzeit zu sprechen kommen – fehlt von dem grundlegenden Werk jede Spur.5 Dies ist umso erstaunlicher, als das Werk des Ulmer Humanisten und Zeitgenossen Martin Luthers bis in die erste Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts in knapp 50 [!] verschiedenen Auflagen und Ausgaben, darunter auch in deutscher, englischer, französischer, italienischer und spanischer Übersetzung, erschienen ist.6 Das elfte Kapitel des zweiten Buches dieses Werkes trägt die Überschrift „De Turcia Turcarumque moribus, legibus et institutis omnibus“. Obwohl es mit seinen knapp neun Seiten zu den umfangreicheren Kapiteln des ganzen Werkes 1 Ich benutze das in der ULB Bonn unter der Signatur Ls 4o 589 vorhandene Exemplar der Erstausgabe: Boemus, Omnium gentium mores leges et ritus. Die Stellenangaben aus diesem Werk werden im Folgenden nur mit der Angabe des Folios angeführt. Die Übersetzungen sind von mir. 2 Eliade, „Enzyklopädisches Stichwort: Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft“: 133. 3 Pinard de la Boullaye, L’étude comparée des religions. Bd. 1: 146–147. 4 Tworuschka, Einführung in die Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft: 30. 5 Vgl. – in der Reihenfolge des Erscheinens – Hardy, „Zur Geschichte der vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft“; Mensching, Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft; Sharpe, Comparative Religion; Kohl, „Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft“; Gladigow, „Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Neuzeit“; Sharpe, „The Study of Religion in Historical Perspective“. 6 Eine Übersicht über die Drucke im Zeitraum von 1520 bis 1620 bietet Schmidt, Deutsche Volkskunde im Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Renaissance: 146–147; Ergänzungen zu dieser Liste bei Vogel, „Cultural Variety in a Renaissance Perspective. Johannes Boemus on ʽThe Manners, Laws and Customs of all People’ (1520)“: 17, Anm. 3.

118

Ulrich Vollmer

gehört und eine – wie wir sehen werden – bemerkenswerte Position einnimmt, finden sich in den zahlreichen Aufarbeitungen der Auseinandersetzungen zwischen dem europäisch-christlichen Abendland und den Osmanen7 bzw. dem Islam8 praktisch keine Hinweise auf Boemus. Ausnahmen sind lediglich die kurze, kommentarlose Wiedergabe seiner Darstellung des Propheten Mohammed bei Gustav Pfannmüller,9 die argumentative Bezugnahme bei einigen Themen in der Freiburger Dissertation von Ehrenfried Herrmann10 und eine gedrängte Paraphrase in der überaus umfangreichen Literatursichtung bei Piotr Tafiłowski.11 Da die grundlegende Bibliographie von Carl Göllner nur Werke verzeichnet, die den Türkeibezug im Titel tragen,12 fehlt dort ein Hinweis auf Boemus. Auch in der wesentlich übersichtlicheren Literatur speziell zu Boemus kommt nur Klaus A. Vogel bei der Untersuchung der kulturgeschichtlichen Hermeneutik unseres Autors am Rande auf dessen Behandlung des Islams und der Türken zu sprechen.13 Der folgende Beitrag will zunächst Autor und Werk kurz vorstellen; in einem zweiten Schritt soll die Gliederung des Türkei-Kapitels aufgezeigt und in einem dritten Schritt nach den von Ioannes Boemus benutzten Quellen gefragt werden; anschließend gilt es, das Verhältnis des Boemus zu seinen Quellen zu evaluieren und abschließend nach der Bedeutung dieses Autors zu fragen. Dabei sind freilich gleich einschränkend folgende Punkte zu beachten: 1.) Ioannes Boemus ist ein Kind seiner Zeit; er und sein Werk müssen immer vor diesem Hintergrund gesehen werden. 2.) In seiner Darstellung subsumiert er unter den Begriffen „Türkei“ und „Türken“ Inhalte, die auf merkwürdige Weise unscharf sind; ob 7 Aus der Fülle der Literatur seien genannt Bisaha, Creating East and West. Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks; Guthmüller & Kühlmann (Hrsg.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance; Höfert, Den Feind beschreiben. „Türkengefahr“ und europäisches Wissen über das Osmanische Reich 1450–1600; Kaufmann, „Türkenbüchlein“. Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung „türkischer Religion“ in Spätmittelalter und Reformation; Kuran-Burçog˘lu, „The Image of the Turk as Reflected in the English and German Speaking Spaces of Europe from Mid-15th to 18th Centuries“; Sarnowsky, „Das spätmittelalterliche Europa und die Osmanen“. 8 Auch hier nur als jüngere Beispiele Bennassar & Sauzet (Hrsg.), Chrétiens et musulmans à la Renaissance; Cardini, Europa und der Islam. Geschichte eines Mißverständnisses; Kaufmann, „The Christian Perception of Islam in the Late Middle Ages and in the Reformation“; Vitkus, „Early Modern Orientalism. Representations of Islam in Sixteenth-Century Europe“. 9 Pfannmüller, Handbuch der Islam-Literatur: 156 (Bibliographie) und 158 (Übersetzung). 10 Herrmann, Türke und Osmanenreich in der Vorstellung der Zeitgenossen Luthers. 11 Tafiłowski, „Anti-Turkish Literature in 15th–16th Century Europe“: 265. Nur der Vollständigkeit halber sei noch auf den folgenden (in erster Linie fachdidaktischen) Artikel hingewiesen, der die Darstellung der Ehe und der Derwische bei Boemus thematisiert: Wiegand, „Imago Turcae. Das Türkenbild der frühen Neuzeit im Lateinunterricht der Oberstufe“: 18– 19, 26–27. 12 Göllner, Turcica. Die europäischen Türkendrucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Bd. 1: MDI–MDL. 13 Vogel, „Cultural Variety in a Renaissance Perspective“: Anm. 6, 31–32.

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

119

dies aus seinem großen Blick für das Ganze folgt oder nur Ergebnis seiner mangelnden Information oder oberflächlichen Informationsverarbeitung ist, sei im Moment dahingestellt. 3.) Was Boemus von seinem Gegenstand zu berichten weiß, ist letztlich für unser Wissen über die osmanische Geschichte irrelevant; sein Werk ist – zeitlich und inhaltlich – noch weit entfernt von den Schriften etwa eines Hans Löwenklau,14 der gegen Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, aufbauend auf authentischen osmanischen Texten, sein Thema bearbeitete; Boemus ist in erster Linie Quelle für die abendländische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Islam und mit den Osmanen als den in seiner Zeit maßgebenden Anhängern dieser Religion.

1.

Der Autor und sein Werk

Informationen über Ioannes Boemus besitzen wir ausschließlich aus seinen erhaltenen Werken, wozu auch gelegentliche Gedichte von ihm in Schriften anderer Humanisten gehören, und aus spärlichen Angaben in zeitgenössischen Briefen.15 Davon unabhängige Quellen sind nicht erhalten. Boemus wurde um 1483 in der fränkischen Stadt Aub geboren. Nach dem Besuch der Lateinschule, der ihm von Verwandten ermöglicht worden war, studierte er Theologie. Als mögliche Studienorte kommen Leipzig, Frankfurt (Oder) und Tübingen in Betracht. Nirgendwo allerdings taucht sein Name in den Matrikeln auf. In der Zeit von 1508 bis 1521 lebte und wirkte er in der Ulmer Niederlassung des Deutschen Ordens, dem er als Priesterbruder bis zu seinem Lebensende angehörte. Von 1522 an war er für einige Jahre in der Ordensniederlassung Kapfenburg tätig. Aus einem Vermerk in einer Schrift des Humanisten Andreas Althammer geht hervor, dass Boemus 1534 oder 1535 in Rothenburg o. d. T. verstorben ist. Von seinen Werken hat sich neben Omnium gentium mores, leges et ritus nur noch eine fünf Jahre früher veröffentlichte Gedichtsammlung erhalten, die aber wie auch seine offensichtlich verloren gegangenen Werke für unsere Fragestellung nicht von Bedeutung ist. Seine vielfältigen literarischen Verbindungen zu den süddeutschen Humanisten und damit in der späteren Zeit auch eine zumindest weitläufige Berührung mit der beginnenden Reformation sollen ebenfalls nicht näher betrachtet werden; sie zeigen aber den geistigen Rahmen auf, in den Boemus gehört. An dem 1520 bei den Augsburger Verlegern Sigismund Grimm und Marcus Wirsung erschienenen Werk hat Boemus nach eigenen Angaben „ungefähr drei Jahre lang“ und „mit sehr großem Einsatz“ (fol. 2v) gearbeitet. Das Werk ist in 14 Vgl. Höfert, „Hans Löwenklau“: 481–488. 15 Zur Biographie vgl. in erster Linie Kugler, „Boemus (Böhm, Bohemus), Johannes“: 210–211; ferner Schmidt, Deutsche Volkskunde im Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Renaissance: Anm. 6, 63–77.

120

Ulrich Vollmer

drei Bücher eingeteilt, die den Stoff nach den drei aus der antik-mittelalterlichen Tradition überkommenen Erdteilen gliedern: Buch 1 behandelt Afrika, Buch 2 Asien und Buch 3 Europa. Vorangestellt sind ein Widmungsschreiben an den Verleger Grimm (fol. 2r–2v) und ein Vorwort an den Leser (fol. 4r–6r). Bevor in Buch 1 die Äthiopier, die Ägypter und die Punier behandelt werden, skizziert Boemus in engem Anschluss an die christliche Tradition den Ursprung und die anfängliche Geschichte des Menschen (fol. 6v–7r), dem eine Darstellung der frühen Kulturentwicklung aus der Sicht der klassischen Antike sowie eine geographische Beschreibung der drei Erdteile – in enger Anlehnung an die antike Tradition – folgen. Das zweite Buch behandelt nach zwei einleitenden Kapiteln Assyrien, Judäa (und damit das Judentum), Medien, Persien, Indien, Skythien, „Tartaria“ [sic], dann die Türkei (fol. 31r–35r), und es schließt – geographisch und historisch inkonsequent, aber aus der weltanschaulichen Position des Verfassers erklärbar – mit einem Kapitel „Über die Christen, ihren Ursprung und ihre Riten“ (fol. 35r–40v). Das dritte Buch behandelt die verschiedenen Völker Europas in der geographischen Reihenfolge von Ost nach West. Die Betrachtung dieser Völker schließt – wiederum inkonsequent und ohne ersichtlichen Grund – mit einer Beschreibung der Zustände auf der Indien benachbarten Insel Taprobane (fol. 80r–80v), auf die eine theologische Betrachtung und einige kleinere Texte aus humanistischer Feder folgen. In seinem Vorwort an den Leser erläutert Boemus zu Beginn seine Motivation, die ihn zur Abfassung des vorliegenden Werkes veranlasst hat. Er listet in der für ihn als Humanisten typischen Weise zunächst eine stattliche Anzahl antiker Autoren auf – beginnend mit Herodot als dem „Vater der Geschichtsschreibung“; ihnen folgt eine ganze Reihe jüngerer, zum Teil zeitgenössischer Schriftsteller. Dann heißt es (fol. 4r): „(Was sie) in ihren Werken verstreut und nur teilweise beschrieben haben, habe ich zusammengesucht, gesammelt und in diesem Text aufgeschrieben, damit du, an den geschichtlichen Zusammenhängen eifrigst interessierter Leser, es in einem einzigen Buch zusammengetragen in Händen hältst und – wenn es nötig ist – leicht findest.“

Auf besondere Originalität erhebt Boemus keinen Anspruch. Er steht seinem Stoff – wie es im Lateinischen heißt – „indifferenter“ (ebd.) gegenüber, also ohne ein eigenes Urteil abzugeben. Dies überlässt er bewusst seinem Leser.

2.

Der Inhalt von Buch 2, Kapitel 11

Das der Türkei und den Türken gewidmete Kapitel ist wie alle anderen Kapitel nicht weiter untergliedert, wenn man von den 70 Marginalien absieht, die den Inhalt thesenartig zusammenfassen. Es beginnt wie die meisten anderen Kapitel

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

121

mit einer geographischen Beschreibung und einer kurzen Charakteristik der Bewohner. Boemus bezieht sich, ohne es als solches zu benennen, auf das MilletSystem, wenn er feststellt, dass hier nicht nur Türken leben, sondern daneben auch – man beachte die Differenzierung bei den christlichen Gruppen – „Griechen, Armenier, Sarazenen, Jakobiten, Nestorianer, Juden und Christen“ (fol. 31r). Da aber die meisten Einwohner nach den Gesetzen Mohammeds leben, folgt eine Beschreibung von Leben und Werk des Propheten (fol. 31r–32v). Daran schließt sich ein kurzer, allerdings sehr oberflächlicher Blick auf die Geschichte des Vorderen Orients und der Türkei in der Zeit nach Mohammed an. Die Herrschaft der Sarazenen wird von den Türken abgelöst, die durch die „kaukasische Pforte“ nach Kleinasien eindringen. Bei den Türken handelt es sich ursprünglich um einen „wilden und grausamen skythischen Volksstamm“ (fol. 33r). Der neue, im Laufe der Geschichte von Seiten der Türken angenommene Glaube verbindet Türken und Sarazenen, so dass mit der Zeit in der Sichtweise des Boemus beide Völker mit dem gleichen Namen bezeichnet werden. Resümierend heißt es (ebd.): „Der Name der Türken […] hat die Oberhand gewonnen, während der andere verschwunden ist.“ Diesem sehr gerafften Abriss der Geschichte schließt sich eine detaillierte Beschreibung des nach Kavallerie und Fußsoldaten gegliederten türkischen Heeres an. Boemus wartet mit einer ganzen Reihe latinisierter Bezeichnungen der osmanischen Heeresteile auf und schildert nicht nur deren zahlenmäßige Stärke, Bewaffnung und Bekleidung, sondern auch die wirtschaftliche Versorgung und – sichtlich anerkennend – die ausgezeichnete Disziplin der Soldaten (fol. 33r–33v). Es folgen einige allgemeine Beobachtungen zu Bau- und Lebensweise der Türken. Unser Autor äußert sich sehr anerkennend über die bewusste Bescheidenheit der Türken, über ihren ausgeprägten Sinn für Reinheit in verschiedenen Zusammenhängen und ihre Enthaltsamkeit vom Wein, der „die Pflanzstätte jeglicher Sünde und Unreinheit“ sei (fol. 34r). Auch ihr konsequenter Verzicht auf jegliche bildliche Darstellungen wird in dieser Linie gesehen. Der islamische Freitag, den Boemus ausdrücklich mit dem christlichen Sonntag und dem jüdischen Sabbat vergleicht, gibt ihm Anlass zu einem Blick auf die religiöse Lebenspraxis. Hier beschreibt er das fünfmalige tägliche Gebet mit seinen vorgeschalteten Reinigungsriten, das jährliche Fasten und die Wallfahrt nach Mekka.16 Daran schließt sich eine Darstellung der „Priester“ (fol. 34v) an; sie „kennen die Vorschriften des Gesetzes, stehen den Kirchen [sic] vor und können die anderen unterweisen“. Besonders anerkennende Worte findet er schließlich für die Derwische, die „vielen verschiedenartigen Mönche“; einige von ihnen, die sich in 16 Dass ihm dabei kleinere Fehler unterlaufen sind, sei nur angemerkt, aber nicht weiter ausgeführt.

122

Ulrich Vollmer

„Worten und Taten“ auszeichnen, zeigen ihm ein solches Maß an Frömmigkeit, „dass sie nicht für Menschen, sondern für Engel gehalten werden könnten“ (alle Zitate ebd.). Die Bedeutung der im Koran niedergelegten „Gesetze“ leitet zur Beschreibung des Gerichtswesens über, wobei Boemus ganz augenscheinlich von dessen Strenge angetan ist. Im Einzelnen beschreibt er die harten Ahndungen bei Ehebruch und die abgestuften, aber grausamen Strafen bei Diebstahl. Von dort führt ihn sein Blick dann wieder zurück zum Thema Ehe, zur Stellung der Frau in der Gesellschaft und zum Verhältnis der Geschlechter zueinander. Das Kapitel schließt mit einer sachlichen Darstellung der Jenseitsvorstellungen; ohne jedwede Polemik beschreibt der Autor die islamischen Konzeptionen vom Paradies und von der Hölle.

3.

Die Quellen

Wie Boemus im Vorwort an den Leser sagt, benutzt er eine Vielzahl von schriftlichen Quellen. Da sein Werk bisher noch nicht in einer wissenschaftlichen Edition vorliegt, sei hier der Versuch unternommen, wenigstens für das uns interessierende Kapitel die Texte zu ermitteln, die Boemus verwertet hat (und das heißt zum Teil: die er nach heutigen Vorstellungen schlichtweg abgeschrieben hat). Der Arbeitsweise seiner Zeit entsprechend sind diese Passagen durchweg nicht als Übernahmen gekennzeichnet. Die von Boemus genannten insgesamt 13 antiken Autoren spielen hier keine Rolle. Zwar wurde bei einigen humanistischen Gelehrten diskutiert, ob bereits Herodot oder Pomponius Mela die Türken erwähnen.17 Boemus kannte diese Diskussionen aber entweder nicht, oder er hat sie ignoriert. Im Vorwort nennt Boemus von den jüngeren Autoren an erster Stelle „Vincentius“, d. i. Vincenz von Beauvais, den mittelalterlichen Polyhistor aus dem Dominikanerorden, dessen universale Weltgeschichte, das Speculum historiale, Boemus bekannt war und von ihm zumindest im 10. Kapitel des zweiten Buches, dem Kapitel über die Tataren, ausgiebig verwertet wurde.18 Als nächsten Gewährsmann führt Boemus Aeneas Silvio Piccolomini an. Für unseren Zusammenhang kommt von den verschiedenen Werken dieses Gelehrten, der später als Papst Pius II. eine besondere Rolle im osmanisch-abendländischen Verhältnis spielen sollte und 1464 in Ancona bei dem Versuch starb, ein Kreuzfahrerheer 17 Herrmann, Türke und Osmanenreich in der Vorstellung der Zeitgenossen Luthers: Anm. 10, 176; Heath, „Renaissance Scholars and the Origins of the Turks“: 457–458. 18 Herrmann, Türke und Osmanenreich in der Vorstellung der Zeitgenossen Luthers: Anm. 10, 195.

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

123

gegen die Osmanen aufzustellen, hier nur sein Werk Beschreibung Asiens in Frage, in dessen 100. Kapitel sich ein detaillierter Abriss der türkischen Geschichte findet, auch mit einer Rückführung auf deren skythischen Ursprung. Im Werk von Boemus lässt sich aber kein Einfluss dieses Textes nachweisen.19 An dritter Stelle der Liste erscheint der italienische Historiker Marcantonio Sabellico, dessen Universalgeschichte in 92 Büchern unter dem Titel Enneades sive Rhapsodiae historiarum erstmals in den Jahren 1498 bis 1504 erschienen ist. Dessen eigenständige Darstellung Mohammeds im 6. Buch der 8. Enneade übernimmt Boemus nicht nur der Tendenz nach, sondern zum Teil sogar wörtlich.20 Ebenfalls von dort (10. Enneade, Buch 9)21 weitgehend wörtlich übernommen ist auch die Beschreibung des osmanischen Heeres, die Sabellico seinerseits wohl in den Grundzügen dem gleich noch zu nennenden Martin Segon verdankt. Boemus ist aber eindeutig direkt von Sabellico abhängig, wie der genaue, hier nicht näher auszuführende Vergleich des jeweiligen Wortlauts zeigt. Die weiteren drei im Vorwort genannten Gelehrten scheiden als Gewährsleute in unserem Zusammenhang aus. Außer den im Vorwort genannten Autoren erscheinen im uns beschäftigenden 11. Kapitel noch zwei Namen. Gleich zu Anfang des Kapitels beruft sich Boemus für die Schreibweise des Ländernamens „Turquia“ auf den kleinarmenischen Historiker Hethum von Korykos, den er als „Aitonus“ anführt (fol. 31r). Die Überlieferungsgeschichte von dessen Darstellung der Geschichte der Mongolen aus dem frühen 14. Jahrhundert ist sehr kompliziert,22 aber ein Vergleich mit einer alten französischen Fassung und einer der lateinischen Versionen zeigt,23 dass Boemus die Beschreibung der türkischen Provinzen mit ihren Hauptorten keineswegs von hier entlehnt hat, sondern auf dem Umweg über Buch 6 der 10. Enneade des vorhin erwähnten Sabellico.24 Boemus übernimmt unbesehen die für die Zeit um 1300 zutreffende, nach 1453 (und damit auch für Sabellico) aber anachronistische Bezeichnung von „Iconium“ als „caput gentis“. Bei seiner Beschreibung der ablehnenden Haltung gegenüber der Bilderverehrung bei „Sarazenen und Türken“ (fol. 31v) beruft er sich auf Martin Segon, einen serbischen Humanisten und späteren Bischof von Ulcinij. Boemus führt seinen Namen in der latinisierten Form an. Aber auch hier folgt er lediglich 19 Zugänglich war mir die zweisprachige Ausgabe Piccolomini, Descripción de Asia: 420–428. 20 Zum Vergleich konnte ich nur eine spätere Ausgabe des zweiten Bandes dieses Werkes heranziehen: Sabellico, Posterior pars eiusdem Rapsodiae [sic] Historiarum […]: 278. 21 Sabellico, Posterior pars eiusdem Rapsodiae [sic] Historiarum: Anm. 20, 545. 22 Baum, „Hethums Geschichte der Mongolen“: 18–19. 23 Dörper (Hrsg.), Die Geschichte der Mongolen des Hethum von Korykos (1307) in der Rückübersetzung durch Jean de Long, Traitiez des estas et des conditions de quatorze royaumes de Aise (1351): 211. 24 Sabellico, Posterior pars eiusdem Rapsodiae [sic] Historiarum: Anm. 20, 496.

124

Ulrich Vollmer

Sabellico. Das bei Sabellico in diesem Zusammenhang genannte Werk De Christi regis nostri sepulchro ist allerdings nicht erhalten.25 Neben diesen Autoren taucht aber noch eine weitere mögliche Quelle auf. Im Widmungsschreiben an seinen Verleger nennt Boemus den Grund, warum sein Werk ausgerechnet bei Sigismund Grimm erscheinen soll: Es ist das Interesse an der Thematik, die der Verleger durch die Herausgabe von zwei ähnlichen Werken dokumentiert habe (fol. 2r). Uns interessiert hier nur das zweite Werk, das „den Völkern im Süden“ (ebd.) gewidmet ist und dessen Verfasser Boemus als „Ludovicus de Bononia“ anführt. Es handelt sich hierbei um den Italiener Ludovico de Varthema, der in den Jahren 1501 bis 1507 eine Asienreise unternommen und darüber einen Bericht verfasst hatte. Dieser Bericht ist 1510 zunächst auf Italienisch erschienen und dann 1515 in deutscher Übersetzung in Augsburg bei Grimm. Allerdings finden sich in unserem Kapitel keine Spuren von einer Vertrautheit des Boemus mit diesem Text, im Gegenteil: Während sich Varthema ausdrücklich gegen Stimmen wendet, die das Grab Mohammeds in Mekka ansiedeln, und er die Grabstätte des Propheten in Medina ausführlich beschreibt,26 verbindet Boemus irrtümlich die islamische Pilgerfahrt mit einem Besuch von Mohammeds Grab in Mekka. Bei ihm heißt es von Mohammed (fol. 34v): „… dessen Grab dort [i. e. in Mekka] verehrt wird.“ Einen sehr wichtigen Gewährsmann hat Boemus allerdings namentlich nicht genannt oder besser unter den von ihm angeführten „aliique permulti clarissimi rerum scriptores“ (fol. 4r) subsumiert: Es handelt sich um den als Georgius de Hungaria bekannten späteren Dominikaner, der über seinen gut 20 Jahre dauernden Aufenthalt als Kriegsgefangener im Osmanischen Reich nach seiner Rückkehr einen detaillierten Bericht verfasst und 1481 unter dem Titel Tractatus de moribus, condicionibus et nequicia [sic] Turcorum veröffentlicht hat.27 Das meiste von dem, was Boemus an konkreten Einzelheiten über das weltliche und religiöse Leben der Osmanen mitteilt, hat er diesem Text – zum Teil wortwörtlich – entnommen.

4.

Boemus im Vergleich

Um Boemus angemessen zu verstehen und seine Deutung des Islams und der Zustände im Osmanischen Reich sachgerecht zu würdigen, genügt es nicht, sich allein mit dem Wortlaut seines Werkes auseinanderzusetzen. Er ist eben weit25 Pertusi, Marino Segono di Novo Brdo. Vescovo di Dulcigno. Un umanista serbo-dalmata del tardo Quattrocento. Vita e opere: 141–142, der für dieses Werk aber nur Boemus als Gewährsmann anführt und dessen Quelle nicht kennt. 26 Ludwig de Varthema, Reisen im Orient: 59–60. 27 Georgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de moribus, condicionibus et nequicia Turcorum.

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

125

gehend ein „Kompilator großen Stils“ (um die Charakteristik von Henri Leclerq durch Theodor Klauser aufzugreifen).28 Erst der Vergleich mit seinen Vorlagen oder (wo er diese wörtlich übernommen hat) mit anderen Darstellungen, die ihm zwar zugänglich waren, die er aber nicht benutzt hat, führt zum Ziel. Die Gestalt des Propheten Mohammed ist in der abendländisch-christlichen Geistesgeschichte vielfach gezeichnet – oder besser in erster Linie verzeichnet – worden.29 Was Boemus von diesen Darstellungen kannte, lässt sich nicht mit Sicherheit sagen. Immerhin begegnet im Vorwort an den Leser im Zusammenhang mit Mohammed das Adjektiv „epilenticus [sic]“ (fol. 5r), das seine Bekanntschaft mit der mittelalterlichen Polemik dokumentiert und von dem er sich an dieser Stelle nicht distanziert. Dass er Vinzenz von Beauvais gekannt und benutzt hat, sagt er selber (fol. 4r). In den Kapiteln 39 bis 47 im 23. Buch von dessen Speculum historiale sind Leben und Lehre Mohammeds beschrieben, ganz in der Tradition der mittelalterlichen Polemiken.30 Doch Boemus, der im vorhergehenden Kapitel Vinzenz gefolgt war, greift nun zu der Darstellung bei Sabellico, die auf jede persönliche Verunglimpfung des Propheten verzichtet – er wird dort immerhin als „homo callidus atque vafer ingenio“ (fol. 31r)31 beschrieben; natürlich lehnen Boemus / Sabellico von ihrer Position her die Lehre Mohammeds, den sie als „Pseudopropheten“ (fol. 31r u. ö.) bezeichnen, mit sehr scharfen Worten als falsche Lehre ab, wie sie aber auch die anderen christlichen „Irrlehren“, die sie zur näheren Beschreibung von Mohammeds Position heranziehen, verwerfen. Sie trennen also deutlich zwischen der Person, die die Lehre verkündet, bzw. den Personen, die später die Lehre befolgen, und dem Inhalt der Lehre. Auch in der Beschreibung des osmanischen Heeres folgt Boemus bis in den Wortlaut hinein Sabellico. Hier fehlt ebenfalls jede Polemik. Boemus scheut sich nicht, auch die Zusammenfassung, die Sabellico am Ende des ganzen Abschnitts vorträgt, zu übernehmen. Sie sei hier im lateinischen Original angeführt (fol. 33v): „Hi ex omni mortalium numero hodie legitime militant.“32 Dieser Satz lässt bei einem bzw. zwei christlichen Schriftstellern angesichts der vielbe28 Klauser, Henri Leclerq. Vom Autodidakten zum Kompilator großen Stils. 29 Bobzin, Mohammed: 9–21; Hotz, Mohammed und seine Lehre in der Darstellung abendländischer Autoren vom späten 11. bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts. Aspekte; Noth & Ehlert, „3. The Prophet’s image in Europe and the West“: 377–387; Tolan, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination: 135–169. 30 Zugänglich war mir der Passus nur in der Ausgabe Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum historiale: 912–915. 31 Beide Adjektive sind freilich nicht ausschließlich, aber doch durchweg positiv konnotiert und dienen beispielsweise zur Charakterisierung des karthagischen Feldherrn Hannibal; vgl. Oxford Latin Dictionary2 1: 284–285 s.v. callidus; Oxford Latin Dictionary2 2: 2208 s.v. vafer. 32 Bei Sabellico, Posterior pars eiusdem Rapsodiae [sic] Historiarum: Anm. 20, 545 (dort eingeleitet mit der von Boemus nicht übernommenen Formel „& ut breviter dicam“).

126

Ulrich Vollmer

schworenen „Türkengefahr“ natürlich aufhorchen. Das Adverb „legitime“ ist sicherlich im Sinne von „prescribed by the rules of art“33 gemeint, und so heißt es in der alten englischen Übersetzung: „Of all the peoples at this daie, they onely doe warre acording to the ordre of armies.“34 Den vielfältigen, ungeordneten, mannigfach untereinander konkurrierenden Truppen der christlichen Herrscher steht ein streng durchstrukturiertes Heer gegenüber, dessen Einheit auch Niccolò Machiavelli, den etwas älteren Zeitgenossen von Boemus, fasziniert hat.35 Ob Boemus die Querelen bekannt waren, die es in seinem Orden um den Einsatz der Ritterbrüder beim Kampf gegen die Osmanen gab, lässt sich nicht feststellen. Die damaligen Streitereien stellen ein klares Gegenbild zum osmanischen Militärwesen dar.36 Eine kritische Distanz nimmt Boemus allerdings zu Georgius de Hungaria ein, von dem er die Aussagen zum alltäglichen und zum religiösen Leben im Osmanischen Reich übernommen hat. Aus seiner Erfahrung als Augenzeuge berichtet Georgius von seinen Erlebnissen; das tut er dort, wo es nicht um sein eigenes Schicksal, das Schicksal der anderen Gefangenen oder die militärische Expansion der Osmanen geht, durchaus „objektiv“ oder sogar mit einer durch und durch positiven Intention. Seine Darstellung steht aber unter einem gefährlichen theologischen Vorbehalt, den er mit aller Deutlichkeit mehrmals und auch im Titel seines Werkes artikuliert: Die „nequitia“ – gewöhnlich als „Arglist“ übersetzt – zeigt sich gerade in der großen Vorbildhaftigkeit der Türken! So heißt, um nur eine der zahlreichen Stellen in der Übersetzung von Reinhard Klockow anzuführen: „Die übliche Art des Tötens besteht darin, Leib und Seele voneinander zu trennen. Die unmenschliche, ja geradezu teuflische Art aber besteht darin, die Seele zu töten und sie wie einen faulenden Leichnam im lebendigen Leibe zu begraben […]. (D)ie äußerlich vorgespiegelte Tugendhaftigkeit der Verworfenen, mit der sie die anderen Seelen täuschen wollen, (ist) der Verwesungsgestank einer toten Seele, die sich in einem lebendigen Körper befindet…“37

Es spricht für Boemus, dass er in seinem Werk, bei aller Anlehnung an den Augenzeugen Georgius konsequent derartige theologische Urteile ausgeklammert und sich so von dem weltanschaulichen Argumentationsmuster seines Gewährsmannes, das in einer förmlichen Verteufelung gipfelt, distanziert hat. Dass 10 Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Werkes von Boemus auf Drängen und Oxford Latin Dictionary2 1: 1116 s.v. legitimus 4b. Boemus, The Fardle of Facions. Vol. 3: 59. Machiavelli, Il Principe: 15–16. Zu den Querelen vgl. Thumser, „Eine neue Aufgabe im Heidenkampf ? Pläne mit dem Deutschen Orden als Vorposten gegen die Heiden“: 139–176. 37 Georgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de moribus, condicionibus et nequicia Turcorum: Anm. 27, 175.

33 34 35 36

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

127

mit einem Vorwort Martin Luthers der Text von Georgius in einer deutschen Übersetzung oder besser in einer deutschen Bearbeitung durch Sebastian Franck erschienen ist, in der die theologische Position wieder eine wesentliche Rolle spielt,38 ist ein weiteres Indiz für die geistige Eigenständigkeit des Ioannes Boemus.39

5.

Ein kurzes Resümee

Boemus gehört in eine Phase des Übergangs. Auf der einen Seite ist er noch der Tradition mit allen ihren Stereotypen verpflichtet. Die Erde besteht für ihn aus drei Erdteilen, die von den Nachkommen der Söhne Noachs besiedelt wurden (fol. 6v–7r). Auf die Entdeckungen des Columbus findet sich bei ihm keinerlei Reflex. Auch Boemus bezeichnet im Gefolge der Tradition – wie oben erwähnt – die Skythen mit einer der antiken Barbarentopik entnommenen Terminologie, aber bei der Darstellung ihrer vermeintlichen zeitgenössischen Nachkommen greift er – im Gegensatz zu anderen Gelehrten – darauf nicht zurück. Boemus ist – bei aller eigenen weltanschaulichen Bindung – aufgeschlossen für die konkret erfahrbare Wirklichkeit. Sein Verhältnis zu seinem Gegenstand wird nicht vom Kontext einer theologischen Auseinandersetzung mit einem geradezu apokalyptischen Gegner bestimmt, sondern er präsentiert eine ergebnisoffene Beschreibung des Anderen. Der Weg zu einer methodisch-reflektierten „allgemeinen Religionsgeschichte“ – um auf die eingangs erwähnte Einschätzung Mircea Eliades zurückzukommen – ist noch weit, aber ein erster, wichtiger Schritt ist gemacht.

38 Georgius de Hungaria, Chronica vnnd beschreibung der Türckey […]. Mit eyner vorrhed D. Martini Lutheri. 39 Höfert, „Vom Antichrist zum Menschen. Der Wandel des westeuropäischen Türkenbildes der frühen Neuzeit“: 47–72 zeichnet die Rezeptionsgeschichte dieses Textes nach, ohne allerdings Boemus zu berücksichtigen. Was sie (a. a. O. 64) positiv über die Rezeption des Traktates im 1560/61 erschienenen Werk Historia universale dell’origine et imperio de Turchi des Italieners Francesco Sansovino schreibt (Stichwort „Vom Antichrist zum Menschen“), gilt aber auch uneingeschränkt für den 40 Jahre älteren Boemus. Leider war mir die erstmals 1543 erschienene italienische Fassung von Boemus nicht zugänglich, denn es wäre zu prüfen, ob Sansovino nicht Georgius de Hungaria, sondern Boemus als Vorlage hatte.

128

Ulrich Vollmer

Literaturverzeichnis Primärquellen Boemus, Ioannes, Omnium gentium mores leges et ritus ex multis clarisismis rerum scriptoribus a Ioanne Boemo Aubano sacerdote Teutonico militiae deuoto nuper collectos: et in libros tris[!] distinctos Aphricam, Asiam, Europam. Augsburg 1520. Boemus, Ioannes, The Fardle of Facions. Vol. 3 (= Nachdr. der Ausg. London 1555). Edinburgh 1888. Dörper, Sven (Hrsg.), Die Geschichte der Mongolen des Hethum von Korykos (1307) in der Rückübersetzung durch Jean de Long, Traitiez des estas et des conditions de quatorze royaumes de Aise (1351) (Kritische Edition). Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 1998. Georgius de Hungaria, Tractatus de moribus, condicionibus et nequicia Turcorum (Nach der Erstausgabe von 1481 herausgegeben, übersetzt und eingeleitet von Reinhard Klockow). Köln u. a. 1993. Georgius de Hungaria, Chronica vnnd beschreibung der Türckey […]. Mit eyner vorrhed D. Martini Lutheri. Nürnberg: F. Peypus 1530 (Unveränderter Nachdruck). Köln, Wien 1983. Ludwig de Varthema, Reisen im Orient (Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Folker Reichert). Sigmaringen 1996. Machiavelli, Niccolò, Il Principe (A cura di Rinaldo Rinaldi). Torino 2014. Piccolomini, Eneas Silvio, Descripción de Asia. Introdución, edición y traducción de Domingo F. Sanz. Madrid 2010. Sabellico, Marcantonio, Posterior pars eiusdem Rapsodiae [sic] Historiarum […]. Lyon 1535. Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum historiale (= Reprogr. Nachdr. der Ausg. Douai 1625). Graz 1965.

Sekundärliteratur Baum, Wilhelm, „Hethums Geschichte der Mongolen“, in: Hethum von Korykos, Geschichte der Mongolen. Klagenfurt, Wien 2006: 5–22. Bennassar, Bartolomé & Sauzet, Robert (Hrsg.), Chrétiens et musulmans à la Renaissance. Actes du 37e colloque internationale du CESR. Paris 1998. Bisaha, Nancy, Creating East and West. Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman Turks. Philadelphia 2004. Bobzin, Helmut, Mohammed (3., durchges. Aufl.). München 2006. Cardini, Franco, Europa und der Islam. Geschichte eines Mißverständnisses. München 2004. Eliade, Mircea, „Enzyklopädisches Stichwort: Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft“, in: ders., Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen. Hamburg 1957: 127–135. Gladigow, Burkhard, „Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Neuzeit“, in: Kippenberg, Hans G., Rüpke, Jörg & von Stuckrad, Kocku (Hrsg.), Europäische Religionsgeschichte. Ein mehrfacher Pluralismus. Bd. 1. Göttingen 2009: 15–37.

Das Kapitel über die Türkei und die Türken im Werk von Ioannes Boemus (1520)

129

Göllner, Carl, Turcica. Die europäischen Türkendrucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Bd. 1: MDIMDL. Bukarest, Berlin 1961. Guthmüller, Bodo & Kühlmann, Wilhelm (Hrsg.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance. Tübingen 2000. Hardy, Edmund, „Zur Geschichte der vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft“, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 4 (1901): 45–66, 97–135, 193–228. Heath, Michael J., „Renaissance Scholars and the Origins of the Turks“, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 41/3 (1979): 453–471. Herrmann, Ehrenfried, Türke und Osmanenreich in der Vorstellung der Zeitgenossen Luthers. Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung des deutschen Türkenschrifttums. Freiburg i. Br., Phil. Diss., 1961. Höfert, Almut, „Hans Löwenklau“, in: Thomas, David & Chesworth, John (Hrsg.), Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 7: Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and South America (1500–1600). Leiden, Boston 2015: 481–488. Höfert, Almut, „Vom Antichrist zum Menschen. Der Wandel des westeuropäischen Türkenbildes der frühen Neuzeit anhand des Traktats über die Sitten, Lebensverhältnisse und die Arglist der Türken des Georgs von Ungarn“, in: Reulecke, Jürgen (Hrsg.), Spagat mit Kopftuch. Essays zur Deutsch-Türkischen Sommerakademie. Hamburg 1997: 47–72. Höfert, Almut, Den Feind beschreiben. „Türkengefahr“ und europäisches Wissen über das Osmanische Reich 1450–1600. Frankfurt a.M. 2003. Hotz, Stephan, Mohammed und seine Lehre in der Darstellung abendländischer Autoren vom späten 11. bis zur Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts. Aspekte, Quellen und Tendenzen. Frankfurt a. M. u. a. 2002. Kaufmann, Thomas, „The Christian Perception of Islam in the Late Middle Ages and in the Reformation“, Comparativ 20/4 (2010): 43–57. Kaufmann, Thomas, „Türkenbüchlein“. Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung „türkischer Religion“ in Spätmittelalter und Reformation. Göttingen 2008. Klauser, Theodor, Henri Leclerq. Vom Autodidakten zum Kompilator großen Stils. Münster 1977. Kohl, Karl-Heinz, „Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft“, in: Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. Bd. 1 (1988): 217–262. Kugler, Hartmut, „Boemus (Böhm, Bohemus), Johannes“, in: Worstbrock, Franz Josef (Hrsg.), Deutscher Humanismus 1480–1520. Verfasserlexikon. Bd. 1: A-K. Berlin, New York 2008: 210–211. Kuran-Burçog˘lu, Nedret, „The Image of the Turk as Reflected in the English and German Speaking Spaces of Europe from Mid-15th to 18th Centuries“, in: Haug-Moritz, Gabriele & Pelizaeus, Ludolf (Hrsg.), Repräsentationen der islamischen Welt im Europa der frühen Neuzeit. Münster 2010: 249–260. Mensching, Gustav, Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft. Bonn 1948. Noth, Albrecht & Ehlert, Trude, „3. The Prophet’s image in Europe and the West“, in: The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition 7 (1993): 377–387. Oxford Latin Dictionary2 1–2 (2012). Pertusi, Agostino, Marino Segono di Novo Brdo. Vescovo di Dulcigno. Un umanista serbodalmata del tardo Quattrocento. Vita e opere. Roma 1981. Pfannmüller, Gustav, Handbuch der Islam-Literatur. Berlin 1923.

130

Ulrich Vollmer

Pinard de la Boullaye, Henry, L’étude comparée des religions. Bd. 1: Son histoire dans le monde occidental (3. éd., rev. et augm.). Paris 1929. Sarnowsky, Jürgen, „Das spätmittelalterliche Europa und die Osmanen“, in: Clemens, Gabriele (Hrsg.), Die Türkei und Europa. Münster 2007: 21–38. Schmidt, Erich, Deutsche Volkskunde im Zeitalter des Humanismus und der Renaissance. Berlin 1904. Sharpe, Eric J., Comparative Religion. A History. London 1975. Sharpe, Eric J., „The Study of Religion in Historical Perspective“, in: Hinnells, John R. (Hrsg.), The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (2nd ed.). London 2010: 21– 38. Tafiłowski, Piotr, „Anti-Turkish Literature in 15th–16th Century Europe“, Tarih ˙Incelemeleri Dergisi 30 (2015): 231–280. Thumser, Matthias, „Eine neue Aufgabe im Heidenkampf ? Pläne mit dem Deutschen Orden als Vorposten gegen die Heiden“, in: Guthmüller, Bodo & Kühlmann (Hrsg.), Europa und die Türken in der Renaissance. Tübingen 2000: 139–176. Tolan, John Victor, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. New York 2002. Tworuschka, Udo, Einführung in die Geschichte der Religionswissenschaft. Darmstadt 2015. Vitkus, Daniel J., „Early Modern Orientalism. Representations of Islam in SixteenthCentury Europe“, in: Blanks, David R. & Fraseotto, Michael (Hrsg.), Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Perception of Other. New York 1999: 207– 230. Vogel, Klaus A., „Cultural Variety in a Renaissance Perspective. Johannes Boemus on ʽThe Manners, Laws and Customs of all People’ (1520)“, in: Bugge, Henriette & Rubiés, Joan Pau (Hrsg.), Shifting Cultures. Interaction and Discourse in the Expansion of Europe. Münster 1995: 17–34. Wiegand, Hermann, „Imago Turcae. Das Türkenbild der frühen Neuzeit im Lateinunterricht der Oberstufe“, Der Altsprachliche Unterricht 36/6 (1981): 12–36.

Wissen und Weltsichten im 17.–18. Jahrhundert

Seyfi Kenan

Holding the Truth in Balance: Kâtib Çelebî’s Mîzânü’l-Hakk and his Conception of Knowledge and Education in the 17th Century Ottoman Empire

Historical context The early modern period was definitely no unproblematic and painless era for the Ottoman Empire as regards the realms of state and society. Institutions established by Mehmed II (1444–1446, 1451–1481) in the second half of the 15th century were no longer able to sustain the vast empire as efficient and sufficient as it was in earlier periods. Because of its immense geographical expansion, the empire was facing various new challenges posed by inner circumstances on the one hand, and outer developments in the neighboring countries, especially in their western frontier on the other. In late 16th century, and until the early 17th century, the Ottomans were overwhelmed with concrete predicaments such as the military and fiscal crisis that turned into a relentless characteristic of the Ottoman political life afterwards. In addition, this was the period when religious reasoning along with its representatives and institutions began to take more precedence over the non-religious entities or functions of the state,1 as Ömer Lütfi Barkan, a master of Ottoman history, indicates in one of his comprehensive articles. For several decades, bureaucrats and administrators in the state along with learned people, be they ulemâ in higher official positions or low-ranking religious functionaries, engaged in long-lasting discussions which produced a plethora of treatises, books and chronicles, not only about the present situation and future of the Empire, but also about how to reform and reinvigorate the classical system of Ottoman governance from the inside without deforming the ancien régime. Several late 16th and 17th century Ottoman writers believed that their state was indeed deteriorating2 while discussing in their works the causes of this decline on the one hand and suggesting various ways how to protect their Empire 1 Barkan, “Türkiye’de Din ve Devlet I˙lis¸kilerinin Tarihsel Gelis¸imi”: 88–89. 2 I˙nalcık & Quataert (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914: 22–24.

134

Seyfi Kenan

from this depression through various reforms on the other. Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî in the 1590s, Hasan Kâfî Akhisârî in 1596, Veysî Efendi in 1608, Peçevî in the 1630s, Koçu Bey—who counseled Murad IV (1623–1640) on the shortcomings of the Empire—in the 1630s and finally Kâtib Çelebî in the 1650 s3—as well as several other anonymous authors—all alerted on a rise in corruption in state affairs, decay in the judicial system and a crisis in education, and a collapse of leadership usually dating from the beginning of these developments to the second half of the 16th century. Some may argue that there always existed ıslahatnâme (reform) literature and complaints about corruption in the state or ulemâ hierarchies in any period of the Ottoman rule by giving examples such as the case of S¸ehzâde Korkud (1468– 1513), from the earlier period, who condemned judges of his time in 1508 since they collected illegal fees and accepted money from illicit sources although the state paid their salaries, and thus, mixed helâl and harâm in their lives.4 It is true that literature of this kind5 was produced throughout the Ottoman period, as the state and its bureaucrats always accepted such statements, which was the common habit of Muslim rulers since earlier centuries, although the empire was not eager to change. There are, however, significant differences between the ıslahât literature of the earlier periods of the Ottoman Empire and the literature produced from the end of the 16th century onwards in terms of content, style and spirit. For instance, while Korkud, as mentioned earlier, was talking about abuses of judges during the late fifteenth and the early 16th century Hırzü’l-mülûk (written by an anonymous author or by a group of unknown authors) in the late 16th century discusses how appointments to many positions, including several posts in the ulemâ hieararchy, were made on the basis of favoritism rather than qualification and merit, and how this favoritism became so widespread that it drove good, hardworking learned people to despair saying, “In fact, it has now became clear to people that no one can achieve the desired goal by work anymore” (S¸ug˘l ile maksûd ve me’mûl hasıl olmaz imis¸).6 Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî, the earliest sensor of Ottoman decline and sharpest critic of socio-cultural and political degeneration in both state structure and social life towards the end of the 16th century, relates some interesting stories of corruption from his time and even directs important criticism against the sultan, 3 For further discussion of their works from different perspectives, see Fodor, “State and Society, Crisis and Reform”; Lewis, “Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline”. 4 al-Tikriti, S¸ehzade Korkud: 231–232; on corruption among the ulemâ see [S¸ehzâde Korkud], Da’vetü’n-nefsi’t-tâliha ile’l-amâli’s-sâliha: 233a–235b. 5 For an analysis of this literature, see Yılmaz, “Osmanlı Tarihçilig˘inde Tanzimat Öncesi Siyaset Düs¸üncesine Yaklas¸ımlar”: 261–267. In Ottoman society, there was usually no change by design, as Hüseyin Yılmaz once affirmed. They were generally subject to change. 6 Yücel, Osmanlı Devlet Tes¸kilâtına Dair Kaynaklar: 39b–40a.

Holding the Truth in Balance

135

Murad III (1574–1595) himself when the latter unjustifiably grants high honors and posts to an ignorant pseudo-Sufi, S¸eyh S¸ücâ, who coincidentally came up with a “correct” interpretation7 for one of the Sultan’s dreams. Apparently even great ulemâ and vezirs in the period were dependent upon this heretical sheikh’s goodwill until his death.8 Writers of the period discuss corruption in the state, giving concrete examples such as how favoritism became widespread in the period, replacing the meritocratic attitude to appointment and dismissal of officials which had prevailed in more glorious times (especially in the era of Süleyman the Lawgiver), and, even more important, how failure of leadership mitigated power, generated corruption, ruined the treasury, and dragged the empire into terribly damaging wars. Modern historians, however, approach these degredations “as a symptom rather than a cause of more structural difficulties such as inflation caused by the influx of silver from the New World, changes in military technology, and the creation of a new type of state in Western Europe.”9 It can be maintained that although there were some intellectuals such as Koçi Bey, Kâtib Çelebî10 and others who realized what was evolving at the time, the Ottoman state apparatus, i. e. the Ottoman bureaucracy, the ulemâ, the janissary corps, the provincial leadership and the Sultanate itself, were late to respond to these mostly external, but fundamental changes, perhaps due to their belief in the effectiveness of their own system, which, in turn, might have led them to regard all these transformations unimportant or temporary. What is certain, however, is that the empire did not experience a continuous decline for three centuries; on the contrary, many creative improvements were made from the early modern to the late modern period. “It makes good sense,” then, as Daniel Goffman suggests, “to conceive the early modern Ottoman world broadly as a multi-faceted entity rather than narrowly as a state embarking on a long death march, to insist that rot in some of its components did not mean consuming decay, and may even have reflected brilliance onto other features of the state and society.”11

7 Kafadar, “Self and Others”: 130–131. The incident is mentioned in [Mustafa Âlî], Künhü’lahbâr: 292b–293b. Although Mustafa Âlî suffered some critical disappointments during his career, he still, as Cornell Fleischer points out, endeavored to achieve historical objectivity in his observations as far as he could, given the socio-cultural and psychological circumstances. See Fleischer, Bureaucrat: 293–307. 8 Fleischer, Bureaucrat: 296. 9 Goffman, The Ottoman Empire: 113. 10 Çelebî wrote Düstûrü’l-amel li-ıslâhı’l-halel [The Rule of Action for the Rectification of Defects] to offer a solution for the economic and military impasse that the empire was suffering from. In the end, he defended kânûn-i kadîm (the ancient régime), which meant a reduction in the number of the Ottoman troops. 11 Goffman, The Ottoman Empire: 127.

136

Seyfi Kenan

Although there was a widespread discussion of deterioration in certain realms of Ottoman life during the early modern period, it is important to mention, on the other hand, that neither the political intellectual elite, nor the ulemâ ever experienced a crise de conscience which might have led to questioning the moral superiority of their ventures, regardless of the nature of their critique of the Ottoman state, as Cemal Kafadar points out.12 If we are to turn our look back to the context of the Ottoman world again, we can also observe that during the late 16th and early 17th centuries Ottomans experienced some new forms of rebellions that they never experienced before.13 Those rebels who participated in anti-governmental commotions in several cities came from the medreses, from the bedrock of the Ottoman intellectual elite and learned people. Especially in the early 17th century, young, idle students gathered around famous scholars such as Mehmed Birgivî and his student Kadızâde Mehmed as Istanbul was becoming the site of this unrest. Both confronted the entire religious establishment even criticizing fetvâs by Ebu’s-Suûd, who was a powerful ¸seyhülislâm during the reign of Süleyman I (1520–1566). Kadizâde Mehmed was promoted to a very important position in 1631 when he was appointed imam for the Hagia Sophia, the sultan’s own mosque. He influenced the Istanbul public thought by his powerful sermons on religious issues—he did not even hesitate to openly criticize Sufi religious leadership in the presence of the Sultan14—as well as civil matters such as drinking of wine and coffee and the smoking of tobacco in the public or private realms.15 It was in the same context that a puritanical reform movement such as the Kadızâdeli trend, named after its charismatic leader and captivating preacher Kadızâde Mehmed Efendi (d. 1635), emerged and gained support16 on the one hand, and a multi-faceted social thinker and great intellectual such as Kâtib Çelebî taught scientific and religious subjects in private circles on the other. In the same period another Çelebî laid claim to fame undertaking expeditions to farflung corners of the empire as well as travelling abroad several times. He eventually compiled his curious observations in his voluminous Evliyâ Çelebî Seyahatnâmesi [Travelogue of Evliyâ Çelebî]. It is still unknown whether these two extraordinary Çelebîs met one another. 12 Kafadar, “The Question of Ottoman Decline”: 43. 13 For further discussion of major medrese students’ uprisings in the late 16th century, see Akdag˘, Türk Halkının Dirlik ve Düzenlik Kavgası: 153–283; Kunt, The Sultan’s Servants: xiv–v. 14 Kâtib Çelebî, Fezleke-i Tarih: vol. 2:, 155. Sufis generally were an easier target for Kadızâdelis. They, however, did not openly direct their criticism towards the ulemâ or the ulemâ hieararchy, as Madeline Zilfi points out: Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: 169. 15 Goffman, The Ottoman Empire: 117; Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: 129–183. 16 Zilfi, “Kadızâdeliler” Türkiye Günlüg˘ü 58: 65–79. Since Kadızâdelis also rejected Sufi forms of religious life, they experienced serious opposition from Sufi sheiks and movements such as S¸eyh Abdülmecid Sivasi who advocated the Halveti path of Ottoman sufism.

Holding the Truth in Balance

137

While Kâtib Çelebî wrote his Mîzânü’l-hakk to find a solution to the problems of his time by developing a decisive measure in terms of how to balance the truth in many realms of life, i. e. from educational institutions such as the medreses and to the content of teaching religious subjects paying attention to tradition as well as to the flow and progress of human experience. He enthusiastically engaged in this work in an atmosphere where Kadızâdelis were publicly preaching and teaching, as a solution, to go back to “pure” Islamic tradition that the early Muslims started during the Prophet’s and his Companions’ time. Moreover, Kadızâdelis also overtly urged people to get rid of all “insidious innovations” (bid’at) such as coffeehouses, smoking, dance and music, which were part of the common Ottoman social life, but did not exist in their conception of “pure” Islamic tradition.

Kâtib Çelebî and his attempt to balance the truth (Mîzânü’l-Hakk) Kâtib Çelebî is undoubtedly accepted as an intellectual sui generis of great skill in many fields of knowledge in the history of Ottoman thought. It would be useful here to give a brief biography of Çelebî to better understand him and his world of thought. He was born in Istanbul in 1609 and raised outside of the ulemâ circle, the official traditional learned class of the Ottomans. His original name is Mustafa, but he was called by different names depending on the people with whom he became acquainted in his professional or scholarly network. His office colleagues in the Ottoman Army’s Cavalry Audit Office used to call him Hacı Hâlife or Kalfa (The Pilgrim Deputy Head of the Department), but the ulemâ gave him his everlasting name: Kâtib Çelebî, i. e. “Mr. Secretary”.17 His father was a silahdâr (member of the cavalry of the Porte), but very keen on knowledge as he participated in many circles of learning and discussion organized by the leading scholars of the time. He privately hired Îsâ el-Kırımî to instruct his son in basic religious knowledge when he was five years old. Later, he hired I˙lyas Hoca to teach him grammar, and Bög˘rü Ahmed Çelebi to teach him calligraphy.18 With his father taking keen interest in his education from a very early age, Kâtib Çelebî was set to become not only a sophisticated bureaucrat in political and economic affairs of the state, but also one of the great intellectuals of his time.

17 Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi”: 36; Birnbaum, “Kâtib Chelebi (1609–1657) and Alphabetization”: 236–237. 18 Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi”: 36; quoted form Süleyman Sâdeddin Müstakimzâde, Tuhfe-i Hattatîn (ed. by I˙bnülemin Mahmud Kemal, I˙stanbul, 1928): 98.

138

Seyfi Kenan

Kâtib Çelebî participated in a number of military campaigns to Bagdad and Iran as his father’s apprentice in the chancery. His professional career in the office, however, was stalled due to his father’s death. He began to take lessons from Kadızâde Mehmed Efendi (d. 1635) focusing on Islamic law and theology, but he never sympathized with the Kadızâde movement; on the contrary, he dissociated himself from this puritanical trend. Later, Kâtib Çelebî began to expand his studies in many realms of knowledge, reading chronicles, learning astronomy and mathematics, geography and maps, and also all kinds of subjects taught in medrese education, and “has never been satisfied to be confined to a single field of knowledge,”19 as he said. By 1642, he began to teach himself various topics including law, tefsîr, kelâm as well as mathematics and astronomy. Although he did not hold a high rank in the Ottoman bureaucracy and lacked formal traditional education in the medrese system, he was well respected by many leading scholars of his time, Ottoman ulemâ such as S¸eyhülislâm Zekeriyâzâde Yahya Efendi, Abdürrahim Efendi and Europeans such as Ferdinando Marsigli, Antoine Galland or Levinus Warner.20 Kâtib Çelebî wrote Mîzânü’l-Hakk fî ˙Ihtiyâri’l-Ehakk [The Criterion of Truth in Choosing the Most True] just a year before he died in 1656, a kind of conclusive work that concisely sums up not only all of his previous numerous works, but also his final conception of knowledge and philosophy of education. In the meantime, I should mention that I use “philosophy of education” in the sense of his analysis, his perception of knowledge and education, being aware that he did not write a separate book on philosophy of education in the modern sense. The purpose of Mîzânü’l-Hakk, Çelebî explains, is to show and guide human beings to a path that would enable them to find the truth, reach moderation in several issues, and let them know the ways to avoid getting trapped in religious extremism and fanaticism (taassub). He tries to weave together Islamic disciplines and philosophical and cognitive sciences, and integrate them with one another again the way they were during the era of Mehmed II. Moreover, he shows how the interest in philosophy, mathematics, geography and similar cognitive sciences, apparently much neglected realms of knowledge in his era, could be reinvigorated. Çelebî argues that the heart is enlightened by religious disciplines while the mind is enlightened by cognitive and philosophical disciplines. The secret of holding the truth in balance lies at the heart of keeping the balance between heart and mind, soul and body, material and spiritual without indulging too much in 19 Kâtib Çelebî, Mîzânü’l-Hakk: 137–138. This is the Ottoman edition used in this article. The English translation by Lewis, The Balance of Truth in Choosing the Most True is used in quotations and has been modified in places. 20 Hagen, “Kâtib Çelebî”: 3.

Holding the Truth in Balance

139

one of these as opposed to the other. He decidedly rejects any belittling of a form of knowledge in favor of the other, for instance favoring religious disciplines and degrading philosophy and natural sciences, as this attitude surfaced in his period, beginning in the late 16th and early 17th centuries in certain regions, predominantly in Istanbul, the capital of the Empire. Muslim learned people who had a sound judgment and an undisturbed mind, Çelebî says, never avoided learning and studying all the branches of philosophical knowledge in contrast to the Christian community in Europe who rejected philosophy. Unlike Christians, according to him, Muslims always embraced the sciences since their teachings coincided with the scope of these sciences, as they did not approach any science in a dogmatic way, or turned it into a dogma. And he gives several leading names of previous generations as an example to make his case, such as Gazâli, Fahreddin Râzî, Kâdı Beydâvi, S¸irâzi, Taftazâni, Seyyid S¸erif Cürcâni, who mastered the traditional religious sciences as well as philosophical subjects. The reason why the interest to these non-religious sciences, i. e. philosophical and cognitive sciences, was diminished in his period was the fact that philosophy, according to Çelebî, was discouraged in the early period of Islam for a certain time which was assumed to be “beneficial” to people and the tradition, and “blockheaded people”, however, remained “as inert as rocks, frozen in blind imitation” of these earlier generations. Those empty headed people rejected philosophy and new sciences, having no idea at all about the earth and sky, without making any serious effort to understand the mentality of the attitude in the early period of Islam, and move beyond it, Çelebî argues. They acted like a scholar (âlim), and received the respect of being a learned man in the society; in fact, they knew nothing about nature, earth or sky. He even goes on to say: “The admonition ‘Have they not contemplated the Kingdom of Haven and Earth?’ (Quran, 7:184) made no impression on them: they thought ‘contemplating’ the world and the sky meant staring at them like a cow.”21 Çelebî, in one of his earlier works, even argues that those who do not know astronomy (hey’et) and anatomy (tes¸rîh) will not be able to be cognizant of God reaching the same conclusion: to know God the person even needs to know science.22 On the other hand, he reminds the reader that Mehmed II established the Sahn-ı Semân Medreses (meaning “eight schools that open to eight separate gardens” from secondary to the highest level of education) and expected students to study philosophical sciences besides religious sciences in the 15th century. Sultan Mehmed wrote in his vakfiye: “Let work be carried on in accordance with 21 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 10. 22 Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi,”: 37; quoted from Çelebî, ˙Ilhâmü’l-mukaddes (Nuruosmaniye Library, no. 4075): folio 1b.

140

Seyfi Kenan

the kânûn,” designing lessons based on the “Notes on the Tecrîd” and the “Commentary on the Mevâkıf”.23 But those who came after him, Kâtib Çelebî states, excluded these lessons from the curriculum calling them “just philosophies,” meaning confusing, chaotic subjects. Majority of Müderris’ (Professors), then, required only Hidâye and Ekmel24 lessons assuming that those were the only reasonable and adequate subject matters to teach medrese students at a higher level. When they excluded philosophical subjects from the medrese curriculum, they followed intentionally or unintentionally a kind of null curriculum, which meant that religious knowledge was the only form of knowledge worth acquiring in the period. In other words, if a subject was not taught in a medrese, it meant that it was not worthwhile to learn it. Since it was unreasonable and impossible to reduce all knowledge and sciences to only one realm, i. e. to religious sciences, at the end there was neither philosophy, nor Hidâye and Ekmel left25 to comprehend in a genuine way, Kâtib Çelebî affirms. In other words, this reductionistic mentality and degrading26 attitude towards any branch of knowledge, in this case philosophical and natural sciences, not only eradicated philosophical knowledge but also religious 23 The Sahn-ı Seman Medreses were established by Sultan Mehmed II inside the complex named after him (Fatih Külliyesi) between 1463 and 1470 in Istanbul to provide higher education in both Islamic disciplines and the rational sciences at the most advanced level of his time. All medreses in the complex were divided into Semaniye (higher level) and Tetimme (secondary level that provided pre-medrese education), with each Tetimme medrese leading to a corresponding higher level of Semaniye medrese. Although it is known from the deed of trust of Semâniye, and also from the practice until the end of 16th century, that both Islamic disciplines and rational sciences were taught integratively, the prominent Ottoman traveller Evliya Çelebi, however, said that these medreses were opened only to teach religious knowledge. Evliya must have missed the original point of the start of the medrese in the 15th century that Kâtip Çelebî was talking about. Evliya described these medreses in the context of the 17th century as follows: “There are eight medreses on the right and left side of Sultan Mehmed Han mosque, …which are called ‘semâni medreses’ by scholars. [Mehmed II] constructed these eigth medreses looking like heaven in the world to revere and encourage religious knowledge, and honor the people of knowledge (Ulema).” (Gökyay, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: vol. I, 129.) 24 Two classical works in Islamic jurisprudence, the former was the main text, the latter was its commentary. 25 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11. 26 Çelebî illustrates this attitude with an anecdote. Once, when he was attending Kadızâde’s lessons the teacher apparently stumbled upon a dense and philosophical interpretation of a passage from the Qur’an by earlier scholars and said: “Who’d give a farthing for philosophical talk? Before it what shrewd banker bows the knee? Who sheds a tear if a logician dies?” (Kelâm-ı felsefe fülse deg˘er mi? Ana sarrâf-ı keyyis bas¸ eg˘er mi? Mantıkîler ölür ise gam deg˘il). See Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 131.

Holding the Truth in Balance

141

knowledge itself in the end, no matter how much religious sciences were promoted and encouraged through implicit or explicit curricula. Knowledge is a whole, Çelebî believes, and all its branches support and feed one another. Grasping knowledge can only take place when all forms of knowledge are made available, and students are encouraged to learn without having an exclusive and belittling attitude towards one over the other. The critical factor that degenerated and spoiled the principally healthy process of studying Hidâye and Ekmel, was, to him, the intrusion of taassub (fanaticism) into the Ottoman education system. Since the learning itself was spoiled and deformed by this strictly religious ideology, the result was disastrous as the intended consequence of learning these classical texts, i. e. the true understanding of religious disciplines, was not even accomplished either. As a result of this deterioration due to fanaticism, the standard of education and the intellectual circle as well as the quality of medrese education in the locus of the Empire slumped, and highly learned people gradually disappeared.27 When the novices of learning from remote regions, especially the eastern part of the Empire who continued their education in accordance with the kânûn (i. e. the founding principles that Mehmed II set forth), came to Istanbul, some of the scholars in the city eventually realized how they missed the classical balance between traditional narrative sciences (naklî) and rational sciences (aklî) in Ottoman education,28 as is at length described by Kâtib Çelebî.29 It appears that this balance between two fundamental fields of knowledge existed in the Ottoman land, and people even respected those who studied philosophical subjects. Çelebî mentions, in another work, several names who kept this golden balance in their studies such as Molla Fenârî, Kadızâde-i Rûmî, Hocazâde, Ali Kus¸çu, Müeyyedzâde, Mîrim Çelebî and Kınalızâde who were well known scholars and leading thinkers of the Ottoman world.30 The ideal scholar of the Ottomans was the one who masterfully specialized in both rational (aklî) and narrative (naklî) sciences, as Tas¸köprülüzâde indicates in his works31 in the middle of the 16th century. But Çelebî has a point when he complains about the erosion of such an ideal type of Ottoman scholar. It should be mentioned that the first signal of this erosion dates from the late 16th century, as mentioned 27 “Bununla Rumda sûk-i ilme kesad gelüb ehli inkırâza yakın olmag˘la..” says Çelebi. Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11. 28 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11. 29 He gives two concrete examples comparing a mufti who knows geometry and mathematics and who is praised for the acuteness of his legal opinions (fetvâ) to a mufti who does not know any of these subjects, and whose legal opinions are bound to be flawed. See Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11–12. 30 [Kâtib Çelebî], Kes¸fü’z-zünûn: vol. 1, 680. 31 I˙zgi, Osmanlı Medreselerinde ˙Ilim: vol. 2, 117.

142

Seyfi Kenan

earlier, when the observatory of the well-known mathematician and astronomer Takiyyüddin Râsid was destroyed in 1579 because it was deemed inauspicious.32 Çelebî tries to make another critical point here. Rational sciences have emerged out of the human predisposition towards reasoning, I˙bn Haldun affirms in his Mukaddime. Unlike religious sciences they are not particular to any religion or tradition, they are the outcome of the common work of humanity. Çelebi also thinks exactly along the same lines33 as I˙bn Haldun, and implies that as these rational, philosophical sciences are excluded from medrese curricula, Ottomans are in danger not only of losing the access to knowledge and cognizance of the present but also its chance of competing in civilizational progress. The teaching of philosophical sciences did of course not come to a halt in all medreses of the Empire, since there was no central ministry or directorate of education in a modern sense that designed and supervised the curricula for the whole of the Ottoman lands. Education was decentralized, and medreses functioned based on private foundations, but were heavily influenced by the ulemâ in the vicinity and their curricula were essentially shaped by vakfiyes. Çelebî himself mentions the existence of such places at the periphery, and also the existence of a few scholars who mastered both forms of knowledge in the center, in Istanbul, such as his teacher A’rec Mustafa Efendi, from whom he learned mathematics and astronomy. These examples, however, do not negate Çelebî’s original point, i. e. the mental transformation, perhaps deterioration, that took place with regard to the perception of knowledge and education starting from such a prestigious higher institution of learning as the Sahn-ı Semân Medreses. Bearing in mind that he is talking about the decadence of knowledge and expertise level within the intellectual circle of Istanbul makes his point much clearer and more comprehensible. The question whether or how this change in the perception of knowledge and education continued after Çelebî’s period and especially in the 18th century or not,34 would surely be an interesting topic to study not only focusing on the center but also examining the remote regions of the Empire. 32 He was even accused of heresy. Murad III endeavored to find a way to save him from being executed in the hands of ilmiyye in the midst of these accusations. See Emecen, ˙Imparatorluk Çag˘ının Osmanlı Sultanları II: 75–78. See also Koca Sinan Pas¸a’nin Telhisleri: 215–216. 33 For further analyis of Çelebî’s conception of science and civilization, see Kutluer, “Kâtib Çelebî ve Bilimler”: 95–99. 34 In fact, some later ulemâ studied mathematics, geometry and some other rational and philosophical sciences. One of those is the 18th century author of Tedbîrât-ı Pesendîde, Ebû Sehl Numan Efendi. See [Ebû Sehl Numan Efendi], Tedbîrât-ı Pesendîde: 1. In addition, it is important to note that a French traveler called Sevin met with an Ottoman, Mustafa Efendi, who was a great amateur of astronomy in Istanbul while he was in the city in the early 18th century. Mustafa Efendi owned a voluminous work comprising twenty-two volumes in Arabic, Sevin said. Seven of those volumes were appearently on the history of Egypt and the rest contained translations of various Greek astronomers and mathematicians; see Göçek, East Encounters West: 109–110; Omont, Missions Archéologiques: vol. 1, 466.

Holding the Truth in Balance

143

Kâtib Çelebî did not only speak about how the teaching system and subject matters should be designed in medreses, but he also practiced what he said, and demonstrated how such a learning could take place. After spending ten years on campaigns, witnessing many battles during the reign of Sultan Murad IV in the 1630s, Kâtib Çelebî made a dramatic change in his career when he returned from the Revan campaign in 1635. He decided to devote the rest of his life to knowledge as a whole, without neglecting any of its branches, turning, as he said himself, “from smallest jihad to greatest”,35 i. e. from campaigning to acquiring knowledge. Kâtib Celebî, in Mizanü’l-Hakk, gives details of his studies in different places and under various professors (müderris). He attended lectures in several medreses in the capital, studying subjects like Qur’an and exegesis, Islamic theology, Arabic grammar, Islamic law. He also studied mathematics, geography and cartography sometimes in private lessons, sometimes on his own, as mentioned earlier. He even tried to translate some works written in Latin into Ottoman with the help of a Muslim convert in an era when a former S¸eyhülislam had issued a fetvâ some decades earlier, discouraging Muslims indirectly from learning foreign, European languages if they were not required to do so.36 Kâtib Çelebî, living in the 17th century Ottoman Empire which was no longer dominant over Europe “was perhaps the first Turkish intellectual to observe that this situation was, at least partly, to blame on the perception of knowledge and education at the time. The only place of learning was the medrese, and learning meant only religious learning. If the ulemâ in the period did not know about a particular subject matter, or did not show any interest in a particular science or subject matter, they implicitly or sometimes explicitly conveyed that it was surely not worthwhile to learn”.37 It is understandable why Kâtib Çelebî became even more radical in criticizing the existing situation of education when a new kind of learning began to transform Europe in the 17th century. Europe was experiencing a fundamental shift in its intellectual values as mathematics and physics gradually began to replace the study of belles lettres. The shift was so radical that in the middle of the 17th century Méric Casaubon, for instance, expressed his concern that all learning “be tried by Mathematicks [sic], and made subservient to them.”38 Kâtib Çelebî really worked hard not to miss this new development in learning and educational perception, but paid attention and was cautious, at the same 35 Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi”: 37; quoted from Çelebî’s Fezleke in his original Turkish “cihâd-ı asgardan cihâd-ı ekbere döndük”. 36 Düzdag˘, S¸eyhülislam Ebussuûd Efendi Fetvaları Is¸ıg˘ında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı: 318. 37 Lewis, The Balance: 8. 38 Méric Casaubon, Of Credulity and Incredulity in Things Natural, Civil and Divine (London 1668): 25–26; quoted in Gaukroger, The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: 1.

144

Seyfi Kenan

time. He always envisioned a learning model that treats all realms of knowledge equally and moderately in an integrative way, avoiding fanaticism and radicalism of any kind, and trying not to favor, for instance, religious knowledge at the expense of mathematics or vice versa. Moreover, he clarifies another critical point in his Mizan: the virtue of tolerance and the fight against fanaticism. He emphasizes how much society urgently needs such a culture of tolerance and peace. And all sorts of fanaticism, Kâtib Çelebî believes, are not only useless, but also damaging for the basic fabric of society and culture since they would generate schism and polarization by eradicating the spirit of amalgamation and integration. He persistently wrestled with all forms of fanaticism using both religious and rational references. When Kâtib Çelebî discusses fanaticism and extremism in his works, he usually refers to the puritanism of the Kadızâdelis, which can be classified as an early form of Salafism. The way of life they advocated, forbidding what can be defined as wrong or bid’at according to Islamic tradition, and imposing strict religious duties, seemed to Kâtib Çelebî out of touch with Ottoman existential and historical reality. He says: “if the people of any age after that of the Prophet were to scrutinize their own mode of life and compare it with the sunna (The Prophet’s action), they would find a wide discrepancy. If everybody were to carry out an honest self-examination, nothing approaching conformity with the sunna would be found. Scarcely any of the sayings or doings of any age are untainted by innovation.”39 Kâtib Çelebî tries to steer a middle course of moderation, which lies neither in fanaticism and narrow-mindedness nor in negligence, but in the sincere and truthful effort of a believing community and the forgiveness of a merciful God.40 Kâtib Çelebî developed interesting projects of his own, unlike many conventional Ottoman scholars of his time, such as a great cosmography in 1648, called Cihânnümâ [A Guide to the World], but he could not reach accurate knowledge and updated information on the New World and certain countries such as England and Iceland in Europe, and moreover, he was not happy with the maps, and thus, he put it aside. When he saw Abraham Ortelius’ Atlas Major, he wanted to use it but as he did not know Latin, he had to ask for the help of the French convert, S¸eyh Muhammed I˙hlâsî for translation. In his Cihânnümâ, Çelebî not only used medieval Muslim studies, but also modern European geographical concepts and illustrations, trying to develop a new perspective in this realm, which is to study geography as a science of physical manifestation of the earth rather than to remain a passive observer of the signs of God on earth. Moreover, he worked very hard, for over 20 years, on a fascinating project whose aim it was 39 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizanü’l-Hakk: 76. 40 Zilfi, The Politics of Piety: 138.

Holding the Truth in Balance

145

to compile a bibliography of all known works composed in Arabic, Persian and Turkish (elsine-i selâse) with details of their authors and contents. He called it Kes¸fü’z-zünûn an esâmi’l-kütûb ve’l-fünûn [The Unearthing of Ideas, concerning the Names of Books and the Sciences], his colossal user-friendly bibliography, which is still being used today, giving a detailed information on each branch of the sciences and disciplines covering more than 15.000 book titles by about 10.000 authors, in alphabetical order. Taking into account the circumstances under which he produced this work, nearly three quarters of a century before the first Islamic printing in the Ottoman empire commenced in 1731, the scope of his work appears courageously novel.41 When he realized that Muslim histories of Christians in Europe were filled with lies and fables whereas the continent accommodated a large and powerful population with different cultures and state structures, as he affirms, he wrote another interesting book, while working on Atlas Minor, ˙Irs¸adu’l-Hiyara ila Tarihi’l-Yunan ve’r-Rum ve’n-Nasara [Guide for the Perplexed on the History of Greeks and the Romans and Christians] to awaken his fellow-Muslims from their “sleep of negligence”.42 The way he interpreted certain Latin terms in this work became influential in the history of political concepts in Turkey afterward, especially in the late modern period, such as status politicus / siyâset-i medeniyye and status ecclesiasticus / siyâset-i diniyye, which were referring to laicus / avâm and clericus / havâs respectively.43 After one of his relatives, a wealthy merchant, died, Kâtib Çelebî inherited several hundred thousand pieces of silver in 1638, and his love of learning was rewarded by financial well-being, and thus, he was able to make great strides in learning various sciences in a short period of time. He spent 300.000 pieces of silver of his inheritance on books only, which made his private library one of the largest in Istanbul, and also bought a new house. He put aside some money as capital for investment to meet his living expenses, we learn from his autobiography. It seems that he managed his investments well since there is no record of bankruptcy in his biography, although he spent most of his time and energy on his intellectual activities, i. e. attending lectures by scholars, teaching students who were interested in learning both religious and philosophical sciences and composing books. All the while he continued reading widely, and mastering new subjects from books.

41 Çelebî also uses similar characteristics of standardization in his other major reference work: the enormous biographical dictionary Süllemü’l-vusûl ilâ tabakâti’l-fuhûl [The Ladder leading to the Biographies of Great Men]. For a sound methodological study of Kes¸f and Süllem, see Birnbaum, “Kâtib Chelebi and Alphabetization”: 236–263. 42 Ménage, “Three Ottoman Treatises”: 421. 43 Ménage, “Three Ottoman Treatises”: 422.

146

Seyfi Kenan

Believing that a human being can only grow and refine itself through education,44 Kâtib Çelebî discusses, in his biography, the great teachers he had as well as the ideas and subject matters he learned from them. However, he did not hesitate to voice his criticism and express candid observations about some of his teachers. He also persuasively criticized the works that he benefited from such as Mes’udî’s Mürûcü’z-zeheb, Zekeriyâ el-Kazvîni’s Asârü’l-bilâd, Mustafa Âlî’s Künhü’l-ahbâr, and others.45 Being one of the careful observers of his time, Çelebî also endeavored to diagnose the aspects that had gone wrong with the Ottoman Empire, and suggested ways how to improve state and society, and initiate the process of return to the “Good Old Days of Sultan Süleyman” a century earlier. He supported the ideas and recommendations of Koçi Bey, who lived in the same century, but as part of an earlier generation, by pointing out the catastrophic results of the discontinuity of the meritocratic system of promotion in the state hierarchy, especially in the ranks of kadis. They both argued that if the promotion were given only to qualified men, to people who had ‘real’ authentic learning, the ulemâ would quickly regain their earlier standard, and the meritocratic system eventually would prevail at all levels of society. It is not right that appointments should depend on influential friends or networks, both insistently emphasized, coalescing with the point that Hırzü’l-mülûk underlined half a century earlier. The true criterion of qualification for any office is not age, or network or ancestry, but ‘real’ education, Kâtib Çelebî affirms.46 It is important to keep in mind that although Çelebî seems very open to progress, renewal and transformation, he becomes a conformist thinker when the military and political issues of the kânûn-i kadîm are concerned. He even once defended the old galleys because his ancestors were victorious with them, and recommended not to switch to galleons, a change that was considered in his time. However, this did not stop him from making several suggestions on how to upgrade the organization of the Ottoman navy or how to use recent scientific and technological innovations for military purposes.47 Çelebî talks about some scholars who studied philosophical subjects, and some students who had a keen interest in philosophy in his time. He states that he encouraged those “capable men” to learn philosophy just as Socrates encouraged

44 [Kâtib Çelebî], Kes¸fü’z-zünûn: 50–51. 45 Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi,”: 38; Bacque-Grammont, “Kâtip Çelebi’nin Cihannümâ’sında S¸üphenin I˙fadesi Hakkında I˙ki Örnek”: 669–671. 46 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 4–13; 152–155. 47 Bostan, Beylikten ˙Imparatorlug˘a Osmanlı Denizcilig˘i: 188; quoted from Çelebî’s Tuhfetü’lkibâr fî esfâri’l-bihâr.

