huseyin yilmaz

This study introduces a critical edition of two early Ottoman chronicles, Histories of Ottoman Sultans and the History of Mehmed b. Murad Han of the House of Osman, both composed by Chancellor and Grand Vizier Karamani Mehmed Paşa (d. 1481). Because the latter text chronologically follows the former, the two histories may well be considered as two sections of the same work. However, we have treated them as separate works in this study for they appear separately in the two extant copies where Histories of the Ottoman Sultans appears to be written as a prelude to the History of Mehmed. 1 In reconstructing the text, we have taken the Ayasofya copy as the principle text and compared it to the one in Aşir Efendi's collection, mainly by pointing out the orthographic differences between the two. The Ayasofya copy bears the seal of Bayezid II's imperial library with reference notes from Atufi (d. 1541) for the library inventory. None of the works bear a title in the text. Atufi's inventory entry for these works seem to be descriptive titles rather than the ones given by the author.

This paper examines Mahmud Dede’s Sevakib-i Menakib, a Turkish translation of Abdülvehhab b. Mehmed el-Hemedani’s abridgement of Aflaki’s Manakib al-Arifin, completed in 1590 and dedicated to Murad III. The manuscript contains twenty nine illustrations representing critical points from Rumi’s life that highlight his teachings, legacy and admonitions. The Mevleviye had a troubled relationship with the Ottomans for more than a century until they formally set foot on Ottoman territories during the reign of Murad II. Soon after, this Sufi brotherhood gradually turned into the patron sainthood of the Ottoman dynasty but, at the same time, faced increasing completion from other mystical orders as well as certain sections of the ulema establishment who were critical of their innovative rituals. The text, although a hagiography of a saint, is reminiscent of epic accounts of Ottoman sultans that became popular in the sixteenth century. The work not only rehabilitates Rumi’s image but also reiterates the political ideas evolved in the Mevlevi tradition and reconciles them with the broader imperial ideology of the time.

II. Mahmud (öl. 1839) ve II. Abdülhamid (öl. 1918) gibi ondokuzuncu yüzyılın yenilikçi ve otoriter sultanlarının yönetim tarzları dönemlerinin kritikçi entellektüellerince Osmanlı geleneği içinde birer anomali olarak algılanmıştır. Tanzimat döneminin meşrutiyetçi devlet adamı ve entellektüelleri anayasal reformları savunurken batı düşüncesi kadar Osmanlı siyaset ve hukuk geleneği içinde de destek bulmuşlardır. Teknik detaylarını ve anlayış farklılıklarını bir tarafa bırakırsak, en temelde devlet yönetimde keyfiliğe karşı hukukiliği, siyasi gücün tek elde toplanmasına karşı devleti oluşturan kurumlar arasında dağıtılmasını, ve yönetilenlerin siyasi sürece aktif olarak yeralmasını hedefleyen on dokuzuncu yüzyıl meşrutiyetçileri bu konularda uzun bir tarihi derinliğe ve tecrübeye sahiptiler. Bu anlamda son devrin Osmanlı meşrutiyetçileri kökenleri en azından on altıncı yüzyıla dek uzanan ve siyasi gücün kullanımının kurumsal ve hukuki esaslara bağlanması gerektiğini düşünen devlet adamı ve entellektüellerin oluşturduğu bir geleneğin de takipçileri olmuşlardır. II. Meşrutiyet’in Osmanlı tecrübesindeki yerel kökenlerini incelemek üzere bu çalışmanın ana konusu siyaset ve hukuk düşüncesi geleneğinin karmaşık tarihinde ortaya çıkan anayasal önemi haiz unsurların en sürekli ve belirleyicilerinden olan ideal devlet yapısına dair teorik öngörüler ve onu düzenlediği kabul edilen kanun anlayışıdır.

