Chapter 9 Ottoman Historical Writing Baki Tezcan The oldest extant literary sources on the formative period of the Octoman Empire are in Arabic, Greek, and Persian, and are products of Mamluk, late Byzantine, and medieval Anatolian historiography. The carliest extant examples of Ottoman historical writing produced by Ottomans themselves are anonymous royal calendars in Persian and Turkish, brief sections of longer epics in Turkish verse dating from the early fifteenth century, battle accounts, and holy-heroic tales. Royal calendars appear to have commenced during the fourteenth century,” but the oldest surviving examples date from the eatly fifteenth. These works were astrological rather than historiographical, yet their introductions included a temporal record of significant events in the past, ordered chronologically, begin- ning wich God’s creation of Adam and noting dates in relation to the present: ‘Te has been 6,984 years since the creation of Adam (peace be upon him).’ While the record of the more recent past found in such calendars helps one establish some of the important dates of fourteenth-century Ortoman history and was most probably used by chroniclers who had access to them, the dates determined in accordance with them are not always consiseent with one another.’ A thorough and comparative study of these calendars has yet to appear.* The oldest extant Ottoman narrative accounts of their own history date from the early fifteenth century. This may sound somewhat surprising as the Orto- mans had been around since the end of the thirteenth century and their founder * Victor Louis Ménage, ‘A Survey of the Early Ottoman Histories, with Seudies of Theit Textual Problems and Their Sources’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 196t, 19-20. 2 [Nihal] Atsz (ed.), Osmanls Tarihine Ait Takvimler (Istanbul, 1962), 12 ® Compare, for instance, the dates ascribed to the ‘origin’ of Osman Bey, the founder of the dynasty; ibid. 49, 81, 120. * Osman Turan, istanbul un Fethinden Once Yazilms Taribi Takvimler (Ankara, 1954), reproduces sections from two Ottoman calendars produced for 1445-6 and 1446~7. Atsiz studies three calendars prepared for 1421, 1431-2, and 1439-40 in his Osman: Tarihine Ait Takvimler; he worked on two other calendars from 1452 and 1454 in his ‘Fatih Sultan Mchmed’ sunulmus bir takvim’, Istanbul Ensetisia Dergisi, 3 (1957), 17-25; and ‘Hicri 858 yilina ait takvimn’, Seluklie Arastsrmalars Dergis, 4 (1975), 223-83, respectively.Ottoman Historical Writing 193 ‘Map 3. The Ottoman Empire «1675194 The Oxford History of Historical Writing had already entered Byzantine chronicles at the beginning of the fourteenth.° Yet if one were to consider the relative position of the early Ottomans in the larger context of the Islamic world to which their rulers belonged, this absence may be understandable. The Ottoman political enterprise was founded as a frontier vassalage in the outer orbit of the Mongol IIkhans, who were centred in Azetbai- jan, around the time when the Mongols had decided to dispense with their Seljuk vassals in central Anatolia (1300). Even though this frontier attracted many a soldier of fortune, it was not, at least not initially, a hub for written cultural production. Yet things started to change towards the end of the fourteenth century when Bayezid I succeeded in establishing an empire of respectable size. He could now attract the likes of Ibn al-Jazari, a major Arab scholar-jurist from the Mamluk Empire, to his capital. Although Bayezid’s empire collapsed after his defeat at the hands of Timur (1402), onée Timur left Anatolia the courts of his sons attracted many contemporary men of letters. The two oldest extant pieces of Ottoman historical writing were produced in the post-Timutid era as segments of epics in Turkish verse that were presented to the sons of Bayezid I. Ahmedi’s Jskender-néme [Book of Alexander] was the first one. It was presented to Prince Stileiman and includes an account of the Ottomans from their beginnings to the time of composition. The second one was Abdiilvasi Celebi’s Halil-name (Book of Abraham], which was presented to Mehmed Lin 1414, after the latter had secured his succession to his late father by eliminating all of his competing brothers, and includes the account ofa bardle that had taken place between Mehmed T and his brother Prince Musa the previous year. Thus the oldest genre in which Ottomans recounted their own history was epic verse. Historically, this need to tell their own story in a heroic fashion seems to have dawned on the Ottomans right after their very existence had been threatened by Timur, and while they were still in the midst of a civil war during which brothers were fighting against each other and thus needed to justify their claims. Bartle accounts, such as the one found in the Halil-néme, eventually came to constitute a genre in Ottoman historiography called the gazavdt-ndme, or ‘book of exploits’, which was marked by a mixture of facts and conventions related to heroic epics. One of the earliest extant examples of this genre, written in Ottoman Turkish prose, was about Murad II's victory at the Battle of Varna (1444).” Unlike the calendars and epics mentioned above, this genre did not need the patronage of 5 ‘The occasion was the Battle of Baphcus that took place around 1302; Halil Inalak, ‘Osman Ghazi’s Siege of Nicaca and the Battle of Bapheus’, in Elizabeth Zachariadou (ed.), The Ottoman Emirate (300-1380): Haleyon Days in Crete (Rethymnon, 1993), 77-99. © For the section on Ottoman history in the first book see Tace’d-din Ibrahim bin Hizir Ahmedi, History of the Kings of the Ostoman Lineage and their Holy Raids against the Infidels, ed. and trans. Kemal Silay (Cambridge, Mass., 2004). For the battle account in the latter see Dimitris J. Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayesid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402-1413 (Leiden, 2007), 33-4, 221-32. 7 For an English translation, see Colin Imber, The Crusade of Varna, 1443-45 (Aldershot, 2006), 41-106.Ottoman Historical Writing 195 the royal court to develop. The military accomplishments of one of the Ottoman lords of the marches, Mihaloglu Ali Bey (d. 1507), for instance, were recounted by a provincial author, Suzi Celebi of Prizren, who worked as a secretary for Mihaloglu Ali Bey and—later—his son, in a versified book of exploits.’ Books of exploits continued to be written well into the nineteenth century, either on specific battles or on the military exploits of a single character, and their particular mixture of facts, fiction, and conventions, still continues to produce intriguing questions for further study.” A very similar genre in which fact, fiction, and conventions are mixed is the menikib-néme, ot the ‘book of glorious deeds’. While one would be justified in calling some examples of this genre hagiography and others legend, neither of the terms does justice to the mendkib-ndme gente as a whole because some mendkib- names have also been treated as historical chronicles. Most. mendhsb-ndmes indeed focus on the life of a Muslim holy man, such as Ahmad Aflaki’s Mandgib al‘arifin (The Glorious Deeds of the Sages], which was produced in Persian within the vicinity of early Ottoman realms, on the life of Rumi (d. 1273).!