Prognostic Dreams, Otherworldly Saints, and Caliphal Ghosts A Critical Edition of Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s (d. 1599) Selimname (Islamicate Intellectual History, 7) (English and Ottoman Turkish Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9004467939, 9789004467934

Citation preview

Prognostic Dreams, Otherworldly Saints, and Caliphal Ghosts

Islamicate Intellectual History studies and texts in the late medieval and early modern periods

Editorial board Judith Pfeiffer (University of Bonn) Shahzad Bashir (Brown University) Heidrun Eichner (University of Tübingen)

volume 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/iih

Prognostic Dreams, Otherworldly Saints, and Caliphal Ghosts A Critical Edition of Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s (d. 1599) Selimname

By

Hoca Sadeddin Efendi Edited by

H. Erdem Ç ıpa

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: Sultan Selīm i (r. 1512–1520). Zübdetü’t-tevārīḫ (Quintessence of Histories) of Seyyid Loḳmān. Istanbul, 1586. Topkapı Palace Museum Library, Hazine 1321, fol. 77b. Image courtesy of Directorate of National Palaces (Milli Saraylar İdaresi Başkanlığı), Turkey. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Sadeddin, Hoca, 1536-1599, author. | Ç ıpa, H. Erdem, 1971- editor. | Sadeddin, Hoca, 1536-1599. Selimname. English. Title: Prognostic dreams, otherworldly saints, and caliphal ghosts : a critical edition of Sa'deddin Efendi's (d. 1599) Selimname / by Hoca Sadeddin Efendi ; edited by Hakkı Erdem Ç ıpa. Other titles: Selimname Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: Islamicate intellectual history, 2212-8662 ; volume 7 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | English and Turkish. Identifiers: lccn 2021040005 (print) | lccn 2021040006 (ebook) | isbn 9789004467934 (hardback) | isbn 9789004467941 (ebook) Subjects: lcsh: Selim i, Sultan of the Turks, 1470-1520. | Turkey–History–Selim i, 1512-1520. Classification: lcc dr504 .S23 2022 (print) | lcc dr504 (ebook) | ddc 956.1/0152–dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021040005 lc ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021040006

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. issn 2212-8662 isbn 978-90-04-46793-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-46794-1 (e-book) Copyright 2022 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my teachers Yücel Demirel, Şinasi Tekin, & Wheeler Thackston, with abiding gratitude

∵

Contents Acknowledgments Note to the Reader Introduction

ix xii

1

Symbols, Spelling, and Vocalization Selīmnāme in Transcription Selīmnāme in Translation

22

27 51

Selīmnāme in Facsimile (ms Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Diez A, Oct. 79) 75 Works Cited Index 157

153

Acknowledgments This book is the belated culmination of a promise made a quarter of a century ago to three teachers: Yücel Demirel and the late Şinasi Tekin, who introduced me to Ottoman Turkish as well as its infinite intricacies, and Wheeler Thackston, who taught me not only Persian but also the principles of idiomatic translation. I remember that it was in Yücel Hoca’s apartment in Cihangir, Istanbul, that I clumsily deciphered for the first time the name of my home city written in Arabic letters. The year was 1995. I remember that it was in Şinasi Bey’s faculty office in Cambridge that he advised me, “If you don’t know a word, look it up; if you think you know a word, you better look it up; if you are sure you know a word, definitely look it up”—an exceptionally valuable piece of wisdom about Ottoman Turkish he imparted to all his students. The year was 1998. I remember that it was in Wheeler Bey’s office at 6 Divinity Avenue that he pointed out, justifiably and with a gentle smile, that I pronounced Persian words “like a Turk,” all the while helping me patiently with the translation of letters exchanged between the Ottoman sultan Selīm I and the Safavid ruler Shāh Ismāʿīl, composed in overwrought Persian epistolary prose. The year was 1999. I also recall, quite vividly, many a time when we graduate students studying Ottoman history would compare the state of our field with that of others and complain, as graduate students are wont to do, about the dearth of critical editions or English translations of important works composed in our primary research language. It was during one of those informal but regular grumbling sessions that I promised Şinasi Hoca that at some point after finishing graduate school I would prepare a critical edition of at least one Ottoman Turkish text—a promise I also made to both Yücel Hoca and Wheeler Bey. Now that I am half a century old, I am finally able to keep my promise to my three teachers, to whom this book is dedicated. I wish I could have done it sooner, when Şinasi Bey—aziz ruhu şad olsun—was still with us. This study could not have come to fruition without the generous assistance of librarians, archivists, and staff at numerous institutions across two continents. It is thanks to their expertise and kindness that I have been able to consult both physical and digital copies of a great number of manuscripts and secured publication permits. I am sincerely grateful to the librarians and staff at Süleymaniye Library; Istanbul University Library; Staatsbibliothek, Berlin; and Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. Last but not least, I would like to thank the librarians and interlibrary loan staff at my home institution, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who, even amid a global pandemic, made it possible for me to read what I needed to read.

x

acknowledgments

Throughout the gestation of this book, I benefitted from the constant support, invaluable advice, insightful comments, and constructive criticism of many friends and colleagues. They read parts or all of the text at different stages of completion, saved me from various pitfalls, and helped me correct several mistakes. I would like to express my gratitude for their suggestions and improvements which I incorporated and my apologies for those I resisted. Any errors or shortcomings that remain are entirely my own. Helga Anetshofer and Hakan Karateke were the first to see the finalized master text and made me realize that it was not in fact finalized. It was in particular Helga’s eagle-eyed observations and pertinent suggestions about grammatical, lexical, orthographical, and morphological matters that helped me appreciate the full extent of the linguistic considerations that go into the making of a critical edition. Evrim Binbaş double-checked my translation of the Persian segments and identified a ghazal by Ḥāfiẓ as the origin of what I thought was an odd phrase—something I certainly could not, and still cannot, do. James Vizthum helped me ensure consistency of transcription in the Arabic segments. Gottfried Hagen has been an exceptional colleague and erudite friend with whom to discuss all things Ottoman and to commiserate whenever an innocuous word or concept proved to be surprisingly enigmatic. Christiane Gruber, my much better half and the patron saint of all squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons, possums, and every kind of bird in our neighborhood, helped me accurately express exactly what I thought, at times while I was still in the process of honing in on a word or an expression but had not yet arrived at my elusive target. Janet Rauscher copyedited the original manuscript with her typically meticulous yet non-intrusive touch, helping me create a complete text in proper English while retaining my own peculiar voice. I am also immensely grateful to the anonymous reviewer for their thorough report. The constructive criticism and suggestions they provided were exceptionally helpful. They reminded me not only of the linguistic blind spots I may have as a native speaker of modern Turkish interpreting Ottoman Turkish texts, but also of the limits of literal translation. I hope the readers will forgive me that I still decided to err on the side of the literal whenever I needed to choose between remaining faithful to Saʿdeddīn’s ornate and rather formal language and providing the most modern-reader-friendly translation. Working with Judith Pfeiffer, editor of Islamicate Intellectual History book series at Brill, has been pure joy as she embodies that rare combination of patience, kindness, efficiency, expertise, and constructive criticism. I also would like to thank Abdurraouf Oueslati for making the otherwise complicated process between acquisition and publication run smoothly—even during a global pandemic. Last but certainly not least, Murat Dağlı—who actually did not provide any tangible assistance whatsoever with this project!—has been a true dost since the

acknowledgments

xi

day we decided to learn Ottoman Turkish together. We would sit at the same desk, look at the same document, and usually fail to read the same words. If one of us left the desk, even for a moment, the other would place his index finger on the last word we had arduously deciphered together and patiently keep it there; otherwise, it could be a long while until we found that word again. Thankfully, after all these years, we both can read a bit better. Still, whenever I tackle a new and difficult text, I find strength in the memory of those good old days, the unwavering support of friends and colleagues along the way, and everything my three teachers taught me about language.

Note to the Reader For the sake of consistency, all Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish titles of historical works, the names of their authors, and original quotations have been transcribed. Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, and Persian words have been transcribed according to the International Journal of Middle East Studies system, with the exception that in Ottoman Turkish words ḫ has been used for ‫ خ‬and h for ‫ە‬. Persian words follow the Arabic transcription system, but their slight variations in pronunciation have been taken into consideration. The titles of historical works have been transcribed in accordance with the language of composition. All personal names and technical terms are also fully transcribed. For the sake of convenience and legibility, however, words that appear in English dictionaries have been Anglicized unless they appear as part of an individual’s name. Place names have been given in their modern and commonly accepted Anglicized forms. Names of individuals are followed by their year of death (d.), regnal years (r.), or, for authors, the years during which their literary activities flourished (fl.) if their dates of death are unknown. When dates of death or activity have not been fully established, several dates or a range of dates (ca.) are given. Unless otherwise specified, dates follow the Gregorian calendar. In an effort to present a translation that is both faithful to the original and as reader-friendly as possible, I endeavored to establish that elusive balance between literal and idiomatic styles of translation. To that end, I made certain decisions that are reflected in both the style and the structure of the translated text. Not unlike numerous other historical texts composed in Ottoman Turkish, Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s Selīmnāme frequently shifts between the past and the present tense, a convention intended to add dynamism to the narrative. While I retained the original tense of practically all reported speech throughout the text, for the sake of readibility I rendered the remainder of the narrative in the past tense. I also maintained, to the extent possible, the variegated language the author used to refer to superiors (e.g., the sultan) and inferiors (e.g., himself). I am aware that a phrase like “this humble servant,” often used by Selīmnāme’s protagonists when referring to themselves, may sound unwieldy to the modern reader. However, because rendering such constructions in the first-person singular as “I” or “me” felt simplistic, if not anachronistic, I opted to keep the register of humility of the original text.

note to the reader

xiii

Selīmnāme is quite a lively narrative. It recounts numerous conversations between multiple interlocutors, which Saʿdeddīn preferred to relay in direct speech. To remain faithful to the original text, I retained the author’s style and marked direct speech with double quotation marks. In cases where the speech of one speaker encapsulated that of another, I relied on nested quotations, switching between double and single quotation marks.

Introduction Ḳalem olsun eli ol kātib-i bed-taḥrīrüñ Ki fesād-ı raḳamı sūrumuzı şūr eyler Gāh bir ḥarf sükūtıyla ḳılar nādiri nār Gāh bir noḳṭa ḳuṣūrıyla gözi kūr eyler1

∵ In the early years of my graduate studies, I paid only fleeting attention to dream narratives, geomantic texts, otherworldly saints, and caliphal ghosts. Things changed, however, when I began collecting materials for my study on Selīm i’s (r. 1512–1520) controversial ascendance to the Ottoman throne and the mythification of his persona in Ottoman historiography over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2 I conducted most of my research at the Topkapı Palace Museum in Istanbul, utterly immersed in primary sources, both archival and narrative. It was in the Ottoman imperial archives at the Palace that I first came across numerous petitions addressed to Selīm i. Some included vivid accounts of their authors’ bravery during battles fought for Selīm’s glory and explicitly requested compensation for their troubles, while others contained narratives of the petitioners’ dreams that heralded Selīm’s victories— and implicitly pled for rewards for their visions.3 In that early phase of my research, I focused almost exclusively on the sociopolitical and military networks that brought Selīm to power. I thus prioritized the former even as I became increasingly intrigued by the latter. Selective perception being an integral part of the human condition, from then on I noticed in every new text

1 This quatrain was composed by Fużūlī (d. 1556), the renowned poet and author of “classical” Turkish literature. Its English translation is as follows: “May the hand of the scribe who transcribes incorrectly wither like a pen // Because his mischievous writing turns our ‘wedding feast’ (sūr) into ‘[tumultuous] noise’ (şūr) // At times, he silences one letter and makes ‘rare [beauty]’ (nādir) into ‘fire’ (nār) // At others, he drops one diacritical mark and renders the ‘eye’ (göz) ‘blind’ (kūr).” 2 On myth-making and mythification, see Burke, “Presenting and Representing Charles v,” 425. On the mythification of Selīm’s persona in Ottoman literary and historical narratives, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, especially Chapters 3, 4, and 5. 3 For an analysis of dream accounts included in petitions addressed to Selīm’s court, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, 219–225.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004467941_002

2

introduction

references to supernatural signs surrounding Selīm’s persona, miracles accompanying his military victories, and premonitions of actual events in his life recorded as dream narratives—or so it seemed. I then shifted my focus to the historiographical processes that led to the simultaneous construction and reconstruction of a highly polished composite image of Selīm I as a legitimately appointed, posthumously idealized, and divinely ordained Ottoman monarch bearing otherworldly, saintly, prophetic, and even messianic qualities. It was only a matter of time until I arrived at the conclusion that no text epitomizes this historiographical phenomenon better than Ḫoca Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s (d. 1599) fascinating narrative titled Selīmnāme (Vita of Selīm), the subject of this critical edition.

1

The Author: Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s Life and Career

Saʿdeddīn Efendi was a renowned Ottoman chief jurisconsult (şeyḫü’l-islām), influential statesman, eminent scholar, eloquent historian, and prolific translator of Arabic and Persian works into Turkish.4 He possessed an impressive pedigree. His grandfather, Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Iṣfāhānī (d. after 1514), was among the men of letters whom Selīm I brought to Istanbul after the capture of Tabriz and who later served the monarch as royal reciter of the Qurʾān (ḥāfıẓ-ı maḫsūsı sulṭānī).5 His father, Ḥasan Cān Çelebi (d. 1567), spent six years in Selīm’s service, as his trusted companion (nedīm) and gentleman-in-waiting (muṣāḥib), with unimpeded access not only to the sultan himself but also to all Ottoman statesmen and bureaucrats of high status. Judging by Saʿdeddīn’s remarks in Selīmnāme’s preface, Ḥasan Cān was also the author’s principal informant.6 Born in Istanbul, Saʿdeddīn pursued a career in scholarship. He studied with prominent Ottoman ʿālims, served Süleymān i’s (r. 1520–1566) distinguished chief jurisconsult Ebu’ssuʿūd Efendi (d. 1574) as assistant (mülāzım), and con-

4 On Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s life and oeuvre, see ei2, s.v. “K̲ h̲ōdja Efendi” (Barbara Flemming); ia, s.v. “Saʿd-ed-dīn” (Șerâfettin Turan); and dia, s.v. “Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi” (Șerâfettin Turan). See also Daș, “Osmanlılarda Münşeât Geleneği,” especially 100–138; and Daș, “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri.” 5 See ia, s.v. “Saʿd-ed-dīn” (Șerâfettin Turan), 27; and dia, s.v. “Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi” (Șerâfettin Turan), 196. 6 See Saʿdeddīn, Selīmnāme, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Diez A, Oct. 79, 2b–3a: “merḥūm vālidden istimāʿ itdügüm baʿż-ı menāḳıb-u-ḥikāyātdan … bi’ẕ-ẕāt müşāhede itdügi aḥvāli ḥikāyet ve ḫāṭırda ḳalan baʿż-ı ṣaḥīḥ aḫbārı rivāyet eyleyem.” ([I aimed] to depict some legends and stories which I heard from [my] late father … to chronicle the affairs personally witnessed … to narrate some accurate information that is remembered [by my father].)

introduction

3

tinued to climb the professional ladder until he was promoted to a professorship (müderris) at one of the prestigious higher-educational institutions (ṣaḥn-ı s̱emān) established by Meḥmed ii (r. 1444–1446 and 1451–1481) in Istanbul. Saʿdeddīn’s career as a politically influential figure began in 1573, when he was appointed tutor to Prince Murād. A year later, when his princely student ascended to the Ottoman throne as Murād iii (r. 1574–1595), Saʿdeddīn became royal tutor (ḫvāce-i sulṭānī) and served the Ottoman ruler as a trusted advisor. The influence he exerted in domestic and interimperial affairs continued during the reign of the next Ottoman sultan, Meḥmed iii (r. 1595–1603), who decreed that Saʿdeddīn was to be consulted (meşveret) on all matters pertaining to the appointment of viziers and religious officials. With the prestige of being preceptor to two Ottoman monarchs, Saʿdeddīn remained one of the most notable figures to guide the Empire’s policies throughout most of his life. He played a vital role in the establishment of diplomatic relations with England during the reign of Murād iii.7 In several Ottoman chronicles, he is hailed as the person who persuaded Meḥmed iii to lead the imperial army in the Egri campaign of 1596, thereby securing the Ottoman victory in the fateful battle fought on the Plain of Mezö Kerésztés on October 26, 1596.8 The ebb and flow of his popularity at the imperial court notwithstanding, in 1598 Saʿdeddīn was appointed şeyḫü’l-islām. In his dual capacity as royal preceptor and chief jurisconsult, he held the esteemed title cāmiʿül-riyāseteyn until his death in 1599. Saʿdeddīn’s impact was not limited to the realm of politics, nor was it discernible only in the affairs of the state. He was also an influential patron who supported and encouraged many a scholarly and scientific talent. Numerous scholars, writers, and artists—such as the celebrated bureaucrat and versatile man of letters Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī (d. 1600), court historiographer (şehnāmeci) Loḳmān b. Ḥüseyin (d. after 1601), historian and jurist Nişāncızāde Muḥyīüddīn Meḥmed (d. 1621), and scholar-poet Ġanīzāde Meḥmed Nādirī (d. 1627)—were his students, assistants, or protégés (or a combination thereof).9 In collaboration with grand vizier Soḳollu Meḥmed Pasha (d. 1579), he was also the fıgure 7 See Kurat, “Hoca Sâdeddin Efendinin Türk-İngiliz Münasebetlerinin Tesisi ve Gelişmesindeki Rolü.” 8 Some Ottoman authors also mention the grand vizier Sinān Pasha (d. 1596) as a participant in the process of persuading the Ottoman ruler to lead the imperial troops. See Selānikī, Tārīḫ, 2:548–549. Ottoman chroniclers like İbrāhīm Peçevī (d. 1649) and Muṣṭafā Naʿīmā (d. 1716) narrate that Saʿdeddīn convinced Meḥmed iii to put on the Holy Mantle of the Prophet (ḫırḳa-i şerīf ) and thereby secured the Ottoman victory miraculously. See Peirce, The Imperial Harem, 171, 324n77. 9 For a list of Saʿdeddīn’s students who went on to have impressive careers as chief military

