Unraveling History: Latifi’s Alleged Ḫamse and the Celalis’ Persecution of His So

Benli, Şeyma

English

Universität Wien: OJS-Service

| 1 Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse	and		the	Celalis’	Persecution	of	His	Son	Şeyma	Benli				Author:	Faculty	Member,	Department	of	Theology,	İstanbul	Medeniyet	University		seyma.benli@medeniyet.edu.tr		ORCID:	0000-0001-9870-5479			Keywords:	Sultan	 Ahmed	 I,	 Latifi,	 Hacı	 Mehemmed,	 the	 Celalis,	 Kastamonu,	 Boyabat,	 telḫīṣ,		17th	century							Cite	this	article:	Benli,	Şeyma.	“Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse	and	the	Celalis’	Persecution	of	His	Son”.	Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions	2/2		(Summer	2024):	1-9.		Available	under	https://doi.org/10.25365/kshf-24-02-01.		____________________________________________	Article	DOI	10.25365/kshf-24-02-01	Published	online	September	30,	2024	©	2024	Şeyma	Benli,	published	by	Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions.	This	 is	 an	 Open	 Access	 article	 licensed	 under	 the	 Creative	 Commons	 Attribution	 4.0.	 International	License	(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 2 | Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions,	Summer	2024,	vol.	2/2 Context*	Housed	in	the	Ottoman	Archives	(BOA,	C..ML..,	204-8439),	the	telḫīṣ1	presented	here	sheds	 new	 light	 on	 renowned	 teẕkire	 (collection	 of	 poets’	 biographies)	 author	 Latifi	Çelebi’s	(d.	990/1582)	own	family	and	offers	new	insights	into	the	relationship	between	the	Ottoman	administration	and	renowned	literati	after	their	death.	The	telḫīṣ,	dated	1	Muharram	1019/26	March	 1610,	states	 that	Hacı	Mehemmed,	Latifi’s	 son,	submitted	a	petition	 to	 the	 state	 requesting	 that	 ten	baṭmāns2	 of	 paddy	 seeds	be	 allotted	 to	him	from	the	 land	owned	by	the	Sultan	(mīrī	 ʿarāżī)	 in	Boyabat.	Mehemmed	appealed	to	the	state	because	he	had	been	robbed	four	times	and	held	captive	by	the	Celalis.	This,	coupled	 with	 his	 advanced	 age,	 poverty,	 and	 responsibility	 for	 a	 sizable	 household,	compelled	him	to	appeal	to	the	authorities	for	a	monthly	allowance.	The	telḫīṣ	includes	the	 officer’s	 address	 to	 Sultan	 Ahmed	 I,	 in	 which	 he	 expressed	 his	 opinion	 about	Mehemmed’s	request,	as	well	as	the	Sultan’s	response.	The	officer	deemed	ten	baṭmāns	to	 be	 excessive	 and	 proposed	 that	 five	baṭmāns	 be	 allocated	 to	Mehemmed	 instead,	stating	that	this	amount	would	suffice	his	needs.	Thereupon	the	Sultan	approved	this	officer’s	recommendation	in	his	concluding	remarks.	The	 telḫīṣ	directs	our	attention	 to	 two	 intriguing,	previously	unknown	 facets	of	Latifi.3	 Firstly,	 although	 Latifi	 himself	 confirms	 his	 lineage	 to	 the	 prominent	Ḫaṭīb- *  I	 would	 like	 to	 thank	 the	 anonymous	 reviewer	 and	my	 dear	 colleagues	 Ercan	 Akyol,	 Edith	 G.	