Holding the Truth in Balance

147

his student Plato to investigate the nature and knowledge of the truths of things.48 He goes on by stating that he wrote this treatise, Mîzan, to guide new students of knowledge to acquire as far as possible whatever knowledge is available out there. “It will certainly prove necessary on some occasion,” he says, “there is no harm in learning. Let them not disparage and refuse, for decrying a thing leads to estrangement from it and deprivation thereof.”49 In the last section of Mîzan, Çelebî gives advice to Ottoman students of his time50 after his advice for the sultan, preachers, and Muslim masses: – Learn the fundamentals of knowledge and the essentials of Islamic religion, – Develop a level of comprehension and viewpoint regarding Islamic religion, – Study various disciplines and sciences methodically, – Start each multiplicity from a unified perspective, – Do not jump on to other branches of knowledge and science before you finished learning completely the one that you are studying, – Try to develop a style of learning and mastery of knowledge that will equip and prepare you for the profession you would like to have, – Do not engage in any full time job before you complete your education, since full time jobs will preoccupy your mind and soul, and leave no space and energy for you to learn difficult matters in science. Do not seek any post or appointment in the hierarchy before you are done with your education, – Study philosophically, theologically and Sufi oriented books. Take clear, understandable and useful points, forget about the blurry and chaotic issues. – Before anything else, do not reject any branch of knowledge and science. And never allow yourself to get trapped in fanaticism. He concludes his work as follows: “Here I finish what I have to say, and my treatise is therefore ended. May the God of Truth grant us all a good ending and may He never let us depart from the road of reason and of His merciful favor and kindness …”.51 Although he can be considered as a conformist thinker with respect to his stand on the classical system of Ottoman governance, his phenomenal historical, biographical and geographical works must be regarded as a turning point in Ottoman scholarship. Writing from a wholistic perspective, he perceived the 48 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11. In the English translation of Mîzân, although Lewis has done a fairly good job over all, here he reverses the meaning of the original text, and interprets it this way: “As a student, I, the humble writer of these lines, in the course of discussion and study, was encouraged by some men of talent, as Plato was encouraged by Socrates, to acquire knowledge of the truths of things.” See Lewis, The Balance: 26. 49 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 11. 50 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 152–155. 51 Kâtib Çelebî, Mizânü’l-hakk: 155.

148

Seyfi Kenan

world not only as a sign of divine omnipotence. Making an important step further he also searched for constructive and functional knowledge to grapple with the political, economic and military challenges of his time.52 With his relentless search for new knowledge and ideas, his tremendous trust in education, he appears an intellectual pioneer in the Ottoman world. He always perceived knowledge as an integrated whole, and as fundamental for the human pursuit of a better and happier life, never approaching it as something that can be consumed and easily fabricated for ideological use, be it for religious or nonreligious purposes. Moreover his life-long endeavor to make knowledge available and accessible for everyone is a significant contribution to the enlightenment which was about to emerge.

Bibliography Sources [Ebû Sehl Numan Efendi], Tedbîrât-ı Pesendîde (Ed. Ali I˙brahim Savas¸). Ankara 1999. Gökyay, Orhan S¸aik, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi. I˙stanbul 1995. [Kâtib Çelebî], Fezleke-i Tarih. I˙stanbul 1286 / 1870. [Kâtib Çelebî], Kes¸fü’z-zünûn (Ed. Yaltkaya, S¸erefettin & Kilisli Rıfat Bilge). I˙stanbul 1971. [Kâtib Çelebî], Mîzânü’l-Hakk fî ˙Ihtiyâri’l-Ehakk. Kostantıniye: 1306 / 1890–1891. Koca Sinan Pas¸a’nin Telhisleri (ed. Halil Sahilliog˘lu). I˙stanbul 2004. Lewis, Geoffrey L., The Balance of Truth in Choosing the Most True. London: 1957. [Mustafa Âlî], Künhü’l-ahbâr. Nuruosmaniye, Ktp. ms. 3409: 292b–293b. [S¸ehzâde Korkud], Da’vetü’n-nefsi’t-tâliha ile’l-amâli’s-sâliha. MS Aya Sofya 1763: 233a– 235b.

Studies Akdag˘, Mustafa, Türk Halkının Dirlik ve Düzenlik Kavgası. Ankara 1975: 153–283 Bacque-Grammont, Jean-Louis, “Kâtip Çelebi’nin Cihannümâ’sında S¸üphenin I˙fadesi Hakkında I˙ki Örnek”, IV. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri, 24–29 Eylül 2000. Ankara 2007: vol. 1, 669–672. Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, “Türkiye’de Din ve Devlet I˙lis¸kilerinin Tarihsel Gelis¸imi”, Cumhuriyetin 50. Yıldönümü Semineri. Ankara 1975: 49–97. Birnbaum, Eleazar, “Kâtib Chelebi (1609–1657) and Alphabetization: A Methodological Investigation of the Autographs of his Kashf al-Zunûn and Sullam al-Wusûl”, in: 52 For further analysis of Çelebî’s works on geography, see Hagen, “Ottoman Understandings of the World in the Seventeenth Century”; Sarıcaog˘lu, “Cihannümâ ve Ebubekir b. Behrâm edDımes¸kî-I˙brahim Müteferrika”.

Holding the Truth in Balance

149

Déroche, François & Richard, Francis (eds.), Scribes et manuscrits du Moyen-Orient. Paris: 1997: 236–263. Bostan, I˙dris, Beylikten ˙Imparatorlug˘a Osmanlı Denizcilig˘i. I˙stanbul 2006. Düzdag˘, M. Ertug˘rul, S¸eyhülislam Ebussuûd Efendi Fetvaları Is¸ıg˘ında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı. I˙stanbul 1983. Emecen, Feridun M., ˙Imparatorluk Çag˘ının Osmanlı Sultanları II. I˙stanbul 2016. Fleischer, Cornell H., Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli. Princeton 1986. Fodor, Pal, “State and Society, Crisis and Reform in 15th–17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15 (1986): 218–240. Gaukroger, Stephen, The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210–1685. Oxford 2006. Göçek, Fatma Müge, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century. Oxford 1987: 109–110. Goffman, Daniel, The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge 2002: 113. Gökyay, Orhan S¸aik, “Kâtib Çelebi”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islam Ansiklopedisi 25 (2002): 36 Hagen, Gottfried, “Kâtib Çelebî”, in: Kafadar, Cemal & Karateke, Hakan & Fleischer, Cornell (eds.), Historians of the Ottoman Empire. https://ottomanhistorians.uchicago. edu/ (accessed on March 30, 2009) Hagen, Gottfried, “Ottoman Understandings of the World in the Seventeenth Century”, Afterword in: Dankoff, Robert, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi. Leiden 2004: 215–256. I˙nalcık, Halil & Quataert, Donald (eds.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914. Cambridge 1994. I˙zgi, Cevat, Osmanlı Medreselerinde ˙Ilim. I˙stanbul 1997. Kafadar, Cemal, “Self and Others: The Diary of a Dervish in Seventeenth Century Istanbul and First-Person Narratives in Ottoman Literature”, Studia Islamica 69 (1989): 121–150. Kafadar, Cemal, “The Question of Ottoman Decline”, Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4/1–2 (1997–1998): 30–75. Kunt, Metin, The Sultan’s Servants: The Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government 1550–1650. New York 1983. Kutluer, I˙lhan, “Kâtib Çelebî ve Bilimler: Kes¸fü’z-zünûn Mukaddimesinde ‘el-I˙lm’ Kavramı”, M.Ü. ˙Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 18 (2000): 79–99. Lewis, Bernard, “Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline”, Islamic Studies: Journal of the Central Institute of Islamic Research 1/1 (1962): 71–87. Ménage, V. L., “Three Ottoman Treatises on Europe”, in: Bosworth, Clifford E. (ed.), Iran and Islam: In Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky. Edinburgh 1971: 421–433. Omont, H., Missions Archéologiques Françaises en Orient aux dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles. Paris 1902. Sarıcaog˘lu, Fikret, “Cihannümâ ve Ebubekir b. Behrâm ed-Dımes¸kî-I˙brahim Müteferrika”, in: Bekir Kütükog˘lu’na Armag˘an. I˙stanbul 1991: 121–141. al-Tikriti, Nabil S., S¸ehzade Korkud (CA. 1468–1513) and the Articulation of Early 16th Century Ottoman Religious Identity. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Chicago 2004).

150

Seyfi Kenan

Yılmaz, Hüseyin, “Osmanlı Tarihçilig˘inde Tanzimat Öncesi Siyaset Düs¸üncesine Yakla¸sımlar”, Türkiye Aras¸tırmaları Literatür Dergisi/Türk Siyaset Tarihi: Tanzimat’a Kadar 1/2 (2003): 231–298. Yücel, Yas¸ar, Osmanlı Devlet Tes¸kilâtına Dair Kaynaklar: Kitâb-i Müstetâb, Kitâbu Mesâlihi’l-Muslimîn ve Menâfii’l-Mü’minîn, Hırzü’l-Mülûk. Ankara 1988. Zilfi, Madeline C., “Kadızâdeliler: Onyedinci Yüzyıl I˙stanbul’unda Dinde I˙hya Hareketleri”, Türkiye Günlüg˘ü 58 (Turkish translation by M. Hulusi Lekesiz, 1999): 65–79. Zilfi, Madeline C., The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulemâ in the Postclassical Age (1600– 1800). Minneapolis 1988.

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

Il est aisé de parler contre la médicine, quand on est en pleine santé. Bei voller Gesundheit verwirft man leicht die Medizin.1,2

Über Wahrnehmungen von Krankheit und Gesundheit im frühneuzeitlichen Osmanischen Reich durch die Kranken selbst ist wenig bekannt, denn diese Themen sprachen die Betroffenen selten schriftlich an. Einige exemplarische Anhaltspunkte verdanken wir jedoch den Schriften von Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi (st. um 1755), einem recht egozentrischen Rechtsgelehrten, der vermutlich seinen Zeitgenossen weniger angenehm in Erinnerung blieb als heutigen Osmanisten, da er einige Schriften mit autobiographischen Zügen hinterlassen hat. Die Nachwelt erinnert sich seiner bisher durch die Tedbı¯ra¯t-ı pesendı¯de („Treffliche Maßnahmen“), die Schilderung seiner Erlebnisse und der von ihm getroffenen „Maßnahmen“ in den Grenzgebieten des Osmanischen Reiches auf der Krim, an der Donau und in Westiran. Nach der deutschen Teilübersetzung 1972 und der Transkriptedition dieses Werkes 1999 blieb es einige Zeit still um Nuʿma¯n Efendis Werke, doch in den letzten Jahren finden sie vermehrt Aufmerksamkeit.3 Im folgenden sollen zwei bis vor kurzem unbekannte Schriften Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯ns betrachtet werden, nämlich der Da¯sta¯n, ein etwa 1732 verfaßtes Egodokument in Form epischer Versdichtung, und Tahlı¯lü d-duha¯n, eine Abhandlung ˙ ˘ über die Erlaubtheit des Rauchens, die zwar auf 1751 datiert ist, sich aber autobiographisch auf 1730–1731 bezieht.4 In beiden spielen Krankheit und Gesundheit eine wichtige Rolle. 1 Argan in Molières Le Malade imaginaire, 3. Akt, 4. Szene. Die zitierte Übersetzung stammt von Alfred Wolfenstein (Molière, Der eingebildete Kranke. Berlin 1927). 2 Möge der mit diesem Beitrag zu Ehrenden noch lange die volle Gesundheit erhalten bleiben! 3 Die deutsche Übersetzung des mittleren Teils von Tedbı¯ra¯t-ı Pesendı¯de besorgte Prokosch, Molla und Diplomat, die Transkriptedition Savas¸, Ebu Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi. Vgl. auch Sievert, „Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendis Treffliche Maßnahmen gegen die Arglist der Anderen und die Torheit der Vorgesetzten in Iran und an der Donau“. 4 Beide Schriften wurden vor Kurzem ediert, was dem Verfasser dieser Zeilen (H. S.) leider erst nach Abschluß der Bearbeitung der Handschriften bekannt wurde. Es handelt sich um: Kalaycı

152

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Das vom Autor selbst Da¯sta¯n (Ballade) genannte Gedicht wird gelegentlich als „Gesundheitsschrift“ (sıhhatna¯me) bezeichnet,5 obwohl das Thema nur in einem ˙ ˙˙ Abschnitt vorherrscht.6 Das Subgenre sıhhatna¯me7 umfaßt vorwiegend gratula˙ ˙˙ torische Gelegenheitsdichtung anläßlich der glücklichen Genesung einer hochstehenden Persönlichkeit, doch einige sıhhatna¯mes schildern Krankheit und ˙ ˙˙ Genesung ihres Autors. Direktes Vorbild des Da¯sta¯n war das sıhhatna¯me des ˙ ˙˙ Karaçelebiza¯de ʿAbdülʿazı¯z Efendi, welches dessen Erkrankung und Genesung ˙ ebenfalls aus Sicht des Autors und sogar mit Bezug auf das gleiche Leiden (s¸¯ırpençe) darstellt.8 Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendis Laufbahn soll hier nicht ausführlich dargestellt werden.9 Obwohl er in Tedbı¯ra¯t-ı Pesendı¯de wiederholt darüber klagt, daß seine treuen Dienste nicht in Form von Rangerhöhungen oder einträglichen Posten gewürdigt werden, dürften ihm die Ämter, die er versah, einen auskömmlichen Lebensunterhalt verschafft haben. Übersicht über Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendis Laufbahn um 1700 aufgewachsen in Eg˘in (Kemaliye) ¯ mid (Diyarbakır) Studien u. a. in Divrig˘i und A ¯ mid Medresenanstellung in A 1726–32 Mufti von Täbris10 1738–40 Kadi von Kaffa (ordu ka¯dısı) ˙ ˙ 1740–41 Mitglied des Grenzziehungskommission an der Donau (sınur mollası)11 ˙ 1742 Medresendozent (müderris) in Istanbul 1743–1745 Vizerichter (na¯ʾib) in I˙zmir, Andros, Nikosia, Birgi 1746–47 Mitglied der Geschenkgesandtschaft nach Iran (als ordu ka¯dısı) ˙ ˙ 1748–49 Vizerichter (na¯ʾib) in Karahisa¯r-ı Sa¯hib (Afyonkarahisar), in Konya ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 1749–50 Vizerichter in Diyarbakır, in Kütahya & Öztürk, „18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Cog˘rafyasında Tütünün Sosyo-Kültürel Zeminine Dair Bir Metin“ sowie: Kalaycı & Kumsar, Bir Osmanlı Âliminin Çileli Yılları. 5 So bei Savas¸, Ebu Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi: 4. 6 Nach Kalaycı & Kumsar, Bir Osmanlı Âliminin Çileli Yılları: 80 bildet dieser Abschnitt (Vers 160–211) den siebten Teil der Ballade. 7 Vgl. Kalaycı & Kumsar: 98–100. 8 Kalaycı & Kumsar belegen dies überzeugend durch Textvergleich (Kalaycı & Kumsar: 100– 102). Zum Geschichtsschreiber und zeitweiligen ¸seyhülisla¯m Karaçelebiza¯de ʿAbdülʿazı¯z ˘ (1592–1658) s. Kaya, „Karaçelebizâde Abdülaziz Efendi“. Sein ˙sıhhatna¯me ist im zeyl zu ¯ ˙ ˙˙ Karaçelebiza¯des Weltgeschichte Ravz˙atu l-ebra¯r enthalten. ˙ 9 Detaillierte Angaben dazu finden sich in Kalaycı & Kumsar und in Sievert, „Maßnahmen“ sowie zusammenfassend in Savas¸, „Nuʿma¯n Ebu¯ Sehl“. 10 Nach Savas¸, „Nuʿma¯n Ebu¯ Sehl“: 1 blieb Nuʿma¯n Efendi bis 1148 / 1735–1736 in diesem Amt, da jedoch Täbriz 1732 an Iran zurückfiel, blieb er wohl allenfalls nominell Mufti. 11 Diese von Nuʿma¯n selbst benutzte Bezeichnung scheint keine offizielle gewesen zu sein. Die Hofchronik erwähnt ihn als müka¯leme ka¯tibi ([Vak’anüvis Subhî Mehmed Efendi], Subhî ˙ ˙ Tarihi: 168b, 171a). Beides bezieht sich offenbar auf seine Aufgabe, das Grenzziehungsprotokoll niederzulegen und zu beglaubigen.

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

153

1750 Medresendozent (müderris) in Istanbul 1753–1754 Kadi von Manisa

Im Zusammenhang mit Körper, Krankheit und Gesundheit ist vor allem die erste Phase seiner Ämterlaufbahn in den Jahren um 1730 von Interesse. Da sich kein anderer Bewerber für das ehrenvolle Amt eines Muftis im osmanisch besetzten Täbris fand, ergriff der junge Gelehrte 1726 seine Chance.12 Nuʿma¯n Efendi unterstellte sich der Patronage des Statthalters und Oberkommandierenden der Täbriser Armee, Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a.13 Osmanische Truppen eroberten Täbris ˙ 1725, verloren es 1730 kurzzeitig an Tahma¯sp Kulı Ha¯n (den späteren Na¯dir Sˇa¯h) ˙ ˙ ˘ und besetzten die Stadt im folgenden Jahr erneut, bevor sie 1732 endgültig an Iran fiel.

Körperliches Leiden Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a vertraute dem frischgebackenen Mufti in Täbris ein Med˙ resengebäude an, wo er Quartier beziehen und offenbar eine Lehranstalt nach osmanischem Muster aufbauen sollte.14 Als die osmanischen Truppen 1730 aus Täbris abzogen, hielt man es offenbar nicht für nötig, den friedlich in seiner Medrese schlummernden Nuʿma¯n Efendi darüber zu informieren. Erst im letzten Augenblick bemerkte er, in welcher Gefahr er schwebte und geriet in panische Angst, die er im Da¯sta¯n anschaulich macht: „Ein Ruf weckte mich, ich fand niemanden vor. Das Tor war verschlossen, so stieg ich aufs Dach und sah die Soldaten in die Berge ziehen. Da raffte ich mein Gewand und eilte angstvoll wie ein Schmetterling zurück. Ich flehte zum Herrn: ‚Laß mich nicht in Gefangenschaft geraten!‘ (…) Weich wie Wachs wurde ich aus Angst vor dem Martyrium, selbst wenn ich keine Qualen zu erleiden hätte, aber fürchtete mich davor, in die Hände böser Menschen zu fallen. Daher schlug ich betend das Gesicht auf den Boden, daß es schwarz wurde, flehte laut den lebenspendenden Weltenherrn um Hilfe an. Und tatsächlich wurde im Morgengrauen mein Flehen erhört. In jener finsteren Nacht war ich dem Tode nah, sie war mir zur Nacht der Entscheidung geworden.“15 12 Dies tat er, obwohl die orakelhafte Befragung des Korans (istiha¯re) nichts Gutes verhieß, was ˘ sich wie viele andere seiner Vorhersagen unweigerlich bewahrheiten sollte (Da¯sta¯n: fol. 2a). 13 Zur Person s. Aktepe, „Hekı¯mog˘lu Ali Pas¸a“. Das Klientelverhältnis beschreibt Nuʿma¯n Efendi auf Da¯sta¯n, fol. 4a und 6a, und bereut es auf 8a. 14 Da¯sta¯n, fol. 2b–3a: „O medrese ki taʿmı¯r eylemis¸ idiʿAlı¯ Pas¸a / beni anda komıs¸dı ba¯ʿis olam ˙ eylemis¸ idi¯ baña hıfz-u iʿma¯ra // çu¯ ʿazm-ı Ru¯m e˙den-de medresesin tenbı¯h e˙tmis¸di / ema¯net ˙hem ˙ rebb-i muhta¯ra“. 15 Da¯sta¯n, fol. 3a:˘„Beni ha¯tif uyardı bulmadum ben bir ahad anda / kapu mug˙lak çıkam sakfa ki ˙ yalvarırım ˙ ʿasker gitdi tag˙lara // eteklerüm tutus¸ub dönerim perva¯˙neves¸ anda˙ / esı¯r e˙tme ˙deyü ˙ ¯ ra // ila¯hı¯ ha¯dim-i˙¸serʿ-i ˙ ¸serı¯fiñim bu ser-hadda / baña sa¯hiblik eyle sen esı¯r e˙tme oldımda setta ˙ ¯ kin havf e˙˙derdim-ki ˙ ˘ ez¯ıyet çekmeseydüm ger / ve-la düs¸em ber destbu küffa¯ra […] mu¯m oldım ¯ ˘

154

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Aus dieser mißlichen Lage befreiten Ebu¯ Sehl nicht näher beschriebene Männer und nahmen ihn auf einem Lasttier (ba¯rgı¯r) mit, wobei der folgende Gewaltritt dem Gelehrten zusetzte: „Sieben Tage und Nächte floh ich ohne zu essen, zu trinken oder zu schlafen, und mein zarter Körper wurde weich wie Wachs.“16 Abgesehen von den Übertreibungen gibt Nuʿma¯n Efendi zu, daß er für derartige Strapazen nicht geschaffen ist und sieht seinen Körper bei außergewöhnlichen Anstrengungen oder Angstzuständen förmlich zerfließen. Auch an die Belastungen, denen die Armee auf „gewöhnlichen“ Märschen ausgesetzt war, wie Regen und Hunger, kann sich der Gelehrte nicht gewöhnen und klagt, der Mensch sei aus Lehm gemacht worden, ohne mit Regen zu rechnen.17 Neben der Wachsmetapher verwendet Nuʿma¯n Efendi im Da¯sta¯n gerne metaphorisches Feuer, um seelischen wie körperlichen Schmerz auszudrücken: „Wie Schwefel entzündete ich mich am Feuer der Kümmernisse dieser Welt.“18 Damit spielt er zugleich darauf an, daß sich emotionales Leiden bei ihm umgehend in körperlichen Symptomen manifestierte, wie weiter unten ausgeführt werden wird. Alle Widrigkeiten schrecken jedoch den frommen Mufti nicht, denn: „Ich sagte stets, würde mein Leib ins Feuer geworfen, würde es in meiner Lage sicher durch ein Rosenbeet ersetzt.“19 Dagegen kann Wasser Trost bzw. sein Mangel Trostlosigkeit darstellen: „Meine Tränen waren versiegt, mein trauerndes Herz weinte, das weinende Auge wurde einem trockenen Brunnen ähnlich.“20 Im Rahmen konventioneller Metaphorik gibt er weiterhin zu, daß er das ganze Ausmaß seiner Leiden nicht in Worte kleiden kann: „Gewiß ist dies nur die kürzeste Zusammenfassung meines Leids. Die Einzelheiten lassen sich nicht ausführen, denn mehrere Schriftrollen würden dafür nicht ausreichen.“21 Die Ausübung des Muftiats in Täbris erweist sich durch die Feindseligkeit der Einheimischen als geradezu zermürbend, was durch Intrigen im Umfeld seines Patrons Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a noch verschärft wird. Nuʿma¯n Efendi versinn˙ bildlicht die sich akkumulierende Frustration: „Als der Mundschenk mir vom

16 17 18 19 20 21

i bedka¯ra // anıñçün yüz urub yere yüzim fers¸-i siya¯h e˙tdüm / e˙düb ferya¯d-u istimda¯d o ca¯nbah¸s ciha¯nda¯ra // meg˘er ferya¯dıma ısg˙a¯ kılınmıs¸ ol seher vakti / hakkımda leyletü l-kadr ˙ &˙Kumsar: 132˙statt „öldüm“: ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ „ol dem“. ˙ ˘ oldı öldüm ol ¸seb-i ta¯ra“. Vgl. bei Kalaycı Da¯sta¯n, 3a: „Yedi ¸seb ru¯z fira¯r e˙tdüm yemez içmez uyumazdum / bu tabʿ-ı na¯zı¯kim mu¯m ˙ olmus¸ıdı bı¯h-i kena¯ra“. Da¯sta¯n, 4a:˘„Bilesince götürdi ol seferlerde çeküb zahmet / çamurdan adam olmus¸dık hesa¯b ˙ ˙ ˙ olmazdı emta¯ra“. Da¯sta¯n, 8a: ˙„…tutus¸dum kibrı¯t a¯sa¯ bu ciha¯nda na¯r-ı ekda¯ra“. Da¯sta¯n, 8a: „De˙˙r idim-ki eg˘er bir na¯ra atılsaydı bu cismim / bu halimle mübeddel olur elbetde ˙ o gülza¯ra“. Da¯sta¯n, 4a: „Yas¸ım kesilmis¸ idi ag˙lar idi kalb-i mahzu¯nım / müs¸a¯bih olmus¸ idi çes¸m-i gerya¯n ˙ ˙ kurı pıñara“. ˙Da¯sta¯n, 8a: „ʿAla¯ t-tahk¯ık bular icma¯l-i ser-enca¯m-ı rencimdür / deg˘il mümkin tefa¯s¯ıli sı˙ ˙ g˙ıs¸maz niçe tomara“. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

155

kreisenden Kelch des Kummergifts zu trinken gab, spaltete der Wein aus Gift und Gram mein Herz in tausend Teile“.22 Wie bei den Titeln seiner Werke setzt Nuʿma¯n Efendi hier Buchstabenwerte als Jahresangabe ein. Auf die in den Buchstaben der genannten Wörter enthaltenen Jahreszahlen 1140 (sem-i g˙am) und 1143 (sem ba¯ g˙am)23 wird der Leser des Da¯sta¯n dezent aufmerksam gemacht, indem diese unter den in rot hervorgehobenen Wörtern zusätzlich als Ziffern notiert wurden. Mit der somit auf den Zeitraum 1727–1730 gestreckten Datierung soll vielleicht zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, daß Nuʿma¯n Efendi gewissermaßen seinen Kummer drei Jahre lang herunterschluckte und immer weiter aus dem Kelch des Kummers trank, bis er ihm Ende das Herz brach.

Der Schlag der Löwenpranke Über die Widrigkeiten und Gefahren des Amtes im Feindesland hinaus setzten Nuʿma¯n Efendi Intrigen zu. Nach eigenen Angaben leistete er seinem Patron Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a wertvolle Dienste, indem er dem von der osmanischen ˙ Soldateska verbreiteten Chaos das islamische Recht zum Erhalt der Herrschaftsordnung entgegensetzte (defʿ-i fiten).24 Nachdem er das Amt in Täbris 1731 erneut angetreten hatte, trübte sich jedoch das Verhältnis zu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a infolge übler Nachrede des Haushofmeisters (kapucı kethuda¯sı),25 den Nuʿma¯n ˙ ˘ Efendi vielleicht unzureichend beschenkt hatte. Der kapucı kethuda¯sı ergriff eine ˙ ˘ Gelegenheit, um Nuʿma¯n Efendi vor den versammelten Angehörigen von ʿAlı¯ Pas¸as Haus (kapu) zu erniedrigen, was ihn schließlich bei ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a selbst in ˙ Mißkredit brachte.26 Über die Blamage hinaus bedrohte dieser Angriff Nuʿma¯n Efendis soziale Stellung, als Mufti wie als Klient des Paschas.

22 Da¯sta¯n, fol. 4b: „I˙çürmis¸ iken baña sa¯k¯ı devera¯n-ı ca¯m-ı sem-i g˙am (1140) / ¸sara¯b-ı sem ba¯ g˙am (1143) yüreg˘im kılmıs¸dı biñ pa¯re“. ˙ ˙ das Kreisen des Kelches (devera¯n-ı cem) etwa 1727 und das herzzerspren23 Damit entspricht gende Trinken (s¸ara¯b) 1730. 24 Da¯sta¯n, 4b: „Zı¯ra¯ ʿasker dös¸erler dört tarafa fitneler olur / reʿa¯ya¯yı perı¯¸sa¯n e˙tdirirler cümle ˙ intiza¯m tutmaz / bu fak¯ır ol vezı¯riñ tevfı¯kine oldı yekpa¯re // o memleket reʿa¯ya¯sız niza¯m-u ˙ ˙ haz˙˙m e˙düb / niçe defʿ-i ˙ ˙ ema¯re // ne mihnetler çeküb her biriniñ cevrini fiten oldı müyesser bu ˙ emekda¯ra“. 25 Es handelt sich um den Obertürwächter (kapucı kethuda¯sı), der eine leitende Funktion im ˙ des kapucılar ˘ Haushalt des Paschas ausübte (vgl. zum Amt kethuda¯sı am Sultanshof Pakalın, ˙ ˘ Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüg˘ü: 170–171). 26 Da¯sta¯n, 6a: „Kapucı kethuda¯sı z˙ıdd ismiyle olan mevsu¯f / komazdı vakti ile is¸ görüben gideyim ˙ ˙ ag˙zını tutacak kadar ˘ ka¯ra // kimiñ˙ is¸ini görürse anıñ ba¯rt[ı¯]lın alurdı /˙bulunmazdı anıñ ˙ azarladı / haca¯letden dilerdüm-ki çekem ˙ kendümi ˙ ˙ bir para // kapuda halka kars¸ı e˙l gibi beni ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˘ da¯ra // ne kadar izdiha¯m bı¯ keyf olan evka¯tda bulunsam / baña yol ve˙rür idi ki yanam bula ki ˙ ˙ ˙

156

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi sieht Erkrankungen mit großer Selbstverständlichkeit als unmittelbare Folgewirkung von Kummer und Sorgen an.27 So beschreibt er seine körperlichen Leiden als Folge von Schande und Scham erst infolge des fluchtartigen Abzugs aus Täbris, bei dem er alle seine Habseligkeiten einschließlich Büchern und Gefolge bis auf einen Diener an die Perser verliert.28 Eine ähnliche psychosomatische Reaktion wiederholt sich später in einer deprimierenden und nervenaufreibenden Situation bei der Grenzvermessung an der Donau 1740–1741, aufgrund derer Ebu¯ Sehl wiederum an Furunkeln leidet.29 Da dies als Metapher höchst ungewöhnlich wäre, kann man davon ausgehen, daß Nuʿma¯n Efendis körperliche Beschreibung seiner Leiden durchaus seine tatsächliche Reaktion wiedergibt. Die erwähnte Intrige des mißgünstigen kapucı kethuda¯sı kostete also Nuʿma¯n ˙ ˘ Efendi die Gunst Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸as. Dies verursachte in Verbindung mit der ˙ ohnehin beträchtlichen Belastung durch die unerfreulichen Arbeitsbedingungen eine schwere Erkrankung, die noch dadurch verschlimmert wurde, daß niemand aus Nuʿma¯ns Gefolgschaft bei ihm war. Durch ein Karbunkel (pençe-i ¸s¯ır, ¸s¯ırpençe, wörtlich: Löwenpranke)30 am Rücken war Nuʿma¯n Efendi wochenlang ans Bett gefesselt: „Da der Kummer mich so stark angriff, zog ich mir die Löwenpranke zu, die so schlimm war, daß ich es nicht beschreiben kann. Niemand aus meinem Haus war bei mir, einsam lag ich in der Fremde und betete zum Herrn. Fünfunddreißig Nächte verlor ich in Trübsal wachend. Mein Hilferuf stieg gen Himmel, das Himmelsrad stand still, denn jede Nacht war so lang wie ein Jahr, und jeder Moment wie eine Nacht. Deshalb fragte ich das Himmelsrad, warum denn nur es in diesem Atemzuge stehenblieb – aus Erstaunen oder aus Mitleid, oder flehte es auch zum Herrn? Es sollte sich gleich weiterdrehen! Ich ließ Mitleid und Flehen hinter mir, damit meine schwarze Nacht ende und der klare Himmel sich zeige. Meine Wunde wurde zusehends größer, ich wandte mich

27 28 29 30

bir na¯ra // getürdimʿaklıma hiffet vezı¯re eyledim s̠ ıklet / o dahı çehre e˙tdi müstahikk olmus¸iken ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ ˘ ˘ a¯za¯ra.“ Er verzichtet im vorgenannten Zitat auf eine ausdrückliche Begründung und gibt diese Ur˙ umu¯muñ çok hücu¯mundan çıkardım pençe-i ¸s¯ır ben“ sache schlicht durch den Ablativ an: „G ˙ ˙ (Da¯sta¯n, 6a). Tahlı¯l, 2a: „Kırk üç senesinde va¯k¯ıʿ olan Tebrı¯z istı¯la¯sında cemı¯ʿ-i kütüb ve emva¯l ve es¸ya¯m ve ˙ ˙etba¯ʿ-u hudda¯m ˙esı¯r-i dest-i aʿca¯m-ı bed-enca¯m ve yalñızca kendim bir hiz˙ yanımda olan ¯ ˘ metka¯r ile … [in der Handschrift verwischt] ve bı¯ru¯nʿurya¯n va¯sıl-ı Kürdista¯n olub“. ˘ ÖNB H. O. 98, 41a, in Prokoschs Übersetzung (S. 68): „Vor lauter˙ Ärger bekam ich am ganzen Körper Furunkel“ (kema¯l mertebe sıkılmag˙la vucu¯dımda katı çok kan çıbanları çıkarmıs¸ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ idim). Ein Karbunkel wird beschrieben als „durch Staphylokokken verursachte, flächenhaft konfluierende Entzündung mehrerer benachbarter Haarbälge (Furunkel) mit Abszedierung, Nekrose und Einschmelzung des dazwischenliegenden Gewebes“ (Hildebrandt, Pschyrembel: 795).

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

157

immer mehr von allem ab. Auch aß ich nichts mehr, begann mich der Nahrung zu enthalten.“31

Nuʿma¯n Efendis Todeswunsch muß nicht unbedingt dichterische Übertreibung sein, denn das Leiden kann lebensgefährliche Folgen haben. Es handelte sich offenbar um das sogenannte na¯r-ı fa¯risı¯ye (arab. gˇamra), ein ulzeröses Geschwür, das man mit dem Prankenhieb eines Löwen (s¸¯ırpençe) verglich, wenn es auf dem Rücken erschien. Dieses Leiden soll der Humoralpathologie zufolge durch verbranntes Blut mit einem Übermaß an gelber Galle (yanmıs¸ safravı¯ kan) entste˙ ˙ hen. Deshalb tritt es überwiegend bei Menschen auf, die ein warmes Temperament aufweisen, oder wenn die Leber eine zu warme Mischung hat. Es kann aber auch auf unausgewogene Ernährung mit exzessiver Zufuhr von Nahrungsmitteln zurückgehen, die das Blut verderben und verbrennen, wie Knoblauch (sarımsak), ˙ ˙ Senf (hardel) und getrocknetes Fleisch (pasdιrma).32 Die Symptome beginnen ˙ ˘ mit Juckreiz und Brennen, anschließend entwickelt sich eine schwärzliche aschgraue Verfärbung (levni kül rengde ve karaya ma¯ʾil) mit trockener Kruste, ˙ und schließlich folgen Fieber, Ohnmacht, Herzrasen und Erbrechen, wobei die 33 Schmerzen abends stärker werden. Auf diesen Umstand deutet Nuʿma¯n Efendis mehrfache Nennung der Nacht als besonders schlimme Leidenszeit hin. Die Behandlung zielt auf die Wiederherstellung eines ausgeglichenen Temperaments. In erster Linie muss der Arzt die überschüssige gelbe Galle und das verdorbene Blut durch Aderlaß, Schröpfen oder eventuell mit Blutegeln entfernen. Der Aderlaß ist allerdings nur in einer frühen Phase der Krankheit angezeigt, nämlich vor Ablauf von vier Tagen. Danach ist nur das Schröpfen zu empfehlen, indem der Arzt Einschnitte rings um das Geschwür vornimmt und darauf Schröpfköpfe ansetzt. Gleichzeitig soll der Arzt gemäßigte Abführmittel verabreichen, um die überschüssigen Säfte aus dem gesamten Körper abzuführen. Er soll auch Arzneien zum Trinken geben, die das Blutkochen verhindern sollten, wie Zichoriensirup (hindiba¯ʾ ¸serbeti) oder sauren Zitronatzitronensaft (ag˙aç kavunι eks¸isi ¸serbeti). ˙ Nach der lokalen Behandlung mit Aderlaß, Schröpfen oder Blutegeln soll der Arzt das Geschwür mit Salben behandeln, die trocknend, schmerzlindernd und ˙ umu¯muñ çok hücu¯mundan çıkardım pençe-i ¸s¯ır ben / ne gu¯ne pençe-i ¸s¯ır 31 Da¯sta¯n, 6a: „G ˙ ha¯rma¯nımdan biri asla¯ / yaturdım künc-i varmaz ag˙zım anı ihba¯ra //˙ bulunmadı yanımda ˙ ¯ne / çıkar ferya¯dım ˘ g˙urbetde el açub Rebb-i g˙affa¯ra // otuz bes¸ ge˙ce hva¯b˘ oldı hara¯m dı¯de g˙amgı ˙ efla¯ka turur ol çarh-ı devva¯ra // ki her ge˙çe olur˘yılca dah˙ı her lahza bir ge˙ce / anıñçün turıyor ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˘ ˙ ˙ derdim o demde çarh-ı gevva¯ra // niçün turur bu çarh derdüm tahayyur ya¯ terahhumdan / ˙ ¯ ra // hema ˙ ˙ ˙ hum ve ˘¯ z e˙der mi Rebb-i cebba ˘ ¯ n devr eylesün veya¯hu¯d ol-dahı niya geçdüm terah ˙ ˙ niya¯˘zından / ki˘ e˙ris¸e benim bu kara ge˙cem vakt-i esfa¯ra // yaram vardıkça azdı oldı ız˙ra¯bım ˙ ˙ eklimden ikta¯ra“. ˙ katı efzu¯n / yemekden hem kesildüm bas¸ladum ˙ ˙ a¯yat al-itqa¯n: 523. 32 ˙[Sa¯lih Nasrulla¯h b. Sallu¯m al-Halabı¯], Nüzhet ül-ebda¯n fı¯ tercemet G ˙ ˙ 33 Ebd.: 523.˙

158

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

vorbeugend gegen Fäulnis wirken. Anschließend wird die Stelle mit einem Verband versehen, der jeden zweiten Tag gewechselt werden muss. Wenn jedoch die Salben gegen Wundfäule nicht helfen, muß dies durch Kauterisation oder Verätzen verhindert werden (Säure oder Salz zum Abtöten des Gewebes).34 Aus Nuʿma¯n Efendis Beschreibung geht hervor, daß die Behandlung mit Aderlaß und Schröpfen nicht anschlug, so daß man zur letzten Behandlungsstufe übergehen mußte und zum Einsatz eines Ätzmittels griff. Der erste Chirurg (cerra¯h), dessen Aufgabe beim Heer vorwiegend in der Notbehandlung ver˙ wundeter Soldaten bestanden haben dürfte, war jedoch zu Nuʿma¯n Efendis Entsetzen ratlos. Erst ein zweiter Chirurg, den Nuʿma¯n Efendi mit dem unerwartet auftretenden Nothelfer Hız˙ır vergleicht, beginnt die leidvolle, aber am ˘ Ende erfolgreiche Behandlung. Seine dabei erlebten Empfindungen von Verzweiflung, Schmerz und Todesangst bringt Nuʿma¯n Efendi sehr plastisch zum Ausdruck: „Der Chirurg, der meine Wunde untersuchte, war ratlos und verwundert. Da kam jemand [d. h. ein anderer Chirurg] dem Kranken wie Hız˙ır zur Hilfe. Volle vier Monate ˘ behandelte er meine Wunde, schnitt ein wenig, ließ mich zur Ader und fügte mir große Schmerzen zu. Er operierte meinen Leib mit Schere und Zange, wie Zacharias wurde ich zersägt. Mein Inneres brannte wie Feuer, und wie ein brennender Blitz kam [Eiter?] heraus. Er trug scharfe Salben auf, und sogleich wurde mein Leib zu Feuer. Mein Feuer wäre nicht verloschen, hätte man mich auf den Meeresgrund geworfen, aber ich übte mich leidend in Geduld wie Hiob. Tag und Nacht betete ich den Rosenkranz, und als das letzte Stündlein mir zu schlagen schien, hoffte ich auf das Geheimnis danach. Ich wurde wieder so gesund, daß ich aufstehen konnte, aber meine Wunde war noch nicht verheilt, und ich sah [an der Narbe] aus wie eine geritzte Wand.“35

Darauf verfügte ʿAlı¯ Pas¸a nach Nuʿma¯n Efendis Darstellung, noch bevor der Mufti wieder ganz auf den Beinen war, sogleich dessen Entfernung in das dreißig

34 Ebd.: 523–524. 35 Da¯sta¯n, 6a-b: „Bu yaramı gören cerra¯h ¸sas¸ub kalırdı hayretde / hele hız˙ır-a¯sa¯ e˙ris¸di biri ˙ çıkdı bu ˙ yaramdan ˙ imda¯d-ı bı¯ ma¯ra // tama¯m dört ay çeküb niçe niçe /˙ kimin kesüb kimin çeküb zo¯r e˙derdi bu bı¯da¯ra // vucu¯dımı ve˙˙rüb çenga¯le mıkra¯z˙a dis¸im sıkub / niyete ve˙rdi ˙ ˙ ilha¯bım / çıkardı Zekerı¯ya¯ vucu¯dın katʿ-ı mins¸a¯ra // deru¯num kös¸e-i külha¯n˙ nefes ve˙rdikçe ˙ ˙ hayyiz-i na¯ra // ururdı acı merhemler ˙ bark a¯sa¯ vuslat e˙derdi hema¯n a¯tes¸ olur cismim˙ / sö˙ ˙ yinmez a¯tes¸˙im ger koysalardı kaʿr-ı abha¯ra // olurdum hissemend-i sabr-ı Eyyu¯b-ı nebı¯ bu ¯ ˙ ˙˙ ˙¸erı¯yet ve˙rirdi ˙ anı zerka ˙ ¯ ra // lisa¯nım ˙ üns e˙tmis¸ idi da¯ʾim / dem / ve–la¯kin bu bes bu nesk verdiyle ˙ ˙ gece gündüz giderdi tesbı¯him ol Rebb-i gaffa¯ra // çu¯n ol la¯ yahlifu l–mı¯ʿa¯d idibdi vaʿde-i enca¯ / ˙ a¯likdeki esra¯ra // ¸su deñlü sıhhate ˘ e˙rdüm-ki kalkdum ben ayak ümı¯dim var idi taht-ı kez ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙Nach einer Legende ˙ ˙ in islamischer ˙ üzere / ve–la¯kin yaram is¸ler beñzerim bir nak¸s-ı dı¯va¯ra“. ˙ Überlieferung soll Zacharias, der Vater Johannes des Täufers, sich vor dem Häschern des Herodes in einem Baum versteckt haben und zersägt worden sein, als sie den Baum fällten (Aydın, „Zekeriyyâ“).

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

159

Tagesreisen entfernte Üsküdar,36 und zwar komplett auf Nuʿma¯n Efendis Kosten, wie dieser bitter vermerkt.37 Noch schlimmer war für unseren Autor aber, daß er trotz (oder wegen) der chirurgischen Behandlung noch nicht genesen war, denn „die Wunde an meinem Rücken ließ mich am Leben verzweifeln.“38 Da er, zumal während der kalten Jahreszeit, eigentlich noch nicht reisefähig war und weder reiten noch zu Fuß gehen konnte,39 „kaufte man in der Zwischenzeit auf meine Kosten ein Lasttier und legte mich wie ein Gepäckstück darauf.“40 Der mit der Auslieferung beauftragte Tschausch habe Nuʿma¯n Efendi gesagt, daß er solch einen Sterbenden nur an den Bestimmungsort bringe, um die Empfangsbestätigung dafür zu erhalten – sonst würde er einen unterwegs Gestorbenen einfach irgendwo verbrennen. Solch erfrischende Offenheit dürfte Nuʿma¯n Efendi kaum aufgemuntert haben, paßt aber zu seinem sehr negativen Bild von Soldaten und auch Tschauschen.41 Dementsprechend hoffnungslos erscheint dem Mufti seine Lage, und er fleht Gott um Hilfe an, doch der Tschausch reitet zügig und ohne Rücksicht auf den Patienten los, dem Hören und Sehen vergeht: „Der Tschausch eilte los und trieb mich [auf dem Lasttier] vor sich her. Meine Augen weinten sprudelnd Blut, mit jeder Bewegung kam mein Ende näher. Zu Fuß gehen konnte ich nicht, hatte keinen ruhigen Augenblick. Ohne Zweifel haben solche Tschausche die Eigenschaften von Dämonen; dieser achtete gar nicht darauf, daß mir die Tränen nur so herabflossen. Der Winter war so bitterkalt, daß man nicht einmal bis auf den Boden spucken konnte, der Sturm so stark, daß er die Berge verhüllte. Die Winterkälte kroch mir in die Glieder und ließ meine offene Wunde im Krampf erstarren.“42

36 Da¯sta¯n 7a: „…geçürdiler bila¯ mehlet hema¯n semt-i Üsküda¯ra“. Es scheint sich um das kleinasiatische Üsküdar (Chalkedon) zu handeln, doch erreichte er diesen Ort nicht. Aus Nuʿma¯n Efendis Angaben geht auch nicht hervor, ob er versetzt oder verbannt wurde. 37 Da¯sta¯n 7a: „Ne ba¯rgı¯r var ne harclık var ne bir leva¯zim-i ra¯h var“. ˙ ¸idi benim arkamdaki yara“. ˘ ¯ s e˙tmis 38 Da¯sta¯n, 7a: „…haya¯tdan meʾyu ˙¯ de gitmeg˘e yok ta¯katım ya¯ya gidem ˙ ba¯rı¯ / is¸im müs¸kil olub kaldı mücerred 39 Da¯sta¯n, 7a: „Piya ˙ ˙ ˙ Rebb-i muhta¯ra // çavus¸ bas¸ıya gönderüb de˙dim yok ba¯rgı¯r-ü harclık / piya¯˙de yüriyemem ˙ ˘ ha¯limi ʿarz˙˘ e˙t keremka¯ra // husu¯san tas¸rıya asla¯ tah˙ammül e˙demez cismim / dahı hem ya¯˙raluyım tayanamam kıs¸ ile k˘ ara“. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˙ ˙ba¯rgı¯r aldılar baña ol es̠ na¯da / beni koydılar üstine müs¸a¯bih 40 Da¯sta¯n, ˙7a: „Hele borcıyla ˙ olmıs¸um ba¯ra“. 41 Das Barbarentum wird noch durch die Ankündigung einer Brandbestattung verstärkt, welche nach Maßstäben des islamischen Rechts inakzeptabel und damit sozusagen ein Zeugnis von Unglaube oder Heidentum wäre. 42 Da¯sta¯n, 7a: „Katub çavus¸ beni öñine sürʿatle götirürdi / akardı iki çes¸mim hu¯n-fes¸a¯ndan niçe ˙ ¯ de yüriyemem˘ ra¯hatim yok asla¯ fevva¯ra // tah˙arruk eyledikce bas¸ıma kopar kıya¯metler / piya ˙ ¯ ¸sübhe bu çavus¸lar zeba¯˙nı¯ sıfatdırlar ˙ bir pa¯re // bila / nazar e˙tmez ki seyl olmıs¸ ˙dumu¯ʿım˙ ru¯˙-yı ˙ ruhsa¯ra // ¸su gu¯ne zemherı¯ kıs¸dur bezza¯k˙inmez zemı¯n üzere / alubdur furtına tag˙ları koymaz ˙ ˙ bu gu¯˙ne açuk as˘la¯ absa¯ra // ¸sita¯nıñ ¸siddeti˙ teʾs̠¯ır e˙düb geçdi deru¯nıma / tes¸ennüc eyledi kıs¸ içre ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ yara“.

160

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Schließlich lieferte der rücksichtslose Tschausch seinen Passagier mehr tot als lebendig in einer Karawanserei in I˙znik ab und ließ sich die Bestätigung ausstellen.43 Dort wurde Nuʿma¯n Efendi auf Anweisung des scheidenden Statthalters44 gepflegt, kam 1732 allmählich wieder zu Kräften und haderte mit seinem Schicksal. Sein Intimfeind, mittlerweile zu ʿAlı¯ Pas¸as Schatzmeister (hazı¯neda¯r) ˘ aufgestiegen, folgte seinem Herrn an dessen neuen Amtsort Candia,45 wo dieser ihn unter unrühmlichen Umständen tötete. Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi ergänzte diesen Ausgang mit größter Genugtuung in einem nachträglich angefügten Appendix (tezyı¯l).

Gesundheit und Tabak Zu Nuʿma¯n Efendis körperlichen Leiden gehörten auch Zahnschmerzen, unter denen er während eines Aufenthaltes in Kurdistan 1730–1731 nach dem osmanischen Rückzug aus Iran litt. Die Beschreibung seiner Schmerzen und der Bezug auf psychosomatische Verursachung zeigen dabei deutliche Anklänge an die Schilderung im Da¯sta¯n: „Unter den ungerechten Kurden bedrückt und beunruhigt, befielen mich vom Angriff des Kummers und unzähligen Sorgen Erkrankungen der Unruhe und Zahnschmerzen.46 Der Kummer raubte mir den Schlaf, und das kummervolle Herz bedrängten zahllose Sorgen. Es gab keinen Barbier, der zum Zähneziehen oder auch nur zum Haareschneiden getaugt hätte. Ich stürzte ins Elend, erkrankte nacheinander an verschiedenen seelischen und körperlichen Krankheiten, und mein Wehgeschrei drang Tag und Nacht unaufhörlich zum Himmel empor. Da alle Gelehrten in jenen Landen dem Rauchen verfallen sind, sagten sie mir, daß das Rauchen Kummer und Sorgen vertreibe und jeglichen Katarrh beende. Ich lehnte dies vorsichtshalber ab, da es nach Ansicht so 43 Da¯sta¯n, 7a: „Çavus¸ ˙Iznikmidüñ ha¯n kös¸esine atdı bu cismim / ölür deyü alub iʿla¯mı gitdi ge˙rü ˘ ihba¯ra // kalub ha¯n kös¸esinde g˙urbet e˙lde hidmet e˙der yok / yaturdım künc-i hayretde düs¸üb ˙ sad ˘za¯ra“. ˙ ˙ ˘ s˘ad renc ve ˙ ˙ 44 Derzeit ist diese Person, Seyyid Mustafa¯ Pas¸a, unter den zahlreichen Mustafa¯ Pas¸as seiner ˙˙ Zeit nicht zu identifizieren, doch könnte es sich um den in [Vak’anüvis˙ ˙ Subhî Mehmed ˙ Efendi], Subhî Tarihi: 228b als Iznikmid mutasarrıfı genannten handeln. Kalaycı & Kumsar: ˙ ˙ ˙ 20 identifizieren Seyyid Mustafa¯ Pas¸a fälschlicherweise mit Seyyid Mustafa¯ Efendi, dem 1736 ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ([Vak’anüvis Subhî zum S¸eyhülisla¯m ernannten Sohn des bekannten Feyz˙ulla¯h Efendi Mehmed ˘Efendi], Subhî Tarihi: 91b). ˙¸a wurde ˙ 45 Hekı¯mog˙lu ʿAlı¯ Pas 1148 / 1735–1736 ernannt ([Vak’anüvis Subhî Mehmed Efendi], S˙ubhî Tarihi: 66b. ˙ ˙„Ausfließen auf meine Zähne“ (denda¯nlarıma nezle) könnte sich auf Zahnfleischbluten 46 Das aufgrund eines humoralpathologisch gedeuteten „Überschusses“ an Blut beziehen. Im Allgemeinen entspricht nezle dem Katarrh (wörtlich ebenfalls Herabfließen bzw. modern: „mit Flüssigkeitsabsonderungen einhergehende Entzündung der Schleimhäute“ (Hildebrandt, Pschyrembel: 803; vgl. French, „Catarrh“: 635–636. Weiter unten ist deutlicher von Karies (dis¸ çüreg˘i) die Rede.

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

161

vieler verboten ist. Sie erklärten jedoch, daß der Zahnschmerz zu bekämpfen sei, indem man in Tabakssaft getränkte Watte auf den fauligen Zahn legt. Betrachte man dies als verboten, so gehöre doch Karies der Kategorie des Widerwärtigen an (kerı¯h), so daß man den Tabakgebrauch aus Religionseifer wohl vermeiden, doch das religionsgesetzlich Verbotene zur Behandlung einsetzen dürfe, es also aufgrund der Widerwärtigkeit der Zahnfäule zu billigen sei, sie auf diese Weise zu behandeln. Mittels dieser Behandlung wurde ich von den Zahnschmerzen befreit.“47

In Ermangelung fachkundiger Behandlung durch einen Barbier seines Vertrauens läßt Nuʿma¯n Efendi sich trotz aller Bedenken von den nikotinabhängigen Gelehrten Kurdistans dazu überreden, Tabaksaft zur Betäubung einzusetzen und so den Schmerz zu lindern. In der Tat wurde die medizinische Verwendung des Tabaks bereits in arabischen und osmanischen medizinischen Werken des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts erwähnt,48 Zu Nuʿma¯n Efendis Lebzeiten verfaßte der Arzt Ahmad b. Mustafa¯ at-Tabı¯b al-Hula¯s¯ı (fl. 1734) ein Traktat über den Nutzen ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ˙ des Tabaks namens Risa¯la fı¯ mana¯fiʿ at-tabg˙.49 Die stimulierende Wirkung des Tabakrauchs löste rechtliche Debatten über die Zulässigkeit des Tabakkonsums und seiner medizinischen Anwendungen aus. Rechtlich sei dies jedoch dadurch zu rechtfertigen, daß sonst verbotene Substanzen zu Heilungszwecken eingesetzt werden dürften.50 Genau genommen handelt es sich zwar nicht um eine Heilung im engeren Sinn, weil zumindest das Nikotin die Karies wohl nicht tangierte, aber 47 Tahlı¯l, 2a–b: „Ekra¯d-ı bı¯ da¯d içinde dembeste ve hayra¯n kalub hücu¯m-ı g˙umu¯m ve ekda¯r-ı bı¯ ˙ ¯ rdan gu¯na¯gu¯n emra¯z˙-ı heyeca¯n-u hareket ve ˙ denda¯˙nlarıma nezle nüzu¯l-ü sira¯yet e˙düb ¸suma ˙ ru¯m ve dil-i g˙amna¯k (1145) ekda¯r-ı bı¯ ¸suma¯r ile dı¯de-i g˙amgı¯n (1144) hva¯b-ı ra¯hatdan mah ˙ ˘ il ıstara ile ˙ bas¸ tıras¸ e˙der bir berber bulınmaz diya¯r-ı ız˙tıra¯ra ˘ bir er deg mehmu¯m olub dis¸ çeker ˙ ¯ z˙-ı muhtelife-i mütera¯kime ile hasta ve ferya¯dım ˙ ru¯zdüs¸üb ru¯ha¯nı¯ ve cisma¯nı¯ guna¯n-ı emra ˙ ˘ ˘ ¸seb efla¯ka peyveste olub ol diya¯rda bulınan ʿa¯mme-i ʿulema¯ istiʿma¯l-i duha¯na mübtela¯ olm˘ bu fak¯ıre ihba¯r-u aları ile istiʿma¯l-i duha¯n ekda¯r ve ahza¯nı defʿ ve enva¯ʿ-ı nezleyi refʿ e˙der deyü ˙ ˘ inba¯ ve bu fak¯ır dahı hurmetinde bu kadar ebha¯s ve akva¯l vardır deyü ihtiya¯tan ih˙tira¯z˘ve eba¯ ¯ ˙ çirki˘ penbe ˙ ˙ ˘ine vaz˙˙ʿ olunsa ˙ ag˙rısını defʿ e˙der˙ deyü ˙ haber ˙ ve˙rdiklee˙düb duha¯nıñ ile dis¸ çürig ˘ ˘ rinde hurmet olunca ol çürik kerı¯hde olıcak iken taʿassub ile duha¯n istiʿma¯linden ictina¯b ve ˙ ile müda ˙¯˙va¯tı istisva ˘¯ b e˙düb ol müda¯va¯t ile dis¸ hara¯m˙ ile müda¯va¯t ca¯ʾiz deyü çürk-i kerı¯hi ˙ag˙rılarından hala¯s olub“. ˙ 48 Beispielsweise˘ in ˙der Risa¯la fı¯ t-tada¯wı¯ bi-waraq at-tabg˙, welche Sˇaʿba¯n b. Isha¯q al-Isra¯ʾı¯lı¯, ˙ ˇ a¯nı¯ / Ya¯nı¯ (st. ca. 1592), aus dem auf Spanisch verfaßten Werk eines gen. Ibn G gewissen „Mutarus al-I˙sba¯nı¯“ übersetzt haben soll (I˙hsanogˇlu et al., Osmanlı tıbbi bilimler literatürü tarihi: I, 187). Weiterhin werden mehrere Tabakzubereitungen wie Tabaköl (duhn tabg˙) und ˙ a¯yat al-itqa¯n fı¯ tadı¯r badan al-insa¯n erwähnt, einer Tabaksalbe (marham at-tabg˙) in G Kompilation aus mehreren ins Arabische übersetzten lateinischen Werkteilen, die dem hekimbas¸ι Ibn Sallu¯m al-Halabı¯ (st. 1669) zugeschrieben wird ([Sa¯lih Nasrulla¯h b. Sallu¯m al˙Halabı¯], G ˙ ˙ a¯yat al-itqa¯n fı¯˙tadbı¯r badan al-insa¯n: fol. 67b, 58a). ˙ 49 I˙˙hsanog˘lu, S¸es¸en, Bekar u. a., Osmanlı tıbbi bilimler: I, 360. 50 Dies betrifft analog auch alkoholhaltige Medikamente. Über die heutige Diskussion kann man sich mittlerweile auf Ask-the-Mufti-Websites informieren, z. B. Fatwa Nr. 118067 vom 12. 2. 2009 auf fatwa.islamweb.net oder Fatwa Nr. 3336 vom 17. 1. 2009 auf der regierungsamtlichen ägyptischen www.awqaf.gov.ae (beide zuletzt gesehen am 14. 1. 2017).

162

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

der Patient war sicher für jede Hilfe dankbar, und die vermutlich zahnreißerische eigentliche Behandlung mochte damit ebenfalls leichter vonstatten gehen. Nachdem er bis dahin in der Tabakfrage neutral gewesen war,51 kam Nuʿma¯n Efendi nicht zuletzt aufgrund dieser Erfahrung zu der Überzeugung, daß der Tabakgenuß nicht verboten sein sollte. Die intensive Auseinandersetzung des 17. Jahrhunderts über die Erlaubtheit des Tabakrauchens ist bekannt,52 jedoch wird meist weniger beachtet, ob diese Frage noch im folgenden Jahrhundert die Gemüter erregte.53 Zumindest läßt sich feststellen, daß die Diskussion in einigen Kreisen bis heute anhält, was erfreulicherweise Anlaß für die Edition handschriftlich überlieferter Traktate zum ¯ l Salma¯ns Thema ist. Ein Beispiel für das anhaltende Interesse ist Masˇhu¯r A verdienstvolle Ausgabe des Traktats „Feststellung des Beweises zum Tabak, den die Leute jetzt rauchen“ von Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯.54 Dieser 1623 gestorbene hanbalitische Gelehrte erklärt das Rauchen nach eingehender Erörterung trotz aller Bedenken für grundsätzlich erlaubt. Zu diesem Schluß kommt er gemäß Grundsätzen der hanbalitischen Rechtsschule wie dem unbedingten Vorrang von Koran und Sunna, die kein klares Verbot des Tabakrauchens enthalten, gegenüber der unter Willkürverdacht stehenden Urteilsfindung durch freies Raison¯l nement (raʾy) oder Für-Besser-Halten (istihsa¯n).55 Damit ist der Herausgeber A ˙ Salma¯n überhaupt nicht einverstanden und „korrigiert“ daher den Verfasser ausführlich in den Fußnoten auf Grundlage moderner Erkenntnisse und Äußerungen islamischer Tabakgegner.56

51 Tahlı¯l, 2a: „tarafeynden birini tercı¯h e˙demeyüb süku¯t e˙düb“. Mit den beiden Seiten (tarafeyn) ˙ diejenigen ˙ ˙ ˙ erlaubt sind Rechtsgelehrten gemeint, die einerseits dafür eintraten, den Tabak als (hala¯l) oder andererseits als verboten (hara¯m) einzustufen. ˙ ˙ islamischen Rechtsgelehrten gibt der Artikel von 52 Einen Überblick über die Diskussion der Özen, „Tütün. Fıkıh“ sowie Kalaycı & Öztürk, Tütün: 12–15. 53 Auch die einschlägigen Äußerungen des 1731 im hohen Alter verstorbenen ʿAbd al-G˙anı¯ anNa¯bulusı¯ fallen in das späte 17. Jahrhundert (s. Berger, „Ein Herz wie ein trockener Schwamm“); insbesondere verfaßte er 1682 die ausführliche Abhandlung „Die Versöhnung der Brüder beim Urteil über die Erlaubtheit des Rauchens“ (as-Sulh bayn al-ihwa¯n fı¯ hukm ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ 1693,˙ mit iba¯hat ad-duha¯n). Na¯bulusı¯ begann das Rauchen selbst wahrscheinlich erst ˙ ˘ 52 Jahren (Berger, „Herz“: 256–257). 54 [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n fı¯ ˇsaʾn ad-duha¯n allad¯ı yasˇribuhu n-na¯s al-a¯n. ¯ ˙ „Istihsa¯n and Istisla¯h“;˘ Rohe, Das 55 Wakin & Zysow, „Raʾy“; Paret, Islamische Recht: 53 ˙ ˙ ˙ bzw. 64–66. ¯ l Salma¯n legt beispielsweise Marʿı¯ al-Karmı¯s Einschränkung, das Rauchen könne bei 56 A schädigendem Konsum analog etwa zum Überessen verboten werden, ohne daß deshalb das Essen an sich zu verbieten sei, als klares Argument für ein Verbot aus, denn an der ausschließlich schädlichen Wirkung des Nikotins könne heute schließlich kein Zweifel mehr bestehen ([Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n: 135). ˙

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

163

Im Jahre 1751 entbrannte die Tabakdiskussion erneut im Gerichtsbezirk von Diyarbakır, dem Nuʿma¯n Efendi zu dieser Zeit als Vizerichter (na¯ʾib) vorstand.57 Die Diskussion unter den Gelehrten habe sich bald in gegenseitige Beschimpfung und schließlich in offene Gegnerschaft verwandelt.58 Als sie dann die Sache vor Nuʿma¯n Efendi brachten, habe er erklärt, daß das Rauchen erlaubt sei, was er in einer längeren Abhandlung auf Arabisch namens Kawa¯ˇsif asˇ-sˇubuha¯t (Die Aufklärungen der Unklarheiten) ausführlich begründet hatte. Da die zankenden Gelehrten dieses Werk bedauerlicherweise nicht zur Kenntnis genommen hatten, faßte Nuʿma¯n Efendi seine Argumente nun auf Türkisch unter dem vielsagenden Titel Tahlı¯lü d-duha¯n (Die Rauchauflösung, ˙ ˘ d. h.: Das Für-Erlaubt-Erklären des Rauchens)59 für eine breitere türkischsprachige Leserschaft zusammen. Wie Nuʿma¯n Efendi selbst erklärt, gab er seinen Werken grundsätzlich Titel, die durch den Buchstabenwert zugleich das Jahr der Abfassung bezeichneten.60 Demnach entstanden Kawa¯ˇsif 1733 – einige Zeit nach der Zahnschmerzlinderung – und Tahlı¯l 1751, also während seiner Tätigkeit in ˙ Diyarbakır. Von dieser bis jetzt unbekannten Abhandlung über die Erlaubtheit des Tabakrauchens, welche in einer anderen Sammelhandschrift enthalten ist, soll im Folgenden die Rede sein.61 Darin begründet Nuʿma¯n Efendi die Erlaubtheit des Tabakgenusses vorab mit einem bekannten Ausspruch des Propheten: „Da alle Gelehrten und gewöhnlichen Leute dem Rauchen verfallen sind, wäre die Mehrheit dieser gesegneten Gemeinde dem nicht verfallen, wenn gemäß dem gehei-

57 Tahlı¯l, 3a: „altmıs¸ dört senesinde diya¯ru l-ʿilm ve–l-ʿulema¯ olan Diya¯rbekriñ makarr-ı huku¯˙ olan medı¯ne-i A¯midde huku¯met-i ¸serʿı¯yede iken eya¯letinde va¯kiʿ medı¯ne-i ˙ Harbutda ˙ meti ˙ ¯ n Efendi 1162 ˘ / 1749– istiʿma¯l-i duha¯n hakkında katı˙ çok k¯ıl-ü ka¯l…“ Savas¸ zufolge war Nuʿma ˙ ˙ S¸erı ˙¯f Yahya¯ Efendi und im folgenden Jahr von Esʿad ˘ ˙ ˙ ˙na¯ʾib ˙des Kadis 1750 in Diyarbakır ˙ Efendi in Kütahya, bevor er nach Istanbul zurückkehrte, um als Professor (müderris) an der Medrese des Ka¯sım Pas¸a zu lehren und schließlich 1167 / 1753 sein letztes Amt als Kadi von ˙ Manisa zu übernehmen (Savas¸, „Nuʿma¯n Ebu¯ Sehl“: 2. Ist die in Worten ausgeschriebene Jahresangabe in der Handschrift korrekt, so muß Nuʿma¯n entweder länger als angenommen in Diyarbakır amtiert haben oder zwischenzeitig nochmals dorthin zurückgekehrt sein, denn das Higˇra-Jahr 1164 entspricht dem Zeitraum 30. 11. 1750 bis 19. 11. 1751. 58 Tahlı¯l, 3a: „müftı¯ ve müderrisleriñ müba¯haselerini müs¸a¯temeye ve müs¸a¯temelerini mu˙ ¯yeye ¯ısa¯l e˙düb“. ˙ ¯ z˙a¯ddı ˙ das Traktat auf dem Vorblatt knapp als „Rauchabhandlung“ (Duha¯n risa¯lesi) 59 Später wurde ˘ betitelt. 60 In den untersuchten Handschriften wurden die Jahreszahlen zusätzlich über oder unter den Titeln vermerkt. 61 Süleymaniye Özel 874 (Neuerwerbung der Süleymaniye-Bibliothek Istanbul aus privater Hand). Da die Handschrift nicht paginiert ist, nehme ich provisorisch eine Paginierung vor, die mit dem Vorblatt (mit der Notiz Duha¯n risa¯lesi) als 1a beginnt. ˘

164

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

ligten Prophetenwort ‚Meine Gemeinde wird nicht im Irrtum übereinstimmen‘ das Tabakrauchen verboten und ein Irrtum wäre.“62

Dies sei überzeugender als die Haltung der Tabakgegner,63 die das Rauchen als unerlaubte Neuerung (bidʿat) ablehnten, denn der Prophetenausspruch,64 aus dem solches abgeleitet wurde, beziehe sich nur auf rechtlich relevante und gottesdienstliche Handlungen (aʿma¯l, ʿiba¯da¯t).65 Außerdem habe die Gemeinde Muhammads viele Dinge – wie Hosen, Löffel, verschiedene Speisen und nicht˙ berauschende, dem Wohlbefinden zuträgliche Getränke – einträchtig akzeptiert, obwohl sie zur Zeit des Propheten unbekannt waren. Dies lasse sich nach der Maxime ‚Meine Gemeinde wird nicht im Irrtum übereinstimmen‘ rechtfertigen, da sie nicht (nur) als Beschreibung, sondern als Anweisung zu verstehen sei.66 Bekanntlich stritten sich die Rechtsgelehrten darüber, ob das Tabakrauchen zu erlauben oder zu verbieten sei, weil Koran und hadı¯t keine Auskunft über ˙ ¯ diese Frage gaben. Die Einstufung auf der Skala der Beurteilungen (ahka¯m)67 ˙ mußte also auf andere Weise festgelegt werden. Zumindest in der türkischen Zusammenfassung Tahlı¯lü d-duha¯n bezieht sich Nuʿma¯n Efendi weder auf den ˙ ˘ prominenten Tabakbefürworter ʿAbd al-G˙anı¯ an-Na¯bulusı¯ noch auf andere frühere Autoren (obgleich kein Zweifel daran besteht, daß die meisten Gesichtspunkte bereits lange vor ihm erörtert wurden), sondern erläutert nur knapp seine Argumente. Zunächst hat die Art der Kategorisierung Auswirkungen auf die Beurteilung von Materialien und Handlungen: Wenn die Gattung (cins) zulässig oder verboten ist (muba¯h / hara¯m), trifft dasselbe auch auf deren Unterarten (nevʿ) und ˙ ˙ 62 Tahlı¯l, 2b–3a: „ʿA¯mme-iʿulema¯ veʿava¯mm istiʿma¯l-i duha¯na mübtela¯lar olmag˙ın ‚la¯ tagˇtamiʿu ˙ ˘ duha¯nı istiʿma¯l hara¯m ve dala¯l olsa ummatı ¯ʿala¯ d-dala¯la‘ hadı¯s-i ¸serı¯f-i nebevı¯ muktaz˙a¯sınca ¯ ˙ ˙ u¯meniñ ˙ eks ˙ ˙ bu ümmet-i merh eri buña mübtela¯˙ olmaları va¯k˘iʿ olmamalı idi“. ¯ ˙ ˙ 63 Ein bekannter Gegner, der Tabak als bidʿa betrachtete und deshalb für verboten (hara¯m) ˙ 1631, erklärte, war der in Kairo wirkende malikitische Gelehrte Ibra¯hı¯m al-Laqa¯nı¯ (st. s. Berger, „Herz“: 253–254). 64 „Jede Neuerung ist ein Irrtum, und jeder Irrtum führt ins Höllenfeuer“ (kull bidʿa dala¯la wa˙ kull dala¯la fı¯ n-na¯r, Tahlı¯l, 14b). ˙ ˙ 65 Die Relevanz des Bidʿa-Konzepts für die Tabakfrage ist ohnehin zweifelhaft (Berger, „Herz“: 270–274). 66 Tahlı¯l, 15b: „Diese selige Gemeinde ist sich einig in der Gewohnheit und dem Wunsch [nach ˙ Rauchen], was ein unvergleichlicher Beleg ist, denn der Ausdruck „stimmt nicht überdem ein“ im edlen Prophetenspruch „Meine Gemeinde stimmt nicht im Irrtum überein“ ist als Anweisung zu verstehen“ (bu ümmet-i merhu¯meniñ ekseri aña ülfet ve rag˙bet üzere ictima¯ʿ ¯ ˙ ummatı¯ʿala e˙tdikleri bir delı¯l-i bı¯ʿadı¯ldir zı¯ra¯ ‚la¯ tagˇtamiʿu ¯ d-dala¯la‘ hadı¯s-i ¸serı¯finde olan la¯ ˙ ˙ ¯ fördernden Geˇ tagtamiʿu kelimesiniñ bina¯sı muta¯vaʿat içündir). Bei den˙ Wohlbefinden ˙ tränken dachte Ebu¯ Sehl vermutlich an Kaffee, dessen Erlaubtheit im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert ebenfalls unter den Gelehrten debattiert wurde, was die Tabakdebatte z. T. vorzeichnete. 67 Die nicht immer einheitlich bezeichneten fünf Beurteilungsstufen (al-ahka¯m al-hamsa) sind: ˙ ˘ ¯ h) und verpflichtend (fard), empfohlen (mandu¯b), zulässig (muba¯h), abzulehnen (makru ˙ ˙ verboten (hara¯m). ˙

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

165

diesen zugeordnete einzelne Dinge (ferd) zu, sofern es keine explizite Ausnahme gibt. Beispielsweise sind Getreide oder Obst als Gattung erlaubt (hala¯l), was die ˙ Erlaubtheit sämtlicher Getreide- und Obstsorten, deren einzelner Früchte und anderen Bestandteile nach sich zieht. Ebenso sind alle Rauschgetränke verboten, was das Verbot aus Trauben, Maulbeeren, Datteln, Honig oder anderem hergestellter berauschender Getränke und jedes einzelnen Tropfens davon zur Folge hat.68 Speisen, Getränke und verarbeitete Materialien können uneingeschränkt erlaubt (mutlaka¯ hala¯l), uneingeschränkt verboten (mutlaka¯ hara¯m) oder teils ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ erlaubt, teils verboten sein (baʿz˙ısı hala¯l ve baʿz˙ısı hara¯m).69 Die jeweils getroffene ˙ ˙ Zuordnung schließt alle aus einem Stoff gewonnenen Produkte ein, also z. B. Fleisch ebenso wie Öl oder Leder. Zur Gattung des Räucherwerks (duha¯n) ge˘ hören verschiedene Unterarten wie Aloeholz (ʿu¯d), Ambra (ʿanber) oder andere Materialien zur Erzeugung von Wohlgerüchen (enva¯ʿ-ı buhu¯ra¯t ve mutayyiba¯t). ˙ ˘ Der Vorgang des Verbrennens ändert dabei nichts an der Beurteilung als rein oder unrein (neces / ta¯hir), erlaubt oder verboten (hala¯l / hara¯m). Der Rauch ˙ ˙ ˙ uneingeschränkt erlaubter und reiner Pflanzen bleibt daher ebenso erlaubt und rein wie der Rauch eines verbrennenden Schweins unrein und verboten bleibt. Ein weiteres Hauptargument der Tabakbefürworter nennt Nuʿma¯n Efendi weiter unten: „Ein etablierter Rechtsgrundsatz besteht darin, daß insbesondere Pflanzen grundsätzlich zulässig sind und bleiben, solange kein eindeutiger Beleg dafür vorliegt, daß sie verboten sind.“70 Tabakgegner setzten der Grundannahme, daß außerhalb des rituellen Bereiches (ʿiba¯da¯t) von Erlaubtheit auszugehen ist, solange kein Verbot besteht (iba¯ha aslı¯ya), gerne die gegenteilige Grundan˙ ˙ nahme entgegen,71 was bereits ʿAbd al-G˙anı¯ an-Na¯bulusı¯ (1641–1731) ad ab68 Tahlı¯l, 4b–5a. Vgl. zur Erlaubtheit berauschender Substanzen Berger, „Herz“: 284–285. 69 Ein˙ Beispiel für die dritte Kategorie ist grundsätzlich erlaubtes Fleisch, das durch nicht ordnungsgemäße Schlachtung oder als Aas in die Kategorie des Verbotenen übergeht. 70 Tahlı¯l, 8b: „Usu¯l-i ¸serʿı¯ye-i mukarreredendir ki es¸ya¯da la¯ siyyema¯ neba¯ta¯tda asl iba¯hatdır ˙ ˙ hurmetine delı¯l-i ¸serʿı¯-i katʿı¯ olmıyan iba¯hatda˙kalur“. ˙ Vgl. hurmete delı¯l-i˙ ¸serʿı¯-i katʿı¯ la¯zimdir ˙Özen, „Tütün“: 5 sowie ˙ ˙[Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯˙suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ n: 127: „Unschädliche und ˙ verbotene Dinge sind grundsätzlich im Wortlaut der Schrift nicht eindeutig erlaubte oder zulässig und erlaubt (al-asl fı¯ l-asˇya¯ʾ allatı¯ la¯ darar fı¯ha¯ wa-la¯ nass (bi-hall aw) tahrı¯m al-hall ˙ hanbalitischen Grundsätzen ˙˙ ˙ ˙ 142–143: ˙ wa-l–iba¯ha)“ sowie ebda.,˙ 154 und – ganz nach – ebda., ˙ „Wir verbieten nur aufgrund von Meinung und Für-Besser-Halten nichts, was grundsätzlich erlaubt ist“ (wa-la¯ nuharrimu ma¯ asluhu l-hall bi-mugˇarrad ar-raʾy wa-l–istihsa¯n). Eben˙ ˙ aufgrund von Zweifel“ (wa-l-fuqaha ˙ ¯ ʾ la¯ yusowenig „verbieten die˙ Rechtsgelehrten etwas harrimu¯na bi-sˇ-sˇakk, ebda., 145), wenn Tabakgegner etwa befürchten, daß der Tabak durch ˙Schweinefett, Wein, Urin oder andere verbotene Substanzen verunreinigt werden könnte (so auch Laqa¯nı¯, s. Berger, „Herz“: 279). 71 Ein Beispiel aufgrund des Prophetenausspruches „Wenn etwas gleichermaßen erlaubt oder verboten werden kann, hat das Verbot stets Vorrang vor dem Erlauben“ (ma¯ gˇtamaʿa l-hala¯l ˙ wa-l-hara¯m illa¯ wa-qad g˙alaba l-hara¯m al-hala¯l) gibt Klein-Franke, „No Smoking in Para˙ ˙ ˙ dise“: 164 und 179.