4

introduction

who convinced Murād iii to grant chief astrologer (müneccimbaşı) Taḳīüddīn Efendi (d. 1585) permission and funds to construct an observatory in Galata.10

2

The Oeuvre: Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s Literary Production

Saʿdeddīn’s longest-lasting legacy flowed from his pen. He was a master of Ottoman epistolary prose (inşāʾ) who displayed comparable competence in verse.11 As an eminent muftī, he authored a great number of religious opinions ( fetvā, pl. fetāvā), including versified ones.12 As an expert in the “three languages” (elsine-i s̱elās̱e), he was also known for his Turkish translations of historical, hagiographical, mystical, and theological works originally composed in Arabic and Persian.13 Beyond these works, Saʿdeddīn’s most significant contribution to Ottoman literary culture was undoubtedly Tācü’t-tevārīḫ (Crown of Histories), a history of the House of ʿOs̱mān (Āl-i ʿOs̱mān) from its humble beginnings to the end of Selīm i’s reign. Dedicated to Murād iii in 1575 and composed in ornate prose, Tācü’t-tevārīḫ confirmed Saʿdeddīn’s prominence among the men of letters of his time. It also sealed his legacy as historian par excellence because he identified his sources, approached them critically, and analyzed them comparatively.14 Judging by the sheer number of its complete or fragmentary extant manuscripts as well as its translation into various European languages from the middle of the seventeenth century onward, Tācü’t-tevārīḫ enjoyed great popularity both within and beyond the early modern Ottoman

10

11

12

13

14

judges (ḳāḍīʿasker), şeyḫü’l-islāms, muftīs, professors (müderris), and poets, see Daș, “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri,” 174–179. The observatory (raṣadḫāne) remained active for only three years before it was demolished in 1580, by order of the same sultan. On this fascinating, albeit short-lived, experiment and its unfortunate conclusion, see Ünver, İstanbul Rasathanesi, especially 51–54. On Saʿdeddīn’s collections of correspondence (münşeʾāt mecmūʿası), see Daș, “Osmanlılarda Münşeât Geleneği,” especially 118–123, 139–167; and Daș, “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri,” 198–202. On Saʿdeddīn’s religious opinions included in Mecmūʿu’l-fetāvā (Compendium of Religious Opinions), see Salur, “Şeyhülislam Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi’nin Fetva Mecmuası ve Tahlili,” 65–263; Akyüz, “Şeyhülislâm Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi’nin Fetva Mecmuası,” especially 30–55. For his fetvās in verse, see Eliaçık, “Şeyhülislam Hoca Sadeddîn Efendi ve Manzum Fetvâları.” On works translated by Saʿdeddīn, see Daș, “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri,” 203–205. Also see ia, s.v. “Saʿd-ed-dīn” (Șerâfettin Turan), 30; and dia, s.v. “Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi” (Șerâfettin Turan), 198. On Saʿdeddīn’s literary and historical sources, see Severcan, “Hoca Sadeddin Efendi ve Tarihçiliğimizdeki Yeri,” 75; and İpşirli, “Tâcüttevârîh’in Kaynakları Üzerine Bazı Tespitler.”

introduction

5

world.15 The work’s impact on later Ottoman historiography is likewise clear: while some Ottoman authors used Saʿdeddīn’s chronicle as a source,16 others composed addenda (zeyls) to it.17 In fact, some modern historians consider Selīmnāme an independent addendum of historical-hagiographical content penned by the author himself.18

3

Selīmnāme in Context

Saʿdeddīn’s account is part of a larger corpus of nearly two dozen thematically consistent literary-historical narratives that have been commonly classified as Selīmnāmes (Vitas of Selīm), Selīmnāme literature, or, collectively, the Selīmnāme genre.19 Ottoman authors did not fashion this genre ex nihilo. They

15

16

17 18 19

On extant manuscripts of the work, see, among others, Aktepe, “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Tâcü’t-tevarih’i ve Bunun Zeyli Hakkında,” 106–110. On translations of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ into European languages, see Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, 126. For the impact of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ in later Ottoman historiography, see, for example, Lokmacı, “Hoca Sadeddin Efendi’nin Tacü’t Tevârîh İsimli Eserinin Künhü’l Ahbâr, Solak-zâde Tarihi ve Nuhbetü’t Tevârîh’e Etkileri”; and dia, s.v. “Tâcü’t-tevârîh” (Mehmet İpşirli). See Aktepe, “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Tâcü’t-tevarih’i ve Bunun Zeyli Hakkında,” especially 110–116. See, for example, Severcan, “Hoca Sadeddin Efendi ve Tarihçiliğimizdeki Yeri,” 78; and Daș, “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri,” 198. Selīmnāmes that are extant in manuscript form include İsḥaḳ b. İbrāhīm’s (d. 1537) İsḥaḳnāme (Book of İsḥaḳ), ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Laḫmī’s al-Durru’l-mus̱ān fī sīratu’l-muẓaffar Selīm Ḫān (Protected Pearls: Victorious Life of Selīm Khan), Muḥammed Edāʾī’s (d. 1521) Shāhnāma-ye Salīm Ḫānī (Shāhnāma of Selīm Khan), Kebir b. Üveys Ḳāḍīzāde’s Ġazāvāte Sulṭān Salīm (Military Exploits of Sultan Selīm), Muḥyī’s Selīmnāme, İdrīs-i Bidlīsī’s (d. 1520) Salīmshāhnāma, Şīrī’s Tārīḫ-i Fetḥ-i Mıṣr (History of the Conquest of Egypt), Keşfī’s (d. 1524) Tārīḫ-i Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān (History of Sultan Selīm Khan), Sucūdī’s Selīmnāme, Şükrī-i Bidlīsī’s (d. after 1530) Fütuḥāt-ı Selīmiyye (Conquests of Selīm), Saʿdī b. ʿAbdü’l-müteʿāl’s Selīmnāme, Celālzāde Muṣṭafā Çelebi’s (Ḳoca Nişāncı, d. 1567) Meʾās̱īri Selīm Ḫānī (Illustrious Acts of Selīm Khan), Saʿdeddīn’s (d. 1599) Selīmnāme, Çerkesler Kātibi Yūsuf’s Selīmnāme, ʿAzmīzāde Muṣṭafā’s (d. 1622) Selīmnāme, Cevrī İbrāhīm Çelebi’s (d. 1654) Selīmnāme, an anonymous Selīmnāme covering the period 1511–1518, and an anonymous Tārīḫ-i Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān (History of Sultan Selīm Khan) covering the period 1499–1520. Less-known narratives in this corpus include the following works, of which no extant manuscripts are known: S̱enāʾī’s Selīmnāme, Ḥayātī’s Şāhnāme, Şuhūdī’s Şāhnāme, ʿĀrifī’s (Fetḥullāh ʿĀrif Çelebi, d. 1562) Selīmnāme, Derūnī’s Muḥārebāt-ı Selīm-i evvel bā Şāh İsmāʿīl ü Ġavrī (The Battles of Selīm I with Shāh Ismāʿīl and [Qānṣūh al-]Ghawrī), and Seyyid Meḥemmed b. Seyyid ʿAlī-i İznīḳī’s Selīmnāme. On this genre, see Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, 45–55, 60–63, 95–98, 102–103, 123–126;

6

introduction

partook in an “imitative şehnāme genre,”20 the Ottoman variant of a literary tradition inspired by the revered Persian poet Firdawsī’s (d. 1020) monumental, versified epic masterpiece Shāhnāma (Book of Kings), which recounts the history of Iran from its mythical beginnings to the Islamic conquests of the seventh century. Ottoman authors considered Firdawsī’s work not simply a means of timeless literary-cultural expression but also an instrument by which to communicate specific politico-ideological messages in particular historical contexts. This approach is evident in the way they departed from the Persian prototype when adapting this versatile literary-epic genre to the Ottoman context. Whereas the original Shāhnāma recounts legendary events that occurred in Firdawsī’s imagination, Ottoman Şehnāmes relate the contemporary or nearcontemporary achievements of Ottoman monarchs in panegyric language. Perhaps more importantly for the purposes of this study, whereas Firdawsī’s Shāhnāma relates mostly the martial exploits of the mythical and legendary kings and heroes of Iran, Ottoman Selīmnāmes eulogize the military feats of an unquestionably historical protagonist, who achieved almost legendary status as a warrior-sultan.

4

Selīmnāme in Content

Saʿdeddīn Efendi’s Selīmnāme is quite a peculiar text, unique in both form and content. Unlike any other work of this genre, the text is structured thematically rather than diachronically. It consists of a preface (muḳaddime) and twelve anecdotes (ḥikāyet) that offer fascinating historical and hagiographic vignettes from the life of Selīm i. In his preface, Saʿdeddīn states that he composed the text as “a memorandum for posterity” ( yād-dāşt içün) and “a keepsake on the page of time” (ṣaḥīfe-i rūzigārda yādigār), suggesting that he had a wide readership in mind. Furthermore, he stresses that his relaying of events relies on the eyewitness account of his father, Ḥasan Cān, who had served Selīm as trusted companion for six years and was with the sultan at his death in 1520. Numerous references to other historical personae found throughout Selīmnāme reveal that the author’s late father was not his only informant. The first anecdote, for instance, is based on Bālī Pasha’s (d. 1553) eyewitness account, which the author states was later confirmed by Ferhād Pasha (d. 1524) and

20

Ateş, “Selim-nâmeler”; Levend, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Ġazavāt-nāmesi, 22–34; Tekindağ, “Selim-nâmeler”; and Uğur, “Selim-nâmeler.” Woodhead, “An Experiment in Official Historiography,” 158–159; and Woodhead, “Reading Ottoman Şehnames,” 67–70.

introduction

7

Aḥmed Pasha “the Traitor” (Ḫāʾin, d. 1524). The narrative is set in the aftermath of the fateful battle at Çorlu (July 28, 1511),21 where Selīm, then a prince (şehzāde) involved in a succession struggle with his brothers Aḥmed (d. 1513) and Ḳorḳud (d. 1513), confronted his father, Bāyezīd ii (r. 1481–1512), and suffered a crushing defeat.22 Bālī Pasha’s narrative places Selīm and his supporters on a boat to Ahyolu (Pomorie, Bulgaria) before crossing over to Kefe (Feodosia, Ukraine). In an effort to distract themselves from the trauma of the recent setback, those present talk about the affairs of the sultanate, and discuss Selīm’s prospective rulership as signaling the nascence of a new age leading to conquests in all directions and the elimination of the looming Safavid threat. Selīm, however, remains silent and delves into the “realm of meditation” (murāḳabe ʿālemi). Once out of his trance, he criticizes his companions for their idle talk and declares that he has been bestowed a sultanate of eight or nine years— which was indeed the duration of his reign. It is noteworthy that all three commanders mentioned by Saʿdeddīn were prominent members of the pro-Selīm faction throughout the struggle that ultimately brought the prince to power. In fact, according to chronicles of the Ottoman tradition, it was Ferhād Pasha who single-handedly saved Selīm’s life during the Battle of Çorlu. The tone of the narrative suggests that Selīm never intended to fight his father, however. If the reader is to believe Ferhād Pasha, the bloody skirmish that ensued near Uġraş Village was not of the prince’s own making but rather resulted from the incitement of the sultan’s viziers. The reference to Selīm’s meditative state undoubtedly hints at the divine origin of his declaration concerning the exact duration of his reign. Thus, the anecdote fulfills the dual function of highlighting Selīm’s saintly qualities (as someone who can correctly predict the future) while simultaneously absolving him from the sin of rebelling against a legitimately ruling Ottoman sultan. The second anecdote is similarly set in Rumelia and relies on the same informant, Bālī Pasha. The reader finds Selīm on horseback at the Crimean frontier (Ḳırım serḥaddi), in conversation with Menglī Girāy (r. 1466, 1469– 1475, 1478–1515), the Crimean khan. The khan is depicted as an obstinate ruler attempting to demonstrate his own superiority by forcing Selīm to approach him first, which ultimately proves an exercise in futility. When the Ottoman

21 22

Ottoman sources refer to the location of the battle between Selīm’s and Bāyezīd ii’s armies as Çorlı, Uġraş, Ḳarışdıran, or Çuḳurçayır. The toponyms are used interchangeably here. On this momentous event and its immediate aftermath, see Uluçay, “Yavuz Sultan Selim Nasıl Padişah Oldu?” td 9 (1954), 86–90. On Selīm’s activities in Rumelia as well as the manner in which these are discussed in various Selīmnāmes, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, 48–52 and 155–168, respectively.

8

introduction

prince’s clever maneuvering renders the khan’s attempts unsuccessful, Menglī Girāy approaches Selīm, consoles him about his recent defeat by Bāyezīd ii, and proposes to place “the Tatar army” (Tatar leşkeri) under the command of the defeated prince, to help him seize the throne with overwhelming force. Selīm, however, rejects the khan’s offer and states that he had approached his father not to depose him but rather to request additional troops in order to fight the rebellious groups within and outside the Ottoman realm. Emphasizing Selīm’s unwillingness to accept Menglī Girāy’s assistance, Saʿdeddīn states that the prince also rejected the hand of the khan’s daughter in marriage. The author also expresses overt anti-Tatar sentiments, verbalized through Selīm, and then goes on to provide a list of Selīm’s ten praiseworthy personal attributes, among them patience, dignity, prudence, bravery, and sagacity. It is noteworthy that the anecdote concludes with a somewhat defensive statement uttered from Selīm’s mouth about the Battle of Çorlu, reported on the authority of the author’s father, Ḥasan Cān. Here Selīm reiterates that he never intended to confront his father’s forces in battle but only wished to have an audience with him. Once again blaming Bāyezīd’s viziers for having rejected his requests for an audience, Selīm claims that the violent conflict was initiated by a fight that broke out all of a sudden—and unbeknownst to him—between a few soldiers affiliated with the two armies. Undoubtedly aimed at clearing Selīm’s name from any sedition against Bāyezīd, this anecdote also serves to shield him from the accusation of collaborating with the Crimean khan to gain the upper hand in the domestic struggle for Bāyezīd’s throne. Selīmnāme’s opening anecdotes reveal Saʿdeddīn’s primary reason for compiling his narrative. Like his Selīmnāme-composing counterparts, Saʿdeddīn contributed to a conscientious project of early modern Ottoman revisionist historiography aimed at rehabilitating Selīm’s image by defending him against allegations of misconduct, legitimizing his controversial actions, and, by extension, further emphasizing the legitimacy of his descendants for contemporary and future audiences. Additionally, the reference in the first ḥikāyet to Selīm’s ability to prognosticate the future not only sets the tone for the remaining anecdotes but also offers a hint about what distinguishes Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme from numerous other texts in the same corpus: an emphasis on Selīm’s saintly, prophetic, and even messianic attributes. The third anecdote provides a case in point. Saʿdeddīn’s narrative begins with a brief précis of his grandfather Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Iṣfāhānī’s distinguished career in the service of several Persian rulers. The account then shifts to a conversation that purportedly transpired in Tabriz between Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad and a certain Sheikh Kamāladdīn of Ardabil, which the author’s father, Ḥasan Cān, is said to have witnessed. Reporting on the authority of his father, Saʿded-

introduction

9

dīn relates that when asked by Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad about Selīm’s march toward Safavid lands, the sheikh replied that the Ottoman ruler’s actions were not the product of his own volition but the consequence of a divine decree to punish Shāh Ismāʿīl i (r. 1501–1524). The second part of the anecdote includes the account of another conversation, this time between Selīm and Ḥasan Cān. According to Saʿdeddīn, when the Ottoman sultan told his trusted companion that he had never set out in any direction without first being ordered to do so, the latter relayed the content of the above-mentioned conversation between Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad and Sheikh Kamāladdīn, thus confirming the divinely ordained nature of Selīm’s military endeavors. In the conclusion, the author traces the spiritual pedigree of the sheikh back to the renowned theologian, philosopher, and mystic Mawlānā Jalāladdīn Dawānī (d. 1502), thus emphasizing the sheikh’s saintly attributes and, by extension, authenticating the heavenly inspiration of his statement concerning the divine decree presaging Selīm’s deeds. The fourth anecdote confirms the moral of the third. In the opening lines, a tenacious Selīm repeatedly asks Ḥasan Cān Çelebi whether he had a dream the previous night, becoming more frustrated with each negative response. Confused by the sultan’s insistent interrogation, Ḥasan Cān runs into the chief treasurer (ḫazīnedārbaşı), the head butler (kilārcıbaşı), and one of the gentleman attendants of the imperial palace (sarāy aġası). Those present also include Ḥasan Agha, the chief white eunuch—and Saʿdeddīn’s father’s namesake— who appears shaken because of a dream he had the night before. At first unwilling to reveal the content of his vision, Ḥasan Agha eventually explains that he was visited in a dream by the four “rightly guided” caliphs (rāshidūn). He also states that he communicated directly with ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 661), who quoted the Prophet Muḥammad ordering Selīm to “arise and come over, as the superintendency of the Two Holy Cities (Ḥaremeyn ḫıdmeti) is granted to him.” When Ḥasan Cān Çelebi conveys Ḥasan Agha’s dream to the Ottoman ruler, Selīm reiterates that he never “set out in any direction without being ordered.” He then emphasizes the saintly attributes and miracles of his ancestors, and humbly states that he “alone did not take after them.” The narrative of a veridical dream populated by dramatis personae, including the Companions of God’s Messenger (aṣḥāb-ı Resūlu’llāh), communicates a powerful message about the divinely preordained nature of Selīm’s conquests.23 The citation of the words of the Messenger of God (ḥażret-i Resūlu’llāh) by none other than the last of the “rightly guided” caliphs also serves to 23

