In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 1 The Historical Epic Ah ˙ vāl-i Sult ˙ ān Meh ˙ emmed (The Tales of Sultan Mehmed) in the Context of Early Ottoman Historiography Dimitris Kastritsis Discussions of the birth of Ottoman historiography often state that the Ottomans only began writing their history in earnest at the end of the fifteenth century. Indeed, a significant number of manuscripts from that time are extant, many bearing the simple title Tevārīh ˘ -i Āl-i ʿOs ˉ mān (Chronicles of the House of Osman). Generally speaking, the works recount the early fourteenth-century birth of the Ottoman state and its gradual growth in importance, to the time when its status as an empire was confirmed by the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 under Mehmed II (r. 1444–1446, 1451–1481). They were written with hindsight at a time when the Ottoman Empire was fully established —but in order to tell their stories, they needed to draw upon earlier sources, which must have been available at the time in manuscript form but now only survive thanks to their incorporation into later works.1 This essay considers one of the most important of these, which survives intact in two later manuscripts: the Codex Menzel (Mz) of the chronicle of Neşrī (Mevlānā Meh ˙ emmed, d. ca. 1520) and the Oxford Anonymous Chronicle (OA). The text in question is an anonymous account of the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–1413, completed shortly after the end of the war. It originally probably bore a title akin to Ah ˙ vāl-i Sult ˙ ān Meh ˙ emmed bin Bāyezīd H ˘ ān (The Tales of Sultan Mehmed, Son of Bayezid Khan; hereafter Ah ˙ vāl), and describes the struggle for supremacy of the Ottoman prince Mehmed, who emerged from the Civil War as the sole Ottoman ruler, Sultan Mehmed I (r. 1413– 1421).2 The purpose of this essay is to provide a concise overall description of Ah ˙ vāl and evaluate its significance for the development of early Ottoman historiography. The Civil War of 1402–1413, which modern historical literature often calls the Interregnum, took place after the crushing defeat of the Ottomans by the central Asian empire-builder Timur (Tamerlane, d. 1405) at the Battle of Ankara (July 28, 1402). In that battle, Mehmed’s father Bayezid I (r. 1389–1402) was taken prisoner and forced to witness the dismemberment of his empire by Timur over the course of several months, eventually dying in captivity as Timur’s armies started their journey back east. Before 2 | Dimitris Kastritsis leaving, Timur recognized several of Bayezid’s sons as his vassals, granting them the right to rule over what was left of their father’s domain. Of these sons, Mehmed was eventually able to gain the upper hand through the elimination of his brothers. Ah ˙ vāl tells that story from the perspective of the winner. It is one of the earliest Ottoman histories that has survived, in a form very close to the original, and is singular in that it describes events early in Ottoman history almost immediately after they had taken place.3 The style is that of a menāk ˙ ıbnāme (book of exploits), which was one of the principal genres of Old Anatolian Turkish literature prevalent at the time.4 In Ah ˙ vāl, whose content suggests that it could have been produced only in Mehmed’s court, the genre in question is deployed for political purposes. In fact, as I will suggest below, the work probably was meant to be read aloud to an audience, most probably in a courtly or military setting. Before analyzing the source in terms of its style, structure, and content, more background is needed about the nature of early Ottoman historiography; this will provide the necessary context for the subsequent discussion of the chronicle itself. It was Bayezid II (r. 1481–1512) and his court who seem to have been largely responsible for the production of the comprehensive chronicles of the late fifteenth century, which generally end in 1484, the date when Bayezid made the only important conquests of his reign, the port cities of Kilia and Akkerman on the northern Black Sea coast.5 These chronicles include the well-known histories of ʿĀşık ˙ paşazāde (d. after 1484) and Neşrī, which are interrelated, as Neşrī uses ʿĀşık ˙ paşazāde as one of his principal sources.6 In fact, it is difficult to find a single Ottoman historical work...

Share