° But there were also other mendkib-ndmes that centred on heroes who were better known as warriors than saints. The anonymous Batuil-néme [Book of Bactal]—a legend based on the life of the Muslim warrior Battal—is one of them, Battal had probably lived in the late seventh and carly cighth centuries and fought for the Umayyads against the Byzantines on the Anatolian frontiers. While his stories must have circulated orally for centuries, the oldest extant manuscripts of the legend date from the first half of the fifteenth century.” Another similar legend, Dinismend-ndme (Book of Danismend], based on the life of Danismend, who was a Turkish leader in late eleventh-century eastern and central Anatolia, the political leadership of which was passing from Byzantine to Anatolian Seljuk hands, was redacted in this period as well. Neither Battal nor Danismend appear as mere wartior-heroes in their legends. Both of them, but especially Battal, are described as possessing supernatural powers, and both fight in the name of Islam. They are holy heroes of the frontiers." While their legends may not qualify as works of history, it is important to remember that the oldest known narrative of Oucoman origins, which only survives in the form it was incorporated into the chronicle of Asikpasazade in the late fifteenth century, was also known as a menékib, the Mendkab-s ali ‘Osmin (Mendlub of the House of Osman] © Agih Sum Levend, Gazavat-nameler ve Mihaloglu Ali Bey in Gazavat-namesi (Ankara, 1956); and Altay Suroy Recepogiu (ed.), Prizrenli Suzi'nin soo. Yel: Bildiriler, Bilgiler, Belgeler(Prizxen, 2000). ‘See, for instance, Claire Norton, ‘Fiction or Non-Fiction? Ottoman Accounts of the Siege of Nagykanizsa’, in Kuisma Korhonen (ed.), Tropes for the Past: Hayden White and the History / Literature Debate (Amsterdam, NY, 2006), 119-30. 10 EAaki, Mendhebit I drifin: Metin, ed. Tahsin Yazscs, 2 vols. (Ankara, 1959-61). 4 Hasan Kaksal, Battalndmeler de Tip ve Motif Yapust (Ankara, 1984). Ahmet Yasar Ocak, Kitltiir Tarihi Kaynagt Olarak Menaksbnémeler: Metodbolajik bir Yaklasim, and edn (Ankara, 1997), 20-1, 24-5, 57.196 The Oxford History of Historical Writing ‘The Mendkeb-s dl-i Osmén was written by Yahsi Fakt, the son of the imam of Orhan (d. 1362), the second ruler of the Ottomans. It covered carly Ottoman history up to the reign of Bayezid I (1389-1402). Yahsi Faki must have composed it by 1413 when Agikpasazade read it at the author’s home in Geyve. Given the use of the term mendkub, iv is clear that early fifeeenth-century contemporaries of Yahsi Fala perceived the anecdotes about early Ottomans very similarly to the way they perceived the legendary stories about Battal or Danigmend. This should not be surprising, since, just like these heroes, Osman and his followers were fighting along the frontiers of Islam to open lands for new Muslim settlements. They were not devoid of supernatural forces, either." The mendkib-ndme gente continued to thrive in Otcoman letters throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries with biographical works on sheiks, legendary heroes, and even states- men who came to be seen retrospectively as holy.’ MATURATION The royal calendars, epics, books of exploits and glorious deeds, and oral traditions were used by Ottoman men of letters of the mid- to late fifteenth century to produce some of the first composite works on Ottoman history. Having conquered Constantinople, the Ottomans found they had established a great empire, and so they sat down to record how it all came about. Some of the earliest composite works were short accounts devoted to the Ottomans in universal histories and remind us of the debt that Ottoman historiography owes to Arabic and Persian historiographies in which universal history was developed as a major field."* The earliest Ottoman example of this kind, the Bahjat al-tawarikh (Joy of Histories), was written in Persian by Sizkrullah, an Ottoman diplomat and man of letters, in the 1460s. Siikrullah’s work consists of thirteen parts. The first part covers a wide range of subjects from the creation of the world to a history of ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Indians, and Ethiopians. The second part covers the histories of fourteen prophets from Adam to Jesus, who is regarded by Muslims simply as a prophet. The next five parts deal with Muhammad’s ancestors, his life, his family, his cen disciples, and his other companions. In the eighth part, one reads about such Muslim scholars as the four jurists who are regarded as the founders of the four Sunni legal schools and the six scholars who compiled the 3 See the supernatural anecdotes cited by V. L. Ménage, ‘The Menagib of Yakhshi Faqih’, Bulletin of the School of Oriensal and African Studies, 26 (1963), 50-4. '* Halil bin Ismail, Srmavna Kadist oglu Seyh Bedreddin Menaktbs, ed. Abdiilbaki Gélpinath istanbul, 1967): A. Yasar Ocak, Sart Salik: Popiler lslém’ rm Balkanlar daki Destané Oneiist (XI. Yiizyil) (Ankara, 2002); and Theoharis Stavrides, The Sultan of Vecir: The Life and Times of the Ottoman Grand Vezir Mahmud Pasha Angelovit (1453-1474) (Leiden, 2001). © See ch. 8 by Christoph Marcinkowski in this volume.Ottoman Historical Writing 197 most trusted collections of Muhammad’s traditions. The ninth pare is devoted to Sufi sheiks, while the tenth part is on Greek philosophers. Pre-Islamic kingdoms are covered in the eleventh part. The twelfth part deals with the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Seljuks—four major dynasties of the Muslim past. Finally, the thirteenth part is reserved for Ottoman history."® Clearly, this is an Islam-centred universal history, and all Siikrullah’s sources are from the Islamic literary tradition.” Nevertheless, it is important to note that this tradition afforded some space—however limited it may be—to non-Muslim history and peoples. Non-Muslim history became central to some Ottomans who deale with the history of Constantinople after his imperial capital changed hands in 1453. Rather than relying on Byzantine sources and simply translating them, however, they first chose to create their own version of the history of Constantinople, as a starting point getting some help from the Arab tradition, which included Byzantine influences. According to the late Stefanos Yerasimos, this version was meant to be an anti-imperialist treatise that was written in response to Mehmed Il’s (1451-81) policies, which were meant to transform the Ottoman enterptise into a centralized empire. Yerasimos suggests that the imperialist party responded with their own version of a Constantinopolitan legend of Byzantine origin on the foundation of the Hagia Sophia. Thus began a duel between two different stories about Constantinople that continued well into the times of Siileiman the Magnificent, whose reign was another intense period for empire- building."