The 2001-2002 Sawyer Seminar at the University of Chicago
From Medieval to Modern
in the Islamic World
|
|
The 2001-2002 Sawyer Seminar at the University of Chicago |
|
From Medieval to Modernin the Islamic World |
|
|
Sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation | ||
(Very Rough Draft)
This paper is a preliminary discussion of a chapter in my dissertation where I am examining a body of Ottoman dynastic literature produced in the second half of the sixteenth century by five officially appointed historians1 and a team of artists they directed. In 1545, the Ottoman sultan Suleyman I (r. 1520-1566) appointed Fethullah 'Arif Celebi (d. 969/1561-62?), the first historian, or shehnameci to this first Ottoman official post for writing dynastic history. 'Arifi2 was followed by Eflatun Sirvani (d. 977/1569), Seyyid Lokman Urmevi (d. 1601), Ta'liki-zade Mehmed Subhi (d.c. 1008/1599-1600), and Hasan Hukmi (d. after 1638) in office while Suleyman was succeeded by his son Selim II (r. 1566-1574), who was followed by Murad III (r. 1574-1596), and Mehmet III (r. 1596-1603) respectively. The ascension of Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617) in 1603 at the same time signaled the end of official shehname production for the new sultan did not assign anyone for the post.
Except for their shared name, shehname, these works varied in language (Persian, Turkish) and in style (prose, verse). Furthermore, the topics of these shehnames, their sizes, and the number of miniatures they included changed form one to the other. Rather than the apparent and not-so-apparent differences between these books, which will be dealt with throughout my larger examination, here I will start by inspecting their common name.
The route of the following discussion will be marked by several terms and titles. Aside from official Ottoman shehnames and the great Persian classic, the Shahname, I will discuss the significance of some Shahname translations into Turkish, that is to say the shehname-i turki manuscripts. Another stopping point in my examination will be a group of truncated Shahname reproductions. While meandering between these painfully similar sounding literary and artistic works, I will try to examine another set of terms: translation, reproduction, mastery, originality, and imitation. The final station will be the answer of the initial question which is also the title of this paper: is the official Ottoman shehname: an instance of cultural mimesis? I will argue that the official shehnames were not humble imitations of something greater, but examples of cultural experimentation and daring statements of universal sovereignty.
The word "shehname" shares the same meaning as the word "shahname:" the book of kings. "Shahname" is also the title of the mythical history of Iran written by the renown Persian poet, Firdawsi at the beginning of the 11th century. Firdawsi relates the exploits of Iranian heroes against each other, against supernatural beings, and against their main rivals, the Turanians in what was--and still is-- considered by many the greatest classic of the Persian speaking world. We should note that in the late medieval and early modern periods the Persian cultural world included not only Iranians but also the cultural elites of the Islamicate world in general. In addition, the individual stories of the Shahname had entered the realm of popular culture through recitation in informal gatherings.
Hence it is not surprising that individual stories from the Shahname as well as the work in its entirety were well-known among Ottoman subjects much before the establishment of the shehnameci office. More significantly, the great Persian classic seems to have attained special popularity in the Ottoman court during certain periods. The reigns of Mehmed II (r. 1451-1483), Osman II (r. 1618-1622), and Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) are periods when we can detect a particular interest in this work . Interestingly all three sultans aspired for greatness. Mehmed II achieved his goal by his conquest of Constantinople. Osman II paid for his ambitions in the most brutal way with his life in a janissary uprising, while Murad IV made a name in history with his conquest of Baghdad.
Yet the popularity in Firdawsi's work reached its apex at an earlier period, in the second half of the sixteenth century. This is exactly when the shehnameci office produced its books.
One line of evidence for this culmination of interest is the rising prestige of Shahname copies in this period as diplomatic gifts. The most famous example is the so-called Houghton Shahname. This copy was presented to Sultan Selim II in Edirne by the Safavid envoy Shah Kuli in 1568, to congratulate his accession. Along with a gilded copy of the Qur'an, it was considered the most precious gift of the envoy.3 This book, which contained 259 illustrations, was a major imperial project that was started in the 1520s during the reign of the Safavid shah Ismail I. At another visit in 1576, this time to congratulate the accession of Murad III, we see once again Firdawsi's Shahname4 among the precious books that the Safavid envoy Tokmak Muhammedi Sultan brought as gifts.