Selīm featured prominently, as both subject and object, in dream narratives recorded in petitions addressed to his court and in Ottoman historical writing during and after his

10

introduction

enhance the impact of that message. Furthermore, while Selīm’s premonition about someone in the imperial palace by the name of Ḥasan having had a noteworthy dream signals the strength of his sixth sense, his concluding reference to divine decree within the context of the “Arab expedition” (ʿArab seferi) not only legitimizes his military offensive against the Mamluks, a Sunnī polity, but also confirms the lesson of the previous anecdote. At first glance, the fifth anecdote appears to highlight Selīm’s appreciation of the written word. Several intertwined story lines, however, highlight other, familiar leitmotifs: the saintly disposition of the sultan and the divinely ordained nature of the conquest of the Arab lands. The opening scene, described by Saʿdeddīn’s father, informs the reader of a miracle that accompanied the Ottoman army’s arduous march through the desert when Selīm’s prayers for the easing of conditions were answered by unexpected rainfall. At the end of the journey, the Ottomans notice that a book-filled chest containing a copy of Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf, one of the sultan’s favorite books, had been stolen by Arab raiders.24 Ḥalīmī Çelebi (d. 1516), Selīm’s gentleman-in-waiting (muṣāḥib) and his son Süleymān’s (r. 1520–1566) tutor, suggests that a certain Mevlānā Şemseddīn, a palace preceptor (sarāy ḫvācesi) known for the speed of his handwriting, be charged with transcribing a copy of that work. Selīm agrees, issues an order to that effect, and grants Şemseddīn twenty-five days to complete the project. Staying at Ḥalīmī Çelebi’s home overlooking the Nile but unable to immerse himself in the painstaking work of transcribing Waṣṣāf’s chronicle due to the constant flow of guests, Mevlānā Şemseddīn eventually isolates himself in a room and locks all doors and windows so that no one can bother him. Despite that precaution, he is visited by an otherworldly saint (ricāl-i ġaybdandur), with whom he has a long conversation. When asked, the saint reveals to Şemseddīn that the Arab lands will be conquered once and for all by the Ottomans, and that the sultan and his descendants will be the superintendents of the Two Holy Cities (ḫıdmet-i Ḥaremeyn). He then goes on to declare that Selīm himself “is not outside the circle of saints” (dāyire-i evliyādan ṭaşra degüldür) but that his reign will last for another three years only. At Şemseddīn’s insistence, the saint also remarks that Ḥalīmī Çelebi, Şemsed-

24

reign. On these dream narratives and their role in presaging his successes and legitimizing his sovereignty, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, 217–230. The work in question is Tajziyat al-amṣār wa-tazjiyat al-aʿṣār (The Allocation of Cities and the Propulsion of Epochs), a chronicle of the Ilkhanids composed by ʿAbdallāh b. ʿIzza’ddīn Faḍlallāh Shīrāzī (fl. 1328), the renowned historian and poet of fourteenth-century Persia known under the nom de plume “Waṣṣāf.” On the author and his History, see ei2, s.v. “Waṣṣāf” (Peter Jackson).

introduction

11

dīn himself, and one additional person will die on the same day and that the sultan will be present at their funeral. The saint then gives Şemseddīn three soft felt caps (ʿaraḳıyye), a symbol of asceticism, as gifts for Selīm, Ḥalīmī Çelebi, and Şemseddīn himself, before disappearing miraculously. Mevlānā Şemseddīn then meets with Ḥasan Cān, tells him about his encounter with the saint, and gives him the felt cap intended for Selīm. When the sultan receives the saint’s gift, he smells it and immediately asks about the other two felt caps. After much back and forth, Selīm finally receives the cap that the saint had given to Şemseddīn, smells it, and miraculously identifies it as the saint’s own by “the scent of ecstatic love toward God” (būy-ı ḥāl). In the concluding section of the anecdote, Ḥasan Cān asks Mevlānā Şemseddīn to transcribe for him a copy of Ibn al-Jazarī’s (d. 1429) collection of prophetic traditions (ḥadīth), titled al-Ḥiṣn al-ḥaṣīn min kalām sayyid al-mursalīn.25 Şemseddīn accepts the proposal but falls ill during the journey between Cairo and Damascus. When he realizes that his death is imminent and he will not be able to deliver on his promise, he entrusts Ḥasan Cān his own copy of the book. Shortly thereafter, Ḥalīmī Çelebi, Mevlānā Şemseddīn, and a dwarf in royal service die on the same day, and Selīm attends their funeral, exactly as foretold by the otherworldly saint. The miracle of the saint’s premonition is followed by another miracle, this time performed by the sultan himself. Şemseddīn having died without an heir, the books in his private library are appropriated by the public treasury. One day, when Selīm inspects these valuable manuscripts, he notices Şemseddīn’s personal copy of al-Ḥiṣn al-ḥaṣīn. He carefully examines the manuscript and, unaware of the promise Şemseddīn had made to Ḥasan Cān, bestows it on the latter. Astounded that Selīm picked among a great number of books specifically that copy of al-Ḥiṣn al-ḥaṣīn, Ḥasan Cān mentions Mevlānā Şemseddīn’s earlier promise and praises the sultan’s miracle. In response, Selīm humbly states that what occurred was only a coincidence (ittifāḳīdür). Beyond its complicated storyline, the anecdote employs familiar tropes and associates characteristics such as piety and saintliness with all protagonists. Mevlānā Şemseddīn, whose piety is highlighted at the very beginning of the anecdote, is the figure to whom the otherworldly saint reveals himself. The implicit acceptance of the saint’s holiness is rendered explicit by his accurate prognostication of Selīm’s conquests as well as the demise of several individuals associated with the sultan. Finally, Selīm’s saintly attributes are emphasized

25

On Ibn al-Jazarī and his oeuvre, see ei2, s.v. “Ibn al-D̲ j̲azarī” (M. Ben Cheneb); and dia, s.v. “İbnü’l-Cezerî” (Tayyar Altıkulaç).

12

introduction

through two miraculous acts that demonstrate the sultan’s inexplicable ability to know the unknowable. Thus, in this anecdote, several thematically nested stories with multiple protagonists serve the reciprocal functions of confirming each other’s authenticity and bolstering Selīm’s image as a saintly sultan and a miracle worker. Saʿdeddīn’s is not the only Ottoman narrative that mentions saintly figures who receive signs from the world of the unseen auguring Selīm’s victories. In fact, references in various other sources indicate that Selīm received spiritual aid from prophets, sheikhs, and saints, whose convents or burial places dotted the newly conquered territories. To bargain for that transcendental assistance, he visited sacred sites on his itineraries or paid his respects to local sheikhs.26 Sheikh Muḥammad Badakhshī (d. 1516), the principal protagonist of Selīmnāme’s sixth anecdote, was one of those saintly mystics.27 Based on the eyewitness account of his father, Saʿdeddīn reports on Selīm’s visit to Badakhshī at the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus on his way to Cairo. There, the sultan remains silent for a long time out of respect for the sheikh. When chief physician (ḥekīmbaşı) Aḫī Çelebi (d. 1524) attempts to initiate conversation, inappropriately and without invitation, Selīm interrupts him and requests the sheikh’s blessings. The sheikh, in return, praises the sultan as the divinely graced supporter and refuge of Muslims (manẓūr-ı naẓar-ı luṭf-ı ilāhī ve müslimīnüñ ẓahīr-ü-penāhı) and offers prayers. After arriving at his destination, Selīm has a vision, which he relates to Ḥasan Cān the next day. In that dream, the renunciant sheikh, wearing the clothes of an ascetic, visits the sultan and bids farewell—an adieu that Ḥasan Cān interprets as a premonition of the sheikh’s death. After some discussion, Selīm writes down the date of his dream, concerned that Ḥasan Cān’s interpretation thereof may have caused the sheikh’s demise. A few days later, messengers arrive with petitions and letters from Damascus. The correspondence contains Badakhshī’s letter to Selīm, including his blessings (duʿā-nāme) and his last will and testament (vaṣiyyet-nāme), as well as reports of the sheikh’s address to Damascene notables, advising them to obey the Ottoman sultan as their divinely preordained ruler. More importantly, the messengers convey to Selīm news of Badakhshī’s 26

27

On Selīm’s saintly associations with holy men of various statures, both living and dead, as well as his visits to sacred sites and spiritual leaders within the context of the conquest of Arab lands, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, 230–233 and 356n69, respectively. On Badakhshī’s spiritual pedigree, his encounters with Selīm, and his presentation in other historical sources “as a renunciant saint (terk ü tecrīd), colorfully provocative,” see Papas, “Individual Sanctity and Islamization in the Ṭabaqāt Books,” 402. On the sheikh’s interactions with Selīm, also see Layish, “Waqfs and Ṣūfī Monasteries in the Ottoman Policy of Colonization,” 71.

introduction

13

death. Those in the sultan’s audience immediately make the necessary calculations and determine that the date of the sheikh’s death corresponds to the date of Selīm’s prognostic dream. This result not only absolves Ḥasan Cān of any responsibility for the sheikh’s death but also confirms Selīm’s image as a clairvoyant saint capable of veridical dreams. The seventh anecdote portrays Selīm as a ruler who held men of knowledge in high esteem. The principal protagonist is none other than renowned historian and statesman Kemālpaşazāde (Ibn Kemāl, d. 1534), who served Süleymān i at the pinnacle of the Ottoman religious hierarchy as chief jurisconsult between 1526 and 1534.28 The narrative is set in Egypt, at a time when Kemālpaşazāde was the military judge of Anatolia (Anaṭolı ḳāżīʿaskeri). Aware that Kemālpaşazāde has the sultan’s ear, several war-weary Ottoman notables approach the military judge and request that he convince the sultan to return to the “lands of Rūm” (Rūm illeri). An opportunity presents itself one day when Selīm and Kemālpaşazāde converse on horseback. The sultan asks Kemālpaşazāde whether he has anything noteworthy to report. Kemālpaşazāde responds that he overheard some soldiers singing a song in Turkish and recites a quatrain about yearning for a return to the homeland. Realizing the prevalence of this sentiment among his soldiers, Selīm decides to go back to Istanbul. A few days later, during another conversation on horseback, Selīm asks Kemālpaşazāde about the reasons behind the execution of Mollā Luṭfī (Ṭoḳādī, d. 1495), the latter’s teacher (üstād).29 As soon as Kemālpaşazāde describes Mollā Luṭfī as someone who invented stories others would believe to be true, Selīm realizes that the quatrain recited recently by his military judge had been similarly fabricated and awards him a significant sum. As the contents of several anecdotes summarized thus far indicate, Selīm’s reverence for learned men, his appreciation of their scholarly and literary production, and his deep knowledge of their intellectual and spiritual pedigree are among Selīmnāme’s recurring themes. The eighth and ninth anecdotes further address his almost pedantic attitude concerning proper etiquette in learned circles. The protagonists of the eighth ḥikāyet include Ḥakīm Shāh Muḥammad al-Qazvīnī (d. after 1523), a renowned physician and scholar of Islamic theology ( fiqh) and Qurʾānic commentary (tafsīr).30 A true Renaissance man,

28 29

30

On the life and works of Kemālpaşazāde, see Saraç, Şeyhülislam Kemal Paşazade; and Uğur, Kemal Paşa-zade İbn-Kemal. On Mollā Luṭfī and his controversial execution on charges of heresy, see Maraş, “Tokatlı Molla Lütfi,” especially 119–128; and dia, s.v. “Molla Lutfi” (Şükrü Özen and Orhan Şaik Gökyay). Like Sheikh Kamāladdīn of Ardabil, mentioned in the third anecdote, Ḥakīm Shāh

14

introduction

Ḥakīm Shāh entered Ottoman service during the reign of Bāyezīd ii but supported Selīm during the succession struggle that brought the unruly prince to the throne. He accompanied Selīm during military campaigns as his personal physician and also figured prominently at gatherings (meclis) of learned men at Selīm’s court. The setting of the eighth anecdote is one of those courtly gatherings. When asked by the sultan about his whereabouts the night before, Ḥakīm Shāh relates that he was at a social gathering at the house of Aḥmed Pasha “the Traitor,” the master of the horse (mīrāḫvur). He then mentions by name several others who were present at that private gathering for refined conversation (ṣoḥbet-i ḥāṣ), including chief physician and royal companion Aḫī Çelebi and a handsome youth named Mīrzā ʿAlī, whom Aḫī Çelebi hoped would be admitted to the corps of servants at Selīm’s palace. Conveying Aḫī Çelebi’s wishes, Ḥakīm Shāh suggests that Mīrzā ʿAlī is better suited to the sultan’s service than to the household of his stepfather, Mehdī-i Gāv. Selīm quickly retorts with a complicated yet playful double entendre confirming that Mīrzā ʿAlī’s proper place is indeed the house of Mehdī-i Gāv.31 On another occasion, Ḥakīm Shāh recites a poem which he claims to have delivered on behalf of a skilfull but destitute individual (ġurebādan bir ṣāḥib-maʿrifet kimesne). After hearing only a few couplets, however, Selīm correctly identifies them as verses Ḥakīm Shāh composed for a reward—and bestows some gold on both Ḥakīm and the poor fellow for whom Ḥakīm composed his verses. Both of the short narratives that compose the eighth anecdote are intended to highlight Selīm’s unparalleled erudition and quick-witted disposition. The anecdote does not conclude with an exaltation of Selīm, however. Instead, it ends with acerbic criticism of Aḫī Çelebi’s inappropriate conduct involving his efforts to admit to the corps of sultan’s servants a handsome youth who had been paraded in numerous social gatherings (naḳl-i mecālis). The conclusion of this anecdote sets the tone of the ninth, in which Aḫī Çelebi is condemned in a similar manner. The setting of the ninth anecdote is a gathering of learned men at Selīm’s court. Aḫī Çelebi, a royal companion to both Selīm and his father, Bāyezīd ii, criticizes some unnamed individuals who had failed to observe proper etiquette in the presence of previous sultans (ādāb-ı ṣoḥbet-i mülūk). When a

31

Muḥammad hailed from Persia and studied with Jalāladdīn Dawānī (d. 1502). See dia, s.v. “Hakîm Şah el-Kazvînî” (Eyyüp Sabri Fani). Selīm’s play on words involves the literal and astrological meanings of “māh” (moon), “ḫāne” (house), and “gāv” (ox), which simultaneously alludes to the name of Mehdī-i Gāv and the astrological sign of Taurus.