166

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

surdum führte72 und auch der Hanbalit Marʿı¯ al-Karmı¯ ablehnte.73 Für Nuʿma¯n Efendi steht die prinzipielle Erlaubtheit unzweifelhaft fest. Da Pflanzen also grundsätzlich erlaubt sind und Tabak zu ihnen zählt, muß er – und ebenso sein Rauch – als erlaubt gelten, da aus den Rechtsquellen kein ausdrückliches Verbot dieses Materials abzuleiten ist.74 Die Verbrennung ändert auch an der Reinheit reiner Pflanzen nichts, zumal es für eine derartige Änderung der Beurteilung nach Nuʿma¯ns Ansicht keinen Präzedenzfall (mesbu¯k bi-l–misl) in der Tradition ¯ oder nach Vernunftgesichtspunkten gibt.75 Nuʿma¯n Efendis stellt fest, daß es sich auch nicht um eine Frage der Erlaubtheit von Nahrung handelt:76 Die Tabakpflanze wird wie andere Kulturpflanzen angebaut, die zum Verzehr bestimmt sind, und sollte ebenso wie diese beurteilt werden. Allerdings handelt es sich beim Rauchen ungeachtet des Sprachgebrauchs nicht um eine Form des Trinkens (s¸ürb), denn der Tabak wird nicht geschluckt, sondern ein- und ausgeatmet und gelangt allenfalls in die Lunge, nicht in den Verdauungstrakt, und wird sogleich wieder abgegeben. Sonst müßte man das Ausatmen des Rauches schließlich als Erbrechen bezeichnen, was offensichtlich nicht korrekt ist.77 Beim Tabakrauchen handelt es sich folglich nicht eigentlich um Trinken, sondern um einen besonderen Gebrauch (bir istiʿma¯l-i mahsu¯sdur ¸sürb deg˘ildir). Da Tabak also weder Speise noch Getränk ist, ˘˙ ˙ kann er nicht mit verbotenen Speisen und Getränken verglichen werden.78

72 Vgl. zu bidʿa und iba¯ha aslı¯ya Berger, „Herz“, 270–274. ˙ 73 Nach [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf˙al-Karmı ¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n: 141) bräuchte ein Verbot (tahrı¯m) einen ˙ ˙ Analogie Hinweis (dalı¯l) in Koran oder Überlieferung oder zumindest eine überzeugende (qiya¯s), anders als die sonst grundsätzlich gegebene Erlaubtheit (al-hall wa-l–iba¯ha). ˙ rein ist, braucht ˙ 74 Tahlı¯l, 8b: „Sofern die Gattung, zu der eine Sache gehört, erlaubt und man ˙ eindeutigen Beleg dafür, daß eine ihrer Unterkategorien oder einzelnen Sorten vereinen boten oder unrein und damit eine Ausnahme ist (bir ¸seyʾiñ cinsi hala¯l ve ta¯hir olıcak anıñ ˙ enva¯ʿından veya¯ efra¯dından biri hara¯mdır veya¯ necesdir deyü istis˙na¯ olunmak delı¯l-i˙ ¸serʿı¯-i ¯ ˙ ˙ katʿı¯’ye muhta¯cdır)“. Auf diese Frage kommt Nuʿma¯n Efendi später zurück, indem er erklärt, ˙daß ˙ schwache ˙ Traditionen und verschiedene nicht durch einschlägige Hinweise (dala¯ʾil) mit dem Thema verbundene Koranverse ungeeignet zur Begründung eines Tabakverbots seien (Tahlı¯l, 10a). Ein ähnliches Argument weist die Behauptung zurück, der Prophet hätte das ˙ Rauchen verboten, wenn er es gekannt hätte, weil damit eine Kenntnis des nicht Erkennbaren behauptet würde („daʿwa¯ ʿilm al-g˙ayb“, [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n: 140– ˙ 141). 75 Tahlı¯l, 10a. ˙ ¯ nı¯ betrachtet den Rauch nicht als Nahrungsmittel, sondern als „stark entwässerndes 76 Laqa Medikament“ (Berger, „Herz“: 281). Für Na¯bulusı¯ handelt es sich dagegen durchaus um ein Nahrungsmittel mit bei Gesunden zu vernachlässigender medikamentöser Wirkung, das allerdings bei einem Säfteungleichgewicht therapeutisch eingesetzt werden kann (ebda., 282). 77 Tahlı¯l, 6a: „Feme ve cevfe idha¯line ¸sürb taʿbı¯r e˙dince huru¯cına kay de˙nmelüdir maʿa ha¯z˙a¯ ki ˙¯ huru¯cına kay de˙nilemez“. ˙ ˘ ˘ asla ˙ Tabakgegner ˙ monierten dagegen, daß Tabak aufgrund des Verbrennens zum Verzehr ˘ 78 Die ungeeignet sei (Berger, „Herz“: 254).

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

167

Ordne man stattdessen den Tabakrauch den Wohlgerüchen (tayyiba¯t) zu, ˙ müsse sein Gebrauch eigentlich gar als lobenswert gelten,79 während man Übelriechendes wie den Rauch von Hörnern, Knochen, Leder usw. wegen ihrer Widerwärtigkeit gar nicht erst zu verbieten brauche, ohne daß sie deshalb an sich als verboten zu betrachten wären. Fürsorglich rät Nuʿma¯n Efendi dazu, in jedem Fall eine saubere Pfeife bzw. Wasserpfeife zu benutzen.80 Das Räucherwerk unterteilt Nuʿma¯n Efendi in drei Arten (nevʿ), nämlich erstens Wohlriechendes (tayyiba¯t) wie Aloeholz, Sandelholz und ähnliches, ˙ zweitens die Nase beleidigende Materialien wie Horn, Knochen, Haar, Öl oder Leder, die zwar rein und erlaubt sind, aber wegen des Gestanks als widerwärtig (kerı¯h) gelten und daher abzulehnen sind (mekru¯h), und drittens Materialien neutralen Geruchs wie Holz, Blätter und reine Pflanzen. Nach Geruch und Geschmack läßt sich Rauch also in die Kategorien wohlriechend, widerwärtig und neutral einteilen (tayyib, kerı¯h, müsa¯vı¯yü t-tarafeyn). ˙ ˙˙

Rauchen als Geschmackssache Die Einordnung von Tabakrauch als widerlich (habı¯t) abzulehnen beruhe aller˘ ¯ dings auf individuellen Vorlieben und Abneigungen, was für ein Verbot nicht ausreiche, wie Ebu¯ Sehl feststellt.81 Wenn manche Menschen den Geruch und Geschmack von Tabak verabscheuten (teneffür ve istikra¯h), sei dies wie bei der Ablehnung von Kaffee oder Fleisch als Anzeichen eines Ungleichgewichts der Körpersäfte zu werten, was dafür spreche, daß der Tabak dem ausgeglichenen Temperament zuträglich sei.82 Der bei vielen Autoren beider Parteien wichtige Bezug auf die galenische Medizin spielt bei Nuʿma¯n Efendi gegenüber juristischen Erwägungen insgesamt nur eine untergeordnete Rolle, während europäische Medizin anders als bei Na¯bulusı¯ überhaupt nicht erwähnt wird.83 Eine nicht säftebedingte bloße Zu- oder Abneigung rühre nicht von mangelnder oder übermäßiger Gewöhnung her (wie es manche über den Tabak79 Tahlı¯l, 8b–9a: „Speziell das Räucherwerk, ich meine den Tabak, ist eine Gattung. Der Rauch ˙ Aloeholz, Ambra und anderen Räucherwaren gehört zu den Wohlgerüchen sowie gevon setzlich und rational betrachtet zu den lobenswerten Dingen. Man braucht einen eindeutigen schariatischen Beleg, um zu behaupten, daß die Unterkategorien oder einzelnen Sorten von Rauch, der aus erlaubtem und reinem Räucherwerk entsteht, verboten seien (husu¯san duha¯n ˙ ˙ ve ʿak˘len aʿnı¯ tütün cinsdir ʿu¯d ve ʿanber ve sa¯ʾir buhu¯ra¯tıñ tütünleri tayyiba¯tdan ve ˘¸serʿan ˙ ˙ ˘ memdu¯ha¯tdan olub sa¯yir muhtereka¯t-ı muba¯ha ve ta¯hireden ha¯sıl olan tütünleriñ enva¯ʿından ˙ ˙ iddiʿa¯ olunmak ˙ ve efra¯dından biri istisna¯ ve ˙hurmeti delı¯l-i ¸s˙erʿı˙¯-i katʿı¯’ye muhta¯cdır)“. ¯ ˙ ve lüle pa¯k ola“. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ 80 Tahlı¯l, 9a: „a¯letleri olan çıbuk ˙ ˙ 81 Vgl. Berger, „Herz“: 278 und Klein-Franke, „No Smoking“: 161–164. 82 Tahlı¯l, 12b; vgl. [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n: 134–135. ˙ Berger, „Herz“: 258–264 und 281. ˙ 83 Vgl.

168

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

konsum behaupteten), sondern die Naturen der Menschen seien eben verschieden, so wie manche keinen Honig oder gekochte Zwiebeln (pis¸mis¸ sog˙an), ˙ kein Öl oder keine Oliven äßen, oder keinen Kaffee tränken.84 Nuʿma¯n Efendi berichtet, er habe jemanden gekannt, der Tabak rauchte, aber keinen Kaffee trank,85 offenbar eine ungewöhnliche Kombination von Präferenzen, und fährt fort: „Vielleicht können sich die meisten Leute nicht daran gewöhnen, sehr oft Olivenöl und Sesamöl zu essen, und manche können sich gar nicht daran gewöhnen. [Aber] wegen einer Abneigung gegen eine erlaubte Sache muß diese nicht verboten sein. Abneigung ist keine Bedingung für ein Verbot.“86

Im Zusammenhang mit Geschmacksfragen fügt Nuʿma¯n Efendi einen Exkurs über Tabaksorten ein, die er persönlich getestet hat: „Aus Bitlis in Kurdistan stammt die ausgezeichnete Tabaksorte S¸etek. Wird dieser Tabak neben einem Nichtraucher benutzt, erfreut dies seine Natur, besonders wenn er aus dem Bad kommt oder erschöpft ist. Die Chane von Bitlis reservieren diese Sorte für sich und geben niemand anderem etwas davon. Man verarbeitet und gebraucht den S¸etek im Ramadan, und er wird nur auf einigen Feldern bei Bitlis angebaut. In Rumelien ist der Tabak von Armyros berühmt, und die Sorte aus dem Dorf Payramal im Kreis Evdim auf Zypern sucht ihresgleichen.“87

Allerdings schwanke die Genießbarkeit der verschiedenen Sorten mit dem Klima,88 in dem man sich gerade aufhalte, so daß in einer Region beliebte Tabaksorten zuweilen in einer anderen keinen Anklang fänden. Dies illustriert Nuʿma¯n Efendi mit zwei Anekdoten über seine Erfahrungen als Raucher:

84 Tahlı¯l, 13a. ˙ lı¯l, 13a: „Bu fak¯ır adam gördüm-ki duha¯n içer kahve içmez“. 85 Tah ˙ lı¯l, 13a: „ve belki ˙ ekser-i na¯s zeytu¯n yag˙˘ı ve ¸s¯ıru¯g˙˙a¯n yag˙ı yemeg˘e çok zama¯n alıs¸amazlar ve 86 Tah ˙˙ ılar katʿa¯ alıs¸amaz¯ bir hala¯l ¸seyden tabı¯ʿat teneffür e˙tmeden hara¯˙m olmak lazım gelmez baʿz ˙ ˙ hurmet-i˙ h˙ara¯ma tabı¯ʿatıñ ˙teneffüri ¸sart˙ deg˘ildir“. ˙ ¯ nda va¯kiʿ Bidlisde ˙¸setek duha¯nı-ki ra¯yihası g˙a¯yet eyüdir duha¯n istiʿma¯l 87 ˙Tahlı¯l, 7a:˙ „Kürdista ˙ ˙ husu¯san hamma¯mdan ˙ ve yorg˙un oldıg˙ında ˘ ˘ yanında e˙tmeyen kimesneniñ yanında çıkdıg˙ında ˙ andan ˙ ˙ hazz e˙der ve ister ˙ istiʿma¯l olınsa ol kimesneniñ t˘abʿı Bidlis ha¯nları ol duha¯nı kendüler ˙ ˙ ˙˙a¯˙n-ı ¸serı¯flerde terbiye ˘ ve istiʿma¯l ˘e˙derler S¸etek içün alurlar a¯herlere ve˙rdirmezler Ramaz Bidlisde bir kaç˘ tarla olan mahall-i mahsu¯sdır ve Ru¯m e˙linde Ermiya¯ duha¯nı-ki mes¸hu¯rdır ve ˙ ˘ ˙ ˙ ta¯biʿ Payramal na¯m karye duh ˘ a¯nı-ki mahallinde Kıbrıs cezı¯resinde va¯kiʿ Evdim˙ na¯hiyesine ˙ ¯ıri yokdır la¯kin mah ˙ allinde olan ˙ taʿm-u ra¯yihası sa¯yir mah˙allerde olan ˘ naz taʿm-u˙ra¯yiha˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ sından aʿla¯dır“. Die Orte S¸etek im Chanat von Bidlis sowie Evdim, Payramal auf Zypern und Armyros / Halmyros in Thessalien identifizieren Kalaycı & Öztürk, Tütün: 22–23 u. 33. 88 Nuʿma¯n Efendi spricht an dieser Stelle weder von Klima im modernen Sinne noch von den traditionellen Klimaten als geographischen Breiten, sondern nennt nur die Namen geographischer Regionen wie Rumelien oder „Arabien und die heißen Länder“ (ʿArabista¯nda ve bila¯d-ı ha¯rrede). ˙

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

169

„Als Pendant zum Vertreter des mulla¯bas¸ı, also des Muftis der Gegenseite, reiste ich 1160 / 1747 im Gefolge des Gesandten Kesreli Ha¯cı Ahmed Pas¸a Richtung Iran.89 Den ˙ ˙ veredelten Yeñice-Tabak, den wir aus Istanbul mitgenommen hatten, rauchten wir, bis wir Antiochia erreichten. In dieser Gegend waren sein Geruch und Geschmack verdorben. Auf dem Weg von dort über Aleppo, Raqqa, Mosul und Bagdad nach Pa¯yta¯k ˙ ˙ benutzten wir Cebelı¯ye-Tabak, und von dort bis zur persischen Grenze waren dann Geschmack und Geruch des Cebelı¯ye-Tabaks verdorben. Auf dem Weg nach Kerma¯nsˇa¯h bis Hamada¯n und zurück in Sı¯ne, der Region von Ba¯ba¯n und in Serçınar schmeckte und roch der Yeñice-Tabak gut, und von dort bis Bagdad sowie weiter nach Diyarbakır und Harput wieder der Cebelı¯ye-Tabak. Das war unsere Erfahrung.“90

Die Klimagebundenheit des Tabakgenusses stellte Nuʿma¯n Efendi auch in der anderen, zeitlich davor angesiedelten Episode fest: „Als ich 1158 / 1745 damit beauftragt wurde, auf Zypern nach den Unruhen die Ordnung wiederherzustellen,91 hörte ich, daß der Tabak aus dem erwähnten Dorfe Payramal nicht seinesgleichen hätte. Ich ließ mir etwas davon bringen, probierte ihn und fragte, warum man solch guten Tabak nicht hochstehenden Persönlichkeiten in Istanbul als Geschenk schicke. Man antwortete mir, daß sein Geschmack und Geruch beim Eintreffen in Istanbul verdorben sein würden. Darauf verließ ich mich nicht, ließ vier batman [ca. 30 kg] veredelten Tabaks aus dem genannten Dorf herbeibringen und ˙ schickte sie nach Istanbul, wo der Tabak tatsächlich nicht benutzt wurde, da er so schlecht wie Stroh war.“92

89 Zu dieser Mission s. Sievert: „Maßnahmen“, über Kesriyeli Ahmed Pas¸a und Nuʿma¯n Efendis ˙ zwiespältiges Verhältnis zu ihm ebda.: 392. Die Schreibung Kesreli anstelle von Kesriye (aus Kastoria) ist entweder ein Versehen oder eine gehässige Anspielung auf Ahmed Pas¸as Miß˙ erfolge (kesre: Niederlage). ¯ 90 Tahlı¯l, 7a: „Asita¯ne-iʿalı¯yeden aldıg˙ımız ısla¯h Yeñice duha¯nlarını Antakyaya varinca istiʿma¯l ˙ ol hudu¯dda taʿmı ve ra¯yihası pozılub ˙ ˙ andan öte˘ Halebe ve ˙Rakkaya ve Mu¯sula ve e˙düb ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ la Cebelı˙¯ye duBag˙da¯da ve Pa¯-yı Ta¯ka deg˘in Cebelı¯ye duha¯nınıñ taʿm-u ˙ra¯yihası eyü olmag ˙ ¯ye duha¯nınıñ taʿm-u ra¯yi˘ ¯ duna ˙çıkdıkda Cebelı ha¯nı istiʿma¯l e˙düb ˙Pa¯˙y-ı Ta¯kdanʿAcem hudu ˙ ¯ na ve Hemeda ˙ ¯ na ve andan ˙ ˙ ʿavdetde Sı¯ne˘ ve ülke-i ˙ Ba¯ba¯n ve ˘hası alçak olub Kerma¯ns˙¸a¯ha ˙Serçınar na ˙ ¯ m mahallerde Yeñice duha¯nınıñ taʿmı ve ra¯yihası eyü olub andan yine Bag˙da¯da ve ˙ Diya¯rbekr ve H˘arputa gelince ˙ ˙ Bag˙da¯ddanʿavdetde yine Cebelı ¯ye duha¯nınıñ taʿmı ve ra¯yihası ˙ der Nähe˙von ˘ olmus¸dır“. Als Cebelı¯ye sei ein˘ Tabak aus eyü oldıg˙ı mücerreb ve maʿlu¯mlarımız Aleppo bzw. Lattakia bezeichnet, der Yeñice-Tabak in Makedonien angebaut worden (Kalaycı & Öztürk, Tütün: 23). 91 Nach Savas¸ wurde Nuʿma¯n Efendi zur Schlichtung eines Konfliktes zwischen den Bischöfen und Untertanen nach Zypern geschickt und „etwa 1156–57 / 1743–44“ zum Vizerichter (na¯ʾib) von Nikosia ernannt, hatte dieses Amt aber nur sieben Monate inne (Savas¸, „Nuʿma¯n Ebu¯ Sehl“: 2). Die Chronologie von Nuʿma¯n Efendis Laufbahn bleibt demnach weiter unsicher. 92 Tahlı¯l, 7b: „Zikri mesbu¯k Payramal na¯m karye duha¯nı bı¯ naz¯ır duha¯n oldıg˙ına va¯kıf olub ¯ ˙˙ -ı kiba ˙ irsa¯l ˙ ˙ a¯n A¯sita ˘ ¯ nede baʿz ˘ ¯ ra niçün hediye getürdüb istiʿma¯l ve bu misillü makbu¯l duh ¯˘ ˙ ˘ eylemezler deyü suʾa¯l eyledigimizde A¯sita¯neye varınca taʿmı ve ra¯yihası pozılur deyü ceva¯b ˙ u¯meden getürdüb A¯sive˙rdiklerinde iʿtima¯d e˙tmeyüb dört batman ısla¯h duha¯n˙ karye-i merk ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ta¯neye getürdig˘imizde va¯kıʿa¯ saman gibi bir fena¯ duha¯n olmag˙la istiʿma ¯ l olunmamıs¸dır“. ˙ ˙ ˘

170

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Die Erfahrung zeige mithin, daß das Rauchen je nach Ort und Person unterschiedlich wirke.93 Nuʿma¯n stellt zusammenfassend fest, daß „die Wirkung des Tabaks dem Temperament des Menschen und der Gesundheit seines Gehirns entspricht. Er genießt den Tabak umso weniger, je mehr sein Säftegleichgewicht und sein Gehirn gestört sind. (…) Der Genuß von Tabak bester Qualität an respektablem Orte durch eine Person von ausgeglichenem Temperament und gesundem Gehirn ist wie der Gebrauch von wohlriechendem Räucherwerk.“94 Die therapeutische Anwendung von Tabak gibt Nuʿma¯n Efendi ein weiteres Argument an die Hand, denn: „Aus Erfahrung ist bekannt, daß Rauch Feuchtigkeit entgegenwirkt, Katarrh und Zahnschmerzen vertreibt.“95 Tabakkonsum sei also keine sinnlose Verschwendung,96 sondern sein medizinischer Nutzen erwiesen, wie schon Nuʿma¯n Efendis eigene Zahnschmerzbekämpfung belegt habe. Des weiteren beseitige das Rauchen Müdigkeit und stärke das Gehirn, besonders nach dem Bade,97 heitere den Einsamen auf, vertreibe seine Schmerzen und trüben Gedanken.98 Diese letzten Punkte passen zu Nuʿma¯n Efendis Selbstsicht im Da¯sta¯n, so daß man hier vielleicht ebenfalls einen Rückgriff auf eigene Erfahrung des Verfassers vermuten könnte. Jedenfalls stellt er sich damit ebenso wie seine ersten Gewährsleute in Kurdistan in eine Tradition der therapeutischen Verwendung, die Tabakbefürworter als Begründung für die Erlaubtheit (iba¯ha) anführten.99 ˙ Neben der humoralpathologischen Unbedenklichkeit und der Hirngesundheit sei beim Tabakkonsum auch die Respektabilität des Ortes zu beachten, an dem geraucht wird, denn ähnlich wie bei Alkohol und Kaffee ließen sich obrigkeitliche und gelehrte Bedenken nicht zuletzt darauf zurückführen, daß die Orte der Geselligkeit vielfach alles andere als respektabel und womöglich Unruheherde waren. Dagegen hatte sich das Rauchen zu Nuʿma¯n Efendis Zeit bereits so allgemein verbreitet, daß er daraus ein weiteres Argument ableiten kann:

93 Tahlı¯l, 8a: „Duha¯n mahall ve müstaʿmiliniñ ihtila¯fı ile muhtelif olur“. ˙ lı¯l, 9a: „Duh˘ a¯n miza ˙¯ c-ı insa¯n ve dima¯g˙ınıñ˘ sıhhat ve sela ˘¯ metine mı¯za¯ndır miza¯c ve dima¯g˙ı 94 Tah ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ muhtell oldukça ol-kadar duha¯ndan hazz e˙tmez … imdi duha¯nıñ aʿla¯sını mahall-i muʿte˙ ¯ c ve sa¯limü ˙ ˙¯˙g˙ olan kimesneler istiʿma ˙ ¯ l e˙tmek ˘ ˘ ˘ ¯ l e˙tmek t¯ıb istiʿma berinde sah¯ıh˙u l–miza d-dima ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ gibidir“. 95 Tahlı¯l, 13a: „Duha¯n rutu¯beti defʿ ve nezle ve denda¯n ag˙rılarını refʿ e˙tdig˘i tecrübe ile maʿlu¯m ˙ ¸dır“. ˙ ˘ olmus 96 Vgl. zur Verschwendung (tabd¯ır) [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n: 112–113 und ¯ ˙ 150–151 sowie Berger, „Herz“: 283. 97 Tahlı¯l, 13a: „yorg˙un olub ve hamma¯mdan çıkub kuva¯ ve dima¯g˙ına z˙aʿf gelen kimesneleriñ ˙ ˙ unlıg˙ını defʿ ve dima¯g˙ına˙kuvvet ¯ıra¯s e˙der“. ˙ ˙ yorg ¯ ˙ 98 Ebda.: „yalñız olan adama eg˘lencedir efka¯r-u a¯la¯mı olan adam anıñla efka¯r-i a¯la¯mını refʿ-ü defʿ e˙der“. 99 Vgl. Özen, „Tütün“: 5.

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

171

„In der Bevölkerung ist es üblich geworden, Besuchern [Tabak] als Aufmerksamkeit anzubieten. Gäste werden damit geehrt. Wenn ein Raucher irgendwo zu Gast ist und man ihm Tabak anbietet, macht ihn das gewogen; anderenfalls ist er gekränkt. Daran läßt sich messen, wie erfreut man über wichtige Gäste ist, oder ob man sie als Last empfindet, und wieviel Ehrerbietung man ihnen entgegenbringt. Sogar ein Nichtraucher wird sich freuen, wenn man ihm dann Tabak anbietet, weil er meint, daß man sich über seinen Besuch freut und ihm deshalb eine Aufmerksamkeit zukommen läßt. Und ein Gewohnheitsraucher, dem man keinen Tabak anbietet, wird dies als Hinweis darauf werten, daß man seinen Besuch als Last empfindet.“100

Das Rauchen war „zur Landessitte oder gar zur Bedingung für Gastfreundschaft“101 geworden. Darauf aufbauend vertritt Nuʿma¯n Efendi unter Berufung auf die hanafitische Rechtsgutachtensammlung al-Fata¯wa¯ al-Bazza¯zı¯ya die Ansicht, daß die Erwartung des Gastes bzw. die Verpflichtung des Gastgebers das Rauchen zu einer geradezu rechtsverbindlichen Bedingung mache.102 Dagegen gehört es sich Nuʿma¯n Efendi zufolge nach wie vor nicht, in Gegenwart wichtiger Persönlichkeiten zu rauchen. Dies habe Herrscher dazu bewogen, das öffentliche Rauchen zu verbieten, weil es mit dem Trinken verglichen werde, was demnach ebenfalls als Anzeichen mangelnden Respekts anzusehen war. Ein Rauchverbot im privaten Bereich sei daraus aber nicht abzuleiten: „Man wisse, daß das Rauchen mit dem Trinken verglichen und diesem zugeordnet wird. Da man von Rauchtrinken spricht, gehört es sich nicht, als Gemeiner neben den Vornehmen oder öffentlich auf dem Markt zu rauchen. Deshalb verboten die Sultane des Islams das Rauchen – aber ob sie es auch zu Hause oder an nichtöffentlichen Orten verboten, steht nicht fest.“103

Ohnehin sei ja das Verbot eines Sultans nicht wie das Verbot Gottes; es gelte nur während seiner Regierungszeit, und er könne es selbst wieder aufheben.104 100 Tahlı¯l, 13b–14a: „Halk beyninde anıñla ikra¯m-ı züvva¯r ʿörf olmus¸ müsa¯fire anıñla ikra¯m ˙ ˙ ˘ kimesne olunur istiʿma¯l e˙den bir yere müsa¯fir oldukda aña duha¯n ve˙rmeseler münkesir olur ˙ hazz-u ˘istiska¯l olınanlara miʿya¯r ve verirlerse mutayyebü l-ha¯tır olur züvva¯r-ı kiba¯rdan ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ bir¯yere ˙ gitdikde duha¯n teklı¯f ˘ ʿala¯met-i iʿtiba¯r olmus¸dur hatta¯ duha¯n istiʿma¯l e˙tmez kimesne ˙ ikra¯m˘kasd e˙tdiler deyü ferahna¯k olur ve duha¯n ile meʾlu ˘ ¯ f olan olunsa benden hazz ve baña ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ kimesneye duha¯n ve˙rmeseler beni istiska¯l e˙tdiler deyü istidla¯l e˙der“. ˘ bila¯d ve belki ¸sart-ı¯ ˙ikra¯m-ıʿiba¯d“. 101 Tahlı¯l, 14a: „ʿörf-i ˙ 102 Tahlı¯l, 14a: „Feta¯va¯-yı Bezza¯zı¯yede˙ ‚al-masˇru¯t ʿurfan ka-l–masˇru¯t ˇsarʿan‘ deyü tasrı¯h olın˙¸dır“. Zur Fatwa¯sammlung al-G ˙ ˇ¯ız von Muhammad ˙ ˙ ˙ ˇ a¯miʿ al-wag mus b. Bazza¯z al-Kardarı ¯ ˙ (st. 1414) s. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur: II, 225. 103 Tahlı¯l, 14a-b: „Maʿlu¯m ola ki istiʿma¯l-i duha¯n ¸sürbe müs¸a¯bih ve mülhak ve ¸sürb taʿbı¯r olın˙˙ la esa¯fil-ü era¯zil kübera¯ yanlarında ve˘beyne n-na¯s esva¯kda istiʿma ˙¯ l-i˙ duha¯n e˙tmekʿörfen mag ¯ ˘ la¯kin menzilterk-i edeb olmag˙la esva¯kda istiʿma¯l-i duha¯nı sela¯t¯ın-i isla¯˙m menʿ eylemis¸ler ˙ menʿ e˙tdikleri ˙ ˘ildir“. ˘ sa¯bit deg lerinde ve mahfı¯ mahallerde ˙ ¯ nı¯ dem Herrscher zu,¯ als „oberste juristische Instanz“ zu fungieren ˘ Laqa 104 Dagegen gesteht (Berger, „Herz“: 275), während Na¯bulusı¯ dies ablehnt und die Gehorsamspflicht der Untertanen relativiert (ebda., 276–277).

172

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Nuʿma¯n Efendi verurteilt ferner das Rauchen in Gegenwart von nichtrauchenden Gläubigen, wenn diese geschädigt oder gestört werden.105 Diese Vorschrift leitet er per Analogie daraus ab, daß man erlaubte Speisen wie Zwiebeln und Knoblauch nicht essen dürfe, um vorsätzlich Gläubige mit dem Geruch zu belästigen (ı¯za¯ kasdı ile).106 Der Überlieferung zufolge war es zur Vermeidung von ¯ ˙ ˙ Geruchsbelästigung zu Zeiten des Propheten verboten, dessen Moschee in Medina zu betreten, wenn man Zwiebeln oder Knoblauch gegessen hatte, was später zum Anlaß für Moscheeverweise aufgrund üblen Geruches führte. Dagegen sei dem Propheten ein exzeptioneller Duft zueigen gewesen, den seine Genossen an einem Ort noch eine Woche, nachdem er diesen verlassen hatte, wahrgenommen hätten.107 Die auf den Schultern eines Rauchers sitzenden und über seine Taten Buch führenden Engel seien dagegen als feinstoffliche Wesen gegen Geruchsbelästigung immun, zumal sie weder Mund noch Nase besäßen.108 Nuʿma¯n Efendi läßt im Grunde kein Argument der Rauchgegner gelten. Die von den Gegnern ebenfalls aufgestellte Behauptung, ein Raucher ahme die Ungläubigen nach (küffa¯ra tes¸ebbüh), überzeugt Nuʿma¯n nicht, weil es sich am Ende wieder um eine Frage persönlicher Präferenz oder örtlicher Sitte handele.109 Rote oder gelbe Kleidung, die einst den Ungläubigen vorgeschrieben war, werde mittlerweile ja von Muslimen getragen, und überhaupt unterschieden sich solche Regeln je nach Ort und Bevölkerungsgruppe und könnten daher keine allgemeine Gültigkeit beanspruchen.110

105 Tahlı¯l, 9a-b: „Yanında hazz e˙tmeyen kimesneye ¯ıza¯ e˙derse anıñ yanında istiʿma¯l ile aña ¯ıza¯ ¯ ¯ ˙ mekru¯hdır ve belki ˙ ˙meʾlu ˙ ¯ f olmıyan müʾmin e˙tmesi andan müteʾezz¯ı olursa aña ¯ıza¯ kasdı ile ¯¯ ¯ ˙ ˙ istiʿma¯l e˙tmek menhı¯dir“. 106 Tahlı¯l, 9b. Vgl. Özen, „Tütün“: 6. ˙ 107 Klein-Franke, „No Smoking“: 161–162 und 168. 108 Tahlı¯l, 9b: „Suʾa¯l olınursa ki istiʿma¯l-i duha¯n e˙den kimesneniñ yemı¯n-ü ¸sima¯lde olan kira¯m-ı ˘ mı ceva¯b olınur ki mela¯ʾike-i kira¯m ecsa¯m-ı ka¯˙tibı¯n ve hafaza mela¯ʾikesine ¯ıza¯ olmaz ¯ ˙ ˙ lat¯ıfedirler kandı¯l nu¯runa tes¸bı¯h olınmus¸lardır bir hücrede birʿaded kandı¯l nu¯rı ile yüzʿaded ˙ ¯ dı¯l enva ˙ ¯ rı sıg˙ıs¸urlar mela¯ʾike-i kira¯m dahı böyledirler ˙ ˙ kana ‚Tanazzala l-mala¯ʾikatu wa-r˙ru¯hu fı¯ha¯‘ a¯yet-i˙ kerı¯mesi tafs¯ılinde zikr-ü beya¯˘n olınmus¸dur anlar insa¯n ve sa¯yir hayva¯n gibi ¯ ˙ ag˙˙ız ve burun ve aʿz˙a¯ʾ-ı sa¯ʾire˙ asha¯bı deg˘illerdir“. Vgl. Berger, „Herz“: 287 und Klein-Franke, ˙ ˙ „No Smoking“: 168. 109 Dagegen lehnt Laqa¯nı¯ jede Nachahmung von Ungläubigen einschließlich der Kleidung ab, während Na¯bulusı¯ grundsätzlich die Übernahme von nutzbringenden Praktiken und Gütern der Ungläubigen außerhalb des rituellen Bereichs (ʿiba¯da¯t) erlaubt, sofern damit nicht die Absicht verbunden ist, die Ungläubigkeit nachzuahmen (Berger, „Herz“: 279–280). 110 Tahlı¯l, 13b–14a. ˙

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

173

Schluß Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendis Wahrnehmungen und Repräsentationen von Gesundheit und Krankheit sind zweifellos partikular, geben aber die Sicht eines gebildeten Osmanen im 18. Jahrhundert wieder. Nuʿma¯n Efendi läßt keinen Zweifel daran, daß körperliche Erkrankungen aus seelischem Leiden hervorgehen. Die Form der Gesundheitsschrift (sıhhatna¯me) verdient in dieser Hinsicht ˙ ˙˙ mehr Aufmerksamkeit und kann möglicherweise in Verbindung mit medizinischem Schrifttum mentalitätsgeschichtliche Erkenntnisse über Sinnes- und Körperempfinden sowie über das Erleben von Leid erbringen. Dieses beschränkt sich nicht auf Krankheit, sondern auch die Furcht vor Feinden oder Leid durch Strapazen zeigen sich auf überaus körperliche Weise und bilden zugleich eine poetische Einheit mit dichterischer Bildersprache und Selbstdarstellung. Dies mag genrebedingt sein, liegt aber bei der Beschreibung von Gefühlen wie Furcht und Schmerz durchaus nah. Die Tabakabhandlung gehört einer gänzlich anderen Gattung an und unterliegt dementsprechend anderen Konventionen, da Aspekte wie Körperempfinden oder Heilwirkung aus rechtswissenschaftlicher Sicht kaum relevant sind. Nuʿma¯n Efendi schildert hier nicht seine Leiden und Schmerzen, um an das Mitgefühl der Leser zu appellieren, sondern argumentiert entlang wohlbekannter Linien der Jurisprudenz, um nach rationalen und traditionskundlichen Maßstäben zu einer überzeugenden Konklusion zu kommen. Die Linderung seiner Zahnschmerzen gibt er als Ausgangspunkt und Motivation für seine Meinungsänderung an, kommt aber im Laufe des Traktats nicht mehr ausdrücklich darauf zurück. Zwar bietet das Tabaktraktat nur wenige neue Argumente in der Debatte über die Erlaubtheit des Rauchens, die offenbar im 18. Jahrhundert hier und da auflebte, aber dafür einige kulturgeschichtliche Details. Daher bleibt zu hoffen, daß noch weitere Schriften dieses Autors aufgefunden werden, da er selbst in aller Bescheidenheit auf mehrere von ihm verfaßte Werke verweist. Wie bei anderen Themen auch verhilft Nuʿma¯n Efendis selbstbewußte Darstellung heutigen Lesern zu Einblicken in die Lebensbedingungen seiner Zeit und läßt zugleich seinen Charakter lebendiger erscheinen als es die meisten osmanischen Quellentexte sonst zulassen.

174

Henning Sievert / Natalia Bachour

Literaturverzeichnis Primärquellen Da¯sta¯n = [Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi], Da¯sta¯n. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Res¸id Efendi 667, 1b–9a. Kalaycı, Mehmet & Kumsar, I˙smail Alper, Bir Osmanlı Âliminin Çileli Yılları: Ebû Sehl Nu’mân Efendi ve Destân’ı. Ankara 2017. [Marʿı¯ b. Yu¯suf al-Karmı¯ (al-Maqdisı¯ al-Hanbalı¯)], Tahqı¯q al-burha¯n fı¯ ˇsaʾn ad-duha¯n ˙ ˙ ˘ ¯ l Salma allad¯ı yasˇribuhu n-na¯s al-a¯n (Ed. u. Erg. Abu¯ ʿUbayda Masˇhu¯r b. Hasan A ¯ n, ¯ ˙ Beirut 2000). ÖNB H. O. 98 = [Ebu Sehl Nu’man], Tedbı¯ra¯t-ı Pesendı¯de (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Sammlung von Handschriften und Alten Drucken). Prokosch, Erich, Molla und Diplomat. Der Bericht des Ebû Sehl Nuʿman Efendi über die österreichisch-osmanische Grenzziehung nach dem Belgrader Frieden 1740/41. Übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Erich Prokosch. Graz 1972. ˙ a¯yat al-itqa¯n fı¯ tadbı¯r badan al-insa¯n. MS Sül[Sa¯lih Nasrulla¯h (b. Sallu¯m al-Halabı¯]]. G ˙ ˙ ˙ eymaniye Ayasofya 3682. Savas¸, Ali I˙brahim (Hrsg.), Ebu Sehl Nu ʿma¯n Efendi, Tedbîrât-ı Pesendîde (Beg˘enilmis¸ Tedbirler). Ankara 1999. Tahlı¯l = [Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi], Duha¯n risa¯lesi [Tahlı¯lü d-duha¯n]. (Süleymaniye Ktp. ˙ ˙ ˘ ˘ Özel 874, 1b–17a). [Vak’anüvis Subhî Mehmed Efendi], Subhî Tarihi. Sâmî ve S¸âkir Tarihleri ile Birlikte, 1730– ˙ ˙ 1744. ˙Inceleme ve Kars¸ılas¸tırmalı Metin (Hrsg. Mesut Aydıner). I˙stanbul 2007.

Sekundärliteratur Aktepe, Münir M., „Hekı¯mog˘lu Ali Pas¸a“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 17 (1998): 166–168. Aydın, Mahmut, „Zekeriyyâ“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 44 (2013): 210– 211. Berger, Lutz, „Ein Herz wie ein trockener Schwamm. Laqa¯nı¯s und Na¯bulusı¯s Schriften über den Tabakrauch“. Der Islam 78 (2001), 249–293. Brockelmann, Carl, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. Zweite, den Supplementbänden angepaßte Auflage. Leiden 1937–1943. French, Roger K., „Catarrh“, in: Kiple, Kenneth F. (Hg.), The Cambridge World History of Human Desease. Cambridge 1993, 635–636. Hildebrandt, Helmut (Red.-Leitg.), Pschyrembel. Klinisches Wörterbuch. Berlin 1998258. I˙hsanogˇlu, Ekmeleddin, & S¸es¸en, Ramazan et al. (Hrsg.), Osmanlı tıbbi bilimler literatürü tarihi 1–4. I˙stanbul 2008. Kalaycı, Mehmet, & Öztürk, Eyüp, „18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Cog˘rafyasında Tütünün SosyoKültürel Zeminine Dair Bir Metin: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi ve Tahlı¯lu’d-Duha¯n Adlı ˙ ˘ Risâlesi“. Ankara Üniversitesi ˙Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 58/1 (2017), 1–45; 366–401.

Der gebildete Kranke: Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendi und die Gesundheit

175

Kaya, Nevzat, „Karaçelebizâde Abdülaziz Efendi“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 24 (2001): 381–383. Klein-Franke, Felix, „No Smoking in Paradise. The Habit of Tobacco Smoking Judges by Muslim Law“. Museion 106 (1993), 155–183. Özen, S¸ükrü, „Tütün. Fıkıh“, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 42 (2012): 5–9. Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki, Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüg˘ü. I˙stanbul 31993. Paret, Rudi, „Istihsa¯n and Istisla¯h“. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) IV: 255–259. ˙ ˙ ˙ Rohe, Mathias, Das Islamische Recht. Geschichte und Gegenwart. München 32011. ˙ Savas¸, Ali Ibrahim, „Nuʿma¯n Ebu¯ Sehl (d. ~ 1700’ler; ö.> 1755)“. In: C. Kafadar, H. Karateke, C. Fleischer (Hgg.), Historians of the Ottoman Empire. Website: http://www.otto manhistorians.com/database/html/numan.html, Abruf 21. Juli 2012). Sievert, Henning: „Ebu¯ Sehl Nuʿma¯n Efendis Treffliche Maßnahmen gegen die Arglist der Anderen und die Torheit der Vorgesetzten in Iran und an der Donau“, in: Reindl-Kiel, Hedda & Kenan, Seyfi (Hrsg.), Deutsch-türkische Begegnungen – Alman Türk Tesadüfleri. Festschrift für Kemal Beydilli – Kemal Beydilli’ye Armag˘an. Berlin 2013: 366– 401. Wakin, Jeanette, und A. Zysow, „Raʾy“. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition) II, Suppl.: 687–690.

Constantin A. Panchenko

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire in the middle of the 18th century

The Ottoman Empire, the southern neighbor of the Russian state, for centuries attracted the closest attention of Russian diplomatic and military officials. The Russian government was interested in information on military power and political plans of the Ottomans. The Russian archives contain documents about Russian intelligence activity in the Ottoman lands since at least the 1630s. At that period the political informants were recruited among Greek Orthodox merchants, monks and bishops. The intelligence data was transferred to Moscow by envoys pretending to be alms collectors. The Russian alms to the Greek co-believers often were nothing else but an indirect payment for valuable political information. Many of the Greek patriarchs tried to involve Russia in their political projects and to influence Russian policy in the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean areas.1 In the early 18th century this system changed drastically. A permanent Russian diplomatic mission was established in Istanbul,2 and this mission directed the Russian intelligence service in the Levant. The Greek agents, often costly and unreliable, were gradually replaced by informants from the circles of the Ottoman administration.3 This system of recruitment and intelligence gathering was established by the 1720s. 1 See: Kapterev, Snosheniya ierusalimskih patriarhov s russkim pravitelstvom. Among current studies see: Tchentsova, Ikona Iverskoy Bogomateri. 2 The heads of the Russian diplomatic mission in Istanbul in the first half of the 18th century were: Petr Andreevitch Tolstoy (1645–1729), ambassador 1702–1713; Alexey Ivanovitch Dashkov (d. 1733), envoy 1720–1721; Ivan Ivanovitch Neplyuev (1693–1773), resident 1722– 1735; Alexey Andreevitch Veshnyakov (1700–1745), resident 1734–1736 and 1739–1745; Adrian Ivanovitch Neplyuev (1712–1751), resident 1745–1751; Alexey Mihaylovitch Obreskov (1720–1787), resident 1751–1768. Besides them, diplomats of higher rank worked in Istanbul from time to time, such as vice–chancellor P. Shafirov in 1711–1714, and A. Rumiantsev, extraordinary envoy in 1724–1726 and extraordinary ambassador in 1740–1742. 3 The turning point of the rearrangement of the intelligence service was the death of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1642–1707), who for many years had headed the Russian network of spies in the Ottoman Empire. His successor, Patriarch Chrysanthos No-

178

Constantin A. Panchenko

Following the beginning of the Russian-Turkish war of 1735–1739 and the departure of the Russian diplomats from Istanbul, most of the agents ceased their activity. After the war the Russian mission in the Ottoman capital was reopened. It was headed by the resident Alexey Veshnyakov (1700–1745), who rapidly restored and enlarged the network of agents. The Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (Moscow) contains several unique documents of the mideighteenth century on the structure and methods of the Russian intelligence service in the Ottoman state. One of these documents, written by Alexey Veshnyakov in October 1742, is a list of Russian political agents in Turkey.4 They were divided into three groups—those with a permanent salary, others who received piece work payments and people who worked for free. The first position in the list was occupied by an Ottoman official who had been named in documents as “our friend amı¯rʿalam”. His title amı¯rʿalam is an Arabic equivalent of the Turkish rank sancak beg˘i, which was given to governors of mid˙ sized administrative units or other officials of similar status. This agent was so valuable that his name was never mentioned in diplomatic correspondence. Even the word amı¯r ʿalam was often replaced by a conventional sign—a circle with a cross attached to it, looking like a symbol of an egg cell used in modern-day biological literature. It is worth mentioning that every agent had his own conventional sign (crossed triangles, serpents etc.). However, the Russian residents did not follow the rules of conspiracy consistently. Sometimes they ignored these signs in their ciphered correspondence and allowed themselves to mention their agents directly. The amı¯r ʿalam was promised an annual pension of 500 chervonny5 and his son-in-law Hasan Ag˙a the payment of 500 piasters. At first the pension was paid ˙ regularly, but later on it was given “according to [their] services” with an attachment of annual “presents of furs”. The archival funds contain a correspondence concerning insistent demands of the amı¯r ʿalam to be sent various furs.6 General A. Rumiantsev, an ambassador extraordinary in Istanbul, “concluded that the gifts given to these friends reach a sizeable sum every year because of the usual Turkish shamelessness”. He ordered the amı¯rʿalam and to his sontaras, cancelled contacts with Russia. In general, the Westernized Russian Empire of the 18th century lost interest in contacts with the clergy of the Christian East. 4 Arhiv Vneshney Politiki Rossiyskoy Imperii [Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire] (henceforth: AVPRI), Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. 5 The main currency used in financial operations was a European golden coin of the highest grade, usually the Dutch ducat, named in the Russian sources chervonny. The rate of ruble to ducat ranged between 210 and 225 rubles to 100 ducats (chervonny). The main Ottoman silver coin was the piaster (qirsh). In the 1740s 100 ducats rated 366 piasters and 26 2/3 para (para was a small silver coin, 1/40 of a piaster). Accordingly, the exchange rate of ruble to piaster at that period was 1:1,8. 6 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1734. File 17.

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire

179

in-law to receive a fixed sum of 500 and 200 chervonny, respectively, “to avoid their unremitting demands”.7 In August 1747 the Russian government directed their diplomats to find ways to economize on salaries of spies and to explain the concrete benefit from every informant. The resident in Istanbul, Adrian Neplyuev, replied that although the amı¯r ʿalam and Hasan Ag˙a had been retired they still kept close ties with the ˙ Ottoman administration and were well informed about the political situation, “so it seems to be necessary to support them”.8 After revising the whole list of agents Neplyuev concluded that it was not possible to diminish salaries to any of them. He thought that it was better to keep a few well-paid high-ranking informants than various unimportant ones.9 However, in June 1748 Neplyuev reported that he had cancelled contacts with the amı¯r ʿalam and had recruited two other informants instead. One of them was an official, “Vizier Aga”, who was promised a salary of 400 piasters (240 rubles). The other was a certain Greek from the Patriarch of Constantinople’s administration, who was involved in contacts with Ottoman official circles and had access to current political information. The Greek was ready to work for 275 piasters annually. Both agents together cost about one third of the amı¯rʿalam’s pension.10 The amı¯rʿalam and Hasan Ag˙a transferred their information through a certain ˙ Andrey Magrini, presumably a clerk or a merchant of Levantine origin, who maintained close contacts with foreign diplomats. His service had started during the tenure of ambassador Dashkov and continued even during the RussianTurkish war of 1735–1739. During the war Magrini managed to send his reports via Vienna or directly to Kiev through Greek couriers. His annual salary, which originally had consisted of 500 piasters, was doubled during the war and remained the same in the 1740s.11 One of the most promising persons from the point of view of the Russian intelligence service was the Grand Dragoman of the Sublime Porte. Traditionally the dragomans were of Phanariot origin. Although most of them were loyal to the Ottoman padishah, the Russian diplomats hoped that the dragomans would be sympathetic to the Russian Orthodox co-believers. There is data about regular Russian payments to the dragomans. In 1723 the dragoman Grigore Ghica (1717– 1726/27) received 500 chervonny per year.12 Soon after that the total payment was raised to 1000 chervonny. The same pension was paid to his brother and successor 7 8 9 10 11 12

AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 8a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 8b–9b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. 15b–16a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. 16b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 2b–3a, 14a–15a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1723. File 6. P. 58b.

180

Constantin A. Panchenko

Alexander Ghica (1727–1740). The money was paid, according to the resident Neplyuiev, “not for receiving any information [from him] but to avoid problems which he is able to cause”.13 Regular bah¸s¯ı¸ss in money and furs were also given to I˙bra¯hı¯m Efendi, the ˘ dragoman’s secretary. He did not provide any confidential news, but received 100 chervonny just to gain his favor. I˙bra¯hı¯m Efendi was a rather influential person in the Ottoman Foreign Service and all the foreign diplomats used to pay him.14 The Russian residents were primarily interested in the affairs of the chancellery of the reʾı¯s efendi (reʾı¯sülkütta¯b),15 the Ottoman office of external relations. In the early 1740s the Russians managed to recruit one of its clerks who dealt with the foreign correspondence. He provided copies of it to Alexey Veshniakov for 1200 chervonny. Ra¯g˙ıb Mehmed’s dismissal in 1745 was followed ˙ by the replacement of his entire staff. The informant lost his position, but for 150 piasters he named another clerk who agreed to work for the Russian resident on the same conditions.16 Soon the appetite of the new agent increased. In June 1750 A. Neplyuev reported that the clerk was blackmailing him, demanding a higher pension and threatening to terminate his service. The resident had to add 37 piasters to his monthly salary.17 It seems that not long before his death in 1751, Neplyuev recruited one more official of the same chancellery. In autumn 1751 the reports already mention two clerks who asked to increase their pensions with the same persistence. The new Russian resident Alexey Obreskov did his best to delay the solution of this problem. He was afraid that if the wishes of the agents were satisfied, they might demand even more money or stop working. “It is possible to expect everything from the inconstant local people”, the resident reports.18 The clerks however won, and in February 1752 an order was issued to fix their pensions at 500 chervonny each.19 The Russian residents managed more or less to follow the activity of the Ottoman Foreign Service. However they knew much less about the domestic situation in the Ottoman Empire. In the 1740s Ottomans were involved into a long and exhausting war with Iran. The official reports about the military op13 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 13a. 14 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 5a, 12a–12b, 21a, 33a–33b. 15 This position in that period was occupied by the notorious diplomat el-Ha¯cc Mustafa¯ Efendi ˙ med Efendi ˙ ˙ (1698– (d. 1749), reʾı¯sülkütta¯b in 1736–1741 and 1744–1747 and Koca Ra¯g˙ıb Meh ˙ 1763), reʾı¯sülkütta¯b in 1741–1744, the future grand vizier.˙ 16 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 11b. 17 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 18a–18b. 18 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 23a. 19 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 22a.

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire

181

erations naturally had no connection with reality. The Russian residents looked for additional sources of information. The documents concerning the Persian war were concentrated in the chancellery of the kethuda¯ of the Grand Vizier, who ˘ was in charge of domestic policy. Officials of this chancellery agreed to have contact with foreigners less readily than the reʾı¯sülkütta¯b’s staff. Nevertheless, in late 1752 Alexey Obreskov succeeded in recruiting a clerk of the kethuda¯ for an ˘ annual salary of 660 piasters.20 The documents of the Russian residents mentioned several other less important agents who received one-time payments or gifts such as furs or golden watches. The most valuable addition to the network of agents, according to Alexey Veshnyakov, was the Muslim scholar ʿAlı¯ Hoca, who in the secret reports was ˘ named “our friend the mullah”.21 He was a close confident of the powerful courtier, the chief black eunuch (kızlar ag˙ası) el-Ha¯cc Bes¸¯ır Ag˙a (1666–1746). ˙ ˙ Contacts with the mullah were not secret in contrast to communication with the other “friends”. Such meetings were sanctioned by the mullah’s protector, ¸seyhülisla¯m Pı¯rı¯za¯de Mehmed Sa¯hib Efendi (1674–1749, in office 1745–1746), the ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ supreme Muslim legal authority of the empire. Instead of a regular secret pension, ʿAlı¯ Hoca from time to time received “friendly” presents. ˘ Finally, alongside with the paid informants there were, as has been said, people who worked for free for ideological reasons. Most of them were Greeks, including several high-ranked Church hierarchs, such as the Metropolitan of Heraclea or the Patriarch of Jerusalem Parthenios (ruled 1737–1766).22 The total expenditure for secret agents amounted to 2800 rubles in 1747 and 3183 rubles in 1752.23 The most important informants received pensions from 200 to 1200 rubles. Messengers who ensured communication with the agents were much cheaper. Many agents contacted the Russian mission via mediators. The clerks of the reʾı¯sülkütta¯b office and the chancellery of the kethuda¯ of the grand vizier usually ˘ met with the interpreter of the Russian mission secretly inside the shop of a certain Armenian merchant, who was paid 66 piasters for his service annually.24 The everyday routine work of staying in contact with the agents and collecting information was done by two members of the mission: the interpreter Alexander Pini and the interpreter’s assistant Nikolay Buydi. These people were probably Greeks or Italians of Levantine origin. The residents themselves naturally dealt only with the analysis of the intelligence data. Their circle of contacts was strictly 20 21 22 23 24

AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 24b–25a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 6. On Parthenios see: Panchenko, Arab Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans: 356–358. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 16b, 34b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. 34a.

182

Constantin A. Panchenko

regulated. Of all the informants, they could only personally meet the dragomans of the Sublime Porte. However, the residents were sometimes able to extract important information from conversations with foreign diplomats and Ottoman officials. It may be interesting to comprehend the motivation of the spies. What were the reasons for their treason? The motivation of the Greek clergy is more or less clear. Some of them dreamed of Russia liberating their people from the Hagarene yoke and were ready to serve this purpose. But a century later the Pan-Hellenic megale¯ idea would come into conflict with the Pan-Slavic project and cause a division between the political interests of Athens and St Petersburg. The motivation of the Muslim Turkish spies seems to be more obscure. One can speculate about a moral crisis which followed the political decline of the Ottoman state in the 18th century. Such opinions are numerous in the reports of the residents, who used to exaggerate defects of the Ottoman political system. According to their reports, even the Ottoman elite was fully aware of the deficiencies of its state order which was totally different from that of the Christian states. European citizens were living under the protection of law and justice and could leave the property they had earned by honest means to their heirs. Therefore, “[they] are promoting long-termed and useful businesses and loving their homeland. The lawless [Ottoman] order is deprived of all of this. People [that is, state officials, C. P.] are plundering their wealth in the most unjust and unlawful ways, like criminals. And … they are [permanently] afraid and can not be certain of their career, or if they will keep their wealth till the next evening… and [they] do not love their motherland”.25

Presumably this loss of moral principles induced some of the officials to turn state secrets into a business. However, it is not easy for us to understand correctly their motivation from a temporal and cultural distance. On the other hand, it is obvious that corruption was not common. For example, Alexey Obreskov reported about the difficulty of recruiting an agent in the office of the grand vizier’s kethuda¯ to gather information about the Persian war: ˘

“Because they share a common faith with that people [that is, the Persians, C. P.], not everybody [among the staff] can be bribed, despite their natural attraction to money. They think of these affairs as domestic in contrast to the [staff] of the reʾ¯ısülkütta¯b’s office. [Its clerks] justify their corruption claiming that relations with European countries are not very important [for the Ottoman state]. In this way, they try to clear their conscience to a certain degree”.26

25 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 12b, 40 a. 26 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33. P. 24b.

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire

183

The most contradictory person among the agents seems to have been the amı¯r ʿalam. He spoke with open regret and distress about the incompetence and corruption of Ottoman authorities, the endless Persian war exhausting the last demographic and economic resources of the Empire, the court intrigues, the decline of the economic and social situation and so on. According to his words, the government, being aware of its unstable position and the threat of a revolt, did not want to stop the war, assuming that the devastation of the Asian provinces and the concentration of passionate and restless people in the theater of war would stabilize its power.27 Like many other informants, the amı¯rʿalam was very pessimistic about the prospects of the Ottoman state. He sadly predicted the fall of the sultan and the collapse of the state after the first serious military defeat. “So the frankness of this reasonable man and his love for his fatherland are obvious”, Alexey Veshnyakov concludes.28 The motivation of the second of the two important agents of the 1740s, “our friend the mullah”, seems easier to understand. As mentioned above, his meetings with the interpreter of the Russian embassy looked like semi-official political consultations. The mullah was a mediator in the contacts between the Russian diplomats, the ¸seyhülisla¯m Pı¯rı¯za¯de Mehmed Sa¯hib Efendi and the kızlar ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˘ ag˙ası el-Ha¯cc Bes¸¯ır Ag˙a. These officials pursued their own policy independently ˙ of their rivals, Grand Vizier Seyyid Hasan Pas¸a (d. 1748) and reʾı¯sülkütta¯b el˙ Ha¯cc Mustafa¯ Efendi. During the negotiations, the mullah, perhaps on his own ˙ ˙˙ initiative, conveyed a lot of confidential information, expecting an appropriate compensation. “He demonstrated his mercenary mind”, Veshnyakov reports, “It is the main feature of every Turk, from the sultan to the most humble one. Pı¯rı¯za¯de himself would not be ashamed to accept a pair of sable furs, not to mention a large sum”.29 Veshnyakov’s reports contain a lot of picturesque episodes from the talks of the interpreter Pini with the mullah. “The mullah expressed his surprise that I neglected him and the Imam [s¸eyhülı¯sla¯m, ˘ C.P.] and did not give them any presents for their honest friendship. And that I had to know that it is the Turkish custom to take bribes as it is the basis of their nature. They sometimes are ready to sell [for bribes] all their state interests because [according to their opinion] that state will be stable forever while an individual Turk may profit from these bribes…”.30

However, the mullah with all his exaggerated covetousness and friendliness was not as simple as he tried to look. Undoubtedly he was a double agent, who obtained from the talks with Pini information no less useful than what he gave to 27 28 29 30

AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 389a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 389b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 129a–129b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 189a–189b.

184

Constantin A. Panchenko

the Russian side. Sometimes Alexey Veshnyakov “as a gesture of honest friendship” also provided the mullah with confidential political information, like, for example, data about movements of the Persian troops in Dagestan, received from the governor of Astrakhan. Apart from this direct exchange of information, the mullah indirectly let the resident know about certain plans and opinions circulating in Ottoman government circles and monitored the reaction of the Russian diplomats. In this way, an experienced interlocutor was able to identify Russian objectives. The political information which the mullah transferred to Pini had been accurately filtered beforehand. Veshnyakov sometimes realized it, but continued his game with the mullah. “We deceive cheats and double spies and [sometimes] we are also deceived”, he admits in a letter to the Russian ambassador in Vienna.31 Sometimes the mullah lost any sense of measure and expressed his great respect for the Russian state in words which looked extreme even for Oriental etiquette. At the same time Veshnyakov was aware that “our friend the mullah” transferred confident information to the Austrian resident32 in the same manner and presumably also pledged loyalty to him. The contacts of the Viennese court with the Ottomans made the Russian diplomats nervous. They were not convinced that the Russian-Austrian strategic alliance would remain stable. The project of a Prussian-Swedish-Ottoman alliance caused even more apprehensions. It may look strange to a modern scholar that the lion’s share of the efforts of the Russian intelligence was concentrated not on the analysis of the Ottoman state’s internal affairs but on Ottoman foreign policy and participation in European political intrigues. The Russian residents were ready to pay enormous sums of money for a copy of a letter to the Sultan from the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa or for details about an official reception of the Swedish ambassador by the Sultan. Nevertheless, Ottoman home affairs were not ignored by the residents. They were mainly interested in the Ottomans’ military and political problems, such as the war with Persia, difficulties with recruitment and supplying the army, its numbers and fighting abilities, the separatist policy of the Baghdad governor Eyyu¯bı¯ Ahmed Pas¸a (d. 1747), the riot of the pasha of Urfa and suchlike. ˙ Apart from the reports about the current political situation, the residents sent to St Petersburg extensive analytical traits and prognoses about the future of the Ottoman Empire, which Russian diplomats assumed to be utterly declining and dying. Perhaps these opinions were influenced by reports of their agents, especially the Greek clerics.

31 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 269a. 32 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. 190a.

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire

185

Thus, Veshnyakov in the spring of 1745 wrote that the Ottoman generals had to fight the Persians “without money, without troops, without artillery, without accoutrements, without provisions”.33 He continues: “The state treasury is exhausted, everywhere there is total disorder of military and civilian affairs, crime, [heavy] taxation, no justice…”.34 In the case of a serious military defeat, a rebellion would inevitably break out in the capital. It would be enough for the Persian ruler Na¯dir S¸a¯h to reach Kütahya, and then Turkish ʿulema¯ would proclaim him sultan of Turkey and Iran (“God forbid!”) and protector of the holy cities of the Hijaz.35 Ahmed Pas¸a, the governor of Baghdad, would in this case ˙ definitely secede from the Sublime Porte. “If he joined the shah, what could save this [Ottoman] Empire?!”, the resident asks rhetorically.36 According to Veshnyakov, a lot of ʿulema¯ “have acknowledged that the Muslim Empire is not able to keep its power in Europe any more, taking into consideration current [declining] morale… It would be better to return to Asia and, being among [the Muslim] co-religionists, try to take a stand there as the shah is doing now, or otherwise to adopt Christianity. Most of the Ottoman elite is ready to accept it”.37

In such a situation Russia had a chance to conquer its archenemy by one blow. Veshnyakov wrote: “It depends on Your Majesty [that is, the Russian Empress Elisabeth (1741–1761), C. P.] to destroy this evil assembly of snakes without any serious effort and to restore Christianity [in the region]. It seems that God’s providence has prepared everything for this.”38

By this, the resident meant the Persian war and the internal rivalries of the European powers who were at that moment unable to interfere in Ottoman affairs. “All the poor Orthodox Christians”, he continues, “are waiting for their liberation by Your Majesty. It would be enough for the Russian army to cross the Danube this autumn and to have reserves of rifles and ammunition and in a short time this army would grow tenfold. The whole of Moldavia, Wallachia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece and Constantinople itself would raise the Cross and support Your Majesty”.39

It is obvious with the benefit of hindsight how inadequate Veshnyakov’s prognosis was. His advice to the Russian government seems adventurous. However, 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. 416a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 420a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4.P. 421a; File 5. P. 10b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 11a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 11a–11b. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 421b–422a. AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4. P. 422a–422b.

186

Constantin A. Panchenko

it was not the fault of the diplomat himself. Political science has always been a pseudo-science, as in the 18th century so in our own time. Even the resident who coordinated the entire Russian intelligence service in the Ottoman Empire did not possess complete information about the political situation. Moreover, he did not have a scientific methodology to analyze this information correctly (nor has anybody in our days). A scholar studying the work of Russian intelligence in Istanbul can hardly avoid the temptation to compare its effectiveness with Ottoman intelligence and counter-intelligence services. The Ottomans did not have a permanent embassy in St Petersburg. Therefore, they were unable to create a network of spies comparable to the one which was headed by the Russian residents in Istanbul. Naturally, the Ottoman diplomats who were occasionally sent to St Petersburg had to monitor troop movements and to collect other strategic intelligence. If intelligence about the military situation in the frontier region was urgently needed, Ottoman envoys were sent to Russia under absolutely artificial pretexts.40 Presumably the Ottomans were able to recruit somebody from the staff of the Russian mission. However, the correspondence between the residents and St Petersburg does not contain any information about such a case. On the other hand, after the death of Veshnyakov in summer 1745, Parthenios, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, asked the Russian government to send as his replacement “a Russian man who is intelligent, experienced and trustworthy in these affairs… and that he may have with him from now on interpreters who are Russians and not foreigners… And he, the patriarch… and other adherents of Russia would be able to transfer via these [interpreters] intelligence and their opinions without fear, because the native Russian [interpreter] would not dare to disclose such information to anybody else… And if they are foreigners,”

Parthenios warns, “even though they may pretend to be loyal, in fact they will never zealously serve Russian interests, but in a crafty way they will defend their own interests,” and as such, it is highly probable that they can be bought out by the Ottomans or someone else.41 Ironically the patriarch passed these words through the junior interpreter Nikolay Buydi who seemed not to be of Russian origin; but the patriarch had no choice. The main informants of the Ottomans about the situation in the border regions of the Russian Empire were Greek merchants who visited Kiev, Negin and other cities. If necessary, the Ottoman authorities could demand intelligence information from the princes of Moldavia and Wallachia, who had their own intelligence services and presumably employed the same Greek traders.42 40 AVPRI, Fund 90/1. 1745. File 262. P. 4a; Fund 89/1. 1745. File 6. P. 76a. 41 AVPRI, Fund 90/1. 1745. File 262. P. 5a. 42 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 189b.

The Russian Intelligence Service in the Ottoman Empire

187

So, one can suppose that the Ottomans were able to monitor more or less effectively the situation in the Russian border provinces, but did not have spies in St Petersburg. However, it is hardly doubtful that information (perhaps filtered beforehand) about the attitude of the Russian government was passed to the Ottomans from the diplomats of friendly states, especially France.43 It is also more than a possibility that Western diplomats in St Petersburg, thanks to the ubiquitous corruption of the Russian bureaucracy, received no less intelligence information there than Alexey Veshnyakov and Alexey Neplyuev did in the Ottoman capital. This, however, is the topic for another study, based on completely different sources.

Bibliography Sources from the Archive of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AVPRI) AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1723. File 6 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1734. File 17 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1742. File 33 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 4 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5 AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 6 AVPRI, Fund 90/1. 1745. File 262

Studies Kapterev, N. F., Snosheniya ierusalimskih patriarhov s russkim pravitelstvom [Relations between the patriarchs of Jerusalem and the Russian government] Vol. 1. St Petersburg 1895. Tchentsova, V. G., Ikona Iverskoy Bogomateri (Otcherki istorii otnosheniy grecheskoy tserkvi s Rossiey v seredine XVII v. po dokumentam RGADA) [The icon of the Virgin of Iviron (Relations between the Greek Church and Russia in the mid-17th century according to documents of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts]. Moscow 2010. Panchenko, Constantin A., Arab Orthodox Christians under the Ottomans: 1516–1831. Jordanville, N.Y. 2016.

43 One can find such ideas in the correspondence of the Russian mission in Istanbul: AVPRI, Fund 89/1. 1745. File 5. P. 189b; Fund 90/1. 1745. File 262. P. 4.

Kemal Beydilli

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

III. Ahmed’in ve Mihrimâh Sultan’ın og˘lu olarak 14 Safer 1129 / 28 Ocak 1717’de Edirne’de dog˘du. Üvey kardes¸leri 10 yas¸ındaki Süleyman, 2 yas¸ındaki Bayezid ve kendisi gibi 3 yas¸ında olan Mehmed ile beraber 18 Eylül – 2 Ekim arasında devam eden görkemli bir s¸enlikle sünnet edildi (1720).1 1703’de bir ayaklanma sonunda tahtan indirilen II. Mustafa’nın, aynı akıbete ug˘rayacak olan halefi III. Ahmed’ten sonra tahta çıkan og˘ulları I. Mahmud (1730–1754) ve özellikle III. Osman (1754–1757) dönemleri sıkıntılı ve bu hükümdarların kendi çocukları olmamasına rag˘men III. Ahmed’in og˘ullarına kars¸ı olan düs¸manca tavırlarından ötürü hattâ hayatî tehlikeler içinde geçti. III. Mustafa’nın zehirlenme ihtimaline kars¸ı vücudunu güçlendirmek amacıyla ufak dozlarda zehir aldıg˘ına ve bu yüzden zamanla kara-kuru bir simaya dönüs¸tüg˘üne dair olan kayıtlar, özellikle III. Osman’ın 56 sene S¸ims¸irlik’te ömür tükettikten sonra kendisine nihayet nasip olan üç senelik kısa saltanatında ortadan kaldırmak üzere çes¸itli giris¸imlerde bulundug˘u III. Ahmed’in og˘ullarından s¸ehzâde Mehmed’in ani ve s¸üpheli bir s¸ekilde – zehirlenmis¸ olarak2 – ölmesiyle (22 Aralık 1756) birlikte deg˘erlendirildig˘inde, zorlu geçen S¸ims¸irlik hayatının genç s¸ehzâdelere ilham ettig˘i inanılmaz 1 [Râs¸id Mehmed], Tarih-i Râs¸id ve Zeyli: II, 1187–1189. Bu gibi düg˘ünlerde âdet oldug˘u üzere yoksul ahaliden toplanan 5 bin çocuk da sünnet edilmis¸tir. Hazırlanan tasvirâtta s¸ehzâdelerin gerçek yas¸larından daha büyük olarak resmedildikleri göze çarpmaktadır, bk. Atıl, Levni ve Surname: 47; Atasoy & Kınay, Portraits and Caftans of the Ottoman Sultans: 95, bk. resimler, nr. 3, 4. 2 [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: v. 18b/s. 26: “Müs¸ârünileyh birkaç gün zehir illeti ile telh-kâm ve … âlem-i beka¯ya hırâm…” (22 Aralık 1756); Baron von Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren: I, 279. Öte yandan dünya ahvâline dâir gazete bilgileri vermekte olan Avrupa’da müntes¸ir bazı yayınlarda bu hadise 1756 senesinde I˙stanbul’da çes¸itli yangınlar dahil olmak üzere yas¸anan bazı felaketlerle bag˘lantılı olarak takdim edilmektedir. 1756 senesi içinde s¸ehirde ag˘ır kayıpların yas¸anmasına yol açan – genelde vebâ olarak adlandırılan – sârî hastalıkların pek çok ölümlere yol açmıs¸ oldug˘u, hattâ saraya dahi sirâyet ederek S¸ehzade Mehmed’in, Abdullah, Bayezid ve Orhan isimli üç kardes¸iyle beraber vefatına sebebiyet verdig˘i bildirilmektedir. 41 yas¸ında oldug˘u ileri sürülen Mehmed halk tarafından sevilen bir s¸ehzâdedir ve ölümü genelde üzüntüyle kars¸ılanmıs¸tır; Des neueröfneten Historischen Bilder-saals zwölfter Theil: 806–807.

190

Kemal Beydilli

önlem fantezisinin haklılıg˘ı gözler önüne serilir. Bu katli nihayet gerçekles¸tiren III. Osman’ın olayın sahte üzüntüsünü seslendirerek açıg˘a vuran ag˘lamaklı halinin dönemi kaleme alan Mehmed Hâkim tarafından yapılan acıklı tasviri, bu cinayetin fâilini is¸aret eden örtülü bir göndermeden bas¸ka bir s¸ey deg˘ildir.3 Bu sıkıntılı durum III. Ahmed’in kızları için de söz konusu olmus¸tur, nitekim III. Mustafa’nın öz kız kardes¸i Zeyneb Sultan’ın es¸i Sinek4 Mustafa Pas¸a yirmi bes¸ sene tas¸rada çes¸itli vazifelerde bulunmus¸ olarak dolas¸mıs¸, nihayet cülûs akabinde I˙stanbul’a gelebilmis¸ (1758) ve Mora Muhassıllıg˘ı ve Nis¸ancılık hizmetine atanmıs¸ olarak ehline kavus¸mus¸tur. Yine III. Ahmed’in kızlarından Esmâ Sultan’ın es¸i Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a da I˙stanbul’a getirilerek es¸lerinden uzak tutulma eziyetine son verilmis¸tir. Padis¸ah ertesi Cuma günü Esmâ Sultanı sarayında ziyaret ederek gözaydında bulunmus¸tur.5 Ermeni saray ressamı Rapayel tarafından yapılan resimlerinde de görüldüg˘ü üzere,6 Sultan Mustafa’nın dar alnı, birbirine yakın gözleri, yassıca burnu ve büyükçe ag˘zıyla,7 – “görenleri muztarib edecek”8 derecelerde olmasa da – pek cemâl sahibi oldug˘u söylenemez (bk. resim, nr. 1). Oysa babası III. Ahmed’i yabancı elçileri huzuruna kabul edis¸ anını zabteden bazı resimlerde,9 sevimli halleri içinde tahtın yanında yer alan s¸ehzâdeler arasında düzgün hatlı güzel bir çocuk olarak göze çarpmaktaydı (bk. resim, nr. 5). Birkaç gün büyük olan kardes¸i S¸ehzâde Mehmed’in ölümü III. Mustafa’ya hükümdarlık yolunu açtı ve 16 Safer 1171 / 30 Ekim 1757’de, Pazar gecesi üç sene on iki gün süren saltanatı akabinde üvey amcazâdesi III. Osman’ın vefatı üzerine tahta çıktı.10 Sultan I˙brahim’in tahta çıktıg˘ı tarihten beri (1640) vâki olan cülûsların bir kısmı savas¸ esnasında bazıları ise ayaklanmalar sebebiyle aceleye getirilmis¸ olarak ifa edildiklerinden, buna dair olan kadîm merasimin usulü 3 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 413. 4 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 15. Ama gerekli ihtiramı göstermek zaruretinde olan devrin müverrihinin kaleminde “Küçük”! ([Hâkim/Güngör]): 540. Halk arasında ise “sinek” lakabıyla bilinmekte olup, 20 S¸ubat 1764 tarihinde 80 yas¸ını mütecaviz vefatı münasebetiyle düs¸ülen “sinek öldü” (mâta’z-zübab) tarihi buna örnektir ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 236). Bir müddet sonra Zeyneb Sultan, mevcut karısını bos¸amak zorunda kalmıs¸ olarak Belgrad Muhafızı Melek Mehmed Pas¸a ile evlendirilir. 5 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 17. 6 Bk. Pamukciyan, “Ünlü Hassa Ressamı Rapayel ve Eserleri”: 32. 7 Baron von Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren: I, 107–109, 279–280. Tott’un, Sultan Mustafa’nın daha genç görünsün diye sakalını siyaha boyadıg˘ı, vücudunun üst kısmının alta göre daha uzun olmasınden ötürü at üzerinde heybetli göründüg˘ü, biraz patlak olan gözlerinin miyop oldug˘u, zehirlenme tehlikesi sebebiyle “tıp” ilmine merak saldıg˘ı gibi tes¸hisleri kendisini yakından görüp, müs¸ahade etmis¸ olmasından ötürü önemlidir. 8 Res¸ad Ekrem Koçu, Osmanlı Padis¸ahları: 314–315. 9 Van Mour, Elçi kabulü tablosu: 55. Ayrıca dipnot nr. 1’de gösterilen eserlerde yer alan s¸ehzâde tasvirleri, bk. resimler, nr. 5. 10 [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: v. 30b / s. 45; [Hâkim/ Güngör]: 450, 467, 468, 469.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

191

üzere icrası mümkün olamamıs¸tır. Ayrıca bu merasimi kayıt altına alan tes¸rifât defterlerinin de tutulmamıs¸ olması sıkıntılı bir durum yaratmıs¸tır. Son Osmanlı Padis¸ahı Vahdeddin’in cülûs merasiminde yas¸anan ve tatbik edilecek âdetleri bilenin kalmadıg˘ından kaynaklanan kopuklug˘u çag˘rıs¸tıran11 bu durum, Ragıp Pas¸a’nın bilgili müdahalesiyle giderilmis¸ ve kendisinin is¸aretiyle cülûs merasimi “kavanin-i kadîm-i Süleymaniyye’ye tatbikan” icra olunmus¸tur.12 Ragıp Pas¸a, Dârüssaade Ag˘ası Ebu-Kof (Kuf) Ahmed Ag˘a’nın hayatına kasteden kötü niyet ve tertibatından ag˘anın yazıcısı olan I˙brahim Ag˘a tarafından yapılan uyarı ve padis¸ahın son demlerini yas¸amakta oldug˘una dair olan ihbarı üzerine birkaç gün gizlenmis¸ ve böylece kurtulmus¸ bulunuyordu.13 Sultan Osman’ın vefat haberini alır almaz Bâb-ı Âsafî’ye gelerek cülûs merasimi ve naas¸ın nakli için gerekli tedbirlerin alınmasını orada hazır bulunan Reisülküttap ve Kethüda Bey’e havale ederek, kendisi vakit kaybetmeden saraya intikal etmis¸, Hırka-ı ¸serîf Odası yanında yer alan Sünnet Odası’nda Darüssade Ag˘ası ile bulus¸mus¸, S¸eyhülislâm Damadzâde Feyzullah Efendi ve Vezir Kaptan-ı derya Gül Ahmed Pas¸a-zâde Ali Pas¸a’nın acilen intikalini temin etmis¸tir. Çavus¸bas¸ının da is¸tirakiyle Bâb-ı Âsafî’de içtima eden Reis ve Kethüda marifetiyle Nakib Efendiye, Kazasker Efendilere, Mevaliye, Müderrislere, Sipah ve Silahdar Ag˘aya, Dört Bölük Ag˘alarına, Yeniçeri Ag˘asına, Kapucıbas¸ılar ve Müteferrika Ag˘alarına, Defterdar Efendiye ve bilcümle Hacegan-ı divan ile Tevki Efendilere fecir vaktinden önce merasim kıyafetleriyle sarayda hazır bulunmaları için ilmühaberler yazılmıs¸ ve bunlar Divan Çavus¸ları ve Çukadarları vasıtasıyla acilen gönder11 Ali Fuad Türkgeldi, Görüp ˙I¸sittiklerim: 139. 12 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 1. I. Abdülhamid ve III. Selim’in tahta çıkıs¸larında da (1774, 1789) cülûs merasimi tes¸rifâtı bu minval üzere uygulanmıs¸ olmakla beraber, ayaklanmalar sonunda olus¸an karmas¸a içinde tahta çıkan IV. Mustafa ve II. Mahmud cülûslarında (1807, 1808) geleneksel tes¸rifât uygulama dıs¸ı kalmıs¸tır. Sultan Abdülmecid ve Abdülaziz (1839, 1861) hariç olmak üzere son dönem padis¸ahlarının tahta çıkıs¸larının olag˘an dıs¸ı s¸artlarda ve hadiseli cereyan etmis¸ olması tes¸rifât kaidelerinin ve uygulanan âdetlerin tekrar ihmal edilmesine ve de giderek unutulmasına yol açmıs¸tır. V. Murad ve II. Abdülhamid’in tahta çıkıs¸ı (1876) bu tür tes¸rifâtın tamamen ihmal edildig˘ine iyi bir örnek tes¸kil ederken, II. Abdülhamid’in otuz üç senelik saltanatı sonunda hal‘ edilmesi neticesinde tahta çıkan V. Mehmed Res¸ad’ın (1908) çalkantılı saltanat tebeddülü sebebiyle bu tür tes¸rifâttan âzâde kalması bu zafiyeti daha da arttırmıs¸tır. Dolayısıyla Abdülaziz’in tahta çıkıs¸ından Bayezid’taki Seraskerlik binasında (Harbiye Nezareti) cülûs niyetine bir koltug˘a oturtulan Sultan Res¸ad’ın ölümüne kadar (1861–1918) geçen zaman içinde bu konudaki merasimin tam anlamıyla icra edilememesi kadîm usûl ve âdetlerin büyük ölçüde unutulması gibi bir sonucu beraberinde getirmis¸tir. Hülasa, imparatorlug˘un sonunda yas¸anan genel peris¸anlık ve çöküs¸ göz önüne alındıg˘ında bu duruma fazla s¸as¸mamak lâzımdır. Hükümdarının tahta çıkıs¸ında tertiplenecek kadîm merasimin nasıl oldug˘unu hatırlamayan bir saltanat tarihe intikal etmis¸ demektir! 13 Ragıb Pas¸a, hayatını kurtaran bir ihbar almıs¸ olmakla beraber, bunu devlet sırlarının ifs¸â edilmesi olarak algıladıg˘ından I˙brahim Ag˘a’yı vazifeden almıs¸, Mefkûfâtcılık ile saraydan uzaklas¸tırmıs¸tır ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 98–99).