Ambros,	 Günhan	 Börekçi,	 İsmail	 Emre	 Pamuk,	 and	 Sadık	 Yazar	 for	 sharing	 their	 valuable	opinions	on	the	document	that	I	examined	in	this	paper.	1		 While	a	telḫīṣ	refers	to	a	summarized	report	written	by	any	subordinate	to	a	superior	officer,	it	is	most	 commonly	 used	 in	 reference	 to	 the	 correspondence	 of	 the	 grand	 vizier	 to	 sultan.	 See	Mübahat	S.	Kütükoğlu,	Osmanlı	Belgelerinin	Dili	(Diplomatik),	(İstanbul:	Kubbealtı,	1994),	206.		2		 The	baṭmān,	 a	 unit	 of	weight	used	particularly	by	Turks	 across	different	 regions	 and	historical	periods,	 lacked	 a	 fixed	 equivalent	 and	 varied	 depending	 on	 both	 time	 and	 geographic	 region.	While	standardized	at	10	kg	in	the	Ottoman	Empire	in	1881,	its	weight	had	previously	fluctuated	between	 two	 and	 eight	 kg.	 See	Cengiz	Kallek,	 “Batman”,	 in	TDV	 İslam	Ansiklopedisi	 (Istanbul:	TDV,	1992).	Given	this,	we	can	infer	that	the	aforementioned	amount	of	ten	baṭmāns	corresponds	to	a	range	of	20	to	80	kg.	3		 Biographical	 sources	 indicate	 that	 two	 additional	 poets	 using	 the	 nome	 de	 plume	 Latifi	 lived	during	the	sixteenth	century.	The	first,	also	known	as	Tûtî-i	Latîf,	was	a	qadi	from	Bursa	who	died	in	 972/1564-65	 (Yunus	 Kaplan,	 “Latîfî,	 Tûtî-i	 Latîf,”	 in	 Türk	 Edebiyatı	 İsimler	 Sözlüğü,	Ankara:	Ahmet	Yesevi	Üniversitesi,	 2014).	The	 second,	Latîfî-i	Hânende,	was	a	poet	and	composer	 from	Iran	who	eventually	settled	in	Aleppo	(İsmail	Hakkı	Aksoyak,	“Latifî,	Latîfî-i	Hânende,	Halepli”	in	Türk	 Edebiyatı	 İsimler	 Sözlüğü,	Ankara:	 Ahmet	 Yesevi	 Üniversitesi,	 2014).	 Since	 the	 document	Şeyma	Benli,	Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse│3 zādeler	family	of	Kastamonu,4	the	specifics	of	his	own	immediate	family	had	remained	elusive	until	the	discovery	of	this	telḫīṣ.	Indeed,	it	reveals	that	Latifi	had	a	son	named	Mehemmed	who,	albeit	in	the	autumn	of	his	life,	was	still	alive	in	1610.	As	evidenced	by	his	title	of	Hacı,	Mehemmed	had	completed	the	Hajj	pilgrimage	prior	to	filing	his	re-quest,	 thereby	 suggesting	 that	he	had	possessed	 sufficient	wealth	 to	 cover	 the	 travel	expenses	to	Mecca	at	some	point	earlier	in	his	life.	Yet	his	fortune	took	a	downturn	as	he	 approached	 the	 twilight	 of	his	 life.	Despite	his	 prominent	 lineage	 and	wealth,	he	and	 his	 family	 were	 unable	 to	 shield	 themselves	 from	 the	 economic	 and	 social	turbulence	wrought	by	the	Celalis	during	their	era.		Secondly,	 the	 telḫīṣ	 introduces	 Latifi	 as	 a	 ḫamse5	 ṣāḥibi—an	 author	 of	 five	mes ̱nevīs.	 In	his	biography	of	poets,	Teẕkiretü’ş-Şuʿarā,	 Latifi	 states	 that	he	authored	twelve	 works,	 including	 Enīsü’l-Füṣeḥā,	 Fuṣūl-i	 Erbaʿa,	 Evṣāf-ı	 İstanbul,	 and	 a	 volu-minous	Dīvān.6	Apart	from	what	he	mentioned,	scholars	have	likewise	determined	the	following	 works	 to	 belong	 to	 him:	 Evṣāf-ı	 İbrāhīm	 Paşa,	 Sübḥatü’l-ʿUşşāḳ,	 Naẓmü’l-Cevāhir,	and	Esmāʾu	Suveri’l-Ḳurʾān.	