* Incerestingly, some of the earliest versions of the imperialist version were written in Persian,” which remained the imperial language of historical expression for a while to come. P The prestige of Persian was contested from very early on, though. While Siikrullah’s history and the early imperialist version of the Constantinopolitan stories were in Persian prose, another historical work from this period, the history of Karamani Mehmed Pasha, was in Arabic, whereas a third one, the Diisttir-ndme [The Constitutional Book (for Orcoman History)] of Enveri, was a universal history in Turkish verse.2° This trilingual growth of Ottoman historiography continued both in prose and verse well until the seventeenth century, even though Ottoman Turkish became the dominant language of historiographical expression *© Siikrullah’s history remains unpublished. Here I rely on Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 10 vols. (Pest, 827-35), ix. 177-9. For his sources, which he lists in his introduction, sce ibid., ix. 179-80. © Stefanos Yerasimos, La fondarion de Constantinople ex de Sainte Sophie dans les traditions turques (Pats, 1990). : © Félix Tauer, ‘Les versions persanes de la légende sur la construction d’Aya Sofya’, Byzantinaslavca, 15 (1954), 120. 2° Karamanhi Niganci Mehmed Pasa, ‘Osman Sultanlari Tarihi’, trans, Konyalt [brahim Hakka, in Giftcioglu N. Atsiz (ed.), Osmanls Taribleri (Istanbul, 1949), 321-693 and Enveri, Diistiirndme-t Enveri (Istanbul, 1928-9).198 The Oxford History of Historical Writing outside court circles in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, thanks to a boom in the production of seviéréh, or ‘chronicles. The Tevarth-i al-i ‘Osman (Chronicles of the House of Osman], is a title shared by many chronicles in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuties. It would be futile to discuss these works in detail as the questions they pose are too complex to be dealt with in an introductory chapter, and more importantly, there are several accessible scholarly articles written on them which have recently been crowned by Cemal Kafadar’s historiographical study.** Simply put, the reign of Mehmed II signified the closing of an era for the enterprising lords of the marches, soldiers of fortune, and unruly dervishes who had led the expansion of the Ottoman realms in Anatolia and the Balkans for almost two centuries. Mchmed II was interested in building a centralized empire that taxed people and controlled land resources much more closely than the looser administrative structure ruled by his ancestors. Thus people burst into writing of the past as a bygone age, romanticizing it as a time of heroism, and contrasting it—mostly implicitly—wich the present.” Although not everyone had the same ideas about every aspect of the past, they shared common sources. Halil inalcik and V. L. Ménage have shown that the many chroniclers of the mid- and late fifteenth century may be divided into two groups based on the sources they used, many of which remained anonymous.” Finally, Nesti, who wrote a history around 1490, brought them together, interweaving them in the Ottoman history section of his universal history, the Jihdn-niimé, the ‘[Book] that shows the whole world’, or as idiomatically rendered by Ménage, Cosmorama. ‘After this long series of the Tevérih-i al-i ‘Osman most of which were not dedicated to a particular sultan or vizier, one witnesses the development of a royal tradition of historiography starting during the reign of Bayezid II (1481-1512), who commissioned several works of history. Among them were two major works, the Hasht bihisht (Eight Paradises], written by Idris Bidlist in Persian, and the Tevirih-i al-i‘ Osman by Kemalpasazide, who produced in this work an example of what cultivated literary expression was supposed to sound like in Ottoman Turkish. Thus the tone was set for the growth of Ottoman ‘historiography in the sixteenth century, which was enriched by the political tension between court patronage and the relatively more independent historiographical production cmal Kafadar, Berween Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State (Berkeley, 1995) * That is how Halil Inalcik interprets Asikpagazade; see his ‘How to Read ‘Ashik Pasha-zide’s History’, in Colin Heywood and Colin Imber (eds.), Studies in Otxoman History in Honour of Profesor V. L, Menage (Istanbul, 1994), 139-56 % For an excellent introduction to these texts see Halil Inalaik, ‘The Rise of Ottoman Historiography’, in Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East (London, 1963), 352-67; and V. L. Ménage, “The Beginnings of Otroman Historiography’, ibid, 168-79. *'V_L. Ménage, Neshri’s History of the Ottomans: The Sources and Development of the Text (London, 1964), p. xvOstoman Historical Writing 199 outside the court circles.” Although there were times when these two traditions were not so much in contact with each other, as exemplified in the absence of the works of the court historiographer Seyyid Lokman among the sources of Otto- man historians outside the court,** they grew closer in the eighteenth century. Na‘ima, who is usually regarded as the first occupant of the position of vak'a- niivis (or vekdyi‘niivis, che ‘writer of events’), which may be translated as the official historiographer of the state (rather than the court), relied heavily on Katib Celebi, who, despite his association with the state bureaucracy, produced his historical works relatively independently” Nor all histories written by Ottoman historians concerned the House of Osman, even though that topic first comes co mind today. As mentioned above, the Ottomans felt a cultural and intellectual belonging to the Islamic world and produced many universal histories in the Islamic tradition, such as the Bahjat al-tawarikh2* They also authored and translated works devoted to particular periods of pre-Islamic and Islamic history from Old Testament prophets to the Anatolian Seljuks. For instance, as early as the first half of the fifteenth century—before most of the Ottoman chronicles discussed above were written—Yazicizide Ali, a court official of Murad II (1421-51), translated and expanded the Anatolian Seljuk history of Ibn Bibi.” Even though not as numerous as their works on the history of the Islamic world, the Ottomans also produced works on European history. Commissioned by Chancellor Fer- idun Bey, the Tevirth-i Padishihin-i Fringe [Chronicles of the Kings of France] (1572), is a compilation-translation from several French sources done by Hasan bin Hamza and Ali bin Sinan, the first a translator and the lateera scribe, both of whom were probably employed by the Ottoman chancery. The work starts with the biography of Pharamond, the legendary king of the Franks, and ends with the reign of Charles IX (1550-74), who was the ruler of France at the time of the composition.” In the seventeenth century, Ibrahim Miilhemi devoted a chapter to French history in his universal history entitled Murdd-name [Book of Murad 25 On this tension and how it played out in the carly modern period see Baki Tezcan, “The Politics of Early Modern Ottoman Historiography’, in Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman (eds.), The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire (Cambridge, 2007), 167-98. 