introduction

15

deaf-mute servant brings to Selīm a portrait of his grandfather Meḥmed ii (r. 1444–1446 and 1451–1481), the sultan states that the artist failed to produce an accurate representation of the Conqueror, whom he describes as “hawk-nosed” (ṭoġān burunlı). Seeking confirmation, Selīm then shows the portrait to Aḫī Çelebi, aware that he too had seen Meḥmed ii during his lifetime. Aḫī Çelebi, however, curtly disagrees with the sultan, using blunt and impolite language. Reporting on the authority of his father, Saʿdeddīn also tells the reader that at that same gathering, Aḫī Çelebi used inapproriate language when describing the location of someone’s home, suggesting that “the imperial palace is under their feet” (sarāy-ı ʿāmire ayaġı altındadur). The anecdote concludes with a direct quote from Selīm, who refers to a prophetic tradition (ḥadīs̱) in criticizing Aḫī Çelebi for disparaging others while nonetheless repeating their mistakes. Chronicles of the Ottoman tradition are replete with references to enmities, jealousies, fickle alliances, and malicious rivalries between statesmen at the imperial court and beyond. Repeated critical references throughout Saʿdeddīn’s work point to personal animus between two of Selīm’s foremost royal companions, Aḫī Çelebi and Ḥasan Cān. Selīmnāme’s tenth anecdote, however, makes mention of the enduring friendship between two other statesmen, namely Selīm’s son-in-law and vizier Ferhād Pasha (d. 1524) and Süleymān i’s financial commissary-general (defterdār) Iskender Çelebi (d. 1535). In this ḥikāyet, the reader is greeted by a livid Selīm returning from a meeting of the imperial council (dīvān). Visibly enraged, the sultan paces back and forth, voicing his frustration that Ferhād Pasha had, once again, protected Iskender Çelebi on account of their friendship. He then wrathfully declares that the camaraderie between the two will be futile when they are hanged facing each other (birbiriñüze ḳarşu aṣıldıġıñuz zamānda). In contemporary Ottoman historiography, Ferhād Pasha is commonly depicted as an unjust vizier who frequently resorted to excessive violence, whereas Iskender Çelebi is portrayed as an exceptionally influential but corrupt statesman who amassed unequaled wealth. Undoubtedly the most pertinent aspect of this anecdote’s mention of these controversial figures is that both were executed during the reign of Süleymān—and that beforehand Selīm had miraculously predicted their demise.32 The repeated mention of Selīm’s ruthless character notwithstanding, the principal function of the eleventh anecdote is to emphasize the sultan’s

32

On these political figures and their executions as portrayed by Süleymān’s chief chancellor (nişāncı), Celālzāde Muṣṭafā Çelebi, see Yılmaz, “Crime and Punishment in the Imperial Historiography of Süleyman the Magnificent,” 431–436.

16

introduction

immense prudence and his saintly ability to prognosticate the future. The anecdote’s preface contextualizes the narrative within the framework of the last year of Selīm’s reign. Those at the highest echelons of the Ottoman military ruling elite, “the viziers and the pillars of the state” (vüzerā-vü-erkān),33 are engaged in preparations for a potential expedition, hoping to convince the sultan to conquer Rhodes. One day, when Selīm is returning from a visit to the shrine of Ayyūb al-Anṣārī (d. 669?), he hears cannons being fired from the imperial dockyard in celebration of the launching of the admiral’s ship. Livid that the launch occurred without his permission, Selīm orders the beheading of the individual responsible. The following day, his viziers intercede and save the unfortunate target of Selīm’s decree. Still angry, the sultan scolds his viziers, stresses the importance of gunpowder as the most important material for the conquest of fortified cities, and asks in return the amount of gunpowder the viziers had prepared for the expedition. When the viziers state that their provisions would be enough for a siege of about five months, Selīm responds that Rhodes cannot be conquered within that truncated timeframe and predicts that its capture would take eight or nine months. He then adds that he has no journey left “other than the journey to the next world” (seferüm yoḳ meger seferi āḫiret), thus accurately presaging not only the duration of the siege of Rhodes but also his own impending death. Selīm is not always the subject of miracles, however. In some narratives, he also appears as the object. In Selīmnāme’s twelfth and final anecdote, Saʿdeddīn returns to the familiar theme of the divine preordination of Selīm’s success. Here, he quotes Kemālpaşazāde’s narrative about a miracle that transpired at the time of the sultan’s birth. Reporting on the authority of “reliable narrators of esteemed words” (s̱iḳāt-ı rüvāt-ı maḳbūlü’l-kelām), Kemālpaşazāde explains that on the day of Selīm’s birth, a “miracle-working dervish” (dervīş-i ṣāḥibkerāmet) appeared at the gates of the imperial palace. After correctly predicting that the newest member of the House of ʿOs̱mān would be a boy, the saintly mystic also declared that he would replace his father on the throne and would defeat as many rulers as the number of “star-like moles” (ḫāl-i aḫter-mis̱āl) on his body. Once Selīm was born, those present at his birth counted seven moles. Saʿdeddīn then relates that Selīm indeed defeated seven rulers—exactly as the dervish foretold—thus concluding his Selīmnāme with the overarching

33

Used in the strictest sense, the Ottoman-Turkish term erkān-ı devlet (“pillars of the state”) included the grand vizier (ṣadrāʿẓam), chief military judge (ḳāḍīʿasker), financial commissary-general (defterdār), and chief chancellor (nişāncı).

introduction

17

message that Selīm was divinely predestined to become what he eventually became: a rebellious prince who dethroned his father and an invincible conqueror of lands and peoples.

5

A Note on Selīmnāme’s Intended Audience

As this summary of Selīmnāme’s contents indicates, Saʿdeddīn not only praised Selīm as the “renewer of religion” (müceddid) but also portrayed his protagonist as a divinely ordained sultan with supernatural abilities, who delves into the realm of meditation (murāḳabe ʿālemi), communicates with the saints of the other world (ricāl-i ġayb) and the “rightly guided” caliphs (rāşidūn), and accurately foretells the future. Considering its appealing subject matter, it is no surprise that the work appears to have enjoyed noteworthy popularity.34 Otherworldly saints, caliphal ghosts, and veridical dreams could draw in readers in any epoch—and, as previously mentioned, Saʿdeddīn’s remarks in the preface indicate that the author composed his text for multiple audiences with similar literary preferences. The fact that Selīmnāme’s narrative on these topics was transmitted via the medium of easily comprehended brief anecdotes suggests that the latter may have been intended to be recited orally at social gatherings and literary séances.35 It also hints at an intended audience with simpler literary tastes and, quite possibly, shorter attention spans. While this audience may have included various segments of Ottoman society with diverse levels of literacy, related evidence suggests that Saʿdeddīn’s immediate addressee was probably Meḥmed iii, an Ottoman sultan with a penchant for short stories with morals that were written in simple Ottoman Turkish— qualities likewise found in Selīmnāme.36 34

35

36

According to the seventeenth-century author Kātib Çelebi (d. 1657), it “changed hands frequently.” See Kātib Çelebi, Kashf al-ẓunūn, 1:267. Șerâfettin Turan considers it a “popular book rather than a work of history” (tarihî bir eser olmaktan ziyâde, halk kitabı mâhiyetindedir). See ia, s.v. “Saʿd-ed-dīn” (Șerâfettin Turan), 32. These assemblies, commonly called “ṣoḥbet” or “meclis,” could be more or less formal and were characterized as convivial, scholarly, and courtly. On these gatherings, their contexts, and their settings in medieval and early modern Islamicate lands, see, for example, Andrews and Kalpaklı, “Toward a Meclis-Centered Reading of Ottoman Poetry”; Pfeifer, “To Gather Together,” especially Chapter 3; Subtelny, “Scenes from the Literary Life of Tīmūrid Herāt”; and Brookshaw, “Palaces, Pavilions and Pleasure-gardens.” This penchant was mentioned by none other than the prominent bureaucrat and littérateur Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī, a contemporary of Meḥmed iii. See Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire, 179–180. On Murād iii’s and Meḥmed iii’s language skills and reading preferences, see Fetvacı, Picturing History at the Ottoman Court, 43–46 and 46–48,

18 6

introduction

Extant Manuscripts, Previous Scholarship, and This Edition

The identification of manuscript copies of Selīmnāme has posed a perennial problem, due in no small part to the remarkable popularity and broad dispersal of extant manuscripts of Saʿdeddīn’s oeuvre both within and beyond the borders of the Ottoman polity.37 Due to the extensive geographical distribution of manuscripts of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ and Selīmnāme, prominent Orientalists and Ottomanists of the twentieth century, like Franz Babinger (d. 1967), Agâh Sırrı Levend (d. 1978), and Şehabettin Tekindağ (d. 1983), identified copies of these works by painstakingly consulting the relevant library catalogues—at times without the opportunity to examine the actual manuscripts. In some cases, editorial choices made by Ottoman authors or modern cataloguers exacerbated the confusion. The title “Selīmnāme” was not consistently applied specifically to Saʿdeddīn’s unconventionally short hagiographic account of Selīm i. Occasionally used as an umbrella term, “Selīmnāme” also alluded to a suite of texts arranged as seemingly independent narratives and/or bound separately but comprising sections of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ that cover all or parts of Selīm’s reign.38 This phenomenon explains why practically all lists of manuscripts of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme, even those prepared by such meticulous scholars as Babinger, Levend, and Tekindağ, include errors and omissions. For instance, of the five manuscripts located in European collections and identified by Babinger in 1927 as Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme, only two are indeed copies of that work, while the remaining three contain sections of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ covering Selīm’s reign.39

37

38

39

respectively. On the identification of Meḥmed iii as possibly Saʿdeddīn’s most immediate target audience, and on the historical context of Selīmnāme’s composition, see Çıpa, The Making of Selim, 161–163. On the distribution of manuscript copies of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ and Selīmnāme, see, for example, Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, 125–126; Aktepe, “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Tâcü’t-tevarih’i ve Bunun Zeyli Hakkında,” especially 106–110; and Tekindağ, “Selim-nâmeler,” 224–226. The greater majority of these texts are titled Dāstān-ı Ḥażret-i Sultān Selīm, which is also the heading of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ’s chapter on Selīm’s sultanate. See, among others, nk 3941, 1b; sk Ragıp Paşa 977, 3b; Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, Mscr.Dresd.Eb.381, 1b; and Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Q.48 sup., 108b. Similarly, Tblisi, Korneli Kekelidze Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts, K3, which is listed as Selīmnāme in the online catalogue of the Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı (Directorate of Manuscripts of Turkey), includes a segment of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ on Selīm’s reign. The two Selīmnāme manuscripts identified by Babinger are Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Diez A, Oct. 79 (also see Pertsch, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, 6:241–242 [No: 212]); and Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod.H.O.59 (also see Flügel, Die Arabischen, Persischen und Türkischen Handschriften

introduction

19

Conversely, at least one manuscript listed by Babinger as Tācü’t-tevārīḫ also includes Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme.40 Similarly, in 1956, Levend listed six manuscripts, of which four were correctly identified.41 Writing in 1970, Tekindağ, like Babinger and Levend before him, correctly identified the Berlin and Vienna manuscripts as Selīmnāmes. Of the eight copies mentioned by Tekindağ and located in manuscript collections in Istanbul, however, only two were copies of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme.42 There is no reason to assume that this critical edition is free of errors or omissions. During my research I have been able to consult physical or digital copies of works identified by previous scholars as Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme, and I eliminated manuscripts that did not include that text. The sheer number of copies of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ as well as their widespread geographical and institutional distribution, however, rendered the consultation of each and every manuscript of Saʿdeddīn’s magnum opus an impossible task. Considering the fact that some extant Selīmnāmes were appended to and/or bound together with Tācü’t-tevārīḫs, while others were transcribed in the margins of related texts,43 it is plausible that there are others I failed to identify and include in this study.44 Admittedly, I would not expect the identification of other Selīmnāmes to result in significant changes to the master text provided in this critical edition—especially because the six manuscripts of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme examined here exhibit considerable textual consistency. Whether this expectation withstands the test of time will be determined by future scholarship.

40 41

42 43 44

der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien, 2:210–211 [No. 987]). See Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, 125–126. The manuscript in question is sk Hamidiye 898. See Babinger, Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, 125. In addition to the Berlin and Vienna manuscripts mentioned by Babinger, Levend correctly identified sk Esad Efendi 2147 and sk Atıf Efendi 1845 as Selīmnāmes. The remaining manuscripts, however, include segments from Tācü’t-tevārīḫ covering Selīm i’s reign. See Levend, Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Ġazavāt-nāmesi, 29. These are sk Esad Efendi 2147 and iük Türkçe Yazmalar 639. The remaining six manuscripts include sections from Tācü’t-tevārīḫ. See Tekindağ, “Selim-nâmeler,” 224–226. sk Esad Efendi 2147, which is recorded on the margins of a copy of Keşfī’s (d. 1524) Tārīḫ-i Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān (f. 77a–94a), perfectly demonstrates this second possibility. In fact, after this study went into production, I was made aware of one more manuscript of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme registered under the title Menāḳıb-ı Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān, which is not included in this critical edition. See Bratislava, Universitätsbibliothek, te 4, f. 12b–30b (also see Blaskovics, Arabische, Türkische und Persische Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek in Bratislava, 325 [No. 447]). I would like to thank Samet Budak for bringing this information to my attention.

20

introduction

Before I leave Saʿdeddīn’s text to speak directly to the reader, I would like to highlight two features of this study. First, to the best of my knowledge, it presents the first Latin-script critical edition and English translation of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme. To date there have been two valuable editions of this text. The first was printed in 1863 as part of the two-volume Arabic-script publication of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ.45 The second edition, based on the first, was published in 1980 by Ahmet Uğur and included the transcribed text of Selīmnāme along with a brief introductory note.46 While Uğur’s edition lacked the critical apparatus necessary to identify the textual variances in extant Selīmnāmes, it nevertheless constitutes an important and deservedly oft-cited contribution to modern scholarship in the field of Ottoman history and historiography.47 Second, in an effort to create the soundest possible master text, I compared six manuscripts not only against one another but also against the print edition of 1863. Consequently, I concluded that the Berlin manuscript includes the most comprehensive, consistent, and reliable Selīmnāme text, which possesses the additional benefit of being the only vocalized example.48 Thus, the Berlin copy is designated as the base manuscript and constitutes the textual spine of this critical edition, against which all other Selīmnāme texts are compared.49 Even the most meticulously crafted texts are bound to include errors and omissions or to deviate from all other variants, and the Berlin Selīmnāme is no exception; such divergences are identified in the critical notes accompanying the transcribed master text.

45 46 47

48

49

See Saʿdeddīn, Selīmnāme, in Tācü’t-tevārīḫ, 2:602–619. See Uğur, “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Selim-namesi.” A simplified modern Turkish version of Selīmnāme intended mainly for a non-academic audience is included in the Latin-script edition of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ published by İsmet Parmaksızoğlu between 1974 and 1979. For full references of all modern editions, see Bibliography. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Diez A, Oct. 79 begins with Selīmnāme and ends with Tācü’t-tevārīḫ’s final section, titled Ḫātime-i Ḳıṣṣa-i Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān (The Conclusion of the Tale of Sultan Selīm Khan). At first glance, the Berlin text appears in some respects closer to the Uğur edition (U), which was based on the Arabic-script edition of Tācü’t-tevārīḫ published in 1863 (tt). The comparison of B with A, E, H, T, V—and the examination of the additions and corrections identified by curly brackets in the transcription—indeed gives the impression that B constitutes a bridge text between two different recensions of Saʿdeddīn’s Selīmnāme. Providing definitive proof for this perfectly plausible hypothesis is a challenging task, however, not least because tt appears to have been prepared with the intention of creating the most comprehensive text of Saʿdeddīn’s work, and not as a critical edition in the strict scholarly sense of the term, in which the textual variants included in various manuscripts are identified.

introduction

21

These variances do not mean that the manuscripts included in this study are riddled with errors. On the contrary, the Selīmnāme manuscripts I consulted for this project were copied by remarkably meticulous individuals, who, I imagine, must have been quite unlike the scribes the illustrious poet Fużūlī had in mind when he composed the stanza in the epigraph. I am grateful to those scribes and hope that the transcribed text included here does justice to their craft.

