Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:30:59.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civilian Society and Political Power in the Ottoman Empire: A Report on Research in Collective Biography (1480–1830)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Suraiya Faroqhi
Suraiya Faroqhi
Affiliation:
Department of HistoryMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prosopography, or collective biography, as this field of study is sometimes called by scholars dealing with periods later than Greek and Roman antiquity, is a relatively simple and unsophisticated research technique. Basically, it consists of assembling and comparing biographical data for all individuals belonging to a clearly circumscribed group of people. Frequently, but not necessarily, the individuals in question held public office of some kind. This technique recommends itself by the fact that it can be applied even to periods on which very little evidence is available, such as the Roman Republic But on a different level, prosopography can also contribute to our understanding of societies with a fairly rich documentation. Thus, quite a few items among the more recent literature cited by Lawrence Stone in his book on the causes of the seventeenth-century English revolution might be described at least in part upon prosopographical techniques. In the same vein, the research technique has been used by a number of scholars to shed some light upon the institutions and society of the Ottoman Empire.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 109 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Compare in this Context Nicolet, Claude, “Prosopographie et histoire sociale: Rome et l'Italie,” Annales Economies Sociétés Civilizations, 25, V, (1970), 1209–28;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also Stone, Lawrence, “Prosopography,” Daedalus (1971), pp. 46–79.Google Scholar

2 Stone, Lawrence, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529–1642 (London, 1972), pp. 26–43.Google Scholar

3 Bulliet, Richard W., “A Quantitative Approach to Medieval Muslim Biographical Dictionaries,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (henceforth JESHO), 13, 11(1970), pp. 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ayalon, David, “Studies in al-Jabarti,” JESHO, 3, II–III (1960), 148–74, pp. 275–325.Google Scholar

5 Akdağ, Mustafa, Celâlî Isyanlari (1550–1603), Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayinlari 144 (Ankara, 1963), p. 44;Google ScholarAbou-el-Haj, Rifa'at Ali, “The Ottoman Vezir and Pasa Households, 1683–1703: A Preliminary Report,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 94, IV (10–12 1974), pp. 438–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Findley, Carter V., “Patrimonial Household Organization and Factional Activity in the Ottoman Ruling Class,” in Inalcik, Halil, Okyar, Osman, and Nalbantoğlu, Ü., eds., Türkiy'nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Tarihi (1071–1920) (Ankara, 1980), pp. 227–35.Google Scholar

7 Aktepe, Münir, “Ipsir Mustafa Pasa ve kendisi ile ilgili bazi belgeler,” Tarih Dergisi, 24 (1970), pp. 50–51.Google Scholar

8 Tahir, Kemal, Bir Mülkiyet Kalesi (Istanbul, 1982), pp. 30–47.Google Scholar

9 Kunt, Ibrahim Metin, “Kullarin Kullari,” Bogzi¸i Üniversitesi Dergisi, Hümaniter Bilimler, III (1975), pp. 27–42.Google Scholar

10 On these matters, see Ayalon, “Studies” and Findley, “Household Organization,” passim.Google Scholar

11 Türek, Ahmed and Derin, F. Çcetin, “Feyzullah Efendi'nin kendi kaleminden hāl tercümesi,” Tarih Dergisi, 17, XX (1967), pp. 205–18.Google Scholar

12 On the Ottoman ulama, compare Majer, Hans Georg, Vorstudien zur Geschichte der Ilmiye im Osmanischen Reich. I: Zu Usakîzade, seiner Familie und seinem Zeyl-i sakayik; Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients (Munich, 1978). Concerning Sadeddin Efendi and his family, compare the relevant article in İslam Ansikiopedisi.Google Scholar

13 Reindl, Hedda, Männer um Bāyezīd, Eine prosopographische Studie über die Epoche Bāyezīds II (1481–1512) (Berlin, 1983).Google Scholar

14 Kunt, İbrahim Metin, Sancaktan Eyalete. 1550–1650 arasinda Osmanh Ümeras, ve İl İdaresi (İstanbul, 1978).Google Scholar

15 Barbir, Karl, “From Pasha to Efendi: The Assimilation of Ottomans into Damascene Society 1516–1783,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, I, 1 (1980), pp. 67–82.Google Scholar

16 Findley, Carter V., Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte 1789–1922 (Princeton, 1980), pp. 106–11.Google Scholar

17 As an example compare Kissling, Hans Joachim, “Einiges über den Zeinijje-Orden im Osmanischen Reiche,” Der Islam 39 (1964), pp. 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irène, Scheich Üftâde, der Begründer des Ğelvetijje Ordens (Munich, 1961).Google Scholar

19 Götpinarli, Abdülbaki, Mevlanâ'dan Sonra, Mevlevîlik (İstanbul, 1953). pp. 96–127.Google Scholar

20 Bayramoğlu, Fuat, Haci Bayram-i Veli, Yasami-Soyu-Vakfi, Vol. 2. Belgeler, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 14, V (Ankara, 1983).Google Scholar

21 Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, “Osmanli İmparatorluğunda bir İskân ve Kolonizasyon Metodu Olarak Vakiflar ve Temlikler,” Vakiflar Dergisi, 2 (1942), pp. 279–386.Google Scholar

22 Beldiceanu-Steinherr, Irène, “L'assise économique d'un saint musulman, le cheikh Baba Yüsuf,” in Mantran, Robert, ed., Mémorial Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Bibliothèque de I'Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes d'Istanbul 28 (Paris, 1980), pp. 19–38.Google Scholar

23 Faroqhi, Suraiya, Der Bektaschi-Orden in Anatolien (vom späten funfzehnten Jahrhundert bis 1826) (Vienna, 1981).Google Scholar

24 Compare the discussion inaugurated by Itzkowitz, Norman, “Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities,” Studia Islamica, XVI, 1962, pp. 353–94Google Scholar and continued in Findley, Reform, pp. 46–58.Google Scholar

25 Findley, Reform, pp. 353–54, and elsewhere.Google Scholar