26 On Seyyid Lokman and Ottoman court historiography sce Christine Woodhead, ‘Reading Ottoman sehnames: Official Historiography in the Late Sixteenth Century’, Studia Islamica, 104-5 (2007), 67-80. 77" Om this position and some of its occupants see Bekir Kiititkoglu, Vekéy‘nivis: Makaleler (scanbul, 1994); on Naima, his works, and his debt to Katib Gelebi, see Lewis V. Thomas, A Study of Naima, ed. Norman ltzkowitz, (New York, 1972); for a short autobiography of Katib Celebi see Katib Chelebi, The Balance of Truth, trans. G. L. Lewis (London, 1957), 13547. 28 For a limited bibliography of such works composed in Ottoman Turkish see Maarif Vekilligi Kaviiphaneler Midirligé Tasnif Komisyonu, Jsianbul Kitiiphaneleri Tarih-Cografya Yazmalart Kataloglars (Istanbul; 1943-62), 1-101. ® Yancwzide Ali, Tevarth-i ALi Seleuk, ed. Abdullah Baksr (Istanbul, 2009) % Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont (ed. and trans), La premiére histoire de Prance en turc ottoman: chronique des padichahs de France, 1572 (Patis, 1997).200 The Oxford History of Historical Writing (IV)], and Katib Celebi wrote another work on Europe, the Lrsév ta'rihi'l-Yiindn ve’n-Nasird [Guide of the Perplexed towards the History of the Greeks, the Byzantines, and the Christians].°* Another field in which Ottoman men of letters authored historiographical works was biography. Inheriting the long-standing Islamic tradition of biograph- ical dictionaries, Ottoman men of letters produced them for such men as Muslim saints (evliyd), poets, scholar-jurists, Sufi sheiks, viziers, ministers of finance, chancellors, and chief eunuchs. Chronologically, the earlier biographical diction- aries concentrated on men of law, religion, and scholarship. Some major exam- ples that have been published are Taskpriizade’s Arabic biographical dictionary of scholars and men of religion from the sixteenth century,” Nev'izade Ata‘a's seventeenth-century continuation of it, and Asik Celebi’s biographical dictio- nary of poets." In the eighteenth century, with the consolidation of the early modern Ottoman state, the administrative cadres of the state and dynasty became the focus of biographical dictionaries, such as Ahmed Ta’ib Osmanzade’s Had- gat il-vitzerd (Garden of Viziers], and Ahmed Resmi’s biographical dictionaries of chancellors (rei /-kiizuéb) and chief eunuchs.% What is interesting to note about biographical dictionaries in Ottoman Turkish is that neither the earlier period in which men of religion and scholarship were in the foreground, nor the later one that showcased bureaucrats, reserved any space for commoners. This was not the case in contemporary Ottoman historiography in Arabic, mainly produced in the Arab provinces.” Ottoman historiography in Arabic was also rich in regional and local histories, a genre of which Owoman Turkish historiog- raphy produced fewer examples.** ‘There are no independent theoretical works about history as a genre or form of enquiry—comparable to Western European artes historicae—though some Ot- toman historians addressed these matters within larger works. For Tasképriizade, for instance, the purpose of history was ‘to become acquainted with the condi- tions of the past’. “The usefulness of history is (the opportunicy that it affords) to learn from those conditions, to seek advice in them, and to form the habit of * tbrahim Milhemi, Murdd-néme, Sileymaniye Kiitiiphanesi, MS Esad 2149; and V. L. Ménage, “Three Otroman Treatises on Europe’, in C. B. Bosworth (ed.), tran and Islem: In Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky (Edinburgh, 1971), 421-33 * Taskspriizade Ahmed, Ej-Seka iku n-nui maniye fi" ulema’'i d-devlet | osmaniye, ed. Ahmed S. / Maki ik fi tekmilet -saké ik, 2 vols. (Istanbul, at 1268), ‘ard, or Tezkere of ‘Ayik Celebi, ed. G. M. Meredith-Owens (London, 197). 2 Hadigat iil-viizera (Der Garten der Wesire) (repr. edn, Freiburg, 1969). 36 Ahmed Resmi, Haliferi’r-rifesd, ed. Miicteba Iigiirel (Istanbul, 199 Hamlet Lbuberé: Dariissaade Afalar, ed. Ahmet Nezihi Turan (Istanbul, 2000). % ‘See, for instance, al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Barinl, Tardjim al-a'yan min abnd al-zaman, ed, Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, 2 vols [incomplete] (Damascus, 1959-63) 8 For Arabic historiography during the Ottoman period, sce Layld ‘Abd al-Latif Ahmad, Dirdsde (fit vibh wa-méarrikhi misr wd l-sham ibban al asyal'uthmani (Cairo, 1980), thmed Resmi,Ottoman Historical Writing 201 experience through acquaintance with the vicissitudes of time. This will serve as a protection against damages similar to those reported (from the past) and as a means to produce similar benefits.”® Katib Celebi explicitly endorsed this definition. Anticipating Leopold von Ranke by several centuries, he stated that the task of history was to express the events of the past in the way they actually happened.* Celebi’s follower, Naima, added that historians ‘must prefer the reliable, documented statements of men who knew how to record what actually did happen’. Again not unlike Ranke, however, Katib Celebi and Na‘ima were products of their own age, and thus, ike all historians, their works represented their own position and values in society.” Prosopographically, it is difficult to make generalizations about Ottoman historians, as exhaustive studies of historians have so far not been done. Franz Babinger's study of Otcoman historians and their works is very much outdated and yet still indispensable. Even though ie might be premature to state—given the relative absence of biographical and bibliographical studies that would provide a reliable basis for such a statement—it seems that bureaucrats and scholar-jurists dominated Otcoman historiography as authors. Two examples of the former group, Mustafa Ali and Ahmed Resmi, have been studied by Cornell Fleischer and Virginia Aksan, respectively.