Five years later, in 1581, the circumcision ceremony of Mehmed, the heir prince of Sultan Murad III, was another great occasion in which many gifts were exchanged.5 Foreign ambassadors, Ottoman dignitaries, and various guilds presented their gifts to the sultan, the prince, and other members of the imperial household. Among the several groups of presents that the Safavid envoy brought, the most impressive one, not surprisingly, was that of Shah Muhammed Hudabende to the Ottoman sultan and his son. Among the eighteen books presented was another copy of the Shahname.
The presence of Shahname copies as primary gifts was part of a larger phenomenon involving the status of richly produced books at this period. The Shahname was among several major Persian classics that were presented in such ceremonies.6 What is interesting is that while the rest of the titles varied, a gilded and richly illuminated copy of Firdawsi's book seems to have accompanied every major Safavid envoy, falling second in prestige only to a copy-or copies-of the Qur'an.7
Should we then think of the Ottoman shehname project as a response to Persian imperial book production? While it is true that the cultural dialogue with the earlier Timurid and later Safavid literary and artistic traditions informed Ottoman writers and artists by providing inspiration and challenge, I do not think we should go so far as to describe the official Ottoman shehnames as direct responses to the Shahname copies presented in this period as diplomatic gifts. After all, most if not all of these shehnames were produced for the palace. They were not prepared as diplomatic gifts to match their Safavid counterparts.
Nevertheless the question concerning the originality of these Ottoman shehnames need to be asked. Were the shehnames in some ways translations of the Persian Shahname into Ottoman cultural terms, or were they rather meant to be its Ottoman reproductions? Can we define the official assignment of historians to write shehnames an example of cultural mimesis? I believe investigating more evidence concerning the popularity of Firdawsi's Shahname will help us tackle these questions.
Aside from the Shahname copies given as diplomatic gifts, there was a detectable increase between mid 1540s and 1600s in the number of copies of Shahname translations, namely shehname-i turkis.8 These copies were translations of Firdawsi's text as well as of the visual tradition associated with it into the Ottoman Turkish literary and artistic idiom.9
The first Turkish translation of the Shahname was prepared in 1450/51 for the Ottoman sultan Murad II (1415-1451). The three illustrated copies of this work are all in the Topkapi Palace library. Based on stylistic observations, they are attributed to the second half of the sixteenth century. After Murad II, it was the Mamluk sultan Kansuh al-Ghawri (r. 1501-1516) who commissioned a translation of the Persian classic into Turkish verse. Of the several manuscripts in the Topkapi Palace library, only one was prepared in Cairo in 1511, before Selim I (r. 1512-1520) added the Mamluk realms to Ottoman territories. It is thought to be brought to the palace as booty. 10 The rest of the copies follow this manuscript whose text was prepared by Serif Amidi.
Serpil Bagci who has worked extensively on the miniatures of these shehname-i turki copies observes that several of the illustrated copies of Amidi's translation were produced at the same time.11 One copy that was produced in 1545-46 seems to have employed the skills of one of the painters of 'Arifi's Suleymanname, the fifth volume of the first official shehname project. Two other copies were executed in 1544. Of these, one is incomplete with blank pages in the place of illustrations. The other was ordered by Ali Aga, the Head of the Janissaries, and according to its colophon was prepared at the palace.12 The illustrations, on the other hand, suggest that they were added later, possibly in the 1560s, by one of the most famous Ottoman miniature artists, Nakkas Osman.13 Nakkas Osman was also a significant contributor to the official shehnames, such as Seyyid Lokman's Shemailname. Two other copies of Amidi's translation include miniatures that reflect the Ottoman style of the second half of the sixteenth century.14
Curiously, another period in which translations of Shahname became popular was, once again, the short reign of Sultan Osman II (r. 1618-1622). Aside from the copies of Amidi's translation, he commissioned a new translation from the poet Mehdi, this time into Turkish prose. Aside form the three extant illustrated copies of Mehdi's translation, there is another Turkish prose translation. Unfortunately, its translator's name and its production date are unknown. The three extant volumes of this last translation include illustrations, some of which belonged to other Shahname copies or shehname-i turki manuscripts, and were later pasted over the corresponding pages.
The existence of these translations certainly bears witness to the crescendo of interest concerning the Shahname. At the same time, they reveal that Ottoman writers and artists did actually translate the Shahname to their own idiom. However, these works belonged to a different genre than the Ottoman official shehnames, which do not narrate the stories of the Shahname, neither in the literary nor the visual medium. We have yet to address what the notion of 'an Ottoman translations of the Shahname' entails. Not having yet had the opportunity to see these manuscripts myself, at this point I have to rely on art historical scholarship.15
Perhaps the most striking feature of the miniatures adorning the shehname-i turki copies is the sensitivity their artists' showed to the Ottoman natural, cultural, and architectural environment. At the most apparent level, the artists dressed their figures in Ottoman styled garments. In addition, they altered the architectural and geographic settings of well-known scenes to suit Ottoman realities. In these miniatures Iranian shahs held reception enthroned under round portals in rooms decorated with Ottoman styled tiles. Even Rustam, the most valiant of the Shahname heroes, seems to be coaxed into handing his traditional tiger-skin costume for a more Ottoman outfit.