Of	all	 the	aforementioned	works,	only	the	 latter	three	and	his	Dīvān	are	poetic	works	but	not	in	mes ̱nevī	form.7	Assuming	that	he	wrote	his	last	three	unknown	works	in	mes ̱nevī	form,	they	would	not	suffice	to	classify	him	as	a	ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi.	Moreover,	 neither	 Latifi	 himself	 nor	 any	 other	 sources	mention	him	with	this	title.8	Given	that	not	everyone	who	had	authored	five	mes ̱nevīs	called	himself	or	was	known	as	a	ḫamse	ṣāḥibi,	Arslan	argues	that	being	a	ḫamse	ṣāḥibi	requires	that	one	meet	additional	criteria	in	addition	to	writing	five	mes ̱nevīs.	However,	he	does	not	specify	what	these	criteria	are.9	 specifies	that	Latifi	was	from	Kastamonu,	the	poet	referenced	in	the	document	is	the	celebrated	teẕkire	writer	and	not	either	of	the	two	mentioned	herein.	4		 Latîfî,	 Tezkiretü’ş-Şu’arâ	 ve	 Tabsıratü’n-Nuzamâ,	 ed.	 Rıdvan	 Canım	 (Ankara:	 T.C.	 Kültür	 ve	Turizm	Bakanlığı,	2018),	468.	5		 A	ḫamse	used	 to	 indicate	a	collection	of	 five	mes̱nevīs	authored	by	a	poet.	See	Mehmet	Arslan,	“Türk	Edebiyatı’nda	Hamse,”	Türkiye	Araştırmaları	Literatür	Dergisi	5,	no.	9	(2007):	305.	6		 Latîfî,	Tezkire,	470-471.	7		 Ahmet	Sevgi,	“Latîfî,”	in	TDV	İslam	Ansiklopedisi,	(Istanbul:	TDV,	2003).	8		 Cf.	Sevgi,	“Latîfî”	and	Latîfî,	Tezkire,	9-11,	468-474.	9		 Arslan,	“Türk	Edebiyatı’nda	Hamse,”	310.	4 | Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions,	Summer	2024,	vol.	2/2 The	title	used	in	the	telḫīṣ	gains	importance	in	this	context.	Here	are	three	pos-sibilities	explaining	why	Latifi	was	called	a	ḫamse	ṣāḥibi.	Latifi	may	have	written	 five	heretofore	undiscovered	mes ̱nevīs	during	the	twilight	of	his	life,	or	the	official	made	an	error.	 Yet,	 these	 two	 explanations	 are	 unlikely.	 The	 final	 and	 most	 probable	explanation	 is	 that	 his	 works,	 which	 number	 well	 more	 than	 five,	 were	 deemed	 a	ḫamse.	Arslan	 asserts	 that,	 at	 least	 in	 certain	 exceptional	 cases,	 any	 five	 works	 of	 an	author	 could	 render	 him	 a	 ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi.10	 Although	 he	 fails	 to	 specify	 such	 cases	explicitly,	we	can	infer	that	he	is	referring	to	Nergisi	(d.	1044/1635),	as	Nergisi	is	always	presented	as	an	exceptional	 case	of	being	a	ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi	 of	his	 five	prosaic	works	 in	current	studies.	