Kınalızade Ali Efendi even during his lifetime turned himself into a cultural icon among Ottoman intelligentsia and remained as such ever since. Even the over-critical Mustafa Ali was his admirer. Katip Çelebi praised him for having excelled all previous scholars in the field of ethics, a point which Kınalızade himself had stated as well. For ambassador Ebu Bekir Ratıb, Kınalızade was the first name that came to his mind when asked by Europeans whether there were Ottoman scholars who wrote on politics. But what made possible for Kınalızade to achieve such a popularity and, more importantly, what that meant for his contemporaries and later Ottoman elite? The answer to this question lies in the cultural manifestations of Ottoman identity of the time, best expressed in literary debates among poets. When cultural attitudes of Kınalızade’s generation examined we see that intellectuals, artists, and scholars tended to emphasize the distinctive qualities of being an Ottoman vis-à-vis previous and contemporary cultures. From poetry to architecture, Ottoman men of learning not only produced what they thought to be unique but also condemned imitation and displayed enthusiasm for originality in style and content. In this context, Kınalızade’s best known work, Ahlak-ı Alai was considered not only a distinctly Ottoman work of ethics but also an ideal expression of Ottoman accomplishments in language, morality, cultural formation and state building. In terms of its content, Ottoman intellectuals knew well that views on ethics and statecraft in Ahlak-ı Alai were not quite different than what has been said in previous works by al-Farabi, Ibn Miskawayh, al-Tusi, al-Davvani and Kashifi. But what made this work unique in the eyes of an Ottoman reader was its great synthesis of a diverse traditions of writings on ethics, its literary style and, perhaps more than anything else, its language. In this respect, it was widely recognized as the most sophisticated example of the still developing Turkish language, proving that the Turkish language was now at least as competent as Arabic and Persian as a medium of cultural expression in the highest quality. In poetry, by the sixteenth century, Ottoman poets had already thought that their language in poetry was no less artistic than any other. However, there was still no work to demonstrate this excellence of the Turkish language in prose. Ottoman intellectuals found, for all the right reasons, this much awaited cultural moment when Ahlak-ı Alai was composed and immediately embraced it as a representative text of their cultural identity.

The swift expansion of the Safavids into Caucasia and Irak caused a
sudden influx of learned men into Ottoman lands who fled the persecution of Sunnis by Safavid authorities. Due to their background in Sunni learning and piety as well their utility in intelligence against the Safavids these émigrés were often well-treated and granted high status in Ottoman service. Many of them quickly turned into anti-Safavid propagandists and avid apologists of the Ottoman dynasty. Their portrayal of the Safavids and Shiism deeply impacted Ottoman perceptions of this movement as an existential threat in terms of both political ideology and righteous faith. Among this contingent of learned men this study examines Hüseyin b. Abdullah el-Shirvani’s depiction of Sufism, Sunnism, and Shiism through a markedly eschatological and messianic idiom that ideologized the Ottoman-Safavid conflict. After fleeing his homeland, Shirvan, and taking refuge in Eastern Anatolia, he composed three treatises with the aim of presenting them to the reigning sultan, Suleiman I, around 1540’s. Besides fiercely criticizing Safavid Shiism, these texts were also some of the most detailed and informative accounts of Safavid popular beliefs and political theology to furnish Ottoman authorities with much needed ammunition in their ideological warfare.

Containing Sultanic Authority: Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire before Modernity
This study treats the advent of constitutionalist themes in the Ottoman Empire from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. Modern scholarship tend to attribute the origins of Ottoman constitutionalism to nineteenth century westernization through which European models and ideas were domesticated for structural changes in government. In traditional Ottoman historiography, including the very Ottoman observers themselves, the post-sixteenth century era was often criticizes as one of increased arbitrariness in government. In disagreement with these two positions, this study argues that the gradual transformation of the classical Ottoman system of the sixteenth century brought about new social formations, administrative structures, legal arrangements, and political principles of constitutional import. As a result, throughout the early modern period, the sultan’s political power gradually declined and countered by the power of newly arising groups that became part of the decision making process.

