Rumi Authors, Arabic Chronicles

In the chapter on History/Historiography (ʿIlm-i Taʾrīh) in his work on the classification of the sciences, Nevʿi Efendi (d. 1599) provides his readers with “the books associated with this [sci-ence” (el-Kütübüʾl-musannefetü fih): The History of Ibn Kathīr, the History of al-Ṭabarī, the History of Ibn Athīr al-Jazarī, the History of Ibn al-Jawzī and his Mirʾāt al-Zamān, the History of Ibn Khal-likān, the History of Ibn Ḥ ajar [ʿAsqalānī], the History of al-Ṣafadī, the History of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyuṭī, Siyar al-ṣaḥāba wa-l-zuhhād, Ḥilyat al-abrār, the History of Ḥakīm al-Nīsābūriī, the History of al-Baghdādī, Taʾrīkh al-ḥukamāʾ, Kashf al-ghamm, and Taʾrīkh al-umam. It is worth pointing out that all the titles in this list were compiled in Arabic (Prochazka-Eisl and Çelik 2015, 53).

This fact is particularly striking, as Nevʿi Efendi chose to write his work in Turkish and included works written in Persian. In addition, it is quite evident that he relied on chronicles written in Turkish for his survey of the history of the Ottoman dynasty

(Prochazka-Eisl and Çelik 2015, 72–77). Nevʿi Efendi was proba-bly inspired by the work of his earlier colleague, Ahmed Taşkö-prüzade (d. 1560). In the section devoted to History in his com-prehensive work on the classification of the sciences, Taşkö-prüzade offers a remarkably similar, though much longer, list of works. Among the works Taşköprüzade’s lists are The History of Ibn Kathīr, the History of Ṭabarī, the History of Ibn Athīr al-Jazarī, the History of Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-Jawzī’s Mirʾāt al-zamān, the History of Ibn Khallikān, the History of Ibn Ḥajar and his Anbāʾ ghamr fī abnāʾ ʿamr and Durar kāmina fī aʿyān miʾa thāmina, the History of Ṣafadī, the History of Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyutī and his Ṭabaqāt al-nuḥāh (his Bughyat al-wuʿāh fī ṭabaqāt al-lughawiyyīn wa-l-nuḥāh), the History of al-Baghdādī, the supplement to al-Baghdādī’s History by Ibn al-Najjār, the His-tory and works of Abū Saʿd al-Samʿānī, the supplement to al-Samʿānī’s History by al-Dabī thī, the History of al-Dhahabī , Kitāb al-bārīʿ by Ibn Abī Manṣūr, and Yatīmat al-dahr by al-Nīsābūrī. At the conclusion of the list, Taşköprüzade briefly states that “the chronicles in Persian are too numerous to be counted,” but does not include a similar list of noteworthy Persian and Turkish chronicles (Tāshkubrīzāda [Taşköprüzade] 1968, 1:251–70).⁶ It appears that for Taşköprüzade, much like for Nevʿi Efendi, the point of reference was the historiographical tradition in Arabic.

Nothing attests more to Taşköprüzade’s historiographical preferences to writing history in Arabic than his own introduc-tion to his biographical dicintroduc-tionaries of the jurists and scholars

6 For an English translation of this section, see Rosenthal (1968, 530–

35).

who were affiliated with the Ottoman dynasty. In the introduc-tion to this work, he explains why he decided to compile this work:

Since I [learned to] distinguish between right and left, be-tween the straight [path] and trickery, I sought passion-ately the merits of the ʿulamāʾ and their histories (akhbār), and I was obsessed with memorising their important deeds and their works, until I would accumulate a large [body of knowledge] in my weak memory [so] it would fill the books and notebooks. Historians have recorded the merits of the ʿulamāʾ and the notables according to what has been established through transmission or was confirmed by eye-witnesses, [but] no one has paid attention to the ʿulamāʾ of these lands, and [consequently] their names and practices have almost vanished from the tongues of every present [i.e., living person] and [their memory] perished. When the people of excellence and perfection noticed this situa-tion, they asked me to gather all the merits of the ʿulamāʾ in Rum. (Tāshkubrīzāda [Taşköprüzade] 1975, 5)

Note the similarities between the passage from Taşköprüzade’s introduction and the comment al-Nahrawālī made to the Grand Vizier. Writing in Arabic, Taşköprüzade claims that only the re-cording of the histories of the Rumi scholars as part of the Arabic historiographical corpus—a corpus that was compiled elsewhere, beyond the Ottoman lands—can perpetuate their memory.