Seen from another view, the costumes of the figures reveal another aspect of Ottomanization through translation. These participants to the Shahname adventures might be dressed "inappropriately" for a Persian context. For an Ottoman audience, however, their garments unveiled their social and occupational status. Especially in the depictions of court scenes, it is not difficult to see the care with which the rules of Ottoman court ceremony were implanted. In this respect, not only the way the figures are dressed, but also the way they are grouped make sense. The distances of these groups to each other and to the ruler, as well as the body language of the figures-i.e. their postures, the position of their heads and hands-are elements of the established codes pertaining to the Ottoman courtly ritual. In the official shehnames, the same codes, which are already present in Shahname translations, are observed in the depictions of historical scenes in the Topkapi Palace with Ottoman sultans and their court officials.
Compared with the sensitivity to Ottoman codes, the shehname-i turki miniatures display a rather careless attitude towards the traditional story line. At times, the inclusion of unnecessary secondary figures, but more often the exclusion of figures significant to the story of the scene and the free rendering of the spatial arrangement of the figures compromise the original text and the established tradition of depicting it.
At this juncture, it would be useful to ask ourselves if there also was a free hand in the literary translation that accompanied the free interpretation in visual translation. Answering this question would enable us to comprehend the relationship between text and image in shehname-i turki copies on the one hand, and between these translations and the literary and visual tradition of the Shahname on the other. Hence, two lines of comparison are needed: one involving a textual comparison between several shehname-i turki copies and the Shahname, and another involving a comparison between the literary and artistic narratives in various shehname-i turki copies. I hope to personally examine several shehname-i turki copies in the near future.
Added to our list that includes Safavid copies of the Shahname, the Ottoman shehname-i turki copies, and the official shehnames, there is yet another body of manuscripts. A group of stylistically related truncated Shahnames from the second half of the sixteenth century displays a different way of reproducing the Shahname.16 The narratives of these manuscripts were often cut with the death of Alexander and excluded the more historical part of the Shahname. After this point, they continued with stories from other Persian epics-i.e. the Bahmanname and the Barzuname. In these manuscripts, both the selection and the execution of the illustrations from the Shahname were untraditional. The frequency of double-page illustrations, the stylistic link between this group and a group of Qisas al-anbiya` copies,17 and an unusual description of the Shahname in the frontispiece of one of these truncated Shahnames convince Karin Ruhrdanz that they were produced in Istanbul.18
The coexistence of Shahname copies, shehname-i turki manuscipts, truncated Shahnames, and official shehnames appears to be different facets of a common enthusiasm. Rather than an obsession with imitation, they indicate an effervescence of experimentation. It is clear that the rising prestige in the second half of the sixteenth century of richly illustrated books in general and the illustrated copies of the Shahname in particular, influenced Ottoman artistic and literary production. We should also note the significant presence of exiled Persian artists and the renegade Safavid elites who came with their courts. They certainly helped prepare this dynamic environment.19 In fact, the-temporary--presence of Persian artists might very well be the reason behind the different styles found in the same illustrations in the truncated Shahname manuscripts.20
Moreover, the careers of the first two official Shehnamecis ´Arifi and Eflatun were closely associated with the renegade Safavid prince Alqas Mirza. ´Arifi, was appointed as the seal bearer (nisanc) for the Safavid prince upon the arrival of the latter in 1547. His successor in the Shehnameci post, Eflatun, was already included in Alqas Mirza's retinue when the prince arrived in Anatolia: he was the prince's court poet and librarian.
At the same time, the coexistence of these Shahname-related manuscripts points towards a transformation in the definition of the "shahname" as a term. The artists illustrating the Turkish translations of the Shahname did not shy away from playing with the apparel of the figures or the natural and architectural environment. While the Ottoman shehname-i turki copies experimented with the Shahname tradition at least visually, the interpolations in the truncated Shahnames disturbed the established textual organization of the Persian classic. The illustrations of these highly unfaithful reproductions followed a similar line of free interpretation and experimentation. In order to see where the official Ottoman shehnames fit in this schema of "Shahname-related" production, let's examine some examples.