192

Kemal Beydilli

ilmis¸tir. Devrin tarihlerinde yer alan “Bi’l-irs ve’l istihkak vâris-i saltanat-ı seniyye-i cihândarî” veya “S¸er‘ân ve kanûnen hasbe’l-istihkak ve’l-verâset’ilasliyye” gibi vurgulamalarla cülûs eden Sultan Mustafa Harem’den Darüssaade Ag˘ası tarafından dıs¸arı davet edilmis¸ ve bas¸ta Sadrazam olmak üzere hazır bulunan S¸eyhülislâm, Kapudan Pas¸a, sâbıkı ve hâlâsıyla Rumeli Kazaskerleri (Abdurrahim ve Karabekirzâde Efendiler), keza aynı s¸ekilde Anadolu Kazaskerleri (Veliyyüddin ve Çelebizâde Âsım I˙smail Efendiler) I˙stanbul pâyeli Nakibüles¸raf S¸erif Mehmed Molla ve Yeniçeri Ag˘ası tarafından kars¸ılanmıs¸, sag˘ından Darüssaade Ag˘ası Ebu-Kof Ahmed Ag˘a, solundan Silahdâr I˙brahim Ag˘a / Bey tarafından koltuklanmıs¸ (bagal-gîr) olarak hazır bulunanları “sabahlar hayır ola” kelâmıyla selamlamıs¸tır.14 Bâbüssaade önüne kurulan tahta cülûs ile umûmî beyʽatı kabul eden15 Sultan Mustafa, devletin 26. hükümdarı olarak 16 sene, 2 ay, 26 gün sürecek olan saltanatına böylece bas¸lamıs¸ oldu. Daha sonra Sultan Osman’ın gasli ve defni merasimine giris¸ildi.16 Padis¸ahın vefatı ve saltanat tebeddülü münadilerle ve de Sarayburnu’ndan, Tophane’den, Kızkulesi’nden ve Yedikule’den atılan toplarla s¸ehir halkına duyurulurken; Ayasofya, Fatih, Süleymaniye ve Sultan Ahmed câmiilerinden okunan sâlâ ile de naas¸ın defnedilmek üzere nakli ilan edildi.17 Ölen Padis¸ahların gasilden evvel cansız bedenlerinin ricâl-i devlet (S¸eyhülislâm, Sadrazam, Kaptan Pas¸a, Reis Efendi, Defterdar ve sair Sudûr-ı kirâm ve Ocak Ag˘aları (Yeniçeri Ag˘ası, Sekbanbas¸ı ve Kulkethüdası) tarafından müs¸ahede edilmeleri18 merasiminin de itmamı üzerine cenazenin hazırlanmasına giris¸ildi. Daha ziyade 18. yüzyıldaki kaynaklarda hassaten dile getirilmis¸ olarak gözlenen19 cenazenin bu s¸ekilde müs¸ahedesi, ölenin kimlig˘inin tescili yanında herhalde ölüm halinin dog˘al sebeplerden oldug˘unun da tesbiti gibi bir anlam tas¸ımaktadır.20 II. Osman’ın bir ayaklanma sonucu tahttan indirilmesi (22 Mayıs 14 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 1–3; Hakan Karateke, Protocol Register: 68; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 95. Ricâl-ı devlet kars¸ısına bu ilk çıkıs¸ın ezânî saatle 9.30’da oldug˘u beyanı için bk. III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 3: “cümlesi Mâbeyn kapusu pîs¸-gâhında hâzır ve âmâde ve tavakkuf üzre iken yümn-ü ikbâl ile leyle-i mezbûrede sâʽat dokuz buçukda mâh-ı münîr-ves¸i s¸evket-i mehâbet birle mâbeyn kapûsundan Sultân Mustafa Efendimiz tulûʽ…”. 15 Bu merasimin ezânî saat 1’de bas¸ladıg˘ı kaydı için bk. III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 3. 16 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 459–460; Karateke, Protocol Register: 66. 17 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 6; Karateke, Protocol Register: 67. 18 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 460; [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 5; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 97; Karateke, Protocol Register: III. Osman örneg˘i, s. 70; I. Abdülhamid örneg˘i, s. 123. 19 Tes¸rifâtçı Âkif bunu, “Feth-i Hakanîden beri” yürürlükte olan bir âdet olarak takdim etmektedir, (Tarih-i cülûs: 5). Ayrıca bk. “…müs¸âhede ile merâsim-i huku¯k-ı bendegîyi icrâ sûretinde resm-i hakk-ı vedâ‘ı edâ eylemeleri Serây-ı Hümâyûn’da öteden berü mer‘î olan halâttan olmag˘la…” Karateke, Protocol Register: 70. 20 Bununla beraber bu müs¸ahedenin re’sen deg˘il de “Emr-i hümâyûna muhtaç” bir husus oldug˘u Sultan Abdülhamid’in vefatıyla ilgili olarak yapılan is¸lemlerin kaydedildig˘i Tes¸rifât Defteri’nde tasrih edilmektedir, bk. Karateke, Protocol Register: 123.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

193

1622) ve yollarda ug˘radıg˘ı bin bir hakaret ile götürüldüg˘ü Yedikule’de nihayet öldürülüp, kafasının da kesilmis¸ olması (yakın zamanlarda açılan mezarında kafası olmadıg˘ı tesbit edilmis¸tir)21 muhtemelen bu müs¸ahedeyi daha da elzem ve de gerekli kılmaktaydı. Namazı S¸eyhülislâm tarafından kıldırılan, tabutu üzerine birkaç kat Kâbe örtüsü serilen, bas¸ucuna Yusûfî tabir olunur sagir Selimî sarık ve buna rabtedilmis¸ siyah sorguç oturtulan III. Osman’ın cenazesi,22 kardes¸i Sultan Mahmud’un itmam ettig˘i ancak kendisinin el koydug˘uve ismini verdig˘i Nûr-i Osmaniyye Câmii’ndeki türbeye deg˘il de Valide Turhan Sultan23 Türbesi’ne gömdürdüg˘ü kardes¸inin yanında kazılan makbere defnedildi.24 III. Osman’ın son sadrazamı olan Ragıb Pas¸a Cuma günü S¸eyhülislâmın da hazır bulundug˘u bir merasimle “istiklâl-i tâm” salahiyetini haiz olarak yeni mührü25 bizzat Padis¸ah eliyle aldı ve makamında ibka edilmis¸ oldu. Kendisine bu münasebetle mücevher hançer ve S¸eyhülislâma da verilmis¸ olarak bir adet samur kürk (ferve) hediye edildi. Bu durum ayrıca Bâb-ı Âsâfi’ye gönderilen bir ag˘a vasıtasıyla müstakil bir Hatt-ı Hümayunla cümle huzurunda ilan edildi (1 Kasım 1757 / 18 Safer 1171). Dârüssaade Ag˘ası Ebu-Kof Ahmed Ag˘a’nın kısa bir zaman içinde vâki olan azli (7 Kasım 1757) ve bilahare vuku bulan idamını makamında ibka edilen sadrazamın haklı mukabelesi olarak yorumlamak mümkündür. I˙dam sebebi olarak dig˘erleri yanında özellikle III. Osman zamanında ortaya çıkan bir sıkıntı olarak inkis¸af eden çöl es¸kıyasının (Urban) hacılara musallat olmaları, soygun ve talanda bulunmaları gibi kamuoyunun da hassasiyet gösterdig˘i gelis¸melerdeki sorumlulug˘u öne çıkartılmıs¸tır.26

21 13 Ag˘ustos 1964 tarihli (sayı 14379) Cumhuriyet Gazetesi. Ayrıca yine aynı gazete (sayı 16388, tarih 14 Mart 1970). Haberde bas¸sız iskelet görüntüsü mevcuttur. Bu konuyla ilgili olarak ayrıca bk. Akyıldız, Haremin Padis¸ahı Valide Sultan (büyük baskı): 65; (küçük baskı, s. 74). 22 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 5. 23 “Vâlide-i atîka Câmi‘i s¸erifi”: Karateke, Protocol Register: 70; “Vâlide Sultan Câmi‘i”: [Hâkim/ Güngör]: 460; kezâ [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 96. Sultan Osman’ın, selefi ve kardes¸i Sultan Mahmud’u ins¸a ettirmis¸ oldug˘u ancak ölümünden sonra mirasçısı olarak sahiplendig˘i ve de el koyarak kendi adını verdig˘i câmideki (Nûr-i Osmâniyye) türbeye gömdürmeyerek onu halkın gözünden gizledig˘i (a‘yün-ı nâsdan ihfâ ettig˘i) belirtilmektedir ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 42). Bu tasarrufuyla Sultan Mustafa’nın kendisine aynen mukabele etmis¸ oldug˘unu söyleyebiliriz. 24 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 5–6; ayrıca bk. Karateke, Protocol Register: 67–71; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 42. 25 Sultan Mustafa’ya yeni tug˘rasının resmi hemen cülûs günü takdim edilmis¸ ve istizanı müteakip yeni mührün hazırlanması hükmü çıkmıs¸tır (BOA, A. TS¸F. D. Nr. 350: vr. 1b); mührün Sadrazama takdimi ve yapılan merasim için bk. vr. 5b, Karateke, Protocol Register: 67. 26 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 505–506. I˙stanbul’a gönderilmis¸ olan kesilen kafası 15 Rebiülevvel 1157 / 27 Kasım 1757 Pazar günü Bâb-ı Hümâyûn pis¸gâhına vaz ve tes¸hir edilmis¸tir, III. Mustafa Rûzmâmesi: 9.

194

Kemal Beydilli

I˙ki hafta kadar sonra Sultan Osman haremi kadınları ve dig˘er mevcut kadınların bir kısmı Safiye Sultan Sarayına ve mütebakisi de Hanım Sultan Sarayına sevkedildiler (15 R. 1171 / 17 Kasım 1757).27 1754–1757 arası süren ve genelde pek de ug˘ursuz geçtig˘i ileri sürülen III. Osman devri, gerçekten I˙stanbul’da daha önce görülmedik olaylara sahne olmus¸tur. Denizin donması (1755) bunlardan en zararsızı olup, tahripkâr bir zelzele yas¸anması ve büyük yangınların s¸ehrin maddî yapısına ag˘ır darbeler vurmus¸ olması insanları zor durumda bırakmıs¸tır. Bu hal III. Mustafa döneminde de devam etti. Zelzele ve sıkça meydana gelen yangınlar s¸ehri önemli ölçüde tahrip etti.28 1730’da babası III. Ahmed’in tahtan indirilmesinden itibaren otuz seneye yakın saraydaki dairesinde (S¸ims¸irlik) kaldıktan sonra kırk yas¸ında tahta çıkan yeni Padis¸ahın – selefi III. Osman gibi – genis¸ imperatorluk toprakları kadar içinde yas¸ayan ahalisiyle birlikte payitahtına da yabancı oldug˘u muhakkaktır.

Saltanatın vazgeçilmez tes¸rifâtı II. Mahmud devrinin sonlarına dog˘ru tamamen deg˘is¸ecek ve eski sıkletinden büyük ölçüde arındırılacak olan resmî tes¸rifâtın tahammül-fersâ yüküne ve de 18. yüzyılda zirve yapan “dünyadan kâm almaktan” gayrı her s¸eyden vaz geçis¸ halinin – aynı dönemlerde Avrupa’da izlenen Barok çag˘a müs¸abih – her s¸eyi abartan cos¸kulu mes¸rebine is¸aret etmek üzere burada örneklenecek bazı uygulamalar, saltanat müessesesinin is¸leyis¸indeki külfeti gözler önüne sermeye yetecektir. Sadrazam Ragıb Pas¸a’nın cülusun hemen ertesi günü (31 Ekim 1757) o devrin püsküllü âdetlerinden olmak üzere saraya, Yemis¸cibas¸ı marifetiyle hazırlanmıs¸ olarak otuz adet Lehistan malı büyük tabaklara konulmus¸ meyve ve yirmi adet armalı ve münakkas¸ tablalara vazedilmis¸ ¸sükûfe (çiçek) takdim etmis¸ olması,29 devrin tantanası içinde zamanın esintisini de aksettiren küçük bir örnektir. Devlet tes¸rifâtının hükümdarın has¸metini temin ettig˘i tes¸rifât ve has¸metin ise beraberce saltanatın mes¸ruiyetinin takviyesi ve idamesinde bas¸lıca etken oldug˘u genelde kabul edilen bir husustur. Bu anlamda yeni padis¸ahın ilk imtihanı 3 Kasım pers¸embe (20 Safer 1171) günü tertiplenen Kılıç Alayı merasimi oldu. Bu merasim için Eyüb’e karadan gidilmis¸ ve denizden dönülmüs¸tür.30 Kılıç

27 [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 33a, s. 48. 28 23 Ocak 1767 Hoca Pas¸a yangını, 27 Eylül 1767 tarihli olarak Rus, Felemenk ve Sicilyateyn konaklarını ve kırk kadar sair kefere hanelerini ihrak etmis¸ olarak Dörtyol ag˘ızına kadar sirayet eden Galata yangını gibi. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 243. 29 Karateke, Protocol Register: 71–73. 30 Karadan veya denizden gidilmesi o sırada verilecek karara tâbi olup, sâbit bir kaidesi yoktur, dolayısıyla “irâdeye tevakkuf eden hâlâttandır”. Genelde karadan gidilip denizden dönülmüs¸

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

195

Eyüb Sultan türbesi içinde hazır bulunan Sadrazam, Yeniçeri Ag˘ası, Nakibüles¸raf muvacehesinde S¸eyhülislâm Damadzâde Feyzullah Efendi tarafından kus¸atıldı.31 Bunun, Hz. Ömer’e ait kılıç oldug˘u kaydedilmektedir.32 Akabinde Kassabbas¸ı marifetiyle elli adet koyun kurban edildi ve fukaraya dag˘ıtıldı.33 Gidis¸ güzergâhında, saraydan Eyüb’e kadar uzayıp giden yolun iki tarafında iki sıra halinde dizilen Yeniçeri, Cebeci, Topçu ve Humbaracılardan olus¸an askerî birlikler arkasında ahali yıg˘ılmıs¸ bulunuyordu. Padis¸ah süpürge sorguçlarıyla34 etrafını adeta bir perde gibi çevreleyen – ve de hedefi gizleyen! – Solak ve Peyklerin arasında yol almaktaydı. Ancak bunlar biraz ileri çıkarak yeni padis¸ahın etrafını ferahlatmakta ve kendisinin halk tarafından daha iyi müs¸ahede edilmesine ve meraklarının giderilmesine olanak vermekteydiler. Padis¸ah derin bir sessizlik içinde bekles¸mekte olan ahaliye “imâ-yı selâmda” bulunarak mukabele etmekteydi.35 Biraz arkasında yol almakta olan Enderun-ı hümayundan iki içog˘lanı, ellerinde tuttukları ve padis¸ahın bas¸ındakinin aynı olan murassa sorguçlu iki sarıg˘ı yolun sag˘ ve sol tarafında iki sıra halinde dizili halka dog˘ru yönelterek as¸ag˘ı-yukarı eg˘ip-kaldırmakta ve imâ-yı selâmı açık hale getirmekteydiler.36 Arz Odası’ndaki elçi kabullerinde de Padis¸ahın tahtının yanında yer verilen bu iki sarık (bk. resim, nr. 5), S¸ark’ın ve Garb’ın Hakanı, I˙ki Denizin Sultanı ve bütün Müslümanların Kıble-gâhı olan I˙ki Mübarek S¸ehrin (Mekke-Medine)37 Hâkimi ve Hâdimi olma halini simgelemekte oldug˘u belirtilir.38 Yine hemen arkada Pa-

31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38

olmakla beraber, II. Süleyman örneg˘inde oldug˘u gibi (1687) denizden gidilip karadan dönülmesi gibi istisnaî haller de vardır; Karateke, Protocol Register: 75. Karateke, Protocol Register: 74; [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 31a / s. 46: burada yanlıs¸lıkla Nakibüles¸raf [S¸erif Mehmed Molla Efendi] tarafından deniyor. III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 5. II. Mahmud’dan sonra gelen Padis¸ahların genelde Hz. Ömer’in kılıcını kus¸anmıs¸ olmaları anlamlıdır ve herhalde raslantı da deg˘ildir. Bunu, Hz. Ömer’in zamanın s¸artlarına göre dinî hükümleri elden geçiren ve deg˘is¸tiren icraatına yapılan bir gönderme ve reform zarureti içine giren devletin radikal deg˘is¸iminin yol açtıg˘ı tepkilere Hz. Ömer’in ictihâdı ile verilmek istenen bir cevap oldug˘u s¸eklinde yorumlamak mümkündür. Karateke, Protocol Register: 74; s. 104’de “kırk-elli”. Zeynep Tarım, “Alây-ı Hümâyûnların Güc ve Güzellik Sembolleri: Solaklar”: 105. [Hakim/Güngör]: 456–457. d’Ohsson, Tableau Général, 1824, VII, 125’ten naklen Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches (GOR): IV, 500. Hammer, GOR: IV, 500. Hammer, aynı yer. Ancak bunu, “Mekke-i mükerreme, Medine-i münevvere ve Kuds-i mübâreke’nin Pâdis¸âhı” ([Mustafa Kesbî], ˙Ibretnümâ: 375), 30 Eylül 1721 tarihli olarak Rus Çarı V. I˙van Alekseyeviç tarafından III. Ahmed’e gönderilen nâme) veya “Mekke-i mükerreme ve Medine-i münevvere Pâdis¸âhı, Kuds-i mübâreke’nin hâmisi” ([Mustafa Kesbî], ˙Ibretnümâ: Rus Çariçesi Anna’dan 11 Temmuz 1731 tarihli olarak I. Mahmud’a gönderilen nâme, s. 377, keza, s. 380) veya “Mekke-i mükerreme ve Medine-i münevvere ve Kuds-i mübâreke’nin hâmisi” (Çariçe Elisabeth’den gelen 27 Mart 1753 tarihli ve II. Katharina’nın 22 Aralık 1763 tarihli nâmeler, [Mustafa Kesbî], ˙Ibretnümâ: 385, 386) olarak anlama muhakkak ki daha dog˘rudur. Nitekim 1775’te Küçük Kaynarca antlas¸masının mübâdelesi münasebetiyle bir

196

Kemal Beydilli

dis¸ahın attan inerken kullanacag˘ı iskemleyi ve de abdest alması için gerekli leg˘en ve ibrig˘i tas¸ıyan iki I˙çog˘lanı gözlenmekteydi. Padis¸ah iki sıra halindeki Yeniçerileri ise halktan esirgedig˘inin aksine bas¸ıyla s¸ahsen selamlamakta, Yeniçeriler de kendilerini onurlandıran bu selama, “boynumuz kıldan incedir” anlamına gelmek üzere bas¸larını sol omuzlarına dog˘ru bükerek mukabele etmekteydiler.39 Arada Buçukçular tarafından halka paralar saçılarak yola devam edilmekteydi. Fatihin türbesinin ziyareti bu merasimin vaz geçilmez duraklarındandır. Kılıç Alayı esnasında I. Mahmud zamanında ihdas edilmis¸ olan Eski Odalar40 önünden geçilirken Kulkethüdası tarafından s¸erbet sunulması ve bos¸ tasın altın dolu olarak iadesi merasimine de haliyle riayet ve burada âdet veçhiyle üç koç kurban edildi.41 Sunulan s¸erbet atından inen Silahdar Ag˘a tarafından alınıp, Padis¸aha takdim edilmis¸ ve içmesi akabinde S¸eyhülislâm ve Sadrazam temenna ederek “resm-i âfiyeti” icra etmis¸ler ve hazır bulunan Divan Çavus¸ları tarafından “âfiyet olsun” nidâsıyla “alkıs¸” tutulmus¸tur.42 Aynı ¸sekilde yine I. Mahmud zamanında ihdas edilen Cuma Selamlıg˘ı için Süleymaniye Câmii’ne gidilirken Ag˘a Kapısı önüne gelindig˘inde s¸erbet ikram edilmesi âdeti Sultan Mustafa’nın mahsusen isdar ettig˘i bir Hatt-ı hümâyûn’u ile canlandırılmıs¸tır.43 Ertesi gün (4 Kasım) Bag˘çe Kapısı’nda vâki Vâlide-i Atîka Câmii’nde [Yeni Câmi] Cuma Selamlıg˘ı icra edilmis¸tir.44 I˙lk Cuma Selamlıg˘ı için bu mabedin tercih edilmesi, akabinde ziyaret ettig˘i haziresinde babası III. Ahmed’in medfûn olmasından kaynaklanmaktay-

39 40 41

42 43 44

büyük heyet ve hediyelerle Moskova’ya gönderilen Abdülkerim Pas¸a Çariçe’ye hitâben irâd eyledig˘i nutkunda I. Abdülhamid’i aynı ibârelerle tavsif etmekteydi: “… hâlâ Mekke-i mükerreme ve Medine-i münevvere ve Kuds-i ¸serîf-i mübârekenin hüddâmı ve hakemi …” (Ays¸e Arıkan, 1774 Tarihli Elçilik Hatıratı: 33, 83). Dolayısıyla sözü edilen sarıklardan biri Haremeyn’in deg˘eri ise Kudüs’ün sahiplig˘ine yapılan bir atıf olarak yorum bulmalıdır. Sultan Mustafa’nın Bayram Âlâyı’nı gösteren bir resimde imâ-yı selâm faslından halkın temâs¸âsına sunulmakta olan “sorguçlu üç Padis¸âh sarıg˘ı” bu üçlemenin açık is¸âretini tas¸ımaktadır (bk. Tahsin Öz, “Yerköy Mükâmelerinde murahhaslar için gönderilen büyüler”: 100–101; bk. resim nr. 7. Kezâ, Hammer, GOR: aynı yer. Yeniçeri kıs¸lalarından S¸ehzâdebas¸ı’nda bulunan Yeniodalar’a Ocag˘ın ilgasından sonra Ahmediyye ve yine burada bulunan Eski odalara da Fevziyye ismi verilmis¸tir (12 S¸aban 1242 / 11 Mart 1827), ˙Istanbul Kadı Sicill Defteri, nr. 154, Hüküm 135, [vr. 50 a–1]. [Hâkim/Güngör]: 351a, 621–622; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 97; [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 25: “Sultan Mahmud kanunu üzere Kulkethüdası s¸erbet sundukta, Silahdar Ag˘a yediyle tes¸errüb … mas¸rabayı altun ile doldurdu”. Tes¸rifât Defteri’nde ise, “Altmıs¸bir Cemaatin Odabas¸ısı tarafından” kaydı düs¸ülmüs¸tür; bk. Hakan Karateke, Protocol Register: 74, 104. Karateke, Protocol Register: 74. [Hâkim/Güngör]: 621–622. [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 10–11; III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 5. Müteakip Cumalar sırasıyla Sultan Selim, Ayasofya ve Süleymaniye câmiileri tercih edilmis¸ olup (III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 5, 6, 8) bu durumda kılıç kus¸anmak üzere Eyüb’e giden dig˘er bütün hükümdarlar gibi Sultan Mustafa’nın da ilk ziyaret ettig˘i câmi ve türbe güzergâh üzerinde yer alan Fatih Câmii olmus¸tur.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

197

dı.45 Cülûsun 10. günü olan 8 Kasım’da (25 Safer) askeri taifesinin bilfiil hizmette olanlar (Es¸kinci) ve mütekaidler dâhil olmak üzere Topçu, Top Arabacı ve Tersaneli Ocaklarına cülûs bahs¸is¸i dag˘ıtılmıs¸46 ve bu münasebetle tertiplenen Galebe Divanı’nda Venedik Balyosu huzura kabul edilmis¸tir. III. Osman’ın son eyyamında I˙stanbul’a varmıs¸ olan elçi Sultan Mustafa’nın kabul ettig˘i ilk yabancı devlet temsilcisi olmus¸tur.47 11. günü ise saltanat deg˘is¸iklig˘inin mücavir devletlere mahsus heyetlerle ifade edilmesi âdeti uyarınca tahta çıkıs¸ı Rusya, Avusturya ve Lehistan’a gönderilen elçilerle resmen duyurulmak üzere harekete geçildi. Bu amaçla Rusya’ya Çavus¸lar Kâtibi S¸ehdî48 Osman Efendi, Avusturya’ya Küçük Evkaf Muhasebecisi Ahmed Resmî Efendi ve Lehistan’a 1741’de Rusya’ya gönderilmis¸ olan Emnî49 Mehmed Bey’in Kethüdası olup, o sıralarda sadrazamın Selâm Ag˘ası vazifesini yürüten (bu yüzden) Selâmî Mehmed Ag˘a yollanmasına karar verildi. Hollanda, Venedik, Fransa, I˙ngiltere, Danimarka, I˙sveç ve I˙spanya’ya ise saltanat tebeddülü I˙stanbul’daki mukim elçileri vasıtasıyla teblig˘ edildi.50 Sultan Mustafa’nın ilk icraatı genis¸ kitleleri memnun edecek hedefler tas¸ır. Borç yüzünden hapis tutulanların deynlerinin edâ ve itlaklarının temini her yeni Padis¸ahın ilk is¸leri içinde yer alan celb-i hayır-dua sadedinde bir icraattır. I˙rtis¸a ile mücadele, mukataat ve zeamet rüsûmunun affı ve yenilenmesi gereken berat harçlarının yarıya indirilmesi yeni Padis¸ahın ilk tasarrufları arasında yer aldı.51 Elbise nizamına riayet ve kadınlar dâhil olmak üzere buna kayıtsız kalanların, özellikle Müslüman kıyafetinde dolas¸an Gayrimüslimlerin Patrikler vasıtasıyla uyarılması52 ve ısrar edenlerin katli ve tedibi; yollarda, çars¸ı ve pazarlarda alenî tütün çubug˘u içmenin yasaklanması gibi önlemler, tahtın sahibinin ilk hamlede olus¸turmak istedig˘i asabiyetinin is¸areti oldu. “Has¸met” hükümdarların, özellikle tahta yeni çıkmıs¸ olanların kendilerini kabul ettirmek amacıyla sergilemeye çalıs¸tıkları bir husus olup, bu genelde oldukça çarpıcı bir s¸ekilde tezahür ederdi.

45 [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 46. 46 Bunun son cülûs bahs¸is¸i oldug˘una dair Hammer’de yer alan kayıt herhalde isabetli deg˘ildir, GOR: IV, 500. 47 Karateke, Protocol Register: 76. 48 Karateke, Protocol Register: 78’de S¸ehrî. 49 Karateke, Protocol Register: 78’de Ümnî. Kelimenin deg˘is¸ik okuma ve imla örneklemeleri için bk. Aktepe, Mehmed Emnî Beyefendi (Pas¸a)’nın Rusya Sefâreti ve Sefâretnâmesi: 8–9. 50 Karateke, Protocol Register: 77–78; [Hâkim/Güngör]: 525–529; [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’ttevârîh: II-A, 15. Bunların genelde bir buçuk-iki sene kadar sonra vaki olan tebrik cevapları I˙stanbul’daki elçileri eliyle iletilmis¸ olup, bunlar genelde sâde tes¸rifât ile (bilâ-resm) ag˘ırlandıkları Bâb-ı Âsâfi’ye gelerek hükümdarlarının mektuplarını teslim etmis¸lerdir; bk. Karateke, Protocol Register: 79 vd. 51 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 472–473; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 100 vd. 52 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: 105.

198

Kemal Beydilli

Tebdil gezilerinde53 Padis¸ahın önüne çıkan her hangi bir kimseyi cüz’i bir sebepten ötürü olmayacak derecede ihsana bog˘up ihya etmesi veya yine küçük bir kusur sebebiyle dahi olsa bir “bî-edebi” ya siyaseten katl veya herkese ibret olmak üzere ag˘ır s¸ekilde cezalandırması has¸metin teminine yardımcı olacag˘ı düs¸ünülen icraattan sayılırdı. Böylece, “herkesin edebini takınması ve Padis¸ahın inâyet ve keremini umması” beklenirdi.54 Bunun tahta yeni çıkan III. Mustafa tarafından da benimsenmis¸ oldug˘u anlas¸ılıyor.55 Kıyafet düzenine uymayanların cezalandırılmaları, Müslüman kıyafetine bürünen Gayrimüslimin bunu hayatıyla ödemesi,56 kadınların çars¸ı-pazar ve mesire yerlerinde dolas¸mamaları, kıyafetlerinin edepli ve yakalarının kapalı, yas¸maklarının uzun tutulması, hülasa “ehl-i ırza” yakıs¸ır elbiseler giymeleri; hademe ve benzeri sair ahalinin ve esnaf takımının gelirlerinin üzerinde bir gösteris¸ yarıs¸ına yol açan ipek s¸al, kakum-vas¸ak kürkler ve benzeri pahalı ve ithal giysiler kullanmasının – tasarruf sebebiyle dahi olsa – yasaklanması;57 yalancı ¸sahitlik suçlamasıyla semersiz merkep üzerine oturtularak dolas¸tırılıp tes¸hir edilen Müslümanlarla dalga geçen Gayrimüslimlere birkaç gün sonra aynı suçlamaya maruz kalan hem-cinslerinin aynı ¸sekilde terziliyle mukabele edilmesi,58 has¸metin olus¸turulmasında atılan adımların ne derecelerde çes¸nilik arzettig˘ini ve ciddi sonuçları oldug˘unu gözler önüne serer. Dıs¸arıda alenen tütün içme yasag˘ının yanlıs¸ anlas¸ılmıs¸ oldug˘unun ve bunun is¸yeri ve ikamet mekânlarını içeren bir yasaklama olmadıg˘ının ilan edilmesinin bu hava dâhilinde pek etkin olmaması, tiryakilerin hattâ kırsalda bile çubuk tüttürmekten kaçınır hale gelmeleri sergilenen has¸metin yarattıg˘ı dehs¸etin boyutunu gözler önüne serer.59 Hükümdarların Allah’ın ilhamına mazhar

53 Tebdil gezilerinde Padis¸ah’ın bilinse dahi tanımazlıktan gelinmesi hayati bir önem arzederdi. Bu gezilerde kendisine herhangi bir s¸ekilde hitap edilmez ve dilekçe sunulmazdı. Bunun aksi bir davranıs¸ta ısrar eden ve vazifesinden azl edilmis¸ olma s¸ikâyetini ikazlara rag˘men dile getirmeye çalıs¸an sabık Çorum Alaybeyi Feyzullah’ın bu sebepten ötürü idam edilmesi (1758) örneg˘i için bk. [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 19. 54 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II. A, 35. “Padis¸ahların halîm olması muzırdur” söylemi ana ilke olarak zikredile gelir. Karakter olarak halim-selim olan og˘lunun (III. Selim), has¸metini kaybetmis¸ olarak her s¸eyin sonunda taht ü tacını da terk etmek zorunda kaldıg˘ı o acılı anda dile getirdig˘i, “bütün bunlara sebep benim hilmimdir” hayıflanması ([Ahmed Cevdet], Târîhi Cevdet: VIII, 158), bu ilkenin hayatî önemine yapılmıs¸ bir vurgudur. 55 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 472. 56 I˙dam edilen bir Ermeni ve bir Yahudi için bk. [Hâkim/Güngör]: 501–502; Müslüman kıyafetine bürünmenin yasaklanması: aynı yer: 516, 534; keza, sarı mest ve ferve-i kakum giyen bir Yahudinin katli (13 Ramazan 1171 / 21 Mayıs 1758) ve aynı gerekçe ile Ermeni sarraflardan birinin idamı (24 Mayıs 1758), bk. [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 60. I˙damların Ramazan ayında olması, özellikle bu ayda bu gibi konulara ayrı bir hassasiyetle yaklas¸ılmakta oldug˘unun is¸aretini tas¸ır. 57 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 534, 541, 930. 58 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 813–816; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 167 (Ekim 1759). 59 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 473.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

199

oldukları (el-mülûkü mülhemûn)60 nüktesiyle ve de “Evliyâ’ullâh”61 oldukları tasnîâtıyla Padis¸ahın kutsiyet vehmedilen s¸ahsiyetine yapılan vurgu ise bizâtihi devletin kendisiyle beraber bu dönemde giderek daha da öne çıkar: “Bu devlet-i aliyye-i Muhammediyye her hâlde mü‘eyyedün min-‘indillah ve selâtin-i izâm-ı Âl-i Osmânî dahi min-tarafillâhî mülhem ve mashûb-i avn ve tevfîk-i Hüdâ olmalarıyla mükerrem ve mufahham kılınmıs¸tır”!62 Dine yapılan ve de kendi hukuklarını dine dayandıran bu tür göndermeler, tekrar bas¸layacak savas¸lar ve isyanlar ve bunların içerde ve dıs¸ardaki kötü sonuçları bag˘lamında daha sonraki dönemlerde daha da artarak kendini gösterecektir. Önceki dönemlerde oldug˘u gibi bu devirde de bizzat Padis¸ahın is¸tiraki, bas¸ta S¸eyhülislâm ve Sadrazam olmak üzere tüm devlet ricalinin ve I˙stanbul’da müsâfireten bulunan vüzeranın da katılımıyla63 yalnızca Hz. Peygamber’in dog˘um günü (12 Rebiülevvel) Sultan Ahmed Camii’nde tertiplenen büyük bir merasimle resmen ve devlet töreniyle kutlanırdı. Mevlûdu’n-Nebi olag˘anüstü ayrıcalıklı bir konuma sahiptir ve devletin en önde gelen tes¸rifâtı içinde yer alırdı. Bu eskiden beri devlet töreniyle kutlanan müstesna bir gündür, hattâ Sefer-i Hümâyûn esnasında bile gerekli merasim ile bu âdete riayet edildig˘i görülmekte ve bilinmektedir. Nitekim Zigetvar kalesinin fethinden bir gün önce vâki vefatı (6 / 7 Eylül 1566) gizlenmis¸ olan Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın Otag˘-ı Hümâyûn’unda, çag˘ırılmıs¸ olan ordu hâfızları içinde yer alan Hâfız Mahmud Çelebi Mevlûdu’nNebi okumus¸tur (12 RA 974 / 27 Eylül 1566).64 Halkın büyük bir ilgi duydug˘u Mevlûd-i S¸erîf Cemiyeti merasiminin hazırlıkları günler öncesinden bas¸lar, mevlûd hitamında ikram edilmek üzere Helvahâne’de hazırlanan s¸ekerleme ve içeceklerin numuneleri câmi mütevellisi tarafından saraya takdim edilerek gerekli onay alınırdı.65 I˙lk zamanlarda Ayasofya,66 Sultan Ahmed Câmii’nin ibadete 60 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 384 ve daha yirmi yerde geçmektedir. 61 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 290. 62 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 474. Bu telakki daha sonraki dönemlerde de hükmünü sürdürecektir, halkın nabzını tutmakta olan Câbi Tarihi’ndeki s¸u vurgu ise daha çarpıcı bir yaklas¸ım sergiler: “Bu devlet ne devlet-i aliyye ne devlet-i Osmaniyye’dir, buna devlet-i Muhammediyye derler”. ([Câbî Ömer], Tarih-i Sultan Selim-i Salis ve Mahmud-ı Sani: II, 84). Devleti tarif eden tanımlamalar ise giderek daha da etkileyici bir hale bürünür: “Kutb-ı devâ’ir-i nizâm-ı umûr-ı Ahmedî ve medâr-ı burc-ı ahvâl-i millet-i Hanife-i Muhammedî olan Devlet-i aliyye”! (bk. [Mehmed Said Galib], Revâbitu’l-uku¯d: I, 2). 63 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 173. 64 [Selânikî], Tarih-i Selaniki: 36. 65 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 170. 16. / 17. yüzyılın önemli S¸eyhülislâmlarından Sunʽullah Efendi 1599–1608 arasında dört defa (hakkında bk. I˙ps¸irli, “Sun‘ullah Efendi”: 530– 532) “eka¯bir ve âyâna münâkkas¸ sinilerle nebât ü akîdeler ve sırça mas¸rabalar ile envâ‘ı es¸ribeler” ikrâmıyla as¸ırıya kaçan ve mevcut cemaatin ise kendilerine isabet etmemesinden ötürü gözü kalan (hakk-ı nazarı kalan) bu ikrâmları, vakfı itlâf eden çirkin bir bid‘at olarak yorumlar ([Selânikî], Tarih-i Selaniki: 826). III. Selim zamanındaki böyle bir mevlûd hitamında özellikle hademe ve kayyum taifesinin ikrâmâta edebsizce saldırmaları hos¸ olmayan manzaralara ve Padis¸ahın da infialine yol açtıg˘ı ve bundan böyle tablaların Galata Voyvodası

200

Kemal Beydilli

açılmasından sonra (1616) ise Yeni Câmi67 olarak anılan bu muhtes¸em mabet, bundan böyle Mevlûdu’n-Nebi merasimine ev sahiplig˘i etmis¸tir.68 III. Murad zamanında âlemleri nurlandıran Hz. Peygamber için gecenin zulmetini ber-taraf etmek adına minarelerde kandil yakılması ve mevlûd okunması öngörülmüs¸tür. Buna dair olan fermanda kandil yakılmasının sair câmii ve mescitlerde de tatbik edilmesi istenmis¸tir.69 Mevlûd-i S¸erîf Cemiyeti ve Mevlûd Âlâyı seyrinin ve bir gün öncesindeki Çadır Seyri’nin özellikle kadınların ilgi sahasına girdig˘i anlas¸ılmaktadır. Bu gibi törenlerde, nisâ tâifesinin erkeklerle aynı mekânları paylas¸maları mahzûrlu addedildig˘inden, kadınlardan evlerine kapanmaları ve dıs¸arı çıkmamaları istenirdi.70

66 67 68

69

70

tarafından ilgililerin hanelerine gönderilmesine karar verildig˘i bilinmektedir. Sultan Ahmed Camii içinde genis¸ bir mahal is¸gal eden ikrâm için hazırlanan s¸ekerleme ve sair yiyecekleri d’Ohsson’un mevlûdu resmeden önemli bir gravüründe (d’Ohsson, Tableau Général I: plate 25) görmek mümkündür. [Kâtib Çelebi], Fezleke: 176–177 (12 RA 1008 / 2 Ekim 1599). [Kâtib Çelebi], Fezleke: 735 (12 RA 1034 / 16 Eylül 1633). Bahçe Kapısı’nda (Eminönü) Vâlide Turhan Sultan tarafından itmam (1665) edilen Vâlide Câmii’nin adı halk arasında Yeni Câmi olarak yerles¸mis¸ olup, günümüzde de böyle anılmaktadır. Hz. Peygamber’in dog˘um günü münasebetiyle tertiplenen mevlûd merasiminin Sultan Ahmed Camii’nde yapılması âdet hükmünde olmakla beraber (‘âdet-i hamîde-i Devlet-i ebed-müddet üzere), 18 Ag˘ustos 1766 (12 RA 1180) Pazartesi güne icra edilen Mevlûdu’n-Nebi istisnâî olarak Bahçe Kapısı’ndaki Yeni Câmi’de yapılmıs¸tır. Bunun sebebi I˙stanbul’da bir müddettir süre gelen zelzeleler yüzünden Sultan Ahmed Câmii’nin bir minaresinin üst kısmının (bâlâsının) hasar görmüs¸ olmasıdır. Devam eden sarsıntılar halkı tedirginlig˘e sevk etmis¸ oldug˘undan devlet merasiminin bu sefer hasar görmemis¸ bir camide yapılması uygun görülmüs¸tür. Bas¸ta Sultan III. Mustafa olmak üzere Sadrazam Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a ve S¸eyhülislâm Dürrîzâde Mustafa Efendi ve kazaskerler ve yüksek ulema ve rical-i devletin tümü her zamanki gibi bu merasimde hazır bulunmus¸tur. ([Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 226; [Hakim/Güngör]: 1193–1194). [Selânikî], Tarih-i Selaniki: 197–198 (12 RA 996 / 10 S¸ubat 1588). Ayrıca bk. [Kâtib Çelebi], Fezleke: 440. II. Mahmud devrinde sair camii ve mescitlerde – mevlûd okutulmasına is¸aret edilmemekle beraber – kandil yakılmasına dair verilen emirler için bk. ˙Istanbul Kadı Sicill Defteri, Nr. 154, Regaib Kandili, s. 197 [69a–1], 1 Receb 1244 / 7 Ocak 1829; Miraç Kandili, s. 198 [69a–2]: 26 Receb 1244 / 1 S¸ubat 1829. Hz. Peygamber’in dog˘um günü dıs¸ında kalan kandiller resmen ve devlet töreniyle kutlanmamakla beraber, bunlara saray ve konaklarda, hâne ve dergâhlarda ve benzeri mekânlarda özel olarak riayet edilirdi. Nitekim bu kandiller münasebetiyle Saray’da Enderun Câmii’ne S¸eyh gelip dua eder, Miraç kandilinde Miraciyye okunurdu. Saray günlüklerinde bazen isabet ettig˘i güne (2 Receb) dair bas¸ka kayıtlara yer verilmis¸ olmakla beraber Regaib kandiliyle ilgili olarak not düs¸ülmemis¸ olması, bu kandilin zaman zaman ihmal edilmis¸ oldug˘u izlenimini uyandırmaktadır. Ancak sair iki kandil devamlı hatırlanmıs¸tır, bk. III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 15, 17, 40–42, 75–76, 78, 89, 101, 1–103, sene: 1171–1176 / 1757–1762. Regaib, Berat (14 S¸aban) ve Kadir (27 Ramazan) kandillerin kutlanması Kadızâdeliler tarafından bid‘at ve haram olarak kabul edilmis¸ ve kavgası yapılmıs¸ oldug˘u bilinmektedir, bk. [Kâtib Çelebi], Fezleke: 735, 773. Bu tür yasaklamalar II. Mahmud devrinde de devam etmektedir (bk. ˙Istanbul Kadı Sicil Defteri. Nr. 154, s. 11 (17 a–1]. Tarih 9 RA 1238 / 24 Kasım 1822). Tenezzühlerinin yadırganması Abdülmecid devri dâhil daha sonraki dönemlerde de devam edecektir.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

201

Bu hassasiyet dâhilinde özellikle III. Osman zamanından intikal eden hac yolunun güvenlig˘ini tehdit eden gelis¸melere son vermek üzere sert önlemler alınması kaçınılmaz oldu.71 Bu anlamda kötü idare edilmekte olan Evkaf-ı Haremeyn Mukataası’na düzen verilmeye çalıs¸ıldı ve bunların Defterdar vasıtasıyla taliplerine satılması kararlas¸tırıldı. Yolsuzluklara karıs¸an Eski Saray Baltacı Ocag˘ı ilga, Darüsaade ve Silahdar Ag˘alarının hasları iptal edildi. Böylece 1000 keseden fazla tasarruf sag˘landı. Bu meblag˘ 1172 / 1758–1759 senesinde 2 bin keseye çıktı.72 Tutumlu bir s¸ahsiyet olan III. Mustafa saray masraflarını kıstı. Ancak bu tür tedbirleri kendisini hasislik töhmeti altında bırakmıs¸tır. Tasarruf ve hesabını bilme arzusunun ise döneminde Defterdarlık kurumuna önem kazandırdıg˘ı ifade edilir.73 Anadolu tarafında bas¸ıbos¸ kapusuz Levendât tâifesinin es¸kıyalık, bedava yiyip-içme, mal yag˘malama, tahribatta bulunma, ırza tasallut gibi serkes¸liklerine son verilmesine çalıs¸ıldı. Bu is¸ ile vazifelendirilen Sivas Mutasarrıfı Feyzullah Pas¸a “kapu halkı ve züema ve erbâb-ı timar” ile üzerlerine varıp bunları dag˘ıttı (1758). Bu dönemde resmî tes¸rifâtın as¸ırı boyutlarıyla ag˘ır bir maddî yük olus¸turdug˘u, gerekli veya gereksizlig˘ine bakılmadan âdet hükmünde oldug˘u telakkisiyle yapılan uygulamaların tes¸rifâtı âdeta manasızlas¸tıg˘ı, hattâ gülünç hale soktug˘u gözlenmektedir. Bu konuda bazı düzenlemeler ve kısıtlamalar yapılması, tasarruf sâikıyla mâlî açıdan da kaçınılmaz olmus¸tur. Her vesileyle dag˘ıtılan hediyeler, paralar, kürklü-kürksüz giydirilen hilatlar, çes¸itli kabullerde pes¸-pes¸e ikram edilen tatlı, kahve, s¸erbet ve buhurlar (tütsü) ve bunların her birinin, verilen “yag˘lık”, “makreme” ve “boyama” tabir edilen pes¸kirlerle birlikte ayrı ayrı ikis¸er-üçer hüddam tarafından servis edilme halleri; her hafta tekrarlanan Selamlık merasimleri ve bu münasebetle tertiplenen tes¸rifâtın vazgeçilmez sıkleti; Mevlûd, kitlesel I˙ftar sofralarıyla Ramazan ve Bayram kutlamalarının yog˘un is¸galiyesi devletin ve insanların tahammülünü zora kos¸an külfetlerin kaynag˘ını olus¸turmaktaydı. Bütün bunların devletin merkezini taklit eden tas¸raya da sirâyet etmekte olması konuya ayrı bir boyut katmaktaydı. Genelde yas¸ı geçkin veya birkaç defa zaten evlilik geçirmis¸ olan hanedan mensubu hanımların; henüz âdeta kundakta sayılan birkaç aylık bebeklerin ve de iki-üç yas¸larındaki sübyânların, bas¸ına devlet kus¸u kondug˘unu sanan ve uzayıp giden hediye listelerinden anlas¸ıldıg˘ı kadarıyla bu is¸ için çok büyük masraflar ihtiyar etmis¸ olarak âdeta soyulan – ve de mevcut nikâhlı es¸lerini bos¸amak zorunda kalan – zoraki veya hevesli damat adaylarıyla yaptıkları nis¸an ve nikâh düg˘ünleri; yeni Padis¸ahın hasretle beklenen ve nihayet art-arda dünyaya gelmeye bas¸layan ilk çocuklarının dog˘umları sebebiyle tertiplenen geceli71 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 529–533. 72 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 103, 147. 73 [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet: I, 123.

202

Kemal Beydilli

gündüzlü olmak üzere bir hafta on gün süren genel kutlamalar, donanma ve s¸enlikler ve hattâ bunların tas¸ra vilayetlerine de tes¸mil edilmesi, sürekli tantana içindeki devlet merkezini halk tabiriyle âdeta “düg˘ün evine” çevirmekteydi! Eskiden beri hitamındaki bayram kutlamalarıyla beraber ayrı bir merasim yog˘unlug˘u arzeden Ramazan ayı ve özellikle bu ayın Hırka-yı ¸serîf Odası’nın ziyaret edildig˘i 15. günü müstesna bir önem tas¸ırdı. 25 S¸ubat 1766 tarihine tekabül eden böyle bir günde Sultan Mustafa, Hz. Peygamber’e atfedilen hırkayı eline almıs¸ ve bu kendi dâhil olmak üzere hazır bulunan vüzera, I˙stanbul Kadısı, cümle Ocak Ag˘aları ve sair herkes tarafından tazimle öpülmüs¸tür. Daha sonra hazırlanmıs¸ olan yüzlerce tepsi baklava ocaklıya tevzi edilmis¸tir (Baklava Merasimi). Aks¸amüzeri hırkanın etek ucu bir kazan içindeki suya batırılır ve bu su Harem-i Hümâyûn’a nakledilerek s¸is¸elere konulur ve s¸is¸enin ag˘ızındaki kırmızı mum tug˘ra mührü ile temhir olunur ve teberrüken devlet ricâline ve saray hüddâmına Zemzem Suyu misâli dag˘ıtılırdı! Devrin kaynaklarında Hırka’nın, Hz. Peygamber tarafından s¸uaradan Kâ‘ab bin Züheyr‘e hediye edilmis¸, Muaviye tarafından bunun vârislerinden satın alınmıs¸, daha sonraları ise Mısır sultanlarına intikal etmis¸ ve nihayet Sultan Selim tarafından I˙stanbul’a getirilmis¸ oldug˘una ve ucunun ıslatılmasına ve suyunun s¸ifâ niyetine içilmesinin Sahabe zamanında da vaki olan bir uygulama oldug˘una (Hırka’nın dâmeninin ıslatılması ve suyundan istis¸fâ olunması ashâb-ı güzin zamanında da olur imis¸) dair verilen bilgiler, yapılan is¸in tuhaflıg˘ını gidermek isteyen bir farkındalıg˘ın is¸aretini tas¸ır.74 Saray’daki özel bayramlas¸ma akabinde câmiye gidilir ve akabinde icra edilen muayede resmi ile uzun ve yorucu bir bayramlas¸ma faslı bas¸lardı.75

Hanedan içinde dog˘umlar, ölümler, nis¸an ve düg˘ünler I. Mahmud ve III. Osman’ın çocukları olmaması sebebiyle saraydaki dairelerinde (S¸ims¸irlik) taht sırasının kendilerine gelmesini bekleyen, ama baba olmalarına izin verilmeyen s¸ehzâdelerin (Osman, Numan, Bayezid, Mustafa) varlıg˘ına rag˘men inkıraz tehlikesiyle kars¸ı kars¸ıya kalan hanedanın uzun yıllar sonra ilk dog˘an bebeg˘i III. Mustafa’nın ilk evladı olan Hibetullah Sultan oldu. Kendisine verilen bu isim edilen dualara is¸aret eden gizli niyâzı gözler önüne serer. Hibetullah Sultan 14 Mart 1759’da (15 Receb 1172) dünyaya geldi. Dog˘umu yedi gün yedi gece sürecek büyük tantanalara vesile oldu.76 Halkın cos¸kun is¸tiraki ve 74 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 80. Ayrıca bk. Akyıldız, Haremin Padis¸ahı: 238 vd. 75 Ayrıntılı anlatım için bk. [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 80–85. Muayede merasimini genel tes¸rifâtı içinde aksettiren gravür için bk. Mouradgea d’Ohsson, ˙Imparatorlug˘un Me¸salesi: 72, 104–105. 76 Ayrıntılı anlatım için bk. [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 116–124.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

203

istekleri dog˘rultusunda s¸enliklere üç gün daha devam edilmis¸tir.77 Dog˘umdan 30–40 gün kadar önceden Bezistan kethüdalarına keyfiyet ifade edilmis¸ ve esnafın dükkânlarını kandil, avize ve sair süslenmelerle donatmak üzere hazırlanmaları istenmis¸tir. Dog˘umun gerçekles¸mesi ve Dellâlbas¸ı vasıtasıyla her yere salıverilen münâdiler marifetiyle ilân edilmesiyle herkes evini, is¸ yerini kendince donatır ve tertiplenen s¸enliklere katkıda bulunur.78 Emsâlsiz donanma s¸enlikleriyle yabancı elçilikler dâhil olmak üzere hemen her kesimin is¸tirak ettig˘i tantanalar, hattâ Kahire ve Bag˘dat gibi uzak vilayetlerde bile kendini göstermis¸tir.79 Bu amaçla Silahdâr Mehmed Pas¸a biraderi Kethüda-yı Bevvâbîn Hüseyin Bey s¸ehrâyin fermanıyla Kahire’ye gönderilmis¸ ve sair bazı yerlere de donanma s¸enlikleri yapılmasına mütedâir emirnâmelerle adamlar irsal edilmis¸tir.80 Dog˘umun ertesi sabahı Sadrazam ve S¸eyhülislâm bas¸ta olmak üzere Yeniçeri Ag˘ası ve sair üst düzeydeki ulema ve rical Yalı Kös¸kü’ne inmis¸ olan Padis¸aha tebriklerini sunarlar.81 Bu tür s¸enliklerde ortada dolas¸masına ruhsat verilmeyen yine sadece kadınlardır. Onlardan kapılarından dıs¸arı çıkmamaları ve evlerinde oturmaları istenir! Üç ay kadar sonra, “kızının mürüvvetini görmek isteyen” Sultan Mustafa, devrin tuhaf âdetlerince yadırganmayan ve seleflerinin de tevessül ettikleri garip, -günümüz deg˘erleriyle hattâ çirkin- bir tasarrufta bulunarak, bu münasebetle kendisine vezâret verilecek olan Silahdâr Mâhir Hamza Ag˘a (Pas¸a)’yı kundaktaki bebeg˘e nâmzet gösterir ve nis¸an yapılır (Haziran 1759).82 Üç sene üç ay kadar ber-hayat olan Hibetullah Sultan 30 Haziran 1762 (8 Zilhicce 1175) tarihinde vefat etmis¸ ve Lâleli Câmii türbesine defnedilmis¸tir.83 20 Nisan 1761’de (15 Ramazan 1174) Sultan Mustafa’nın S¸âh Sultan ismi verilen ikinci kızı dünyaya geldi. S¸âh Sultan’ın dog˘umu Ramazan ayına rastladıg˘ından mutat s¸enliklere bayramın ikinci günü (13 Mayıs) bas¸landı.84 Üç yas¸ını doldurdug˘unda S¸âh Sultan, “damad ve s¸eref-i sihriyyet ile dil-s¸âd edilmek niyet-i hâlisânesiyle” Sadrazam Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a’ya nâmzed gösterildi

77 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 724–725; 759–765. On gün on geçe kutlandıg˘ına dair ayrıca, III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 42. 78 Önal, 18. yüzyıla ait Buyuruldu Mecmuası: 95; [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 71; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 153. 79 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 735–736. 80 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 767. 81 III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi: 40. 82 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 159–160. 1727 dog˘umlu Hamza Pas¸a Kayseri’li zengin bir aile evladı olup, bu durumu tercih edilmesinin herhalde bas¸lıca sebebi olmus¸tur. Zira böyle bir s¸eref senelik 100 bin kurus¸luk bir masrafın ihtiyar edilmesi anlamına gelmekteydi (Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren: I, 178). 83 [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 108. Vâsıf ’taki ([Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 217) tarihleme: Evâsıt-ı Zilhicce 1175 (2–12 Temmuz 1762). 84 Önal, Buyuruldu Mecmuası: 92; [Seyyid Hasan Murâdî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 94; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 198.

204

Kemal Beydilli

(22 S¸evval 1177 / 24 Nisan 1764).85 Böyle bir s¸erefe nâil olan Pas¸a’nın hazırladıg˘ı muhtes¸em nis¸an hediyeleri hakkında devrin müverrihinin yaptıg˘ı “cevâhir-i gîrân-behâ, nevâdir-i dünya” tanımlaması, ihtiyar edilen külfete yeterince is¸aret eder.86 Ertesi sene Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a’nın azl (30 Mart 1765) ve iki ay kadar sonra sürgüne gönderildig˘i Midilli’de idamıyla dört yas¸ında nâmzetsiz kalan S¸âh Sultan’a birkaç sene sonra ve henüz yedi yas¸ında iken devrin zenginlerinden Yag˘lıkcızâde (Hindî) Tevki‘ Vezir Mehmed Emin Pas¸a87 aday gösterilir. 1 Ocak 1768’de bu karara muttali olan Pas¸a, tes¸rifât defteri uyarınca kısa zamanda muhtes¸em bir nis¸an takımı düzerek saraya takdim eder.88 S¸âh Sultan bu ikinci namzedinin de bas¸layan (Ekim 1768) Rus seferindeki bas¸arısız serdarlıg˘ı sebebiyle sadaretten daha senesi dolmadan azl ve idamıyla (12 Ag˘ustos / 11 Eylül 1769) bir üçüncüyü beklemek üzere tekrar nis¸angâh olur!89 III. Mustafa’nın üvey kardes¸i olan S¸ehzâde Numan ag˘ır bir hummaya (Humma-yı rediyye) tutularak 43 yas¸ında oldug˘u halde vefat etmis¸ (5 Receb 1178 / 29 Aralık 1764) ve Yenicâmi haziresine defnedilmis¸tir.90 Hammer s¸ehzâdenin Sadrazam Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a’nın da is¸birlig˘iyle zehirlenerek katledildig˘ini belirtir.91 III. Osman zamanındaki sadaretinde S¸ehzâde Mehmed’in katline alet olduktan bir müddet sonra bu hizmetine mukabeleten müsaderesiz olarak azl edilmis¸ olan (12 Ocak 1757) Sadrazam Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a’nın, III. Mustafa devrindeki bu ikinci sadaretinde de (1 Kasım 1763–30 Mart 1765) adı böyle bir nâ-hos¸ olaya karıs¸mıs¸ olması rastlantı deg˘ildir. Mustafa Pas¸a bu hadiseden bir müddet sonra yine azle ug˘ramıs¸ ve Midilli’ye sürülmüs¸ ve Kapucubas¸ı Kelleci Osman Ag˘a vasıtasıyla gönderilen bir Haseki marifetiyle burada idam edilerek kesilen kafası I˙stanbul’a getirilmis¸tir.92 Böyle bir kirli is¸te kullanılmıs¸ olma haline, “hâ’in-i hanedan” olarak nitelenmesi ve idamı sebebiyle söylenen, “öldüren 85 86 87 88 89

90 91 92

[Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 66–67. [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 236. Beydilli, “Mehmed Emin Pas¸a”: 464–465. Nis¸an takımı dökümü için bk. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 247; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 304–305: “Nis¸an tabir edilen mücevherat ve nahıllar ve s¸ükûfeler ve s¸ükkerler ve tuhaf Hind parçaları âlây ile saraya irsâl”, [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 67. On sekizine varmadan I. Abdülhamid tarafından Nis¸ancı Seyyid Mustafa Pas¸a ile evlendirilecektir (1778). III. Selim’in ablası olan S¸âh Sultan 11 Mart 1803’de (17 Zilkade 1217) Cag˘alog˘lu’ndaki sarayında 42 yas¸ında olarak vefat etti, Laleli Camiinde namazı eda ve Eyüp Sultan türbesi ittisalinde hazırlanan makbere defn edildi (Karateke, Protocol Register: 119– 120). S¸ehzade Selim’in dog˘um tarihi 24 Aralık 1761 oldug˘undan, sekiz ay sonra 20 Nisan 1761’de dünyaya gelen S¸âh Sultan’ın III. Selim’in annesi Mihris¸âh Sultan’ın kızı olması pek mümkün görülmüyor, bk. Necdet Sakaog˘lu, Bu mülkün Kadın Sultanları: 457–458; Bas¸arır, Osmanlı Hanedan Kızları: 28. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 215; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 265; Seyyid Hasan Muradî’de (v. 85b / s. 136) ölüm tarihi 4 Receb 1178 / 28 Aralık 1764. Hammer, GOR: IV, 547. [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 269.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

205

öldürülür” (“Bes¸s¸iri’l-ka¯tile bi’l-katl”) kinâyesi yeterince is¸aret etmektedir.93 III. Osman dönemindeki sabıkası müsellem ve ettig˘i is¸ ile halkın da diline düs¸en bu zatın, kirli niyetlerin ifasında kullanılmak üzere henüz bebek yas¸larındaki S¸âh Sultan’a namzet gösterilmesi, devrin Padis¸ahı III. Mustafa’yı da vebâl altında bırakacak bir tasarruftur. Bu namzetlig˘in, “damad ve akraba olmak s¸erefinin bahs¸edilmek istenmesi dıs¸ında bas¸ka herhangi bir kasıd tas¸ımadıg˘ını”94 özellikle vurgulamak ihtiyacını duyan müverrihin, bas¸ka bir amaç olmadıg˘ını temin etmeye çalıs¸an bu kaydıyla bir s¸eyler imâ etmek istedig˘i açıktır. Neticede Sultan Mustafa’nın cihângîr olacag˘ına inandıg˘ı og˘luna (Selim) taht yolunu açmak istedig˘i ve bunu geciktirecek olanları ber-taraf etmeye çalıs¸tıg˘ı gibi bir sonuç ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu durumda arda kalan Ekber S¸ehzâde Abdülhamid’in, bu hadiseden tahta çıkacag˘ı 1774’e kadar geçen son on seneyi bir kazaya ug˘ramadan iyi atlattıg˘ını söylemek yanlıs¸ olmayacaktır! S¸ehzâde Selim’in 24 Aralık 1761 (27 Cemaziyelevvel 1175) tarihinde vâki olan velâdetinin daha muhtes¸em ve uzun kutlamalara vesile olması anlas¸ılır bir s¸eydir. Zira yaklas¸ık 40 senedir ilk defa bir erkek çocuk dünyaya geliyordu. Kutlamalar yedi gün yedi gece olarak planlanmıs¸, daha sonra buna üç gece de derya donanması ilave edilmis¸tir.95 Kızkulesi, Yedikule ve Hisarlardan top atıs¸ları yapılmıs¸tır. Kutlamaların olaysız geçmesini sag˘lamak amacıyla bazı önlemler alınmıs¸, bu meyanda içki içilmesinin ve bundan kaynaklanan istenmeyen davranıs¸ların olus¸maması için, kutlamalar esnasında koltuk tabir edilen meyhanelerin kapalı kalması sag˘lanmıs¸, içki içmeye cesaret edeceklerin s¸iddetle cezalandırılması öngörülmüs¸ ve bu anlamdaki tembihâtın ayrıca Yahudi ve Hristiyan cemaatbas¸ıları vasıtasıyla duyurulması temin edilmis¸tir.96 Sultan Mustafa’nın Cihângîr olacak ve devleti ihyâ edecek bir s¸ehzâde düs¸lemekte olması, herhalde ilm–i nücûm ile olan yakın ilis¸kisinin bir sonucu olmalıdır. Cihângîrlerin Kıran Vakti’nde dünyaya gelmeleri (böylesine Sahipkıran denirdi)97 gereklilig˘iyle ilgili inanıs¸ dâhilinde Müneccimbas¸ı Yakub Efendi’nin de hesaplamaları sonucu her s¸eyi es¸ref saate göre ayarladıg˘ına dâir olan ilginç kayıtlar, Sultan Mustafa’nın 93 Osmanlı Sadrazamları, Hadikatülvüzera ve Zeylleri: 255. Mustafa Pas¸a’nın Rusya yandas¸lıg˘ı ve bunun neticesi olarak Lehistan’daki gelis¸meleri de bu yönde deg˘erlendirdig˘i, bu yüzden gözden düs¸tüg˘ü, bunun sonucu olarak önce azl (Nisan 1765) ve ertesi ay idam edildig˘i gibi töhmetlere hedef olması (Demir, 1768 Öncesi Osmanlı Diplomasisi: 253–255) muhtemelen “hâ’in–i hanedân” sıfatının is¸aret ettig˘i vebâli setreden kayıtlar cümlesindendir. 94 “Damad ve s¸eref-i sihriyyet ile dil-s¸âd edilmek niyet-i hâlisânesiyle”, bk. [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 66. 95 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 209–210. 96 Önal, 18. yüzyıla ait Buyuruldu Mecmuası: 92–93. 97 Âsım Tarihi: I, 348; [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet: VIII, 148–149. Bu deyimi, sahipleri kıran, öldürüp ortadan kaldıran anlamında (“yerel güçleri ortadan kaldıran”, “insanog˘lunun sahiplerini yok eden”) anlayarak yorumlayan ve bunun Kanunî’nin unvanları arasında yer aldıg˘ına vurgu yapan ferâh-fezâ bir anlatım için bk. Kılıçbay, Feodalite ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Üretim Tarzı: 358–359.

206

Kemal Beydilli

bilinen bu zafiyeti sebebiyle inanırlık kazanmaktadır. Gerçekten de Kıran Vakti dog˘dug˘una inandıg˘ı og˘lunu bu istikamette yetis¸tirmeye çalıs¸mıs¸tır. Son deminde, sırasını beklemekte olan Ekber S¸ehzâde Abdülhamid’in atlanarak og˘lu Selim’in tahta çıkartılmasını istedig˘ine dair olan bilgiler,98 muhakkak ki böyle bir zandan kaynaklanmaktadır. Sultan Mustafa’nın 5 Kasım 1762 (17 Rebiülevvel 1176) tarihinde dog˘an dig˘er bir kızı olan Mihrimâh Sultan için bes¸ gece s¸ehrâyin yapılması ilan edilmis¸tir. Mihrimâh Sultan bir buçuk sene kadar yas¸amıs¸, 23 Mart 1764 (20 Ramazan 1177) tarihinde vefat etmis¸ ve Lâleli Camii türbesine defnedilmis¸tir.99 Mihrimâh Sultan’ın dog˘umundan ve yapılan s¸enliklerden yaklas¸ık bir ay kadar sonra (10 Aralık 1762 / 23 Cemaziyelevvel 1176) dünyaya gelen Mihris¸âh Sultan için, dog˘umlar üst üste geldig˘inden ve son kutlama üzerinden de fazla bir zaman geçmemis¸ olmasından ve de özellikle kutlama yorgunu olan halkın masraftan korunması amacıyla yalnızca üç gece derya donanması yapılmasına karar verilmis¸tir. Mihris¸âh Sultan bes¸ yas¸ındayken vefat etmis¸ ve dig˘erleri gibi Lâleli Câmii türbesine defnedilmis¸tir (1769).100 13 Ocak 1766 (1 S¸aban 1179) tarihinde dog˘an I˙smihân Sultan için üç gün top atılması ve donanma s¸enlig˘i öngörülmüs¸, ancak dördüncü gün Galata’da Kuledibi’nde çıkan büyük bir yangının neticesinde 20 kadar reaya evlerinin muhterik olmasından ötürü s¸enliklere son verilmis¸tir.101 14 Ocak 1766 (2 S¸aban 1179) tarihinde102 dünyaya gelen Beyhan Sultan ve yaklas¸ık bir yıl sonra 10 Ocak 1767’da (9 S¸aban 1180) dog˘an ve üç gün s¸enlik öngörülen S¸ehzâde Mehmed103 III. Mustafa’nın çes¸itli cariyelerden dog˘an dig˘er çocukları arasında yer alır. S¸ehzâde Mehmed’in dog˘umundan yedi gün sonraki bir Cuma günü (15 S¸aban) sarayda Bes¸ik Alayı tertip edilir. Dig˘er dog˘umlar için de söz konusu olması icabeden bu tes¸rifât, dönemin bos¸ havasını aksettiren iyi bir örnektir: S¸ehzâde’nin bes¸ig˘i Hazine Kethüdası Ag˘a tarafından tezyin edilir. Bes¸ik içine yorganı serilmis¸ olarak Hırka-i s¸erîf önüne konulur, Padis¸ah da hazır bulunmus¸ olarak bes¸ig˘in bıg˘ırdag˘ına murassa bir hançer takılır, bes¸ik koluna inci tesbih asılır, bes¸ik topuna murassa bir sorguç oturtulur ve akabinde duâ okunur. Büyük Hindî tabir edilen kılıç bes¸ig˘in önü-sıra olmak üzere hazır olan tüm ag˘alar ve Silahdar Ag˘a ve Yazıcıları mehter es¸lig˘inde ilerlerler ve bes¸ig˘i Harem-i Hümayuna teslim 98 Âsım Tarihi: I, 349; [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet: I, 124; Sarıcaog˘lu, Kendi Kaleminden bir Padis¸ah Portresi: 4. 99 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 221, 238. 100 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 222, 323; cenaze merasimi tafsili için, Karateke, Protocol Register: 102–103. 101 [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 146. 102 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 274; Önal, 18. yüzyıla ait Buyuruldu Mecmuası’nda Gurre-i S¸aban, nr. 93–94. 103 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 230; [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 95. Vefatı Eylül 1772’dedir [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 90.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

207

ederler, bu arada Hazinedâr Ag˘a etrafa paralar saçar, buna hazır bulunan Sultan Mustafa da katılır. Bes¸ik teslim olundug˘u vakit Birinci, I˙kinci ve Üçüncü Yazıcılara, dört nefer Eski Ag˘alara ve Bas¸kullukçu Ag˘aya tekrar Padis¸ah tarafından ihsanda bulunulur. Bu merasim akabinde bes¸ig˘in cibinlig˘i kaldırılır, ikindi vaktine yakın Harem’de Hasoda I˙mamı duâ eder, cibinlik teslim edilirken tekrar duâ faslı bas¸lar ve I˙mam Efendiye Sultan Mustafa ihsânda bulunur.104 S¸enliklerin giderek sıradan ve muhtasar hale dönüs¸meleri dog˘umlardan gına geldig˘inin göstergesi gibidir. Ancak, bunda Payıtaht’ın yas¸adıg˘ı büyük yangın ve tahripkâr deprem felaketlerinin de tayin edici payı oldug˘u anlas¸ılıyor. Kurban Bayramı’nın üçüncü Pers¸embe günü (12 Zilhicce 1179 / 22 Mayıs 1766), günes¸ batımından yarım saat kadar sonra dört dakika sürdüg˘ü ifade edilen s¸iddetli bir zelzele yas¸andı, evler yıkıldı, pek çok insan öldü, hayvanlar helâk oldu, bütün s¸ehir duman içinde kaldı. Bu depremde Fatih Câmii tamamen yıkılmıs¸, Sultan Bayezid, Edirne Kapusu’ndaki Mihrimâh Sultan Câmii yıkılır dereceler hasar görmüs¸, S¸ekerciler Hanı ve Büyük Çars¸ı’da, Kalpakçılar’da dükkânlar harab olmus¸, Bezistan, Eski Saray ve I˙stanbul Surları, Yedikule, Vezirhanı ve Esir Pazarı ve sâir hanlar ve kâgir câmiler ve ahs¸ap binalar ve Galata ve Üsküdar’da pek çok mekân ag˘ır derecelerde tahribâta ug˘ramıs¸tır. Topkapı Sarayı da bu sarsıntıdan payını almıs¸ ve duvarlarında yıkılmalar meydana gelmis¸tir. S¸ehirdeki insan zayiâtının dört bini buldug˘u ifade edilmektedir. Üç hafta sonra Sultanahmet Câmii’nde yapılmakta olan Cuma Selamlıg˘ı esnasında s¸iddetli bir art-sarsıntı meydana gelmis¸ ve korkulu anlar yas¸atmıs¸tır. I˙zmid ve Yalova’da da büyük hasar olus¸mus¸ bulunuyordu. S¸iddetli sarsıntılar 75 gün sonra dahi kendini hissettirmis¸, 31 Ocak 1767’de her yer tekrar sarsılmıs¸, hülasa dokuz ayda dört büyük sarsıntı yas¸anmıs¸tır. Bu sebepten ötürü s¸ehirdeki hemen herkes bahçelerde ve çadırlarda yatmıs¸tır.105 Devrin genel yargılaması bu gibi dog˘al afetleri Allah’ın gazabı olarak takdim etme eg˘ilimi tas¸ır, dolayısıyla bu tür felaketler özellikle kadın-erkek biraradalıg˘ı, zinâ ve Lûtîlik gibi kötülüklerin yol açtıg˘ı genel ahlâkın 104 TSMA-E, 709/81–2. Bes¸ik Alayı tes¸rifâtının belirli bir kaidesi olmadıg˘ı ve deg˘is¸kenlik arzettig˘i anlas¸ılıyor. 17 Mart 1779 (28 Safer 1193) dünyaya gelen I. Abdülhamid’in og˘lu S¸ehzâde Süleyman için yapılan Bes¸ik Alayı merasimi buna örnek tes¸kil edebilir. 22 Mart Salı günü tertiplenen bu merasimde bilcümle Enderun Ag˘aları iki sıra halinde Has Oda kapısından, Hazine Kethüdası’nın pencerelerinin önüne, oradan Seferli Meydanı’ndan Kütüphane ile Arz Odası önlerine ve Mabeyn’den Harem-i Hümayun kapısına kadar dizilmis¸lerdir. Has Oda Ag˘aları ikis¸er ikis¸er önden ve bunları takiben Arz Ag˘aları ve Silahdar Ag˘a ve s¸ehzâdelerin Lalaları ile mücevher kılıç omuzunda olarak yeni s¸ehzâdenin Lalası Hurs¸id Süleyman Ag˘a ve onun arkasında bes¸ig˘in önünde olarak Hazine Kethüdası Ag˘a yer alır. Çes¸itli mücevherat ile süslü murassa bes¸ig˘i Hazinebas¸ı Kollukçusu bas¸ında tas¸ımakta, Hazine Eskileri ise bes¸ig˘in önünde ve etrafında selama durmaktadırlar. Bes¸ik böylece Harem-i hümayuna intikal ve mahalline teslim edilir (TSMA-E, 709/81–1). Uygulamalardaki deg˘is¸kenlig˘in yapılan merasimin resmî devlet tes¸rifâtı içinde yer almamasından kaynaklandıg˘ı açıktır. 105 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 85–87.

208

Kemal Beydilli

bozulmasının sonucu olarak kabul edilir!106 Zelzeleyi duyan Mosko keferesinin ug˘ranılan bu felaketi sevinçle kars¸ıladıg˘ına ve bunu s¸enliklerle kutlarken aniden s¸iddetli bir deprem meydana geldig˘ine ve ekser kiliselerini nüfus-ı kesireleriyle beraber helâk ettig˘ine dâir tarihçimizin düs¸tüg˘ü kayıt,107 genel efkârın Ruslara hangi gözle baktıg˘ının ve yakında bas¸layacak (1768) büyük savas¸ı körükleyecek olan mevcut asabiyetin göstergesi gibidir. Sultan Mustafa’nın Selim ve Bayezid yanında üçüncü s¸ehzâdesi Ahmed ismini tas¸ır. I˙stanbul’a ag˘ır hasar veren büyük zelzeleden önce meydana gelen bu dog˘um, yedi gün yedi gece donanma ve s¸ehrâyinle cos¸kunca (Ocak 1766 / S¸aban 1179) kutlanır. Dog˘um her zamanki gibi münâdiler ile s¸ehrin her tarafında ilân edilmis¸, kutlamalara hazırlanmak üzere eski ve yeni bedesten, saraçhane, yag˘lıkçı, yorgancı, hafaf esnafı kethüdaları vasıtasıyla harekete geçirilmis¸tir. Kutlamalara her zamanki gibi nisa taifesinin is¸tiraki yasaklanmıs¸, bunların sokak ve pazarlarda dolas¸mamaları ve donanma s¸enliklerinin nihayetine kadar evlerine kapanmaları istenmis¸, keyfiyet Bilâd-ı selâse ve I˙stanbul kadılarına, Bostancıbas¸ı’ya ve Yeniçeri Ag˘ası’na muhkem emirnâmelerle ifade edilmis¸ ve s¸ehrin her tarafında bu hususu ilan eden münâdiler dolas¸tırılmıs¸tır.S¸enliklerin bitmis¸ olmasına rag˘men tas¸radan gelen ve hâlâ s¸ehri terk etmemis¸ olan meraklı takımı ve Rumeli ve Anadolu’dan gelmis¸ olan oyunbaz ve bas¸ıbos¸lar ise 5 S¸ubat 1766 tarihli hüküm uyarınca geldikleri yerlerine iade edilmis¸tir.108 Hadice Sultan’ın 7 M. 1182 / 24 Mayıs 1768 tarihinde vaki olan veladeti, Ekim’de ilan edilecek Rus savas¸ıyla bas¸layacak sıkıntılı dönemin son ins¸irâhı oldu, yine de kutlama niyetine yalnızca üç gün top s¸enlig˘iyle iktifa edildi.109 9 Ocak 1770’de tevellüd eden ve 26 Mayıs 1772’de ölen Fatma Sultan ise Rus savas¸ının azametli sıkıntıları içinde akis bırakmadan gelip gitmis¸, dig˘erleri gibi Lâleli Câmii’ndeki makbere defnedilmis¸tir.110 III. Mustafa’nın üvey kardes¸i olup, 1130 / 1717 dog˘umlu olan S¸ehzâde Bayezid 54 yas¸ında iken hastalanarak vefat eder (29 Ramazan 1184 / 16 Ocak 1771). “Büyük Vâlideleri Câmi‘-i s¸erîfi”’nde111 hazırlanan makbere defnedilir. S¸ehzâde Bayezid 1143 / 1730 tarihinden itibaren 41 sene saraydaki dairesinde ikamet etmekteydi.112 S¸ehzâdelerin ölümlerinde çoklukla ortalıkta dolas¸an söylentiler, genelde bunların zehirlenerek hayata vedâ etmis¸ oldukları yönündedir. Böyle bir 106 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 86. 107 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 87; buradan naklen [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 87. 108 Buyruldu Mecmuası: 95–96. 109 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 251; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 311. 110 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 24, 88–89; [Mehmed Hasib/Göksu], Rûznâme: vr. 3b / s. 6. 111 Kasdedilen Turhan Sultan’ın ins¸a-gerdesi olan Yeni Câmi’dir. 112 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 212; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 433–434.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

209

ihtimale güç vermek üzere Hammer dönemin Avusturya elçisi Thugut’un 3 Mart 1770 tarihli bir raporunda Mustafa’nın kardes¸ini çekemedig˘ine is¸aret ederek, ikisi arasındaki yılların birikimi olan münâferete dikkat çeker.113 Dönemin en önemli evlilig˘i herhalde Padis¸ahın 43 yas¸ındaki kız kardes¸i Saliha Sultan (ö. 1778) ile 60 yas¸ındaki Sadrazam Ragıb Pas¸a’nın izdivacıdır (21 Receb 1171 / 31 Mart 1758). Saliha Sultan Özü muhafızı iken Ruslara esir düs¸en Yahya Pas¸a’dan dul kalmıs¸tır. Ragıb Pas¸a ise Nebile Hanım ile evli ve bundan Nâile ve Lebibe adlı iki kızı vardı. Kaynaklar ayrıntı vermemekle birlikte Ragıb Pas¸a emsalleri gibi114 – herhalde es¸ini – tabii eg˘er ber-hayat ise – bos¸amak zorunda kalmıs¸ olmalıdır. Ag˘ır nis¸an hediyeleri dıs¸ında Ragıb Pas¸a gümüs¸ sini üzerinde kapaklarıyla birlikte 10 gümüs¸ sahan, çes¸itli s¸ekerlemelerle dolu bir gümüs¸ tas, 30 tabla s¸ükûfe, 50 tabla meyve gönderir.115 Nikâh Saliha Sultan’ın Eyüp’teki sarayında S¸eyhülislâm’ın da hazır bulunmasıyla vekiller aracılıg˘ıyla 5 bin mahbûb altını mihr-i müeccel kaydıyla kıyılır.116 Darüssaade Ag˘ası gelinin, Kahya Bey ise damadın vekili idi. 6 Nisan 1758 Pers¸embe günü (27 Receb 1171) Saliha Sultan – dul olması sebebiyle mehtersiz ve sâde tes¸rifât ile117 – Sadrazamın sarayına tas¸ınır.118 Ertesi Cuma günü Bayezid Camii’ndeki Selamlık Resmi akabinde bizzat Padis¸ah Pas¸a Kapusu’na gelerek Sadrazam’ı s¸ereflendirir.119 Böylece, anne ve babası meçhul, sokag˘a bırakılmıs¸ (Lâkit) bir çocuk oldug˘u ileri sürülen120 Ragıb Pas¸a, Saray’a damat olarak I˙lâhî kudretin kendisine lâyık gördüg˘ü yüce konumunu daha da yüceltmis¸ oldu!121 24 Ramazan 1176 / 7/8 Nisan 1763’te Ragıb Pas¸a’nın vefatı üzerine tekrar dul kalan Saliha Sultan ertesi sene, yine vekiller aracılıg˘ıyla Kapudan-ı derya Bosnalı 113 Hammer, GOR, IV, 618, n. 3. 114 Melek Mehmed Pas¸a (ö. Ekim 1794), Sinek Mustafa Pas¸a’nın vefatı (1764) üzerine dul kalan Zeyneb Sultan (ö. 25 Mart 1774) ile evlendig˘inde karısını bos¸amak zorunda kalır (1765), Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren: I, 179. Tott’a göre Zeyneb Sultan altı defa dul kalmıs¸tır. 115 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 50–56. 116 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 51. Sultan Mustafa’nın hems¸iresi Ays¸e Sultan Tırhala Mutasarrıfı Vezir Silahdâr Mehmed Pas¸a ile evlendig˘inde de (16 Ocak 1758. Pas¸a I˙stanbul’a 10 Haziran’da gelmis¸tir!) mihr-i müeccel bedeli 5000 altın olarak belirlenmis¸tir ([Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 107–108). Bu meblag˘ anlas¸ıldıg˘ı kadarıyla Sultan izdivaçlarının rayicidir. 117 Hammer, GOR: IV, 507. 118 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 112. 119 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 110–112; Hammer, GOR: IV, 507–509. 120 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 55. S¸emdânîzâde, Ragıb Pas¸a’nın rind-âne mes¸rebi elden bırakmamasını ve süfeha ile sohbetten hos¸lanmasını bu haline bag˘lamaktadır (aynı yer). Bir bas¸ka yerde ise ([S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: I, 114) “pederinin malum olmadıg˘ı” hususu tekrar dile getirilmektedir. 121 Nis¸an ve düg˘üne dâir genis¸ anlatım için bk. [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 50–53. Ag˘ırlık listesi, zifaf (27 Receb 1171 Pers¸embe), hediyesi listesi, ertesi Cuması tes¸rifâtı: s. 54– 56.