Symbols, Spelling, and Vocalization 1

Symbols

1) The following symbols are used in the main text: []

In the transcription, folio numbers of the Berlin lead manuscript (B) are given in bold in square brackets. For example, [10a] indicates that the text that follows is located on the recto side of folio 10 in B, while [10b] indicates that the text that follows is located on the verso side of folio 10 in B. Folio numbers of the remaining five manuscripts are not noted. In the English translation, square brackets include words or phrases added to clarify meaning. {} The text includes a small number of additions and corrections, most of which are limited to a single word or parts thereof transcribed in the margins or within the text. Some of these are marked by the original copyist or by a later hand with the correction note ṣaḥḥa. These additions and corrections are given in {curly brackets}. {{ }} Additions and corrections that are found exclusively in B are given in {{double curly brackets}}. ⟨ ⟩ For the reader’s convenience, the twelve anecdotes (ḥikāyet) are numbered. These numbers are given in ⟨angle brackets⟩ at the beginning of each anecdote. 2) The following symbols are used in the footnotes: In this critical edition, I have used two apparatus—namely, critical notes and commentary notes. For the sake of convenience and simplicity, notes in both categories are included in the footnotes. While the critical notes are framed by square brackets with a capital letter identifying the relevant manuscript (e.g., A] or E]), the commentary notes are given inside parentheses, i.e., ( ). +

++

[Addition] The manuscript identified by the capital-letter abbreviation contains the word or words following the plus symbol in the position following the footnote number in the transcribed text. [Insertion] The manuscript identified by the capital-letter abbreviation contains the word or words following the double plus symbol in the margins or above a line to be inserted in the position following the footnote number in the transcribed text.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004467941_003

symbols, spelling, and vocalization

23

–

[Omission] The manuscript identified by the capital-letter abbreviation is missing the word or words following the minus symbol in the position preceding the footnote number in the transcribed text. – – [Deletion] The manuscript identified by the capital-letter abbreviation contains the word or words following the double minus symbol, but the word or words in question are crossed out with a horizontal line in the position preceding the footnote number in the transcribed text. (+) [Dittography] The manuscript identified by the capital-letter abbreviation contains the word or words following the parenthesized plus symbol, but the word or words in question are erroneously repeated in the position following the footnote number in the transcribed text. Some manuscripts include catchwords recorded at the foot (e.g., B), or as the last word (e.g., A, V), of the verso side of a folio. Since these were included by copyists for the express purpose of ensuring proper foliation, they are not noted as dittographs. [sic] [Orthographical error or inaccurate vocalization] This term is used exclusively for the Berlin manuscript (B)—the only vocalized Selīmnāme text included in this edition—when the word or words preceding the symbol [sic] are vocalized or spelled erroneously (or in an unusual, alternative manner) in the manuscript in the position preceding the footnote number in the transcribed text. In these cases, the main text reflects the corrected version of the word or words. Inaccuracies in orthography and vocalization included in other manuscripts are not noted. In cases where a footnote does not include any of the symbols listed above, the form of the word or words included in the main text reflects the form found in the Berlin manuscript, while the form included in the footnote is that which is found in other manuscripts, identified by their capital-letter abbreviations. In some cases, the discrepancy between the Berlin manuscript and the other manuscripts exceeds several words, or the clarification of the proper word order in different manuscripts requires numerous critical notes in quick succession. In an effort to preclude any confusion that may result from multiple footnotes with various symbols, the wording in the base manuscript in the position preceding the footnote number in the transcribed text is repeated in the footnote. To allow for a straightforward comparison, the corresponding wording in other manuscripts (identified by their capital-letter abbreviations) is provided in the same footnote.

24 2

symbols, spelling, and vocalization

Spelling and Vocalization

The transcription follows the vocalization given in the Berlin manuscript (B). The inconsistencies in the transcribed text reflect those in the vocalization of that manuscript. For the sake of convenience and readability, most of these inconsistencies appear in their more common and modern standardized form in the English translation. For example, whereas the transcribed text includes both Kemālü’d-dīn and Kemāle’d-dīn, the translation uses the modernized Kemāleddīn. Similarly, while the transcribed text includes both menlā and mellā, the translation uses the more common modern form mollā. The Berlin manuscript includes a number of common alternative spellings (e.g., şāhzāde/şehzāde), including progressive versus archaic forms (e.g., yoḳ/ yoġ, kimse/kimesne, aşaġı/aşaġa, yoḳsa/yoḫsa). In the transcribed text, these are given as they appear in the base manuscript. These, as well as additional orthographic variations or morphological variants included in other manuscripts (e.g., ṭop/ṭob, ilerü/ileri, öyle/eyle), are not noted. Some words with a closed ė (as in dėrler) are occasionally—and against the norm—spelled with a fatḥa, attesting to the historical change in pronunciation from a closed ė to an open e in certain words. The transcription reflects the exact vocalization of these words in the base manuscript (e.g., dirler or derler and gice not gėce). Some words that are spelled separately in modern Turkish were spelled together in the early Ottoman period. In the transcribed text, these are recorded with hyphens (e.g., sürʿat-ile, yoġ-iken, eyler-idi, ben-daḫi, getürdükden-ṣoñra). Such variations in other manuscripts are not noted. Selīmnāme manuscripts display varying degrees of particularity in the use of vowel signs and hamzas. In the Berlin manuscript, hamzas are sometimes used after words ending in vowels to indicate izāfe compounds. In the transcribed text, these are indicated by hyphens, as any other izāfe compound. In several manuscripts, the accusative case in words ending in a vowel is indicated by a hamza and the vowel sign kasra, as commonly encountered in Old Anatolian Turkish manuscripts. In the transcribed text of B, these are shown as –ʾyi (e.g., ḳażiyyeʾyi, kimesneʾyi). Cases such as these included in other manuscripts are not noted. Additionally, whereas some manuscripts render a number of common words with hamzas, the base manuscript usually does not use the hamza for these (e.g., dāyimā not dāʾimā, ġāyib not ġāʾib, fāyide not fāʾide, cāyize not cāʾize). Such orthographic variations included in other manuscripts are not noted. All Arabic phrases (e.g., Qurʾānic verses, ḥadīths, prayers for the deceased, etc.) and Persian expressions are rendered according to their particular transcription systems and in italics.

symbols, spelling, and vocalization

25

Titles are not capitalized unless they appear as part of an individual’s name (e.g., Yaʿḳūb Pādişāh but merḥūm pādişāh-ı dervīş-nüvāz, Sulṭān Selīm but Mıṣr sulṭānı).

Selīmnāme in Transcription

∵

Bismi’llāhi’r-raḥmāni’r-raḥīm.1 Ḥamd-ü-sipās ve şükr-i bī-ḳıyās Melikü’n-nās dergāhına ki her ʿaṣrda bir ʿabd-ı maḳbūlini2 sezāvār-ı ẓılliyet idüb farḳ-ı ferḳadsāyını tāc-ı bā-ibtihāc-ı3 salṭanat ve ḳāmet-i bāhirü’l-istiḳāmetini ḫilʿat-ı ḫilāfet ile müzeyyen-ü4-muḥallā ve rafaʿnā baʿḍahum fawqa baʿḍin feḥvāsı iḥtivāsı ḥasbınca ḳadr-i bülendlerin5 refīʿ-ü-muʿallā eyledi.6 Ve ṣılāt-ı7 ṣalāt-ü-selām ol ḥabīb-i ʿālī-maḳām-ı sidre-ḫirām mumayyizu’l8-ḥalāli ʿani’l-ḥarām seyyid | ü’l9-enām ḥażretine10 ki şāriʿ-i şerʿ-i muṭahharından inḥirāf itmeyen rāst-rev selāṭīn-i şerīʿat-penāhı meziyyet-i bāhire ile mübāhī11 idüb yümn-i ʿadl-ü-eşfāḳ ile nīkū-siyer12 olanları ẕikr-i cemīl-ile mümtāz ve kerāmāt-ı ʿāliyye ile maẓharı iʿzāz eyledi. Ṣallā’llāhu ʿalayhi wa ʿalā ālihī wa aṣḥābihi’l-mutaʾaddibīna biādābihī.13 Ammā baʿd14 çün rāviyān-ı aḫbār ve ḥāviyān-ı ās̱ār olan15 aṣḥāb-ı ʿirfān ḫānedān-ı16 ebed-peymān-ı āl-i ʿOs̱mān—qaddasa’llāhu taʿālā17 arwāḥa aslāfihim18 wa abbada fī’l-aqālīmi khilāfata akhlāfihim19—menāḳıbını naḳl-übeyān | ve ās̱ār-ı marżıyyelerin ṣaḥāyif-i20 eyyām21 üzre ʿayān itmişler bu ḥaḳīri kes̱īrü’t-taḳṣīr daḫi ḳaṣd itdüm ki merḥūm vālidden istimāʿ itdügüm baʿż-ı menāḳıb-u-ḥikāyātdan ki sulṭān-ı cennet-mekān fātiḥü’l-ʿArab ve’l-ʿAcem Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān—ʿalayhi’r-raḥmatu wa’r-riḍwān22—ḥażretlerine23 müteʿalliḳdür24 yād-dāşt25 içün nigāşte-i kilk-i bedīʿü’s-silk idem. Ve altı yıl şeref-i ḳurb-ı26 ḫıdmetlerinde merāsim-i ʿubūdiyyeti27 tekmīl ve maẓhariyyet-i ḫiṭāb-ı müsteṭāba liyāḳat rütbesin taḥṣīl itmegile bi’ẕ-ẕāt müşāhede itdügi aḥvāli ḥikāyet ve ḫāṭırda ḳalan | baʿż-ı ṣaḥīḥ28 aḫbārı rivāyet eyleyem tā ṣaḥīfe-i rūzigārda yādigār29 ve vesīle-i celb-i duʿā ve30 raḥmet-i31 Perverdegār ola. Ḥikāyet32 ⟨1⟩ Bir gün33 {kerre} merḥūm Bālī Paşa ki beglerbegilikden müteḳāʿid ṣāliḥ34 dīn-dār35 pīr-i36 ʿazīz37 idi ve38 beyne’n-nās muvaḳḳar-u-muʿaz1 – bismi’llāhi’r-raḥmāni’r-raḥīm E, H, T, V]

2 maḳbūlin T] 3 tāc-u-ibtihāc E] 4 bāhirü’listiḳāmetini ḫilʿat-ı ḫilāfet ile müzeyyen ve B] bāhirü’l-istiḳāmetin ḫilʿat ile T] 5 bülendlerini H] 6 – eyledi V] 7 ṣılā A, H] 8 mumayyizi’l [sic] B] 9 seyyidi’l [sic] B] 10 ṣılāt-ı ṣalāt-üselām ol ḥabīb-i ʿālī-maḳām-ı sidre-ḫirām mumayyizu’l-ḥalāli ʿani’l-ḥarām seyyid ü’l-enām ḥażretine B] ṣalāt-ü-selām ol ḥabīb-i seyyidü’l-enām ʿālī-maḳām-ı sidre-ḫirām mumayyizu’l-ḥalāli ʿani’l-ḥarām ḥażretine T] 11 mebāhī [sic] B] 12 nīkū-sīret A, H] 13 ṣallā’llāhu ʿalayhi wa ʿalā ālihī wa aṣḥābihi’l-mutaʾaddibīna bi-ādābihī B] ṣallā’llāhu taʿāla ʿalayhi wa ʿalā ālihī wa aṣḥābihi’l-mutaʾaddibīna bi-ādābihī A] ṣallā’llāhu taʿāla ʿalayhi wa’s-sallam wa ʿalā ālihī wa aṣḥābihi’l-mutaʾaddibīna bi-ādābihī E] ṣallā’llāhu ʿalayhi wa ʿalā ālihī wa aṣḥābihi’l-mutaʾaddibīna H] 14 – ammā baʿd E] 15 – olan T] 16 fāʾiz H] 17 – allāhu taʿālā E] – taʿālā T] 18 aslāfahum [sic] B] 19 akhlāfahum [sic] B] 20 ṣaḥīfe A, E, H] 21 – eyyām T] 22 ʿalayhi’r-raḥmati [sic] wa’r-riḍwān B] ʿalayhi’r-riḍwān A, H, V] ʿalayhi’r-raḥmatu’l-malik al-zamān E] 23 ḥażretlerinüñ A, E, H] + + aḥvāline H] 24 müteʿalliḳ T] müteʿalliḳidür A, E] – – der B] 25 yād-ü-dāşt H] 26 şarḳ-u-ġarb E, T] 27 ʿubūdiyyetini H] 28 – ṣaḥīḥ E] 29 – yādigār E] 30 – ve A] 31 – raḥmet T] 32 – ḥikāyet E] 33 – gün A, H, T, V] 34 + ve A, E, T] 35 + bir E] 36 + ve H] 37 + kişi E] 38 – ve T]

1b

2a

2b

3a

30

3b

4a

4b

5a

Selīmnāme in Transcription

zez1 olub İstanbulda bir dil-güşā cāmiʿi ve2 ḫayrāt-ü-ḥasenātı3 vardur sīmāyı ṣalāḥı maḥsūs ve ʿibādet-ile meʾnūs pīr-i nūrānī idi ḥażret-i Ebī4 Eyyūbi Enṣārī—raḍiya’llāhu ʿanhu’l-bārī5—ziyāretine gelüb andan vālid menziline ḥuḳūḳ-ı ülfet-i dīrīne ve uḫuvvet-i pīşīne iḳtiżāsıyla gelüb6 | bir laḥẓa muṣāḥabet itdiler. Ḥaḳīr ol zamānda mülāzım olmış-idüm. Müstemiʿ-i muṣāḥabet idüm. Bālī Paşa didi ki “Ol tārīḫde ki merḥūm Sulṭān Selīm7 atalarını ziyārete8 ve iḫtilāl-i aḥvāl-i ʿāleme müteʿalliḳ baʿż-ı umūrı söyleşmege sancaḳları olan Ṭırabuzondan gelüb9 Edreneden berü Uġraş Köyi didikleri maḥalde10 taḥrīk-ü11-ifsād-ı vüzerā-yile ceng-ü-āşūb deryāsı ḥarekete gelüb merḥūm ḥażretleri daḫi muʿāvedet idüb girü sancaḳları semtine12 mürācaʿat ʿazmin13 itdiler.14 Gemide oturmış-ıduḳ. Ferhād Paşa ve ḫāyin olan Aḥmed Paşa ol zamānda | ḥużūrlarında idiler. Baʿż-ı muṣāḥibler15 ve muḳarreb bendeleri umūr-ı salṭanata müteʿalliḳ muṣāḥabet idüb zamān-ı inkisārda göñül avutmaḳ ve ḫāṭır eglemek16 yüzinden “Saʿādetlü begümüz taḫt-nişīn olsa her birimüz devlete irüb devr-i cedīd ve17 ās̱ār-ı baḫtyārī bedīd olsa ve bāzū-yı iḳtidār-ı pādişāhī ile sedd-i devlet sedīd olsa şarḳ-u-ġarbı fetḥ itseñ cemʿiyyet-i Ḳızılbaş-ı evbāşı18 pāşīde ve vücūd-ı levs̱-ālūd-ı küffārı ṣaḥīfe-i dehrden19 terāşīde itseñ” diyüb20 söyleşürlerdi. Merḥūm ḥażretleri sükūt idüb gendü | ʿālemlerine meşġūl idiler.21 Bu ḥāletde22 murāḳabe ʿālemine vardılar. Bir zamān uyur gibi oldılar.23 Ṣoñra mübārek başların ḳaldırub buyurdılar ki “Hey24 derdmendler salṭanat deyüb eşidürsiz.25 Andan ne fāyide? Ol salṭanatdan26 ki sekiz ṭoḳuz yıllıḳ ola işte istedigüñüz27 virildi” deyü buyurdılar.” Vālid didi28 “ʿAynı ile bu ḳażiyyeʾyi29 Ferhād Paşadan ve Ḫāyin Aḥmed Paşadan daḫi istimāʿ eyledüm.”30 Ḥikāyet31 ⟨2⟩ Girü32 merḥūm Bālī Paşa didi33 “Ol zamānda ki merḥūm ḥażretleri ki ol34 hezīmet ʿaḳabinde sancaḳlarına muʿāvedet | itdiler Ḳırım serḥaddine varduḳlarında Tatar Ḫān ʿaskeri35 ile istiḳbāl idüb yanaşdılar.36 Muḳābil gelür1 muvaḳḳar-u-muʿazzez B] muʿazzez-ü-muvaḳḳar T] 2 – ve E] 3 ḫayrāt-ü-ḥasenātı B] ḫayrātü-ḥasenāt H] ḫayrāt-ı ḥüsnānı T] 4 – Ebī A, E, H] 5 raḍiya’llāhu ʿanhu’l-bārī B] ʿalayhi raḥmatu’llāhu’l-bārī [?] E] raḍi ʿanhu’l-bārī V] 6 iḳtiżāsıyla gelüb B] iḳtiżāsı üzere T] 7 + Ḫān E] 8 atalarını ziyārete B] ataları ziyāretine A, E] 9 – gelüb E] 10 didikleri maḥalde B] maḥallede E] dimekle maʿrūf maḥalde T] 11 – ve H] 12 sancaḳları semtine B] sancaḳlarına A, E, H] 13 mürācaʿat ʿazmin B] mürācaʿat-ü-ʿazīmet T] 14 itdüklerinde E] 15 muṣāḥib E] muṣāḥibleri T] 16 avutmaḳ ve ḫāṭır eglemek B] avutmaḳ ve ḫāṭıra eglenmek A] avutmaḳ ve ḫāṭır eglenmek E] avutmada ve ḫāṭır eglemek T] 17 devr-i cedīd ve B] devlet-i cedīd ve B] devlet-i cedīd E] 18 evbāş H] 19 rūzgārdan T] 20 diyü H, T, V] 21 oldılar E] 22 ḥālde A, E] 23 olub T] 24 ey T] 25 işidüb söylersiz V] 26 – ol salṭanatdan E, H] 27 istedügüñ T] 28 + ki A, H] didügi gibi yine E] 29 ʿaynı ile bu ḳażiyyeʾyi B] bu ḳażiyyeʾyi ʿaynı-yile T] 30 itdüm A, E, H] 31 – ḥikāyet E] 32 yine T] 33 Paşa didi B] Paşa didi ki A] Paşa ḥażretleri didi ki E] Paşa didi ki H] 34 ḥażretleri ki ol B] ḥażretleri A, E] ḥażretleri ol T, V] 35 ʿaskerine E] ʿasker H] 36 yanaşurlar H]