The topics of the official Ottoman shehnames vary considerably. There were histories of individual sultans, such as Seyyid Lokman's Ta'rih-i Sultan Suleyman Han and Selim Hanname, world histories such as ´Arifi's Shahname-i Al-i 'Osman and Seyyid Lokman's Zubdetu't-Tevarih, accounts of military campaigns, such as Ta'liki-zade's Shehname-i Humayun and Shehname-i Sultan Mehmed III, and a book on physiognomy by Seyyid Lokman. This last book titled Kiyafetu'l-Insaniye fi Shemaili'l-Osmaniye (hereafter Shemailname) is the only official shehname whose facsimile is published, and it is where we are going to start our investigation.21
The narrative of the Shemailname is in Ottoman Turkish prose and does not bear direct resemblances to the Shahname. The introduction explains that the project was started because there was no complete collection of images representing the Ottoman dynasty. This is followed by a brief account as to how the portraits of the sultans were produced. The narrative continues with an index of body parts and the significance of their particular shapes. The rest of the text, which constitutes slightly less than three quarters of the whole work, is divided into the reigns of Ottoman sultans, starting from Osman Ghazi and ending with the current ruler at the time, Murad III.
Each of these sections begins with the birth and accession date of the ruler. This is followed by a relation of his military exploits, his treatment of his subjects as a ruler, his administrative innovations-if there are any-his physical traits, and his style of dress and head gear. In this last section, resemblances and divergences from former traditions are mentioned carefully. The portraits are placed in between the description of a sultan and the description of his garments.
Throughout the book the author adheres to this organization very strictly. The formal variances in the narrative are mainly in the number of pages spared for each sultan and in the frequency and the length of the verse sections. Starting with Sultan Bayezid II, the son of Sultan Mehmed II, there are more pages allotted to the ruler's reign. The parts written in verse often relate the sultan's military exploits and his qualities as a conqueror and ruler. They are all in Turkish except for five couplets in the section on Selim I22 that follow the date of his accession according to Mevlana Idris.
Like its topic, language, and organization, the illustrations of Seyyid Lokman's work do not resemble those of the Shahname. All of the depictions are portraits where each sultan is seen alone sitting under a portal in his ceremonial dress. Above each portal a couplet is inserted as an introduction to the portrait. In these depictions, each sultan closely resembles his ancestors and descendants while possessing a merely sufficient amount of personal qualities that make him distinct.
The initial examination of this official shehname leaves one wondering why it is named a "shehname" in the first place. One obvious criterion to consider a work an official shehname is its production by the appointed shehnameci team. In other words, the nature of the office designated the category of its products. Yet there are other elements that make the Shemailname a shehname and that bind it together with the other products of the same office. It is true that neither its literary nor its visual program follows the traditional Shahname copies. Still, there is a detectable presence of the Persian classic as a larger reference.
We can observe this referential relationship in the details. There are allusions to well-known tropes of the Persian epic, such as the mirror of Alexander23 or the cup of Jamshid.24 The military skills of the Shahname heroes are also employed to describe the prowess of the sultans. In these comparisons, the heroes of the Shahname are often used as subordinated metaphors. Hence Rustam is said to be no match to Selim II in archery ("tirandazlkda rustem-i destan hemdestan olmayub").25 Another line of comparison pertains to the physical resemblance of the sultans to the heroes of the Shahname. The stirrup bones of Mehmed I, for example, are those of a champion fighter. It is as if he were coming from the line of Neriman (uzengiligi neriman nesilli gibi mubarizane hareketlu).26
More importantly, however, it is the mythical and heroic world of the Shahname that is used as a reference point. We have seen above how the "cast" of the Shahname provided analogies for the sultans in the panegyric narrative of one official shehname narrative. In this respect, the rich index of heroes of the Persian epic offered many alternatives for the shehnameci.