** Representatives of less educated groups have also written historical works. One of them, a retired janissary, for instance, wrote a chronicle on the regicide of Osman II that shaped the Ottoman historiography on the subject. Perhaps a more striking example is that of a Damascene barber from the eighteenth century who wrote a chronicle of his lifetime.” Prosopographic analyses will be better made once the Historians of the Ottoman Empire (HOE), an online project led by Cornell Fleischer, Cemal Kafadar, Hakan Karateke, and an international team of 2 Quoted (and translated) by Franz Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, 2nd edn iden, 1968), 53 © Katib Celebi quotes Tasképriizade in two of his Arabic works; see Kejel-zunun, ed. Serefertin Yaltkaya and Kilisli Rifat Bilge, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 194t-3), i. c. 2713 and Fadhlakat agwal al-akhyar ft ‘lm al-td rth wa Lakbbar, excerpt trans. Orhan Saik Gakyay, in Orhan Saik Gokyay (ed.), Kazip Celeb’ den Segmeler (Istanbul, 1968), 187-8. * Katib Celebi, Fealeke, 2 vols. (Istanbul, ait 1286-7), ii. 9. * Quoted (and translated) by Thomas, A Study of Naima, 113. * For an example of personal bias from Katib Gelebi's work see Baki Tezcan, "The 1622 Military Rebellion in Istanbul: A Historiographical Journey’, International Journal of Turkish Studies, 8 (2002), 25-43 a 34-5 “' Franz Babinget, Die Geschichtschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig, 1927) “8 Comell H. Hleischer, Bureaucrat and Intelleceual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa AU (1542-1600) (Princeton, 1986); and Virginia H. Aksan, An Ottoman Statesman in War sand Peace: Abed Resmi Efendi, 1700-1783 (Leiden, 1995). Gabriel Picerberg, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play (Berkeley, 2003); and Baki Tezcan, ‘The History of a “Primary Source”: The Making of Tight’s Chronicle on the Deposition of Osman I Bulein ofthe School of Oriental and African Seudis, 72. (2009), 48-62. Dana Sajdi, ‘A Room of His Own: The “History” of the Barber of Damascus (A. 1762), The MIT Eleceronic Journal of Middle East Studies, 4 (2004), 19-35.202 The Oxford History of Historical Writing advisers, is completed.** The HOE project has already revolutionized the way in which Ottoman historiography is understood—by including historians who wrote in languages other than Arabic, Persian, and Turkish, The present chapter follows their example. OTHER HISTORIES Some of the earliest sources on Ottoman history were produced by their neigh- bours, who (or their offspring) eventually became Ottomans themselves. These works were written in such regional languages as Arabic, Armenian, and Greck— Janguages that continued to be used by Ottoman subjects to produce Ottoman histories well after the establishment of Ortoman Turkish as the primary lan- guage of literary expression for the imperial elite. In the period covered in this volume, one also finds examples of Ottoman historical writing in Hebrew, Latin, Persian, Romanian, and Slavic languages. They should all be regarded as an integral part of Ottoman historiography. Below I focus on some examples from Greek, Armenian, and Persian. Some of the oldest extant literary sources on the formative period of the Otcoman Empire are in medieval Greek.* While these works should be consid- ered as examples of Byzantine historical writing written mostly in classical style, a hiscoriographical tradition in both classical and vernacular Greek was continued by the Greek subjects of the Ottoman Empire as well. The most well-known Greek author of Ottoman historical writing is Michael Kritoboulos, a member of the nobility of Imbros, an Aegean island. He wrote a history of Mchmed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, covering the first seventeen years of the sultan’s reign (1451-67). This work, however, could not have had much of an influence on Ottoman historiography, either in medieval Greek—since its only known manuscript remained in the library of the Ovtoman imperial palace until che nineteenth century—or in Ottoman Turkish, since it was only translated into Turkish in the early ewentieth century.™" Marios Philippides suggests that there were ‘two traditions in Greek histori- ography in the sixteenth and carly seventeenth centuries’. One was centered in Istanbul in areas that were directly. under Ottoman control and the jurisdiction of che Patriarchate; this ‘school’ produced histories and works with a heavy “© herp://www.ottomanhistorians.com (accessed 30 May 20m). “ For examples in English translation, see Doukas, Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks: An Annotated Translation of Historia Tureo-Byzantina’, trans, Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit, 1975); and George Sphrantzes, The Fall ofthe Byzantine Empire: A Chronicle by George Sphrantzes, 1401-1477, trans. Marios Philippides (Amherst, 1980). ® Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, trans. Charles T. Riggs (Princeton, 1954). ° Ibid., p. ix; and Kritovulos, Tarih-i Sultan Mehmet Han-i Sani, trans. Karolidi (Istanbul, 1912).Ottoman Historical Writing 203 ecclesiastical emphasis, more or less in the Byzantine tradition . . . The second ‘school’ flourished in the Greek communities of Italy or in areas in the Greek mainland that were still under Italian control.®? An important example of the first school is the KaréAoyos Xpovoypaquxds rv Tlatpiapysv Kavaravtwourdnews (History of the Patriarchs of Constantin- ople] (c1572) by Damaskenos the Stoudite.’ Makarios Melissourgos- ‘Melissenos’s expansion of Sphrantzes’s history to produce the Chronicon Maius is an example of the second school.™ Philippides published English translations of two anonymous chronicles, each one of which represents one of these two traditions. Although I cannot possibly provide an exhaustive survey of Ottoman-Greek historiography here, I should mention the ongoing tradition of shore chronicles, many of which have been edited by Peter Schreiner.’ A major example of the Byzantine local chronicle tradition is the seventeenth-century chronicle by Synadinos, a priest from Serres in modern. Greece, who refers to the Ottoman sultan in the Byzantine fashion as the basileus, never calling into question his legitimacy of rule.* Unlike Ottoman-Greek historiography, Ottoman-Armenian historical writing was both geographically and temporally removed from an independent Armenian political entity as the last such state, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, had ceased to exist in 1375. The resulting loss of cultural patronage may well be responsible for the relative lack of history-works in Armenia in the fifteenth century.” Notwithstanding this relative absence of independent works of history, there is a rich tradition of historical writing in colophons from this period.