Sultan Otoritesini Sınırlandırmak: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Modernite Öncesi
Anayasacılık
Öz Bu çalışma Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda onaltıncı yüzyıldan onsekizinci yüzyıl sonlarına kadar anayasalcı temaların yükselişini incelemektedir. Modern çalışmalar
genellikle Osmanlı anayasalcılığının kökenlerini Avrupa kaynaklı model ve düşüncelerin yapısal siyasi değişimler yapmak amacıyla yerlileştirildiği ondokuzuncu yüzyılın batılılaşma sürecine atfetmektedirler. Geleneksel Osmanlı tarihçiliğinde ise onaltıncı yüzyıl sonrası dönemi bizzat Osmanlı gözlemcileri tarafından genellikle keyfiliğin yükselişi olarak eleştirilmiştir. Her iki görüşten de farklı olarak, bu çalışma onaltıncı yüzyıl klasik sisteminin dönüşümü sürecinde anayasal etkisi olan yeni sosyal dokuların, idari yapıların, hukuki düzenlemelerin, ve siyasi ilkelerin ortaya çıktığını göstermektir. Sonuç olarak, erken modern dönemde sultanın siyasi gücü giderek azalmış ve karar verme sürecine eklemlenen yeni aktörlerin gücüyle dengelenmiştir.

Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire before Westernization
This work argues that constitutional structures and ideas existed in the Ottoman Empire before the age of Westernization with no direct influence from the modern constitutionalism developed in Europe. Modern constitutionalism of the nineteenth century was thus as much a continuation of the existing constitutional traditions of the Ottoman experience in government as it was a result of Westernization. The paper examines the topic in three principal areas: First, military, financial and religious institutions that developed into autonomous structures and acted against each other as constitutional checks. Second, compactual agreements between the political authority and social groups such as Hüccet-i fier’iyye and Sened-i ‹ttifak. Third, political and social practices with constitutional import such as consultative assemblies (meclis-i meflveret) that turned into regular decision-making bodies.

Approaches to Pre-Tanzimat Political Thought in
Ottoman Historiography
The main objective of this essay is fourfold: a critical survey of studies on Ottoman political thought pertaining to the pre-Tanzimat period that came out in the past half century, an analysis of the main problems and shortcomings of this nascent field in the course of becoming a sub-discipline in Ottoman historiography, a discussion of the potential inherent in this field and ways of unearthing it, and making some preliminary observations on the general characteristics of Ottoman experience in the history of political thought. In pursuit of these goals, the article highlights major contributions in the field, stresses the indispensability of certain underrated sources of political thought, maps out the main themes that prevailed in scholarly studies, examines influencial methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives, and discusses conceptual issues for the study of Ottoman political thought in the pre-Tanzimat period. The purpose of this study is neither an exhaustive treatment of all related scholarly work, nor a thorough historiographical evaluation of the field but to discuss certain aspects of modern scholarship with respect to the subject material on the basis of a select number of published studies.

My thesis examines the formation of a uniquely Ottoman theory of rulership during the age of Suleiman the Lawgiver (1520-1566) through an extensive study of political treatises written in this period, most of which are in manuscript form and new to current scholarship.  My thesis shows that a paradigmatic transformation took place in political reasoning that in turn led to a new mode of political writing and an extensive reshuffling of political ideals, visions, symbols, and theories in this period that had a lasting impact on the way the Ottoman ruling elite viewed their ruler, government, and society.
The conventional perception of rulership as a continuation of the historical caliphate with the claim of presenting the sultan as the universal head of the Muslim community lost its appeal.  Instead, because of the permeation of Sufistic imageries into political theory, the caliphate was defined as a cosmic rank between Man and God, attained in the spiritual sphere.  The pursuit of moralism and piety in rulership that dominated the previous political theory gave way to legalism that evaluated governance by the ruler’s observation of laws rather than his moral behavior.  In this approach, the observance of customs, religious code, and sultanic laws became the touchstone for measuring the quality of government that was previously gauged on the basis of the sultan’s piety. 
The focus of political analysis shifted from the personality of the ruler to the existing government, its institutions, and procedural practices.  In contrast to previous conceptions that reigned supreme in political theory, in the new paradigm, the grand vizier replaced the sultan as the center of government.  The sultan was then conceived to be a distant but a legitimating figure for the dynasty while the grand vizier was promoted to the position of actual ruler in the Ottoman state.  Consequently, relatively divorced from the moralistic, idealistic, personality-oriented, and sultan-centric paradigm in political reasoning, this realist and empirical approach to the question of rulership promoted such ideas as ‘government by law’ and ‘institutional continuity of the state’ as primary objectives of rulership.