Selīmnāme in Transcription

31

ken1 yaḳlaşduḳlarında2 ḫān at başın çekdi.3 Böyle4 ḳaṣd itdi gibi5 ki merḥūm ḥażretlerinüñ ayaḳlarına varmaya belki anlar geleler. Merḥūm ḥażretleri daḫi teferrüs idüb6 ʿinān-ı fereslerin7 keşīde itdiler. Ḫān bu ḥāli göricek ilerü geldi. Merḥūm ḥażretleri daḫi ilerü yürüdiler.8 Girü ḫān tevaḳḳuf itdi. Merḥūm ḥażretleri girü ʿinān-keş oldılar. Āḫir ḫān meʾmūlinden meʾyūs olub ilerü geldi.9 | Ve at üzre muṣāfaḥa idişdiler. Ve yanaşub hem-ʿinān vāfir-ü10-müstevfī muṣāḥabet itdiler. Merḥūm ḥażretlerini11 tesliyeye müteʿalliḳ kelimāt söyledi.12 Ve “İnhizāmdan ve vüzerā-vü-ümerānuñ Sulṭān Aḥmed cānibine13 meylinden14 ġam çekmeñ. Eger dilerseñüz Tatar leşkerini15 size ḳoşayım.16 Varıñuz ḳuvvet-i ḳāhire ile milk-i mevrūs̱uñuza mālik oluñ” didi. Merḥūm ḥażretleri iḳbāl-ü17ḳabūl göstermeyüb “tā18 der miyāne khvāste-i Kirdigār chīst” deyüb19 buyurdılar ki “Biz ārzū-yı20 dünyā içün ve hevā-yı milk ile ol ṭarafa varmamış idük. Atamuz | pīr21-ü-22 maraż-ı müzmin ile tedbīr-i memleketden23 dilgīr olmaġıla vüzerā-vü-ümerāya tefvīż-i umūr olınub āʿdā-yı dīn-ü24-devlet her ṭarafdan baş ḳaldırub25 celālīler melāli ve hücūm-ı ḫuṣūm ile26 devlet iḫtilāli müşāhede olınub sāyir ḳarındaşlarımuz nāz-ü-naʿīme māyil olmaġıla müdāfaʿa-i düşmen ḫaṭar-gāhına düşmen27 diyüb her biri istirāḥate çekinmekle28 ṣıyāneti ḫānedān-ı kühen29 ve ḥimāyet-i30 nām-ü-nāmūs içün ḳaṣd itmiş-idük ki varub hem vālidümüzi31 ziyāret idüb ṣıla idevüz ve hem bir miḳdār ʿasker isteyüb ehl-i ḫurūcı ḳamʿ | ve bīḫ-i fitne-i evbāşı sebze-zār-ı milkden32 ḳalʿ idevüz. Erkān-ı devlet müsāʿadeden mübāʿade idüb33 ṭamaʿ-ı tāc-ü-taḫt34 töhmeti ile aramuza ḥāyil ve defʿümüze māyil oldılar. Muḳadder ne ise ẓuhūr ider.35 ʿAsker çeküb atamuz üzerine yürümek36 bize düşmez” deyü cevāb virdiler.37 Otāḳlarına geldükde38 buyurdılar ki “Ḫān bize böyle39 söyledi. Ber-taḳdīr ki biz40 milk ṭamaʿında olsaḳ daḫi nişānde-i ḫān olmaġı nice iḫtiyār eylerüz? Ve ol salṭanatdan ne ḥaẓẓ olınur? Bā-ḫuṣūṣ ābā-vü-ecdādumuz fetḥ itdügi memālik-i maḥrūseyi | pāmāl-i41 ḫuyūl-i süyūl-mis̱āl-i Tatar42 itmek ve Tatar-ı yaġmā-kār ayaġın43 memleketümüze açmaḳ ḫaṭā idügi ẓāhir mi degildür? Salṭanat maṭ-

1 – ile istiḳbāl idüb yanaşdılar muḳābil gelürken E] 2 – yaḳlaşduḳlarında T] 3 çeküb E] 4 şöyle H] 5 – gibi H] 6 – idüb T] 7 ʿazīmetlerin T] 8 vardı T] 9 (+) merḥūm ḥażretleri daḫi ilerü yürüdiler girü ḫān tevaḳḳuf itdi merḥūm ḥażretleri girü ʿinān-keş oldılar āḫir ḫān meʾmūlinden meʾyūs olub ilerü geldi V] 10 – ve E] 11 ḥażretini T] 12 söylediler H] 13 cānibinden H] 14 ḳatılışından T] 15 ʿaskerin T] 16 ḳoşayın T] 17 – ve E] 18 – tā T] 19 – tā der miyāne khvāste-i Kirdigār chīst diyüb A, E, H] 20 zār-u-zōrı E] 21 pīrümüz T] 22 – ve T, V] 23 milkinden A] milkden H, V] 24 – ve H] 25 + ve A, E] 26 – ḫuṣūm ile A, E, H] 27 düşmez E] 28 çekilmekle A] gelmekle T] 29 kühenī A] kemīn T] 30 ṣıyānet T] 31 varub hem vālidümüzi B] varub hem A, H] hem E] varub vālidümüzi T] 32 milkinden A] 33 müsāʿadeden mübāʿade idüb B] müsāʿadeden mübāʿade idüb ve A, E] müsāʿade idüb T] 34 + żamm A, E] 35 + diyü A] + diyüb E] 36 düşmek E] 37 virdi A, H] 38 geldüklerinde E, T] 39 – böyle A] 40 – biz H] 41 pāymāl T] 42 tārmār T] 43 ayaġını H]

5b

6a

6b

7a

32

7b

8a

8b

Selīmnāme in Transcription

lūb olsa daḫi bunsuz bile bi-ʿavni’llāh1 müyesserdür. Tatar imdādına ḥācet yoḳ” didiler. Ṣoñra {{girü ḫān}} żiyāfet eyledi. Girü bu maʿnāyı işāret itmiş ve ḳızın virmegi recā eylemiş.2 Müsāʿade buyurmadılar.3 Bu ḥikāyetden merḥūm ḥażretlerinüñ4 niçe ḫiṣāl-i ḥamīde ve menāḳıb-ı pesendīdeleri ẓāhir olur. Evvelā ṣabr ve s̱āniyā tevekkül ve s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet ve vaḳār ve rābiʿā ʿāḳıbetendīşlik ve ḫāmisā {riʿāyet}-i nām-ü- | nāmūs-ı salṭanat ve sādisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet ve sābiʿā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet ve s̱āminā şecāʿat-ü-şehāmet ve tāsiʿā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset ve ʿāşirā ataları ile vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyye rıżālarıyla olmaduġı ẓāhir olur.5 Ḥattā vālid merḥūm ḥażretlerinden naḳl ider idi ki6 “Bizüm ḫāṭırımuza hergiz muḥārebe-vü-muḳābele7 iḥtimāli ḫuṭūr itmezdi. Hemān murādımuz bir kerre merḥūm atamuz ḥażretlerine mülāḳāt idüb baʿżı aḥvāl8 söyleşmekden özge9 degildi.10 Ve11 vüzerā menʿ itdükçe12 “Niçün bizi13 | mülāḳātdan menʿ iderler”14 deyü ḫaber gönderür idük. “Ḳānūn degildür mülāḳāt murād olsa atañuz sizi daʿvet eyler-idi daʿvetsüz mülāḳāta rıżā-yı pādişāhī yoḳdur” deyü15 defʿ cevābın16 gönderürler-idi. İttifāḳā bu es̱nāda ḫaberümüz yoġ-iken bizüm ṭāyifeden biri ile dögüş vāḳıʿ olub ġavġā büyümiş bir mertebeye varmış ki17 arada ādem düşmiş hemān18 fitne ḳopmış bir ürkündi oldı.19 Atlan atlan20 olub ʿasker ayaġa gelüb ḳīl-ü-ḳāl21 ḳatl-ü-ḳıtāl şekline müʾeddī oldı. Gördük ki22 fitne ġubārı | baṣılmakdan ḳaldı23 ol mertebeden-ṣoñra biz daḫi süvār

1 + taʿālā A, E, T] 2 virmegi recā eylemiş B] virmege saʿy itmiş T] 3 buyurdılar E] 4 ḥażretleri E] 5 evvelā ṣabr ve s̱āniyā tevekkül ve s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet-ü-vaḳār ve rābiʿā ʿāḳıbet-endīşlik ve ḫāmisā riʿāyet-i nām-ü-nāmūs-ı salṭanat ve sādisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet ve sābiʿā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet ve s̱āminā şecāʿat-ü-şehāmet ve tāsiʿā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset ve ʿāşirā ataları ile vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyye rıżālarıyla olmaduġı ẓāhir olur B] evvelā ṣabr s̱āniyā tevekkül s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet-ü-vaḳār rābiʿā ʿāḳıbet-endīşlik ḫāmisā riʿāyet-i nām-ü-nāmūs sādisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet sābiʿā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet s̱āminā şecāʿat-ü-şehāmet tāsiʿā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset ʿāşirā ataları ile vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyyeye rıżāları olmaduġı ẓāhir olur A] evvelā ṣabr s̱āniyā tevekkül s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet-i vaḳār rābiʿā ʿāḳıbet-endīşlik ḫāmisā riʿāyet-i nām-ı salṭanat ve sādisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet ve sābiʿā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet ve s̱āminā şecāʿat-i şehāmet ve tāsiʿā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset ʿāşirā ataları ile vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyyeye rıżāları olmaduġı ẓāhir olur E] evvelā ṣabr s̱āniyā tevekkül s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet-ü-vaḳār rābiʿā ʿāḳıbet-endīşlik ḫāmisā riʿāyet-i nām-ü-nāmūs sādisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet sābiʿā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet s̱āminā şecāʿat-ü-şehāmet tāsiʿā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset ʿāşirā ataları ile vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyye rıżālarıyla olmaduġı ẓāhir olur H] evvelā ṣabr s̱āniyā tevekkül s̱ālis̱ā ʿuluvv-i himmet-ü-vaḳār rābiʿā riʿāyeti nām-ü-nāmūs-ı salṭanat ḫāmisā muḥāfaẓa-i raʿiyyet sādisā ḫulūṣ-ı niyyet ve sābiʿā şecāʿat-üşehāmet s̱āminā ḥüsn-i tedbīr-ü-ferāset tāsiʿā atalarıyla vāḳiʿ olan muḳābele-i ġayr-ı iḫtiyāriyye rıżālarıyla olmaduġı ẓāhir olur T] 6 vālid merḥūm ḥażretlerinden naḳl ider idi ki B] vālid merḥūm ḥażretlerinden naḳl ider idi A] merḥūm vālid ḥażretleri naḳl ider idi ki T] merḥūm vālid ḥażretlerinden naḳl ider idi ki V] 7 muḳātele A, H] 8 aḥvāli H] 9 başḳa T] 10 degildür E] 11 – ve A, H] 12 itdüklerince T] 13 – – bizi A] 14 iderler-idi A] 15 + menʿ ve E] 16 defʿ cevābın B] cevāb-ı defʿi T] 17 – ki E] 18 tamām E] 19 + berā A] + yire E] – oldı H] 20 atlan atlan B] atlan A, E] atlanan atlananuñ H, V] 21 + ve H] 22 – ki A, E] 23 ḳalub E]

Selīmnāme in Transcription

33

olduḳ.1 Ve muḳātele mevḳıfında2 vuḳūfı iḫtiyār itmeyüb3 baġīden4 perhīz idüb mürācaʿat eyledük” deyü buyurdılardı dirdi.5 Ḥikāyet6 ⟨3⟩ Ceddimüz Ḥāfıẓ Muḥammed ki ʿAcem pādişāhlarınuñ güzīdesi olan Yaʿḳūb7 Pādişāhuñ mürebbāsı8 ve maḳbūl-ü-maḫṣūṣ9 ḥāfıẓı olub ṣoñra10 Sulṭān Yaʿḳūb vefāt idüb Rüstem Pādişāh tāze11 pādişāh olub dedemüzi ḥaremine alub mezīd-i iltifāt-ile riʿāyet idüb ṣoñra Rüstem Pādişāh daḫi vefāt idüb12 şāhzādeler fetreti13 olmaġıla14 | Şāh İsmāʿīl yanına atası15 aḥbābı derilüb ḫurūc idüb mirāren16 muḥārebelerden ṣoñra ṣāḥib-ḫurūc istīlā idüb ʿAcem şāhligi İsmāʿīle ḳarār bulıcaḳ17 merḥūm Sulṭān Selīm18—ʿalayhi’r-riḍwān19 min {allāh}i’l-karīm—ʿazm-i pürḫāş-ı Ḳızılbaş ile vilāyet-i ʿAceme āheng itdüklerini istimāʿ itdükde Tebrīzde Mevlānā Kemālü’d-dīn Erdebīlī—ʿalayhi’r-raḥma20— ḫıdmetlerine varub vālidi bile iletmiş ve duʿā recā idüb istimdād eylemiş. Vālid rivāyet ider ki “Namāz-ı ʿaṣrı şeyḫ ile edā itdük.21 Tilāvet-i sūre-i ʿamme | olınduḳda şeyḫ didi “Ḥaḳ22 taʿālā sizi ve evlāduñuzı ḥāfıẓ ola.23 Nite-kim24 siz kelām-ı Ḥaḳḳı—ka-mā unzila25—ḥāfıẓsız.” Vālid eydür “Atam şeyḫe didi ki “Sulṭān-ı Rūm bu cānibe ḳudūm üzre derler. Meʾāl-i26 ḥāl neye müncer olmaḳ görinür?”27 Şeyḫ ḥażreti28 didi29 ki30 “Īn mard ki31 mī-āyad be-khodī-ye khod namī-āyad. Maʾmūr-ast be-āmadan. Barāy-e taʾdīb-i īn bad-bakht mī-āyad. Arvāḥ bā-ū-yand khod ham ṣāḥib-rutba ast.”32 Yaʿnī33 “Bu er ki gelür gendi34 gendiliginden gelmez. Meʾmūrdur gelmeklige.35 Bu bed-baḫtı teʾdīb itmek içün cānib-i Ḥaḳdan gelür ervāḥ anuñladur.36 | Gendi daḫi rütbe-vü-maḳām ṣāḥibidür” didi. Atam didi ki “Teʾdīb içün {gelür} diyü37 buyurdıġıñuzdan38 fehm olınur ki helāk olmaya.” Şeyḫ didi39 ki “Allāhu aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad.