210

Kemal Beydilli

Vezir Mehmed Pas¸a’ya tezvic edilmis¸tir (9 Mayıs 1764). Pas¸a, oldukça gecikmeli olarak nihayet Ocak 1765’te I˙stanbul’a gelerek kaderine razı olur!122 Mehmed Pas¸a 1768’de bas¸layan Rus savas¸ında Hotin ve daha sonra Rusçuk Seraskeri olmus¸tur.123 Hotin’de rehâveti sebebiyle birkaç defa münhezim olmus¸ ve yerine ordudan Moldavancı Ali Pas¸a gönderilmis¸tir. Liyakatsizlig˘i askerin nefretini celb etmis¸tir. “Hatt-ı Hümâyûn ile Serasker ve de Padis¸ahın enis¸tesi” oldug˘una dâir mütekebbir ifadeleri ve Moldavancı Ali Pas¸a’yı hakir gören davranıs¸ları sebebiyle aleyhinde genel bir husûmetin olus¸masına yol açmıs¸tır. Nihayet bir kayık ile Yergög˘ü’ye gitmek isterken yeniçeri es¸irrâsının hücumuna ug˘rayarak “helâk” bulmus¸tur (S¸ubat 1771).124 Bu durumda Saliha Sultan tekrar dul kalmıs¸ oluyordu. III. Mustafa döneminin en önemli sadrazamlarından olan Ragıb Pas¸a I˙stanbul’da Padis¸ahın ins¸asına giris¸tig˘i büyük camii yakınlarında kendi adıyla anılacak olan kütüphane, mekteb ve çes¸menin bânisidir. Bunların temeli Ag˘ustos 1761’de atılmıs¸ ve 1 Mart 1763’de itmam edilmis¸tir.125 Ragıb Pas¸a vefatı akabinde kütüphane önündeki makbere defnedilmis¸tir. Ragıb Pas¸a’nın bir ay kadar süren hastalıg˘ı sebebiyle sadaret vekâleti, kendisine henüz daha birkaç ay önce (Ekim 1762) vezâretle Selanik mansıbı verilmis¸ olan126 Hamid Hamza Pas¸a’ya havale edilmis¸tir.

III. Mustafa’nın câmi ins¸aatları I˙smiyle anılanı yok gibiyse de câmi ins¸aası ve mütemmim külliyesine epey bir hazine harcadıg˘ı kesindir. Selâtin cevâmii içinde yer almaya sezâ kendi adını tas¸ıyacag˘ını umdug˘u ilk büyük câmi Lâleli adını tas¸ır. Bunun yapımı için Istanbul’da Kızıltas¸ mahallesinde Lâleli Çes¸me kurbunda vâki Arif Efendi Bostanı 122 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 242, 268; [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 67. Zamanın tes¸rifâtı hanedandan birisi evlendig˘inde damadın Hanım Sultan’ın sarayında ikametini öngörmekteydi. Ragıb Pas¸a muhtemelen sadrazam olması haysiyetiyle bu usule uymak zorunda kalmamıs¸tır. Sadaret Kethüdası damadın sag˘dıcı, Darüssaade Ag˘ası ise gelinin vekili olur. Ve damad tarafından bunlara samur kürkler hediye edilir. Ertesi gün damad sadrazamı ziyaret eder ve kendisine kürk giydirilirdi (TSMA-E, 790/39). Ragıb Pas¸a evlilig˘inde ise ertesi gün bizzat padis¸ah damadı ziyaret etmis¸tir! 123 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, s. 4. 124 Konuyu nakleden S¸emdanîzâde’nin pas¸anın öldürülmesini “helâk oldu” fiiliyle ifade etmesi dikkat çekicidir ([S¸emdanîzâde]: II-B, 62–63). Bu tür sıfatlarla anılmanın, Mısır’da isyan ve büyük sıkıntılara sebeb olan Bulutkapan Ali Bey’in nihayet ifnâ edilmesinin “geberdi” diyerek kaydedilmesi gibi ([Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 246) olag˘an üstü bir dıs¸lamaya is¸aret etmekte oldug˘u açıktır. Olayın 2 Mart 1771 tarihli haber kaydı için bk. [Mehmed Hasib/Göksu], Rûznâme: vr. 6b / s. 14. 125 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 204; 224–225. 126 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 220.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

211

ve çevresindeki bazı ev ve dükkânlar satın alınarak, Saliha Sultan Kethüdası Ali Ag˘a bina emini tayin edilmis¸tir.127 Önce Mimar Ag˘a tarafından Sultan Selim Câmii’ne benzeyen bir maket (müs¸abih bir resm) hazırlanmıs¸ ve bu is¸te emeg˘i geçen bes¸ mimar ayrıca ödüllendirilmis¸tir.128 Câmi yapımı için arazinin hazırlanmasına 7 Nisan 1760 (20 S¸aban 1173) Pers¸embe günü bas¸lanır ve 9 Eylül 1760’da (28 Muharrem 1174) tertiplenen bir merasimle temeli atılır.129 Lâleli Câmii üç seneye yakın süren ins¸a sonucu itmam edildi ve 17 Mart 1764 (14 Ramazan 1177) Cuma günü Sultan Mustafa burada ilk selâmlık resmini icra etti.130 Önceleri tek minareli olan bu mabedin sol taraftaki ikinci minaresi daha sonraları (Ekim 1769) ilave edilmis¸tir.131 Oysa takdim edilen modelinde iki minareli olarak resmedilmis¸ idi.132 III. Mustafa’nın ins¸a ettirdig˘i ikinci câmi Vâlideleri Mihris¸âh Emine133 Sultan (ö. 1762) ve merhûm biraderi S¸ehzâde Süleyman ruhları için Üsküdar Ayazma’da bina edilen câmidir. Ayazma Câmii’nin temelleri 1758’de atılmıs¸ ve Mihris¸âh ismiyle tesmiye edilmis¸ olarak134 2 Ocak 1761 Cuma (25 CA. 1761) günü ibadete açılmıs¸tır.135 Sultan Mustafa’nın bu câmii de, aynı yıl tamamlanan Kadıköy iskele kars¸ısındaki mabedi gibi tek minarelidir. Selâtin câmilerinin en az iki minareye sahip olmaları beklenirken, Sultan Mustafa tarafından yaptırılanların hangi sebepten ötürü tek minareli olarak düs¸ünüldükleri bilinmemektedir. III. Selim’in Humbaracı ve Lag˘ımcı Kıs¸laları ortasında yer alan ve annesi Mihris¸âh Sultan adına yaptırdıg˘ı (1793) câmii de tek minareli olarak ins¸a edilmis¸tir.136 Mihris¸âh Sultan’ın son demlerinde (ö. 1805), adını tas¸ıyan bu mabedin dig˘er Vâlide Sultan 127 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs:199. Daha sonra Yusuf Efendi tayin edilmis¸tir ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 202; [Hâkim/Güngör]: 1072). Çes¸itli binaların eminlig˘inde bulunmus¸ olarak itibar kazanan Yusuf Efendi 18 M. 1189 ölmüs¸tür, bk. [Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi/ I˙lgürel]: 24–25. 128 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 198; “bir resm-i hos¸-âyende tarh ü rasf edüp…”, [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 178. Sade bir resim çizimi için bes¸ mimar kullanılması biraz tuhaf oldug˘undan, bunu câmii tecessüm ettiren bir maket olarak düs¸ünmek istemekteyiz ([Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 212, 243–245; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’lâsâr: I, 178]). 129 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 212, 243–245. 130 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 237–238. 131 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 24. 132 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 198, derkenar notu. 133 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 188’de her halde yanlıs¸lıkla Mihrimâh olarak kaydedilmis¸tir. 134 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 77b (s. 953); [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 39. 135 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 39; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 187–189; [Hâkim/Güngör]: 74a–80a. 136 Beydilli & S¸ahin, Mahmud Râif Efendi ve Nizâm-ı Cedîd’e Dâir Eseri: 201. Muhtemelen kıs¸la câmii olmasından ötürü tek minareli düs¸ünülmüs¸ olmalıdır. Nitekim aynı dönemde olus¸an Levent Çiftlig˘i Kıs¸lası’ndaki ile (aynı eser: 237) Taksim’de ins¸a edilen Kıs¸la’daki câmiin de tek minareli oldug˘u bilinmektedir (Çelik, “Mit ve Gerçek Arasında”: 445, 467–468). Kasımpas¸a’da Cezayirli Gazi Hasan Pas¸a tarafından yaptırılan (1782 / 1783) Kalyoncu Kıs¸lası içindeki câmi de tek minarelidir.

212

Kemal Beydilli

câmileri gibi iki minareli olmamasından ötürü üzüntü duydug˘u ve bunun içinde bir ukde olarak kaldıg˘ı anlas¸ılmaktadır. Bu hissiyat içinde padis¸ah og˘lundan bu mabede ikinci bir minare ilave etmesini istemis¸ ve bu arzusu yerine getirilmis¸tir (1803).137 Büyük zelzele esnasında tamamen yıkılmıs¸ olması sebebiyle yeniden ins¸a ettirdig˘i Fatih Câmii bir tarafa bırakılacak olursa, üç adet büyük câmi yaptırmıs¸ olan Sultan Mustafa’ya bunlardan hiç birinin kendi adıyla anılması nâsib olmamıs¸tır. Bu durumu, “câmilerden birini iskeleye, birini vâlideye, birini de meczûba” kaptırdık diyerek kalenderce kars¸ıladıg˘ı rivâyet edilir. Sultan Mustafa’nın ins¸a ettirdig˘i bazı küçük câmi / mescidler genelde pek anılmaya lâyık bulunmaz. Bunlardan biri Vâlide Hanı kars¸ısında Saka Çes¸mesi Câmii veya Mahmud Pas¸a yokus¸u Çakmakçılar’da Sandalyacılar sokakta yer almasından ötürü Çakmakçılar Câmii olarak bilinir. Bu câmi de bânisinin ismiyle anılmaz. Câmi, Kuyumcular imalâthânesinin (kârhâne) bulundug˘u mahalde mevcut olan eski câmiin aynı yere büyük bir han yaptırılması ve böylece ortadan kalması sebebiyle, buna mukabil olmak üzere Sultan Mustafa tarafından Saka Çes¸mesi üzerine oturtulmus¸ olarak ins¸a edilmis¸tir (1760). Kârgîr bir câmi-i rânâ olarak tavsif edilir. Tek minaresi kapı giris¸i üstünde yer almaktadır.138 Sultan Mustafa ayrıca Cıvar-ı saltanat-ı aliyye’de Bog˘az içinde Yoros kazasına bag˘lı I˙ncir Köyü’nde Pas¸abahçesi nam mahalde bir câmi-i ¸serif ve mabed-i lâtif bina ve yakınında bir mektep ve çes¸me ins¸a ettirmis¸tir (1763). Câmiin duvarları kârgir ve çatısı ahs¸ap olup, yine tek minarelidir.139 Bugün eskisiyle alakası olmayan yeni binasıyla daha ziyade Pas¸abahçe Merkez Câmii olarak bilinmektedir. Sultan Mustafa, bunların dıs¸ında Rodos kalesi derununda Bey Hamamı denilen mahalde yer alan bir câmi daha ins¸a ettirmis¸tir. Bu mâbed, önce ümera-yı deryâ’dan Ebubekir Pas¸a tarafından yaptırılmaya bas¸lanmıs¸, ancak bitirilmemis¸ olarak kalmıs¸ ve nihayet III. Mustafa tarafından yeniden ins¸a ve itmam edilmis¸tir (1178 / 1764–65).140 Sultan Mustafa I˙stanbul’da genis¸ imar faaliyetlerinde bulunmus¸ olmakla beraber, bu biraz da zorunluluktan kaynaklanır. 22 Mayıs 1766’da meydana 137 Bk. Akyıldız, Haremin Padis¸ahı: 420. 138 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, 642 nolu Defter. III. Mustafa 1178 (1764) tarihli vakfiyye sureti, s. 6–7; ayrıca küçük bilgiler için bk. Biber, ˙Istanbul Camileri: 292–30; Öz, ˙Istanbul Camileri: I, 118. 139 Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, 642 nolu Defter. III. Mustafa 1178 (1764) tarihli vakfiyye sureti, s. 5. 140 III. Mustafa 1178 (1764) tarihli vakfiyye, s. 5. Michael Kiel tarafından kaleme alınan “Rodos” maddesinde (DI˙A, 35) Sultan Mustafa’nın zikredilen câmi yanında “Yeni Hamam olarak bilinen bir çifte hamam ins¸a ettirdi. Bu hamam Yunanistan sınırları içinde kalmıs¸ olarak günümüze ulas¸an en büyük hamamlardan biridir” kaydı yer almakla beraber, kullanmakta oldug˘umuz III. Mustafa’nın vakfiyye dökümünde hamamdan bahsedilmemektedir. Özgün Vakfiyye metinlerini Eski ve Yeni Türkçe çözümü yapılmıs¸ olarak istifade etmemizi sag˘layan Prof. Mustafa Bilge’ye tes¸ekkür ederim.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

213

gelen, artçı sarsıntıların Ag˘ustos ayına kadar devam eden ve 22 bin keselik muazzam bir masraf açarak büyük bir yıkıma sebep olan zelzele felaketi kars¸ısında bütün imkânlarını seferber eder. Bu zelzelede bas¸ta Fatih Camii olmak üzere birçok bina yıkılmıs¸tır. 1245 kese gibi büyük bir harcamayla yeniden yaptırılan Fatih Camii yanında Eyüp Camii, Davutpas¸a Kasrı, Kapalı Çars¸ı, Surlar, Baruthane, Saraçhane, Yeniçeri Odaları, Tophane, Kız Kulesi gibi yıkılan ve hasar gören yerlerin ins¸a ve tamirinde, dolayısıyla s¸ehrin yeniden imarında önemli bir rol oynadıg˘ı muhakkaktır. Tamamen yıkılarak yeniden ins¸a edilen Fatih Cami Nisan 1771’de itmam edilmis¸ ve Cuma Selâmlıg˘ı icrâ edilmis¸tir.141 Zeyneb Sultan Câmii’ni de itmam ettirmis¸tir. (1769). Tophane yangınında yanan Kadiri Tekyesi ve Galata Mevlevihânesi’ni yeniden ins¸a ettirmis¸tir (1765). Ayrıca, zelzeleden hasar gören atîk bendi tamir ettirmis¸ ve as¸ag˘ıda deg˘inildig˘i üzere yeni bir bend ins¸asıyla (Bend-i cedîd) s¸ehre gelen suyun mıkdârını arttırmıs¸tır (1766). Bunların dıs¸ında Kumkapı hâricinde denizden 12x6 bin zira genis¸lig˘inde bir yer doldurtarak üzerine dükkânlar ve evler ins¸a ettirmis¸tir.142 Bütün bunlar alt alta konuldug˘unda III. Mustafa’nın yeniden ins¸a ettirdikleri ve özellikle zelzele felaketinin ag˘ır tahribâtını gidermek bâbında giris¸tig˘i genis¸ tamirler ve yeni yapımlar dâhil olmak üzere bu alandaki hizmetlerine ve ihtiyâr ettig˘i muazzam masraflara rag˘men, s¸ehrin imârında ismi öne çıkartılan ve “Muammir-i Bilâd”143 sıfatıyla anılmaya lâyık görülen bir önceki selefi I. Mahmud gibi hakkı teslim edilmis¸ deg˘ildir. Yaptırdıg˘ı câmilerin dahi adıyla anılmaması gibi bir kadere müstahak olması, kim bilir belki de dönemin tarihçisi S¸emdânîzâde’nin tabiriyle yıldız fallarına olan batıl düs¸künlüg˘ünün üzerine çökerttig˘i ug˘ursuzlug˘un (nuhûset) vebalidir! Bununla beraber Sultan Mustafa Pâytaht’ı ma‘mûr hale getirmek bâbındaki cehdiyle kendi kadrini âdeta kendi takdir edercesine eslâfın sikkelerinde basım yerini “Kostantiniyye” olarak göstermeleri âdetine son vermis¸ ve tahta çıktıg˘ında kendi adına darb edilen paralarda basım yerini hem de “I˙slâmbol” olarak deg˘is¸tirmis¸ olması,144 “Pâdis¸âhlar kendilerine ilhâm verilmis¸ kimselerdir. Allah 141 142 143 144

[S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 86. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 442–443. Özcan, ”Mahmud I”: 27, 352; amlf, ˙Imparatorluk Çag˘ında Osmanlı Sultanları: III, 195. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 450–451. Geçmis¸te oldug˘u gibi bu günde kullandıg˘ımız ve de hâtta öyle denmesini ısrârla istedig˘imiz ˙Istanbul (Stan Bulin) sözünün etimolojik açıklamasının Konstantinopel ile aynı oldug˘u, bul / pol kısmının Polin / S¸ehir, bas¸ kısmındaki ˙I-stan kısmının ise Konstantin kelimesinden bozma oldug˘u son dönemlerde yapılan uzmanı elinden çıkma bir aras¸tırmada ifadesini bulmaktadır (Stachowski & Woodhouse, “The Etymology of I˙stanbul”: 221–245). Dolayısıyla kelimenin hâlâ tekrarlana geldig˘i üzere ˙Is Tin Bolin (Eis Te¯n Polin) = S¸ehre, (dolayısıyla ¸sehirde / ¸sehrin içinde) açıklaması ile izah edilmesi yanıltıcıdır. S¸ehir’den kasıt Konstantinopolis oldug˘una göre dog˘ru yaklas¸ımın Konstantinopolis’e (dolayısıyla Konstantinopolis’de / Konstantinopolis içinde) s¸ekli oldug˘u açıktır. Bu durumda III. Mustafa’nın Konstantiniyye yerine ˙Islâmbol tercihinin mukabil

214

Kemal Beydilli

ag˘ızlarından çıkan her ¸seyi söylediklerine uygun ¸sekilde gerçekles¸tirir”145 anlamındaki yaygın inanıs¸ının âdeta tezâhürü gibidir. Bu tasarrufunda s¸ehri yalnız ümrân hale getirmedig˘inin aynı zamanda Müslümanların kesret üzere yas¸adıkları bir belde haline de dönüs¸türdüg˘ünün iması gizli ise, bahtsız Padis¸ah talihin kudretine mazhar olmus¸ demektir!

Payitaht-Devlet Kendinden öncekiler gibi III. Mustafa’nın da önemli ug˘ras¸larından biri I˙stanbul’un temel ihtiyaç maddeleri açısından iâs¸e sıkıntısı içine düs¸memesi idi. Babası III. Ahmed zamanında halkın kıtlık ve pahalılık çekmedig˘ini beyân eden devri iyi tanıyan tarihçinin146 bu yargısının bizzat s¸âhidi olarak bu konuya ayrı bir ihtimam göstermekte oldug˘unu söylemek mümkündür. Bu haliyle Padis¸ah aynı zamanda modern anlamda bir belediye bas¸kanı gibi vazife görmekte, s¸ehrin asayis¸i yanında iâs¸e meselesi ve öngörülen fiyatlara (narh) riâyet en öncelikli ug˘ras¸larının bas¸ında gelmekteydi. Azametli s¸ehrin özellikle yaz aylarında artan su ihtiyacının kars¸ılanması ise her zaman için hep önem arzeden bir mesele olmus¸tur. Bu sebepten s¸ehrin su sarfiyatı dikkatle takip edilir, bu amaçla mesela yeni hamamların açılmasına izin verilmezdi. Sultan Mustafa, Kanunî zamanında yapılanlar ve babası III. Ahmed tarafından da ilave edilen eski bendlere bir saat mesafedeki Evhadüddin Deresi denilen yerde yeni havuzlar ve bendler ins¸a ettirmis¸ ve bu anlamda babasının eserine de katkıda bulunmus¸tur. Bu is¸e nezaret etmek üzere Hacegândan Divân-i âlî Ser-Çavus¸larından Yenis¸ehirli Osman Efendi vazifelendirilmis¸tir (24 Mayıs 1766 / 14 Zilhicce 1179).147 Eg˘rikapu’ya kadar dört saatlik mesafeden (yaklas¸ık 20 km.) gelen su, akıs¸ hızı itibariyle bu uzaklıg˘ı 24 saatte kat etmekteydi.148 Sultan Mustafa iâs¸e hususuna ferahlık getirmesi beklentisiyle I˙stanbul’da üç yeni ambar ins¸â ettirmis¸tir. 18. yüzyılın ilk çeyreg˘i içinde s¸ehirdeki ekmekçilere günde 4–5 bin kile bug˘day yeterli olmakta, yaz aylarında Akdeniz cihetinden temin edilen bug˘day kıs¸ aylarında kullanılmak üzere fırıncılar tarafından depolanmaktaydı. Ancak zamanla bu mıkdar yetersiz kaldıg˘ından özellikle kıs¸

145 146 147 148

kimlik iddiası açısından fevkalade isabetli oldug˘unun altını bir kez daha çizmek gerekecektir. Halefi I. Abdülhamid zamanında tekrar Konstantiniyye ismine dönülmesine (1774) ilgili bahiste deg˘inilecektir. “El-mülûkü mülhemûne küllemâ cerâ ‘alâ lisânihim yeftehullâhu vefka beyânihim”, [Hâkim/Güngör]: 118. [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: I, 44; buradan naklen Uzunçars¸ılı, Osmanlı Tarihi: IV–I, 321. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: I, 224; [Hâkim/Güngör]: 1188. [Hâkim/Güngör]: aynı yer.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

215

aylarında sıkıntı çekilmekteydi. III. Ahmed zamanında (1703–1730) Tersane’deki sekiz adet gözün içlerine 300 bin kile bug˘day alacak cesamette ambarlar yaptırılmıs¸ ve Akdeniz ve Rumeli cihetlerinden getirtilen bug˘day buralarda depolanmıs¸tır. III. Osman döneminde (1754–1757) günlük 12 bin kileye ihtiyaç duyulur oldug˘undan bu depolardaki bug˘day özellikle kıs¸ aylarında yetersiz kalmaktaydı. Bu sebepten ötürü 1758 senesinde bu depolara üç göz daha ilave edilmis¸ ve içlerine 100 bin kile bug˘day depolanmıs¸tır. Rumeli ve Akdeniz cihetlerinden toplam 400 bin kile bug˘day tedariki için gerekli ödemeler mubayaacılara pes¸in olarak yapılmıs¸ ve böylece özellikle kıs¸ aylarında olus¸an kıtlıg˘ın önüne geçilmeye çalıs¸ılmıs¸tır.149 Tas¸ranın her hangi bir yerinde meydana gelen kıtlık genelde ahalinin I˙stanbul’a hücûm etmesi sonucunu vermekteydi. Bu da haliyle s¸ehirde ekmek kıtlıg˘ına yol açmaktaydı. Böyle zamanlarda fırınların önünde yüzlerce insan toplanır, pis¸memis¸ çig˘ ekmekler kapıs¸ılır, özellikle “aceze ve nisvân tâifesi” aç kalırdı. Bu gibi durumlarda gücü yetenler pirince teveccüh ederler, ancak bunun da bulunması kısa zamanda zorlas¸ır ve fiyatları artardı. Özellikle Ramazan ayı yakın oldug˘unda sıkıntılar daha bir ciddiyet arzederdi. III. Mustafa’nın ilk dönemindeki (1758) böyle bir darlıkta kadınların pirinç satan bir zimmî tacirin mahzenine hücum etmeleri, tacirin bıçaklı saldırıya ug˘rayarak kaçması ve mahzeninin yag˘malanması, Yeniçeri Ag˘ası Nalbant Mehmed Pas¸a’nın bu duruma müdahale etmesi, ancak bas¸arısız kalıp kadınların Ag˘ayı hakaretlerle ber-taraf etmeleri, sonunda Sadrazamın devreye girmesi ve Yeniçeri Ag˘asının azledilmesi gibi olaylar, Sultan Mustafa’nın I˙stanbul’da takip etmek zorunda kaldıg˘ı beledî meselelerin boyutlarını gözler önüne serer.150 Hububat (bug˘day) ve kereste nakli için düs¸ünülen Sakarya-Sapanca- Kanalı, Sakarya Nehri’nin I˙zmit Körfezi’ne akıtılması daha önceki devirler (1585, 1654) dıs¸ında, I. Mahmud devrinde ve hatta II. Mahmud döneminde de (1813) olmak üzere müteaddit defalar gündeme gelmis¸ ama bas¸arılması mümkün olmamıs¸ projelerden biridir.151 Tersane için kereste temini ve ias¸e nakliyatı yanında s¸ehrin yakıt olarak odun ihtiyacını gidermek bas¸lıca amaç olarak takdim edilmekte, hatta Sapanca gölü yakınında bir tersane olus¸turulması ve burada gemi yapımı dahi gündeme getirilmis¸ bulunmaktaydı (Haziran 1759).152 Bu amaçla giris¸ilen faaliyetler, bas¸latılan kazılar istikrarlı bir siyasî iradenin mevcut olmaması yanında özellikle bölge halkının çiftlik ve meraların ve bazı köylerin, dolayısıyla genelde mevcut emlâkin zarar göreceg˘i endis¸esiyle buna kars¸ı çıkmaları sebebiyle akim kalmıs¸tır. Bununla beraber projeden vaz geçilmesinde, bölgede iki hafta kadar aras¸tırma yapan Sadrazam Kethüdası Subhizâde Abdullah Efendi, 149 [Tes¸rifâtçı Mehmed Âkif], Tarih-i cülûs: 110–112. 150 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 16–17, Nisan-Mayıs 1758. 151 Uzunçars¸ılı, “Sakarya Nehri’nin I˙zmit Körfezi’ne Akıtılması Marmara ve Karadeniz’in Birles¸tirilmesi”, Belgelerle Türk Tarihi 88 (Mayıs 2004): 78–85; sayı 89 (Haziran 2004): 57–65. 152 [Hâkim/Güngör]: 808–809.

216

Kemal Beydilli

Reisülküttap Abdullah Abdi Efendi, Cebecibas¸ı Kara Mustafa ve Mimarbas¸ı Kara Ahmed Ag˘a’dan mütes¸ekkil tetkik heyetinin hazırladıkları rapor dog˘rultusunda kanal maliyetinin bas¸ta ön görüldüg˘ü gibi üç-bes¸ yüz deg˘il en az dokuz-on bin keselik azametli bir meblag˘a ulas¸acag˘ı gerçeg˘inin de etken oldug˘u anlas¸ılıyor (Ag˘ustos 1759).153 Güvenlig˘i yanında iâs¸esi kadar su ihtiyacının da giderilmesi hususunda saltanat merkezi gibi ihtimam gösterilen bas¸ka bir s¸ehir muhakkak ki Mekke idi. Buranın suyollarının 68 bin kurus¸ masraf ile onarılması ve s¸ehre ilave su akıtılarak ferahlık getirilmesi yaklas¸ık üç sene sürmüs¸tür (1767).154

Dâhili ve Harici Durum III. Mustafa tahta çıktıg˘ında, 1739 Belgrad Antlas¸ması’ndan itibaren Avrupa yakasında barıs¸ dönemine giren imparatorlug˘un genis¸ cog˘rafyası içinde zaman âdeta durmus¸ gibidir. I˙mparatorluk, 1768 Rus savas¸ına kadar geçen uzun barıs¸ devrinin de etkisiyle mâlî bir yeterlilik içinde görülmekteydi. Ancak, bu dönem gerekli yenilenmelerin ihmal edildig˘i kayıp yıllar olarak geçti.155 Askerî sahada oldug˘u gibi ekonomik alanda da yapılanlar, mesela III. Mustafa’nın kalitesiz, fakat ucuz Avrupa mallarının iç pazarları doldurmasına kars¸ı çıkması ve bunların yerli imalatını önemsemesi anlamındaki giris¸imleri, genelde yasaklamalar dıs¸ında tutarlı bir ekonomik plândan yoksun kalmıs¸tır. Yas¸anan uzun barıs¸ ve istikrar, belirli bir iktisadî ferahlık ve özellikle Akdeniz üzerinden yapılan ticaretteki önemli artıs¸lar ekonomik iyiles¸meleri beraberinde getirmis¸ olmakla beraber, Rus savas¸ının patlamasıyla (1768) bunların hepsi süratle bozulmaya ve iddihar edilen büyük nakdî birikimler de hızla erimeye bas¸lamıs¸tır. Bu dönemde, Anadolu ve Rumeli’nin merkezden uzak bölgelerinde idare yerel güçlerin (mütegallibe) elinde kalmıs¸tır. Anadolu’da özellikle Kapusuz Levendat es¸kıyasının yol açtıg˘ı huzursuzluklar tam olarak ortadan kaldırılamadıg˘ından, merkezî otoritenin buralardaki zafiyeti devam etmis¸; Bulutkapan Ali Bey’in (ö. 1773)156 kendi idaresini kurdug˘u, III. Mustafa’nın yanında kendi adını da yazdırdıg˘ı sikkeler bastırdıg˘ı Mısır, Kuzey Filistin, Taberiye, Akka, nihayet hâkimiyetini 153 [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 76. 154 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: I, 298. 155 Uzun ve istikrarlı bir sadaret dönemi idrak eden Ragıb Pas¸a’nın da zamanını hos¸ça geçirmeye baktıg˘ı, ya ümitsizlig˘inden veya çekinmesinden ötürü askerî reformlara asla tes¸ebbüs etmedig˘i ([Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vukû‘ât: III, 43) ve bu anlamda cihânın yıkılmakta oldug˘unun ümitsiz teslimiyetini nazmen dile getiren Padis¸ah ile aynı rehâveti paylas¸tıg˘ı inkâr edilmez. 156 Emecen, “Bulutkapan Ali Bey”: 383–384; [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 330–336; öldürülmesi, s. 392– 394.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

217

genis¸lettig˘i Sur ve Sayda gibi yerlerde Zahir Ömer (ö. 1775)157 yanında, bas¸ta yine darbhanesinde riyaller basılan Tunus olmak üzere Cezayir gibi Garb Ocakları olarak bilinen deniz as¸ırı uzak Kuzey Afrika Vilayetleri’ndeki hukuken merbut (de jure) ancak fiiliyatta (de facto) merkezden bag˘ımsız olan158 yerel idareler kontrol altına alınamamıs¸ ve âdeta kendi hallerine terkedilmis¸tir.159 Yavuz Sultan Selim zamanındaki (1517) fethinden beri Sultan Abdülaziz’in seyahatine gelinceye kadar (1863) bir padis¸ah yüzü görmemis¸ Mısır, yine bir nesil boyu devam eden mücadeleler akabindeki fethinden (1669) bu yana Sultan Abdülmecid’e kadar (1850) hükümdar ziyaretine mazhar olmamıs¸ Girid dâhil olmak üzere Mora ve tüm Akdeniz Adaları ve de 16. yüzyıldan bu yana Garb Ocakları olarak bilinen, ilk saldırıda Mısır gibi (1798) düs¸man eline geçmeye müheyya, idarecilerin kimliklerinin bile tam olarak bilinmedig˘i uzak vilayetler, Yemenmemen gibi ücrâ kös¸eler… Yine ilk fethedildikleri andan itibaren artık sona eren Sefer-i Hümâyûnlar dıs¸ında, 1837’deki Varna seyahatinde II. Mahmud’u görmek için üs¸üs¸en Bulgar ahalinin tabiriyle “velînîmet” yüzü görmemis¸, Edirne-Bursa dıs¸ında kalan hattâ merkeze yakın vilayetler; Nâme-i Hümâyûnlar’da “ben ki…” diye bas¸layıp, sayımı nefes kesen ve göz kamas¸tırarak uzayıp giden bütün Rumeli, Anadolu ve Arabistan, hademesi olmakla övünülen ama hiç ayak basılmadık Haremeyn ve – yalnızca Yavuz’un sefer esnasında kısa bir ziyarette bulundug˘u (1516) – Kudüs!.. Bütün bunlar, zaptı altındaki yerlere sahip çıkmaktan aciz, zaman içinde Batı devletlerine kıyasen emperyal bir siyasî ve mülkî tasarruftan ziyade giderek daha fazla bir hayır kurumuna dönüs¸en bir garip imparatorlug˘un – Halil I˙nalcık’ın tesbitiyle yalnızca kendi hâkimiyetini yaymaktan bas¸ka bir maksadı olmayan bir Hanedan I˙mparatorlug˘unun160 – acıklı cog˘rafyasının hamasî tadadından bas¸ka bir s¸ey deg˘ildir!161 157 Emecen, Zahir el-Ömer”: 90–91. 158 Devri kaydeden müverrihin isabetli vurgulamasıyla, “zâhirde Devlet-i ‘aliyye’ye münka¯d ve bâtında her biri bir hasm-ı müstemirrü’l-inâd olan” ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 492); “Cezayir ve Garb Ocakları serbest ve merâbıta Ocaklar olup, dost devletlerle musâlahaları beynlerinde cârîdir”, [Tes¸rifâtî Hasan], Tarih: 31. 159 Cezayir ve tüm Berberistan bölgelerinde Bey / Dayı ünvânı tevârüs edilir hale gelmis¸ olup, bölgenin zenginlikleri, Korsika’ya kadar uzanan korsanlık akınları ve çevredeki bedevî kabilelerin vergileriyle giderek zenginles¸mis¸ olarak kendi tes¸rifâtları içinde parlak bir saray hayatı sürdüren bu idarecilerin kasalarına akmakta, saltanat merkezini temsil etmekte olan ve adını seyyahların bile kayda geçirme ihtiyacını duymadıkları pas¸anın ise esâmisi dahi okunmamaktaydı. Anlatım için bk. Jorga, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches: IV, 389. 160 I˙nalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerine Tetkikler ve Vesikalar: I, 184. 161 Durumun anlas¸ılmasına katkıda bulunan ilginç bir belgede Sultan Mustafa Sadrazam Ragıb Pas¸a’ya, ecnebî hükümdarlara yazılan nâme-i hümâyûnlarda kendi isminin neden sözü edilen hükümdarların mektuplarında oldug˘u gibi hemen ilk satırda zikredilmedig˘ini sormakta, Sadrazam da verdig˘i cevapta nâmelerin bâlâsında kes¸îde kılınan Tug˘ra’ya is¸aret ederek, kendisinin isminin en bas¸ta olmak üzere zaten ilk sırada anıldıg˘ına ve yer tuttug˘unu beyân etmekte, hattâ nâmenin bâlâsında Tug˘ra’nın yer almıs¸ olmasından ötürü bunun artık bir Nâme-i Hümâyûn deg˘il bir Fermânı Hümâyûn sayılması icap ettig˘ini ve bu sebepten

218

Kemal Beydilli

Bu dönemde Bag˘dad Hasan Pas¸azâde Ahmed Pas¸anın ölümünden sonra (1749) onun kölelerinin vali olarak tayin edilmek mecburiyetinde kalındıg˘ı muhtar bir eyalet haline gelmis¸, burada adeta bir “Kölemen” idaresi olus¸mus¸tur. Rumeli’de pek çok yer, ama özellikle I˙s¸kodra bas¸ta olmak üzere sâir Arnavudluk sancakları (Prizren, I˙lbasan, Yanya, Ohri, Avlonya) genelde mahalli bey ve ailelerin mevrûs mülkü haline dönüs¸müs¸ gibiydi. 31 Eyalet, 51 Elviye, 36 Üç Tug˘lu, 38 I˙ki Tug˘lu Vezirlik’ten olus¸an162 ve ayrıca Kırım Hanlıg˘ı, Eflak ve Bog˘dan prenslikleri gibi özerk yapılara sahip olan imparatorluk genis¸ topraklarını denetleme ve mâlî açıdan istifade edebilme yeteneg˘inden uzaktı. Bas¸layan Rus savas¸ları bunların askerî yönden de bir katkısı olmadıg˘ını ortaya çıkartacaktır. Osmanlı cog˘rafyası, Aydınlanma Dönemi’ni yas¸amakta ve büyük bir fikrî deg˘is¸im geçirmekte olan ve giderek de yeni üretim usulleri ve iktisadî zihniyet açısından köklü yenilenmeler ve yapılanmalar yas¸ayacak (Sanayi ˙Inkılâbı) olan Avrupa’daki tahavvül ve terakkiden tamamen uzak ve hattâ habersiz bir hayat sürmekteydi. Eski dönemleri as¸an fikrî bir tekâmül gözlenmemekte, gelis¸en çevre s¸artları ve istikbalde bunun getireceg˘i siyasî tehlikelerin hesabı yapılmamaktaydı. III. Mustafa tasarrufa özen göstermekte, bakiyye vergilerin toplanmasını dikkatle takip etmekteydi. Bunların katkısıyla ama özelikle uyguladıg˘ı müsadereler neticesinde olus¸an163 zaman içinde biriktirmis¸ oldug˘u büyük haötürü Padis¸ahın cümle mülûk ve selâtinin fevkinde oldug˘unu da ilaveten dile getirmekteydi (BAO, Cevdet Hariciye, nr. 5322). Bu s¸as¸ırtıcı yorumun gerçeg˘i aksettirmekten artık son derecelerde uzak oldug˘uve hamasî bir söylem dıs¸ında bir kıymet ifade etmedig˘i açıktır. Bizzat Ragıb Pas¸a’nın mührüne sâhib oldug˘u devleti, dis¸i-tırnakları kırık, yelesi dökülmüs¸, kuvvetten düs¸müs¸, kükreyecek hali kalmamıs¸, ancak uzaktan bakıldıg˘ında heybetli bir aslan görüntüsü verdig˘i s¸eklinde tanımlamakta oldug˘u hatırlandıg˘ında, Pas¸a’nın bu yaklas¸ımını Padis¸ahın gururunu oks¸ayan bir pohpohlama olarak algılamasının daha isabetli bir deg˘erlendirme olacag˘ı kendilig˘inden ortaya çıkar. Padis¸ahın nabzını tutmasını iyi bilen Ragıb Pas¸a mutlak bir idare sergilemekle beraber, bunu Padis¸ahın fikrini ve onayını alarak uygulamak becerisini göstermekte hüner sahibiydi. Ancak bunu yaparken öngördüklerinin dıs¸ına çıkmasına da engel oluyordu. Sultan Mustafa’nın sadrazamın vefatından sonra kendisini nihayet son sözü söyleyecek bir hükümdar gibi hissetmesi (von Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 8) bos¸una deg˘ildir. Ragıb Pas¸a’nın padis¸ah tebdil gezerken yakınlarına saldıg˘ı adamlarının tecâhülâne sohbet eder gibi yapıp, ama duyulacak bir s¸ekilde Sadrazamın icraâtini öven sözler söylediklerine ve Sultanı böylece Sadrazam lehinde etkilemeyi amaçlayan tuzaklarına dâir yapılan anlatımlar (Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 7; Sir James Porters Anmerkungen, 72, 82) göz önüne alındıg˘ında, Nâme-i hümâyûn’daki tug˘ra açıklamasının Padis¸ahı doldurus¸a getirip, tavında tutmaya matûf bir deg˘erlendirme olarak telakki etmenin daha dog˘ru olacag˘ı ortaya çıkar. 162 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 58–59. 163 “Sultan Mustafa Han’ın tabi‘atı müsâdere tarafına mâ’il oldug˘undan vüzerâ-yı sâlife tevâbi‘ ve müntesâbâtından ¸söhret-i servetle müs¸tehir olanları ve de … zenginliklerini müsadere ederek umûr-ı seferiyeye sarf eyledi” (Netâyîcü’l-vûku¯‘ât: III, 97). Mal güvenlig˘i olmayan bir sistem ve genelde bu tür gasbedilen mallarla iddihâr edilip Enderûn-ı hümâyûn Hazinesi’ne dâhil edilen paralarla ve sikkeye tahvil edilen altın-gümüs¸ evâni yanında hattâ mahfice satıs¸a sunulan bir takım kıymetli yazma eserlerin (kütüb-ı nefîse) getirisiyle (aynı eser:

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

219

zineyi savas¸ma kabiliyeti için yeterli görmekteydi, ancak devleti yeniden yapılandıracak bir görüs¸e ve bu is¸in gereken eg˘itim ve asabiyete sahip deg˘ildi. Bu bag˘lamda Rus savas¸ının karanlık gidis¸atının da etkisi altında son dönemlerinde “Cihângîr” mahlasıyla yazdıg˘ı ¸siirlerinde de görüldüg˘ü üzere, devlet adamlarının kifayetsizlig˘inden ve özellikle daha sonraki dönemlerde kendini çok daha fazla hissettirecek bir zafiyet olarak ehil olanların azlıg˘ından (kaht-ı ricâl) s¸ikâyet eder (S¸imdi ebvâb-ı saadette gezen hep hezele) ve devletin eski gücüne kavus¸turulmasını pek imkân dâhilinde görmezdi (Yıkılıptır bu cihan sanma ki bizde düzele). 1739 Belgrad Antlas¸ması’ndan bu yana hüküm sürmekte olan barıs¸ ortamında yas¸anan rehavet yanında büyük bir zafiyet hali arzedecek olan husus, herhalde is¸ görmeye kadir eski ve tecrübeli ricâl ve ümerânın fâni ömürlerini itmam ile fenâ bulmus¸ olmalarıydı. Kaht-ı ricâl bunun kaçınılmaz bir sonucu olmus¸ ve müteakip bahislerde söz konusu edileceg˘i üzere daha sonraki dönemlerde de etkisini sürdürmüs¸tür. Askerî durumun, özellikle yeniçeri ocag˘ının ıslahındaki zarureti idrak etmekle beraber, bunun için ciddi bir giris¸imde bulunma cesaretini gösterememis¸tir. Hattâ bu konunun açılmasını bile tehlikeli görmüs¸tür. Nitekim bir görüs¸me esnasında böyle bir zarureti ag˘zından kaçırdıg˘ı Defterdar Mustafa Hilmi Efendi’yi, bunu bas¸kalarına ifs¸â edebileceg˘i endis¸esiyle önce hemen azl ve Musul mutasarrıflıg˘ı ile I˙stanbul’dan tard (3 Kasım 1758) ve I˙znik’e vardıg˘ında da idam ettirmis¸tir (12 S¸ubat 1759).164 Askerî sahada yaptıkları Bog˘az kalelerinin tahkimi, bazı yeni gemiler yapımı, Tophane ve Topçu Ocag˘ı’nın ıslâhı ve yeni toplar dökümüyle kısıtlı kalmıs¸tır.165 Askerî sahalardaki bu gibi III, 98) finansa edilmeye çalıs¸ılan uzun ve azametli bir savas¸! Dallaway bu icraati, sultanın devlet malını mekel ittihâz etmis¸ olarak iddihâr edilen servete devletin el koyması ¸seklinde tarif eder. Dallaway Mustafa’nın bu icraatleri için tercüme ettirdig˘ini belirttig˘i Makyevel’in Hükümdar (Principe) ve büyük Friedrich’in buna cevabı sayılan Anti-Makyevel isimli eserleri okumasına gerek olmadıg˘ını ifade eder! (James Dallaway’s Reise nach Constantinopel: 41). 164 [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet: I, 123; [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 78, 81. [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 91 ve Danis¸mend’te (Danis¸mend, Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi: V, 294) ismi Hâlîmi olarak mukayyettir, keza [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II, A, 36–37. Bu son iki kaynakta idamı için hesabını bilmeme, suiistimal, zimmet, borç gibi hususlarda hakkında vaki olan s¸ikâyetler serdedilmekte ve katlinin gerçek sebebi haliyle setredilmektedir. 165 Yeni dökülecek top numunesi olmak üzere Saray pis¸gâhında bulunan IV. Murad’ın ordu ile Bag˘dad’a götürdüg˘ü, 29 karıs¸ ve 30 vukiyye gülle atar kebîr topdan veya Tophâne pis¸gâhındaki Sultan Selim zamanlarından kalma 28 karıs¸lık ve 26 vukiyye gülle atar dig˘er kebîr topdan hangisinin yeni döküm için örnek alınması gerektig˘i hakkında Topçubas¸ı Elhac Mehmed Ag˘a tarafından takdim edilen arz (TSMA-E, 709/43, 1. 13 Aralık 1764) veya Sultan Mustafa’nın tensibi dog˘rultusunda on dört karıs¸ ve yarım kantar gülle atar topdan 20 adet dökülmesi emredilmis¸ olmakla beraber, on altı karıs¸ ve yarım kantar gülle atar topların “darbı ziyâde” oldug˘u bâbında Topdökümbas¸ısı Süleyman Ag˘a tarafından yapılan öneriler (TSMA-E, 709/43, 3), Tophânedeki kusurlu topların iptali ve bunların yerine 12 parça Kebîr ve S¸âhî toplar dökülmesine yine Sultan Mustafa’nın izniyle ruhsat verilmesi (TSMA-E, 709/

220

Kemal Beydilli

is¸lerde Fransa’nın yardımlarından, dolayısıyla Baron de Tott gibi uzmanlara mahkûm olma halinin – ileride daha pek çok efrenç tâifesine tenezzül edilecek olan – zilletinden meded umulmus¸tur. Savas¸ın ortasında açılan (Ekim 1772) Topçu Mektebi ancak bir sene kadar faaliyet gösterebilmis¸, ölümünden kısa bir zaman önce kurulan (Ocak 1774) Sür’at Topçuları’nın ise savas¸ın gidis¸atına bir etkisi olmamıs¸tır.166 III. Mustafa, Tophâne teftis¸lerine, yeni top döküm merasimlerine ve bunlarla Okmeydan’ında yapılan atıs¸ denemelerine S¸ehzâde Selim’i de yanına alarak katılırdı.167 Dolayısıyla tahta geçtig˘inde savas¸ta top, fis¸ek gibi bazı silahların kullanımına dair küçük bir risâle yazacak kadar konuya merak salan og˘lunun bu sahada yetis¸mesinde özendirici bir rol oynamıs¸tır.168 Yanlıs¸lıkla kendi dönemine mal edilen ve kurulus¸ tarihi 1773 olarak gösterilen deniz mühendishânesinin (Hendese Odası / Riyâziye Mektebi, daha sonraki parlak ismiyle Mühendishâne-i Bahrî-i Hümâyûn) açılması ise, 1775’de halefi I. Abdülhamid zamanında gerçekles¸mis¸tir.169

166 167 168 169

43, 4) bu sahadaki giris¸imlerin is¸aretlerini verir. Bu arada altı vukiyye gülle atar üç parça toplardan biri üzerine padis¸ahın himmetini nazmeden bir “meth ü senâ” beyti yazılması Tophane Nâzırı S¸ehdî Osman Efendi tarafından teklif edilmis¸ olması, kadîm âdetlere uygun davranıs¸ların devam etmekte oldug˘unu gözler önüne serer. Osman Efendi Sultan Mustafa’nın babası III. Ahmed zamanında dökülen 11 vukiyye gülle atar toplardan birinin üzerine de böyle bir “beyt-i garrâ kütb ü imlâ” olundug˘unu bildirmektedir. Yeni dökülen sözü edilen bu üç kebîr top üzerine, “alât-ı harbiyye üzerlerine sâ’irden imtiyâzı zımnında” bir s¸eyler yazılmasının âdet oldug˘u özellikle ifade edilmektedir. Uygun bir s¸ey yazılması vazifesini bizzat Sultan Mustafa’nın üstlendig˘ini takrir bâlâsındaki hatt-ı hümâyûn suretinden ve kaydettig˘i beyitten anlamaktayız. Sultan Mustafa top üzerine yazılmak üzere, özellikle Gaza ruhuna vurgu yapmakta olan s¸u beyti yazmıs¸tır: “bi-niyyet’in-nusreti ve’l gaza – fî asr-ı Sultan Mustafa. 1187” (TSMA-E, 709/43, 2). Yine de bu eski zaman örnekli ag˘ır ve battal topların düs¸manın “her canibe hendese ile tertîb ettikleri toplara âtes¸ vererek” ([Vasıf/ Sag˘lam]: 539) yaptıkları hücumları kars¸ılamanın mümkün olmadıg˘ı görülmektedir. Daha savas¸ın bas¸larında (Mayıs 1769) Hotin serhaddinde 35 binden fazla “guzât-ı muvahhidîn” ve yeterli sayıda top mevcut oldug˘u halde bunları kullanacak kimse bulunmamaktaydı. 45 kalibrelik havan ve humbaraların “bahs¸is¸” kapmak ümidiyle doldurulup, rastgele ates¸lenmesi sonunda, Ruslar yerine yanlıs¸lıkla müttefik Leh boyarlarından Potoski’nin karargâhı topa tutulmus¸ ve pek çok Leh askerinin yaralanmasına yol açılmıs¸tır. Bu ayıp ortaya çıkmasın diye atıs¸ların Ruslar tarafından yapıldıg˘ı söylenerek is¸ örtbas edilmis¸tir ([Mustafa Kesbî], ˙Ibretnümâ: 119). Bu ve buna benzer çok sayıda zafiyet halini gözler önüne seren trajikomik kayıtların savas¸ın felaketli encâmını yeterince gözler önüne sermekte oldug˘una s¸üphe yoktur. Yes¸il & Gezer, “‘Sürat Topçulug˘u’ I”, Osmanlı Aras¸tırmaları 52: 135–180. Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren: II, 15–16, 24, 28, 78. Bk. Beydilli, Mühendishane: 181. Kaçar, “Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘unda I˙lk Mühendishanenin Kurulus¸u”: 7; bunun 1773’te olamayacag˘ına dair daha önce yapılan bir tesbit olarak bk. Beydilli, Mühendishane: 23.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

221

Körlerle Tekgözlülerin Savas¸ı Prusya Kralı II. Friedrich’in (ö. 1786), 1768–1774 Osmanlı-Rus Savas¸ı’nda tarafların birbirinden beter olma halini vurgulamak anlamında yaptıg˘ı bu veciz tanımlama,170 uzun bir savas¸ın âdeta kısa bir özeti gibidir! Bu büyük mücadele esnasında savas¸a hazırlık, asker sevki, kumanda kademesinin yetersizlig˘i, genel malî zafiyet sebebiyle savas¸ı finanse etmenin büyük sıkıntıları, özellikle 1773– 1775 arası devam eden Pugatçev isyanının yol açtıg˘ı ve genis¸ bir cog˘rafyaya yayılan genel ayaklanmanın yarattıg˘ı zafiyet muvacehesinde Rusların da Osmanlılardan daha iyi bir durumda olmadıkları tebellür eder.171 II. Katharina, savas¸çı bir dıs¸ politika takip ederek I˙sveç, Lehistan ve Osmanlılar ile uzun soluklu mücadelelere giris¸mis¸, nihayetinde Protestan I˙sveç’i tamamen saf dıs¸ı bırakmıs¸, Katolik Lehistan’ı sonunda (1795) haritadan silecek derecelerde yok etmis¸ ve Müslüman Türkler’in elinden Kırım’ı da alarak (1783) Karadeniz’e mutlak surette çıkmıs¸, ahalisi Hristiyan olan Memleketeyn üzerinde hukuki hâkimiyetler olus¸turmus¸, Kafkaslara dog˘ru bas¸arıyla sarkmıs¸ ve de – yanlıs¸ anlamalara binâ edilmis¸ olsa da – Osmanlı cog˘rafyasındaki hem-mezheplerinin korumacılıg˘ını üstlenmis¸ bir hukuka bürünmüs¸ ve bu haliyle sonunda kendisini her kesime kabul ettirmis¸tir. Bu bas¸arıları, tahta çıkıs¸ macerasındaki kocası III. Peter’in öldürülmesindeki (1762) mes¸‘um rolü sebebiyle gayrimes¸ru durumunu, sonradan Ortadoks olan, tahtına oturdug˘u halkın dilini-dinini bilmeyen bir Alman Prensesi olma ve bas¸ta kilise olmak üzere, soylular ve ahali nezdindeki benimsenmeme halini tamamen ber-taraf etti ve “Büyük” sıfatıyla anılma s¸erefine eris¸mis¸ olarak Rus tarihinin en önemli hükümdarlarından biri haline geldi.172 Özellikle Türk savas¸larındaki bas¸arıları kendi hukukunun ibrâ170 Beydilli, Büyük Friedrich ve Osmanlılar: 98. 171 Rusya’daki bu önemli isyanın gelis¸mesi takib edilmekte ve Osmanlı ordugâhında isyan haberiyle bag˘lantılı olarak bir takım beklentilerin olus¸masına yol açmaktaydı. I˙syan hakkında oldukça etraflı bilgiler kayd eden Enverî, bu gelis¸meyle ilgili haberlerin Eflak Voyvodası Manoliki tarafından iletilmekte oldug˘unu da belirtir ([Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 456–457). Sabık Voyvoda’nın 31 Mart 1774 (18 Muharrem 1188) tarihli olarak isyanın Rusya’daki tahribâtını aksettiren havadisnâmesi yeni Padis¸ah için ug˘urlu bir bas¸langıcın is¸areti olarak yorumlanmaktaydı. I˙letilen havadisler “moral” bulmaları için her tarafa (etrâf ü enhâya) tahrir edilerek gönderilmis¸tir ([Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 457; ayrıca bk. [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam], “Kazak taifesinden Sogans¸ef isyanı”). Burada, Çariçe’nin zülmü ve Türk savas¸ı sebebiyle ahalinin büyük sıkıntılar içine düs¸müs¸ olması isyanın muhrik sebebi olarak gösterilmektedir ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 555–556). Türk tarafının Pugatçev isyanını takip eder görünmekle beraber, Çariçe’yi fevkalade sıkıntıya düs¸üren bu zafiyet halinden yeterince istifade edebilme becerisini gösteremedig˘i ileri sürülmektedir. Özellikle Ag˘ustos 1773 tarihi itibariyle isyanın arz ettig˘i tehlikeli gelis¸meler kars¸ısında ve yer yer meydana gelen Türk zaferleri muvâcehesinde çok daha uygun s¸artlarda barıs¸ yapılmasının mümkün oldug˘u ifade edilmektedir (bk. Herrmann, Geschichte des russischen Staates: V, 642). 172 II. Katharina haliyle kendisini ancak I. Peter (Büyük Petro) ile kıyaslamaktaydı. Çariçe’nin St. Petersburg’da Senato Meydanı’nda yer almak üzere yaptırdıg˘ı (1782) Büyük Petro’yu at

222

Kemal Beydilli

sının en güçlü etkeni olurken, dig˘er iki koms¸usu yanında özellikle Osmanlı devleti için bir dizi büyük felaketlerin kaynag˘ını olus¸turdu. Büyük belaların fıs¸kırdıg˘ı Küçük Kaynarca(1774) bu gidis¸âtın menba‘ı oldu! Büyük Friedrich’in 1740’lardan itibaren Avusturya ve Rusya’ya kars¸ı giris¸tig˘i zorlu mücadelede Osmanlı devletini savunma ve saldırı (tedâfüî ve tecâvüzî) amaçlı bir ittifak dâhilinde yanına çekmek üzere sürdürdüg˘ü faaliyetleri Avrupa siyasî mahfillerince de yakından takip edilmis¸, hattâ Hıristiyanlara kars¸ı Türklerle is¸birlig˘i yapma töhmeti altında kamuoyu nezdinde zora sokulmak istenmis¸tir. Büyük Friedrich’in Osmanlı devletini yanına çekme giris¸imleri fiilî bir sonuç vermemis¸ olmakla beraber, savas¸ın seyrinde düs¸manları nezdinde dolaylı da olsa hiç olmazsa tedirginlik olus¸turan kaygıların dog˘masına yol açmıs¸ olarak Prusya lehinde bir etki icra etmis¸tir. III. Mustafa Avusturya ve Rusya’ya kars¸ı Prusya ile bir ittifak içinde bulunmaya aslında istekliydi. Ancak anlas¸ıldıg˘ı kadarıyla Koca Ragıb Pas¸a’nın muhalefetini as¸acak bir tercihe yönelmeyi göze alamamaktaydı. III. Mustafa’nın savas¸a meyyâl tutumu, Koca Ragıp Pas¸a’nın, dıs¸ardan bakıldıg˘ında azametli bir izlenim vermekle beraber yakın çekimde dis¸leri dökülmüs¸, tırnakları kırık, yelesi kelles¸mis¸ ve kuvvetten düs¸müs¸ yas¸lı bir aslan olarak tarif ettig˘i devletin içinde bulundug˘u gerçek durumu iyi bilmesi173 ve Avrupa sisteminin – 1756’da ezelî düs¸manlıg˘ı bir tarafa bırakan Bourbon ve Habsburg yakınlas¸ması ile sergilendig˘i üzere – bütün ittifakları altüst etmekten kaçınmayan istikrarsız halini göz önüne almıs¸ olarak takip ettig˘i tedbirli politikası sayesinde önlenebilmis¸tir. Ragıb Pas¸a böyle bir ittifakın olus¸masının ön s¸artı olarak – muhakkak ki yerine getirilemeyeceg˘ini öngörmüs¸ olarak – Prusya’nın müttefiki olan I˙ngiltere’nin garantörlüg˘ünde ısrar etmesi, hiç olmazsa sadareti süresince devletin bas¸ını beladan korumus¸tur.174 Sultan Mustafa’nın Ragıp Pas¸a’nın ihtiyatlı yaklas¸ımına, bir savas¸ için yeterli hazineye sahip oldug˘unu ifade ile kars¸ı çıkması, olaylara bakıs¸ açısındaki sâde-dil halini göstermesi bakımından önemlidir. Prusya’nın düs¸manlarına kars¸ı verdig˘i savas¸ı bas¸arılı bir s¸ekilde bitirmis¸ (15 S¸ubat 1763 Hubertusburg Barıs¸ı) ve artık bir Türk ittifakına üzerinde gösteren bronz heykelin kaidesine yazdıkları bu durumu yeterli bir açıklıkla vurgulamaktaydı. Kaide metni: Birinci Peter’e / I˙kinci Katharina, (Petro Primo / Catharina Secunda). Çariçe, birinci ve ikinci sıfatlarının imasıyla yine de tevazu gösterip birincilig˘i Petro’ya bırakmaktaydı! 173 Buna rag˘men Pas¸a uzun sadareti esnasında gerekli ıslahatlara tes¸ebbüs etmekten uzak kalmıs¸tır. Bunda belki durumun düzelebileceg˘i ümidini tas¸ımaması veya böyle azametli bir is¸e giris¸mekten çekinmesi etken olmus¸ olmalıdır. Sultan Mustafa’nın Defterdar Mustafa Hilmi Efendi’ye yeniçerilerin ıslahı ile ilgili olarak söylediklerinden ne derecelerde pis¸manlık duydug˘u ve bu ifs¸aatın muhatabının hayatına mal oldug˘u hatırlanacak olursa (bk. s. 44), Ragıp Pas¸a’nın ihmali anlas¸ılır bir hal alır. Mustafa Nuri Pas¸a’nın deg˘erlendirmesiyle, bu yüzden âdeta sadece “vaktini hos¸ geçirme” emelinde olmus¸tur ([Mustafa Nuri], Netayicü’l-vukâ’ât: III, 43). 174 Beydilli, Büyük Friedrich ve Osmanlılar: 33–78.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

223

ihtiyacı kalmamıs¸ olmasına rag˘men Ragıp Pas¸a’nın vefatından sonra (8 Nisan 1763) Ahmed Resmî Efendi’yi Berlin’e yollaması ve kralın, Osmanlı devletiyle bir ittifak olus¸turmak isteyen eski tekliflerinin hâlâ geçerli olup olmadıg˘ının tahkiki, verilen “artık çok geç” tarzındaki cevaptan da anlas¸ılacag˘ı üzere, III. Mustafa’nın Avrupa ahvalini takipten aciz ve de siyaseten zayıf bir devlet adamı oldug˘u hususunu gözler önüne serer. Bu tutumu dikkate alındıg˘ında Sultan Mustafa’nın, 1768’de bas¸layan Rus savas¸ının açılmasında büyük bir sorumluluk tas¸ıdıg˘ı açıktır. Bununla beraber rical ve ulemanın savas¸ kars¸ıtı bir görüs¸ içinde olmaları halinde padis¸ahın bunda ısrarcı olmayacag˘ı kuvvetle muhtemeldir. Dolayısıyla rical ve ulemanın da açılan savas¸ın ag˘ır vebalini tas¸ıdıklarına ve Padis¸ahın arzusuna ters düs¸meme nefsâniyyeti içinde savas¸ın zaruri oldug˘unu kabul ve buna destek verdiklerine s¸üphe yoktur.175 Ancak burada da Sultan Mustafa’nın son sözü söyleyecek bir hükümdar olarak belirleyici rolünü iyi oynamadıg˘ı ve olayların gelis¸mesini kendi arzusunun tahakkukuna göre yönlendirdig˘i kesindir. Bu anlamda, önce sınır kalelerinin takviye edilmesini ve sefer tedarikâtı görülmeden savas¸a hemen giris¸ilmemesini ve bu is¸ için en az bir sene hazırlık yapılmasını tavsiye eden, 1736–1739 Avusturya-Rus savas¸ları esnasında ve sonraki dönemlerde bu her iki serhaddin en önde gelen kumandanlarından babası Abdullah Pas¸a’nın asker ocag˘ında yetis¸mis¸ tecrübeli bir devlet adamı olan Sadrazam Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a’nın ve ona destek veren S¸eyhülislâm Veliyyüddin Efendi’nin muhalefet ve gerekçelerini dikkate alması icap ederdi.176 175 [Mustafa Nuri], Netayicü’l-vukû’ât: III, 44. 176 Muhalif tutumundan ötürü Muhsinzâde azl edilmis¸ (7 Ag˘ustos 1768), S¸eyhülislâm hazretlerinin de “bi-hikmetihi ta‘ala” aniden öleceg˘i tutmus¸tur (25 Eylül 1768)! Ertesi gün yerine savas¸ taraftarı olan Pirîzâde Osman Sâhib Efendi tayin edilmis¸tir. ([Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vukû’ât: III, 44). Yeni s¸eyhülislâm hakkında vefatı (2 Mart 1770) münasebetiyle ve muhtemelen yol açtıg˘ı savas¸ta yas¸anan büyük hezimetlerin havasında söylenenler çarpıcıdır: Buna göre kendisi Fatiha’yı ezbere bilmez, hattâ hat ve imlâya dahi mâlik deg˘ildir, bu yüzden kurs¸un imzâ yaptırmıs¸ ve verdig˘i fetvalara bunu basmaktaymıs¸ ([Câvid], ˙Ibretnümâ: 178). Sadarete ise I˙stanbul’a vusûlünden (22 Eylül) az bir zaman sonra (11 Ekim 1768) savas¸ ilanı vazifesini yerine getirecek torlaklardan Anadolu Valisi Silahdâr Mahir Hamza Pas¸a atanmıs¸tır. Ancak kırk gün kadar – yol hariç gerçekte yalnızca bir ay – süren sadareti esnasında 40 bin altın çar-çur eden ([Câvid], ˙Ibret-nümâ: vr. 54) Hamza Pas¸a’nın ortaya çıkan cünûn hali özellikle savas¸ ilanından sonra artık gizlenemez oldug˘undan azledilmis¸tir (20 Ekim 1768). Kayserili olması hasebiyle bu halini zor durumdan kurtulmak üzere kendisinin uydurdug˘u rivâyet edilir. Nitekim katle veya müsadereye maruz kalmadan paçayı kurtarmıs¸tır. Bu bas¸arısını, on ay kadar süren ibretlik serdarlıg˘ı akabinde etvârı ihtilâl bulan, tüccarzâde bir kalem efendisi olarak askerlikten tamamen bî-haber, Ordu ile Edirne’den yola çıkıldıg˘ından beri – her halde bulas¸tıg˘ı bu macera sebebiyle – günlük is¸leri dahi görmekten aciz olarak devamlı hastalık çeken, sadaret çadırında Mirimirândan Arnavud Kahraman Pas¸a’nın “senin gibi serdarın…” deyip üzerine pis¸tov ates¸leyerek terzil ettig˘i ([S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 9, 12) halefi Yag˘lıkçızâde Mehmed Emin Pas¸a ile kıyaslandıg˘ında, “Kayseri’nin beygirleri bile akıllıdır” diyen eski Romalıların ne kadar haklı oldukları ortaya çıkar! Hadise akabinde idam edilen Kahraman Pas¸a’nın kesik bas¸ını Bâb-ı Hümâyûn önünde tes¸hir edilmesini istemeyerek Eyüb’e defnedilmesini emreden III. Mus-

224

Kemal Beydilli

Ciddî hiç bir askerî hazırlık yapılmadan177 ve de âdet oldug˘u üzere üstelik altı ay öncesinden ilân edilen (11 Ekim 1768) savas¸ın178 bas¸tan itibaren kötü bir gidis¸ât

tafa’nın ([Mehmed Hasib/Göksu], Rûznâme: vr. 2b/s. 3: 18 Ag˘ustos 1769) bu davranıs¸ı, pas¸anın kahramanlıg˘ını tasvip ettig˘ine delildir. Kahraman Pas¸a’nın 500 kese sarfıyla tahrir olunan altı bin askerin Ruslara tâbi olmaları üzerine Hotin’den orduya gönderilip, orada idam edilmesi anlatımı için bk. [Câvid], ˙Ibret-nümâ: v. 75. Savas¸ın defterdarları gibi sadrazamları da gidis¸atın azametinden akıllarına mukayyed olamadıklarına dâir yargılar sıkça dile getirilir. Nitekim Yag˘lıkcızâde’ye de cünûn hali, idamı için Hatt-ı hümâyûn yollayan bizzat padis¸ah tarafından yakıs¸tırılmıs¸tır. Seferin bitmez tükenmez masrafları kars¸ısında s¸as¸kın ve her gün para istenmekte olmasından da bunalmıs¸ olarak daha savas¸ın bas¸larında bu hususu Rikâb Defterdarı (tayini: S¸ubat 1769, b. [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 321; [S¸emdanîzâde]: II-B, 23) Âtıfzâde Ömer Vâhid Efendi’yle (ö. 1783) söyles¸en Sultan Mustafa’nın, bu arada cünûn halinden bahsettig˘i sadrazamın da idamının herhalde tahakkuk ettig˘ini (katli: 12 Ag˘ustos 1769) ifade etmesi üzerine sözünü esirgemez bir s¸ahsiyet olan Ömer Vâhid Efendi, Yag˘lıkçızâde’nin süratle yükselis¸ine atıfta bulunarak, birkaç sene içinde önce Mektupçu, sonra Reisülküttab, akabinde Vezaretle Nis¸ancı ve de Damad, müteakiben Sadrazam ve de Serdar oldug˘undan bahisle bu durumda kendisine divâne olmaktan bas¸ka bir seçenek kalmadıg˘ını beyan etmis¸tir ([Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vukû’ât: IV, 123–124; burada Ömer Vâhid Efendi’nin “S¸eyhülislâmlıktan ma‘zulen vefât eden” diye takdim edilmekte olması yanlıs¸tır). Bu beyan, o hayatî dönemlerde liyakat kavramı ve “emâneti ehline tevdi‘” söylemlerinin ne mertebelerde kâg˘ıt üzerinde kaldıg˘ının felaket-âver bir örneg˘idir. 177 Menzil tes¸kilâtının çöktüg˘ü, iâs¸e sıkıntısının büyük bir sorun olus¸turdug˘u, ordugâh nizâmının tamamen muhtel ve “âlefsizlikten telef olan hayvan lâs¸esi ve kesif kenef kokusu sebebiyle” hastalıkların ortaya çıktıg˘ı, her tarafın mezarlıkların is¸galine ug˘radıg˘ı ([S¸emdanîzâde]: II,-B, 17) ordunun bas¸ta topçuluk olmak üzere teknik donanımındaki yetersizlig˘i daha ilk andan itibaren gözler önüne serildig˘i gibi ve de seferin bas¸larında (1768) Tuna üzerine köprü ins¸ası icap ettig˘inde, bunu yapacak ehil bir ustanın kalmamıs¸ oldug˘una ve bu is¸in üstesinden gelebilecek yalnızca bir kis¸inin bulundug˘una ve o da olmasa köprü yapımında “azîm zahmet” çekileceg˘ine dâir ibretlik anlatımlar, dönemi orduya es¸lik ederek yas¸ayan resmî müverrih Sadullah Enverî Efendi’nin kayıtlarıyla mukayyeddir ([Enverî/ Çalıs¸kan]: 153). 178 Ana üslerden çok uzak yerlerde sefer es¸mek üzere âdeta düs¸manın hazırlanmasına olanak veren, kuvvetler cephelere sevkedilmeden düs¸manın Osmanlı toprakları içinde ilerlemesine ve buralarda ag˘ır savas¸ tahribatının yas¸anmasına yol açan, deg˘is¸en s¸artlar dâhilinde artık hiç bir askerî mantıg˘ı kalmayan bu garip uygulamadan bütün olumsuzluklarına rag˘men hâlâ neden vaz geçilmemis¸ oldug˘unun izâhı yoktur! 1787–1788’de ilân edilen bir sonraki büyük savas¸a da aynı ¸sekilde girildig˘ine ileride deg˘inilecektir. Savas¸ ilânı beyânnâmesinin ve Rusya tarafından hazırlanan mukabil beyânnâmenin metinleri için bk. Bozkurt, “I˙lginç bir Kadı Sicili”: 76–78 vd.; 71–73. Çariçe’nin yayınladıg˘ı beyânnâmedeki bazı nâ-hos¸ ibârelerin (zikri müstehcen elfâz-ı ka¯bîha”) sansür edilmis¸ olarak tercüme edilmis¸ olması sebebiyle “emr ü fermân mûcebince aynen tercüme” edilerek takdimi için bk. Bozkurt, aynı yer: 78, 80. Müstehcen addedilen kötü ibarelerden kastın “ettikleri yemini bozma” töhmeti oldug˘u (“… ve hak yedîmizde olmag˘la yemîninde hâin olan adüvvlerimizi…”, aynı yer: 78) anlas¸ılıyor. Tarafların ilan ettikleri Beyannâmelere yer veren dönemin Almanca havadisnâmelerinde bu ibare s¸öyledir: “… . Wir sind überzeugt, dass sie in diesem auf unserer Seite so gerechten Kriege gegen den meineidigen Feind des christlichen Namens…” (Reichspostreuter, Wien 1769, no. 13. 24 Januar sayfası).