The	manuscripts	from	the	late	seventeenth	century	also	name	Nergisi’s	works	 ḫamse,	 nevertheless,	 there	 is	 no	 evidence	 that	 he	 collected	 them	 under	 this	title.11	This	means	 that	 Latifi	might	 have	 been	 called	 ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi	 due	 to	 his	 works	which	he	himself	pointed	out	in	his	Teẕkire.12	If	so,	it	is	still	remarkable	that	the	term	was	used	for	prosaic	works	at	such	an	early	date.13	Whatever	the	case,	the	official’s	use	of	 ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi	 in	 reference	 to	 Latifi	 suggests	 an	 effort	 on	 his	 part	 to	 convince	 the	sultan	 to	 honor	 Hacı	 Mehemmed	 out	 of	 esteem	 for	 his	 late	 father’s	 standing.	 This	document	 also	 illustrates	 how	 archival	 sources,	 even	 the	 most	 seemingly	 mundane	telḫīṣ,	 can	 stimulate	 new	 inquiries	 into	 Ottoman	 literary	 history	 and	 enrich	prosopography	studies.		 	 10		 Ibid.,	306.	11		 Süleyman	Çaldak,	Nergisî	ve	Nihâlistân’ı,	(Istanbul:	Kesit,	2010),	84-85.	12		 Tradition	 allowed	 an	 author	 to	 be	 still	 called	 a	ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi	 even	 if	 he	 had	written	more.	 See	Hüseyin	Ayan,	“Divan	Edebiyatında	Hamseler,”	91-92.	13		 Hüseyin	Ayan	points	out	that	although	Âşık	Çelebi	recognizes	Celili	of	Bursa	as	a	ḫamse	ṣāḥibi	of	prosaic	 works	 for	 the	 first	 time,	 he	 has	 five	mes̱nevīs	 and	 no	 prosaic	 works	mentioned	 in	 the	edition	 of	 Âşık	 Çelebi’s	 tezkire.	 Cf.	 Ayan,	 “Divan	 Edebiyatında	Hamseler,”	Atatürk	 Üniversitesi	Edebiyat	Fakültesi	Araştırma	Dergisi	Ahmet	Caferoğlu	Özel	Sayısı	1,	no.	10	(1979):	90,	99,	and	Âşık	Çelebi,	Meşâ’irü’ş-Şu‘arâ,	ed.	Filiz	Kılıç,	(Ankara:	T.C.	Kültür	ve	Turizm	Bakanlığı,	2018)	209-212.	According	 to	 İ.	H.	 Ertaylan,	 one	 copy	of	Âşık	Çelebi’s	 tezkire	 kept	 in	Millet	 Library’s	Ali	 Emiri	Collection	 includes	 a	 note	 stating	 that	Celili	 authored	 a	 prosaic	ḫamse.	See	Agâh	 Sırrı	 Levend,	Türk	Edebiyatı	Tarihi,	(Ankara:	TTK,	1973),	112.	Şeyma	Benli,	Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse│5 Transcription		Hüve	Pāye-i	 serīr-i	 aʿlāya	 ʿarż	olunduḳda	beş	 baṭmān	 ile	 berāt	 virilmek	buyuruldı.	 Fī	 ġurre-i	Muḥarrem	sene	19.14		 ʿArż-ı	 bende-i	 bī-miḳdār	 budur	 ki	Ḳasṭamonı	 sākinlerinden	ḫamse	 ṣāḥibi	 olan	merḥūm	Laṭīfī	 Çelebi’nüñ	 oġlı	 Ḥācı	 Meḥemmed	 duʿācıları	 rikāb-ı	 hümāyūna	 ʿarż-ı	 ḥāl	 ṣunub	vilāyet-i	 Anaṭolı’ya	Celālī	müstevlī	 olaldan	 berü	 dört	 defʿa	mā-meleki	 ġāret	 ve	 kendüsi	esīr	 olmaġla	 ve	merḳūm	duʿācıları	 pīr	 ü	 iḫtiyār	 ve	 faḳīrü’l-ḥāl	 ve	 kes ̱īrü’l-ʿıyāl	 olmaġın	Boyabad	çeltüginüñ	mīrīden	ziyāde	ḳalan	toḥmdan	sebeb-i	maʿāşı	içün	ayda	on	baṭmān	çeltük	ṣadaḳa	vü	ʿināyet	buyurıla.	Bāḳī	fermān	saʿādetlü	pādişāhumuñdur.15	[Ricā	ider.]16	Saʿādetlü	 pādişāhum,	 ayda	 on	 baṭmān	 çoḳdur.	 Nihāyet	 sebeb-i	 maʿāşı	 içün	 üçer	 beş	baṭmān	kifāyet	ider.	Bu	bābda	fermān	saʿādetlü	pādişāhumuñdur.	Maḥalline	ḳayd	olına.			 	 14		 This	statement	is	the	Sultan’s	verdict.	15		 An	additional	word	has	remained	undeciphered.	16		 Such	corrections	could	be	found	in	the	archival	records.	