The legendary world of the Shahname also allows a historian like Seyyid Lokman to take certain liberties. The Shahname kings and warriors by their inclusion in the mythical history are recognized as extraordinary. They either have super human powers or come from a superior genealogical line such as Kay Ka'us. Many, like the descendents of the line of Neriman, possess both qualities. Their mistakes and weaknesses are accepted as the shortcomings of the great: as parts of their nature. These shortcomings are not to be negotiated or resisted against. They can be observed, but not questioned aloud. By analogy, the official shehname heroes shared the same privileged status. I believe this is the reason why Seyyid Lokman could safely say that in the aftermath of the battle of Chaldiran, where Selim I won a decisive victory over the Safavid forces under Shah Ismail, the Ottoman sultan "was busy being the phoenix in the Mountain Kaf27 of egotism, and returned to Sivas, allowing his fool of a foe run free in the mountains and deserts like a peacock."28 In the same tongue-in-cheek style, he later states that Selim's justice ('adl u dad), compassion (sefkat), and mercy (merhamet) to his subjects were more than what they heard (isiddiklerinden ziyade olub), acknowledging thereby that Selim I had a reputation for harshness.29
The mythological world of the Shahname also made it possible to produce an image of the sultan as the universal ruler. This image described the Ottoman sultan as having two main qualities: the physique and military prowess of the fiercest of warriors and the character of a mystic leader with super-human skills and a mysterious disposition. In the Shemailname, Seyyid Lokman strives to balance these two characteristics even in the descriptions of Bayezid II and Selim I, who could easily represent the two extremes of the dervish and the warrior respectively.
We have already seen how the military aspect of this image was constructed. The other, and perhaps even more powerful, facet of the sultan's image, i.e. his character as a mystic leader, was created at times by direct analogy with the super human heroes in the Shahname. Jamshid's magical cup that was mentioned earlier in the discussion on the Shemailname appears in a miniature in 'Arifi's Suleymanname. The scene depicts the sultan holding the cup that he has received before his last campaign against the Safavids. The acquisition of the legendary Persian king Jamshid's cup is highly symbolic. With the magical cup in hand, in a sense, the Ottoman sultan had become the lord of Persian lore. Jamshid's cup was also a favorable omen for the military ambitions of Suleyman who aspired to subjugate the Safavid forces and become the ruler of the entire Muslim world, sunnite and shiite alike. A similar statement is made in another illustration of the Suleymanname. In this depiction of the reception of the Safavid ambassador, we see Suleyman seated off-center on a throne above which is the bigger dome signifying the entrance of the Third Court, the innermost court among the three courts in the Topkapi Palace. The Arabic inscription above the sultan's throne repeats Suleyman's claim of being the universal emperor as "the shadow of God."
Another method that at least 'Arifi and Seyyid Lokman used to display the mystic quality of their rulers was the description of the Ottoman order as a miracle. In Seyyid Lokman's Hunername,30 the author uses the famous literary trope of the sheep and the wolf living peacefully together. 31 This story is employed to explain the extent of pax ottomana created in Suleyman's reign. In the same shehname, Suleyman's accession ceremony is likened to a heavenly reception with angels attending him rather than his officials.
The first two illustrations of 'Arifi's Suleymanname also depict the accession of Suleyman in 1520.32 In this double page miniature, the first page displays the first courtyard of the Topkapi Palace crowded with civilians and military men. On the opposing page, Suleyman is enthroned in a reception scene before an orderly group of dignitaries who have come to congratulate him. They are waiting for their turn as an official is showing his respect and obedience by kissing Suleyman's feet. Behind the sultan on his left are four young pages (iç oglans) standing attentively with hands clasped before them in respect. The grand vizier is standing to the right of the sultan in a posture similar to that of the pages. In front of the grand vizier and to his left are the three viziers standing likewise side-by-side. The two military judges (kazaskers) and the shayhulislam form another group standing in front of the viziers. The dignitaries, who are waiting to be received, form a semicircle before the sultan and in front of the officials mentioned previously. In the middle is a pair of officials serving as ushers in the ceremony.
The careful juxtaposition of the two pages emphasizes the contrast between the chaotic scene of the first page with the tediously ordered one of the second. The transition from disorder to perfect order is also emphasized by the architecture, which is carefully recorded in these two pages. The figures in the miniature where Suleyman is enthroned are grouped according to their positions in the palace. We are reminded of the freely Ottomanized depictions in the shehname-i turki manuscripts discussed previously. Another point to note is the look on the faces of the figures depicted. The anticipating crowd in the first courtyard looks restless. The officials waiting to be received, on the other hand seem almost frozen-except for the row of dignitaries and janissaries standing in the foreground and farthest away from the sultan. The look on their faces reveals their awe, while the sultan is portrayed looking into the distance allusively. It is as if he is somewhere else. While court scenes were found frequently in Shahname illustrations where the rulers often possessed super powers, this particular way of representing an idol-like sultan in his perfectly ordered microcasm is completely new and Ottoman. At this point, it might be useful to see what an Ottoman elite of this period defined as original.