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

225

arzetmesi,179 ordunun ehil olmayan ellere teslim edilme hali, harb hedeflerinin belirlenmemis¸ olması, menzil sisteminin tamamen çökmüs¸ oldug˘unun ortaya çıkması, dolayısıyla ag˘ır bir ias¸e sorunun yas¸anması, Müslim ve Gayrimüslim ahalinin hos¸nutsuzlug˘u ve gereken desteg˘i vermemeleri genel çözülmenin is¸aretini vermekteydi. Rus kuvvetlerinin Memleketeyn’i ve Kırım’ı zabt etmeleri (Temmuz 1771) ve Tuna’yı as¸maları (Temmuz 1773), yas¸anan bozgun ve ag˘ır yenilgiler, askerin içinde bulundug˘u düzensiz haliyle savas¸maktan kaçınması, hattâ gönüllü olarak esâreti ihtiyâr etmesi, yag˘macılıg˘ı ve isyanı, orduyu terk ederek I˙stanbul üzerinden geldikleri yerlere gitmek üzere dag˘ılmaları,180 Rus 179 Ordunun yola çıkması münasebetiyle (27 Mart 1769) Sancak-ı s¸erîf ’in âlâyla geçmesi Belgrad barıs¸ından (1736) bu yana icra edilmeyen bir merasim olması sebebiyle tes¸rifâtı unutulmus¸ idi. Âlâyı temas¸a etmek üzere yollara yıg˘ılanlar Gayrimüslim ahalinin “Peygamber râyetine” nazar etmelerine tepki göstermis¸tir. Bunun engellenmek istenmesi dehs¸etli bir kargas¸a yas¸anmasına yol açmıs¸tır. Güzergâh üzerindeki bir evin penceresinden karısı ve kızlarıyla birlikte âlâyı seyre gelen Avusturya elçisi Franz Anton von Brognard kalabalıg˘ın hücumuna ug˘ramıs¸ olarak ag˘ır zedelenmis¸, ailesine pek bir s¸ey olmamıs¸ ise de kendisi aldıg˘ı yaralardan ve geçirdig˘i s¸oktan üç ay kadar sonra ölmüs¸tür (22 Haziran 1769). Câvid, olayı “seyirci gavurların idam edildig˘i” bas¸lıg˘ı altında anlatmakta, bk. ˙Ibret-nümâ: v.16; Hammer, GOR: IV, 582; Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 77, n. 1. Bâbıâlî hediyelerle elçinin gönlünü almak istemis¸ ve resmen taziyede bulunmus¸tur. Herrmann, Geschichte: V, 610. Ayrıca salt ölümüne dâir kısa bir kayıt için bk. “Nemçe elçisinin hâlik oldug˘u”, Bozkurt, “I˙lginç bir Kadı Sicili”: 63. 180 Savas¸ ilanıyla beraber atını alan kılıcını kapan, ganimet beklentileri ile otuz küsur senedir sefere / garete hasret kalmıs¸ olarak orduya katılmak üzere yolları doldurmaya bas¸lar. “Birkaç ayda gider geliriz, terakki alır, rütbeler katederiz, Kızıl Elma’ya dek gideriz diye kahvehânelerde sandalye üzerinde Hamza-nâme okuyanlar” yanında ([Ahmed Resmî], Hülasâtü’l-itibâr: 47–48), genelde gönüllü denilen bir is¸e yaramaz takımı asıl asker arasında disiplin bozucu bir unsur, varıldıkları yerlere de kıtlık getiren birer has¸erattân bas¸ka bir s¸ey deg˘ildir. Sıkıyı gördükleri anda kaçmaya müheyya, herhangi bir büyük patlamayı duydukta “kâfir basdı” âvâzeleriyle ortalıg˘ı altüst edip tıkıs¸acak delik arayan ([Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 543, 565); topları çeken beygirlerin kayıs¸larını kesip, topu bırakıp, binerek firâr eden [Ruslar içinde bu tür zafiyetlerin vâki oldug˘una dâir düs¸ülen kayıd (bk. [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’lâsâr: II, 299; buradan naklen Hammer, GOR: IV, 655), muhtemelen bu ayıbın tes¸milen tahfifi anlamını tas¸ır] ve de geçtikleri yerleri yag˘malayan bu bahadırların iki yüz bin raddelerinde oldug˘u, toplam sayılarının ise bes¸ yüz bini buldug˘u, bunların üç yüz bini ordu ve kale hizmetlerine istihdâm edilmek üzere dag˘ıtıldıg˘ı belirtilmektedir. Sayılarda her zamanki gibi abartı payı olsa da yarattıkları meseleler ve bas¸ta kıtlık olmak üzere yol açtıkları sıkıntılar yeterince bilinmektedir ve dönemin kaynakları tarafından da hep tekrarlana gelmis¸tir. Bunların iki yüz bin olarak belirtilen kısmı sıkıyı görüp memleketlerine dönmek üzere gruplar halinde I˙stanbul’a geldiklerinde s¸ehirde huzursuzluklara yol açan söylentilerin olus¸masına sebebiyet vermekte, ordu ve serhat ahvâliyle ilgili kendilerini temize çıkartan suçlamalarda bulunmaktaydılar. Bu yüzden bunların Küçük Çekmece’de kars¸ılanmaları Sarıyer üzerinden Beykoz’a aktarılarak I˙stanbul’a girmeden geldikleri yerlere defedilmelerine çalıs¸ılmıs¸tır (TSMA-E, 520/18). Oysa düs¸manla kars¸ı kars¸ıya kalan esas cephelerde, özellikle Kalas’ın Rusların eline geçmesi üzerine pas¸alar dâhil herkesin düs¸man önünden kaçıp bir yere savus¸maları sebebiyle yas¸anan bozgunun da etkisiyle gerçek asker sayısındaki yetersizlik savas¸ın daha ilk senesinde dile getirilen bir husus olmus¸tur. Aralık 1769 tarihi itibariyle kıs¸lak mahalli ittihâz edilen mahall-i serhad olan Babadag˘’da mevcud Yeniçeri

226

Kemal Beydilli

donanmasının Akdeniz’e inmesi ve Çes¸me’deki Osmanlı filosunu yakmaları,181 Sultan Mustafa’nın tabiriyle “donanmanın kazaya ug˘raması” (7 Temmuz 1770)

Ortaları’nın neferâtının az oldug˘u ve Ortalar’da ellis¸er nefer dahi bulunmadıg˘ı, dig˘er ecnâs-ı askeriyenin dahi yetersiz oldug˘u ve de ayrıca zabitânın çog˘unun sözüne itibar edilmedig˘i, Yeniçeri Ortaları’nda aslında 350 nefer bulunması gerektig˘i ve noksan ortalara da 250 neferlik takviyeler yapılması icap ettig˘i belirtilmektedir (TSMA-E, 518/23). Anlas¸ıldıg˘ı kadarıyla sayı itibariyle “asker” çok, ama dog˘ru dürüst savas¸acak ve düs¸man kars¸ısında sebat edecek olanları âdeta yok gibidir! 181 Rusların Akdeniz harekâtı bu savas¸ın bir dig˘er cephesini tes¸kil eder. Bir önceki Rus savas¸ı esnasında da (1736–1739) Rusların Akdeniz’e bir filo göndermeg˘i planladıkları, ancak o dönemdeki s¸artların buna elvermedig˘i hadiseyi kaydeden Enverî tarafından ifade edilmektedir ([Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 126–127, 128–129). Rus filosunun Osmanlı sularındaki seyri dehs¸et havası yaratmıs¸tır. Rus donanma harekâtının bu sulara dog˘ru uzanacag˘ına dâir gelen ihbarlar, Osmanlı ricâli tarafından Rusların bahrî yetersizlikleri göz önüne alınmıs¸ olarak gerçekçi bulunmamıs¸ ve olmayacak bir is¸ ve de mugalata olarak deg˘erlendirilmis¸tir. Danimarka ve I˙ngiliz yardımlarına ihtimal verilmedig˘inden filonun zuhûru büyük bir s¸as¸kınlık yaratmıs¸tır. Bu gelis¸me özellikle, I˙sveç ve Danimarka gemilerinin limandaki varlıklarına rag˘men Türklerin Baltık-Akdeniz bag˘lantısı olmadıg˘ına inandıklarını ileri süren Tott’un (I, 256) ve daha sonraları Vâsıf Tarihi’ndeki beyânı yanlıs¸ anlamaya dayanan kayıtları sebebiyle Hammer’in de katkılarıyla bir “Türk cehâleti” örneklemesi haline dönüs¸müs¸ ve Baltık ile Akdeniz arasında bir geçit olmadıg˘ı, hattâ filonun Baltık-Adriyatik bag˘lantısı üzerinden indirildig˘i ve bu yüzden Venedik elçisinden hesap soruldug˘u gibi safsatalar, sonunda Türklerin cehâletiyle ilgili bir takım hayretlik hikâyelerin olus¸masına yol açmıs¸tır. Özellikle Baltık Denizi çıkıs¸ını (Sunt Bog˘azı) denetim altında tutmakta olan müttefik I˙sveç’in ihbarları sayesinde Osmanlı idaresinin böyle bir bilgi zafiyeti içinde olmadıg˘ı ve gelis¸meyi yakından izlenmekte oldug˘u açıkça görülmektedir (bk. Beydilli, “Denizler, Cog˘rafya ve Osmanlılar”: 40–43). Türklere yakıs¸tırılan derin cehâlet yüzyılın son çeyreg˘inden itibaren yaygınlık kazanır ve kabul görür. Giderek, “Türklerde akıl var mıdır” gülmecesine dönüs¸ür. II. Friedrich’in eser-i kalemi olarak, Papa’nın (XIV. Clemens) elinden çıkmıs¸ gibi takdim edilen 1771 tarihli düzmece bir mektupta dile getirilen Müslümanlara duyulan hayranlık nüktesi Türk gülmecesinin parlak örnekleri arasında önemli bir yer tutar. Dönemin S¸eyhülislâm’ı Osman Molla’ya hitap etmekte olan bu mektup, Papa’nın Lehistan’daki Katoliklerin korunmasına yol açacak bir savas¸a cevaz veren fetvasından ötürü S¸eyhülislam’ı muhabbetle selamlamasıyla bas¸lar. Akabinde kahraman yeniçerilerin Rusların hakkından geleceklerine olan inancını dile getiren Papa, daha sonra I˙slâm dinine duydug˘u hayranlık bahsine geçer. Ancak Papa’nın bu hayranlıg˘ı Müslümanların içinde bulundug˘una inanılan derin cehâletleri sebebiyledir! Kendisine göre en büyük tehlike eg˘itimli, aydınlanmıs¸ kafalardır. Avrupa’daki geleneksel / kadim (Ancien) tüm ög˘retilerini ve kurumlarını tehdid eden söylem ve eylemleriyle Aydınlanma feylesoflarının, dolayısıyla felsefesinin ıs¸ıg˘ında Papa’nın özlemi tıpkı Müslümanlarda oldug˘u gibi Hiristiyanlar arasında da cehâletin hüküm sürmesidir. Cehâlete medhiyye sonunda Papa’nın s¸u sözleriyle taçlanır: “Ahh, neden ¸su bizim Hıristiyanlar, ¸su Müslümanlar kadar câhil deg˘il!” (“Ach, warum sind doch die Christen im Punkte der Unwissenheit keine Muselmänner”. Mektubun tam metni için bk. Supplement zu den hinterlassenen Werken Friedrich des Zweiten König von Preussen: III, 325–329. Ayrıca, Preuss, Friedrich der Grosse. Eine Lebensgeschichte: III, 556; Jessen, Katharina II. Von Russland: in Augenzeugeberichten: 364). Dönemin Müslümanlar / Türkler hakkındaki genel yargısını aksettiren bu yaklas¸ım, okuma oranı arttıkça kendisine afakanlar bastıg˘ını söyleyen, cahil ve okumamıs¸ halka daha çok güvendig˘ini ifade eden zemanenin kafa yapısıyla beraber deg˘erlendirildig˘inde, bunun iki yüz elli sene önce

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

227

182

gibi bir dizi felâketin yas¸anması bu durumun kaçınılmaz sonucu olmus¸tur. Memleketeyn’in Rusya’nın is¸galine ug˘ramasından tedirginlik duyan Avusturya ile nakdî ödemeler dıs¸ında Küçük Eflak’ın bırakılmasını da ön gören bir ittifak antlas¸masının yapılması (6 Temmuz 1771) ise, bu devlete külliyetli para kaptırmaktan ve Rusya-Avusturya ve Prusya arasında uzlas¸ma olus¸turarak Lehistan’ın ilk taksimini (1772) kolaylas¸tırmaktan bas¸ka bir is¸e yaramamıs¸tır. Savas¸ ilanı bas¸larında Rusların Türk tarafının taleplerini yerine getirmeye hazır oldug˘u izlenimi vermeleri ve zaman kazanmak üzere sahneledikleri bu oyalayıcı rolü ustalıkla oynadıkları,183 savas¸ın bas¸ından itibaren zafiyet halinin gizlenemez oldug˘u, donanma yanında askerde de hezimet zuhûr ettig˘i, herkesin o zaman akılları bas¸ına geldig˘i ve sulha tâlib olma zarûreti ile kars¸ı kars¸ıya kalındıg˘ı bizzat Padis¸ahın kalemiyle sabittir.184 Yine de savas¸ esnasında mütareke niyetiyle II. Friedrich’in kalemiyle Papanın ag˘ızına yamanan sözlerden pek farklı olmadıg˘ı gözler önüne serilir! Rus filosunun beklenmedik zuhûru, Ege Adalarındaki ve Mora’daki Rumları desteklemeleri, Limni adasına yerles¸meleri ve Çanakkale Bog˘azı giris¸inde sıkıntılara sebebiyyet vermek üzere pek çok yeri ele geçirmeleri, Bodrum’a, I˙stanköy’e asker çıkartmaları ([Ahmed Vâsıf/ Sag˘lam]: 538), müttefikler buldukları Lübnan sahillerine yönelmeleri, Beyrut’u topa tutmaları gibi çarpıcı eylemler içinde geçti ve özellikle Çes¸me’deki Osmanlı filosunun tahribi ile sonuçlandı (7 Temmuz 1770). Rus filosunun harekâtı karadaki cepheler kadar ciddi neticeler verdi ve devletin mevcut itibarını is¸e yaramayan gemicilig˘iyle beraber alıp götürdü. Foks¸ani ve Bükres¸ görüs¸melerine paralel olarak Akdeniz’deki Rus filosu kumandanlıg˘ı ile de ayrı bir mütareke metni hazırlanması kaçınılmaz oldu (22 Haziran 1772). 182 TSMA-E, 531–32. I˙vaz-zâde Halil Pas¸a’nın azliyle (25 Eylül 1770) tayin edilen sadrazam Silahdâr Mehmed Pas¸a’nın talebi üzerine savas¸ın seyri ve mütâreke görüs¸meleri hakkında kendisinin bilgilendirilmesi amaçlı kaleme alınan mufassal Hattı Hümâyûn sureti. Donanmadaki zafiyetin çes¸itli sebepleri arasında özellikle dile getirilen Tersane’deki mîrî kalyonlarda gemi sevki ve savas¸ is¸lerini bilenlerin zamanla azalmıs¸ olmasıdır. Efrâdın gemicilik is¸lerinden sog˘uması bunun en önemli sebeplerinden biri olarak gösterilmektedir. 25 sene I˙stanbul Gümrük Eminlig˘inde bulunmus¸ oldug˘u ifade edilen Gümrük Emini I˙shak Ag˘a’nın (ö. Mart 1763) zamanına kadar gemi efrâdı vardıkları yerlerden sermayeleriyle mal alıp getirir, ticarette bulunur ve bunun kars¸ılıg˘ında kendilerinden her hangi bir gümrük vergisi talep edilmezdi. Bunlardan sâir tüccar gibi gümrük vergisi alınmaya bas¸lanması üzerine is¸in tadı kaçmıs¸ ve mîrî gemicilig˘in kahrını çekmektense tüccar kılıg˘ına girmek daha çekici hale gelmeye bas¸lamıs¸tır. Böylece giderek denizcilik becerileri geriler, sıradan ticaret erbâbı haline dönüs¸ürler. Rus filosu zuhûr ettig˘inden genelde gemicilikten anlamayan bir efrâdın eliyle mukabele edilmeye çalıs¸ılır. ([S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-A, 52–53, 63). S¸emdânîzâde’nin Çes¸me’deki yenilgi münâsebetiyle maddî kayıpların giderilmesi halinde bile hemen telâfi edilemeyecek bir zafiyet olarak mükerreren dile getirdig˘i beyânıyla, donanmada “sefine kullanır kalyoncu ve kapudan ve ilm–i deryâya ârif zât kalmamıs¸tır” ([S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 32). Bütün bunlar III. Selim döneminde bas¸layacak olan yenilenme ve yeniden yapılanma (Nizâm-ı Cedîd) faaliyetlerinin gerekçeleri arasında yer alacaktır. Donanma efrâdının bahriye askerlig˘inden ziyade ticaret istismarı içinde oldukları hakkındaki özgün örneklemeler için ayrıca bk. Jorga, GOR: IV, 392. 183 Devlet ricalinin bir kısmı da Rusya’nın savas¸ı ihtiyâr etmeyeceg˘i ve ordu yola çıkar çıkmaz barıs¸a yanas¸maya can atacag˘ı, Lehistan üzerindeki emellerinden vaz geçeceg˘i ve bu gibi olmayacak s¸eylere itikad etmekteydi. Keza, [Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vukû’ât: III, 44. 184 TSMA-E, 531–32, aynı yer.

228

Kemal Beydilli

yapılan ve dokuz madde halinde Yergög˘ü Kalesi hâricinde akdedilen mutabakattan (Nisan 1772),185 müteakiben Foks¸ani (Ag˘ustos 1772)186 ve Bükres¸’de (Kasım 1772)187 yapılan görüs¸melerden istenen netice hâsıl olmamıs¸, böylece barıs¸ın daha az kayıplarla yapılması fırsatlarından özellikle Kırım meselesi sebebiyle istifade edilememis¸tir.188 Rusya’nın is¸gal ettig˘i Kırım’ı – tabii ki daha sonra ilhâk etmek üzere – müstakil hale getirmek istemesi ve bunu barıs¸ın vaz geçilmez s¸artı olarak görmesi bu bas¸arısızlıg˘ın bas¸lıca etkeni olmus¸tur. Alınacak siyasî kararların belirlenmesi üzerinde güçlü bir etki kuran önde gelen ulema da zaten Rusya’nın öne sürdüg˘ü s¸artlar dâhilinde barıs¸ yapılmasına kesinlikle kars¸ı çıkmaktaydı. Terk edilmesi istenen Kırım’daki Müslüman halkın aynı zamanda dinî bas¸kanı olan III. Mustafa’nın, halifelik sıfatının Rus temsilcileriyle yapılan görüs¸melerde gündeme gelmesi ve devletlerarası siyasette tartıs¸ma konusu yapılması önemli bir süreç bas¸latmıs¸tır. Bu sıfat, önce bag˘ımsız hale getirilecek olan Kırım için 1774 Küçük Kaynarca Antlas¸ması’nda resmen yer alacak olmakla beraber, savas¸ sırasında Ruslarla yapılan görüs¸melerin bas¸arısız kalmasının en önde gelen nedenini tes¸kil etmis¸tir. III. Mustafa’nın Foks¸ani’deki kritik görüs¸meleri yürütmekte olan bas¸ murahhas Yenis¸ehirli Osman Efendi’ye yolladıg˘ı muskalar is¸in traji-komik bas¸ka bir veçhesini de gözler önüne sermekteydi. Padis¸ah gönderdig˘i muskaları Rus murahhasları (Mares¸al) Romançof, (Prens Gregori) Orlof ve (Aleksi) Obres¸kof ’un geçecekleri yerlere gömülmelerini ve üstlerinden geçtikleri anda bunların fikirlerini deg˘is¸tireceklerini ve “firâra mecbur olacaklarını” bildirmekteydi!189

185 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 322–325. 186 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 340–354, 356–360. 187 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 361–367, 372–376. Görüs¸meler bes¸ buçuk ay sürmüs¸ ve 38 oturum (meclis) yapılmıs¸tır; aynı yer: 377 188 Görüs¸melerin bas¸arısızlıkla sonuçlanmasını III. Mustafa teessürle kars¸ılamıs¸ ve üzüntüsünden gözyas¸ı dökmüs¸! Bk. Richard Ungermann, Der Russisch-türkische Krieg (1768– 1774): 189. 189 TSMA’de mahfûz olarak vesikanın resimlendig˘i yer, Tahsin Öz, “Yerköy Mükâlemelerinde murahhaslar için gönderilen büyüler”: 101–103; ayrıca bk. [Midhat Sertog˘lu], Mufassal Osmanlı Tarihi: V, 2591. Bunun mümkün olmadıg˘ını belirten esbak Reisülküttâb Yenis¸ehirli Osman Efendi’nin oldukça gerçekçi bir zât oldug˘unu söylemek mümkündür. Bu evsâfı ulema temsilcisi sıfatıyla ikinci murahhas olarak yanında bulunan ve Ahmed Resmî Efendi’nin “ashâb-ı lâklâka ve ¸sâks¸âkadan” (Hülasâtü’l-i‘tibâr: 84) veya Vâsıf ’ın “fenn-i mugalata vü muhâverede yektâ ve semt-i cedel u mu‘ârazada bir dâhiye-i dehyâ” [Lâfazanlıkta emsâlsiz, lâf yetis¸tirme ve sokus¸turmada ise tam bir belâ], diye tarif ettig˘i ([Ahmed Vâsıf/ Sag˘lam]: 504); kendisiyle muhatap olan Kont Grigory Orlof ’un ise, Osmanlı tarafının zorlayıcı herhangi bir imkâna sahip olmadıg˘ı bilindig˘i halde Rusya’nın Memleketeyn ve Kırım is¸gallerini sona erdirmesini ısrârla talep etmekte olması kars¸ısında en sonunda dayanamayıp, “bas¸ında aklının oldug˘u, ancak bu aklın bilinen akıllardan olmadıg˘ını” ileri sürerek dalga geçtig˘i Ayasofya Vâizi Yasincizâde Osman Efendi ile kıyaslandıg˘ında daha da belirgin hale gelir (Hülasâtü’l-itibâr ve Vâsıf Tarihi, aynı yerler).

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

229

Seferin üçüncü sadrazamı, dolayısıyla serdarı olan Moldavancı Ali Pas¸a’nın dört ay, halefi I˙vazzâde’nin on ay, bunun halefi olan ve kendi hânesini bile idare etmekten aciz oldug˘u belirtilen Silahdâr Damad Mehmed Pas¸a’nın ise yalnızca birbuçuk ay süren sadaretlerinden sonra tekrar bas¸a dönülmüs¸ olarak, ilk sadareti esnasında hiçbir hazırlık yapılmamıs¸ olarak savas¸a kalkıs¸manın vebâlini üslenmek istemeyen ve en az bir senelik bir hazırlık vâdesi öngören eski Sadrazam Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a mühre davet edilmis¸tir (11 Kasım 1771).190 Foks¸ani ve Bükres¸’teki barıs¸ görüs¸melerinde (Ag˘ustos / Kasım 1772) Rusların ileri sürdükleri s¸artlar, içinde bulunulan peris¸anlık ve yas¸anan hezimetler kars¸ısında ehven telakki edilmeye bas¸lanmıs¸tı ve savas¸ın devamı halinde daha iyi bir sonuca varılmasının mümkün olabileceg˘ine de kimse ihtimal vermemekteydi. Muhsinzâde bu durumu kabul etmekteydi, ancak son kararın bizzat padis¸ah tarafından verilmesi ve savas¸ın sorumlulug˘unu yüklenmesi gerektig˘i kanaatindeydi. Böylece bas¸tan itibaren kendisinin haklı oldug˘unu teyid ettirmek ve de barıs¸ taraftarlıg˘ı yapmanın getireceg˘i sıkıntılardan sıyrılmak istemekteydi ki bu davranıs¸ında pek de haksız sayılmazdı. Ayrıca bizzat padis¸ahın ag˘ızından is¸itilmis¸ olarak kendisine nakledilen havadisler, karakter itibariyle vesveseli ve vehhâm bir s¸ahıs olarak kendisini daha da tedbirli olmaya sevketmekteydi, zira Sultan Mustafa’nın bu s¸artlar altında yapılacak bir barıs¸ın bütün sorumlulug˘unu bas¸ta Sadrazam olmak üzere ordu ricâline yüklemek ve böylece kendisini temize çıkartmak istedig˘i ihbâr edilmis¸ bulunuyordu.191 Bu havadis ordu ricâlini endis¸elendirmis¸ ve ürkütmüs¸tü. Öte yandan ordu ahvâlini bilmeyen ve ortalıkta asker niyetiyle dolas¸an kalabalıklardan yola çıkarak zafer bekleyen I˙stanbul’daki mes¸veret meclisi üyeleri bu s¸artlar dâhilinde barıs¸ı kabul edilir bulmamakta ve orduya Rusların ag˘ır bir hezimete ug˘ratılması akabinde daha uygun s¸artlarla barıs¸ yapılabileceg˘i dog˘rultusunda emirler irsâl edilmekteydi. Bu durumda mütareke görüs¸melerinden bir netice çıkmamıs¸, ancak beklenen hezimetler tersine vaki olmaya devam etmis¸, sonunda 1773 kıs¸ını geçirmek üzere S¸umnu’ya çekilmis¸ olan ordugâh ertesi sene bas¸larından itibaren Rus muhasarası altına girmis¸, bu arada Sultan Mustafa da ölmüs¸tür (21 Ocak 1774). Hastalanmıs¸ olan Sadrazam yaza dog˘ru her s¸art ile barıs¸a yanas¸ma mecburiyetinde kalmıs¸ ve görüs¸meler için Ahmed Resmî Efendi vazifelendirilmis¸tir.

190 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 550. 191 [Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vuku’ât: III, 53. I˙stanbul’dan bu havadis Kazaskerlerden biri tarafından Reisülküttap Abdürrezzak Efendi’ye (riyaseti: Ocak 1772-Haziran 1774) ifs¸a edilmis¸tir. Sultan Mustafa’nın ise 1730’da tahtını bir ayaklanma neticesinde kaybetmis¸ olan babası III. Ahmed’in akıbetinden ürkmekte oldug˘u anlas¸ılıyor. Aynı tedirginlik, Kırım’ın Rusya tarafından ilhakı (1784) sebebiyle olus¸an olumsuzluklar kars¸ısında babasının (III. Ahmed) akıbetinden kaçınmak isteyen I. Abdülhamid tarafından da paylas¸ılmakta oldug˘una ayrıca deg˘inilecektir.

230

Kemal Beydilli

Vaktiyle Ragıp Pas¸a’ya I˙stanbul’dan Rusçuk’a iki sıra halinde altın dolu keseler dizebilecek kadar maddî yönden savas¸a hazır oldug˘unu söyleyen192 III. Mustafa, Rus seferinin son senesinde Harem-i hümâyûnda, Hasoda ve Enderûn hazinelerinde, Topkapu ve Darbhânede mevcût bütün birikimlerinin sefer masraflarına sarfedilmis¸ olarak tükendig˘ini görmek ve hattâ savas¸ masraflarını kars¸ılamak için og˘lu Selim ve kızı S¸âh Sultan’a dog˘umları esnasında vüzera ve ricâlden gelen ve anneleri Mihris¸âh Sultan’da mahfûz tutulan paraları (S¸ehzâde Selim hesabından 237 kese 55 kurus¸; S¸âh Sultan hesabından 340 kese) seferden sonra kendi vakfının fazlasından ödenmek kaydıyla mühürlü sened vererek borç olarak almak zorunda kalmıs¸tır.193 Savas¸ın daha ertesi senesinden itibaren ortaya çıkan azametli masraflar nakdî birikimi süratle eritmeye bas¸lattıg˘ından,194 savas¸ döneminin ilk Bas¸defterdârlarından I˙smetî Ali Efendi, bir sene bes¸ ay süren hizmeti akabinde aklına halel gelmis¸ olarak azle ug˘ramıs¸ (1771), halefi Hacı I˙smail Efendi de sekiz aylık bir hizmetten sonra aklını kaçırmıs¸ olarak ordugâhta vefat etmis¸tir (1772).195 Sultan Mustafa devrinin en önemli gelis¸mesinin 1768’de bas¸layan ve felaketler getiren Rus savas¸ı oldug˘una s¸üphe yoktur. Kırım’ın Rusya tarafından ilhakı (1783) dâhil olmak üzere bir dizi ciddî krizler ve nihayet 1787’de bas¸layıp 1792 senesine kadar süren – Avusturya’nın da Rusya’nın yanında yer aldıg˘ı – iki cepheli savas¸ ve ug˘ranılan ag˘ır kayıplar bunun sonucudur. Sultan Mustafa’nın hesabına kaydedilmesi gereken felaketli barıs¸ın halefi zamanında akdedilmis¸ olması yüklendig˘i tarihi vebâli tahfif edemez. “Kâffe-i müverrihîn Sultan Mustafa’nın bu seferi açmasından dolayı i‘tirâz ederler” yargısı,196 hakkında söylenecek müs¸terek bir hüküm mesâbesindedir. Jorga, savas¸ açılmasının bütün suçunu “hayalci ve melankolik yapısı içinde” III. Mustafa’ya yüklemenin haksızlık olacag˘ını ileri sürer ve bunun “daha çok I˙slâm’ın o güne kadar maruz kaldıg˘ı hakaret ve ug˘radıg˘ı kayıplar için yapılan bir öç alma savas¸ı olacag˘ına” 192 [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet: I, 78. 193 Uzunçars¸ılı, Osmanlı Tarihi: IV/1, 429; Uzunçars¸ılı, “Sultan III. Mustafa’nın hüzün verici bir borç senedi”: 595–597; Uzunçars¸ılı, “Üçüncü Mustafa’nın kızı S¸âh Sultan’a borç senedi”: 79. 194 Sultan Mustafa, azle ug˘rayan Moldavancı Ali Pas¸a’nın üzerine 12 Aralık 1769 tarihi itibariyle mühre nâil olan Sadrazam I˙vaz-zâde Halil Pas¸a’ya (25 Ekim 1770’de azledilmis¸tir) hitaben yazdıg˘ı bir nâmede yeni sadrazama mâlî durumu hakkında bilgiler vermektedir. Burada Padis¸ah daha bu tarihte Enderun Hazinesi’nde altın kalmadıg˘ına is¸aret eder ve Has Ahûr Hazinesi’nde dahi kullanılanların dıs¸ında yedekte (battalda) altın bulunmadıg˘ı, bunun zaten böyle oldug˘unu Mirahûr-i evvel vazifesinde bulunması hasebiyle kendisinin de bilmesi icab ettig˘ini, bütün bunları hazinenin gerçek durumunu açıklamak üzere yazdıg˘ını ve gelecek sene sâir masarifâtın saray hazinelerinden kars¸ılanmasının mümkün olmadıg˘ını ve artık devletin vergi tahsilini ciddi olarak ele alması gerektig˘ini ifâde etmektedir (TSMA-E, 531/30). Halil Pas¸a 1182 / 1768’de üçüncü defa Mir–i ahûr-i evvel olmus¸tur (Osmanlı Sadrazamları, Hadikatü’l-Vüzera Zeylleri: 261). 195 Danis¸mend, Kronoloji: V, 297; bk. [Vasıf/Sag˘lam]: 479. 196 [Mustafa Nuri], Netâyîcü’l-vuku‘ât: III, 45.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

231

dâir ileri sürülen görüs¸leri dile getirir.197 18. yüzyılın ikinci yarısı içindeki uzun barıs¸ döneminde sosyal hizmet ve devlet kadrolarını is¸gal eden yeni yetis¸en nesillerin ve bunların ses verdikleri yeni kamuoyunun küffâr üzerine yürüme ve cihâd hamâsetinin rüzgârına ne derecelerde kapıldıg˘ı, Ahmed Resmî’nin Hülâsâtü’l–itibâr’ında yeterli açıklıkla dile getirilen bir husus olmus¸tur. Bu durumda genel havanın böyle bir adım atmaya hazır olan eg˘iliminin de bu hesaba dâhil edilmesi gerektig˘i açıktır.

Kis¸ilig˘i ve Ölümü Kaynaklarda yaradılıs¸tan meziyetli, sag˘lam bir deg˘erlendirme yeteneg˘i ve temyiz kabiliyeti olan, basiretli, faal ve hükümdârlık vecibelerine eg˘itim ve yeteneg˘i elverdig˘i ölçüde samimiyetle sarılan, iyi kalpli, merhametli, hayırsever ve de hattâ cömert bir kis¸ilig˘e sahip olarak takdim edilen III. Mustafa, gelenek ve âdetlere bag˘lı, düzenli, tutumlu ve âdildir.198 Güzel konus¸ur. I˙yi bir hattattır. Kâtipzâde Refî Efendi’den özellikle ta’lik olmak üzere Sadr-ı Rum Eks¸ias¸zâde Veli Efendi’den de hat mes¸k etmis¸tir. Selefleri gibi kendisi de el becerisi isteyen bir marifete sahipti. III. Osman’ın “terlik” yapması gibi Sultan Mustafa da “cilt” yapardı.199 Önüne gelen raporları sonuna kadar okurdu. Küçük ayrıntılara kadar her s¸eyle ilgilenme eg˘ilimi herhalde is¸lerin yog˘unlug˘unda bog˘ulma sakıncasını beraberinde getirmis¸ olmalıdır. Talihe inanırdı. ˙Ilm-i Nücüma as¸ırı derecede düs¸kün olup, es¸ref saatsiz is¸ görmezdi.200 I˙nsanın talihini kes¸fe çalıs¸ır, vezirlerini 197 Jorga, GOR: IV, 466. Türkçe çeviri eksik, bk. V, 381. 198 Özellikle Cuma selâmlıklarında ahalinin “hasır yakarak” dikkat çektikleri veya ellerinde sallamakta oldukları arzuhalleri toplatır ve bunları özenle tetkik eder ve gereg˘ine is¸aret ederdi. Mahkemelerde haksızlıg˘a ug˘radıklarını sananların en etkili silahı “hasır yakma” tehdidi idi (Tott, Nachrichten: I, 187–188). Adalet taleplerine kulak verirdi. Eyüp Câmii’nde og˘lunun haksız idamı sebebiyle Hünkâr Mahfili’ne yaklas¸arak yüksek sesle durumu acı bir s¸ekilde dile getiren ve padis¸ahı ¸seriata davet eden bir annenin, bu infiâlini sessizce dinlemis¸ ve kadına kimsenin müdahale etmesine izin vermemis¸tir. Cemaâtten destekleyici sesler yükselmesi üzerine ise câmiyi terk etmek zorunda kalmıs¸tır (Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 29). 199 Hammer, GOR: IV, 649. 200 [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, 35. Sultan Mustafa’nın, Sadrazam Ragıb Pas¸a’nın methedip durdug˘u ve kendisine vermeyi vadettig˘i halde ihmal etig˘i Acem’den gelme nücûma dâir bir risâlenin, pas¸anın vefâtından sonra pes¸ine düs¸mesi ve Büyük Hanım’ın hanesinde bir takım kitapların mevcûd oldug˘unu ög˘renmesi üzerine bunların getirtilmesi ve nücûm dıs¸ı olanların iâde edeceg˘ini bildirmesi, bu anlamdaki düs¸künlüg˘üne güzel bir örnek tes¸kil eder. Burada is¸aret edilen “Büyük Hanım” pas¸anın dul es¸i Saliha Sultan olmalıdır (TSMA-E, 531/28; vesika tarihi: 1176. Mayıs-Haziran 1763 olmalı). Konu ile ilgili dig˘er iki vesikada pas¸anın haremde bazı kitapları oldug˘undan ve bir müsâit zamanda bunları dıs¸arı ihraç ve kütüphâneye bırakacag˘ını söylemekte olmasından da hareketle haremde aras¸tırma yapılmıs¸, ancak bulunamamıs¸tır. Risâlenin akıbeti pas¸anın kethüdası olan Hatipzâde’ye de

232

Kemal Beydilli

de yıldızı yüksek oldug˘una inandıklarından seçer ve deg˘is¸tirirdi.201 1763’de Berlin’e gönderilen Ahmet Resmî Efendi vasıtasıyla Prusya Kralı II. Friedrich’e bu anlamda bas¸vurmus¸ ve kendisine üç büyük devlete kars¸ı verdig˘i savas¸taki bas¸arılarının arkasında oldug˘una inandıg˘ı müneccimlerinden birkaçını göndermesini istemis¸tir. Prusya kralının, bas¸arının kaynag˘ı olarak tarih bilgisiyle donanmıs¸ olmayı, eg˘itimli ve disiplinli ordu ve dolu bir hazineye sahip bulunmayı göstermesi, dolayısıyla iyi talihin arkasında ilâhî takdirin deg˘il de bes¸erî becerinin yatmakta oldug˘unun imâsı, her halde kendisini memnun etmemis¸tir.202 1768 Rus savas¸ı bas¸ladıg˘ında hazinesi dolu olmakla beraber, ordu tamamen kendi haline terkedilmis¸ gibidir. Tarihten de ders alacak kadar istifade etmedig˘i açıktır. Kudüs Prensesi Johanna ile evlenen (9 Kasım 1225) Hohenstaufen hanedanından I˙mparator II. Friedrich’in bir erkek çocug˘u olması için zifâfı astrolojik kehânetlerin is¸aret ettig˘i üzere (es¸ref saat) düg˘ünün ertesi gününe ertelemesi gibi, og˘lu Selim’in Cihangir olması için Kıran Vakti’nde ana rahmine düs¸mesini tertipleyecek kadar bu ilmin müptelasıdır. Devrin tarihçisi S¸emdânîzâde’nin ifadesiyle “Fenn-i nücûmun nuhûseti” üzerine çökmüs¸tür.203 Saltanatı boyunca on sadrazam ve dokuz s¸eyhülislâm deg˘is¸tiren204 III. Mustafa’nın ismen bilinen kadınlarının sayısı mahduttur.205 Muhtemelen mahre-

201 202

203 204

205

sorulmus¸, bunun pas¸anın kitapçısı Zihnî Efendi’de olabileceg˘i muhtemel görülmüs¸ ve kitapçı yamag˘ı Sadık Efendi istintak edilmis¸tir. Bunun yeminli beyânına göre, pas¸anın içlerinde “rûganî ciltlu çâr-ı musattara tahrîr edilmis¸ ve ba‘zen es¸kâli muhtevi kitâb ¸seklinde bir kebîr mecmû‘a”nın da yer aldıg˘ı mevcut kitapları Enderun kitaplıg˘ına teslim edilmis¸ olup, kendilerinde herhangi bir s¸ey bulunmamaktadır (TSMA-E 790/25, 1 ve 790/25, 2). Bütün bunları gökteki yıldızların da s¸as¸kınlıkla izlediklerini varsayabiliriz! Oysa kendisinin yıldızının alçak oldug˘u anlas¸ılıyor. Hammer’in vurgusuyla talihsiz bir insandır (Hammer, GOR: IV, 648). Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 15–16. Sultan Mustafa Magribî’lerin “cüz’iyyât-ı ulûma meyyâl ve bu fende mâhir” oldukları duymus¸ oldug˘undan Fas Hâkimi’nden de, “gayb-ı yalnız Allah bilmekle beraber” müneccim istemis¸ oldug˘una dair bk. [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 549. Ancak padis¸ahın bunu yaparken gerekçe olarak, “evka¯t-ı sâ‘at-i leyl ü nehârı tesvig˘-i ¸ser‘ derecesinde ehâli-i Istanbul’a nes¸r içün bir ¸sahıs irsâli” demekte olması – sanki Pâyıtahta bu is¸lerden anlayan adam kalmamıs¸ gibi –, yaptıg˘ı is¸in manasızlıg˘ını kendisinin de hissetmekte oldug˘unun is¸aretini tas¸ır. [S¸emdânîzâde], Mür’i’t-tevârîh: II-B, s. 35, 116. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 443–444; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 550. S¸eyhülislâmlar: 1) Damadzâde Feyzullah Efendi, 2) Mehmed Salih Efendi, 3) Çelebizâde Âsım Efendi, 4) Veliyyüddin Efendi, 5) Karabekirzâde Ahmed Efendi, 6) Dürrizâde Mustafa Efendi, 7) Pirizâde Osman Efendi, 8) Mirzazâde Mehmed Said Efendi, 9) S¸erifzâde Mehmed Molla. Sadrazamlar: 1) Koca Ragıb Mehmed Pas¸a, 2) Tevki‘ Hamza Hamid Pas¸a, 3) Köse Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a, 4) Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a, 5) Silahdar Hamza Mâhir Pas¸a, 6) Yag˘lıkcızâde Mehmed Emin Pas¸a, 7) Moldavancı Ali Pas¸a, 8) I˙vazzâde Halil Pas¸a, 9) Silahdar Mehmed Pas¸a, 10) Muhsinzâde Mehmed Pas¸a. III. Mustafa’nın çocuk sahibi olan isimleri bilinen hanımları: Beyhan ve Hadice Sultanların annesi Adils¸âh / Fatma Sultan (ö. 1803), Mihrimâh Sultanın annesi Aynülhayat Sultan (ö. 1764). S¸ehzâde Selim’in annesi Mihris¸âh Sultan (ö. 1805). Toplam 7 kız: Beyhan (ö. 1824), Hadice (ö. 1822), Mihris¸âh (anne ismi bilinmiyor, ö. 1769), Mihrimâh (ö. 1763), Hibetullah

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

233

miyete intikal eden bir konu addedilmekte olması hasebiyle kaynaklarda kadın isimlerine pek yer verilmez. Anne olarak dog˘um da yapsa vefât da etse genelde kadının ismi yoktur, sayı sıfatıyla anılma hali vardır.206 Bunlardan, önceleri kimsenin duymamasına özen gösterilmis¸ olarak gizlice sadrazamın207 hanesinde kalan ve burada beraber oldug˘u Rıf ’at Kadın ile Avrupa hükümdarlarının metresleri misâli “dost hayatı” yas¸amaktaydı. Daha sonra bunu Dördüncü Kadın olarak hareme almıs¸tır. Rıf ’at Kadın’ın gizlice saraya nasıl getirileceg˘i, haremde nasıl konus¸acag˘ı ve Padis¸aha nasıl davranacag˘ı, bu tür moldavancılık is¸lerinde de kullandıg˘ı anlas¸ılan Sadrazama bizzat kendisi tarafından talim edilmis¸tir.208 Sadrazamlar dıs¸ında Kızlarag˘ası, Nedimler, Musahipler, Kızkardes¸ler ve bizzat Vâlide Sultan tarafından padis¸ahlara “cariye” adı altında güzel hatunlar takdim etmek – günümüzde yadırgansa da – o devrin makbûl âdetlerindendi.209 10 Ramazan 1218 / 12 Ocak 1803’de ölen Rıf‘at Kadın’ın mezarı Numûne Hastahânesi’nin arkasındaki, bir kös¸esinde Halil Hamid Pas¸a haziresinin de bulundug˘u Karaca Ahmet bakiyesi mezarlık parçasında yer almaktadır. Burada gömülü oldug˘una göre, dul kalınca muhtemelen tekrar ailesi yanına dönmüs¸ ve eski konumuna iâde edilmis¸ olmalıdır.210 Sultan Mustafa’nın ismi verilmeyen Bas¸kadınını Dârüssaade Ag˘ası Kâtibi Ali Bey’e tezvic ettig˘ini bildiren ve Muradî dıs¸ında herhangi bas¸ka bir kaynakta yer bulmayan bir kayıt konuya ayrı bir ilginçlik kazandırır.211 Genelde çocuksuz olan kadınların Padis¸ah henüz hayattayken uygun birisiyle evlendirilerek çırag˘ edilmesini nâdir de olsa örneklemek mümkündür.212 Padis¸ah’ın ölümünden sonra yine çocuksuz olma kaydıyla haremine intikal etmis¸ olan kadınların bas¸kalarıyla

206 207 208

209 210 211 212

(anne ismi bilinmiyor, ö. 1762), I˙smihân (anne ismi bilinmiyor (ö. ?), S¸âh Sultan (anne ismi bilinmiyor, ö. 1802) ve 3 erkek og˘lu III. Selim (ö. 1808), ve annelerinin ismi verilmeyen S¸ehzâde Mehmed (ö. 1772) ve Ahmed (ö. ?) olmus¸tur. (Çag˘atay, Padis¸ahların Kadınları ve Kızları: 98–103; Bas¸arır, Osmanlı Hanedan Kızları ve Gelirleri: 28 vd.). Lâleli’deki Sultan Mustafa câmiindeki türbe dıs¸ına defnedilen “Müteveffiye ¸süden-i Üçüncü Kadın” kaydında oldug˘u gibi (2 Safer 1178 / 1 Ag˘ustos 1764), [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 132. I˙smi verilmemekle beraber bu Bahir Mustafa Pas¸a (sadareti: Kasım 1763-Mart 1765) olmalıdır. Uluçay, Osmanlı Sarayında Harem Hayatının ˙Içyüzü: 128–130; amlf., Harem II: 22–24; amlf., Padis¸ahların Kadınları ve Kızları: 100. Sultan Mustafa – elinin altındakiler yetmiyormus¸ gibi – Bag˘dad’tan “iki Acem cariyesi” getirtmek istemis¸ ve bu is¸i Sadrazam Ragıb Pas¸a marifetiyle gizlice Bag˘dat Valisi Ali Pas¸a’ya havale ettirmis¸tir. Ragıp Pas¸a’nın ölümü üzerine siparis¸in tahakkuku yeni sadrazama bırakılmıs¸tır (TSMA-E, 788/94). Ayrıntı ve örneklemeler için bk. Akyıldız, Haremin Padis¸ahı: 57, 166 vd., 287. Mezar tas¸ı görüntüsü ve metni için bk. Laqueur, “I˙stanbul’da iki ‘I˙mparatoriçe’ Mezarı”: 58– 59. Zifâf nikâh akdinden bes¸ gün sonra vâki olmus¸tur (5 Zilhicce 1173 / 19 Temmuz 1760) ([Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı: 86). II. Abdülhamid’in üçüncü kadın Nûr-efsûn’u bos¸ayarak esvapçısı Safvet Bey ile evlendirmesi örneg˘i için b. Akyıldız, Haremin Padis¸ahı: 106.

234

Kemal Beydilli

evlendirilmeleri misâlini ise III. Osman’ın es¸lerinden Leyla Hanım vermektedir. Leyla Hanım (ö. 1795) Sultan Osman’ın vefâtı akabinde yeni Padis¸ahın sarayda yaptıg˘ı tasfiye meyânında çırag˘ edilerek Mehmed Emin Bey ile evlendirilmis¸tir. Bu zât 1785’te ölmüs¸ olup, bu evlilikten Feyzullah Bey (ö. 1792) dog˘mus¸tur.213 Sultan Mustafa Huzur Dersleri’ne önem vermis¸ ve bu derslerin insana her iki dünyada da faydası olacag˘ı hususunun kardes¸i Sultan Osman’nın kalbine dog˘mus¸ oldug˘u (“kalb-i es¸reflerinde hüveydâ”) itikadıyla bunu yeni olarak ihdas ve “îcâd” etmis¸214 ve âdet haline getirterek devletin sonuna kadar yas¸amasına vesile olmus¸tur.215 Ramazanlarda dâvet edilen ulemâ’ya Kadı Beyzâvî Tefsiri’nden mukabele ettirir, hazır bulunanları “nakd-i firâvân” ile tatyîb eder,216 münâvebe ile toplam sayıları yetmis¸i bulan “erbâb-ı fazl ü hünerin” Ramazan ayı masraflarını kars¸ılamalarına böylece yardımcı olurdu.217 Sabah namazlarını tebdilen Ayasofya’da kılması alıs¸kanlıkları arasındadır. Rus savas¸ının bas¸tan itibaren kötü gidis¸âtı kars¸ısında, askerin ayaklanarak IV. Mehmed’i tahtan indirmesi (1687) veya babasının da bas¸ına geldig˘i gibi bir hadiseyle (1730) kars¸ı kars¸ıya gelebileceg˘inin kaygı ve tedirginlig˘i içinde, harp esnasında mütenekkiren, genelde Haseki kıyafeti içinde218 halk arasında dolas¸maları, özellikle kamuoyunun hissiyât ve efkârını tesbit etmek ve nabzını tutmak üzere daha da bir yog˘unluk kazanmıs¸tır.219 III. Mustafa, savas¸ının ilk zamanlarında Rusların Hotin muhasarısı esnasında kazanılan bazı bas¸arılar üzerine Gazi olarak ilan edilmis¸tir (Nisan 1768). Harbin kötü gidis¸atının etkisiyle üç sene sonra Ayasofya Câmii’nde Selâmlık esnasında okunan hutbede bu unvânın zikredilmesi (16 L. 1184 / 2 S¸ubat 1771), içlerinde Mevlevîlerinde bulundug˘u bazı dervis¸ler tarafından “yalandır, deg˘ildir” diye yüksek sesle itiraza ug˘ramıs¸tır.220 Cülûsunda sadrazam olarak buldug˘u ve vazifesinde ibka ettig˘i Koca Ragıb Pas¸a sayesinde saltanatının ilk döneminde kötü gün görmeden hüküm sürmüs¸ olmakla beraber, savas¸ın son senesinde yas¸anan felaketler sıhhatini bozmus¸tur. Özel hayatındaki dengeli yas¸amına rag˘men savas¸ın çaresiz seyrinin yol açtıg˘ı ag˘ır sıkıntılar sebebiyle birkaç ay el ve ayaklarını

213 Hans-Peter Laqueur, “I˙stanbul’da iki ‘I˙mparatoriçe’ Mezarı”: 59. Burada, Numune Hastahanesi’nin arkasındaki, bir kös¸esinde Halil Hamid Pas¸a haziresinin de bulundug˘u Karaca Ahmet bakiyesi mezarlık parçasında bulunan Leyla Hanım’ın mezar tas¸ı fotog˘rafına da yer verilmis¸tir. 214 [Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi/I˙lgürel]: 43. 215 I˙ps¸irli, “Huzur Dersleri”: 441–444. 216 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 549. 217 [Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi/I˙lgürel]: 43. 218 I˙smail Hakkı Uzunçars¸ılı, Saray Tes¸kilatı (Ankara 1983): 60–61. 219 [Mustafa Nuri], Netâyicü’l-vukû‘ât: IV, 123–124. 220 [Mehmed Hasib/Göksu], Rûznâme: vr. 6b / s. 14; Diez, Wesentliche Betrachtungen: 29.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

235

kullanamayacak derecelerde meflûç kalmıs¸,221 kendisine kötü haber verilmemesi için önlemler alınmıs¸sa da bu mümkün olmamıs¸, sonunda tahtını bırakacag˘ı S¸ehzâde Abdülhamid’in de nihâyetinde sebeb-i mevti olacag˘ı gidis¸âtın derin üzüntüsü içinde daha fazla dayanamayarak vefât etmis¸tir (8 Zilkaade 1187 / 21 Ocak 1774).222 Hastalıg˘ının kırk gün kadar sürdüg˘ü, bunda savas¸ın kötü gidis¸atının önemli bir rol oynadıg˘ı, I˙stanbul ahalisinin bu kötü gelis¸me kars¸ısındaki tepkilerinin bertaraf edilmesi için kahvehanelerin ve meyhanelerin pes¸ine düs¸üldüg˘ü, bunların kapatıldıg˘ı, kapılarının mühürlendig˘i gibi uygulamalar ile efkârın ezhânının is¸gal edildig˘i vurgulanmaktadır.223 Son gelis¸melerin muhasebesi, dolayısıyla “devlet sohbeti” yapılan bu tür yerlerin kapatılması, siyaseten sorumlu olanlar aleyhine kamuoyu olus¸turulmasını önlemek amacıyla bir bas¸ka deyis¸le ‘yayın yasag˘ı’ getirilmesi eskiden beri uygulanan bir yöntem idi. Vefâtına müsâdif olan Cuma günü câmi ve mescidlerde okunmakta olan hutbede adı zikredilmekte ve “kelime-i tehlîl” sesleri âfâkı tutmaktayken son nefesini vermis¸ oldug˘u nakledilir.224 Ricâl-i devlet barıs¸a mütemayil olmakla beraber, bu anlamda yapılan görüs¸melerden herhangi bir sonuç çıkmayacag˘ına inanmaktadır. Yapılan mütârekeye matûf olmak üzere “zamanımızda sulh bu kadar” demis¸ ve bu ifâdeyle kendi devrinde barıs¸ yapılamayacag˘ına is¸aret etmis¸ oldug˘u, görüs¸meleri yürüten Yenis¸ehirli Osman Efendi tarafından bizzat Padis¸ahın s¸ifâhî beyânı olarak nakledilmis¸tir225 Sultan Mustafa 16 sene 9 aylık bir saltanat hitâmında geride üç kız (Beyhan, Hadice, S¸âh Sultanlar) ve bir s¸ehzâde (Selim)226 ve bahtsız halefine ag˘ır tahribâta ug˘ramıs¸ ve felaketli bir barıs¸a mahkûm edilmis¸ bir devlet bırakmıs¸tır.

Kaynaklar Osmanlı Ars¸iv Malzemeleri TSMA-E, 520/18 TSMA-E, 709/43, 1 TSMA-E, 709/43, 2 TSMA-E, 709/43, 3 221 “bir nezle-i hâdde zuhûr ve hattâ birkaç sâ‘at a‘zâ ve a‘sâbına küllî istirhâ ve fütûr gelmeg˘in…”, [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 441; “ta‘tîl-i cevârih edecek derecelerde insıbâb ‘ârız olup”, [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 546. 222 [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: II. 278; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 546. 223 [Câvid], ˙Ibret-nümâ: 181. 224 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 442. Cuma salâsı okunmus¸ olmasına rag˘men, ardından Padis¸ahın vefatı sebebiyle tekrar salâ okunması emir edilmis¸tir, [Câvid], ˙Ibret-nümâ: 181. 225 [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 549. 226 [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan]: 442; [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam]: 549; [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr: II, 281.

236

Kemal Beydilli

TSMA-E, 709/43, 4 TSMA-E, 709/81–1 TSMA-E, 709/81–2 TSMA-E, 518/23 TSMA-E, 531/28 TSMA-E, 531/30 TSMA-E, 531–32 TSMA-E, 788/94 TSMA-E 790/25, 1 TSMA-E,790/25, 2 TSMA-E, 790/39 BAO, Cevdet Hariciye, nr. 5322 BOA, A. TS¸F. D. Nr. 350, vr. 1b Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüg˘ü, 642 nolu Defter. III. Mustafa 1178 (1764) tarihli vakfiyye sureti, s. 5 ˙Istanbul Kadı Sicil Defteri, nr. 154, Hüküm 135, [vr. 50 a–1]. Rûznâme, TTK Kütüphanesi, nr. 1001.

Kitap, Makale, Maddeler III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi = III. Mustafa Rûznâmesi (1757–1763) (Haz. Yunus Irmak, MÜSBE basılmamıs¸ yüksek lisans tezi) I˙stanbul 1991. [Ahmed Cevdet], Târîh-i Cevdet I–XII. I˙stanbul 1309. [Ahmed Resmî], Hülasatü’l-itibâr, I˙stanbul 1276. [Ahmed Vâsıf], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr hakaikü’l- ahbâr I–II. I˙stanbul 1219 (1804). [Ahmed Vâsıf/Sag˘lam], Mehâsinü’l-âsâr hakaikü’l-ahbâr (1752–1774) (Haz. Nevzat Sag˘lam, MÜSBE basılmamıs¸ doktora tezi). I˙stanbul 2014. [Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi/I˙lgürel], Mehâsinü’l-Âsâr ve Hakâikü’l-Ahbâr 1774–1779 (H. 1188– 1193) (Haz. Mücteba I˙lgürel). Ankara 2014. Aksan, Virgina, “The One-Eyed Fighting the Blind: Mobilization, Supply, and Command in the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774”, International History Review 15/2 (1993): 221– 238. Aktepe, Münir, Mehmed Emnî Beyefendi (Pas¸a)’nın Rusya Sefâreti ve Sefâretnâmesi. Ankara 1989. Akyıldız, Ali, Haremin Padis¸ahı Valide Sultan. Harem’de Hayat ve Tes¸kilat (büyük baskı) I˙stanbul 2017. Arıkan, Ays¸e, 1774 Tarihli Elçilik Hatıratı ve XV–XVIII. yy. Osmanlı-Rus ˙Ilis¸kileri (Çankırı Üni. YLT). 2012. Âsım Tarihi (Yay. Ziya Yılmazer). I˙stanbul 2017. Atasoy, Nurhan & Kınay, I˙rem, Portraits and Caftans of the Ottoman Sultans. USA. Assouline Publ. 2012. Atıl, Esin (haz.), Levni ve Surname. Bir Osmanlı S¸enlig˘inin Öyküsü. I˙stanbul 1999. Baron von Tott, Nachrichten von den Türken und Tataren I–II. Frankfurt, Leipzig 1787– 1788.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

237

Bas¸arır, Özlem, Osmanlı Hanedan Kızları ve Gelirleri [XVIII. Yüzyıl ve XIX. Yüzyılın ˙Ilk Çeyreg˘i]. I˙stanbul 2018. Baykal, Bekir Sıtkı, “III. Mustafa”, ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi VIII (1971), 700–708. Beydilli, Kemal, “IV. Mustafa”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 31 (2006): 283–285. Beydilli, Kemal, Büyük Friedrich ve Osmanlılar. XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı-Prusya Münasebetleri. I˙stanbul 1985. Beydilli, Kemal, “Denizler, Cog˘rafya ve Osmanlılar”, Tarih ve Toplum 139 (Temmuz 2005): 40–43. Beydilli, Kemal, “Küçük Kaynarca Antlas¸ması”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 26 (2002): 524–527. Beydilli, Kemal, “Mehmed Emin Pas¸a”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 28 (2003): 464–465. Beydilli, Kemal, Türk Bilim ve Matbaacılık Tarihinde Mühendishane, Mühendishane Matbaası ve Kütüphanesi. I˙stanbul 1995. Beydilli, Kemal & S¸ahin, I˙lhan, Mahmud Râif Efendi ve Nizâm-ı Cedîd’e dâir Eseri. Ankara 2001. Bozkurt, Fatih, “I˙lginç bir Kadı Sicili: 1768–1774 Osmanlı-Rus Harbi’ne dair Kayıtlar”, History Studies 4/1 (2012): 1–88. [Câbî Ömer], Tarih-i Sultan Selim-i Salis ve Mahmud-ı Sani. Tahlil ve Tenkidli Metin I–II (Haz. M. A. Beyhan). Ankara 2003. [Câvid], ˙Ibret-nümâ-yı devlet-i Câvid, I˙stanbul Ünivesitesi Nadir Eserler kütb. Ty. 5945. Tanıtma için bk. Arslantürk, Ahmet & Bozkurt, Fatih, “18. Yüzyılın ikinci yarısına dair önemli bir Osmanlı tarihi: I˙bretnümâ-yı devlet-i Câvid”, Soysal ve Kültürel Aras¸tırmalar Dergisi II/3 (2016): 155–194. Çelik, Yüksel, “Mit ve Gerçek Arasında: Taksim Topçu Kıs¸lası (Beyog˘lu Kıs¸la-ı Hümâyûnu)”, Emecen, Feridun & Akyıldız, Ali & Gürkan, Emrah Safa (ed.), Osmanlı ˙Istanbulu III: 443–476. Çetin, Engin, Mehmed Emin Recâî Efendi’nin 1768–1774 Osmanlı-Rus Savas¸ına Dair Mecmuası (Deg˘erlendirme – Çeviri Metin) (MÜTA yüksek lisans tezi). I˙stanbul 2017. Danis¸mend, I˙smail Hami, Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi V. I˙stanbul 1971. Davies, Brian L. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768–1774. Catherine II and the Ottoman Empire. London 2016. Demir, Ug˘ur, 1768 Öncesi Osmanlı Diplomasisi (1755–1768) (Marmara Üniversitesi basılmamıs¸ doktora tezi). I˙stanbul 2012. Des neu eröfneten Historischen Bilder-saals zwölfter Theil. Nürnberg 1761. Emecen, Feridun, “Bulutkapan Ali Bey”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 2 (1989): 383–384. Emecen, Feridun, “Zahir el-Ömer”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 44 (2013): 90–91. [Enverî/Çalıs¸kan], Sadullah Enverî Efendi ve Tarihi’nin 1. Cildinin Metin ve Tahlili (1768– 1774) (Haz. Muharrem Saffet Çalıs¸kan, MÜTAE. Basılmamıs¸ Doktara Tezi). I˙stanbul 2000. Findley, Carter Vaughn, Enlightening Europe on Islam and the Ottoman. Mouradgea d’Ohsson and His Masterpiece. Leiden, Boston. Brill 2019.

238

Kemal Beydilli

[Hâkim/Güngör], Vakʽa-nüvis Hâkim Efendi Tarihi (Metin ve Tahlil) (Haz. Tahir Güngör. MÜSBE basılmamıs¸ doktora tezi). I˙stanbul 2014. Herrmann, Ernst, Geschichte des Russischen Staates V. Hamburg 1853. I˙nalcık, Halil, Fatih Devri Üzerine Tetkikler ve Vesikalar I. Ankara 2. bsk. 1987. I˙ps¸irli, Mehmet “Huzur Dersleri”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 18 (1998): 441–444. I˙ps¸irli, Mehmet, “Sunʽullah Efendi”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 37 (2009): 530–532. James Dallaway’s Reise nach Constantinopel, der Ebene von Troja und in die Levante. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt. Berlin, Hamburg 1801. Jessen, Hans, Katharina II. Von Russland: in Augenzeugeberichten. München 1978. Jorga, Nicolae, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches. Gotha 1913. Kaçar, Mustafa, “Osmanlı I˙mparatorlug˘u’nda I˙lk Mühendishanenin Kurulus¸u”, Toplumsal Tarih IX/54 (I˙stanbul 1998): 4–11. Karateke, Hakan, An Ottoman Protocol Register (= BOA, A. TS¸F. D. Nr. 350). I˙stanbul 2007. [Kâtib Çelebi], Fezleke. Osmanlı Tarihi. (1000–1065/1591–1655) (Haz. Zeynep Aycibin). I˙stanbul 2016. Kılıçbay, Mehmet Ali, Feodalite ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Üretim Tarzı. Ankara 1985. Kiel, Machiel, “Rodos”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 35 (2008): 155–158. Koçu, Res¸ad Ekrem, Osmanlı Padis¸ahları. I˙stanbul 1981. Kolodziejczyk, Dariusz, The Crimean Khanate and Poland-Lithuania. Brill 2011. Laqueur, Hans-Peter “I˙stanbul’da iki ‘I˙mparatoriçe’ Mezarı”, Tarih ve Toplum 24/143 (Kasım 1995): 58–59. [Mehmed Hasib/Göksu], Rûznâme (1182–1195/1768–1781) (Haz. Süleyman Göksu. MÜTAE yüksek lisans tezi). I˙stanbul 1993. [Mehmed Said Galib], Revâbitu’l-ukûd I. Mouradgea d’Ohsson, Ignatius, Tableau Général de L’Empire Othoman I. Paris 1787. Mouradgea d’Ohsson, ˙Imparatorlug˘un Mes¸alesi. XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı ˙Imparatorlug˘unun genel görünüs¸ü ve Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohsson. I˙stanbul 2002. [Mustafa Kesbî], ˙Ibretnümâ-yı Devlet (Haz. Ahmet Ög˘reten). Ankara 2002. [Mustafa Nuri (Pas¸a)], Netâyicü’l-vuku’ât. I˙stanbul 1327. Nizamettin Biber, ˙Istanbul Camileri. I˙stanbul tz. Osmanlı Sadrazamları, Hadikatülvüzera ve Zeylleri (Haz. Mehmet Arslan). I˙stanbul 2013. Önal, Ahmet, 18. yüzyıla ait Buyruldu Mecmuası (TTK, y. 70. Deg˘erlendirme-Transkripsiyon) (MÜTA yüksek lisans tezi). I˙stanbul 2006. Öz, Tahsin, “Yerköy Mükâlemelerinde murahhaslar için gönderilen büyüler”, Tarih Vesikaları Dergisi II/8 (Ankara, Haziran 1942): 101–103. Öz, Tahsin, ˙Istanbul Camileri I. Ankara 1962. Özcan, Abdülkadir, “Mahmud I”, in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı ˙Islâm Ansiklopedisi 27 (2003): 348–352. Özcan, Abdülkadir, ˙Imparatorluk Çag˘ında Osmanlı Sultanları III (I˙SAM yayınları). Ankara 2017. Pamuk, S¸evket, Osmanlı ˙Imparatorlug˘u’nda Paranın Tarihi. I˙stanbul 2000. Pamukciyan, Kevork, “Ünlü Hassa ressamı Rapayel ve Eserleri”, Tarih ve Toplum 40 (1987): 28–33.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

239

Preuss, Johann David Erdmann, Friedrich der Grosse. Eine Lebensgeschichte III. Berlin 1833. [Râs¸id Mehmed], Tarih-i Râs¸id ve Zeyli I–III. I˙stanbul 2013. Reichspostreuter, Dienstag, vom 24 Januar. Wien 1769, No. 13. Sakaog˘lu, Necdet, Bu Mülkün Kadın Sultanları: Vâlide Sultanlar, Hâtunlar, Hasekiler, Kadınefendiler, Sultanefendiler. I˙stanbul 2015. Sakaog˘lu, Necdet, Bu Mülkün Sultanları. I˙stanbul 2005. Sarıcaog˘lu, Fikret, Kendi Kaleminden Bir Padis¸ahın Portresi. Sultan I. Abdülhamid (1774– 1789). I˙stanbul 2001. [Selânikî Mustafa Efendi], Tarih-i Selaniki I–II (Haz. Mehmet I˙ps¸irli). I˙stanbul 1989. Sertog˘lu, Midhat, Mufassal Osmanlı Tarihi V. I˙stanbul 1971. [Seyyid Hasan Muradî], Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden ˙Istanbul’un 12 Yılı (1754–1766) (Haz. Recep Ahıshalı). I˙stanbul 2016. Sir James Porters Anmerkungen über die Religion, Regierungsform und die Sitten der Türken. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt. Leipzig 1768. Stachowski, Marek & Woodhouse, Robert, “The Etymology of I˙stanbul: Making optimal use of the Evidence”, Studia Etymlogica Cracoviensia 20 (2015): 221–245. (Makale tercümesi için bk. Beyaz, Ekrem, “I˙stanbul’un Etimolojisi. Mevcut Kaynaklardan Mümkün Oldug˘unca Faydalanılarak”, Belleten (2017), 163–190). Supplement zu den hinterlassenen Werken Friedrich des Zweiten König von Preussen III. Köln 1789. [S¸emdânîzâde (Fındıklılı Süleyman)], Mür’i’t-tevârîh I, II-A, II-B, III. (Yay. Münir Aktepe). I˙stanbul 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981. Tabakog˘lu, Ahmet, Türk ˙Iktisat Tarihi. I˙stanbul 1994. Tarım, Zeynep, “Alây-ı Hümâyûnların Güc ve Güzellik Sembolleri: Solaklar”, ˙Istanbul Aras¸tırmaları Yıllıg˘ı (I˙stanbul 2003): 99–110. [Tes¸rifatçı Mehmed Âkif (Bey)], Târîh-i Cülûs-ı Sultan Mustafa Han-ı Salis. (Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Esad Efendi Koleksiyonu No. 2018’deki nüshanın tıpkı basımı. Giris¸ kısmını yazan: Erhan Afyoncu) I˙stanbul 2012. [Tes¸rifâtî Hasan], Tarih (Avusturya Millî Kütüphanesi (Österreichische Nationalbiblothek) nr. 230) (Flügel, II/I˙SAM, nr. 140153). Türkgeldi, Ali Fuat, Görüp ˙I¸sittiklerim. Ankara 1984. Uluçay, Çag˘atay, Harem II. Ankara 1971. Uluçay, Çag˘atay, Osmanlı Sarayında Harem Hayatının ˙Içyüzü.I˙stanbul 1959. Uluçay, Çag˘atay, Padis¸ahların Kadınları ve Kızları. Ankara 1980. Ungermann, Richard, Der Russisch-Türkische Krieg (1768–1774). Wien, Leipzig 1906. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı Saray Tes¸kilatı. Ankara 1983. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı, “Sakarya Nehri’nin I˙zmit Körfezi’ne Akıtılması Marmara ve Karadeniz’in Birles¸tirilmesi”, Belgelerle Türk Tarihi 88 (Mayıs 2004); 78–85; 89 (Haziran 2004: 57–65. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı, “Sultan III. Mustafa’nın hüzün verici bir borç senedi”, Belleten XXII/88 (Ekim 1958): 595–597. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı, “Üçüncü Mustafa’nın kızı S¸âh Sultan’a borç senedi”, Belleten XXV/97 (Ocak 1961: 79. Uzunçars¸ılı, I˙smail Hakkı, Osmanlı Tarihi IV/1. Ankara 1978.

240

Kemal Beydilli

Van Mour, Jean-Baptiste, Elçi kabulü tablosu. ˙Istanbul’da Hollanda Sarayı, 1612’den beri elçilik binası sakinleri (Haz. Marilies Hoenkamp-Mazgon). Boom, Amsterdam 2002. von Diez, Heinrich Friedrich, Wesentliche Betrachtungen oder Geschichte des Krieges zwischen den Osmanen und Russen in den Jahren 1768 bis 1774. Aus dem türkischen übersetzt und mit einem Vorbericht über Sultan Mustafa III und Resmi Ahmed Efendi versehen. Halle, Berlin 1813. von Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches IV. Pesth 1835. Yes¸il, Fatih & Gezer, Ömer, “Osmanlı I˙maparatorlug˘u’nda ‘Sürat Topçulug˘u’ I (1773– 1788): Top Döküm Teknolojisi, Bürokratik Yapı ve Konus¸lanma”, Osmanlı Aras¸tırmaları 51 (2018): 135–180.

Resim nr. 1. III. Mustafa.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

Resim nr. 2. III. Mustafa ve S¸ehzade Selim.

Resim nr. 3. III. Ahmed ve s¸ehzadeleri: (küçükten büyüg˘e) Mustafa, Mehmed, Süleyman.

241

242

Kemal Beydilli

Resim nr. 4. III. Ahmed ve s¸ehzadeleri: (küçükten büyüg˘e) Mustafa, Mehmed, Süleyman.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

243

Resim nr. 5. III. Ahmed’in Arz Odasında Hollanda elçisini kabulü ve merasimde yer alan dört s¸ehzade. I˙kinci sırada sag˘daki on bir yas¸larındaki Mustafa olmalıdır.

244

Kemal Beydilli

Resim nr. 6. III. Mustafa ag˘ır tes¸rifatlı büyük bir alay bas¸ında Babüsselam önlerinde.

III. Mustafa (1757–1774). Kaynarca Öncesi bir Padis¸ah Portresi

245

Resim nr. 7. Resim nr. 6’dan ayrıntı: Mekke, Medine ve Kudüs’ü temsilen üç adet Padis¸ah sarıg˘ının tas¸ınması.

Kontinuitäten und Umbrüche im 19.–20. Jahrhundert

Suraiya Faroqhi

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it: Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso in Anatolia

Studying material culture has a significant advantage for the social historian: when reading Ottoman documents, the Ottomanist’s main occupation, we find the questions asked by upper- and lower-level administrators to the central authorities and the verbatim orders sent out in the name of the sultan.1 On the other hand, we do not find much information about the difficulties that people, and especially those of modest status, had to surmount before they could achieve anything “on the ground”—the men who could write usually did not consider such matters worth recording. As a result, Ottomanists have often constructed an image of Ottoman society that is far too “streamlined”. Put differently, they frequently have forgotten how hard it could be to build a modest house and keep it in good repair if wood and roof-tiles were at a premium, or sew and embroider when the only available light came from a smelly candle made of sheep’s fat, or even worse, water one’s animals when the local fountain ran dry. For that reason, items used by “ordinary” Ottomans or at least illustrations showing gardens, markets, and workshops can help the historian in constructing a more realistic image of Ottoman society. However, a few exceptions apart, Ottoman material culture remains a scarcely explored field; and it is even less common to study this topic with an emphasis on poverty—as in other aspects of life and scholarship, the rich occupy center stage, while the poor remain in the shadow. As an excuse for their neglect, historians may point out that the poor have only a scanty material culture, and that it is difficult to say something coherent about a list of possessions, found for instance in a post-mortem inventory that contains no more than eight or ten items.2 Especially in the Ottoman context, where even the rich did not own a great many furnishings, the dwellings of the poverty-stricken, and even those of people not 1 We will use the term “Ottomanists” for scholars studying Ottoman history and culture during the last century or so. 2 For this problem as it appears in a sixteenth-century context, see Matthews, “The Tereke and Contingent Tweets”.

250

Suraiya Faroqhi

poor by the standards of the time but not rich either, must have contained very few items. Poverty, the scarcity of material belongings and the lack of interest on the part of present-day scholars thus compound our ignorance. Viewed from another perspective, the training of historians partly accounts for their lack of interest in material culture. Accustomed to concentrate on written sources to the exclusion of everything else, historians often pass on this predilection to their students. Thus, in the Ottomanist context, it is still rare for historians to develop even an amateur interest in archeology. Likely, the availability and richness of archival sources has further promoted this bias, as Ottoman documents, taken by themselves already tell us a great deal about the society they attempted to regulate. Perhaps if the contrary was true, the situation would be different; and more people would feel the need to broaden our source base through the study of material culture. Other impediments emerge when we do try to concentrate on objects surviving in public and private collections. If we disregard the treasures preserved in the sultans’ palace, the supply is scanty indeed; firstly, the many fires of Istanbul over the centuries destroyed textiles, furnishings and written sources. In addition, wars, expulsions and resettlement of the former empire’s Muslim and nonMuslim populations have caused further losses. As an example, we might refer to the Izmir fire of 1922, which destroyed some of the most “modern” sections of a sophisticated port city. In addition, wealthy Ottoman householders did not often preserve items for which the current generation had no immediate use; and many families placed no great value on preserving the possessions of their ancestors. After all, there were always servants and other poor people around that might appreciate even modest hand-me-downs. Among the better-off inhabitants of the empire, this attitude toward the heritage received from previous generations changed in the late 1800s and early 1900s; but in the present study, we will deal with the material culture of a period preceding this change in mentality. Geography is a limiting factor as well. Those few studies of nineteenth-century material culture that have appeared during the last decade or so, normally focus on Istanbul and a few large cities, where some artifacts survive in museums and a few buildings from the late Ottoman period are open to visitors, albeit usually in much altered form. However, early nineteenth-century cities like Istanbul, Izmir or Salonika had an—albeit limited—constituency of well-to-do inhabitants; and it is tempting but mistaken to regard the material conditions in which they lived as a norm for the empire as a whole. By contrast, people living in inland towns of Anatolia, such as Ankara, Kayseri, or Konya often suffered great want. Already in 1845, well before ranchers successfully produced angora wool in South Africa, Ankara’s income from mohair weaving was in decline, and the entire town felt the

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

251

repercussions.3 According to the registers of economically productive property (temettuat) compiled that same year, Ankara, with 345 gurus¸ average annual income, was far poorer than for instance the Ottoman-Bulgarian towns of Tatarpazarcıg˘ı or Samokov, or Western Anatolian localities such as Balıkesir and Aydın. In part, drought was responsible, and researchers including Gülçin Tunalı, Semih Çelik, and Mehmet Yavuz Erler have pointed out the destructive effects of the 1845 catastrophe, with worse to come in the second half of the 19th century.4 How did this economic crisis translate into material life? To answer this question at least in part, we will turn to the travelogue of the Italian aristocrat Cristina Trivulzio (1808–1871), Princess of Belgiojoso after her marriage, and a liberal Italian nationalist. At the time when Italian patriots were trying to get rid of the Habsburg domination that the Vienna Congress (1815) had imposed, or in some cases re-imposed upon them, Trivulzio argued in newspaper articles that the new state should be a constitutional monarchy with a centralized structure. Presumably, this emphasis on centralism was partly a reaction against the longstanding tradition of particularism in Italian city-states. In Rome during the uprising of 1848–1849, Trivulzio organized medical assistance to wounded combatants with efficiency, thus preceding Florence Nightingale by a few years; she managed to recruit women from vastly different social backgrounds as temporary nurses. While a believing Catholic, she had strong reservations about what passed for Catholicism in her time: her book on the subject even ended up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. After the attempt to found an Italian state had failed in 1848–1849, at least for the time being, this intellectual woman arrived in the Ottoman Empire as a political exile. She wrote several books about her stay, both fiction and nonfiction, in an attempt to move from political journalism into the format of belles lettres, hitherto unfamiliar to Trivulzio. Apparently, she began by writing letters, later transformed into a coherent narrative.5 One of the resulting works is the book that is the object of the present study.6 For the historian of material culture, Cristina’s account is valuable because she considered the description of Anatolian and Syrian living conditions a major aim of her work.7 3 Erler, “Animals during Disasters”. 4 Tunalı Koç, “An Ottoman Astrologer at Work”; Çelik, “The Rich, the Poor and the Hungry”. For a more comprehensive discussion see Erler, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kuraklık ve Kıtlık Olayları (1800–1880) and the forthcoming book of Semih Çelik. 5 [Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie. 6 See [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 290 for a reference to a “letter” that had preceded the text which ultimately appeared in print. In the course of this paper, the author will sometimes appear as “Cristina” and sometimes as “Trivulzio”. On her writing style compare: Guerra, “Cristina Trivulzio di Belgioioso (1808– 1871)”. 7 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 2.

252

Suraiya Faroqhi

Despite her hasty departure from Rome, Trivulzio still possessed enough money to acquire a landholding near Tas¸köprü in northern Central Anatolia, named Çakmakog˘lu, where she spent a few years. She also owned several Arab horses, probably a significant section of the total fortune at her disposal at that time. Recently, Mehmet Yavuz Erler has found a whole file of Ottoman documents, which refer to Cristina’s acquisition of the property, thus establishing that the author had but partly understood the intricacies involved.8 To summarize a long and complicated story, local magnates had been fighting for control of the area of Virans¸ehir (today: Eskipazar near the factory town of Karabük); and Sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839) had used the occasion to eliminate these potential rivals for control over the North Anatolian countryside. In consequence, the town of Virans¸ehir, which according to the information Cristina received had been quite prosperous in earlier times, turned into a field of ruins, thus justifying its name, which means ‘ruined city’. In the course of these struggles, one of the key members of the principal power-holding family wound up in prison. As his relatives urgently needed to settle debts contracted in the course of a series of disputes, they sold Çakmakog˘lu to raise the necessary funds. As for Cristina Trivulzio, she benefited from the new Tanzimat laws permitting the sale of agricultural lands, which granted the owners (nearly) full property rights. As however, the acquiring person had to be an Ottoman subject, Cristina’s daughter Maria, still a minor, became a subject of Sultan Abdülmecid, and the property was on record in her name, with another Christian woman as co-owner. Cristina came to consider Çakmakog˘lu as her permanent residence. While she had plenty of complaints about the things and people seen during her Anatolian and Syrian travels, when returning to Çakmakog˘lu after the long trip concerning us here, she thanked God for having seen her safely “home”. However, Cristina did not live in the neighborhood of Eskipazar for very long; already in the winter of 1851–1852, the author decided to take her daughter to Jerusalem, supposedly for the first communion of the young girl—however, this event takes up very little space in Trivulzio’s account. On the way, the author and her small escort passed through Ankara, where they stayed for two weeks, before continuing to Kayseri, I˙ncesu and Adana, later passing through the Gâvurdag˘ı on the way to Syria and Palestine. On the return trip, the author refused to make another stopover in Ankara, and preferred to spend about two weeks in Konya, where she apparently visited the mausoleum of Celaleddin Rumi. Admittedly, according to her own statement, the author was not much interested in history or archeology; and thus she seemingly mistook the mausoleum for the burial place of the Seljuk sultans. Yet another such error occurred in her account of Kırs¸ehir, 8 Erler, “An Italian princess in the Ottoman Empire”.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

253

where she encountered inscriptions that the locals she consulted were unable to read. Probably, they were in the Kufic script; but Cristina was convinced that they were in a type of writing unknown to Orientalist scholars at the Collège de France in Paris or the Propaganda Fide in Rome. For her, the mysterious letters were something she called “Turcoman”; and she felt no further need to clear up the matter.9 Trivulzio quite often mentioned conversations with people who certainly did not know French, Italian or English, such as the sister of two Turcoman beys that she encountered in Ereg˘li-Karapınar and who was a woman that the author admired very much.10 While Trivulzio had a dragoman in her entourage, she recorded that his skills were limited, and she certainly could not have taken him into the provincial harems that she visited. Thus, she must have acquired a working knowledge of spoken Turkish; but how that happened and who her teacher was, is not apparent from the travelogue studied here. From whom and whatever Trivulzio may have learned, her transcription of geographical terms shows that her knowledge of Turkish grammar was rudimentary.

Material culture in and around the home Many historians of vernacular architecture consider that at the origin of the Turkish and later the Ottoman house, there was the nomad tent. However, the “founding father” of Turkish architectural history Dog˘an Kuban has shown that this claim is an over-simplification and of strictly limited validity.11 Entering into the details of this debate is beyond the competence of the present author. However, as Cristina has described the tent of a wealthy Turcoman emir camped between I˙skenderun and Aleppo, it makes sense to begin our account of Anatolian homes—in the broadest possible sense—with this brief text.12 Trivulzio recorded how impressed she was by the size and height of the tent, which she felt provided the emir with a quasi-royal if somewhat theatrical ambience. On the outside, the tent consisted of a coarse brown woolen fabric, which also divided the tent into a male section and the harem. The emir had invited Cristina into the male section and in this case, she seems to have heard but not seen the women of the family. However, she observed that nomad women often did their carpet-weaving outdoors, in what she called a harem in the open air. As a large number of locally made rugs and carpets covered the floor of the tent, the 9 10 11 12

[Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 51–52, 416. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 405–406. Kuban, The Turkish Hayat House: 38–46. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 391.