™* As for the sixteenth century, according to Kevork Bardakjian, ‘[tJhere are simply no historians from this age; at least, no histories are extant’? The seventeenth century, however, is quite different in both Armenia proper and in the Armenian diaspora, especially Istanbul. > Marios Philippides (trans.), Byzantium, Europe, and the Early Ottoman Sultans, 1373-1513: An Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Seventeensh Century (Codex. Barberinus Graecus 111) (New Rochelle, 1990), 1 53 Marios Philippides (ed. and trans.), Emperors, Patriarchs and Sultans of Constantinople, 1373~ "3 An Anonymous Greek Chronicle of the Sixicenth Century, (Brookline, 1990), 17 4 5 Philippides, Byzantium, Europe, and she Early Ostoman Sisltans 1. ® Peter Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1975-9); the title is niin in that Schreiner's collection includes many chronicles produced during the Ottoman period as wel * Paolo Odorico (ed. and trans.), Conseils et mémoires de Synadinos, prétre de Serrés en Macédoine XY sel (n.p. 1996). For an example of Armenian historiography from this period see Tova Metzopetsi, History of Tamerlane and His Succesors ed. and trans. Robert Bedrosian (New York, 1987). 5 Avedis K. Sanjian (trans.), Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 13011480: A Source for Middle Eastern History (Cambridge, 1965) F Kevork B. Bardakjan, A Refrence Guide o Modern Armenian Literature 1500-1920, with an Introductory Histary (Detroit, 2000), 43.204 The Oxford History of Historical Writing While the fall of Constantinople was a source of sorrows for at least some contemporary Armenians,” it became the historical foundation for a new and relatively prosperous Armenian community in Istanbul. For chem it was, at least partially, the blessing of Hovakim, the Armenian bishop of Prusa [Bursa], that had empowered Mehmed II to conquer Constantinople. According to Mik'ayél Ch'amch'yants‘, an Armenian historian from the eighteenth century, Mehmed IL had promised Hovakim to take him to Istanbul and make him the leader of ‘Armenians there, hence the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul that was founded in 1461." The immigration of Armenians from the eastern provinces of the empire to the imperial capital, seeking refuge from the havoc created by the Jalali rebellions as well as the Ottoman-Safavid wars during the carly seventeenth century, contributed to the development of a populous and diverse Armenian community in Istanbul. Nor surprisingly, this community, whose members were engaged in various crafts and professions, also produced a rich literary culture both in Armenian and Armeno-Turkish, or Turkish written in Armenian lecters.® Armenian-Ottoman historiography flourished in this socio-cultural context. The first major Armenian chronicler of the seventeenth century was Vardapet Grigor Kamakhets'i, who was born in Kamakh (modern Kemah in eastern Turkey), grew up as an orphan, studied at a monastery in Armenia, and was created vardapet, a celibate priest who is also a doctor of theology, in 1603. After a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1604, Grigor travelled to Istanbul to help his half- sister and her daughter. There he got involved in the affairs of che Armenian community and became a major actor in the rivalries over the patriarchal throne in the first half of the seventeenth century. His commitment to the Armenian community took him to all corners of the empire, ending his days as the prelate of Rodosto (modern Tekirdag in Turkish Thrace). His Zhamanakagrut ‘wn [Chronology] is a rich source of information for Ottoman social history as well as the history of the Armenian Church and community. ‘There are several Armenian historians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some of whom lived in the Ottoman Empire while others were Safavid subjects. The case with which they could operate in both of these empires is truly remarkable. Avedis K. Sanjian, ‘Two asl, Viator, 1 (1970), 225-61, ; Kevork B. Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople’, in Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (eds.), Christians arid Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, 2 vols. (New York, 1982), 1 89; compare Markus Rahn, Die Enazehung des armenizchen Pariarchats von Konsantinopel (Hamburg, 2002) ” For an example of Armeno-Turkish literature see Avedis K. Sanjian and Andreas Tiewe (eds.), Exeyya Chelebi Komiiian’s Armeno-Turksh Poem: The Jewish Bride (Wiesbaden, 1981) "Grigor’s Zhamanakagrut'iwn was published with various other writings of his by Mesrop Nehanean in Jerusalem in 1915; Bardakjian, A Reference Guide, 67-8, 354; Hrand D. Andreasyan, “Titk tarihine aid Ermeni kaynaklan’, Tarih Dergis 1-2 (1949-50), 95-08, 401-38 2¢ 426-8. For an overview see Bardakjian, A Reference Guide, 68-73, 87-94, wemporary Armenian Elegies on the Fall of Constantinople,Ottoman Historical Writing 205 Abraham Kretats for instance, was born an Ottoman subject in Crete, was primate of the Armenians of Thrace, and then, while visiting monasteries in Armenia, he found himself elected Catholicos in Etchmiadzin in 1734. His Parmut‘iwn details the last years of the Safavids and the election of Nadit, an able commander from the AGhar tribe, to the kingship of Persia in 1736 in che aftermath of his victories against the Orromans. As members of a community that lived in multiple polities, Arme- nians wrote cosmopolitan histories that paid equal attention to both Ottoman and Safavid realms. A prime example of this wide scope is found in the Patmutiwn [History] of Vardapet Arak'el Dawrizhets‘, whose work covers various events that happened in the Ottoman Empire although he was a Safavid subject. Their works also display a clear awareness of historiographical traditions in languages other chan their own. Exemia Chelebi K'eomiwrchean’s history of the Ottoman sultans in verse, for instance, makes use of various chronicles in Ottoman Turkish.” Inciden- tally, Eremia Chelebi also wrote a history of the Armenians in Armeno-Turkish, specifically to educate his contemporaries who could not read Armenian, which became a source for a world history written by an Ottoman historian in Arabic. The Kurds constituted another community, the members of which lived in both Orcoman and Safavid empires and were thus well versed in the affairs of both. Some of them, like Idris Bidlisi, mentioned above, or Shuksi,® produced Otzoman histories in Persian or Turkish for the Otcoman court. Kurdish started to become a literary language in the late seventeenth century, a process that is marked by Ahmad Khint's composition of Mem u Zin, a Kurdish epic based on the love story between the two characters of Mem and Zin, in 1692 in Kurdish.” Yet Ottoman Kurdish historiography predates the development of Kurdish as a literary Ianguage, as exemplified by the monumental work of Sharaf Khan of