The late sixteenth-century bureaucrat and intellectual Mustafa 'Ali, in his work on the artists of the book, Menakib-i Hunerveran (Legends of the Skilled), provides important clues to a contemporary understanding of originality, mastery, and imitation. 'Ali presents information on the art of calligraphy as well as on the major artists who were involved in the production of books. He starts the section of the bookbinders by praising four artists, Mehmed Celebi, Huseyin Celebi, Mustafa Celebi, and Suleyman Celebi. Continuing his evaluation, 'Ali states that "without any doubt the Persian masters are inferior to these in finesse."33 After comparing the two traditions and discussing the superior qualities of each, he concludes by saying that to insist on Persian superiority in the arts of framing and adorning the cover of the book and its pages or in the quality (finesse) of its binding is just meaningless blabbering and quarreling (for its own sake).34
In an earlier section in which he discusses the talents and careers of masters of a certain type of calligraphy (nesta'lik), a style that is of Persian origin, Mustafa 'Ali mentions a promising student of the master Mir Ali, named Dervis Husam. 'Ali states that the Bosnian Dervis Husam was one of the few artists from the European lands of the empire who considered the Persians superior, and instead of obstinately resisting their influence, chose to learn and imitate their style.35 In the following section, where a different style of calligraphy is the subject of discussion, he adds that the Ottomans changed the Persian style completely and made it easy to read and (more) pleasant to the eye.36 Indeed this particular script known as the divani was developed and used most frequently in Ottoman imperial decrees and orders for centuries.
In all of the three cases summarized above, the author presents the Persian style as a well-established reference for comparison. As it is emphasized in the second case, the Ottoman artist should regard it carefully and study it. If he could surpass the Persian masters as the bookbinders did according to Mustafa 'Ali, this would be considered a great achievement. Perhaps the last case presents the ultimate success. In this example, the artists, after mastering the Persian style went beyond it to establish a truly Ottoman calligraphic style.
In literature the situation was similar. The Ottoman poets wrote naziras, or parallels, to many established works in Persian. A brief look at the biographies of poets compiled by Latifi37 (d. 1582) and Kinalizade Hasan Celebi38 (d. 1604) provides us with the names of many poets, such as Fuzuli, who, composed in more than one language and especially in Turkish and Persian. In addition, many others translated Arabic and Persian works into Turkish from their Persian original or translations.
As in the visual arts, in literature the Ottomans tried first to emulate the Persian tradition. Yet being a good translator was only a limited compliment that could backfire as an insult as being a mere translator.39 Likewise, the ultimate target in the literary realm was to surpass the Persian examples to create something Ottoman and new-even if what was novel had to find its way within the parameters of Islamicate literature.
In the previous discussion, we have only briefly looked at a few official shehnames. Still, even with this first glance, I believe it is easy to see that the official Ottoman shehnames were not translations of the Shahname even in the looser sense of the shehname-i turki copies. When Suleyman is portrayed in 'Arifi's Suleymanname, holding Jamshid's cup as described in a previous example, he is not pretending to be Jamshid or imitating a gesture. Instead, he is enthroned in his court and attended by his viziers and servants, declaring his claim over the physical and mythological realms of Iran.
Similarly, the official shehname were not reproductions of the Persian classic, not even unfaithful ones like the truncated Shahnames mentioned earlier. Rather, they were original productions that related stories, provided historical accounts, and explained features of the Ottoman dynasty in their own idiom.
In short, the official Ottoman shehname was not an instance of cultural mimesis, but one of self-confident appropriation. It was a reformulation of the world that the Shahname described and recreated for posterity. The act of establishing an office to write shehnames was also an act of claiming this ordinarily foreign world. This daring act of claiming, in turn, empowered the Ottoman sultans as patrons and super-heroes of the shehnames.
Furthermore, the productions of the shehnameci office were examples of literary and artistic experimentation. In fact, along with the shehname-i turki copies and the truncated Shahname manuscripts, they represented different stages of the same experimental mode. Following Mustafa 'Ali's views on the artists of the book, if translators and artists attained mastery in the shehname-i turki manuscripts and the truncated Shahnames, they reached originality with the official shehnames.
Notes:
------------------
* The present paper is a first compilation of ideas for a chapter of my dissertation. I apologize for the incomplete
transliterations and footnotes.
