Târih-i Gılmânî'nin 17. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Tarih yazımındaki Yeri Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Year 2022, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 744 - 759, 30.09.2022

Gürer Karagedikli

https://doi.org/10.24186/vakanuvis.1168330

Abstract

Considering seventeenth century Ottoman historical writing and the place of Mehmed Halife’s Târih-i Gılmânî within it requires one to closely examine the social, economic, and political changes that took place in the seventeenth century Ottoman Empire. It was a century during which the empire was going through a substantial transformation, not only in political and economical terms, but also intellectually. The economic and demographic ramifications of the “seventeenth century crisis” would affect the entire system. Thus, the seventeenth century is considered to have been a crucial era in the history of the Ottoman Empire due to its changing internal dynamics and characteristics that were to give way to the modernization of the Ottoman State. This paper analyzes the place of the Târih-i Gılmânî in seventeenth century history writing emphasizing its linguistic and thematic peculiarities. Like many seventeenth-century chronicles, the Târih-i Gılmânî used the similar stylistic patterns portraying the world as wie es eigentlich gewesen. Nonetheless, one ought to tread carefully when considering the linguistic style of the chronicle, which may include additional revelations between the lines. For example, words carefully chosen may reveal the closeness of the writer to high post officials, who were likely his protectors or commissioners. Therefore, one should be cautious in describing seventeenth century history writing as portraying the world wie es eigentlich gewesen. Nor would it be true to disparage the existence of the sultan’s personality in seventeenth century history writing as a non-issue.

Keywords

Osmanlı, Kronik, 17. yüzyıl, Tarihyazımı

An Essay on the place of the Tarih-i Gılmânî in Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Historiography

Abstract

Considering seventeenth century Ottoman historical writing and the place of Mehmed Halife’s Târih-i Gılmânî within it requires one to closely examine the social, economic, and political changes that took place in the seventeenth century Ottoman Empire. It was a century during which the empire was going through a substantial transformation, not only in political and economical terms, but also intellectually. The economic and demographic ramifications of the “seventeenth century crisis” would affect the entire system. Thus, the seventeenth century is considered to have been a crucial era in the history of the Ottoman Empire due to its changing internal dynamics and characteristics that were to give way to the modernization of the Ottoman State. This paper analyzes the place of the Târih-i Gılmânî in seventeenth century history writing emphasizing its linguistic and thematic peculiarities. Like many seventeenth-century chronicles, the Târih-i Gılmânî used the similar stylistic patterns portraying the world as wie es eigentlich gewesen. Nonetheless, one ought to tread carefully when considering the linguistic style of the chronicle, which may include additional revelations between the lines. For example, words carefully chosen may reveal the closeness of the writer to high post officials, who were likely his protectors or commissioners. Therefore, one should be cautious in describing seventeenth century history writing as portraying the world wie es eigentlich gewesen. Nor would it be true to disparage the existence of the sultan’s personality in seventeenth century history writing as a non-issue.

Keywords

Ottoman, Chronicle, Seventeenth Century, Historiography

References

• Abou-El-Haj, Rifa’at Ali. Modern Devletin Doğası: 16. Yüzyıldan 18. Yüzyıla Osmanlı İmparatorluğu. Trans. by Oktay Özel and Canay Şahin. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi, 2000.
• Atsız, Buğra. Das osmanische Reich um die Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts nach den Chroniken des Vecihî (1637-1660) und des Mehmed Halîfa (1633-1660). Munich: Rudolf Trofenk, 1977.
• Babinger, Franz. Osmanlı Tarih Yazarları ve Eserleri. Trans. by Çoşkun Üçok. Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1982.
• Faroqhi, Suraiya. “Crisis and Change, 1590–1699.” in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Vol.II, 1600-1914, eds. Halil İnalcık and Donald Quartert, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• Gündoğdu, İsmail. “Reasoning in the Ottoman Historiography: The Example of Tarih-i Gılmani” Uluslararası Sosyal Aratırmalar Dergisi/The Journal of International Social Research, 2 / 9 Fall 2009. pp. 159-164.
• Kütükoğlu, Bekir. “Mehmed Halife” İA, VII (1957), pp. 579-580.
• ———. “Târih-i Gılmânî’nin İlk Redaksiyonuna Dâir” Tarih Dergisi, No.27 (1973), pp. 21-40.
• ———. “Mehmed Khalife b. Hüseyn” EI2, VI (1991), pp. 990-991
• ———. Vekâyi’nüvis. Makaleler. İstanbul: Fetih Cemiyeti, 1994.
• Mehmed Halîfe. Târih-i Gılmânî. İstanbul: Orhâniye Matbaası, 1340.
• Mehmet Halife. Târih-i Gılmânî. Kültür Bakanlığı 1000 Temel Eser. Translated and simplified by Kamil Su. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1976.
• Mehmed Halîfe. Tarih-i Gılmânî. Tercüman 1001 Temel Eser. No place and date.
• Murphey, Rhoads. “Continuity and Discontinuity in Ottoman Administrative Theory and Practice during the Late Seventeenth Century,” Poetics Today, Vol. 14, No. 2, Cultural Processes in Muslim and Arab Societies: Medieval and Early Modern Periods (Summer, 1993), pp. 419-443
• ———. “Ottoman Historical Writing in the Seventeenth Century: A Survey of the General Development of the Genre after the Reign of Sultan Ahmed I (1603-1617).” Archivum Ottomanicum, XIII (1993-1994), pp. 277- 311.
• Mustafa Naima Efendi, Târih-i Na’imâ, Vol.4, Prep. by Mehmet İpşirli. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları, 2007.
• Necib Asım. “Osmanlı tarih-nüvisleri ve müverrihleri: Şahnameciler.” Tarih-i ‘Osmânî Encümeni Mecmu‘ası II/7 (1327), pp. 425-435.
• ———. “Osmanlı tarih-nüvisleri ve müverrihleri.” Tarih-i ‘Osmânî Encümeni Mecmu‘ası II/8 (1327), pp. 498-499.
• Tezcan, Baki. “The politics of the early modern Ottoman historiography.” in The Early Modern Ottomans: Remapping the Empire, eds. Virginia H. Aksan and Daniel Goffman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.