Bidlis, the Sharafndmeh, composed in 1597 in Persian, This two-volume work is also a summary of the political state of the Kurds. While the well- known first volume is about Kurdish tribes of Kurdistan, the second volume is an annalistic history of the Otcoman Empire and the Persian realm to the east that starts around 1290 and ends in 1596. For every year, Sharaf Khan records the important events in both realms.” Not unlike the author, who changed Abraham Kretats‘i, The Chronicle of Abraham of Crete (Patmut‘iwn of Kat'oghikos Abraham Kretats'i), ceans. George A. Bournoutian (Costa Mesa, Calif,, 1999) © ‘Arak‘el Dawrizhets'i, The History of Vardapet Arak’el of Tabriz, trans. George A Bournoutian, 2-vols. (Costa Mesa, CA, 2005-6), see esp. chs. 5z (on Ortoman sultans) and 56 (on chronology). °? Bardakjian, A Reference Guide, 61. ‘S® Sanjian and Tietze (eds.), Eremya Chelebi Kémiirjian's Armeno-Turkish Poem, 35, n. 97. The historian in question is Miineccimbasi, whose work was translated to Turkish in the eighteenth century by the famous poet Nedim: Sah -abbar, 3 vols. (Istanbul, ax 1285). © Shukei, Selim-ndme [in Turkish verse], Topkapi Saray: Miizesi Kiitiiphanesi, MS Hazine 276b, ‘Ahmed Khani, Mem and Zin, rans. Salah Saadalla (Istanbul, 2008). raf Khan, Scheref'nameh, ou Histoire des Kourdes, ed. V. Véliaminof-Zernof, 2 vols. (St Petersburg, 1860-2); and Chiref-ndmeh, ou Fastes de la Nation Kourde, trans. Prangois Bernard Charmoy, 4 parts in 2 vols. (St Petersburg, 1868-75).206 The Oxford History of Historical Writing allegiance from the Ottomans to the Safavids and then back to the Ottomans, his book symbolizes the Kurdish political experience in between two imperial powers. A CASE STUDY In the earliest examples of Ortoman universal histories, such as the works of Siikrullah and Enveri, ‘Ottoman history occupied a modest place as a continua- tion of Islamic history, and the Ottoman Sultans were presented as ghazis on the frontiers of the Muslim world’.” The reign of Siileiman witnessed the first efforts to create narratives of world history that would take che Ottoman sultans from the frontiers to the centre of the Islamic world. One of these narratives, started by Arifi and continued by his successors in the office of the jehnameci, the ‘Shab- nameb-wtiter’, was the Zilbdeti-tevarih [Quintessence of Histories], which was originally written on a scroll chat came to be known as the Tomar-t hiimayiin {Imperial Scroll].”° The Ziibderié -tevarih is a history of the world that starts with the creation of the heavens and the earth. Once it gets to Adam, it turns into an annotated gencalogy of illustrious men and women, including prophets, caliphs, and kings. The length of the annotations varies. The stories of prophets are much longer than the notices that surround the names of kings. Yet once the Ottomans enter the stage of history, annotations become a little more detailed; when the scroll gets to the reign of Siileiman, the annotations are transformed into a full-blown chronicle. The invocation section of the introduction with which the scroll begins sets the tone for the aim of the work, and is worth quoting here at lengch:”* In the name of God, most-benevolens, ever-merciful. All praise be to God who created the heavens and the earth, and ordained darkness and light. (Q 6:1) May abundant praises and thanks, and limitless thanksgivings and eulogies, be on that Sultan, the Creator of the Worlds and the non-obliging Maker—May His glory be sublime and exalted, may His favours become all-embracing and continuous! Who wrote and registered all of the creatures and every one of the creations in the register of construction and innovation with the pen of His preordainment in accordance with the ™ inalak, ‘The Rise of Ottoman Historiography’, 166. 7 Topkapi Saray. Mizesi Kitiiphanesi, MS A 3599; Sinem Eryilmaz, “The Shebmamecis of Sultan Suleyman: ‘Arif and Eflatin and Their Dynastic Project’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 2010. 7 For the significance of this section in Ottoman literary introductions, see Baki Tezcan “The ‘Multiple Faces of the One: The Invocation Section of Ortoman Literary Introductions as a Locus for the Central Argument of the Text’, Middle Eastern Literatures, 12 (2009), 27-41. The italicized parts are originally in Arabic; Q refers to the Qur°an, followed by the number of che chaprer and that of the verse ftom which che quotation comes.Ottoman Historical Writing 207 felicitously designed notion that ‘[God] created every thing and determined its exact measure; (Q2s:2) ‘Who spread the seven lands, adorned with rivers, seas, trees, and mountains, according to the sense of [the statement] ‘Jes God who made the earch a dwelling for you, and the sky a vaulted roof? (Q 40:64) ‘Who made [all] kinds of plants grow from those lands for the whole of the'creation, as the saying goes (A]nd We made every kind of splendid thing to grow upon ie} (Q 50:7) ‘Who created the heavens, adorned with revolving spheres of stars, suspending above those Jands and covering each other, according to the notion that [God] ‘created she seven skies one above the other; (Q 67:3) Who made the provisions of all the existing things descend from those heavens [in accordance] with (the statement that God] ‘sends you food from the heavens;' (Q 40:13) ‘Who, with the good tidings of [His words:] ‘Zam placing a trustee on the earth,’ (Q 2:30) Jeavened the substance of Adam with His hand of might in accordance with [His expression:] “Tleauened the substance of Adam with my hands for forty mornings? (H.Q)” ‘Who designed and drew [Adam] in the best of appearances [in accordance] with the miracle of [His statement] ‘Surely We created man of finest possibilities; (Q95:4) ‘Who sent the Munificent Book [ie. the Que’an]—that must be revered—to the Apostle ‘who is a messenger and an admonisher, and the leader of the two worlds—the corporeal and. the spiritual—and the wo races—the humans and the jinn; ‘Who, for the precise execution of the rules of the religion of Islam and for the system of the order of the affairs of all the mankind, made in every age those, submission to whom is incumbent (for the rest of the humankind), obediene and subjugated to the command of an emperor who is the defender of che faith.”