1.For scholarship on these official historians, namely shehnamecis, see Necib Asm, "'Osmanli Ta'rih-Nuvisleri ve
Muverrihleri: Sehnameciler," Ta'rih-i 'Osmani Encumeni Mecmu'asi I (1911), pp. 425-35, 498-99.; F. Babinger,
Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke, Leipzig, 1927, pp. 87-88, 163-167; Karszade Mehmed, Cemaleddin;
Osmanli Tarih ve Muverrihleri (Ayine-i Zurefa), Istanbul, 1314/1897, pp. 40-43; Bekir, Kutukoglu, "Sehnameci Lokman,"
Vekayi'nuvis Makaleler, Istanbul, 1994, pp. 7-17; Ahmed Refik, "Seyyid Lokman," Alimler ve Sanatkârlar, Istanbul, 1924,
pp. 81-94; idem, "Seyyid Lokman," X. Asr-i Hicride Istanbul Hayati, Istanbul, 1333, pp. 52-53; idem, "Bizde
Sehnamecilik, Seyyid Lokman ve Halefleri," Yeni Mecmua, Istanbul, 1917, pp. 169-173; Christine Woodhead, "Hasan Hukmi,"
Islam Ansiklopedisi, v. 16, Istanbul, 1997, pp. 324-325; Tahsin Yazici, "Arifi Fethullah Celebi," Islam Ansiklopedisi,
v. III, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 371-373. For an examination of the shehnameci post, see Christine Woodhead, "An Experiment
in Official Historiography: The Post of Sehnameci in the Ottoman Empire c. 1555-1605," WZKM 75 (1983), pp. 157-182.
See also her article " 'The present Terour of the World' Contemporary Views of the Ottoman Empire c. 1600," History,
v. 72, 234 (2/1987) pp. 20-37.
2.Hereafter I will refer to the shehnamecis with their abbreviated names-i.e. 'Arifi, Eflatun, Seyyid Lokman,
Ta'liki-zade, and Hasan Hukmi respectively.
3.The reception is described in Seyyid Lokman's Shehname-i Selim Han (Topkapi Palace Library, A. 3595). For more
information on the Houghton Shahname, see Martin B. Dickson and S.C. Welch, The Houghton Shahnameh, 2vols. Cambridge,
Mass. and London, 1981.
4.Bekir Kutukoglu, "Shah Tahmasb'in III. Murad'a Culus Tebriki," in Vekayi'nuvis Makaleler, p. 379-80. Kutukoglu
states that the number of Qur'an copies varies according to sources. Lokman provides the number 18, while a
contemporary foreign observer, Gerlach, gives the number 20, and another writer Mehmed Zaim, 10. (n 22)
5.The sultan's big present in this "exchange of gifts" was his facilitating of the grand scale event during which
he also provided for several feasts for various officials and the public. He also distributed money and mercy. For
an analysis of the circumcision party of Mehmed (III) see Derin Terzioglu, "The Imperial Circumcision Festival of
1582: An Interpretation" Muqarnas, vol. 12 (1995), p. 84-100. See also the introduction of the editor Ali Oztekin in
Mustafa 'Ali, Cami'u'l-Buhur der Mecalis-i Sur, (1582), Ankara, 1996.
6.Another masnavi, Nizami's Hamsa followed the Shahname in popularity.
7.In 1576 the Safavid envoy brought many copies of the Qur'an (see footnote 4). Shah Tahmasb's decision to include so
many copies strongly suggests an intention to emphasize at the same time the orthodoxy of the Safavid position and a
shared religious platform with the Ottoman ruler. The inclusion of an unusual number of Qur'an copies thus enabled
the shah's message to be delivered more forcefully and smoothly to the new sultan.
8.Here I largely rely on Serpil Bagci's remarkable article where she provides a comparative analysis of the shehname-i
turki miniatures. Serpil Bagci, "The Illustrated Sehname-i Turki Copies" in Muqarnas, vol.17 (2000), p. 162-176.
9.There is one exception. The Mamluk sultan Kansuh al-Ghawri (r. 1501-1516) also commissioned a Turkish translation of
the Shahname. This manuscript was copied and illustrated several times by Ottoman artists. This will be dealt with in
the following paragraph.
10.Serpil Bagci, "The Illustrated Sehname-i Turki Copies" in Muqarnas, vol.17 (2000), p. 166.
11.Ibid. Op. Sic.
12.Ibid. p. 166.
13.Ibid. Op. Sic.
14.Ibid. p. 175, footnotes 32 and 33. British Library Or. 7204 and Suleymaniye Library, Damat Ibrahim Pasa, 983. There
is yet another undated and incomplete copy at the British Library Or. 1126.