They	occurred	here	because	the	authority	would	add	an	objection	immediately.	6 | Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions,	Summer	2024,	vol.	2/2 Teẕkire17	dāde	şod.		Fī	16	Muḥarrem	sene	1019.	Tābiʿ-i	ḳalem-i	Burusa18		Translation	He	[Allah]	Following	the	submission	[of	the	subjoined	missive]	to	the	honor	of	the	[Sultan’s]	most	sublime	 throne,	 an	 imperial	 warrant	 conferring	 five	 baṭmāns	 [of	 paddy	 seeds]	 was	ordained	on	the	first	day	of	Muharram,	[10]19	[March	26,	1610].		This	humble	servant	has	presented	the	petition	of	Hacı	Mehemmed,	supplicant	of	the	sultan	and	son	of	the	late	Latifi	Çelebi,	the	author	of	a	ḫamse	hailing	from	Kastamonu.	In	his	petition	to	the	majestic	presence	of	the	Sultan,	he	states	that	he	has	been	robbed	four	 times	 and	 also	 held	 captive	 by	 the	 Celalis	 since	 their	 incursion	 into	 Anatolia.	Given	 his	 advanced	 age,	 impoverished	 state,	 and	 burden	 of	 looking	 after	 a	 sizeable	household,	 he	 implores	 that	 a	monthly	 stipend	 of	 ten	 baṭmāns	 of	 leftover	 seeds	 be	allocated	 to	 him	 from	 the	 land	 owned	 by	 the	 Sultan	 in	 Boyabat	 to	 sustain	 him	 in	charitable	support	for	his	 livelihood.	The	ultimate	command	belongs	to	my	felicitous	Sultan.		 17		 A	teẕkire,	as	defined	by	Kütükoğlu,	is	essentially	a	communiqué	exchanged	between	officials	re-siding	in	the	same	town	(Osmanlı	Belgelerinin	Dili,	245).	Pál	Fodor,	however,	argues	that	telḫīṣes	evolved	out	of	teẕkires,	citing	instances	where	telḫīṣes	are	referred	to	as	teẕkires.	Whereas	the	two	documents	do	 indeed	share	similar	 forms,	Fodor	classifies	 telḫīṣes	as	“teẕkires	submitted	by	the	grand	vizier	to	the	sultan”.	Given	this,	there	is	no	doubt	that	this	particular	document	is	a	telḫīṣ,	as	 it	 includes	all	 the	characteristics	cited	by	Fodor.	These	 include	 the	Arabic	word	hüve,	which	means	he	and	is	commonly	used	in	Islamic	culture	to	refer	to	God,	at	the	top;	the	phrase	“ʿarż-ı	bende-i	bī-miḳdār”	used	as	 an	 introduction	 to	 the	body	of	 the	 text;	 a	 summary	of	 the	event	 in	question;	 the	 grand	 vizier’s	 opinion	 that	 begins	 with	 the	 phrase	 “saʿādetlü	 pādişāhum”	 and	concludes	with	“bāḳī	fermān	devletlü	pādişāhumuñdur”;	and	the	sultan’s	ruling	written	at	the	top	left	of	the	document.	See	Fodor,	“Telhis,”	in	TDV	İslam	Ansiklopedisi,	(Istanbul:	TDV,	2011).	18		 The	Mukataa-i	Bursa	kalemi	was	responsible	for	all	of	northwestern	Anatolia	in	addition	to	Bursa	in	 the	 seventeenth	 century.	 See	 Linda	Darling,	Revenue-Raising	 and	 Legitimacy:	 Tax	 Collection	and	 Finance	 Administration	 in	 the	 Ottoman	 Empire	 1560-1660,	 (Leiden:	 E.J.	 Brill,	 1996),	 76.	Accordingly,	 the	mention	 of	 Bursa	 here	 cannot	 be	 used	 to	 demonstrate	 that	Hacı	Mehemmed	lived	in	Bursa	proper.	Şeyma	Benli,	Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse│7 My	 felicitous	 Sultan!	 