No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Traces of a Lost Autobiographical Work by a Courtier of Selim II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
Autobiography is a genre not frequently encountered in Ottoman literature. In recent years two works have been published which fall into this category—the autobiography of ‘O
mān Āghā who was a prisoner of war in Austria towards the close of the seventeenth century, and the memoirs of Ma'jūnjuzāde Muṣṭafa Efendi describing his experiences after his capture by the Knights of Malta in 1597.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , October 1960 , pp. 456 - 463
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1960
References
1 Leben und Abenteuer des Dolmetschers Osman Aġo, … ins Deutsche, übertragen und erläutert von Richard F. Kreutel und Otto Spies, Bonn, 1954.Google Scholar
2 Described by İ. Parmaksizoğlu, in ‘Bir Türk kadismm esaret hatiralari’Google Scholar, Tarih Dergisi, Cild v, Sayi 8, 1953, 77–85.
3 The second of these names was bestowed on him by his parents (see below, verse 2); the first by Selim II as a makhlaṣ (verse 9).
4 See below, verses 11–13.
5 This manuscript (Or. 12173) consists of 299 folios, 15 lines, 11 cm. long, and measures 28 × 11 cm. It has suffered very much from damp and rough handling but the contemporary leather binding with embossed medallion is fairly well preserved. The manuscript is without ornamentation except for two rather crudely executed ‘unvāns, one on the first folio above the prose introduction, and the other above the beginning of the poem. According to the colophon the manuscript was written in 993/1585 but the copyist's name is not mentioned. The hand is a fairly large Naskh with all the vowels carefully indicated. The title is as follows:
and the first lines run:
Prose summaries (ff. 4a–7a) of the lives of the Prophets follow and, after verses in praise of the reigning sovereign Murad III (1574–95), the poem begins:
1 The town is better known by the name of Afyon Karahisar.
2 Thus Hindī Maḥmūd was of Muslim parents.
3 I have not been able to trace this Qaraṣīzāde (with ṣād!). Thus the author of the Q 
ṣaṣ had a kinsman (and patron) who was well versed in this subject as shown in the following bait.
1 I take sikke here to mean ‘seal, instrument for stamping’ used in the metaphorical sense of ‘edicts’ or ‘authority’.
2 Professor Wittek, to whom I am indebted for much advice, has drawn my attention to the fact that the use of an ordinal after a Sultan's name is exceptional in the sixteenth century.
3 No other Ottoman poet of this pen-name is known.
4 The successor referred to is Murad III (1574–95) in whose reign the Q ṣaṣ was written.
5 14–23 August 1579.
6 In other words, his verses are like the sun in brilliance. Though Hindī was as dark as night (as his pen-name implies) nevertheless, by writing this poem, it was as though he had grasped particles of the sun to illuminate himself so that he became as light as day.
7 Read sāl u māh.
1 Ṭa 
t m, the Eastern Turkish form for Ottoman ṭa d m, is surprising in an Ottoman text of this date.
2 Note the defective rhymes!
1 i.e. all the experiences which befell Hindī Maḥmūd in this world were predestined by the Divine Will. Thus God provided the reason for his writing these verses. Although he was mortal, perhaps his poem would be known to posterity.
2 i.e. what kind of experiences did he have during his life?
3 I, Süleyman, ‘Qānūnī’ (1520–66).Google Scholar
4 One of the two heads of the Ottoman judicial hierarchy.
5 The full name of this Qāẓī-'asker was Meḥemmed b. Quṭbeddīn Meḥemmed b. Meḥemmed b. Qāẓīzāde-i Rūmī. Quṭbeddīnzāde had become Cadi of Istanbul in 945/1538–9, after which he was promoted to the post of Qāẓī-'asker of Anadolu which he retained until 956/1549–50. One year later he died. See Ṭaköprüzāde (Būlāq, 1299), pp. 47–8: Mejdī (Istanbul, 1269), pp. 448–9: Sijill-i 'O mānī, IV, p. 113.Google Scholar
6 The well-known Qoja Niānj (d. 975/1567–8).
7 Prince Selim twice held office as governor of Konya. According to Hammer, , GOR, IIIGoogle Scholar, Pest, 1828, 245–6, the governorship was conferred upon him in 1543 (950). He remained at Konya until 1545 (952) when he became governor of Manisa. ‘Ālī (Künh ül-akhbār, B.M. Or. 32, ff. 152b; 161a) mentions that in the year 966/1558–9, Selim was transferred as sanjaq-beği from Manisa to Konya. See also Pe
evī, 1, p. 395, where no date is given but the last recorded date before this is a'bān 966/1558–9.
8 The rank of Müteferriqa was in this case surely honorary only, as often conferred on Dīvān-secretaries, especially those acting in a diplomatic capacity.
1 Shāh Ṭahniāsp of Persia (the Ṣafavid, 1524–76). In 962/1555–6 a Persian embassy had come to the Sultan to seek peace. The Ottoman embassies which went to Persia during this period are mentioned in the Aḥsanu'l-tavārīkh of Ḥasan i Rūmlū (ed. Seddon, Baroda, 1931). They took place in 966/1558–9–967/1559–60 (pp. 410–11); 968/1560–1 (p. 415); 969/1561–2 (p. 417); and 970/1562–3 (p. 418). If we assume that Hindī Maḥmūd went to Persia before he moved to Kütahya, 966–7 and 968 are the most likely dates.
2 The lamps were kindled at the various shrines Maḥmūd visited.
3 The exact date when the sanjaq of Kütahya was conferred upon Selim is not certain. ‘Ālī (Or. 32, fol. 169b) first mentions Selim at Kütahya between events occurring in 967/1559–60 and Rajab 969/1561–2. Peevī is more precise and mentions it immediately after an event in Rajab 968/1560–1.
4 ‘I had tasted of the sweets of life’.
5 i.e. in Rabī' I 974/16 September-15 October 1566. Selim II ascended the throne on 24 September 1566.
6 A registration of land (memleket taḥrīri) took place. Amid is the modern Diyarbekir. Hindī Maḥmūd was placed in charge of this task with many apprentice clerks under him.
7 There is a double pun here which cannot be conveyed in translation—müteferriqa has the literal meaning of ‘being set apart’ and Maḥmūd had already been made a Qap j ba (head gate-keeper).
8 Sikke is here used in the same sense as in the first passage (see v. 6).
1 He was possibly captured in 979/1571 at Lepanto (Aynabakht) where Papal forces fought beside those of Spain and Venice. This would explain why he was kept at Rome and also fit the use of the term ghazā. The Sultan who brought about his release after four years of captivity would have already been Murad III (1574–95) which verses 40–41 indeed suggest.
2 With the alternative meaning ‘I had gambled much but on that occasion I lost’.
3 Q z l elma, here meaning ‘the city of Rome’.
4 He had reached a ripe old age for that period, and it was his intention to spend the remaining years of his life on religious work like writing the Q ṣaṣ. This poem, he hoped, would be produced as evidence of his piety in the world to come.