254

Suraiya Faroqhi

felt that probably insulated the structure from the ground was invisible. At different points, the inhabitants had arranged piles of cushions covered in silk, apparently in a regularized disposition of the available space. Differently from the carpets, the cushions were probably not the work of Turcoman women but purchases from Bursa or Damascus; but there is no way of being sure. While the place of the host was in the center of the tent, he arose and walked to the entrance to welcome his guest. As the next step, we will focus on houses, for the most part belonging to people of some wealth and status. Due to the remedies she had given him, likely against malaria, Cristina had made a good impression on the mufti of the small town of Çerkes¸ near Bolu. This dignitary not only hosted her, but also gave her a recommendation to the mufti of the much larger city of Ankara.13 Both dignitaries allowed the visitor to stay with their families. In consequence, Trivulzio saw the harem sections of the dwellings of small-town notables, who lived very modestly if not in poverty, and she took this occasion to debunk the notion, widespread in Europe, that the women of such families enjoyed luxurious lives. We will not dwell much on her relationships with women in Anatolian harems, a subject treated by Hélène Desmet Grégoire over thirty years ago; however, Trivulzio’s remarks on the material culture of poverty are rather striking.14 As for the present author, I do at times wonder whether the lack of any kind of education among the wives / daughters of the small notables that Trivulzio encountered, and which sometimes awakened outright hostility in Cristina, was not simply another outcome of poverty. When dealing with Anatolian houses, Cristina recorded her observations on mundane matters like windows and heating-and-lighting arrangements, subjects not often treated in the travelogues covering the inland sections of the peninsula. Wax candles were unavailable even to an elite figure such as the governor of Konya, whose household only used low-quality candles made of animal fats, for rather sparse lighting.15 Windowpanes were mostly unavailable too, and people used paper drenched in oil to keep out the cold and still let in some light.16 As fuel was very scarce as well, many inhabitants of Central Anatolia kept their windows tightly closed; and as Cristina noted when describing a visit to the wives of Ankara dervishes, the result was air so heavily polluted that she had real trouble breathing. When her host noticed the situation, she opened a window, expressly

13 Trivulzio called the town “Çerkes”, but from the context, it is clear that she meant the town of Çerkes¸ in the province of Kastamonu. 14 Desmet Grégoire, “La femme ottomane à travers le récit d’une voyageuse européenne du XIXe siècle: la princesse de Belgiojoso”. 15 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 412. 16 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 18.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

255

for the benefit of her guest.17 In poorer households, people even made do without any windows at all; and the only light entering the rooms came in through the opening from which the smoke of the fireplace also escaped. For heating, people used two kinds of braziers, particularly the variety known as a tandır.18 Cristina described the time-honored custom of household members sitting around such a basin full of glowing charcoal and covering the latter with a blanket to prevent the heat from escaping.19 While the braziers known as mangal were of metal, and the large varieties limited to wealthy homes, the basin of the tandır Cristina encountered was of terracotta and thus much cheaper. In a wealthy Istanbul home, by contrast, Julia Pardoe saw and described a tandır with a copper basin holding the charcoal: a small but significant indicator of the difference in wealth between a prominent Istanbul family and a provincial Anatolian household.20 On the other hand, it is notable that the author recorded a poêle de fonte, or iron stove, in a well-kept reception room in Ankara. If she had not mistaken a mangal for a stove, which is unlikely as the latter item should have possessed a stovepipe, her observation indicates that a contraption of this kind, normally considered a newcomer in the late 1800s, had indeed arrived far earlier than supposed.21 When in the small town of Çerkes¸, Trivulzio gave her readers a description of the house in which she spent time as a guest. “As in the good houses of these parts”, the dwelling of the mufti had two separate structures, the building where the family lived and the pavilion serving for the reception of (male) visitors.22 In the palace of the governor of Konya however, there was a more elaborate arrangement: similar to the setup in the palace of the sultan, there was “une chambre neutre”, called ma-beyn in Istanbul, where the son-in–law of the governor, who did not have a house of his own, could spend the night with his wife.23 In Çerkes¸, the section where the mufti received his visitors consisted of two rooms, one for winter and one for summer use, with adjacent chambers for the servants. Cristina appreciated the winter room, which had an attractive fireplace, while thick carpets lay on the floor, and the divans on which the visitors sat had coverings of silk and wool. Normally, the summer room must have been out of 17 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 32. 18 For a description of a tandır, and images showing the use of tandırs and metal braziers, see Kuban, The Turkish Hayat House: 155–156. 19 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 33. 20 [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans: vol. 1, 18. I have much benefited from the discussion of the MA thesis by Rabia Çıtlak on this author, and extend my warm thanks to Ms. Çıtlak. 21 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 32. 22 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 14. 23 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 412.

256

Suraiya Faroqhi

use at the time of Cristina’s visit; however, the mufti offered her the winter chamber and spent the night in the veranda-like space, perhaps a sofa in the terminology used by Kuban, where he entertained his visitors in summer.24 The author noted that the summer room possessed a fountain, and that the inhabitants of the house added seating according to need. She also commented that the mufti, an old but vigorous man, did not much care for the crowded and often badly maintained rooms of the harem. Thus, at least in this instance, the best room in the house was the preserve of the owner and—normally—that of his male guests. As for the harem rooms in the house of the mufti of Çerkes¸, they were apparently in very poor condition, with cracks in the walls and dust everywhere.25 When commenting on this state of neglect, Cristina’s class bias became obvious, for she remarked rather acidly that the dwellings of the rich in France or Italy would also be unkempt and dirty if the serving women could use the rooms of their employers whenever they wanted a rest—as seems to have been the custom in Çerkes¸.26 After all, presumably the walls had decayed through no fault of the serving women. Cristina also spent some time in the residence of Mustuk Bey, who controlled the region known at that time as the Gâvurdag˘ı, close to the Turco-Syrian border of today.27 Here the buildings, all single-story, surrounded a rectangular courtyard paved with flat stones. As the author noted the complete silence reigning in this venue, it cannot have served for the deliveries of food, water and heating materials, which must have entered the complex in another manner. Possibly the silence observed in this place was a sign of respect for the bey, similar to the custom of the Topkapı Palace. In the harem, the author encountered a space that may have had an arrangement similar to that of the seaside villa of Count Ostorog or the eighteenth-century Kavafyan villa, both situated in the Bosporus suburbs of Istanbul.28 A central chamber gave access to a storage space and four rooms, in this instance inhabited by the four wives of the bey. However, as the author described these spaces as cellules they must have been much smaller than the rooms in the Istanbul villas. Some of Trivulzio’s most remarkable observations however, concerned not the habitations of locally important families, but those belonging to a group of 24 Kuban, The Turkish Hayat House: 143 (lower image) shows the kind of place that the mufti may have used in summer. However, Cristina only encountered single-story houses, while the buildings discussed by Kuban normally have two floors. Perhaps the prevalence of singlestory houses in the places she described was another indicator of widespread poverty. 25 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 16. 26 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 18. 27 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 112. “Mustuk” is probably short for Mustafa. 28 Kuban, The Turkish Hayat House: 69.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

257

modest Ankara dervishes; unfortunately, she did not mention the name of their order. The custom of spending the summer outside the city, well attested from many Anatolian towns, had also become popular among these dervishes; and it is noteworthy that they had chosen to build their summer habitations in a single complex. Trivulzio described a small garden surrounded by dwellings and filled with what must have been pavilions of the type known as kös¸k. It was, however, her bad luck to have visited the garden in winter, when the vines had no leaves; and she had trouble imagining why the locals praised the site so much. Apart from the cool water, apparently available in abundance, the gardens also must have produced grapes and pears, as the author recorded that her host offered her good-quality fruit. She also noted that for an inhabitant of Central Anatolia, any site was worthy of praise provided that the water was abundant and of good quality.29 Quite apart from the recent drought of 1845, this emphasis on water made sense in a place where the steppe was a permanent and intrusive presence. Moreover, the poverty of Anatolian dwellings becomes even more apparent when we compare them with Trivulzio’s account of Damascene residences, remarkable for their architecture and the elegance of their interior decoration.30 Outdoors as well, widespread poverty had resulted in streets and house facades that did not much resemble the restored sections of towns like Ankara or Safranbolu today. At least in Çerkes¸, there was no arrangement for cleaning the streets, apart from dogs, jackals and birds of prey. The debris that had dropped from houses falling in ruins was all over the place, and in towns of this type, people used wooden clogs or overshoes of goat or buffalo leather for traversing the streets. Unfortunately, the lack of descriptions of Çerkes¸ by other authors makes it difficult to judge whether this pervasive decay had prevailed in earlier periods as well. In Kayseri, the inhabitants had developed a relationship between “home” and “street”, which dealt with this problem by making it unnecessary for many local women to negotiate the streets at all. For in this city, flat-roofed dwellings were common, and Trivulzio observed female socializing from one house to the next, as women visited their neighbors without ever setting foot in the street.

Clothing and ornaments Cristina Trivulzio also described the costumes and accoutrements of some of the people she encountered: a description of Armenian women from Kayseri dressed for a festivity provided the reader with a list of the main elements of Anatolian 29 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 32. 30 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 285–286.

258

Suraiya Faroqhi

costume.31 Over wide pantaloons, the women wore long dresses with slits on the side that allowed free play to the fabric of the pantaloons, while under the dress several bodices were visible, one worn on top of the other. A long scarf encircled the waist, while the women arranged their hair in numerous tiny braids adorned with small gold coins; and a fez topped off their coiffure. Trivulzio much appreciated the luxury and delicacy of the ornaments decorating the hair and the fezzes of these young women. As she described them as “élégantes”, she must have attended a gathering of people from prosperous families; unfortunately, she said nothing about the way in which the fathers and husbands of these “élégantes” had made their money.32 Trivulzio was probably one of the few authors to describe female makeup in some detail, including attempts at applying it when mirrors were mostly unavailable.33 In her description of the women she met in the harem of the mufti of Çerkes¸, she noted that they used large amounts of makeup; this custom was not at all to Cristina’s taste, which, after all, was that of the Victorian period, when the ideal was a “natural and unadorned” face. The women made up their lips to appear vermilion, in other words, a variety of red shading off into orange; they applied ordinary rouge not only on the cheeks but also on the nose, the forehead and the chin. Blue makeup emphasized the surroundings of the eyes and more remarkably, the women applied it as a shadow under the nose, covering the remainder of the face with white. It was also the current fashion to paint the eyebrows far larger than they were in real life, so that they over-arched the entire space between the nose and the temples. A few young women who wanted to be “different” might even paint a long black line in the approximate location of their eyebrows, “but such cases are rare”.34 In Istanbul, this fashion had been quite popular among both Muslim and Greek women in the 1830s; and perhaps it had taken a while to pass on to the women of provincial harems. Cristina may have exaggerated the mutual jealousy that supposedly prevented the young women serving the same master from helping one another to look their best—but as poverty was such that only “fine ladies” who had visited Istanbul owned combs, many females must found elegance all but impossible to attain. Cristina described female clothing and ornaments once again in some detail when visiting the dwelling of Mustuk Bey on the slopes of Gâvurdag˘ı, whose architectural layout we have briefly discussed. When describing one of the wives of the bey, who much impressed the author because of her remarkable beauty, 31 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 56. 32 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 57. 33 On an expensive mirror in the house of a pasha resident in Istanbul, see [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans: vol. 1, 243. 34 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 17; [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans: vol. 1, 168.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

259

Cristina recorded that the young woman had a headdress “in the style of the Turcomans”, which in the author’s opinion, appeared as if the wearer had placed several turbans on top of one another.35 Thus, the headdress was very high and consisted of square and rectangular pieces of cloth rolled around a support that must have been either conical or cylindrical, but which the description does not mention. However, Cristina noted that the color red was predominant. Around this arrangement the wearer, or whoever helped her dress, had arranged a long shawl of fine mousseline that enveloped part of the headdress, and draped the forehead, cheeks, neck and bosom of the young woman. All over the headdress, the author saw pins and other contraptions holding the fabric in place, ornamented with precious stones. Among the latter, she especially noted the presence of diamonds. This is an interesting observation because in the 1700s and 1800s, the Ottoman palace had come to prefer diamonds to most other precious stones; and these gemstones were popular among the Istanbul elite of the 1830s as well, as observed by Julia Pardoe. However, in Istanbul, upper class women did not wear a profusion of jewelry, preferring to deck out their children and slave girls—presumably, this was a way of indicating elegant restraint.36 We may also wonder where these stones had come from, perhaps from India or Brazil. In addition, it remains unclear why Mustuk Bey, whose establishment Cristina described as quite modest, considered it appropriate for his wife to wear them. Furthermore, the jewelry of the young woman also included scintillating bracelets and rings, of which Cristina noted that they appeared like real diamonds—thus they may have been imitations. As the dress was red and the same color dominated the headdress, the author had probably seen a bridal outfit. Trivulzio did not try to give a systematic account of the costumes she saw, but some of her “asides” are of interest. Thus, she noted that when Kurdish female nomads traveled with their husbands, they did not veil their faces and impressed the author with their proud and self-confident bearing. When their men-folk were absent, by contrast, these women completely neglected their appearance. While Trivulzio did not comment on the meaning of this gesture, which in her eyes indicated widowhood, possibly the women intended to show that as respectable persons, they did not mean to attract the interest of strange men. To date, a search in early nineteenth-century costume albums has not yielded illustrations of the costumes described by Cristina. One of the relevant items, however, recurs in the photographs that Osman Hamdi and Marie de Launay published in 1873, in their catalogue documenting the exhibition of Ottoman costumes, which took place that year in Vienna at the World’s Fair. After all, a woman’s headdress very similar to the one described by Trivulzio as part of the 35 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 117–118. 36 [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans: vol. 1, 113.

260

Suraiya Faroqhi

(probable) bridal outfit of Mustuk Bey’s wife, appeared in this volume on a Kurdish woman from Yozgat. However, while Cristina saw a delicate veil of mousseline, the corresponding item on the photograph published by Osman Hamdi and de Launay was far more rustic.37 While these two male authors focused on male outfits, Cristina paid rather less attention to the clothes worn by men. One example, however, is striking. A young man from the former magnate family of Virans¸ehir / Eskipazar, now much impoverished, accompanied the author on the first stage of her journey: he had managed to retain the garments appropriate to his family’s former rank. Most conspicuous was a white overcoat of Aleppo wool, richly decorated with gold and silver thread. Moreover, his turban was green, which probably meant that he claimed to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (seyyid). Trivulzio had not noted any claim of his family to seyyid status, nor did she point out that it would have been out of place for a non-seyyid to wear a turban of this color. Given her limited knowledge of Anatolian society, however, possibly she was quite unaware of the implications of a green turban.38

Food and drink Under this heading, perhaps the most arresting account is Trivulzio’s description of the palace of Hafız Mehmed Pas¸a, governor of Konya, in whose house she was a guest on her return journey to Çakmakog˘lu, staying for about two weeks. Here we observe a wealthy milieu very different from the small-town notables and petty rural power-holders otherwise the focus of Cristina’s account. Hafız Mehmed Pas¸a entertained a large number of visitors and household members who ate the food prepared in his kitchens; in addition once every day, he had bread and meat distributed to the poor of the city. Cristina recorded customs which recall those of the sultan’s palace; for similar to the monarch, the governor ate apart, leaving his son to preside over the meals served to the guests. The long line of servitors, each carrying a particular dish with food to the different sections of the residence, also resembled the palace scenes depicted by Abdülcelil Levni in the early 18th century.39 At the same time, the author’s observation that the pasha had food served until far into the night reminds the reader of the praise that the seventeenth-century travelogue author Evliya Çelebi lavished upon the hospitality of dervish lodges, by stating that the fire under the soup kettle was never 37 Hamdi & de Launay, 1873 Yılında Türkiye’de Halk Giysileri, see photograph No. XIII. For the costume of a male Kurd from Virans¸ehir / Eskipazar, see photograph No. XIV. 38 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 12. 39 Atıl, Levni ve Surname: 202–203.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

261

allowed to go out.40 However, we can be quite sure that Trivulzio had no idea of this conventional Ottoman imagery and thus, she probably described what she saw. Otherwise, it does not seem that the author was particularly interested in food. At least, she has left vignettes of the wives of herdsmen inviting her for a drink of milk and recorded a discussion about making cream in the Italian style. This mode of preparation was easy, as it allowed the fatty part of the milk to rise by the force of gravity, while the local variety involved a good deal of energy and effort to boil the milk until the buttery part emerged.41 While the author thought that mere conservatism caused her commensals to reject the Italian technique, quite possibly she had misjudged the situation. For presumably the women had prepared kaymak, a much more solid substance than the cream made according to the Italian fashion. Moreover, when it came to coffee, the author believed that Ottoman subjects all preferred the clear and sweet brew that had become customary in Europe, to the “Turkish coffee” which in the mid-1800s contained no sugar; and most of the larger particles remained suspended in the liquid that people drank. However, as any connoisseur of coffee knows, both varieties have their aficionados down to the present day. Cristina’s description of bread and baking only occurred when she had left Anatolia and was traveling toward Latakiyya; but as presumably, the Syrian recipe resembled that which people followed in Anatolia as well, we will include her account.42 The author must have seen and eaten the bread of the poor, as people made it from barley rather than from wheat. Kneading was minimal; and once the paste was ready, the person who did the baking used a rolling pin to flatten the dough on the lid of a large pot. Placed over the fire, the bread came out as soft as cotton cloth; it served a variety of purposes, as people might spread it on the food tray and place other edibles on top, and they used it to wrap up provisions for the next day as well. Cristina also noticed that diners rolled pieces of flat bread into cones, which might then serve as “edible spoons”. Remarkably, she did not note the presence of pita bread, which the diners could fill with meat or vegetables. Due to the commentaries and indexes of Marianna Yerasimos, the ten-volume travelogue of Evliya Çelebi is now the most easily accessible source on Ottoman food culture before the mid-nineteenth century. In consequence, it becomes possible to assess the historical background of the bread mentioned by Trivulzio.43 Evliya has recorded a variety of flat breads, and the baked goods known as 40 41 42 43

[Evliya Çelebi b. Dervis¸ Mehemmed Zılli], Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: vol. 9, 140. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 395. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 144. Yerasimos, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi’nde Yemek Kültürü: 90–91, 294.

262

Suraiya Faroqhi

lavas¸ and particularly as kirde resembled the bread eaten by Cristina and her companions. It is however rather remarkable that for the seventeenth-century author, Istanbul and Anatolian flatbreads with few exceptions were of wheat, barley bread occurring mostly in Evliya’s description of Egypt. As both authors were elite figures, who traveled widely and ate the food locally available, perhaps the fact that Cristina ate barley bread may indicate once more the poverty of many Ottoman subjects in the mid-nineteenth century.

Recording the world of animals Cristina Trivulzio probably made her most interesting observations when focusing on relationships between local people and—mostly domestic—animals. She also recorded relations between domestic animals among themselves, mentioning for instance, a great dog belonging to her caravan and much attached to a certain horse. When the latter died, the dog kept watch over the dead body, keeping away animals of prey, until it was time to depart.44 The author knew that relations of this type were worth careful observation and thought that the independence of certain animals from the world of humans was more remarkable than the submissiveness of creatures that were fully tame. As for the special character of Anatolian fauna, the author dwelt quite extensively on the gentleness of the local horses, and pointed out that the inhabitants of Central Anatolia never mistreated their animals or demanded that the latter should work if tired, sick or even just capricious. The author was honest enough to admit that one of the members of her suite had given her a dressing-down when she had beaten her horse for having thrown her into the river. In the eyes of the inhabitants of midnineteenth-century rural Anatolia, such behavior was simply unacceptable.45 Cristina was a close observer of the entire animal world accessible to her but especially favored horses, as apparent from her narration of an event that happened on her return trip from Jerusalem: one of her mares died, leaving behind a female foal that could not comprehend that her mother was dead and did not want to leave the body.46 The author feared that she was going to lose the foal as well. However, another mare intervened that was not only affectionate toward the little orphan but also willing to share her milk; and Cristina noticed that even after the orphaned foal had matured, the animal stayed close to her “adopted mother”. Such events were probably not rare; but the author was one of the few travelers who considered them important enough to include into her account. 44 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 185–186. 45 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 36. 46 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 385.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

263

Overall, Cristina felt that the Arab horses that she had acquired were more capable of expressing their feelings than their European counterparts; and she went to some trouble describing the gestures by which Arab horses made themselves understood. At the same time, given the general admiration of Arab horses among Ottoman subjects and Europeans alike, she possibly wanted to highlight the superiority of the horses she was fortunate enough to own—for she did inform her readers that the vast majority of horses sold in Istanbul as “Arabs” were nothing of the kind, but either Kurdish or Turcoman.47 The author also compared the reactions of Anatolian and Arab horses to difficult conditions including abrupt changes of weather. While the short stout Anatolians were prone to crises of fatigue, the Arab horses, thin and high-legged like racehorses, did not show that they suffered from the strain. Evidently, the author took a close interest in the behavior of horses encountered, even providing a list of the gestures by which these creatures communicated, not only with people, but among themselves as well. In particular, she gave a detailed description of the gestures performed by two horses separated for some time, which expressed their delight when by chance they once again found themselves in the same place; and the owners made arrangements that the animals could spend the maximum amount of time together.48 Incidentally, Cristina also had good things to say about Kurdish horses, which she described as smaller than even the smallest Arab horses.49 Apparently, this variety had come about by the spontaneous coupling, rather than deliberate crossbreeding, of Arab and Iranian hoses. Quite rare today, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, this type of horse was widespread in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia and in Mesopotamia as well.50 According to Trivulzio, Kurdish horses resembled Arabs but did not move as elegantly and typically had brown coats, while Arabs were grey. Incidentally, the author also recorded that Kurdish horses could survive largely on grass, needing—almost—no grain. When the rider dismounted, the horse would find its companions on the pasture and return to its owner when called: not only people but animals as well had adapted to a setting where resources were hard to come by. In her description of Ankara, Trivulzio waxed enthusiastic about the angora goats and more unusually, also about the local cats. Unfortunately, her book has no illustrations, but we do possess two images of interest, one showing an Ankara cat and the other a mohair goat; both engravings are the work of a French artist

47 48 49 50

[Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 90 (on the gestures of horses), 421–422. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 137–138. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 421–422. Emirog˘lu & Yüksel, Yoldas¸ımız At: 250–252.

264

Suraiya Faroqhi

named Jacques de Sève, who flourished a century before Cristina.51 More generally, the author felt that the overall quality of Anatolian animals, cats and goats included, was much higher than that of those commonly found in Europe. She did not try to explain this difference; but as her remark appeared in close proximity with notes concerning the good treatment of all manner of creatures by the local population, to which we have already referred, perhaps she suspected a causal relationship.52 However, we also should keep in mind that her frequent emphasis on the innate good character of Turkish peasants fitted in quite nicely with Rousseau-inspired notions of the destructive impact of “civilization” upon “character”, particularly as Cristina quite often noted that townspeople were narrow-minded and vicious.53 Trivulzio’s remarks about the angora goats of Ankara are of special interest, as by mid–century, certain Ottoman officials worried that due to the drought and famine of 1845, these creatures might become extinct. Comparable breeds of goats supposedly lived in Konya as well, but they were not as handsome: visibly Cristina was more interested in the aesthetic than in the economic aspects of Anatolian fauna. According to her account, the fleeces might be white, grey, reddish, or even black; but no matter what the color, the texture of the hair was very soft and brilliant, and the fabrics woven out of angora wool were of high quality. As for cats, Trivulzio described them as enormous, with large heads and very furry tails. The author also recorded that these creatures, which she admired mainly for the elegance of their movements, were utterly fearless and challenged even large dogs; but just like angora goats, the cats did not retain their special qualities when moved out of Ankara. Remarks about the crisis that had engulfed Ankara and its angora-producing goats are common in nineteenth-century literature, and at first glance, the reader may suspect that Cristina was simply relaying what she had read. However, she certainly contributed her own observations as well, recording that the locals produced knitwear including gloves and socks out of angora wool. On the other hand, published records typically discussed yarn and woven goods, without saying much about knitwear, which may have been of recent introduction.54 However, Trivulzio’s most remarkable comments concern the communication between Central Anatolian shepherds, their flocks and their dogs: the highlight is a short but incisive description of the different cries by which shepherds conveyed information—and the animals addressed always under51 Le Chat d’Angora, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528084 h.item (accessed on 27 February 2017) and La Chèvre d’Angora, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105281894. item (accessed on the same date). 52 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 36–37. 53 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 104–105, 229–230. 54 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 34.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

265

stood them correctly. In the mid-1800s, Trivulzio’s notes probably did not attract much attention. By contrast, today’s ethno-linguists, especially the French scholar Rémy Dor, have closely studied this type of communication in order to understand how humans, at an early stage of their evolution, developed the use of language. Dor’s data are from the later 20th century; and as it turns out, Trivulzio’s account of the cries of Anatolian shepherds is currently the earliest one known to us.55 She has also suggested that it would be helpful to compile a list of the cries by which Anatolian people communicated with their animals, and it is a great pity that she did not follow her own suggestion.

Conclusion: Human-animal interaction in a culture of poverty While Trivulzio brought considerable talent as an observer into her enterprise, she did not mean to be a scholar. While aiming for the delectation of her friends, she wanted to convey her observations of Anatolian harems as well, dissipating illusions about the material conditions therein. The latter establishments did not permit most inmates to live in comfort, let alone luxury. Demolishing the illusions of her readers about the Ottoman world and its female population was a common aim in travelogues written by women, and Cristina followed the way prepared by Lady Mary Montagu and Julia Pardoe.56 It is interesting to note that Cristina was quite willing to record the contradictions in her own attitudes: thus she espoused Victorian-style femininity for other European or American women that, as her actions showed, she rejected where her own person was concerned—incidentally, this attitude was quite common among high-achieving women of this and even later periods. Perhaps Trivulzio would even have considered an emphasis on scholarship as unbecoming in a woman, while at the same time producing descriptions that we can read as proto-ethnography. After all, the author noted several times that she had no interest in explicating ancient ruins, and when her friends asked her to read archeological treatises, she confessed that she was merely bored.57 At the same time, the author’s strictly limited interest in the scholarship of her time has had the—for us—fortunate consequence that she often described quite simply what she saw, instead of legitimizing her account by quoting learned authorities.58 55 Dor, “À l’aube du cri”; accessed through: https://www.cairn.info/revue-diogene-2002-4-page129.htm (9 December 2016); idem, “Les huchements du berger turc”. 56 [Lady Mary Montagu], The Turkish Embassy Letters; [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans. 57 [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso], Asie Mineure et Syrie: 402. 58 On this procedure and the unfortunate results it produced, see Brentjes, “The Presence of Ancient Secular and Religious Texts in Pietro della Valle’s (1586–1682) Unpublished and Printed Writings”.

266

Suraiya Faroqhi

Trivulzio was very much a product of her period, with all the prejudices of an educated European aristocrat toward “the other”; we have not dwelt on these sentiments, as they were so typical of people of her class and cultural background and by now, whole libraries of scholarly literature are available on the subject. At the same time, Trivulzio noted—and stressed—the poverty so widespread in Anatolia at that time: where the upper levels of society were at issue, the situation in Ankara seems to have been far worse than that prevailing in Istanbul or Damascus. Ottoman archival documentation on the Ankara and Bolu regions of the mid-1800s, some of which has become the object of historical study, bears out her claims. After the fighting between local power-holders and Mahmud II on the one hand, and the drought of 1845 and the resulting flight of population on the other, poverty and the attendant dirt and decay were indeed ubiquitous. By contrast, Julia Pardoe, who had visited the homes of elite families in 1830s Istanbul, had emphasized the scrupulous cleanliness of these spaces.59 Even so, Trivulzio’s detailed account of the survival skills of local people and their relationship to the world of animals, shows how the inhabitants of Central Anatolia tried to make the best out of a strictly limited number of goods and generalized poverty. To survive in this situation, sustained interaction between people and animals was a necessity; and humans were dependent on their sheep, goats, horses and dogs. Fighting as well as long-distance-travel was only possible if horses were available, and as Trivulzio indicated, the value of these animals was determined not only by the market but also by cultural preference: Arab horses were not only capable of enduring fatigue and weather changes but in Trivulzio’s eyes at least, they were desirable because of their elegance as well. The author had invested emotionally in her horses, particularly in the female of the species; she often noted that the caravan stopped to take care of a mare about to give birth. On the other hand, as an aristocrat who could afford to ignore the realities of the market, she said nothing about the dealers from whom she must have acquired her first horses, nor about the prices that she paid for them. Her Anatolian interlocutors were mostly too poor for such a disdainful attitude toward money; but as apparent from the author’s conversation with the man who knew that her horse and his were long-time friends, a shared interest in the animal world may have permitted Trivulzio to establish social contacts impossible to people less concerned with mares, foals and shepherds’ dogs.

59 [Pardoe], The City of the Sultans: vol. 1, 106.

The material culture of poverty, and the place of animals in it

267

Bibliography Sources [Evliya Çelebi b Dervis¸ Mehemmed Zılli], Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Bag˘dat 306, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Pertev Pas¸a 462, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Hacı Bes¸ir Ag˘a 452 Numaralı Yazmaların Mukayeseli Transkripsyonu – Dizini (vol. 9, edited by Yücel Dag˘lı, Seyit Ali Kahraman and Robert Dankoff). I˙stanbul 2005. Le Chat d’Angora, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10528084h.item (accessed on 27 February 2017). La Chèvre d’Angora, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105281894.item (accessed on 27 February 2017). [Lady Mary Montagu], The Turkish Embassy Letters (edited by Malcolm Jack & Anita Desai). Reprint London 1994. [Pardoe, Miss Julia], The City of the Sultans and Domestic Manners of the Turks, in 1836 (2 vols.). Reprint Cambridge 2014. [Trivulzio di Belgiojoso, Cristina], Asie Mineure et Syrie: Souvenirs de voyages par Mme la princesse de Belgiojoso. Paris 1858: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5774037w/f6. item.r=angora.zoom (accessed on 12 December 2016).

Studies Atıl, Esin, Levni ve Surname: Bir Osmanlı S¸enlig˘inin Öyküsü. I˙stanbul 1999. Brentjes, Sonja, “The Presence of Ancient Secular and Religious Texts in Pietro della Valle’s (1586–1682) Unpublished and Printed Writings”, in: Floor, Willem & Herzig, Edmund (eds.), Iran and the World in the Safavid Age. London 2012: 327–346. Çelik, Semih, “The Rich, the Poor and the Hungry: Social Differentiation and Famine in Ankara in 1845” (Unpublished MA-thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University, Dept. of History, May 2010). Desmet Grégoire, Hélène, “La femme ottomane à travers le récit d’une voyageuse européenne du XIXe siècle: la princesse de Belgiojoso”, in: Bacqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis & Dumont, Paul (eds.), Contributions à l’histoire économique et sociale de l’Empire ottoman. Leuven 1983: 429–450. Dor, Rémy, “À l’aube du cri: De l’homme à l’animal avant le partage du monde”, Diogène 200 (2002/4), 129–139; online version: https://www.cairn.info/revue-diogene-2002-4page-129.htm (accessed on 9 December 2016). Dor, Rémy, “Les huchements du berger turc: du huchements-aux-morts à l’appel des chevaux”, in: Veinstein, Gilles (ed.), Les ottomans et la mort. Leiden 1996: 39–55. Emirog˘lu, Kudret & Yüksel, Ahmet, Yoldas¸ımız At. I˙stanbul 2002. Erler, Mehmet Yavuz, “An Italian princess in the Ottoman Empire”, in: Fabris, Antonio (ed.), Cristina Trivulzio di Belgiojoso: An Italian Princess in the 19th c. Turkish Countryside. Venice 2010: 29–42.

268

Suraiya Faroqhi

Erler, Mehmet Yavuz, “Animals during Disasters”, in: Faroqhi, Suraiya (ed.), Animals and People in the Ottoman Empire. Istanbul 2010: 333–352. Erler, Mehmet Yavuz, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Kuraklık ve Kıtlık Olayları (1800–1880). I˙stanbul 2010. Guerra, Maria Teresa, “Cristina Trivulzio di Belgioioso (1808–1871)”, in: Italian Women Writers: https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/IWW/BIOS/A0274.html (accessed on 7 December 2016). Hamdi, Osman & de Launay, Marie, 1873 Yılında Türkiye’de Halk Giysileri: Elbise-i Osmaniye (Edited and translated by Erol Üyepazarcı, photographs by Sebah Fotog˘rafhanesi). I˙stanbul 1999. Kuban, Dog˘an, The Turkish Hayat House. Istanbul 1995. Matthews, Joyce Hedda, “The Tereke and Contingent Tweets: A Proposed Model for Massaging the Medium”, in: Karahasanog˘lu, Selim & Demir, D. Cenk (eds.), History from Below: A Tribute in Memory of Donald Quataert. Istanbul 2016: 155–162. Tunalı Koç, Gülçin, “An Ottoman Astrologer at Work: Sadullah el-Ankarâvi and the Everyday Practice ofʿilm–i nücum”, in: Georgeon, François & Hitzel, Frédéric (eds.), Les ottomans et le temps. Leiden 2011: 39–60. Yerasimos, Marianna, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi’nde Yemek Kültürü: Yorumlar ve Sistematik Dizin. I˙stanbul 2011.

Klaus Kreiser

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

Nahezu sieben Millionen Schafe und Lämmer sollen die Einwohner von Istanbul gegen Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts konsumiert haben, wovon auf das Personal der Paläste mehr als 200000 Tiere entfielen.1 Im Folgenden wird freilich nur von knapp 300 Tieren die Rede sein, und nur von solchen, die beim Opferfest des Jahres 1279 / 1863 ihr Leben lassen mussten. Der Kurban Bayramı ist unbestritten der wichtigste Feiertag der islamischen Türkei, auch wenn sich das „Zuckerfest“ am Ende des Ramazâns viel größerer Beliebtheit bei Groß und Klein erfreut. Die religiösen und weltlichen Kurban-Zeremonien erstreckten sich im osmanischen Istanbul über vier Tage, deren Höhepunkt das eigentliche Opferfest am 10. Zilhicce bildet. Die zentralen Strukturelemente desselben waren über die Jahrhunderte gleichgeblieben. Dort aber, wo der osmanische Herrscher, sein Harem und seine höfische Entourage das Fest zelebrierten, gab es jedoch bemerkenswerte Veränderungen, von denen einige Chronisten und Biographen Berichte hinterlassen haben. Von ihnen soll als Einleitung meiner Veröffentlichung eines Kurban defteri aus dem Bestand der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München gesprochen werden. In der Enderun târîhi des Hızır I˙lyâs (st. 1281 / 1864), welche das höfische Leben im ersten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts protokolliert, ist an drei Stellen – sehr knapp – von diesen Feierlichkeiten die Rede. So besteht sein Bericht für das Jahr 1240 / 1825 nur aus wenigen Sätzen: Die Gratulationen zum Fest fanden im Serail statt und waren mit den Loyalitätsbekundungen hoher Würdenträger

1 Mantran, ˙Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle: 196. Für die Bevorzugung von Flüchtlingen bei der Verteilung von Fleisch und Häuten der Kurban-Tiere warb der Basiretçi Ali Dede in den Jahren 1876 und 1877 (I˙stanbul Mektupları 2001). Die Fachliteratur zum Thema Lebensmittelversorgung der Stadt scheint die Rolle des Hofes beim Opferfest nicht zu berücksichtigen; vgl. den Forschungsbericht von Uzun, „Osmanlı Devleti’nde S¸ehir Ekonomisi ve I˙as¸e“: 211–235 und Tabakog˘lu, „Osmanlı Döneminde I˙stanbul’un I˙âs¸esi“: 126–128.

270

Klaus Kreiser

(erbâb-ı merâtib) verbunden, worauf in der Sultan Ahmed-Moschee das Gebet verrichtet wurde.2 Der wichtigste Historiograph der Tanzîmât-Zeit, Ahmed Cevdet Pas¸a (1822– 1895), berichtet hingegen an keiner Stelle von den alljährlichen Zeremonien zwischen Palast und Moschee. Sein Nachfolger Ahmed Lütfî (1815–1907) erwähnt den Ramazân Bayramı gelegentlich,3 unter den Ereignissen des Jahres 1867 (1283 H.) schreibt er über das Opferfest: „Der Tradition entsprechend wurde in der erhabenen Moschee des Sultan Ahmed das Bayram-Gebet mit einem großen Aufzug abgehalten. Danach fanden unter der Kuppel4 die offiziellen Feierlichkeiten statt. Am zweiten Tag des Bayram zog der allerhöchste Herrscher [ʿAbdülʿazîz] zum kaiserlichen Schlösschen von Kag˘ıthane.5 Bei der Ankunft in dem genannten Schlösschen bekundeten sie [die Würdenträger] ihre Ergebenheit, indem sie zur Prozession gratulierten.“6

Zum folgenden Jahr (1868 / 1284 H.) notiert Ahmed Lütfî, dass das Zeremoniell „wie gewohnt“ (kemâ-fî-s-sâbık) abgewickelt wurde: Der Pâdis¸âh sei mit großem Gepränge in die Moschee Sultan Ahmeds eingezogen, um dann ins Saray [von Dolmabahçe] zurückzukehren. Eine auffällige Neuerung fand jedoch am vierten Abend des Bayram statt: Im 1840 eröffneten Hâce Na’ûm-Theater von Beyog˘lu empfing ʿAbdülʿazîz seine Minister und einige ausländische Botschafter. Nach der Aufführung einiger für diesen Anlass inszenierten Stücke (oyunlar) kehrte man zurück.7 Die Erinnerungen der Dichterin Leyla Sâz (1850–1936), die in den Harems von Sultan ʿAbdülmecîd und ʿAbdül’azîz groß geworden war, enthalten ein längeres Kapitel über die religiösen Feste am Hof, in dem aber der Kurban Bayramı völlig übergangen wird.8 Die Verlagerung des Hofes aus dem Topkapı-Serail veränderte dann den Ablauf des Kurban-Zeremoniells. Der Sultan nahm zwar weiter am Gebet in der 2 Hızır I˙lyâs, Vekâʿi–i letâ’if-i enderûn (I˙stanbul 1276): 339. Weitere Erwähnungen S. 86 zu 1030 H. und S. 114 zu 1031 H. 3 Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi tarihi X: 87. 4 In der alten Audienzhalle (Kubbealtı) des Topkapı Sarayı. 5 Gemeint ist das 1279 / 1862 neu errichtete Schloss und Kiosk Saʿdâbâd. 6 Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi tarihi XI: 25: „Muʿâyede-i id–i adhâ: Ber-muʿtâd alây-ı vâlâ ile Sultan Ahmed Câmi-i s¸erîfinde bayram namazı edâ olundukdan sonra, Kubbe-altında muʿâyede-i hümâyûn resmi icrâ ve bayramın ikinci günü Kasr-ı hümâyûnu’na nakl-i âlî olundu. Tebrik-i nakl içün Kasr-ı mezkûra azîmetle ifâ-yi resm-i ubûdiyyete mübâderet eylediler.“ 7 Zu diesem Theater ausführlich aber ohne Hinweise auf Veranstaltungen mit dem Sultan: And, Tanzimat ve ˙Istibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu 1839–1908. 8 Vgl. mit weiterer Literatur Sagaster, Im Harem von Istanbul: 103–116. Die jüngste neutürkische Version der Memoiren Sâz’ erschien unter dem Titel Anılar. 19. Yüzyıl Saray Haremi.

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

271

Sultan Ahmed-Moschee teil, musste aber den längeren Weg über die GalataBrücke nach den Palästen von Dolmabahçe (ab 1856) bzw. dem Çırag˘an-Serail (vor allem zwischen 1863 und 1871) zurücklegen. ʿAbdülhamîd II. nutzte für diesen Staatsakt ab 1886 die Yıldız-Moschee vor seinem Palast-Areal. Von seinem Nachfolger Mehmed V. Res¸âd gibt es Fotografien, die ihn mit geopferten Hammeln vor der Moschee von Dolmabahçe zeigen. Der bekannteste Kurban pazarı war der Markt auf dem Platz vor der Bâyezîd-Moschee.9 Aus dem späten 19. Jahrhundert haben sich auch Aufnahmen vom dort stattfindenden Verkauf von Schafböcken vor dem Opferfest erhalten.10 In der Literatur zum Alltagsleben im osmanischen Istanbul finden sich nicht wenige Hinweise zum Auftrieb der Tiere für die Bevölkerung, das Heer und nicht zuletzt den Hof. Das Buch von Ays¸e Osmanog˘lu (1887–1960) über ihren Vater ʿAbdülhamîd II. ist die einzige mir bekannte Beschreibung der Kurban-Feierlichkeiten in den letzten Jahren der Alleinherrschaft des Sultans. Ihr Bericht enthält zwar keine genauen Jahresangaben, wir können ihn aber auf die Zeit um die Wende zum 20. Jahrhundert eingrenzen:11 „Am Opferfest fand eine Änderung statt. Zwei Tage vor dem Bayram traf die Prozession (alay) der vom Herrscher den Prinzen und Prinzessinnen, den Ministern und Wesiren zum Geschenk gemachten Hammel und Opfertiere (kurbanlar) im Serail ein. Ihre Ankunft war außerordentlich schön. Der Aufzug mit dem Hazine-i Hassa nâzırı12 an der Spitze zog vor einem Fenster, aus dem der Herrscher blickte, vorbei. Die Hammel waren glänzend aufgemacht, ihr Fell bunt gefärbt und mit Bändern geschmückt, ihre Treiber trugen mit Gold- und Silberfäden bestickte Westen und grüne Schalwars. Als Kopfbedeckung hatten sie mit Troddeln besetze Häubchen (takke), die mit brodierten Turbanbändern umwickelt waren. Auch das entsprach der Tradition (bu da an’anedir). In dieser Form wurden sie in die Gärten des Serails geschickt.“ „Die zweite Neuerung des Kurban Bayramı war folgende: Bevor der Herrscher beim Verlassen der Moschee seinen Wagen bestieg, legte man vor den Schlag [seiner Kutsche] einen großen Hammel auf den Boden, der Herrscher nahm ein Messer in die Hand und berührte (damit) das Tier, bestieg dann seinen Wagen, danach wurde der Hammel geschlachtet. Das war auch eine Tradition.13 Was uns betraf, wurden außer den uns vom Herrscher geschickten Hammeln in unseren Häusern [weitere] Hammel geschlachtet, darüber hinaus sandten wir Schafe an unsere Freunde (ahbap) und Diener (bendegân), 9 Koçu, ˙Istanbul Ansiklopedisi: IV, 2252, s.v. Bayazid Meydanı. 10 Ein schönes Beispiel mit Händlern bei der Bâyezîd-Moschee in: Schiele & Müller-Wiener, Istanbuler Alltag im 19. Jahrhundert: 48. Dasselbe Bild mit der Beschriftung Abdullah Frères in: Kilian & Trost, Historische Fotografien aus Istanbul: S. 37. 11 Ays¸e Osmanog˘lu, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid: 77–81 (vgl. die Übersetzung Avec mon père le sultan Abdulhamid: De son palais à sa prison). 12 Wohl der zwischen 1897 und 1908 amtierende Ohanes Sakız Pas¸a, nicht die oberste Schatzmeisterin des Harems. S. u. unsere Nr. 9 der Umschrift. 13 S. 81: „bu da an’ane idi“ ist mir nicht verständlich, handelte es sich doch um eine offensichtliche Neuerung.

272

Klaus Kreiser

Abb. 8: Unbekannte Bildquelle: Geschmückter Hammel mit Treibern

zu Moscheen, Derwischkonventen, Polizeiwachen und in die Quartiere, in denen wir unsere Wohnsitze (ikamet ettig˘imiz mahallere) hatten.“

Ays¸e Osmanog˘lus Bericht trennt zwischen traditionellen Elementen des Opferfestes und Bestandteilen, die erst unter ihrem Vater aufkamen. Für unser kurban defteri ist der letzte Satz von einiger Bedeutung, weil hier von den Tieren die Rede ist, die Angehörige des Hofes für andere Personen und Institutionen bestimmten.

Das Kurban defteri Das Münchner Defter mit der Signatur Cod.turc. 756 hat aus mehr als einem Grund einen gewissen Quellenwert. Es ist nicht nur ein seltenes Exemplar eines so gut wie unbekannten Genres, sondern zeigt, welche Verbindungen zwischen der vâlide und den Mitgliedern des Hauses Osman, die hier vollständig und in protokollarischer Strenge aufgelistet stehen, bestanden. Insbesondere werden zahlreiche Palastchargen erfasst und die Beziehungen der Sultansmutter oder ihr besonders nahestehenden Menschen, zu Personen und Institutionen in der Stadt Istanbul sichtbar. An einigen Stellen lassen sich Schlüsse auf die Aufenthaltsorte des Haremspersonals ziehen. Mein Beitrag gibt im Folgenden den Text eines Registers wieder, das die Empfänger der fast dreihundert Schafe und Hammel (koyun, koç) aufzählt. Sie wurden auf Anordnung der Sultansmutter Pertev Niyâl im Jahr 1863 detailliert

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

273

erfasst. Pertev Niyâl war die fünfte Frau (kadın efendi) von Sultan Mahmûd II. und brachte 1830 den zum Zeitpunkt unserer Kurban-Feierlichkeiten regierenden ʿAbdülʿazîz zur Welt. Derartige Dokumente sind offensichtlich sehr selten. Die alles andere als vollständigen online-Kataloge der großen osmanischen Archive kennen nur zwei oder drei Gegenstücke, die vergleichbare Inhalte haben. Im Archiv des Topkapı Sarayı befinden sich zwei Urkunden (evrâk) vom 29. Zilhicce 1180 (1767), deren Inhalt wie folgt zusammengefasst wird: „Detaillierte Aufstellung der Ausgaben für Hammel, Schafe und Süßigkeiten, die anlässlich des Opferfestes an Prinzen und Prinzessinnen (sultânlar) und andere Amtsträger gegeben werden.“14 Ein undatiertes Schriftstück aus demselben Archiv enthält eine Aufstellung von Hammeln und Schafen, die aus demselben Anlass dem Harem, dem Scheichülislam und Palastchargen geschenkt wurden.15 In den osmanischen Archiven des Bas¸bakanlık Ars¸ivi wird nur ein Register unter dem Namen Kurban defteri erfasst. Es zählt die mittellosen Empfänger (fukarâ) von 40 Opfertieren im Monat Receb ohne Jahresangabe auf, hat also keinen Zusammenhang mit dem Opferfest.16 Das in einen hellgelben Umschlag aus gestrichenem Papier17 eingebundene Münchener defter besteht aus fünf, in weitgehend gut lesbarem nashi-Duktus beschriebenen Seiten (fol. 1a–4b), die fast ausschließlich aus der Nennung von Empfängern von Opfertieren auf Befehl der namentlich nicht genannten Sultansmutter bestehen. Das Register wurde ganz offensichtlich bei der Verteilung der Tiere benutzt, denn alle schwarz geschriebenen Zahlenangaben (meistens 1, für besonders wichtige Persönlichkeiten auch 2 oder 3) enthalten gleichsam als Quittungen in roter Farbe ausgeschriebene Entsprechungen. Mit anderen Worten: die Rot-Schreibungen geben die tatsächlich erfolgte Verteilung der Opfer-

14 „Kurban bayramı münasebetiyle Enderun-u Hümayun, sultanlar ve daire görevlilerine verilen koç, koyun ve s¸ekerleme masrafının müfredatı.“ (Zarf No: 178 Evrak No: 78–79 Dosya No: 123 Gömlek No: 23, Tarih: 1180.Z.29). 15 „Kurban bayramı münasebetiyle Enderun-u Hümayun’a Seyhülislam’a, ulemaya ve saray görevlilerine hediye edilen koç ve koyunların müfredatı.“ (TSMA.D 2352). 16 „Kurban Defteri: Receb (tarihsiz) ayında fakirlere ve kimsesizlere sadaka-i hümayun olarak (Çatladıkapı, Aksaray, Eyüb, Üsküdar’da Harmanlık) yakınlarında bulunan odalarda kesilen kurbanlık cem’an 40 koyun hakkında.“ 17 Freundliche Auskunft von Frau Dr. Helga Rebhan (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek): „Bei dem gelblichen Papier handelt es sich nach Auskunft einer Buchrestauratorin um sogenanntes ‚gestrichenes Papier‘ …Hierbei wird die Farbschicht auf einen Papierträger aufgetragen. Das Muster entsteht durch die mit einer Walze durchgeführte Prägung. Ein Wasserzeichen, das auf eine europäische Papiermanufaktur hinweist, kann ich in Cod.turc. 751 nicht erkennen. Ich kenne gestrichenes Papier von osmanischen Handschriften, die für den gehobenen Bedarf hergestellt sind. Oft ist die Färbung in grellen Farben ausgeführt, so dass das Papier wie eine Wachstuchdecke oder wie eine Plastikfolie wirkt.“

274

Klaus Kreiser

tiere, die gelegentlich geringfügig von der ursprünglichen Disposition abweichen.18 Der Text ordnet an, dass die Tiere am Kurban Bayramı zu verteilen und zu schlachten seien. Viele Empfänger werden nur mit ihrem Rang bzw. Titel verzeichnet. Wo die Namen fehlen, aber mit Hilfe der prosopographischen Literatur erschließbar sind, wurden sie in meiner Umschrift ergänzt und, so weit bekannt, die Lebensdaten hinzugefügt. Zwischentitel in eckigen Klammern sollen die Übersicht erleichtern. Im Einzelnen werden folgenden Gruppen von Benefiziaten erfasst: – Sultânlar (Prinzessinnen und Prinzen), unter ihnen drei zukünftige Herrscher (ʿAbdülhâmid, Res¸âd und Vahîdeddîn) – Kadın Efendiler – zwei hohe Palastchargen – Außerhalb der Stadt weilende Prinzessinnen und Gattinnen – Töchter verstorbener Sultane und eine Enkelin von Mahmûd II. – Frauen verstorbener Sultane – „Favoritinnen“ / ıkbâls – Söhne und Töchter ʿAbdülmecîds – ıkbâls desselben – niedrigere Palastchargen einschließlich [schwarzer?] Eunuchen – Amtsträger außerhalb des Serails – Fünf namentlich genannte Damen – Auflistung von einzelnen Scheichs und Tekyes – (Die Hüter der) Mausoleen von zwei Sultanen. Auf der letzten Seite werden verheiligte Große des Islam angeführt. Für den Propheten Muhammad waren drei Lämmer bestimmt, für die rechtgeleiteten Kalifen und die Begründer der vier sunnitischen Rechtsschulen jeweils eines. An prominenter Stelle, noch vor den Mitgliedern der Prophetenfamilie (Hadîce, ʿAys¸e, Fâtima, Hasan und Hüseyin), steht der Pîr der Naks¸bendî-Bruderschaft Muhammed Uveysi’l Buhârî. Aus dem letzten Satz des Defters lassen sich noch Schlussfolgerungen auf den Rückweg der Prozession machen. Nachdem sie die Galata-Brücke überquert hatte, wurden zwischen Kabatas¸ und dem Anleger von Hayreddîn beim Bes¸iktas¸ Sarâyı während der Prozession des Sultans weitere zehn Tiere geopfert. Am Ende des Registers zieht der Verfasser (oder wahrscheinlicher) die Verfasserin Bilanz: Zu verteilen waren 82 Hammel und 204 Lämmer, tatsächlich wurden drei weniger geschlachtet als die Liste vorsah. 18 Aus drucktechnischen Gründen erscheinen die im Original mit roter Tinte vorgenommenen Eintragungen in der Umschrift grau.

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

275

Es muss vorerst offenbleiben, ob Pertev Niyâl alleine für die Auswahl bestimmter Personen verantwortlich war. Auch verdient die Bevorzugung von etwa einem Dutzend Derwischkonventen unter mehr als 150 damals existierenden unsere Aufmerksamkeit. Vielleicht regt diese kleine Quelle aus dem osmanischen Harem unsere kenntnisreiche Kollegin Hedda Reindl zu Verbesserungen meiner an einigen Stellen noch lückenhaften Umschrift und weiteren Forschungen an.19

Text des defters (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Orientabteilung, noch ohne Inventarnummer; 4 fol. Höhe 36 cm, Breite 15,5 cm) [fol. 1a–1b (Abb. 9 und 10):] Bâ-irâde-i Hazret-iʿI˙smet-penâhi yetmis¸ dokuz senesi Kurban bayramında tevzîʿ ve ihsân buyurulacak ve zebh olunacak kurbanların defteridir S¸evket-me’âb Efendi ve Efendimiz ve Efendiler ve Kadın Efendiler Hazerâta [1.] Zât-i ¸sevket-simât Hazret-i S¸âhins¸âhî’ye mahsûs koç 7 yedi ʿaded [Sultân ʿAbdülʿazîz, 1830–1876] [2.] Velîy-i niʿmet devletlüʿismetlü Sultân ‘ulyâ es¸-s¸ân Efendi Hazretleri için sâʿir gidecek kurbanların maʿâda 3 koç 3ʿaded [Pertev Niyâl, Sultansmutter, st. 1883)] [3.] Necâbetlü Yûsuf Efendi Hazretlerine 1 koç bir ufak koç bir [Yûsuf ʿI˙zzeddîn, Sohn von ʿAbdülʿazîz, 1857–1916] [Sultânlar] [4.] ʿI˙smetlü Sâliha Sultân ʿulviyye-i ¸sân Hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Tochter von ʿAbdülazîz, 1862–1941] [5.] Necâbetlü Mahmûd Celâleddîn Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Sohn von ʿAbdülazîz, 1862–1888] [Kadın Efendiler] [6.] Devletlü Pâkize Kadın Efendi 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir 19 Ich verzichte auf Nachweise für die von mir identifizierten Personen (in eckigen Klammern), da die einschlägigen prosopographischen Werke (insbesondere von Alderson, Oransay und Öztuna) jedem Osmanisten zur Verfügung stehen. Das gilt sinngemäß für die genannten Lokalitäten, zu denen ich nur das Notwendigste hinzugefügt habe.

276

Klaus Kreiser

[7.] Devletlü ˙Ikinci Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Edâ-Dil, 1845?–1875] [8.] Devletlü Üçüncü Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Hayrân-ı Dil 1846–1895] [Palastchargen] [9.] Devletlü Hazînedâr Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Schatzmeisterin] [10.] Dârü’s-Saʿâde Ag˘ası Devletlü Talha hazretlerine koç 1 bir ufak koç 1 bir [Oberster der Eunuchen Talha Ag˘a, Amtsantritt 1861, st. 1875] [Summenzeichen] 26 Tas¸rada bulunan Sultân ve Kadın Efendiler Hazerâtına (Außerhalb der Stadt weilende Prinzessinnen und Gattinnen) [11.] ʿUtûfetlü ʿÂdile Sultân ʿulviyye-i ¸sân Hazretlerine 1 koç bir koyun [rot durchgestrichen] ufak koç 3 üç [Tochter Mahmûd II., 1826–1899] [12.] ʿI˙smetlü Fatma Sultân ʿulviyye-i ¸sân Hazretlerine [1840–1884] koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki koç bir [Töchter verstorbener Sultane und eine Enkelin Mahmûd II.] [13.] ʿI˙smetlü Refîʿa Sultân ʿulviyye-i ¸sân Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tochter ʿAbdülmecîds, 1842–1880] [14.] ʿI˙smetlü Cemîle Sultân ʿulviyye-i ¸sân Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tochter ʿAbdülmecîds 1843–1915] [15.] ʿI˙smetlü Senîha Hanım Sultân Hazretlerine, koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tochter ʿAbdülmecîds. 1851–1931] [16.]ʿI˙smetlü Ferîde Hanım Sultân Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tochter von ʿAtiyye Sultan, Enkelin Mahmûd II, st.1871] [17.] ʿI˙smetlü ʿÂdile Sultân Hanım Sultân Hazretlerine ʿI˙smetlü Hanım Sultân Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tochter Mahmûd II., 1826–1899] [Frauen verstorbener Sultane] [18.] Cennetmekân Sultân Selîm hazretlerinin Devletlü Dördüncü Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Refet, st.1870)] [19.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Efendimizin Hazretlerine devletlü Üçüncü Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Hos¸yâr, Mutter von Mihr-i Mâh Sultân geb. 1812] [20.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Hazretlerinin devletlü Dördüncü Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Âl-i cenâb mit zahlreichen Söhnen]

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

277

[21.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Efendimizin Hazretlerinin devletlü Altıncı Kadın Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Pervîz-i felek st. 21. 09. 1863] [„Favoritinnen“ / ˙Ikbâl] [22.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Efendimizin Hazretlerinin devletlü Bas¸ıkbâlı Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Hüsn-i Melek Hanımefendi 1812?–10.1886, Bas¸ıkbâl] [23.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Efendimizin Hazretlerinin devletlü Üçüncü ˙Ikbâlı Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Tiryal Hanımefendi, 1810?–1883] [24.] Cennetmekân Sultân Mahmûd Efendimizin Hazretlerinin devletlü Dördüncü ˙Ikbâlı Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 iki [Leb-rîz-i Felek, 1810?–1865] [Summenzeichen schwarze Zahlen 21 14? [rot überschrieben] 19 24 [fol. 2a–2b (Abb. 11 und 12):] Cennetmekân ʿAbdülmecîd Hân hazretlerin Sarây-ı Hümâyûnunda Devletlü Necâbetlü Efendiler veʿI˙smetlü Sultân Kadınefendiler [Söhne und Töchter ʿAbdülmecîds] [25.] Necâbetlü Murâd Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir Koyun 2 [3 durchgestrichen] iki [Mehmed Murad, 1840–?] [26.] Necâbetlü Hamîd Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 [3 durchgestrichen] iki [der spätere ʿSultân ʿAbdülhamîd II. 1842–1918] [27.] Necâbetlü Res¸âd Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 2 [3 durchgestrichen] iki [der spätere Sultân Mehmed V. Res¸âd, 1844–1918] [28.] Necâbetlü Kemâleddîn Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [Ahmed Kemâleddîn, 1843–1905] [29.] Necâbetlü Burhâneddîn Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [Mehmed Burhâneddîn 1849–1876] [30.] Necâbetlü Nûreddîn Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [Ahmed Nûreddîn 1851 / 1852–1885] [31.] Necâbetlü Süleymân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [Selîm Süleymân, 1860 / 1861–1909] [32.] Necâbetlü Vahîdeddîn Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [der spätere Sultan Mehmed VI. Vâhideddîn, 1861–1926] [33.]ʿI˙smetlü Behîce Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [1848–1876] [34.]ʿI˙smetlü Sâniye Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [=? Senîha? 1851–1931] [35.] ʿI˙smetlü Medîha Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [1856– 1928]

278

Klaus Kreiser

[36.]ʿI˙smetlü Nâile Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [1857–1882] [37.] Devletlü Bas¸kadın Efendi Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [38.] Devletlü ˙Ikinci Kadın Efendi Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [darüber:] Murâd Efendi vâlidesi [S¸evk-efzâ, 1820–1889] [39.] Devletlü Üçüncü Kadın Efendi Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [darüber:] Kemâleddîn Efendi vâlidesi [Verd-i Cenan 1826–1889] [40.] Devletlü Dördüncü Kadın Efendi Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [darüber:] Hamîd Efendi vâlidesi [Rahîme Perestû Vâlide Sultân, 1830?– 1904] [41.] Devletlü Bes¸inci Kadın Efendi Sultân Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [daunter:] Topkapu’da Sâniye?20 Sultân vâlidesi [I˙kbâl] [42.] Devletlü Bas¸ ˙Ikbâl Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir Sultan vâlidesi [Mehtâb Hanımefendi, 1830?–1888] [43.] Devletlü ˙Ikinci ˙Ikbâl Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [bu dahi Vahîdeddîn Efendi ve Medîha Sultân vâlidesi] [44.] Devletlü Üçüncü ˙Ikbâl Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [darüber:] bu dahi [45.] Devletlü Dördüncü ˙Ikbâl Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [darüber:] bu dahi Vahîdeddîn Efendi ve Medîha Sultân vâlidesi [Summenzeichen) 21 21 (rot durchgestrichen 6? von 26)] Hazînedâr ve Musâhib Ag˘alar ve sâ’ire [Palastchargen einschließlich Eunuchen] [46.] Saʿâdetlü ˙Ikinci Hazînedâr Efendi Hazretlerine koç 1 bir [47.]ʿI˙zzetlü Üçüncü Hazînedâr kalfaya koç 1 bir [48.]ʿI˙zzetlü Dördüncü Hazînedâr kalfaya koç 1 bir [49.] Bes¸inci Hazînedâr kalfaya koç 1 [das rote bir fehlt] [50.]ʿI˙zzetlü Kethüdâ Kadın Hazretlerine koç 1 bir [51.]ʿI˙zzetlü Câmes¸uy Hazretlerine koç 1 bir [52.]ʿI˙zzetlü Bas¸ Kâtib Kalfaya koç 1 bir [53.] Altıncı Hazînedâr Kalfaya koç 1 bir [54.]ʿI˙zzetlü ˙Ikinci Kâtib Kalfaya koç 1 bir [55.]ʿI˙zzetlü Sarây Efendisine koç 1 bir [56.]ʿI˙zzetlü Vekîl Ustaʿya koç 1 bir [57.]ʿI˙zzetlü Cemâl-i Nûr Hanıma koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [58.] Saʿâdetlü Bas¸ Musâhib Râmiz Ag˘a Hazretlerine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir 20 Nicht nachweisbar.

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

279

[59.]ʿI˙zzetlü ˙Ikinci Musâhib Ag˘a’ya koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [60.]ʿI˙zzetlü Üçüncü Musâhib Ag˘a’ya koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [61.]ʿI˙zzetlü Dördüncü Musâhib Ag˘a’ya koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [in Rot eingefügt] Sarây Efendilerden Bas¸ Kapu Ag˘ası Necîb Efendi koç bir [62.] Oda Lâlâsı Süleymân Ag˘a koç 1 bir [fol. 3a–3b (Abb. 13 und 14):] [63.] Efendi hazretlerin Lâlâsı Saʿîd Efendiʿye koç 1 bir [64.] Saʿâdetlü Bas¸ Ag˘a hazretine koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [65.] Refʿetlü Bas¸ Kapu Gulâmı Kâmil Ag˘aʿya koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [Anrede für Kommandanten] [66.] Üçüncü Rüchân Ag˘aʿya koç 1 bir [67.] Bas¸ Hademe Mustafa Efendiʿye koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [68.] ˙Ikinci Hademe Hacı Hasan Efendiʿye koç 1 bir koyun 1 bir [69.] Server Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [70.] Saʿdullâh Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [71.] ˙Ilyâs Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [72.] Elmâs Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [73.] Râs¸id Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [74.]ʿÂsım Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [75.] Gazanfer Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 bir [eingefügt:] [76.] Fâʿik Ag˘aʿya 1 [77.] Üçüncü Hademeye koyun 1 bir [78.] Dördüncü Hademeye koyun 1 bir [79.] Bes¸inci Hademeye koyun 1 bir [80.] Altıncı Hademeye koyun 1 bir [81.] Yedinci Hademeye koyun 1 bir [82.] Sekizinci Hademeye koyun 1 bir [darunter:] yedi soffa ***1 [83.] * sırıkdârıʿna koyun 1 bir [darunter:] onaltı yedi hisse kal*5 [84.]ʿArabacıbas¸ı koyun 1 bir [darunter:] dört soffa re’is ve cümle soffa [85.]ʿArabacı arkadas¸ına koyun 1 bir [am Rand hinzugefügt:] Dörtʿarabacılara 4 [86.] Yıldız Kasr-ı hümâyûn bekçisi Hacı Hamîd Ag˘aʿya koyun 1 [darunter:] yedi soffa 1 yedi soffa cümlesine [87.–93] Harem-i Hümâyûn hademelerin yedi nefer eskilerine birden? 7 yedi [darüber eingefügt:] onaltı yedi soffa k** 5 [93.–98.] Zülüflü hademlerin ser-teberdârına ve bes¸ nefer zâbıtına *6 altı [99.] As¸çıbas¸ı 1 bir [100.] As¸çı kalfasına 1 bir [101.–105] sırıkdâr?? Necîb Ag˘aʿya koç 1 [rot durchgestrichen]

280

Klaus Kreiser

[106.–110.] Dört *hammalları 1 Bas¸teberdâra 1 onüç teberdâra 4 [Summenzeichen] 66 24 41 1 42 2 Baʿzı mahallere gönderilen [Verschiedene Amtsträger außerhalb des Serails] [111.] Nûrî Efendi Hazretlerine koyun 2 iki [112.] Yahya Efendi Hazretleri türbesine koyun 2 iki [113.] ˙Imâm HâfızʿAbdullâh Efendi koyun 1 bir [114.] Kudretullâh Efendi Hazretlerine koyun 2 iki [115.] Hoca Osmân Efendi koyun 1 bir [116.] Tabîb Emîn Beyʿe koyun 1 bir [118–118.] Ag˘a kâtibi ʿAlî Efendi koyun 2 iki Üsküdar’da Ag˘a hammâmı kurbünde [119.]ʿArab Mustafa Ag˘a’ya 1 bir [Fünf namentlich genannte Damen] [120.] Zekiye Hanıma 1 bir [darüber:] Bes¸iktas¸’da Hacı Furun arkasında 1 bir*? [121.] Hayr-i Cemâlet hanıma 1 bir [darüber:] ˙Iskender Ag˘a’da 1 bir [122.–121.] ʿAys¸e Hanıma [darüber:] Eyüb’de ˙Islâm Bey mahallesinde *1 Hâce Nevrûs Hanıma 1 Sâbık esb hademesi Mustafa Ag˘aya 1 bir [alles schwarz durchgestrichen] 1 bir [123.] ˙Incü-Sezâ Hanıma 1 bir [darüber:] Vefâ’da Börekçi kars¸ısında Sâlim Pas¸a haremi [Auflistung von einigen Derwischkonventen] ʿAzîz Mahmûd Efendi hazretlerine 2 iki [Mahmûd Hüdâyî in Üsküdar] Miskinleri 2 iki [das Leprösen-Haus in Karacaahmed] Tas¸lıburun Tekyesinde S¸eyh Süleymân Efendi 2 iki [Süleymân Sıdkı Efendi, 1220– 1308, Bayrâmî Tekye Lâgârî Mehmed Efendi] Kalenderhâne tekyesi 2 iki [Özbekler bzw. Naks¸bendî tekyesi in Eyüp] Eyüb’de Kas¸garî Hazretlerin türbesi 2 iki [Mausoleum von Mahmûd Kas¸gari 1688/9–1760, im 19. Jahrhundert Naks¸bandî-Mucaddidi tekye oberhalb Eyübs] Eyüb’de Sâlih Efendi tekyesine 1 bir [? Vgl. das sogenannte Salih Efendi tekyesi in Üsküdar] Hazret-i Hâlid türbedârına 1 bir [Mausoleum Eyübs] Merkez Efendi Hazretlerine 1 bir [Türbe des Musliheddîn Mûsâ Efendi, st. 959 H.] Yenikapu Mevlevihânesine 1 bir

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

281

[Auflistung von einzelnen Scheichs] Mehmed Pas¸a tekyesi ¸seyhi Mustafâ Efendi 1 bir [Celvetî S¸eyh Mustafa Hulûsî Ef., 1220–1299], Balıklı civarında Seyyid Nizâm hazretlerine 1 bir Eyüb’de Hacı Halim Efendi hazretlerine 1 bir Fındıklı’da S¸eyh Hacı Ahmed Efendi 2 S¸ifâ-i S¸erîf kıraât eden Hacı Ahmed Efendiʿye [Rezitator des Buchs S¸ifâʿ von Kadı I˙yâz] **Hasan Efendi 1 Yes¸il Tulumba’da S¸eyh Halîm Efendi 1 [Rifâî tekyesi] Alyanak tekyesine 1 [Rifâî tekyesi bei Silivrikapusu] *zindâne? [fol. 4a–4b (Abb. 15 und 16):] Bolulu Hâci Hasan Efendi 2 [das Wort koç fehlt hier und bei nachfolgenden Empfängern] iki Meclis-i vâlâ’dan ümenâ-i mü’ezzin* Hafiz Efendi 1 mahallede fukarâya 1 bir [Summenzeichen] 20 [korrigiert] 25?. Cennet-mekân türbe-i-s¸erîfelerine [Die Mausoleen der zwei letzten verstorbenen Herrscher] Cennet-mekân Sultân Mahmûd Hân hazretlerinin türbe-i ¸serîfelerine 3 üç Cennet-mekân Sultân ʿAbdülmecîd Hân hazretlerinin türbe-i ¸serîfelerine 3 üç [Summenzeichen] 6 ʿArefe günü rızâen zebh olunacak [Opfertiere, die am Vorabend des Bayram zu schlachten sind (mit Angabe der Orte)] Miskinlerde 2 iki [s. oben] Eyüb’de Kurbân-hâneʿde kesilib fukarâya dag˘ıdılan 2 iki Üsküdar’da ihtiyâr muvakkite kesilib verilen 1 bir Yus¸[a] hazretinde kesilen 1 bir [Das Heiligtum auf dem Yus¸a Tepe am asiatischen Ufer] Durmus¸ Dede türbesine kesilen 1 bir [Cerrâhîye-Konvent in Bebek / Rumelihisar,] Mehmed Pas¸a medresesinde kesilen 1 bir [Medrese des Sokullu Mehmed Pas¸a] Küçük Ayasofya medresesinde kesilen 1 bir [die Kleine Hagia Sophia]

282

Klaus Kreiser

Buhara mahallesinde kesilen 1 bir [wahrscheinlich wegen seines Naks¸bendîKonvents, des „Özbekler tekyesi“, ausgewählt] [Summenzeichen] 10 Bayram Günü Saray-ı hümâyûn’da kesilen [Bestimmungen für den Bayram, im Serail zu schlachtende Tiere] Fahr-i kâinât salâ Allah teʿâla aleyh ve selâm hazretler icün 3 üç [zu Ehren des Propheten Muhammad] Dört eshâb-ı kerâm rıdvân Allâh teʿalâ ʿaleyhum içün 4 dört [für vier rechtgeleiteten Kalifen] Dört imâm rahmat’ullâh ʿaleyhuma hazerâtı 4 dört [für die Begründer der vier sunnitischen Rechtsschulen] Naks¸bendî Tâcü’l-ʿÂrifîn Mehmed Bahâeddîn Efendi Hazretleri içün 2 iki [der Pîr der Naks¸bendî-Bruderschaft Muhammed Uveysi’l Buhârî, 1318–1389] [Die Familie des Propheten] Hazret-i Hadîce Rıza Allâh anha Efendimiz içün 2 iki Hazret-i ʿAys¸e-i Sadîka Rıza Allâh anha Efendimiz içün 2 iki Hazret-i Fâtima az-Zehrâ Efendimiz Rıza Allâh anha Efendimiz içün 2 iki Hazret-i Hasan ve Hazret-I Hüseyin Rıza Allâh anhumâ Efendilerimiz içün 2 iki [Auf dem Weg zwischen Kabatas¸ und dem Anleger von Hayreddîn beim Bes¸iktas¸ sarâyı während der Prozession des Sultans zu schlachtende Tiere] Kabatas¸’dan Hayreddîn ˙Iskelesine kadar Efendimiz tes¸rîf-i senîyelerinde kesilen 10 on Üç günde yedis¸er olarak kesilen 21 yig˘irmibir [Summenzeichen] 52 [Strich über die ganze Spalte] Koç 82 cümlesi 82 koç koyun 202 [+] 3 204 ikiyüzbir koyun

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

283

Literaturverzeichnis And, Metin, Tanzimat ve ˙Istibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu 1839–1908. Ankara 1972. Hızır I˙lyâs, Vekâʿi–i letâ’if-i enderûn. I˙stanbul 1276. Kilian, Hendrikje & Trost, Vera. Historische Fotografien aus Istanbul. Heidelberg 2001. Koçu, Res¸ad Ekrem, ˙Istanbul Ansiklopedisi. I˙stanbul 1960. Leya Saz, Anılar. 19. Yüzyıl Saray Haremi (3. Aufl.). I˙stanbul 2010. Mantran, Robert, ˙Istanbul dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Paris 1962. Osmanog˘lu, Ays¸e, Avec mon père le sultan Abdulhamid: De son palais à sa prison. Paris 1991. Osmanog˘lu, Ays¸e, Babam Sultan Abdülhamid (Hâtıralarım). I˙stanbul 1984 (1. Aufl. 1960). Sagaster, Börte, Im Harem von Istanbul. Osmanisch-türkische Frauenkultur im 19. Jahrhundert. Hamburg 1989. Schiele, Renate & Müller-Wiener, Wolfgang, Istanbuler Alltag im 19. Jahrhundert. Istanbul 1988; türk. Übers. Ondokuzuncu yüzyılda Istanbul hayatı. Tabakog˘lu, Ahmet, „Osmanlı Döneminde I˙stanbul’un I˙âs¸esi“, in: Emecen, Feridun & Akyıldız, Ali & Gürkan, Emrah Safa (Hrsg.), Osmanlı ˙Istanbulu II. II. Uluslararası Osmanlı ˙Istanbulu Sempozyumu Bildirileri 27–29 Mayıs 2014, ˙Istanbul 29 Mayıs Üniversitesi. I˙stanbul 2014: 99–168. Uzun, Ahmet, „Osmanlı Devleti’nde S¸ehir Ekonomisi ve I˙as¸e“, Türkiye Aras¸tırmaları Literatür Dergisi 3/6 (2005): 211–235. Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lûtfî Efendi tarihi X (Ed. Münir Aktepe). Ankara 1989.

284

Abb. 9: fol. 1a (oben)

Klaus Kreiser

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

Abb. 10: fol 1b (unten)

285

286

Abb. 11: fol. 2a (oben)

Klaus Kreiser

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

Abb. 12: fol. 2b (unten)

287

288

Abb. 13: fol. 3a (oben)

Klaus Kreiser

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

Abb. 14: fol. 3b (unten)

289

290

Abb. 15: fol. 4a (oben)

Klaus Kreiser

Über Schafe und Lämmer: Ein Kurban defteri aus der Zeit von Sultan ʿAbdülʿazîz

Abb. 16: fol. 4b (unten)

291

Christoph Ramm

Simply Divide-and-Rule? The Impact of the British Civilizing Mission on the Ottoman Communities of Cyprus

Succeeding the Ottomans as rulers of Cyprus, it was the British under whose colonial administration nationalism could successfully spread among the Orthodox and Muslim inhabitants of the island. Until today it is a matter of much contention as to what extent a presumed British divide-and-rule policy is responsible for the dissemination and establishment of opposing nationalist ideas in the Cypriot communities, thereby contributing to the outbreak of violent conflict in the 1950s. The popular assumption of an elaborated imperialist scheme to separate both communities for the sake of British rule is also reflected in many academic works on the Cyprus issue. Attalides, for instance, refers to a “British policy of explicitly separating the two ethnic groups”, which he locates “in the setting up of separate Greek and Turkish schools, and in the separate representation of Greeks and Turks in the Legislative Council”.1 Yavuz emphasizes that “the development of ethno-nationalism in Cyprus was strongly influenced—if not actually caused—by British policy”, stating that the “system of administration allowed the British governors to play one group against the other in order to keep both in line”.2 Xypolia holds that “[t]he British government deliberately set up a ‘divide and rule’ structure in order to gain advantage from the existing and emerging hostilities between the two communities of the island”.3 Some critics of British imperialism even accuse the colonizers of having actively promoted a (re)construction of identities in Cyprus. Pollis, for instance, argues that of “all the foreign powers, Great Britain was the most instrumental in transforming identities and constructing ethnicity where it had not previously existed”.4 Other authors are more cautious. Faustmann underlines that “divide-and-rule mechanisms were consistently and consciously applied during most, but not all, 1 Attalides, Social Change and Urbanization in Cyprus: 53. 2 Yavuz, “The Evolution of Ethno-Nationalism in Cyprus under the Ottoman and British Systems”: 73–74. 3 Xypolia, British Imperialism and Turkish Nationalism in Cyprus: 166. 4 Pollis, “The Role of Foreign Powers in Structuring Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus”: 93.

294

Christoph Ramm

parts of British rule”, the intensity of these mechanisms being dependent on the degree of challenge to that rule.5 Yet he admits that Britain did not invent the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots over the issue of union with Greece (enosis): “British policy until 1931 had not created but exploited the division.”6 Nevzat concedes that at certain points the British utilized a divide-and-rule strategy, but emphasizes that it was not constantly nor always successfully employed.7 Asmussen goes even further, denying the existence of any elaborated divide-and-rule scheme during the British period. According to him, their experiences in other colonies convinced the British that such a policy would not lead to stability on the island, one of the prime aims of the colonial administration.8 Discarding “the theory of a divide-and-rule conspiracy”, this author states at another place that “British decisions were generally taken with no such policy in mind, yet the outcome served to support this theory”.9 The relevance of this controversial issue to the formation of ethnic and national identities requires a closer look at British colonialism in Cyprus. This contribution approaches Britain’s colonial policy, focussing on certain administrative measures which might support the claim of a divide-and-rule strategy and describing the ambivalences and inconsistencies of this policy. Arguing that the popular emphasis on British manipulative strategies does not sufficiently explain the successful establishment of nationalism on the island, the chapter instead highlights some widely neglected aspects of the Empire’s civilizing mission and analyzes the profound impact of the concept of civilization.