15.Serpil Bagci, "The Illustrated Sehname-i Turki Copies" in Muqarnas, vol.17 (2000), p. 162-176; Guner Inal, "The
Ottoman Interpretation of Firdausi's Sahname," in Ars Turcica: Akten des Internationalen Kongresses fur Turkische
Kunst (Munich, 1979), vol. 2, p. 554-562 and vol.3, p.102-104.
16.Karin Ruhrdanz, "About a Group of Truncated Shahnamas: A Case Study in the Commercial Production of Illustrated
Manuscripts in the Second Part of the Sixteenth Century," in Muqarnas, vol. 14 (1997), p. 118-134.
17.These are collections of stories from the lives of the prophets.
18.Ibid. p. 129. See also footnote 55.
19.The issue of exiled and renegade Persians will be examined in another chapter of my dissertation where I also
discuss in detail the backgrounds of the shehnamecis, four of whom were of Persian descent.
20.A similar point is made by Ruhrdanz.who suggests that "the new style that appears side by side with a known one
from the Qisas al-anbiya' copies in the Philadelphia Shahnamemay signal a step-by-step replacement of artists working
in a Persianate style by colleagues less familiar with the Persian models." Ibid. p. 129.
21.Kiyafetu'l-Insaniye fi Semaili'l-Osmaniyye, Historical Research Foundation, Istanbul, 1987. This beautiful
publication includes a facsimile of the text (Millet AE Tarih 1216?) and its summary. Unfortunately, the summary
abounds in errors. See also, M.S. Taysi, M. "Seyyid Lokman Celebi Kiyafetul-Insaniyye fî Sema´ili´l-Osmaniyye," Turk
Dunyasi Arastirmalari, 86 (October 1993), pp. 97-122. Here, Taysi provides an introductory history of the science of
physiognomy as well as a summary of Lokman`s career. No critical transcription of the text has yet been published.
22.Kiyafetu'l-Insaniye fi Semaili'l-Osmaniyye, Historical Research Foundation, Istanbul, 1987. (Millet AE Tarih 1216?)
folio 43b.
23.The mirror of Alexander is the legendary mirror made by Aristotle for his pupil Alexander. According to the legend,
Alexander could see the whole world in this mirror.
24.The mythical goblet or cup of Jamshid had the power to reflect the world. Ibid. Folio 39a line 13, folio 39b lines
1 and 2.
25.Ibid. Folio 53a, line 12.
26.Ibid. Folio 32a, lines 12 and 13. a similar comparison is made for several other sultans such as Murad II (folio
35a, line 11), Mehmed II (folio 38a, line 14), and Bayezid II (folio 41a, line 13).
27.The Mountain Kaf is a legendary mountain that is believed to surround the world.
28.Ibid. Folio 44b, lines 1,2, and 3.
29.Ibid. Folio 45b, lines 3 and 4.
30.TSMK H. 1523, folios 24a (miniature) and 24b, line 2-5.
31.TSMK H. 1523,Folios 30b, 31a, 32a.
32.TSMK H. 1517. Also in Esin Atil, Suleymanname: The Illustrated History of Suleyman the Magnificent, Washington,
1986. This study includes the reproductions of the book's miniatures with a summary of the corresponding text. In
addition, Atil gives information on Suleyman's reign and the artistic output in his time.
33.Mustafa 'Ali, Hattatlarin ve Kitap Sanatçilarinin Destanlari (Menakib-i Hunerveran, 1587) presented in modern
Turkish by Mujgan Cunbur. Ankara, 1982, p.126.
34.Ibid. Op. Sic.
35.Ibid. p. 101.Hanna Sohrweide also mentions this instance in her article. She suggests that the debate over the
quality of the two styles might be related to the disapproval of traditionalists who might be voicing their
criticisms at a possibly innovative Ottoman style of bookbinding. For her interpretation, see "Dichter und Gelehrte
aus dem Osten im osmanischen Reich (1453-1600)," Der Islam (46) 1970, p. 298.
36.Mustafa 'Ali, Hattatlarin ve Kitap Sanatçilarinin Destanlari (Menakib-i Hunerveran, 1587) presented in modern
Turkish by Mujgan Cunbur. Ankara, 1982, p. 109.
37.Latifi, Tezkire-i Latifi, Istanbul, 1214.
38.Kinalizade Hasan Çelebi. Tezkiretu's-Suara, vol. 1 and 2, with an introduction by Ibrahim Kutluk. Ankara, 1978.
39.For a very good example of this see the entry for Ahmed Pasa in Latifi's biography of poets. (Latifi, Tezkire-i
Latifi, Istanbul, 1214, p. 77.