A	monthly	 sum	 of	 ten	 baṭmāns	 is	 excessive.	 Rather	 three	 five	baṭmāns	shall	suffice	to	cover	his	monthly	upkeep.	Verily	the	decision	lies	in	my	felici-tous	Sultan.	May	it	be	duly	recorded	in	the	relevant	place.	Teẕkire	was	received	on	Muharram	16,	1019	[April	10,	1610].	Attached	to	the	office	of	Bursa.			 	8 | Keshif:	E-Journal	for	Ottoman-Turkish	Micro	Editions,	Summer	2024,	vol.	2/2 Facsimile					Şeyma	Benli,	Unraveling	History:	Latifi’s	Alleged	Ḫamse│9 Bibliography	Aksoyak,	 İsmail	 Hakkı.	 “Latifî,	 Latîfî-i	 Hanende,	 Halepli.”	 Türk	 Edebiyatı	 İsimler	Sözlüğü.	 Ankara:	 Ahmet	 Yesevi	 Üniversitesi.	 http://teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/latifi-latifii-hanende-halepli	(27.6.2024).	Arslan,	Mehmet.	 “Türk	Edebiyatı’nda	Hamse.”	Türkiye	Araştırmaları	Literatür	Dergisi	5,	no.	9	(2007):	305-322.	Âşık	Çelebi,	Meşâ’irü’ş-Şu‘arâ.	ed.	Filiz	Kılıç.	Ankara:	T.C.	Kültür	ve	Turizm	Bakanlığı,	2018.	Ayan,	Hüseyin.	“Divan	Edebiyatında	Hamseler.”	Atatürk	Üniversitesi	Edebiyat	Fakültesi	Araştırma	Dergisi	Ahmet	Caferoğlu	Özel	Sayısı	1,	no.	10	(1979):	87-100.	BOA	 (T.C.	 Cumhurbaşkanlığı	 Devlet	 Arşivleri	 Başkanlığı	 Osmanlı	 Arşivi).	 C..ML..	(Muallim	Cevdet	Tasnifi,	Maliye).	204-8439.	date	of	the	document:	H-16-01-1019.	Çaldak,	Süleyman.	Nergisî	ve	Nihâlistân’ı.	Istanbul:	Kesit,	2010.	Darling,	Linda.	Revenue-Raising	and	Legitimacy:	Tax	Collection	and	Finance	Adminis-tration	in	the	Ottoman	Empire	1560-1660.	Leiden:	E.J.Brill,	1996.	Fodor,	Pál.	“Telhis.”	TDV	İslam	Ansiklopedisi.	Istanbul:	TDV,	2011.	https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/telhis--belge	(27.6.2024).	Kallek,	Cengiz.	“Batman.”	TDV	İslam	Ansiklopedisi.	Istanbul:	TDV,	1992.	https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/batman--olcu	(28.4.2024).	Kaplan,	 Yunus.	 “Latîfî,	 Tûtî-i	 Latîf.”	 Türk	 Edebiyatı	 İsimler	 Sözlüğü.	 Ankara:	 Ahmet	Yesevi	Üniversitesi,	2014.		https://teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/latifi-tutii-latif	(27.6.2024).	Kütükoğlu,	 Mübahat	 S.	 Osmanlı	 Belgelerinin	 Dili	 (Diplomatik).	 Istanbul:	 Kubbealtı,	1994.	Latîfî.	 Tezkiretü’ş-Şu’arâ	 ve	 Tabsıratü’n-Nuzamâ.	 ed.	 Rıdvan	 Canım.	 Ankara:	 T.C.	Kültür	ve	Turizm	Bakanlığı,	2018.	Levend,	Agâh	Sırrı.	Türk	Edebiyatı	Tarihi.	Ankara:	TTK,	1973.	Sevgi,	Ahmet.	“Latîfî.”	TDV	İslam	Ansiklopedisi.	Istanbul:	TDV,	2003.	https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/latifi	(27.4.2024).	

Unraveling History: Latifi’s Alleged Ḫamse and the Celalis’ Persecution of His Son

https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/keshif/article/download/8995/9130

Unraveling History: Latifi’s Alleged Ḫamse and the Celalis’ Persecution of His Son

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universität Wien: OJS-Service