It appears that the perception of and anxiety about the Ar-abic historiographical tradition as more eternal than historical writings in Turkish and Persian subsided over the course of the 17th century. For instance, in the universal history he wrote in Arabic, Müneccimbaşı (or Munajjim Bāshī, d. 1702) includes a bibliography of historical works on which he drew. Although he

organised the list according to the languages in which the works were written, his bibliography represented the historiographical traditions in the three languages: Arabic, Persian, and Turkish.

Yet, it seems significant that Müneccimbaşı (Jāmiʿ al-duwal, 2a) retained the distinction between the traditions. Clearly, he knew that each of these traditions followed different conventions and employed distinctive vocabularies.

Most studies of historical writing in the Ottoman lands have tended to focus on the historiographical production in a specific language. The insightful collection of essays on Ottoman courtly historiography focuses almost exclusively on works written in Ot-toman Turkish (Çıpa and Fetvaci 2013). On the other hand, Mi-chael Winter, in his survey of Arabic historiography in the Otto-man Empire, ignores the writings in Persian and Turkish (Winter 2006, 171–90). To be sure, most scholars acknowledge that writ-ings in Turkish include many expressions from Arabic and Per-sian and that expressions in Arabic frequently feature in PerPer-sian texts. But little scholarly attention has been paid to the manner in which the historiographical traditions relate to one another:

are there particular expressions or conventions that can be asso-ciated (or, at least, more commonly assoasso-ciated) with a certain tradition? Which expressions and conventions were borrowed and, equally important, which were not? And when and why did authors choose to write in a specific historiographical tradition?

These questions draw attention to differences among the various historiographical traditions that coexisted and interacted throughout the Ottoman realms. In a recent study of 15th-century debates among five thinkers writing in Arabic and Persian about

the nature of historical inquiry, Christopher Markiewicz (2017, 221) argues that

monolingual approaches to Islamic historiography further obscure the full extent of the fifteenth-century discourse on history. The tendency to divide Islamic historiography between its Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish expres-sions reinforces an understanding of the historical tradi-tions as separate, linguistically delineated dialectics. More-over, while considerations of Ottoman historical writing generally acknowledge its relationship to Arabic and espe-cially Persian historiography, the interrelationship be-tween the three remains only superficially acknowledged.

Markiewicz thus concludes that

the wide-ranging interaction between Arabic and Persian historical thought since the tenth century—and Turkish historiography, as well, beginning in the fifteenth cen-tury—constituted a fundamental aspect of the develop-ment of Islamic historiography as a vibrant cultural tradi-tion until the rise of natradi-tional historiographies in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

I do not disagree with Markiewicz’s general observation, but, in this short essay, I would like to highlight the special se-miotic baggage that writing in Arabic carried in the context of a multilingual empire and the dynamics between multiple histori-ographical traditions. It seems to me that the study of historical writing in the Ottoman lands—and, in fact, across the Is-lamic(ate) world more broadly—ought to acknowledge the fairly wide range of interactions between these traditions, from the re-tention of differences to translations and borrowings. In this

sense, what follows seeks to nuance the idea of a single historio-graphical project as a singular “vibrant cultural tradition.”

Paying attention to these differences can also reveal how members of various learned circles across the Empire employed historiographical traditions and conventions to legitimise Otto-man rule and to enrich the OttoOtto-man repertoire of power. At the same time, studying the manners in which certain expressions were employed may reveal tensions between competing claims and political projects. To illustrate this point, I now turn to ex-amining in some detail the use of the expression “the Ottoman Dawla” (or al-Dawla al-ʿUthmāniyya) in the 16th and 17th centu-ries.