British colonial policy in Cyprus Britain took over the administration of Cyprus in 1878. Under military pressure from Russia the Ottoman government had agreed to British occupation of the island in return for London’s support against the Tsarist Empire.10 Formally, however, Cyprus remained part of the Ottoman Empire until the British government annexed the island in 1914 and declared it Crown Colony in 1925.11 Though the British introduced a more effective administration and improved infrastructure, the colonial economy did not develop substantially until the 5 6 7 8 9 10

Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 458. Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 458. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 437. Asmussen, “Wir waren wie Brüder”: 198. Asmussen, “Conspiracy Theories and Cypriot History”: 130. See Hill, A History of Cyprus Volume IV: 222–299. The text of the Anglo-Ottoman agreement (‘The Cyprus Convention’) and the respective ferman of the Sultan in ibid.: 300–304. 11 Hill, A History of Cyprus Volume IV: 412–415.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

295

1920s. The majority of the peasantry remained poor and suffered from British taxation policies. Up until World War II the local economy consisted largely of agricultural production, while only mining emerged as an important sector, exclusively run by foreign companies.12 The introduction of a cooperative movement in the 1920s and a post-war boom in manufacturing and construction were central factors in the improvement of living conditions in the later years of British colonial rule.13 Since Britain was primarily interested in Cyprus’ potential as a military base, the main concern of the colonial administration was less economic exploitation and more to secure the loyalty of the local population.14 On a small scale, the colonial officials were confronted with a situation similar to that in India and other parts of the British Empire: the inhabitants of the island consisted of a dominant majority and a strong minority which had made up the former ruling class. Controlling these two major communities was thus vital for British imperial interests, and yet the colonial administration’s handling of intercommunal relations proved extremely problematic. Though the new rulers pushed ahead with the modernization of administrative institutions, they maintained, to a large extent, the Ottoman system of communal organization. British dominance also ended all previous Ottoman modernization efforts since the Tanzimat era.15 Christians and Muslims could thus keep their established religious institutions, the Ottoman juridical system continued to work in a largely unchanged manner, and the education system remained organized in separate schools for each community.16 The last point in particular proved to have disastrous consequences for the prospect of peaceful coexistence in Cyprus. The administration, on the one hand, built up and expanded the education system on the island. The almost complete segregation of the schools, on the other hand, helped disseminate distinctive political consciousness in the Orthodox and Muslim communities, thereby supporting the establishment of two opposing ethnonationalisms on the island.17 In an act of “liberal” imperialism the British also introduced some basic political freedoms in Cyprus. However, the 1882 constitution left the reformed system of political representation organized along communal lines.18 The composition of the Legislative Council attracted especially heavy criticism and has 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Brey, “The Cypriot Economy”: 431–434. Brey, “The Cypriot Economy”: 433–434 and 437–442. Attalides, Social Change and Urbanization in Cyprus: 49. Anagnostopoulou, “Millet, Ethnicity, Colonial Community”: 43. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 113–114. Asmussen, “Wir waren wie Brüder”: 107. For a comparison of the Ottoman and the British approach to representative administration see Michael, “From the Ottoman Meclis-i ˙Idâre to the British Legislative Council”.

296

Christoph Ramm

been controversially discussed since then. The Council consisted of six appointed British members as well as nine Greek Orthodox and three Muslim representatives elected by their respective communities. Since the High Commissioner had a casting vote, the official British members could overrule the Greek Orthodox members if they had the support of the Muslims. Additionally, if a law was not approved it could be enacted by an Order in Council signed by the government.19 These mechanisms have frequently been attacked as the clearest manifestation of a British divide-and-rule strategy in Cyprus. Confronted with increasing Greek Cypriot resistance and demands for union with Greece, colonial officials in the 1920s readily admitted such intentions in internal documents.20

Promoting division, forging identities? The practice of maintaining traditional communal organizations while introducing new administrative structures has led to divergent conclusions. Kitromilides, for example, underlines the effects of a continuity of the Ottoman millet system, which, in his words, “would survive under the British”: “Thus, a regime which according to British imperial ideology aspired to bring the blessings of modern civilization to its colonial peoples, was essentially creating the conditions for the survival of traditional corporatist forms of social organization. Furthermore the politicization of these traditional corporatist structures and ideals that sustained them, under the impact of modern nationalism, undermined decisively the prospects of liberal political culture—something that British influence could conceivably have nurtured.”21

According to Kitromilides, this policy granted, in the short run, the colonial administration manoeuvrability “in playing one group against another and thus keeping ultimate control to itself”. In the long run, however, it contributed to “the gradual destruction of an integrated society in Cyprus”.22 Pollis, on the other hand, maintains that the British dismantled the traditional millet system and replaced it gradually with centralized state structures and uniform British laws:23 “By superimposing a new institutional and administrative structure on traditional Cypriot society, British rule was in itself a potent reconstructive force. Armed with a 19 Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 17–18. 20 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 329–338 quotes several statements of British officials related to this matter, dating from the1920s. 21 Kitromilides, “From Coexistence to Confrontation”: 45. 22 Kitromilides, “From Coexistence to Confrontation”: 46. 23 Pollis, “The Role of Foreign Powers in Structuring Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus”: 93.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

297

cognitive framework which categorized the Cypriot people as Greeks and Turks, rather than Muslim and Christian, Britain’s divide and rule policies were justified in terms of the ostensible realities of an ethnic divide. But it was the British who in large measure created these realities.”24

However, a debate that circles only around the questions of whether the British passively tolerated the emergence of Greek and Turkish ethnic consciousness or whether they actively “constructed” new ethnic identities seems too limited. Both approaches assume the existence of a deliberate and continuous strategy of manipulating or even “making” an ethnic divide. There are, though, several reasons why the idea of an elaborated and permanently applied imperialist scheme to separate both communities is insufficient to explain the spread of nationalism in Cyprus, and why it may lead to a misconception of the impact of colonialism on the Cypriot communities. An overview of the 82 years of British occupation reveals many fluctuations in Britain’s strategies to secure the continuity and stability of its rule. Administrative decisions were influenced by diplomatic considerations, frequently depending on a more philhellene or more pro-Turkish orientation of the government in London or of its representatives in Nicosia.25 While the introduction of the—in a colonial context—rather liberal constitution of 1882 was partly motivated by the philhellenism of the responsible British officials,26 their successors readily made use of its divisive mechanisms in order to counter growing Greek Cypriot nationalist demands.27 In this respect, the Legislative Council was obviously designed to function as a divide-and-rule mechanism.28 But such attempts to manipulate divisions politically were not always successful. On several occasions Greek and Turkish Cypriot legislators cooperated for their mutual benefit.29 When subsequent Greek Cypriot ambitions of achieving union with Greece made the colonial administration increasingly reliant on the traditional Muslim elite, it tried to contain the spread of Turkish nationalism in the late 1920s.30 After the Greek Cypriot revolt of 1931 the British took measures against nationalist activities in both communities, including press censorship, strict control of the education system and a ban on importing schoolbooks and teachers from Greece 24 Pollis, “The Role of Foreign Powers in Structuring Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus”: 93. 25 Richter, Geschichte der Insel Zypern. Band I: 49–52; Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 118–120. 26 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 118. 27 Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 18. 28 Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 458. 29 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 128. 30 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 329–338 and 345–347.

298

Christoph Ramm

and Turkey.31 In her analysis of the British approach to education in this period Heraclidou notes that “the colonial government’s educational policy in Cyprus was accused of being based on two fundamental principles: the policy of deHellenisation and the dogma of divide-and-rule”. She concludes that “[n]ot only are these two principles to some extent contradictory, but taken together they constitute an over-simplification”.32 The period after the Second World War, which had brought some political liberalization, was characterized by renewed Greek Cypriot campaigns for enosis and, subsequently, the internationalization of the Cyprus issue. It was only now, long after Turkish nationalism had become a widespread phenomenon among the Muslim population, that the British sought the support of Turkish nationalists in order to obstruct Greek Cypriot ambitions.33 In 1948, for instance, the government set up a special Committee on Turkish Affairs to establish closer relations with Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community.34 This policy did not remain unchallenged inside the colonial bureaucracy, and critics warned of the dangers of relying on a loyal minority community supportive of a foreign protective power.35 The 1950s were certainly the period that witnessed the most active diplomatic attempts to play the Cypriot communities and the “motherlands” off against each other. During negotiations with Greece and Turkey, Britain, as Faustmann points out, “tried to counterbalance Greek claims by playing the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot card”.36 In this context it is highly disputed as to what extent the government in London promoted the partition of the island (taksim) as a possible option. After Greek Cypriot EOKA began its armed struggle against the British in 1955, colonial recruitment policy in Cyprus proved to be another problematic factor with separating consequences: the high number of Turkish Cypriots in the police force made them targets for the militants, leading to clashes between both communities.37 British hiring practices, however, had not always been in favour of Turkish Cypriots. Immediately after their arrival the British had begun to fill the ranks of the civil service and the police force—under the Ottomans a Muslim domain—with large numbers of Christians, thereby enhancing integration and, at the same time, causing some resentment among the Muslims.38

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Kızılyürek, Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs: 219–220; Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 54–61. Heraclidou, Imperial Control in Cyprus: 257. Kızılyürek, “The Turkish Cypriots”: 323. Kızılyürek, “The Turkish Cypriots”: 323. Asmussen, “Wir waren wie Brüder”: 197–198. Faustmann, Divide and Quit?: 106. Asmussen, “Conspiracy Theories and Cypriot History”: 130. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 114.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

299

Hence the evaluation of British colonialism in Cyprus shows that, depending on the circumstances, the colonial administration followed a rather contradictory approach towards the Cypriot communities. At certain stages this included a divide-and-rule policy, though there is no evidence that the British actively fostered ethnicity and nationalism to secure their dominance. In this respect Nevzat points to the fact that Greek nationalism had appeared in the Greek Orthodox community in Cyprus long before the British arrived, and shows that the later emergence of Turkish nationalism was not a product of colonial politics.39 Even Xypolia, who—in contrast to Nevzat—emphasizes that “British rule provided the political, ideological and socio-economic framework through which the transformation of [the Muslim community’s] identity took place”, concedes that “even without the imperial policies of ‘divide and rule’ by the British, Turkish Cypriot nationalism would eventually have emerged anyway”.40 In exaggerating divide-and-rule mechanisms many critics of British colonial policy tend to neglect the multicultural character of the British Empire and its significance for the continuity of diversity and coexistence in Cyprus. Had the island remained part of the Ottoman Empire, it is very likely that the segregation of population groups in Southeast Europe as a result of the rise of nationalism and the disintegration of the Ottoman state would have affected Cyprus as well.41 The British presence made sure at least that the ethnic homogenization of the Balkans and of Anatolia owing to war, massacres and forced migrations—particularly during the 1912–1922 period—affected the Mediterranean island only indirectly.42 Britain did not prevent the spread of nationalism in Cyprus, and certainly some political decisions contributed to the intensification of the ethnic divide. The imperial framework did indeed ensure British dominance and economic exploitation. But it also guaranteed a high degree of coexistence of the Cypriot communities—until the prospect of an end to British rule encouraged the Greek Cypriot majority population in its struggle for a goal that was not acceptable to the Turkish Cypriot minority. In this context it is remarkable that the only British attempt to “transform” identities in Cyprus concerned the idea of a common Cypriot identity: In the late 1920s colonial officials debated the propagation of “Cypriot patriotism” in order 39 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 101. 40 Xypolia, British Imperialism and Turkish Nationalism in Cyprus: 167. 41 For an analysis of the unmixing of population groups following the collapse of multicultural empires in the early 20th century see Brubaker, “Aftermaths of Empire and the Unmixing of Peoples”. 42 Asmussen, “Conspiracy Theories and Cypriot History”: 131. Markides, “Cyprus 1878–1925: Ambiguities and Uncertainties”: 32 also emphasizes that due to British rule Cyprus “remained far removed from the deep trauma caused elsewhere by the forced migrations of whole populations” agreed upon in the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923.

300

Christoph Ramm

to counter the spread of nationalism.43 However, such ideas never materialized. The promotion of English among the Cypriot population after the revolt of 1931 was equally a rather half-hearted attempt and encountered nationalist opposition.44 Even if the British had encouraged a Cypriot political identity, it remains doubtful whether such an identity would have met with any response in two communities already deeply influenced by nationalism. As Nevzat concludes, “there is little evidence that either of the two communities were themselves interested in forsaking their rival national identities, or even that they accorded any priority to forging a transcendent identity”.45

The British civilizing mission An overemphasis on Britain’s divide-and-rule policy may obscure a differentiated view of the process in which colonizers and colonized people interact with each other in the framework of imperial power relations. Bryant thus advocates a more complex perspective on the effects of colonialism and its role in the rupture between the Cypriot communities. Such a perspective “would see British colonialism not only as a method of force but, more important, as a complex of ideas in which Cypriots participated and which they negotiated with, rejected, or adapted to”.46 How colonial discourse provokes ambivalent reactions on the side of the colonized can be clearly observed in the connection between Britain’s civilizing mission and the spread of nationalism in Cyprus. Originating in the civilization discourses of the 18th century, the idea of a civilizing mission of the European powers reached its pinnacle in the midnineteenth century, in particular in its function as one of the fundamental ideologies of colonialism.47 In the Victorian age the British version developed into the most specific and elaborated concept of a civilizing mission and became a highly influential model for other countries.48 Certain characteristic elements of the British experience, which Osterhammel summarizes as follows, were added to widespread ideas of scientific, technical, social and moral progress:

43 Georghallides, Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs: 73–74. This idea of “Cypriot patriotism” included the introduction of a Cypriot flag. 44 Heraclidou, Imperial Control in Cyprus: 259. 45 Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 441. 46 Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 62. 47 Osterhammel, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”: 386–387. 48 Osterhammel, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”: 388.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

301

“Welfare through commercial diligence and international free trade; the ‘rule of law’ guaranteed by an incorruptible justice; representative government together with an incorruptible administration; a ‘moderate’ policy avoiding large-scale wars and revolutions; a striving for cleanliness and hygiene; the pursuit of a medium degree of material comfort between luxury and poverty; thrift in private life as well as on the state level; an ethics of self-discipline including sexual restraint; and finally Protestant Christianity and its worldly mobilization.”49

In Cyprus, Britain’s effort to disseminate this set of “superior” values among the local population had far-reaching consequences. Bryant argues that the arrival of the British and the subsequent administrative changes caused, above all, a “crisis of authority”.50 The British ideas of civilization collided with the traditional Ottoman structures of authority in which politics, religion and identities had been closely intertwined. The new rulers regarded all Cypriots—regardless of their status or religious rank—as equal subjects of the imperial administration, replacing paternalistic structures of social compromise with an understanding of justice under the rule of law. This resulted in an erosion of traditional, especially religious, authority.51 However, the ambiguous desire to implant civilization also created new opportunities for the colonial subjects—opportunities which they could turn around and even use against the “civilizers”.52 In Cyprus, a more efficient bureaucracy, constitutional institutions (above all the Legislative Council), the spread of schools and in particular an emerging press paved the way for the development of a public sphere and new forms of politics. New leaders reclaimed the public sphere for themselves, forcing the traditional religious elites more and more onto the defensive.53 Moreover, they used the publics to mobilize discontent, and as a result of their resistance they could achieve substantial concessions from the colonial administration. The communities, for instance, were able to retain to a large extent control of their affairs.54 Bryant underlines that as a consequence of these changes, people started to think of themselves as citizens: “[T]his required a new sort of community in which one’s membership would no longer be determined by practices and relations but by an identity of equal selves.”55 The emerging new publics were thus increasingly demarcated in lin-

49 Osterhammel, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”: 388. 50 Bryant, Imagining the Modern: 22. 51 Bryant, Imagining the Modern: 25–27. 52 For a discussion of these ambiguous effects, see, for example, Cooper & Stoler, Tensions of Empire: 6–8. 53 Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 23–39. 54 Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 46–47. 55 Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 47.

302

Christoph Ramm

guistic terms and finally constituted as ethnic communities with national identities. What makes the case of Cyprus distinctive is the colonial context of this transition. It was the civilizing mission of a foreign power that instigated the social changes that laid the foundation for the spread of nationalism—unlike in Greece, the late Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic. On the Greek Peninsula and in Anatolia it was nation-states (in the Ottoman case an increasingly “nationalized” empire) that embarked on ambitious programs of modernization and self-transformation.

The hierarchy of civilizations Britain may not have been fully successful in disseminating Victorian values and British modes of consciousness among the inhabitants of Cyprus, whose new nationalist elites readily made use of the idea of equality for the creation of their own vision of the nationalist citizen. One specific aspect of Britain’s civilizing effort, however, had a lasting effect on the self-perception of the Cypriot communities: the idea of a hierarchy of civilizations. The hierarchization according to the perceived “degree of civilization” is inextricably linked with the concept of the civilizing mission. From the mid-nineteenth century on, this sort of hierarchy was increasingly theorized by evolutionist scientists on the assumption that all countries and peoples of the world could be compared according their “standard of civilization”.56 While the civilization concept incorporated the possibility of change and development in order to reach a higher “standard”, it was confronted with competing theories of unalterable “races”. Together with increased imperial expansion later in the 19th century, scientific theories attributing social and cultural differences biologically to unalterable “races” became more and more influential in European societies.57 The tension between civilizing ambitions and racial categorizations often led to contradictions within diverse colonial projects. In particular, the rejection by colonized people of becoming “civilized” could result in increasingly racist behavior on behalf of the “civilizers”.58 In this context it is important to note the variety of categorizations within colonial discourse. These included racial hierarchies, but also other forms of

56 Osterhammel, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”: 388–389. 57 Barth, “Die Grenzen der Zivilisierungsmission”: 203–204. 58 Osterhammel, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”: 371.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

303

hierarchical classification such as by gender and social status.59 Moreover, such categories did not always depict colonized people in pejorative terms.60 Local considerations also influenced the approach towards colonial subjects. In the British case the Empire extended over a wide range of domains (Crown Colonies, dominions, protectorates, mandates and dependencies) without a unitary system of colonial rule.61

“Oriental despotism”: British perceptions of the Cypriots In the case of Cyprus it was the notion of Oriental despotism that constituted the central marker of an inferior status in the hierarchy of civilizations. Pre-British Cyprus was included into the popular Western image of a “decaying” Ottoman Empire whose deep nature was characterized as both “Oriental” and “despotic”.62 When the first High Commissioner, Sir Garnet Wolseley, visited Famagusta in 1878 immediately after the arrival of the British he offered a comment that would be a prime example of a typical perception of the Ottomans: “There is an air of decay about the place that tells one that it is an apanage of Turkey’s Sultan. Wherever one goes here is the same: the face of the Island is stamped with relics of a past prosperity that has been destroyed by the Moslems. It is said that wherever the horse of the Turk treads nothing will ever grow afterwards, he can pull down and destroy but he is not only incapable of creating but he cannot even succeed in keeping alive the creations of others. … It is no wonder that the Christians should rejoice at our coming to relieve them from an oppression under which they have groaned so long. They are a wretched lot as far as I can learn, but what can be expected of a people bred under such a form of slavery and ground down as they have been by masters who did not even care to conceal the contempt in which they held them.”63

In this view, the inhabitants of the island were judged according to the degree to which they embodied “Europe” or the “Oriental”. The philhellenes among the British administrators regarded the Orthodox Christians as Europeans who had 59 For a detailed analysis of gender and race categories in colonial discourse see McClintock, Imperial Leather. Stoler, “Cultivating bourgeois bodies and racial selves” explores the link between bourgeois cultures, sexuality, and racial categories in colony and metropole. Cannadine, Ornamentalism puts a particular emphasis on the role of social hierarchy in the British Empire. 60 Thomas, Colonialism’s Culture: 54–55. 61 Hall, “Introduction: thinking the postcolonial, thinking the empire”: 7. 62 For the Western perception of the Ottoman Empire and the history of the notion of “Oriental despotism” see Adanır, “Das Osmanische Reich als orientalische Despotie in der Wahrnehmung des Westens”. 63 Cavendish (ed.), Cyprus 1878: The Journal of Sir Garnet Wolseley: 10.

304

Christoph Ramm

been saved from the “Ottoman yoke”.64 As “civilized” descendants of the ancient Hellenes they should be spared the treatment of other “Oriental” or “Asiatic” imperial subjects. In 1904, for instance, an official in London justified the liberal approach towards the Greek Orthodox majority in referring to its “European” character: “It does not seem to me to be practicable to adopt the legislation suited to India, an Asiatic country conquered and held by the sword, to a European community like Cyprus. In that Island 2/4ths of the population are Greeks and hence by language and traditions attached to liberal institutions.”65

Consequently, the remaining quarter of the population, the Muslims, were implicitly or explicitly excluded from the category of “European”. Though the dominant British perspective on the Muslim community was shaped by the image of a backward, weak, lethargic and corrupt Orient, some British officials underlined the usefulness of such perceived Muslim backwardness for colonial rule. Stating that the Cypriot Muslims “are lazy workers in the fields” and “have little enterprise”, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Cyprus identified a certain loyal servility of Muslim employees in the civil service in a report he wrote in 1885: “Now as regards the two classes of Mahometan and Christian, it may be generally admitted that the former will accept a lower salary, is more painstaking and neat, and understands and accepts discipline more completely than the Christian; while the Christian is quicker and shrewder in business, is more ready to learn, and is possessed of higher ability for such office work as is required of a Western Government than the Mohametan [sic]. The Mahometan is by nature very loyal to his master.”66

Statements by British officials with a pro-Turkish stance could even convey more approving representations of the island’s Muslims, emphasizing most preferably their “physical strength” or “martial characteristics”.67 Nevertheless, the suspicion of being “Oriental” lingered on both communities. Particularly when the British were confronted with any kind of resistance, they tended to brand the local population as not “civilized” enough, as in the following example. Reacting in 1929 to persistent Greek Cypriot demands for enosis in the Legislative Council, an official in the Colonial Office attributed this to the “mentality” of the Cypriots: “The Cypriots have an oriental mentality. They are inclined, therefore, to regard liberal gestures rather with contempt than with gratitude.” The official thus advocated that the Cypriots would only respect “a 64 Varnava, “Cypriots Transforming their Identity”: 157–160. 65 CO 67/138 Minute by W. D. E., March 28, 1904, 36. 66 CO 883/4/5 Report of Colonel Falkland Warren, Chief Secretary to the Government of Cyprus, August 25, 1885, 26. 67 See quotes in Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 114 and 120.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

305

firm policy”.68 The benevolent perception of the “European” Greek therefore always ran the risk of changing into the image of the stubborn “Oriental” Cypriot who had to be governed with firmness. In the colonizers’ view of the colonized, difference then replaced sameness. This depended not only on the individual opinion of the colonial administrator on duty, but also on a general necessity to justify British rule. On certain occasions the negative marking of Cypriots as “different” even reached the degree of open racism. This could affect the population as a whole or certain groups characterized by their appearance. Shortly before the beginning of the Second World War, for instance, the British Army did not accept “dark-skinned” Cypriots as recruits, and the Royal Air Force rejected people “of Asiatic or African appearance”.69 Regarding its ambivalent approach towards the colonized, British colonial rule in Cyprus was not unusual. In India the British had also employed the notion of Oriental despotism from the 18th century onwards when they sought to comprehend the country and legitimate their rule.70 Hence they always had to determine the extent to which India was a fundamentally different, “Oriental” society, and the extent to which it possessed institutions similar to those in Europe (for instance its traditional institutions laid down in ancient Sanskrit texts), thereby exploring how much India’s people should be transformed in Europe’s image.71 The representations inherent in the idea of Oriental despotism are certainly Orientalist in Said’s sense, but it is important to emphasize the flexibility of the concept of civilization, particularly in its earlier versions. Until the idea of a fundamental difference of “Oriental” people came to the fore, the mission to civilize “despotic” societies in the East was not restricted to two opposing categories—the “European” and the “Oriental”—as simplistic interpretations of Said’s concept of Orientalism might suggest.72 The civilizing mission and its implicit idea of development also allowed for intermediate steps on the steep climb from “Oriental” culture to “European” civilization, giving “less civilized” people the opportunity to become “more European” by accepting Europe’s

68 CO 883/8/82 Minute by A. J. Dawe, April 23, 1929, 31–41. 69 See quotes in Asmussen, “‘Dark-skinned Cypriots will not be accepted!’”: 168 and 169, note 7. After the outbreak of the Second World War, however, such objections were abandoned (ibid.). 70 Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj: 6. 71 Metcalf, Ideologies of the Raj: 1–2. Inden, Imagining India: 49–74 analyzes the ideological background of the alternating discourses on India ranging between the attribution of Oriental despotism and romantic idealization. 72 See Said, Orientalism. For the controversy surrounding the concept of Orientalism, see Do Mar Castro Varela & Dhawan, Postkoloniale Theorie: 37–46.

306

Christoph Ramm

leading role.73 Hence it both invited and forced the colonized into a competition in order to proceed towards Europeanness and Western civilization.

The civilization ideal and the Cypriot communities The British civilization ideal had a deep impact on the Cypriot communities. Orthodox and Muslim Cypriots responded to it in different ways. The Greek Orthodox majority readily embraced the basic premise of the hierarchy of civilizations since it seemed to confirm not only their European ancestry but also their claim to be the genuine ancestors of Europe.74 Therefore the Orthodox Cypriots first welcomed the arrival of the British as an opportunity to achieve equality.75 Later Greek nationalists hailed them as their “liberators” from the “Turkish yoke”, as Argyrou points out: “[T]he British were received in Cyprus as representatives of civilization, as liberators from Turkish ‘backwardness’ and ‘barbarism’, as a nation that could understand and sympathize with the Greek Cypriot desire to become part of Greece.”76 When these hopes were dashed, Greek Cypriots started to view the British rulers more and more as oppressors and finally became engaged in a “liberation struggle” against them. The Greek Cypriot anti-colonial struggle, however, “was never an anti-European or even anti-British struggle but a struggle to be recognized as personas in the myth that Europeans had themselves created”.77 For the Muslims the situation was more complicated. Feeling humiliated by the Ottomans’ handover of the island, they had to adapt to the position of a minority and to new European rulers who regarded them predominantly as representatives of a “backward” culture.78 This created, on the one hand, a strong desire to defend Ottoman sovereignty and equal representation, combined with nostalgia for an idealized past in the sultan’s empire.79 There was, on the other hand, a strong sense of backwardness in view of the perceived superiority of the British.80 Bryant explains how for sections of the Muslim elite the backward status of their own community could only be overcome by progress and modernization through Western models: “Many Muslims saw in the British Empire qualities— 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Barth, “Die Grenzen der Zivilisierungsmission”: 203. Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 48. Varnava, “Cypriots Transforming their Identity durch the Early British Period”: 167. Argyrou, “Postscript: Reflections on an Anthropology of Cyprus”: 216. Argyrou, “Postscript: Reflections on an Anthropology of Cyprus”: 216. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 104–105. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 121 and 131–132. Ramm, “Beyond ‘Black Turks’ and ‘White Turks’ – The Turkish Elites’ Ongoing Mission to Civilize a Colourful Society”: 1365.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

307

such as justice and strong government—that needed to be revived in their own.”81 The strong identification with modernization culminated later in the Turkish Cypriots’ readiness to appropriate the Kemalist reforms.82 Civilization now meant the participation in “a project of national modernization that explicitly aimed at bridging East and West”.83

Conclusion The relationship between British colonialism and the emergence of nationalism in Cyprus goes deeper than pure power politics, as popular explanations on the ground of an alleged British divide-and-rule scheme suggest. There is no evidence that Britain instigated or actively supported at any point the transformation of separate group consciousness, which had already existed among Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Ottoman times, into national and ethnic identities. Instead, British rule in Cyprus laid indirectly the foundations of this development. The colonial administration maintained large parts of the Ottoman communal organization, a practice that contributed to the establishment of separate political consciousness among the religious communities. By importing an entire framework of modern administration, the British colonizers created the essential preconditions for the emergence of modern public spheres. These new publics formed the channels by which Orthodox and Muslim Cypriots were increasingly influenced by nationalist ideas from the “motherlands”, thereby replacing traditional religious affiliations more and more with political identities based on national and ethnic grounds. What has been equally influential until today is the colonial context of this transition. By assessing Cypriots according to the European hierarchy of civilizations, the British civilizing mission had a fundamental impact on the self-perception of the Cypriot communities—both directly and indirectly through Greek and Ottoman / Turkish visions of civilization.84 Colonialism’s ideal of the civilized thus made Cypriots compete with each other over whose identity is more “European” and less “Oriental”.

81 82 83 84

Bryant, Imagining the Modern: 115. Nevzat, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: 346. Bryant, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”: 48. For the role of the concept of civilization in the formation of Greek and Ottoman / Turkish nationalism see Ramm, Turkish Cypriots: 74–94.

308

Christoph Ramm

Bibliography Adanır, Fikret, “Das Osmanische Reich als orientalische Despotie in der Wahrnehmung des Westens”, in Kürs¸at-Ahlers, Elçin & Tan, Dursun & Waldhoff, Hans Peter (eds), Türkei und Europa. Frankfurt am Main 2001: 83–121. Anagnostopoulou, Sia, “Millet, Ethnicity, Colonial Community. Views of the Authoritarian Transition to Modernity, 19th-early 20th c. From the Ottoman to the British Empire”, in: Michael, Michalis N. et al. (eds), Religious Communities and Modern Statehood. The Ottoman and post-Ottoman World at the Age of Nationalism and Colonialism. Berlin 2015: 14–69. Argyrou, Vassos, “Postscript: Reflections on an Anthropology of Cyprus”, in: Papadakis, Yiannis & Peristianis, Nicos & Welz, Gisela (eds), Divided Cyprus: Modernity, History, and an Island in Conflict. Bloomington 2006: 214–224. Asmussen, Jan, “’Dark-skinned Cypriots will not be accepted!’: Cypriots in the British Army 1939–1945”, in: Faustmann, Hubert & Peristianis, Nicos (eds), Britain in Cyprus: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878–2006. Mannheim, Möhnesee 2006: 167–185. Asmussen, Jan, “Conspiracy Theories and Cypriot History: The Comfort of Commonly Perceived Enemies”, The Cyprus Review Vol. 23/2 (2011): 127–145. Asmussen, Jan, “Wir waren wie Brüder”. Zusammenleben und Konfliktentstehung in ethnisch gemischten Dörfern auf Zypern. Münster 2001. Attalides, Michael A., Social Change and Urbanization in Cyprus. A Study of Nicosia. Nicosia 1981. Barth, Boris, “Die Grenzen der Zivilisierungsmission. Rassenvorstellungen in den europäischen Siedlungskolonien Virginia, den Burenrepubliken und Deutsch-Südwestafrika”, in: Barth, Boris & Osterhammel, Jürgen (eds), Zivilisierungsmissionen. Imperiale Weltverbesserung seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Konstanz 2005: 201–228. Brey, Hansjörg, “The Cypriot Economy under British Rule and the Economic Heritage of the British Period”, in: Faustmann, Hubert & Peristianis, Nicos (eds), Britain in Cyprus: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878–2006. Mannheim, Möhnesee 2006: 431–443. Brubaker, Rogers, “Aftermaths of Empire and the Unmixing of Peoples”, in: Barkey, Karen & Von Hagen, Mark (eds.), After Empire. Multiethnic Societies and Nation-building: The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires. Boulder, Colorado 1997: 155–180. Bryant, Rebecca, “On the Condition of Postcoloniality in Cyprus”, in: Papadakis, Yiannis & Peristianis, Nicos & Welz, Gisela (eds), Divided Cyprus: Modernity, History, and an Island in Conflict. Bloomington 2006: 47–65. Bryant, Rebecca, Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus, London, New York 2004. Cannadine, David, Ornamentalism. How the British Saw Their Empire. Oxford 2001. Cavendish, Anne (ed.), Cyprus 1878: The Journal of Sir Garnet Wolseley. Nicosia 1991. Cooper, Frederick & Stoler, Ann Laura, Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley, California 1997. Do Mar Castro Varela, María & Dhawan, Nikita, Postkoloniale Theorie: Eine kritische Einführung. Bielefeld 2005.

Simply Divide-and-Rule?

309

Faustmann, Hubert, Divide and Quit? The History of British Colonial Rule in Cyprus 1878– 1960. Including a Special Survey of the Transitional Period, February 1959-August 1960. Mannheim 1999. Georghallides, G. S., Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs: The Causes of the 1931 Crisis. Nicosia 1985. Hall, Catherine, “Introduction: thinking the postcolonial, thinking the empire”, in: Hall, Catherine (ed.), Cultures of Empire. Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader. Manchester 2000: 1–33. Heraclidou, Antigone, Imperial Control in Cyprus: Education and Political Manipulation Hill, George, A History of Cyprus Volume IV: The Ottoman Province – The British Colony 1571–1948. Cambridge 1952. in the British Empire. London, New York 2017. Inden, Ronald B., Imagining India. Oxford 1990. Kitromilides, Paschalis M., “From Coexistence to Confrontation: The Dynamics of Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus”, in: Attalides, Michael A. (ed.), Cyprus Reviewed. Nicosia 1977: 35– 70. Kızılyürek, Niyazi, “The Turkish Cypriots from an Ottoman-Muslim Community to a National Community”, in: Faustmann, Hubert & Peristianis, Nicos (eds.), Britain in Cyprus: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878–2006. Mannheim, Möhnesee 2006: 315– 325. Kızılyürek, Niyazi, Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs [Cyprus in the Stranglehold of Nationalism]. I˙stanbul 2002. Markides, Diana “Cyprus 1878–1925: Ambiguities and Uncertainties”, in: Faustmann, Hubert & Peristianis, Nicos (eds), Britain in Cyprus: Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878–2006. Mannheim, Möhnesee 2006: 19–33. McClintock, Anne, Imperial Leather. Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest. New York 1995: Routledge. Metcalf, Thomas R., Ideologies of the Raj. Cambridge 1995. Michael, Michalis N., “From the Ottoman Meclis-i ˙Idâre to the British Legislative Council. Representative Administration between the Ottoman and the British Represantation of Modernity”, in: Michael, Michalis N. et al. (eds.), Religious Communities and Modern Statehood. The Ottoman and post-Ottoman World at the Age of Nationalism and Colonialism. Berlin 2015: 105–130. Nevzat, Altay, Nationalism amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The first wave. Oulu 2005. Osterhammel, Jürgen, “‘The Great Work of Uplifting Mankind’. Zivilisierungsmission und Moderne”, in: Barth, Boris & Osterhammel, Jürgen (eds.), Zivilisierungsmissionen. Imperiale Weltverbesserung seit dem 18. Jahrhundert. Konstanz 2005: 363–425. Pollis, Adamantia, “The Role of Foreign Powers in Structuring Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus”, in: Calotychos, Vangelis (ed.), Cyprus and Its People: Nation, Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community, 1955–1997. Boulder, CO 1998: 85–102. Ramm, Christoph, “Beyond ‘Black Turks’ and ‘White Turks’ – The Turkish Elites’ Ongoing Mission to Civilize a Colourful Society”, Asiatische Studien – Études Asiatiques 70, no. 4 (2016), 1355–1385.

310

Christoph Ramm

Ramm, Christoph, Turkish Cypriots, Turkish ‘Settlers’ and (Trans)National Identities between Turkish Nationalism, Cypriotism and Europe (Dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum 2009). Richter, Heinz A., Geschichte der Insel Zypern. Band 1: 1878–1949. Mannheim, Möhnesee 2004. Said, Edward W., Orientalism, New York 1978. Stoler, Ann Laura “Cultivating bourgeois bodies and racial selves”, in: Hall, Catherine (ed.), Cultures of Empire: Colonizers in Britain and the Empire in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: A Reader. Manchester 2000: 87–119. Thomas, Nicholas, Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel, and Government. Cambridge 1994. Varnava, Andrekos, “Cypriots Transforming their Identity during the Early British Period. From a Class, Religious and Regional Identity to a Hellenic Ethno-Nationalist Identity”, in: Michael, Michalis N. et al. (eds.), Religious Communities and Modern Statehood. The Ottoman and post-Ottoman World at the Age of Nationalism and Colonialism. Berlin 2015: 148–172. Varnava, Andrekos, British Imperialism in Cyprus, 1878–1915: The Inconsequential Possession. Manchester 2012. Xypolia, Ilia, British Imperialism and Turkish Nationalism in Cyprus, 1923–1939: Divide, Define and Rule. London, New York 2018. Yavuz, M. Hakan, “The Evolution of Ethno-Nationalism in Cyprus under the Ottoman and British Systems”, The Cyprus Review 3/2 (1991): 57–79.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war? Two slightly different versions of Ottoman entry into the World War by Mustafa Hayri Efendi, wartime S¸eyhülislam of the Ottoman Empire and author of the “jihad fatwa”

The draft and printed versions of the statements of Mustafa Hayri Efendi, former S¸eyhülislam of the Ottoman Empire, written on 10 December 1918 and read at the Fifth (Political) Department of the Ottoman Police on 19 December 1918.

Introduction The circumstances of Ottoman entry into the First World War are still a subject of lively debate and quite as mysterious as they were a century ago. Although the general course of events is agreed upon, and there are technical and other reports of the actual incidents concerned, no contemporary account has been published from the pen of those directly involved in the decision-making process on the Ottoman side in the months, weeks and days leading up to the Black Sea incident that hurled the Ottoman Empire into the war. The actual order Enver Pasha gave Admiral Souchon to attack the Russian fleet wherever he should find it surfaced only in 2014,1 a full century after it was issued, and the only useful contemporary source on the circumstances of the execution of the order was published a year later.2 These sources, though, inform us of the final stages of the entry into the war and not of the developments leading up to it. Our knowledge of the position of the various members of the Ottoman cabinet is largely confined to the minutes of the sessions of the Ottoman parliament and senate and the statements these persons made later, either as written statements in interrogations or in memoirs. 1 See Kas¸ıyug˘un, Osmanlı Devleti’nin 1. Dünya Savas¸ı’na Giris¸i: 538, 639. The text of the order— but not a pictorial reproduction of the actual document—had already been published in Mühlmann, Deutschland und die Türkei 1913–1914: 102, with the note “after the original in the archives of the navy”. The list of sources on p. 103 refers to “the records of the navy archives” without any further detail. I thank Mr. Göktürk Ömer Çakır (Istanbul) for drawing my attention to this title and Dr. Sevgi Ag˘cagül (Bonn) for making the printed German version of the order available to me. 2 See Bardakçı, Hafız Hakkı Pas¸a’nın Sarıkamıs¸ Günlüg˘ü: 42–43; and Bardakçı, Enver: 133–134.

312

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

One such source is the collection of statements made by members of the wartime Ottoman cabinet obtained by the interrogation commission set up by the Bes¸inci S¸ube, the Fifth (Political) Department of Ottoman Police after the Armistice of Mudros.3 This commission, proposed by Fuad Bey, member of parliament representing the district of Divaniyye, and headed by Abdullah Azmi Efendi, could only interrogate those senior members of the wartime cabinet it could lay hands on and these did not include the primary culprits of the fait accompli that pulled the Ottomans into the war, namely the triumvirate composed of Talat, Enver and Cemal Pashas, who had fled the country on board a German vessel two nights after the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, and who are the people most relevant to our discussion here. Of the fifteen people interrogated by the Bes¸inci S¸ube, only six, namely Said Halim Pasha (grand vizier and foreign minister), I˙brahim Hayrullah Bey ( justice minister and president of the Council of State), Ahmed S¸ükrü Bey (education minister), Çürüksulu Mahmud Pasha (minister of Public Works), Cavid Bey (finance minister), and Mustafa Hayri Efendi (s¸eyhülislam and minister of Pious Foundations), were members of the Ottoman cabinet at the time of Ottoman entry into the War. Of these, Çürüksulu Mahmud Pasha and Cavid Bey were amongst the four who had resigned upon the decision of the cabinet to enter the war (the other two, namely Oskan Efendi and Süleyman El-Bustani, were no longer in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the interrogation). The interrogation commission asked each of them ten questions, which were general and not specific to the individuals interrogated, and consequently did not in all cases apply to every one of them, a fact which was pointed out by those concerned whenever this was the case. The first of these questions was about the causeless and ill-timed entry into the war. All six of those interrogated who were cabinet ministers at the time replied in varying detail to this question. It is Mustafa Hayri Efendi’s reply that we shall discuss here in greater depth. Mustafa Hayri Efendi (1867–1922) was the wartime S¸eyhülislam (1914–1916) and the compiler of the famous “jihad fatwa”, which had given religious sanction to the Ottoman war effort, which had given the Allies, especially the British, such a scare. Some six months after this interrogation took place, he was deported to

3 These were later published under the title Said Halim ve Mehmed Talat Pas¸alar kabinelerinin Divan-ı Âlîye sevkleri hakkında (Divaniyye) Mebusu Fuad Bey (merhum) tarafından verilen takrir üzerine beray-ı tahkikat kura isabet eden Bes¸inci S¸ube tarafından icra olunan tahkikat ve zabt edilen ifadatı muhtevidir. A transcription published by Kocahanog˘lu contains a useful introduction: Kocahanog˘lu, ˙Ittihat-Terakki’nin Sorgulanması ve Yargılanması.

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

313

Malta together with a number of other former Unionists to pay for the role he had played in the war and held there without trial for a year and a half.4 Amongst the papers of Mustafa Hayri Efendi there were found a few leaves of a block note 10 cm to 19 cm in size that bore an undated text in pencil that turned out to be the draft of Mustafa Hayri Efendi’s reply to this first question of the interrogation commission. Since it contains some significant passages that are missing from the printed version, I thought it would be wise to make a comparison of both. The texts in question, i. e. the printed version, the reconstructed draft version, and a synthesis of both, appear below (for reasons of space I had to exclude the rough text of the draft version and content myself with giving the reconstruction of it; I refer the interested reader to the reproductions of the documents concerned at the end of the article). It is important to note that while the statements of the other defendants were taken orally by the interrogation commission, that of Mustafa Hayri Efendi was submitted in writing as he could not leave his house or be interrogated there due to ill health. This is the reason why Mustafa Hayri Efendi’s statement is in a more orderly, structured form than those of the others, which bear the immediate and candid character of a conversation. This must be taken into account while evaluating his reply as it was almost certainly not taken under pressure. I have not been able to find out any information about the whereabouts of the original texts of the statements taken down during the hearings that formed the basis of the written versions.

The Documents The printed version (PV) of the reply of Mustafa Hayri Efendi to the first question of the Interrogation Commission of the Fifth (Political) Department of the Ottoman Police on 10 December 1918. Sual – Sebebsiz ve vakitsiz harbe girmeleri? Cevab – Avrupa’da naire-i harb is¸tial ettig˘inde biz bîtaraflıg˘ı muhafaza etmeg˘i müreccah gördük. Fakat bu hâl ile ancak üç mah kadar devam edebildik. S¸öyle ki: 16 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 1330 tarihine müsadif iyd-i edhanın birinci günü sabahleyin (Bes¸iktas¸) Saray-ı Hümayunu’nda Vükela Odası’nda müctemi oldug˘umuz bir 4 His diaries have recently been published by the present author: [Mustafa Hayri Efendi (Ürgüplü)], S¸eyhülislam Ürgüplü Mustafa Hayri Efendi’nin Mes¸rutiyet, Büyük Harp ve Mütareke Günlükleri 1909–1922. The texts of both the draft as well as the printed versions have been included, but no extensive discussion of the implications of the differences between the two has been attempted there.

314

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

sırada Karadeniz’de Rus donanmasıyla bizim donanma arasında müsademe vuku buldug˘unu orada mevcud olan rüfekadan is¸ittim. Sadrazam Said Halim Pas¸a Hazretleri haberi olmaksızın vuku bulan hadise-i mezkûreden mug˘ber olarak istifaya karar verdig˘i cihetle saray-ı hümayuna gelmedig˘i anlas¸ılmıs¸tı. Muayede-i seniyye resmi hitam bulunca Dâhiliyye Nazırı Talât Beyefendi: “Biz, Sadrazam’a gideceg˘iz, istifadan sarfınazar etmesi için çalıs¸acag˘ız, sen de gel.” dedi; itizar ettim, gitmedim. Harbiyye Nazırı’nın harbe mütemayil görülmesi sebebiyle harbe bizim tarafımızdan sebebiyyet verildig˘i zehabında bulundum. Talât Beyefendi’ye bize hiç haber verilmeksizin böyle bir vaka-i azimenin ihdası dog˘ru olmadıg˘ını söyledim. Kendisinin de haber ve malumatı olmadıg˘ına yemin etti. Enver ve Cemal Pas¸alar da hadiseye Rusların sebebiyyet verdig˘ini söylüyorlar idi. Bunun üzerine Rusya hükûmetine müracaat olunarak tahkikat icrası ve vaka esbabının zahire ihracı teklif ve bîtaraflıg˘ı muhafazaya tevessül ve ihtimam edilmis¸ ise de cevab alınamadıktan bas¸ka Rusya, sefirini geriye çag˘ırdıg˘ı gibi Rus kuva-yı askeriyyesinin (Erzurum) hududunu nikat-ı muhtelifeden tecavüz ve bu sırada Fransa ve ˙Ingiltere devletleri dahi sefirlerini geriye çag˘ırdıktan bas¸ka ˙Ingiliz ve Fransız donanmalarının müs¸tereken (Çanakkale)’ye ˙Ingiliz kruvazörlerinin (Akabe)’ye top atmak suretiyle bilfiil muhasemata ibtidar eyledikleri Sadrazam ve Hariciyye Nazırı Pas¸a Hazretleri ile Dâhiliyye ve Harbiyye ve Bahriyye Nazırları Pas¸alar tarafından beyan ve Rusların behemehâl memleketimize taarruz ve harb etmek arzusunda bulundukları ifade ve teyid kılınmasına binaen 29 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 1330 tarihli irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i pa[di]s¸ahîyi5 mübeyyin kararname mütalaasından müsteban buyurulacag˘ı vechile hâl-i harbi kabulden bas¸ka çare kalmamıs¸ idi. Bâlâda arz eyledig˘im vechile âcizlerince harbe sebeb olan Karadeniz’deki müsademeyi vükeladan asker refiklerimizin ihdas eyledikleri ihtimali hâsıl olmus¸ idi. Çünkü Enver Pas¸a, Ruslar tarafından ansızın memleketimize taarruz olunması ihtimalinden ve Karadeniz sularını donanmamızın görüp tedkik etmesi ve manevra yapması lüzumundan mükerreren bahsetmis¸ ve buna mukabil vükela öyle bir sırada donanmanın Karadeniz’e çıkması muvafık olamayacag˘ını bildirmis¸ oldug˘u halde haberim olmaksızın donanmanın Karadeniz’e çıktıg˘ını ancak vuku-ı hadise ile ög˘rendim. Dig˘er taraftan hadiseye Rusların sebeb oldug˘una dair cihet-i askeriyyenin tahrirî ve ¸sifahî beyanat-ı resmiyyesi ve Talât Pas¸a’nın verdig˘i teminata nazaran 5 Pas¸ahîyi in the printed version. The omission of the syllable -di- in this word is observable occasionally in the writings of Mustafa Hayri Efendi as well as in printed Ottoman works.

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

315

onun da haberi olmadan yalnız Enver ve Cemal Pas¸aların hodbehod böyle bir hadise-i azimeye cüret edeceklerini baid gördüm. Hususiyle bununla da kanaat etmeyerek mahiyyet-i vakayı tag˘yir edecek sahte rapor tanzimiyle refiklerini ig˘fale cesaret edeceklerine de ihtimal veremedim. Bundan bas¸ka Rusya’nın öteden beri vatanımıza kars¸ı göstermekte oldug˘u hırs ve tama’ı hatta Said Pas¸a merhumun sadareti zamanında âdeta bize himaye teklif eden ve (I˙stanbul) civarını müdafaa vaadiyle is¸gal-i askerîsi altına almak arzusunu, sefiri “Çarıkof” vasıtasıyla bildiren ve buna mukabil Babıâlî’nin tevessül ettig˘i tedabir-i siyasiyye neticesinde inkâr ederek sefir-i mumaileyhi azil ile meseleyi kapatan Rusya hükûmetinin böyle hemen bütün dünyayı harbe dâhil eden bir muharebede mevki ve muhitimiz itibariyle de bizi halimize bırakmayıp her halde kabul-i harbe mecburiyyet vazında bulunduracag˘ını ve tarafımızdan teklif olunan tahkikat icrasına muvafakat göstermemesi gibi hususatı mülahaza ettim. Hadiseye Rusya’nın sebeb oldug˘una dair rüfekanın verdikleri teminata inandım ve vatanımızın her halde bir emr-i vaki ile düs¸man tecavüzüne maruz bulundug˘una kanaat ederek öyle tehlikeli bir zamanda istifa edip çekilmek fikrinden sarf-ı nazar ettim. Zaten istifa etmis¸ olsam bile harbe mani olmak ihtimali yok idi. Reconstruction of the text of the draft version of the reply of Mustafa Hayri Efendi to the first question of the Interrogation Commission of the Fifth (Political) Department of the Ottoman Police on 10 December 1918. Devlet-i Aliyye’nin bu harb-ı umumîye girmeyip nihayete kadar tamamıyla bîtaraf kalması ihtimali yok idi. Çünkü bu cihan harbine girmemis¸ bütün dünyada kaç hükûmet kalabildi? Hususiyle bizim mevki-i mahsusamız da düs¸ünülür ve hususiyle Rusya’nın memleketimize kars¸ı öteden beri besledig˘i âmâl ve tasavvuratı göz önüne getirilirse bizim arzu ettig˘imiz gibi öyle bog˘azları mesdud bırakarak sellemehüsselam bizi kendi hâlimize terk etmek Rusya’nın âdeta intihar etmesine ne kendisi ve ne de mütelifleri muvafakat eder. ˙I¸ste ¸su hâl-i hatarnaki nazara alan hükûmetlerimiz mes¸rutiyyetin bidayetinden beri münasebet elverdikçe ittifak teminine çalıs¸tılar fakat muvaffak olamadılar. Nihayet Said Halim Pas¸a sadaretinde Almanya ile ittifak edildi. ˙Ittifak Almanlar tarafından teklif olundu. Müzakere Temmuz evasıtında bas¸ladı. Müsaade-i seniyye-i padis¸ahî istihsal edildikten sonra efrencî 2 Ag˘ustos’ta imza edildi.

316

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Avrupa’da naire-i harb is¸tial etti. Bizce iltizam-ı bîtarafî müreccah görüldü. Bu hâl ile üç mah kadar devam edebildik. Fakat bu esnada Almanlar bizi harbe tes¸vik ediyordu. Harbiyye Nazırı bilmem Almanların tahrikinden mi veyahud kendi kanaatinin telkininden mi xxxsinden6 mi harbe taraftar idi. 16 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 330 iyd-i edhanın birinci günü sabahleyin Bes¸iktas¸ Saray-ı Hümayunu’nda vükela odasında Karadeniz hadisesini evvelce haberdar olan nazırlar haber verdi. Harbe taraf Dâhiliyye ve Harbiyye Nazırları idi. Ancak Bahriyye Nazırı’nın o sırada mevcud olup olmadıg˘ını tahattur edemiyorum. Sadrazam Said Halim Pas¸a daha evvel haber almıs¸ ve kendisinin de haberi olmaksızın vukua gelen böyle hadise-i mezkûreden pek münfail olarak istifaya karar verdig˘i ve Saray-ı Hümayun’a gelmedig˘i anlas¸ılmıs¸tı. Muayede resmi hitam buldukta Dâhiliyye Nazırı Talât Bey bana takarrüble “Biz Sadrazam’a gideceg˘iz. ˙Istifadan sarf-ı nazar etmesi için yalvaracag˘ız sen de gel.” dedi. ˙Itizar ettim gitmedim. Ne konus¸tuklarını ve ne suretle ikna ettiklerini bilmiyorum. Ancak Harbiyye Nazırı’nın harb arzusunda bulunması bu hadisenin bizimkilerin bir tertibi oldug˘u zehabını bende hâsıl etti. Talât Bey’i muaheze ettim. Malumatı olmadıg˘ına yemin etti. Ben de Talât Bey’in haberi olmaksızın Enver ve Cemal Pas¸aların kendi kendilerine böyle bir ¸seyi tertibe cüret edeceklerine ihtimal veremedim. Bu hadise üzerine Rusya Sefiri’ne müracaat edildi. ˙I¸sin harbe müncer olmaması ve ¸sayan-ı teessüf olan vaka hakkında tahkikat icrası taleb olundu. Sefir “Benim elimden bir ¸sey gelmez. ˙Isterseniz devletimize haber müracaat ediniz.” demis¸. Bunun üzerine Rusya Hükûmeti’ne dahi yazıldıg˘ı halde Rusya Devleti cevab vermedikten bas¸ka sefirini geriye çag˘ırdıg˘ı gibi kuva-yı askeriyyesi de Erzurum hududunu nikat-ı muhtelifeden tecavüz ettig˘i ve bu sırada Fransa ve ˙Ingiltere Devletleri dahi sefirlerini geri çag˘ırdıktan bas¸ka ˙Ingiliz ve Fransız donanmalarının müs¸tereken Çanakkale’ye ve ˙Ingiliz kruvazörlerinin Akabe’ye top atmak suretiyle bilfiil muhasemata ibtidar eyledikleri Harbiyye, Dâhiliyye, Bahriyye, Hariciyye Nazırları tarafından temhid ve dermeyan kılınmıs¸ ve verdikleri izahata nazaran hâl-i harbi kabulden bas¸ka çare kalmayarak 29 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 330 tarihli irade-i seniyye ile hâl-i harb ilan edilmis¸tir. Harbiyye Nazırı istisna edilirse bîtaraflıg˘ı muhafaza ederek harbe girmemek mümkün olaydı elbette harbe girmemek evla idi. Heyet-i vükela harbe taraftar idi harb arzusunda [idi] 7 denilemez. 6 Passage illegible in the manuscript. 7 idi inserted by the present author.

317

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Hatta bir gün Talât Bey Enver Pas¸a’ya ayakta “Ben o kadar açgözlü deg˘ilim. Kapitülasyonlar refedildikten ve memleketimiz hudud-ı hazırasıyla elimizde kaldıktan sonra muharebeye ne lüzum vardır?” dedig˘ini is¸ittim. Bâlâda arz eyledig˘im cihetle Harbiyye Nazırı’nın harbe mütemayil görünmesi ve donanmanın hiç haberim olmaksızın Karadeniz’e çıkıvermesi hadise-i mezkûrenin cihet-i askeriyyenin bir tertibi zanneylemis¸ idim. Fakat Talât Pas¸a’nın verdig˘i teminat ve cihet-i askeriyyenin tecavüzün Ruslar tarafından vuku buldug˘unu müeyyid beyanat-ı tahririyye ve ¸sifahiyyesi… [text incomplete] Karadeniz hadisesine bizim sebeb oldug˘umuzu muhasım devletler bittabi iddia ederler ve o yolda birçok eser nes¸rederler. A synthesis of the printed (PV) and draft (D) versions of the reply of Mustafa Hayri Efendi to the first question of the Interrogation Commission of the Fifth (Political) Department of the Ottoman Police on 10 December 1918. Sual – Sebebsiz ve vakitsiz harbe girmeleri? PV

Question – Their causeless and illtimed entry into the war? PV

Devlet-i Aliyye’nin bu harb-ı umumîye girmeyip nihayete kadar tamamiyle bîtaraf kalması ihtimali yoktu. Çünkü görüyorsunuz bu cihan harbine girmemis¸ bütün dünyada kaç hükûmet kalabildi? D

There was no possibility for the Ottoman Empire to avoid entering this general war and to stay neutral until its end. For, as you see how many states are there that have managed to stay out of this world war? D

Hususiyle bizim mevki-i mahsusamız da düs¸ünülür ve hususiyle Rusya’nın memleketimize kars¸ı ötedenberi besledig˘i âmâl ve tasavvuratı gözönüne getirilirse bizim arzu ettig˘imiz gibi öyle Bog˘azlar’ı mesdud bırakarak sellemehüsselam bizi kendi hâlimize terketmek Rusya’nın âdeta intihar etmesine ne kendisi ve ne de mütelifleri muvafakat eder. D

Especially when one takes into account our special position and the longstanding aspirations and plans of Russia concerning our country, it will be clear that neither Russia nor her allies would allow that the Straits remain blocked and we simply be left alone, as this would mean suicide for Russia. D

318

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

˙I¸ste ¸su hâl-i hatarnaki nazara alan hükûmetlerimiz mes¸rutiyyetin bidayetinden beri münasebet elverdikçe ittifak teminine çalıs¸tılar fakat muvaffak olamadılar. D

Our governments, which had taken this dangerous situation into account, had tried to, as long as relations allowed it, to seal pacts, but to no avail. D

Nihayet Said Halim Pas¸a sadaretinde Almanya ile ittifak edildi. ˙Ittifak Almanlar tarafından teklif olundu. Müzakere Temmuz evasıtında bas¸ladı. Müsaade-i seniyye-i padis¸ahî istihsal edildikten sonra efrencî 2 Ag˘ustos’ta imza edildi. D

Finally a pact could be sealed with the Germans during the grand vizierate of Said Halim Pasha. The pact had been proposed by the Germans. Negotiations began mid-July. It was signed on 2 July (European date) after the imperial decree was obtained. D

Avrupa’da naire-i harb is¸tial etti. Bizce iltizam-ı bîtarafî müreccah görüldü. Bu hâl ile üç mah kadar devam edebildik. D, PV Fakat bu esnada Almanlar bizi harbe tes¸vik ediyordu. Harbiyye Nazırı bilmem Almanların tahrikinden mi veyahut kendi kanaatinin telkininden mi xxxsinden8 mi harbe taraftardı. D

War erupted in Europe. We preferred neutrality. We were able to continue in this fashion for a mere three months. D, PV But during this time the Germans were instigating us to join the war. I do not know whether it was out of German instigation or his own convictions, but the War Minister was in favour of war. D

16 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 330 iyd-i edhanın birinci günü sabahleyin Bes¸iktas¸ Saray-ı Hümayunu’nda vükela odasında Karadeniz hadisesini evvelce haberdar olan nazırlar haber verdi. D, PV

On 29 October 1914, the morning of the first day of the Feast of Sacrifice, the Black Sea Incident was communicated in the Chamber of Ministers of the Bes¸iktas¸ Imperial Palace by those ministers who had been informed of it earlier. D, PV

Harbe taraf Dâhiliyye ve Harbiyye Nazırları idi. Ancak Bahriyye Nazırı’nın o sırada mevcud olup olmadıg˘ını tahattur edemiyorum. D

The proponents of war were the Interior and War Ministers. I cannot remember though whether the Naval Minister was present at the time. D

8 Passage illegible in the manuscript.

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

319

Sadrazam Said Halim Pas¸a daha evvel haber almıs¸ ve kendisinin de haberi olmaksızın vukua gelen böyle hadise-i mezkûreden pek münfail olarak istifaya karar verdig˘i ve Saray-ı Hümayun’a gelmedig˘i anlas¸ılmıs¸tı. D, PV

It transpired that the Grand Vizier Said Halim Pasha had been informed of it earlier, was infuriated by the said event, which had occurred without his knowledge, and decided to resign and did not come to the Palace. D, PV

Muayede resmi hitam buldukta Dâhiliyye Nazırı Talât Bey bana takarrüble “Biz Sadrazam’a gideceg˘iz. ˙Istifadan sarfınazar etmesi için yalvaracag˘ız sen de gel.” dedi. ˙Itizar ettim gitmedim. D, PV

After the end of the exchange of greetings ceremony Interior Minister Talat Bey approached me and said “We shall visit the Grand Vizier and beg him to desist resignation, come you, too.” I excused myself and did not go with them. D, PV

Ne konus¸tuklarını ve ne suretle ikna ettiklerini bilmiyorum. D Ancak Harbiyye Nazırı’nın harb arzusunda bulunması bu hadisenin bizimkilerin bir tertibi oldug˘u zehabını bende hâsıl etti. Talat Beyefendi’ye bize hiç haber verilmeksizin böyle bir vaka-i azimenin ihdası dog˘ru olmadıg˘ını söyledim. Kendisinin de haber ve malumatı olmadıg˘ına yemin etti. Enver ve Cemal Pas¸alar da hadiseye Rusların sebebiyyet verdig˘ini söylüyorlardı. Ben de Talat Bey’in haberi olmaksızın Enver ve Cemal Pas¸aların kendi kendilerine böyle bir ¸seyi tertibe cüret edeceklerine ihtimal veremedim. D, PV

I do not know what they spoke and in what fashion they persuaded him. D But the fact that the War Minister was desirous of the war gave me the suspicion that the event was orchestrated by our men. I told Talat Bey that it was not correct to create such a significant incident without informing us in the least. He swore that he himself had not had foreknowledge and information of it, either. Enver and Cemal Pasha were also maintaining that it was the Russians who had caused the incident. And I could not deem it possible that Enver and Cemal Pasha could dare to orchestrate such a thing without the knowledge of Talat Bey. D, PV

320

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Bu hadise üzerine Rusya sefirine müracaat edildi. ˙I¸sin harbe müncer olmaması ve ¸sayan-ı teessüf olan vaka hakkında tahkikat icrası taleb olundu. Sefir “Benim elimden bir ¸sey gelmez. ˙Isterseniz devletimize müracaat ediniz.” demis¸. D

After this incident the Russian ambassador was contacted. It was asked that the issue should not result in war and that an investigation about the unfortunate incident be carried out. I understand the ambassador said “There is nothing I can do. Consult my state if you like.” D

Bunun üzerine Rusya hükûmetine müracaat olunarak tahkikat icrası ve vaka esbabının zahire ihracı teklif ve bîtaraflıg˘ı muhafazaya tevessül ve ihtimam edilmis¸se de cevab alınamadıktan bas¸ka Rusya, sefirini geriye çag˘ırdıg˘ı gibi Rus kuva-yı askeriyyesinin Erzurum hududunu nikat-ı muhtelifeden tecavüz ve bu sırada Fransa ve ˙Ingiltere devletleri dahi sefirlerini geriye çag˘ırdıktan bas¸ka ˙Ingiliz ve Fransız donanmalarının müs¸tereken Çanakkale’ye, ˙Ingiliz kruvazörlerinin Akabe’ye top atmak suretiyle bilfiil muhasemata ibtidar eyledikleri Sadrazam ve Hariciyye Nazırı Pas¸a Hazretleri ile Dâhiliyye ve Harbiyye ve Bahriyye Nazırları Pas¸alar tarafından beyan ve Rusların behemehal memleketimize taarruz ve harb etmek arzusunda bulundukları ifade ve teyid kılınmasına binaen 29 Tes¸rin-i Evvel 1330 tarihli irade-i seniyye-i hazret-i padis¸ahîyi mübeyyin kararname mütalaasından müsteban buyurulacag˘ı vechile hâl-i harbi kabulden bas¸ka çare kalmamıs¸tı. D, PV

Upon this the Russian government was contacted and an investigation and elucidation of the causes of the incident was proposed, but no answer was obtained. Moreover, Russia recalled her ambassador and it was also stated by His Excellency the Grand Vizier and Foreign Secretary as well as the War and Naval Ministers that Russian military forces had penetrated the Erzurum border at various points and that at the same time France and Britain recalled their ambassadors and that moreover British and French navies had actually started hostilities by firing cannons at Çanakkale and the British cruisers bombarding Aqaba, and that the Russians desired to invade our country and wage war. Consequently, there was nothing else to do than to accept the state of war as can be understood from the perusal of the decision that contains the Imperial Decree of 11 November 1914. D, PV

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

321

Harbiyye Nazırı istisna edilirse bîtaraflıg˘ı muhafaza ederek harbe girmemek mümkün olaydı elbette harbe girmemek evla idi. Heyet-i vükela harbe taraftardı harb arzusunda [idi]9 denilemez. Hatta bir gün Talat Bey Enver Pas¸a’ya ayakta “Ben o kadar açgözlü deg˘ilim. Kapitülasyonlar refedildikten ve memleketimiz hudud-ı hazırasıyla elimizde kaldıktan sonra muharebeye ne lüzum vardır?” dedig˘ini is¸ittim. D

With the exception of the War Minister everybody was of the opinion that it would have been better to avoid the war had it been possible, and it cannot be said that the council of ministers was in favour and desirous of the war. In fact I heard one day Talat Bey tell Enver Pasha while standing “I am not that greedy. What is the point of fighting after the capitulations have been annulled and our country remained in our hands with her present borders?” D

Bâlâda arz eyledig˘im cihetle Harbiyye Nazırı’nın harbe mütemayil görünmesi ve donanmanın hiç haberim olmaksızın Karadeniz’e çıkıvermesi hadise-i mezkûrenin cihet-i askeriyyenin bir tertibi zanneylemis¸ idim. D, PV

As I have stated above, I had come to the conclusion that the aforementioned incident was a conspiracy on the part of the military on account of the pro-war inclinations of the War Minister and the sailing of the Navy into the Black Sea. D, PV

Çünkü Enver Pas¸a, Ruslar tarafından ansızın memleketimize taarruz olunması ihtimalinden ve Karadeniz sularını donanmamızın görüp tedkik etmesi ve manevra yapması lüzumundan mükerreren bahsetmis¸ ve buna mukabil vükela öyle bir sırada donanmanın Karadeniz’e çıkması muvafık olamayacag˘ını bildirmis¸ oldug˘u halde haberim olmaksızın donanmanın Karadeniz’e çıktıg˘ını ancak vuku-ı hadise ile ög˘rendim. PV

For Enver Pasha had mentioned repeatedly the possibility of a sudden Russian attack on our country and the necessity for our fleet to see and inspect the waters of the Black Sea and carry out manoeuvres there, upon which the ministers informed him that it would not be appropriate for the navy to sail into the Black Sea at such a time. Despite this, I found out that the navy had sailed into the Black Sea only upon the occurrence of the incident. PV

9 idi inserted by the present author.

322

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Fakat hadiseye Rusların sebeb oldug˘una dair cihet-i askeriyyenin tahrirî ve ¸sifahî beyanat-ı resmiyyesi ve Talat Pas¸a’nın verdig˘i teminata nazaran onun da haberi olmadan yalnız Enver ve Cemal Pas¸aların hodbehod böyle bir hadise-i azimeye cüret edeceklerini baid gördüm. Hususiyle bununla da kanaat etmeyerek mahiyyet-i vakayı tag˘yir edecek sahte rapor tanzimiyle refiklerini ig˘fale cesaret edeceklerine de ihtimal veremedim. PV

But on account of the oral and written official statements on the part of the military and the assurances Talat Pasha gave I found it improbable that Enver and Cemal Pasha dare to undertake such a major incident on their own without also his knowledge. Especially I found it improbable that they would not be satisfied with this and dare moreover to deceive their friends by compiling false reports that distort the nature of the incident. PV

Bundan bas¸ka Rusya’nın öteden beri vatanımıza kars¸ı göstermekte oldug˘u hırs ve tama’ı hatta Said Pas¸a merhumun sadareti zamanında âdeta bize himaye teklif eden ve (I˙stanbul) civarını müdafaa vaadiyle is¸gal-i askerîsi altına almak arzusunu, sefiri “Çarıkof” vasıtasıyla bildiren ve buna mukabil Babıâlî’nin tevessül ettig˘i tedabir-i siyasiyye neticesinde inkâr ederek sefir-i mumaileyhi azil ile meseleyi kapatan Rusya hükûmetinin böyle hemen bütün dünyayı harbe dâhil eden bir muharebede mevki ve muhitimiz itibariyle de bizi hâlimize bırakmayıp her hâlde kabul-i harbe mecburiyyet vazında bulunduracag˘ını ve tarafımızdan teklif olunan tahkikat icrasına muvafakat göstermemesi gibi hususatı mülahaza ettim. D, PV

Moreover I took into consideration issues like the long-standing ambitions and greed Russia demonstrated concerning our country, especially the fact that the Russian government during the grand vizierate of the late Said Pasha virtually proposed us protection and communicated through her ambassador Charikov her desire to put Istanbul and its environs under her military occupation with the promise of defence, and that denied it in the face of the political measures the Sublime Porte took and closed the issue by recalling the said ambassador, would not leave us alone also on account of our location and environment, and would at any rate force us to accept the state of war and that she did not agree to the carrying out of investigations that we had proposed. D, PV

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

323

Hadiseye Rusya’nın sebeb oldug˘una dair rüfekanın verdikleri teminata inandım ve vatanımızın her hâlde bir emr-i vaki ile düs¸man tecavüzüne maruz bulundug˘una kanaat ederek öyle tehlikeli bir zamanda istifa edip çekilmek fikrinden sarf-ı nazar ettim. D, PV Zaten istifa etmis¸ olsam bile harbe mani olmak ihtimali yoktu. PV

I trusted the assurances of the friends that it was Russia that had caused the incident, and came to the conclusion that our country was facing an enemy invasion through a fait accompli, and did not want to leave my post and retreat at such a dangerous time. D, PV Even if I had left the Office there was no possibility of preventing the war, anyway. PV

Karadeniz hadisesine bizim sebeb oldug˘umuzu muhasım devletler bittabi iddia ederler ve o yolda birçok eser nes¸rederler. D

Enemy states maintain of course that we had caused the Black Sea incident and publish numerous works to that effect. D

Analysis There are conflicting statements concerning the position of various ministers on the war: first it is stated that whether as a result of German instigation or of his own convictions, the War Minister was in favour of the war, the Interior Minister was also in favour of it, then this position is confined to the person of the War Minister and the anti-war attitude of the cabinet is mentioned, and even a conversation between the Interior Minister and War Minister is related in direct speech, in which the Interior Minister states that he would be satisfied with neutrality as long as capitulations were annulled and Turkey remained in Turkish hands intact. At the end of the day, Enver Pasha’s pro-war attitude emerges clearly from the above, but Talât Pasha’s is more dubious. The conversation with Enver Pasha related above seems to lend credence to the possibility that he was in fact not in favour of entering the war provided that the advantages Turkey had obtained until then and her territorial integrity were preserved. If this is to be taken at face value, then it raises a further question, namely, whether Enver and Cemal Pashas would dare to undertake such a thing without the consent or even foreknowledge of Talat Pasha and so risk discord and even conflict at the top of the state apparatus at such a delicate juncture. The major revelation of this document is the statement of Mustafa Hayri Efendi containing the words of Talat Pasha to Enver Pasha concerning the need for war. I do not know of any other contemporary source or later work stating that

324

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

this was Talat Pasha’s stance on this issue. It is not clear from Mustafa Hayri Efendi’s account whether other people were present when Talat Pasha said this to Enver Pasha. The published versions of the statements of the other people interrogated do not mention such an episode. Enver Pasha is not known to have written memoirs or kept diaries covering this time period, and I have not been able to find any mention of any such conversation in the published memoirs of Talat Pasha10 or those of Cemal Pasha,11 the one other person most likely to have been present when this incident occurred. Of the other ministers who were members of the cabinet at the time of Ottoman entry into the war, only Cavid Bey and Mustafa Hayri Efendi are known to have kept diaries covering the wartime period that have been published. Cavid Bey’s anti-war stance and his dismay at the news of the Black Sea incident are well attested in his diaries,12 and there is no mention of any such conversation between Enver and Talat Pashas. Mustafa Hayri Efendi’s diaries do not contain any entries on the period immediately before, during, and immediately after the entry into the war. Of the others, the memoirs (not diaries) of Interior Minister and President of the Chamber of Deputies Halil Bey (Mentes¸e) have been published in the original language (but with no accompanying facsimile of the originals) and they also contain no such episode.13 I have deliberately avoided taking into account any “diaries”, “memoires” or any other “documents” published by anyone else, especially the lower-ranking officials of the time (they abound), as these are almost always 1) published without the accompanying facsimiles of the originals, 10 There are numerous titles that purport to be the memoirs and / or collections of letters and documents of Talat Pasha, none accompanied by facsimiles of the original, and by all appearances none in the original language, and thus of little to no value as historical documents, even though they all appear to derive from the same source, a fact that demonstrates at least the existence of an original, whosever pen it may be from or however much it may have been tampered with. They shall be mentioned here chiefly for the sake of completeness: [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Anıları 1339/1921 (ed. Mehmet Kasım); [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Anıları 1339/1921 (ed. Alpay Kabacalı); [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Hatıraları; [Talat Pas¸a], Hatıraları ve Mektuplarıyla Sadrazam Talat Pas¸a; [Talat Pas¸a], Hatıralarım ve Müdafaam. A publication of this material in the original language with facsimiles would be most welcome. 11 See Cemal Pas¸a, Hatırat: 106–112, where the circumstances leading to Ottoman entry into the war are discussed, but no mention of any such conversation is made and [Cemal Pas¸a], Hatıralar: ˙Ittihat-Terakki ve Birinci Dünya Harbi. 1341/1922 (ed. Behçet Cemal, I˙stanbul 1959). 12 Cavid Bey’s diaries have recently been published in the original language (without, however, the facsimiles of the originals and with minor but irritatingly abundant misreadings): [Cavid Bey], Mes¸rutiyet Ruznâmesi. 13 Halil Mentes¸e’s memoirs have been published in the original language, which is clearly mentioned in the very detailed and useful introduction by I˙smail Arar, but, again, facsimiles of the originals are not included: [Halil Bey (Mentes¸e)], Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi Reisi Halil Mentes¸e’nin Anıları.

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

325

2) translated into modern Turkish without the original texts accompanying the translations, and 3) edited without any adequate discussion of the editing process and in some cases without any information as to the whereabouts of the originals. This state of affairs disqualifies them as historical documents in my opinion.

Conclusions Thus it appears that this is the only document currently known that contains a statement by Talat Pasha that he would be happy to keep Turkey out of war as long as the capitulations were abolished (this took place on 8–9 September, effective 1 October, shortly before the Ottoman entry into the war) and her territorial integrity were preserved. This observation, if it can be taken at face value (and are there any reasons for not doing so?), has the effect of shifting at least the lion’s share of the blame for actually entering the war from the shoulders of Talat Pasha (and quite possibly those of Cemal Pasha as well) to those of Enver Pasha. The fact that this particular statement is from the pen of a most senior member of both the Committee of Union and Progress and of the Ottoman government of the time, whose close if turbulent relations with Talat Pasha are amply documented in his diaries, makes it all the more significant and harder to overlook. Even though one should be wary of arriving at conclusions based on a single piece of document, this provenance might make it worthwhile to re-examine the role of the individual members of the so-called Triumvirate (the existence of which is also indirectly disputed by Mustafa Hayri Efendi in his diaries) in Ottoman entry into the First World war.

Bibliography Bardakçı, Murat. Enver. I˙stanbul 2015. Bardakçı, Murat (ed.), Hafız Hakkı Pas¸a’nın Sarıkamıs¸ Günlüg˘ü. I˙stanbul 2014. [Cavid Bey], Mes¸rutiyet Ruznâmesi (4 vols.; eds. Hasan Babacan & Servet Avs¸ar). Ankara 2014–2015. [Cemal Pas¸a], Hatıralar: ˙Ittihat-Terakki ve Birinci Dünya Harbi 1341/1922 (Ed. Behçet Cemal). I˙stanbul 1959. Cemal Pas¸a, Hatırat: 1913–1922. Dersaâdet [I˙stanbul] 1922. [Halil Bey (Mentes¸e)], Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi Reisi Halil Mentes¸e’nin Anıları (Ed. I˙smail Arar). I˙stanbul 1986. Kas¸ıyug˘un, Ali. Osmanlı Devleti’nin 1. Dünya Savas¸ı’na Giris¸i. I˙stanbul 2015. Kocahanog˘lu, Osman Selim. ˙Ittihat-Terakki’nin Sorgulanması ve Yargılanması (1918– 1919). Bes¸inci S¸ube Tahkikatı, Tes¸kilat-ı Mahsusa, Ermeni Tehciri, Divan-ı Harb-i Örfi Muhakemâtı. I˙stanbul 1999.

326

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Mühlmann, Carl. Deutschland und die Türkei. 1913–1914. Die Berufung der deutschen Militärmission nach der Türkei 1913, das deutsch-türkische Bündnis 1914 und der Eintritt der Türkei in den Weltkrieg (Politische Wissenschaft 7). Berlin-Grunewald 1929. [Mustafa Hayri Efendi (Ürgüplü)], S¸eyhülislam Ürgüplü Mustafa Hayri Efendi’nin Mes¸rutiyet, Büyük Harp ve Mütareke Günlükleri 1909–1922 (Ed. Ali Suat Ürgüplü). I˙stanbul 2015. Said Halim ve Mehmed Talat Pas¸aların kabinelerinin Divan-ı Âli’ye sevkleri hakkında (Divaniyye) Mebusu Fuad Bey (merhum) tarafından verilen takrir üzerine beray-ı tahkikat kura isabet eden Bes¸inci S¸ube tarafından icra olunan tahkikat ve zabtedilen ifadatı muhtevidir. I˙stanbul Meclis-i Mebusan Matbaası 1334 [1918]. [Talat Pas¸a], Hatıraları ve Mektuplarıyla Sadrazam Talat Pas¸a (Ed. Osman Selim Kocahanog˘lu). I˙stanbul 2008. [Talat Pas¸a], Hatıralarım ve Müdafaam (Ed. Atatürk’ün Bütün Eserleri Çalıs¸ma Grubu, with an introduction by Dog˘u Perinçek). I˙stanbul 2006. [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Anıları 1339/1921 (Ed. Alpay Kabacalı). I˙stanbul 2000. [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Anıları 1339/1921 (Ed. Mehmet Kasım). I˙stanbul 1986. [Talat Pas¸a], Talat Pas¸a’nın Hatıraları (Ed. Enver Bolayır, with an introduction by Hüseyin Cahit Yalçın). I˙stanbul 1946. Yas¸amları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi (Ed. Ekrem Çakırog˘lu, 2 vols.). I˙stanbul 1999.

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 17. First page of the draft version.

327

328

Fig. 18. Second page of the draft version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 19. Third page of the draft version.

329

330

Fig. 20. Fourth page of the draft version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 21. Fifth page of the draft version.

331

332

Fig. 22. Sixth page of the draft version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 23. Seventh page of the draft version.

333

334

Fig. 24. Eighth page of the draft version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 25. Ninth page of the draft version.

335

336

Fig. 26. First page of the printed version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 27. Second page of the printed version.

337

338

Fig. 28. Third page of the printed version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 29. Fourth page of the printed version.

339

340

Fig. 30. Fifth page of the printed version.

Ali Suat Ürgüplü

Did Talat Pasha really want war?

Fig. 31. Sixth page of the printed version.

341