® God speaks so much in this section that even the non-Que’anic statements start to acquire a divine aura. These statements all lead, however, to a very worldly argument: God renders His creation subjugated to an emperor in every age. This is such an emperor that even those who enjoy the submission of the rest of mankind have to submit to him. ‘Those, submission to whom is incumbent (cfiad-s lazimi? Linksyad)’ could refer to authorities of religion or lesser kings. Ie does not matter really; they are all subjugated to the ‘emperor who is the defender of the faith’, The section of praise ro God also mirrors the contents of the Tomar-s humayun [Imperial Scroll], which further helps one to comprehend the motive for the scroll’s production. The first part, which accounts for slightly more than one tenth of the scroll, is devoted to the creation of the heavens and the earth and a detailed description of chem. Most of the text is written around two large illustrations. One has to rotate the scroll in order to read the text as it surrounds these illustrations in a number of columns that go in different directions. Then 75 HQ is short for hadith qudsi, a Muslim tradition in which Muhammad is believed to have been quoting divine speech. 76 Topkapi Palace Library, A. 3599, lines 1-7; the translation is mine with the exception of the quotations from the Quran, which are based, with some minor modifications, on Al-Qur anc A Contemporary Translation, trans, Abmed Ali (rev. edn, Princeton, 1988).208 The Oxford History of Historical Writing comes the creation of Adam, followed by the prophets sent by God to mankind. In this section, various genealogical lines that stare with Adam and Eve continue through tens of generations, connecting everyone whose name is mentioned with everybody else. Including the life story of Muhammad and the first four caliphs, this section comprises about one-fifth of the scroll. These divine and prophetic parts are followed by the genealogies of the rulers of the Muslim world up to the Ottomans. These genealogies run vertically throughout the scroll. The lines are dotted with circles in which names are recorded, the assumption being that the man in the circle above is the father of the one below. At any point there may be a number of lines running parallel to each other, such as the Turkish forefathers of the Ottomans and the Mongol khans. Hardly anything is recorded for most of them, only a few sentences that may be called ‘subtitles’ are written down around the names of the prominent ones. The ‘subtitles’ are hard to follow as they go in different directions around the names, depending on the availability of open space between the circles surrounding the names. This section covers less than one-tenth of the scroll. Finally, of course, come the Ottomans, dominating the last part of the scroll. The first nine sultans, Osman through Selim I, are introduced with brief sections around the adorned circles thar surround their names. The coverage of individual reigns starts to become more detailed with that of Siileiman. His reign and those of his son and grandson—the lateer two were added to the scroll in later stages— cover the second half of the scroll, which ends with the mention of the enthrone- ment of Mehmed III; Siileiman’s great grandson, in 1595. Not surprisingly, the prominent place accorded to the Otcomans, especially to Siileiman, is fore shadowed in the introduction. In the section in which the author, who must be ‘Arifi, talks about the work and its contents, Siileiman is introduced with the Quranic quotation from 3:110: ‘Of all the communities raised among men you are the best, enjoining the good, forbidding the wrong’ Just as the Muslims constitute the best community, Siileiman is superior to all other sultans and khans.”” Thus the Tomar-t humayun was a project to construct a monumental world history in Turkish prose that culminated in Silleiman. In this perception of world history, Siileiman’s exploits were to parallel God’s creation of the universe. The space devoted to each is more or less equal, God's creation of the heavens and the carth starts the text, and Siileiman’s conquests were to end it. All of the genealogical lines chat start with Adam and Eve eventually disappear. Only one line is left, that of the Ottomans. And that line was to end with Silleiman, the ultimare ruler of the world whose empire came to encompass every other one. That is why, pethaps, che first author of the text thought of the title the Zubden’t-revarih—the ‘Quintessence of Histories’. It was not just a summary 7 A. 3599, line 18.Ottoman Historical Writing 209 providing the history of the world in a kernel. Te was the channel in which all histories ran to the ultimate one, to that of Siileiman. The medium chosen for the project, a long scroll, was perfect for the purpose. Arifi had already produced a multi-volume project in Persian verse, lavishly illustrated in codices.”* This was going to be different. The text was intended not to be read from beginning to end but rather to be looked at for effect. What really mattered was that the text included the genealogies of major Islamic dynasties that one could easily recognize. Their histories were reduced to some circles, surrounding the names of their kings, and following or running parallel to each other, only to disappear. The dynasties they represented were now all gone, assimilated into the empire of Siileiman, who was the last remaining ruler of the world. Their stories were not important in and of themselves. They had simply been a means for the history to reach the Ortomans, and especially Siilciman. With Siileiman came the end of history at last. Long before Francis Fukuyama,” one of Sitleiman’s court historians—most probably Arifi—had declared the end of history. Or perhaps it was Siileiman’s own idea to shape the format that way. The Tomar-1 humayun was to become a monument for posterity, not a mere book.*® Needless to say, though, history had not come to an end with Siileiman, just as it did not end—as Fukuyama would suggest—with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Ottoman historians continued to produce works of history well up to the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1922." It is obviously impossible within the confines of the present chapter to do justice to the four centuries of Ottoman historical writing between 1400 and 1800. The historians and genres of historical writing mentioned, however, should give a clear idea about the diversity of historio- graphical expression in this period, which may well be the most important feature of Otroman historiographical tradition. TIMELINE/KEY DATES 1300 Osman appears in Bithynia as a warlord 1326 Ottoman conquest of Bursa (Prusa) 1361 Conquest of Edirne (Adrianople) 78 See Esin Aul, Sidleymanname: The Illustrated History of Siileyman the Magnificent (Washington, 1986) 2" Francis Fukuyama, ‘The End of History2" National Interest, 16 (Summer 1989), 3-38. © Siileiman’s scroll was later rendered into a codex form during the tenure of Seyyid Lokman as the court historian of Murad Ill; see Tezcan, ‘The Politics of Early Modern Ortoman Historiography’ 8" See Cemal Kafadar and Hakan T. Karateke, “The Late Ottoman and Early Republican Turkish Historical Writing’, Stuart Macintyre, Juan Maiguashca, and Attila Pok (eds.), The Oxford History of Historical Writing, vol. 4: 800-1914 (Oxford, 2011), 559-77.