1 olub E]

2 muḳātele mevḳıfında B] muḳābele mevḳıfında H] muḳābele mevḳiʿinde T] 3 itmedük E] eylemeyüb T] 4 buġādan A] be-ġāyet H] 5 – dirdi H] 6 – ḥikāyet E] 7 + Çelebī E] 8 aḳrabāsı T] 9 maḫfūẓı ve H] 10 – ṣoñra T] 11 Rüstem Pādişāh tāze B] Rüstem A, E, H] 12 – ṣoñra Rüstem Pādişāh daḫi vefāt idüb E] 13 ḫırda T] 14 olub A, E, H] 15 – atası A] 16 ve hezār A, E] 17 İsmāʿīle ḳarār bulıcaḳ B] ḳarār bulıcaḳ T] İsmāʿīle ḳarār idüb öyle olıcaḳ V] 18 + Ḫān H, T] 19 ʿalayhi’r-riḍwān B] ʿalayhi’r-raḥmatu’r-riḍwān H] ʿalayhi’rraḥmatu wa’l-ghufrān T] 20 ʿalayhi’r-raḥma B]ʿalayhi’r-raḥmatu’l-ghanī A, E] – ʿalayhi’r-raḥma T] 21 itdükde A, E, H] 22 tilāvet-i sūre-i ʿamme olınduḳda şeyḫ didi Ḥaḳ B] sūre-i ʿamme tilāvet olınub şeyḫ didi Ḥaḳ A] sūre-i ʿamme tilāvet olınub şeyḫ didi ki Ḥaḳ E] tilāvet-i sūre-i ʿamme olındub şeyḫ didi ki Ḥaḳ H] tilāvet-i sūre-i ʿamme olınduḳda şeyḫ didi Ḥaḳ sübḥānehu ve V] 23 ide A, E, H] 24 kim E] nite-ki V] 25 anzal [sic] B] 26 – meʾāl T] 27 olmaḳ görinür B] olur āyā diyicek E] olur görinüb H] olmada görinür T] 28 ḥażretleri A, E, H] 29 buyurdı E] 30 – görinür şeyḫ ḥażreti didi ki T] 31 – īn mard ki E] 32 – arvāḥ bā-ū-yand khod ham ṣāḥib-rutba ast E] 33 tercüme T] 34 – gendi E, H] 35 meʾmūrdur gelmeklige B] meʾmūrdur gelmege A] meʾmūrdur ki gelmege E] meʾmūrdur gelmege H] meʾmūrdur gelmekle V] 36 anladur V] 37 – diyü E] 38 buyurdıġıñuz kelāmdan V] 39 buyurdı V]

9a

9b

10a

34

10b

11a

11b

12a

Selīmnāme in Transcription

Ammā az miyān jān be-dar mī-barad.”1 Ṣoñra ki merḥūm ḥażretleri Çāldırānda ihlāk-ı2 gürūh-ı3 nā-pāk idüb şāh-ı gümrāh cemʿ-i ḳalīl ile ḳaçdı Tebrīze gelüb4 erbāb-ı kemāli riʿāyete teveccüh idüb ehl-i hüneri daʿvet itdiler. Ceddimüz ḳullarını5 meger şehzāde iken vaṣfın işidürler imiş. İḥżār idüb ḳırāʾatin6 ve ḥüsn-i edā ve ṣavtın ve naġme-i dāvudīden behre-i | tāmmın müşāhede idicek “Ḥāfıẓ Muḥammed-i Yaʿḳūbı işidür idük Sulṭān Yaʿḳūb mürebbāsı.7 Bu ol mıdur yoḳsa ol8 geçmiş midür?” diyü suʾāl itdükde ol idügi ẓāhir olıcaḳ meyl-ü-iltifātları ziyāde olub riʿāyet-i külliyye ile9 bu diyār-ı celīlü’l-iʿtibāra getürüb ṣoñra vālid ḳullarını10 bendegān-ı ḥarem-i ḫāṣṣ zümresine ilḥāḳ11 idüb şeref-i ḳurb12 ve devlet-i ḫiṭāblariyle ser-firāz13 itdüklerinde bir gün Ḳızılbaş seferinde cereyān iden aḥvāli14 ḥikāyet buyururken dimişler ki15 “Biz bir cānibe sefer itmedük ki16 mücerred reʾy-ü-tedbīrimüz ile ola. | Meʾmūr olmadın bir ṭarafa teveccüh itmiş degülüz.” Vālid eydür “Ben daḫi Mevlānā Kemāle’d-dīn Erdebīlīden17 işitdügüm kelāmı naḳl eyledüm. Taṣdīḳ idüb buyurdılar ki “Mevlānā Kemālü’ddīn ne ṣaffetlü ʿazīz idi!” Didüm18 ki “Mevlānā19 Celāle’d-dīn Devānīnüñ ʿilmi ẓāhirde āʿẓam-u-āʿlem20 telāmiẕesi21 olub tekmīl-i ʿulūm-ı ẓāhire itdükden ṣoñra dervīşlige meyl idüb ṭarīḳ-i taṣavvufa sālik ve fenā mertebesine mālik olub muʿteḳad[ı]22 ṣaġīr-ü-kebīr ve muḥibbi kes̱īr oldı. {Dāyimā}23 günc-i ʿibādetde cālis ve ṭāʿāta müdāvemetle tefsīr | ve ḥadīs̱e muʾānis24 idi. Esbābdan25 nesne ḳomayub ancaḳ26 bir Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍīsi ve bir Ḥadīs̱-i Buḫārīsi var idi. Gūşe-i ʿibādetden çıḳmazdı. ʿUlemā arasında bir mesʾelede şübhe vāḳiʿ olub ḥallinden ʿāciz olsalar anlara ʿarż olunduḳda bir iki kelime27 ile ḥall eyler idi.” Ḥikāyet28 ⟨4⟩ Vālid dir-idi ki “Merḥūm pādişāh-ı cennet-mekānuñ29 ʿādetleri bu idi ki eks̱er leyālīde müṭālaʿa-i kitāb ile eglenüb ḫvāb itmezler-idi. Gāhī bu bendelerine oḳıdub istimāʿ iderler-idi. Gāh aḥvāl-i ʿāleme müteʿalliḳ kelimāt30 buyururlar-idi. Bir gice | nevm ġalebe idüb mizācumda daḫi fütūr olmaġın yataġuma varub ḫvāba varmışam. Ṣabāḥa dek uyumışam.31 Ve birḳaç gice bī1 Allāhu aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad ammā az miyān jān be-dar mī-barad B] Allāhu taʿālā aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad ammā az miyān jān be-dar mī-barad A] Allāhu aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad ammā mīrān-e miyān jān be-dar mī-barad E] Allāhu taʿālā aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad ammā az miyān jān be-dar mī-barad H] Allāhu aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya na-shavad ammā jān az miyān be-dar mī-barad T] Allāhu taʿālā aʿlam hazīmat-i kulliya mī-shavad ammā az miyān jān be-dar mī-barad V] 2 helāk T] 3 – gürūh E] 4 Tebrīze gelüb B] Tebrīzde E] 5 ḳulları E] 6 ḳırāʾatde T] 7 abāsı T] 8 – ol V] 9 idüb A, E, H] 10 ḳulları V] 11 idḥāl H] 12 şeref-i ḳurb B] şeref-ü-ġarb E] 13 ser-efrāz E] 14 cereyān iden aḥvāli B] cereyān-ı aḥvāli V] 15 – ki E] 16 – ki H] 17 Erdebīlī ḥażretlerinden A, E, H] 18 didi H] 19 – Mevlānā H] 20 āʿlem-u-āʿẓam E] 21 telmiẕi E, H] 22 muʿteḳid [sic] B] 23 – – tamām B] 24 mūnis E] 25 + bir V] 26 – ancaḳ A, E, H] 27 kelām A, E, H] 28 – ḥikāyet E] 29 cennet-mekān H] 30 kelām A, E, H, T, V] 31 varmışam ṣabāḥa dek uyumışam B] varmışam H] varmışdım ṣabāḥa degin uyumışam T]

Selīmnāme in Transcription

35

ḫvāb olmaġıla ġaflet baṣub vaḳt-i fecrde bīdār olub edā-i ṣalāt-ı ṣubḥdan ṣoñra ḫıdmet-i ʿaliyyelerine şitāb itdüm. “Bu gice görünmedüñ ne ʿamelde idüñ?” deyü suʿāl buyurdılar. “Birḳaç gice bīdār olmaġıla bu gice ġaflet ġalebe idüb ḫıdmetden maḥrūm olmışam” deyü cevāb virüb1 iʿtiẕār itdüm. Buyurdılar ki “İmdi ne düş gördüñ beyān eyle.” “ʿArża ḳābil bir düş görmedüm” deyü cevāb virdüm. Buyurdılar ki2 | “Bu ne sözdür? Bir giceyi3 bi’t-temām nevm-ile geçüresin daḫi vāḳıʿa görmeyesin. Be-her ḥāl görilmişdür” deyü buyurdılar. Āḫar vādīden bir miḳdār kelimātdan4 ṣoñra girü5 tekrār buyurdılar ki “ʿAbes̱ söyleme. Be-her ḥāl bu gice bir vāḳıʿa görilmişdür. Söyle ketm eyleme.” Ben daḫi6 her çend ki7 fikr itdüm ḫāṭıruma nesne gelmedi ki görmiş olam.8 Yemīn itdüm ki “Bir eme yarar nesne görmedüm.” Mübārek başların ṣalub “Ne ʿaceb” deyü buyurdılar. Baña taʿaccüb geldi ve bu tekrār be-tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi nedür9 ola deyü müteḥayyir oldum. Bir laḥẓadan ṣoñra ḳapu | aġası oturduġı ḳapuya bir10 maṣlaḥat içün bu bendelerin11 gönderdiler. Vardum gördüm ḫazīnedār-başı Muḥammed Aġa ki12 ṣoñra13 baʿż-ı töhmet sebebiyle ḳatl olunmışdur ve aramuzda uḫuvvet ʿaḳdi var idi14 oturur. Kilārcı-başı ve sarāy aġası daḫi ʿādetleri üzre oturub söyleşürler. Ammā ḳapu aġası15 Ḥasan Aġa mütefekkir16 müteḥayyir başın17 aşaġı ṣalmış gözi yaşlı oturur.18 Egerçi ṣamt19-ü-sükūtı ġālib ṣāliḥ müteheccid kimesne idi ammā20 bu ḥāli evvelki aḥvāline21 uymaz görüldükde22 ẓann itdüm ki bir kimesnesi | vefāt itmiş ola. “Aġa ḥażretleri ḳalbiñüz ġamnāk ve çeşmiñüz nemnāk görilür {sebebi}23 ne ola?” denildükde “Ḫayr nesne yoḳdur” deyü ketm eyledi. Ḫazīnedār-başı didi ki “Ḳardaş aġaya24 bu gice bir vāḳıʿa olmış25 daḫi ol ḫvābuñ ser-mestidür.” Ben daḫi eyitdüm “Lillāh-i taʿālā26 ḫaber virüñ ki devletlü pādişāh elbette vāḳıʿa görmişsin söyle deyü {bu}27 bendelerin ʿāciz itdiler. Be-her ḥāl iḳdām-u-ibrāmları bī-aṣl28 degüldür. Eyü armaġāndur. Ḥikāyet29 eyleñ” didüm.30 Aġaya ibrām itdük ki31 “Elbette ruʾyāyı beyān

1 – virüb T] 2 – ki A, E, H] 3 bir giceyi B] bu giceyi A, H] ki bu gice E] 4 kelimāt itdükden T] 5 – girü A, E, H] 6 – daḫi T] 7 – ki V] 8 olan E] 9 baña taʿaccüb geldi ve bu tekrār be-tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi nedür B] baña taʿaccüb geldi tekrār be-tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi nedür A] baña taʿaccüb geldi ve bu tekrār be-tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi nedür E] baña da taʿaccüb geldi tekrār be-tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi nedür H] baña ʿaceb geldi ve bu tekrār tekrār suʾālüñ sebebi ne T] baña taʿaccüb geldi ve bu tekrār be-tekrār suʾāl itmege sebeb nedür V] 10 – bir T] 11 bendelerini A, E, H] 12 kim E] 13 ṣoñradan; – – dan B] 14 + gördüm V] 15 – daḫi ʿādetleri üzre oturub söyleşürler ammā ḳapu aġası A, E, H] 16 + ve A, E, H] 17 baş A] 18 gözi yaşlı oturur B] gözi yaşlı otururlar A, E] gözi yaş-ile oturur T] 19 ṣumt [sic] B] 20 – egerçi ṣamt-ü-sükūtı ġālib ṣāliḥ müteheccid kimesne idi ammā T] 21 ḥāline A, E, H, T] 22 gördükde E] gördügümde V] 23 – sebebi A, E, H] ʿacabā V] 24 aġa A, E, H, T] 25 görmiş A, E, H, T] 26 Lillāh-i taʿālā B] Allāh taʿālā ḥażretleri ḫayrlar müyesser ide A, E] Allāh taʿālā ḫayrlar müyesser ide H] 27 – bu A, E] 28 iḳdām-u-ibrāmları bī-aṣl B] ibrām-u-iḳdāmları bī-aṣl A, H] ibrām-u-iḳdāmları bī-ḥāṣıl E] 29 – ḥikāyet E] 30 + ve T] 31 – ki A, E, H, T]

12b

13a

13b

36 14a

14b

15a*

Selīmnāme in Transcription

eyleñüz.”1 Aġa-yise beyāndan ḳaçınub2 iẓhār-ı3 ḥicāb idüb “Benüm gibi4 | yüzi ḳara günahkāruñ ne ruʾyāsı ola ki pādişāh maḥżarında taḳrīr5 olunmalı ola? Kerem idüñ baña bu6 teklīfi etmeñ” deyü ẕikrden7 ibā ider biz8 ibrām itdükce aġa bir ḥayāsı ġālib ādem olmaġıla “Kerem eyleñ vāz gelüñ” deyü yalvarurdı. Āḫir Muḥammed Aġa didi “Nice9 söylemezsin ki? Bize10 taḳrīr itdigüñde meʾmūr olduġuñı naḳl itdüñ. Ketmi11 ḫıyānet olmaz mı?” diyicek nā-çār sırr-ı nühüftesi12 mührin açar ve dir ki “Bu gice gördüm ki13 bu eşiginde oturduġumuz ḳapuyı ʿacele14-vü-şitāb ile daḳḳ itdiler. “Ne ḫaber var”15 | deyü ilerü vardum. Gördüm16 ki ḳapu bir cüzʾīce açılmış ol deñlü ki17 ṭaşrası görinür ammā ādem ṣıġmaz. Nigāh itdüm gördüm ki ṭaş18 ḥarem ṭaylasānlı ʿArab sīmāsında19 nūrānī eşḫāṣ-ile20 memlū elleri bayraḳlı ve müsellaḥ ve mükemmel olub ṭururlar. Ve ḳapu dibinde dört nūrānī kimesne ṭurur.21 Ellerinde birer sancaḳ22 var. Daḳḳ-ı bāb idenüñ elinde pādişāhuñ aḳ sancaġı.23 Baña eydür ki “Bilür misin neye gelmişüz?” Ben daḫi “Buyuruñ” direm.24 Didi ki “Bu25 gördigüñ eşḫāṣ aṣḥāb-ı Resūlu’llāhdur26—ṣalawātu’llāhi ʿalayhi wa-salāmuhu27—Bizi ḥażret-i Resūlu’llāh28 | gönderüb Selīm Ḫāna selām itdi ve buyurdı29 ki “Ḳalḳub gelsün ki30 Ḥaremeyn ḫıdmeti aña buyurıldı.” Ve bu dört kimesne ki görürsin bu31 Ṣıddīḳ-i Aʿẓam32 ve bu ʿÖmer-i Fārūḳ33 ve bu ʿOs̱mān-ı ẕī’n-nūreyndür. Ve ben ki senüñ ile tekellüm eylerem34 ʿAlī bin Ebī Ṭālibem.35 Var Selīm Ḫāna şöyle36 söyle” didi. Ve naẓarumdan ġāyib oldılar. Baña dehşet ġalebe idüb ġaşy 1 eyle didik E] 2 ḳaçub A, E] 3 iẓhārdan A, E, H] 4 + bir E] 5 ola ki pādişāh maḥżarında taḳrīr B] ola pādişāh ḥużūrunda taḳrīr A] olsa pādişāh ḥażretlerine E] ola ki pādişāh ḥużūrunda taḳrīr H] 6 baña bu B] bunı E] 7 + ḳaçub E] 8 ben H] 9 Aġa didi nice B] Aġa niçün A, E, H] Aġa didi niçün T] 10 baña T] 11 şimdi T] 12 nihüftesinüñ T] 13 – ki E] 14 + ile E] 15 vardur E] 16 – gördüm H] 17 – ki A, E, H] 18 ṭaşra A, E, T] ṭaş H, V] (The original phrase in B reads ṭaş ḥarem, which a later hand appears to have attempted to change to ṭaşra-vü-ḥarem. Since the modification is somewhat illegible and the additional word ve is not included in any other Selīmnāme manuscript, the phrase is rendered here as ṭaş ḥarem to reflect the intention of the original scribe.) 19 ʿArab sīmāsında B] ʿArab şeklünde A, E] ʿArab şeklinde sīmāsında H] 20 – ile E] 21 kimesne ṭurur B] kimesneler ṭururlar A] kimesneler ṭururlar (+) ve ḳapu dibinde dört nūrānī kimesneler ṭururlar E] kimesne ṭururlar H] 22 sancaḳları V] 23 + var V] 24 didim A, E, H, T, V] 25 (+) bu; – – bu B] 26 eşḫāṣ aṣḥāb-ı Resūlu’llāhdur B] aṣḥāb-ı Resūlu’llāhdur A, E] eşḫāṣ aṣḥāb-ı Resūlu’llāh H] 27 ṣalawātu’llāhi ʿalayhi wa salāmuhu B] salawāt wa salam alayhi A] wa salāmuhu ʿalayhi E, V] salawātu’llāhi taʿālā alayhi wa sallam—ḥażretleridir H] salāmuhu ʿalayhi T] * + + qum bismi’llāhi’r-raḥmani’r-raḥīm bismi’llāhi’r-raḥmani’r-raḥīm sal[am] B] (This folio includes the mention of the four “rightly guided” caliphs, or the rāshidūn. This particular marginal note appears to have been added by the hand of a later reader or owner of the manuscript, who deemed the recitation of a prayer necessary and/or appropriate where the caliphs are mentioned.) 28 Resūl—alayhi’s-salām A] 29 itdi ve buyurdı B] itdi ve buyurdılar A] eyler diyü buyurdılar E] 30 – ki T] 31 + Ebū Bekr T] 32 Aʿẓamdur E] 33 Fārūḳdur E] 34 iderem A, E] 35 ʿAlī bin Ebī Ṭālibem B] ʿAlī bin Ebī Ṭālibem—riḍwānu’llāhi taʿālā ʿalayhim ajmaʿīn A] ʿAlī bin Ebū Ṭālibem—riḍwānu’llāhi ʿalayhim ajmaʿīn E] ʿAlī ibn Ebī Ṭālibem T] 36 – şöyle A, H]

