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

39 3 Imperialism, Bureaucratic Consciousness, and the Historian’s Craft A Reading of Celālzāde Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s T ˙ abak ˙ ātüʾl-Memālik ve Derecātüʾl-Mesālik Kaya Şahin Celālzāde Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s (d. 1567) T ˙ abak ˙ ātüʾl-Memālik ve Derecātüʾl-Mesālik (Echelons of the Dominions and Hierarchies of the Professions), hereafter T ˙ abak ˙ āt, continues to surprise readers with its large volume and ambitious scope.1 It begins with a concise treatment of Selim I’s rule (1512–1520) and then focuses on the events of Süleyman’s reign (1520–1566) from the enthronement of the sultan to the opening of the Süleymaniye Mosque in 1557. The work is written in a language that is often metaphor-laden, rich and thick, a product of Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s conviction that the first half of the sixteenth century represented an unprecedented era in Ottoman history. Mus ˙ t ˙ afā believed that this era deserved to be recorded in a language worthy of its achievements and that a correct version of its history should be produced and circulated by those few with access to the inner workings of the Ottoman government.2 T ˙ abak ˙ āt is both a reflection and a repository of thematic, linguistic, political, and cultural trends that fully blossomed in the sixteenth century and are, in this regard, truly “Süleymanic.” It describes an exceptional period during which what subsequently has been called the Ottoman “empire” was built and its institutions, culture, and identity were formed. Produced independently, without any direct patronage, it addresses an elite audience of fellow literati, madrasa graduates, poets, historians, scribes, and religious scholars who not only could recognize the message of the work but also appreciated its linguistic and stylistic aspects. T ˙ abak ˙ āt has been granted almost canonical status by Ottoman historians of the following generations as well as modern scholars of the Ottoman Empire. Mus ˙ t ˙ afā ʿĀlī (d. 1600), Peçevī (d. ca. 1650), S ˙ olak ˙ zāde (d. 1657 or 1658), and K ˙ araçelebizāde (d. 1658) referred to T ˙ abak ˙ āt extensively while narrating the reign of Süleyman and clearly regarded Mus ˙ t ˙ afā as a prominent cultural figure to be emulated.3 T ˙ abak ˙ āt is one of the primary sources on Süleyman’s reign cited in works as varied as Joseph von HammerPurgstall or İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’s general surveys of Ottoman history, İsmail Hami Danişmend’s chronological compendium, Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu’s work on Ottoman 40 | Kaya Şahin activities in Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus, and Walter Posch’s monograph on the Alqas Mirza (d. 1550) revolt.4 In each of these studies T ˙ abak ˙ āt is treated as the official history of Süleyman’s reign and is utilized in a rather positivistic fashion, as a primary source of extraordinary richness for the events of a tumultuous era. While it is true that Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s desire was to write an authoritative history of the period, his work supersedes the narrow confines of an official history. Reading the work as a multilayered text allows us to reach beyond positivistic and empiricist approaches and to discuss history writing as a dialectical and dialogical activity that both influenced and was influenced by the political, cultural, and ideological concerns of a specific period. In this essay I will focus on T ˙ abak ˙ āt as a text in order to better illustrate its more personal aspects as well as the narrative and cultural strategies utilized by an Ottoman historian of the sixteenth century to defend the imperial edifice and project. Introducing T ˙ abak ˙ āt Celālzāde Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s T ˙ abak ˙ āt is striking in its language, which both entices and deters its readers with an elaborate weaving of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian through the intermediary of rhyming prose. Although it is possible to identify three distinct linguistic registers throughout the work—aptly classified by Petra Kappert as elaborate, middlebrow, and simple5 —Mus ˙ t ˙ afā’s vivid descriptions often project themselves to the fore at the expense of other passages. A typical portrayal of Süleyman, for instance, calls him a sultan whose slaves and soldiers are as numerous as the stars and a world conqueror whose glory is comparable to that of ancient Persian kings.6 This triumphalist language, which brings together poetic metaphors, historical themes, and religious references, is similarly used...

Share