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

87

88

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

89

90

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

91

92

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

93

94

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

95

96

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

97

98

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

99

100

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

101

102

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

103

104

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

105

106

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

107

108

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

109

110

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

111

112

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

113

114

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

115

116

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

117

118

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

119

120

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

121

122

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

123

124

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

125

126

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

127

128

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

129

130

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

131

132

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

133

134

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

135

136

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

137

138

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

139

140

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

141

142

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

143

144

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

145

146

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

147

148

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

149

150

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

151

152

Selīmnāme in Facsimile

Works Cited Institutional Abbreviations BnF iük nk sk

Bibliothèque nationale de France İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi (Istanbul University Library) Nuruosmaniye Kütüphanesi (Nuruosmaniye Library) Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi (Süleymaniye Library)

Abbreviations of Journals and Encyclopaedias aüifd bsoas dia ei2 ia td ted

Ankara Üniversitesi İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. İslâm Ansiklopedisi İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi

Abbreviations of Selīmnāme mss A B E H T V

Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Atıf Efendi 1845 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Diez A, Oct. 79 Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi 2147 Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, Hamidiye 898 Istanbul, Istanbul University Library, Türkçe Yazmalar 639 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod.H.O.59

Abbreviations of Modern-Era Publications of Selīmnāme P

tt

Saʿdeddīn [Ḫoca Efendi]. Tācü’t-tevārīḫ. Edited and transcribed by İsmet Parmaksızoğlu. In Tacü’t-tevarih, vol. 4, 122–142. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 1979. [Simplified modern Turkish edition] Saʿdeddīn [Ḫoca Efendi], Selīmnāme, in Tācü’t-tevārīḫ, vol. 2, 602–619. Istanbul: Ṭabʿḫāne-i ʿĀmire, 1280/1863. [Late 19th-century Arabic-script print edition]

154 U

works cited Uğur, Ahmet. “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Selim-namesi.” İslâm İlimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi iv (1980): 225–241. [Transcribed text with brief introductory note]

Sources Kātib Çelebi [Ḫācī Ḫalīfe Muṣṭafā b. ʿAbdullāh]. Kashf al-ẓunūn ʿan asāmī al-kutūb wa al-funūn. Edited and translated by Rüştü Balcı as Keşfü’z-zunûn: An Esâmi’lKütübi ve’l-Fünûn (Kitapların ve İlimlerin İsimlerinden Şüphelerin Giderilmesi). Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2007. Müstaḳīmzāde Süleymān Saʿdeddīn. Risāle-i Tāciyye. Critical edition with facsimile by Helga Anetshofer and Hakan Karateke as Traktat über die Derwischmützen (Risāle-i tāciyye) des Müstaqīm-zāde Süleymān Sa‘deddīn (st. 1788). Leiden: Brill, 2001. Saʿdeddīn [Ḫoca Efendi]. Tācü’t-tevārīḫ. 2 vols. Istanbul: Ṭabʿḫāne-i ʿĀmire, 1279–1280/ 1862–1863. Selānikī [Muṣṭafā Efendi]. Tārīḫ-i Selānikī. Edited and transcribed by Mehmed İpşirli. In Tarih-i Selânikî. 2 vols. Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi, 1989.

Studies Aktepe, Münir. “Hoca Sa’deddin Efendi’nin Tâcü’t-tevarih’i ve Bunun Zeyli Hakkında.” Türkiyat Mecmuası 13 (1958): 101–116. Akyüz, Elif. “Şeyhülislâm Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi’nin Fetva Mecmuası (Kerâhiye ve İstihsan Örneği).” Master’s thesis, Marmara University, 2019. Andrews, Walter G. and Mehmet Kalpaklı. “Toward a Meclis-Centered Reading of Ottoman Poetry.” Journal of Turkish Studies 33, no. 1, (2009): 309–318. Ateş, Ahmet. “Selim-nâmeler.” PhD diss., Istanbul University, 1938. Babinger, Franz. Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke. Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1927. Brookshaw, Dominic. “Palaces, Pavilions and Pleasure-gardens: The Context and Setting of the Medieval Majlis.” Middle Eastern Literatures 6, no. 2 (2003): 199– 223. Burke, Peter. “Presenting and Re-presenting Charles v.” In Charles v 1500–1558 and His Time, edited by Hugo Soly, 393–475. Antwerp: Mercatorfonds, 1999. Çıpa, H. Erdem. “The Centrality of the Periphery: The Rise to Power of Selīm i, 1487– 1512.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007. Çıpa, H. Erdem. The Making of Selim: Succession, Legitimacy, and Memory in the Early Modern Ottoman World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2017.

works cited

155

Daș, Abdurrahman. “Hoca Saadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı ve Eserleri.” Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (2003): 165–207. Daș, Abdurrahman. “Osmanlılarda Münşeât Geleneği, Hoca Sadeddin Efendi’nin Hayatı, Eserleri ve Münşeâtı.” PhD diss., Ankara University, 2003. Eliaçık, Muhittin. “Şeyhülislam Hoca Sadeddîn Efendi ve Manzum Fetvâları.” Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 1, no. 1 (2013): 276–285. Fetvacı, Emine. Picturing History at the Ottoman Court. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013. Fleischer, Cornell. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Âli (1541–1600). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Flügel, Gustav. Die Arabischen, Persischen und Türkischen Handschriften der KaiserlichKöniglichen Hofbibliothek zu Wien. Vol. 2. Vienna: K.K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1865. Heinrichs, Wolfhart. “Dead Garments, Poor Nobles, and a Handsome Youth: Notes on a Poem by al-Sanawbari.” In Transforming Loss into Beauty: Essays on Arabic Literature and Culture in Honor of Magda Al-Nowaihi, edited by Marlé Hammond and Dana Sajdi, 45–78. Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2008. İpşirli, Mehmet. “Tâcüttevârîh’in Kaynakları Üzerine Bazı Tespitler.” td 71, no. 1 (2020): 181–196. Kurat, Akdes Nimet. “Hoca Sâdeddin Efendinin Türk-İngiliz Münasebetlerinin Tesisi ve Gelişmesindeki Rolü.” In 60. Doğum Yılı Münasebetiyle Fuad Köprülü Armağanı: Mélanges Fuad Köprülü, edited by Osman Turan, Hasan Eren, Emin Bilgiç and Kemal Edip Kürkçüoğlu, 305–316. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2010 [Originally published in Istanbul: Osman Yalçın Matbaası, 1953]. Layish, Aharon. “Waqfs and Ṣūfī Monasteries in the Ottoman Policy of Colonization: Sulṭān Selīm i’s Waqf of 1516 in Favour of Dayr al-Asad.” bsoas 50, no. 1 (1987): 61– 89. Levend, Agâh Sırrı. Ġazavāt-nāmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’in Ġazavāt-nāmesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956. Lokmacı, Süleyman. “Hoca Sadeddin Efendi’nin Tacü’t Tevârîh İsimli Eserinin Künhü’l Ahbâr, Solak-zâde Tarihi ve Nuhbetü’t Tevârîh’e Etkileri.” Belgü 3 (2016): 95–110. Maraş, İbrahim. “Tokatlı Molla Lütfi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Felsefesi.” Dîvân: İlmî Araştırmalar 14, no. 1 (2003): 119–136. Papas, Alexandre. “Individual Sanctity and Islamization in the Ṭabaqāt Books of Jāmī, Navāʾī, Lāmiʿī, and Some Others.” In Jāmī in Regional Contexts: The Reception of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī’s Works in the Islamicate World, ca. 9th/15th–14th/20th Century, edited by Thibaut d’Hubert and Alexandre Papas, 378–423. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

156

works cited

Pertsch, Wilhelm. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Vol. 6: Verzeichniss der Türkischen Handschriften. Berlin: A. Asher & Co., 1889. Pfeifer, Helen. “To Gather Together: Cultural Encounters in Sixteenth-century Ottoman Literary Salons.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2014. Rahman, Fazlur. “Dream, Imagination, and ʿĀlam al-mithāl.” In The Dream and Human Societies, edited by G.E. von Grunebaum and Roger Caillois, 409–419. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. Salur, Rabia. “Şeyhülislam Hoca Sâdeddin Efendi’nin Fetva Mecmuası ve Tahlili.” Master’s thesis, Sakarya University, 2019. Saraç, Yekta. Şeyhülislam Kemal Paşazade: Hayatı, Şahsiyeti, Eserleri ve Bazı Şiirleri. Istanbul: Risale, 1995. Severcan, Şefâettin. “Hoca Sadeddin Efendi ve Tarihçiliğimizdeki Yeri.” Erciyes Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 10, no. 8 (1992): 73–78. Steingass, Francis Joseph. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to be met with in Persian Literature. New Delhi, India: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2000. Stillman, Yedida Kalfon. Arab Dress: A Short History from the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Subtelny, Maria. “Scenes from the Literary Life of Tīmūrid Herāt.” In Logos Islamikos: Studia Islamica in Honorem Georgii Michaelis Wickens, edited by Roger M. Savory and Dionisius A. Agius, 137–155. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984. Tekindağ, Şehabettin. “Selim-nâmeler.” ted 1 (1970): 197–230. Türkiye’de Halk Ağzından Derleme Sözlüğü. 12 vols. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1975. Uğur, Ahmet. “Selim-nâmeler.” aüifd 22 (1978): 367–379. Uğur, Ahmet. Kemal Paşa-zade İbn-Kemal. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1996. Uluçay, Çağatay. “Yavuz Sultan Selim Nasıl Padişah Oldu?” td 9 (1954), 53–90; td 10 (1954), 117–142; td 11–12 (1955), 185–200. Ünver, A. Süheyl. İstanbul Rasathanesi. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1969. Woodhead, Christine. “An Experiment in Official Historiography: The Post of Şehnāmeci in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1555–1605.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 75 (1983): 157–182. Woodhead, Christine. “Reading Ottoman Şehnames: Official Historiography in the Late Sixteenth Century.” Studia Islamica 104–105 (2007): 67–80. Yılmaz, Mehmet Şakir. “Crime and Punishment in the Imperial Historiography of Süleyman the Magnificent: An Evaluation of Nişancı Celālzāde’s View.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 60, no. 4 (2007): 427–445.

Index Aḫī Çelebi 12, 14, 15, 65, 69, 70 Aḥmed (son of Bāyezīd ii) 7, 55 Aḥmed Pasha 7, 14, 54, 68–69 Ahyolu (Pomorie, Bulgaria) 7 Aleppo 67 ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib 9, 60 Anatolia 13, 67 Ardabil 8, 13–14n30, 57, 58 Ayyūb al-Anṣārī 16, 54, 71

Ḥasan Agha 9, 59, 61 Ḥasan Cān Çelebi 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 53, 54, 56, 57–58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70 historiography 1, 5, 8, 15, 20 House of ʿOs̱mān 4, 16, 53, 63, 66, 72

Babinger, Franz 18–19 Bālī Pasha 6, 7, 53–54 Bāyezīd ii 7, 8, 14, 55, 68, 70 Bedouin 61n4

Menglī Girāy 7–8 Mehdī-i Gāv 14, 69 Mīrzā ʿAlī 14, 69 Muḥammad Badakhshī (Sheikh) 12–13, 65 Muṣṭafā ʿAlī 3, 17n36

Cairo 11, 12 Çaldıran 57 Circassians 62, 66 Çorlu 7, 8, 54 Damascus 11, 12, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 dreams 2, 9–10, 12–13, 17, 58–61, 65– 67 Ebu’ssuʿūd Efendi 2 Edirne 54, 72 Egri campaign 3 Egypt 13, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69 see also Cairo England 3 etiquette 13, 14, 69, 70 Eyyūb Gate 71 Ferhād Pasha 6, 7, 15, 54, 71 Firdawsī 6 Fużūlī 1, 21

Jalāladdīn Dawānī (Mawlānā) 9, 13–14n30, 58

Iran 6 Iskender Çelebi 15, 71 Ismāʿīl i 9, 56, 57 also Shāh Ismāʿīl Istanbul 2, 3, 13, 19, 54 Jalali rebels 54 al-Jazarī also Imām Jazarī al-Ḥiṣn al-ḥaṣīn min kalām sayyid almursalīn 11, 64, 65 Kamāladdīn of Ardabil (Sheikh) 8, 9, 13– 14n30, 57, 58 Kātib Çelebi 17n34 Kefe (Feodosia, Ukraine) 7 Kemālpaşazāde 13, 16, 67, 68, 72 also Ibn Kemāl Keşfī Tārīḫ-i Sulṭān Selīm Ḫān 19n43 Ḳorḳud (son of Bāyezīd ii) 7

Galata 4 Ḥadīs̱-i Buḫārī 58 Ḥāfiẓ also Khwāja Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad Ḥāfiẓ Dīwān-i Ḥāfiẓ 55n2, 62 Ḥakīm Shāh Muḥammad al-Qazvīnī 13–14, 68–69 Ḥalīmī Çelebi 10, 11, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67

Levend, Agâh Sırrı 18, 19 Loḳmān b. Ḥüseyin 3 Luṭfī (Ṭoḳādī, also Mollā Luṭfī) 13, 68 Mamluks 10 Meḥmed ii 3, 15, 70 Meḥmed iii 3, 17 Meḥmed Nādirī (Ġanīzāde) 3

158 Meḥmed Pasha (Soḳollu) 3–4 Mezö Kerésztés 3 miracles 2, 9, 10, 11–12, 16, 53, 61, 65, 72, 73 Muḥammed Agha 59 Muḥammad Iṣfāhānī (Ḥāfiẓ) 2, 8–9, 56, 57 Muḥyīüddīn Meḥmed (Nişāncızāde) 3 Murād iii 3, 4, 17n36 Müstaḳīmzāde Süleymān Saʿdeddīn Risāle-i tāciyye 60n3 Naʿīmā 3n8 also Muṣṭafā Naʿīmā Peçevī 3n8 also İbrāhīm Peçevī Persia 2, 4, 6, 8, 10n24, 13–14n30, 53, 56, 57, 68 Prophet Muḥammad 9, 53, 58, 60 Qizilbash 54, 57 Qurʾān 2, 13, 56, 57, 58, 62 Rāshidūn 9–10, 17, 60 also “rightly guided” caliphs Rhodes 16, 71, 72 Rumelia 7 Rüstem 56 Saʿdeddīn Efendi (Ḫoca) biography 2 career 2–4, 8

index literary works 4–5 Selīmnāme 6–21 audience for 17 as historiography 8 informants 6–7 manuscripts of 18–21 Tācü’t-tevārīḫ 4, 18, 19, 20 Safavid 7 saints 10–11, 13, 17, 61, 62–65 Şemseddīn (Mevlānā, also Şemseddīn Ḫalīfe) 10–11, 62, 63–64, 65, 67, 73 Selīmnāme genre 5–6 Sinān Pasha 3n8 Süleymān i 2, 10, 13, 15, 71, 72 Tabriz 2, 8, 57 Taḳīüddīn Efendi 4 Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf 10, 62, 64 also Tārīḫ-i Vaṣṣāf Tatars 8, 54–56 Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍiyye 58 Tekindağ, Şehabettin 18, 19 Tevārīḫ-i ʿOs̱māniyye 61 Ṭoḳād 68 Trabzon 54 Uġraş 7, 54 Uğur, Ahmet 20 Yaʿḳūb 56, 57