Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:45:25.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sultan and the Bureaucracy: The Anti-Tanzimat Concepts of Garnd Vizier Mahmud Nedim Paşa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Butrus Abu-Manneh
Butrus Abu-Manneh
Affiliation:
Haifa University, Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mahmud Nedim Paşa was appointed grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire for the first time in September 1871 following the death of his predecessor in that office, Mehmed Amin Ali Paşa. His first tenure lasted until the end of July 1872. His rise to power represented the rise of a current in Ottoman politics that had been suppressed in the 1860s, when Ali and Fuad dominated the Porte.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , August 1990 , pp. 257 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Notes

Authore's note: It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to Professor Roderic H. Davison of George Washington University for reading this paper and commenting on it. His remarks were most useful. I am grateful as well to the governing body of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin for their fellowship, which allowed me the free time to write this article.

1 Ahmed, Lütfī, Tārīh-i, Lutfī, 8 vols. (Istanbul, A.H. 1290–1328), vol. 6:107:Google Scholar “Tanzimat uşūluarīka-yi istibdādiyeyi imhāiçün bir kānün idi” See also Abdulrahman, şeref, Tārīh Muşāhabeleri (Istanbul, A.H. 1339), p. 63;Google Scholarcf., Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton, N.J., 1963), p. 43.Google Scholar

2 According to Cevdet, Ali said in private that “the Lord hasg entrusted the well-being of the state to five or six people. These should govern the fate of the state” (quoted in şerif, Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought, [Princeton, N.J., 1962], p. 111).Google Scholar See also Mardin's, quotation from Millingen, F., La Turquie sous le r`gne d'Abdul Aziz, (Paris, 1868), p. 112.Google Scholar See also Stanford, J.Shaw and Ezel, K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 vols. (New York, 1977), 2:153.Google Scholar

3 See, for instance, what Ahmed, Arif Hikmet Bey (şeyh-ü-Islam, 1846–1854) had written in his Dīvān, (Istanbul, A.H. 1283), p. 263, concerning the Gülhane Rescript and Sultan Abdülmecid; see also Lutfi, Tārīh, 6:55, 165.Google Scholar

4 On Mehmed, Said, see Tārīh-i ⊂Atā (Istanbul, A.H. 1292), 2:198–202;Google Scholar on Mehmed, Ali, see Ahmed, Rifat, Hadīkat-ül vüzerā zeyli, (Istanbul, A.H. 1283), pp. 48–52;Google ScholarMahmud, K. Inal, Son sadriazamlar (Istanbul, 1940), 1:59–73;Google Scholar on Fethi, , see Tārīh-i ⊂Atā, 2:215–18.Google ScholarOn their conflict with Reşid, , see Inal, , Son sadrizamlar, 1:63–64;Google Scholar⊂Ali, Fu⊂ād, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye (Istanbul, 1928), pp. 11–14;Google ScholarFātma⊂Aliyye, , Ahmed Cevdet Pāş ve zemāni (Istanbul, A.H. 1332), pp. 34–35, 42–43, 86, 92;Google ScholarMehmed, , Eşvā-i sudur (Izmir, A.H. 1328), p. 13.Google Scholar

5 On Hasan, Riza, see Sicill-i Osmani, 4 vols. (hereafter SO) (Istanbul, A.H. 1308–11), 2:399–400.Google Scholar

6 On Ali, , see a short biography by his son ⊂Ali, Fu⊂ād, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, pp. 56–101.Google Scholar See also Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, vol. 1:4–58;Google ScholarAhmed, Rifat,Hadīkat-ül vüzerāzeyli, pp. 43–48;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, index.Google ScholarBowen, H., Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed. (E12), 1:396–98.Google ScholarOngunsu, Ahmet H., Islam Ansikiopedisi, 1:335–40. Until now there has been no monograph on him in any language.Google Scholar

7 ⊂Ali, Fu⊂ād, Ricā-i m–himme-i siyāsiye, pp. 94–96;Google ScholarAhmed, Cevdet, Tezâkir, 4 vols. (Ankara, 1953–67), 1:16;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, p. 53.Google Scholar

8 English translation in Jacob, C.Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics (New Haven, Conn., 1975), pp. 315–18;Google Scholar see also Davison, , Reform, pp.53–54, for the part of some European ambassadors in its drafting.Google Scholar See also Enver, Z. Karal, Osmanh tarihi, VI: Islahāt Fermani Devri,1856–1861 (Ankara, 1954), pp. 1–12;Google ScholarAhmet, Refik, “Türikiye'de islāhāt fermāni,” in Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuasi, no. 4 (81), 1922, pp. 193–215.Google Scholar

9 As far as I know, there is no research work in any language on “Ottomanism”; see, however, references in Davison, , Reform, pp. 8; 56 f.;Google ScholarBernard, Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1961), pp. 333–34;Google ScholarMardin, , Genesis, p. 14.Google Scholar

10 For the reaction to the Hatt-i Hümāyün, see Cevdet, , Tezâkir, 1:68–69;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, pp.57–60;Google Scholar and Mardin, , Genesis, p. 355.Google Scholar

11 On Mahmud, Nedim, see Inal, M. K., Son sadriazamlar, (Istanbul, 1940), 1:259–314;Google ScholarMehmed, Z. Pakalin, Mahmud Nedim Paşa, (Istanbul, 1940);Google ScholarDavison, R. in El2, 6:68–69. and SO, 4:336–37. Strangely enough there is no biography of Mahmud Nedim in Islam Ansiklopedisi.Google Scholar

12 Nedim was born in 1818; Ali and Fuad were born in 1815.

13 As his name shows, Necib Paşa was of Georgian origin. He was perhaps born in Istanbul, but his father seems to have come there from Georgia. See[Andreas, D. Mordtmann], Swmbul und das moderne Türkenthum, (Leipzig, 1877–1878), 1:91.Google Scholar On Necib, , see SO, 545–46.Google Scholar

14 Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:259;Google ScholarPakalin, , Mahmud Nedim Paşa, (Istanbul, 1940), p. 1.Google Scholar

15 See Nedim's, autobiographical poem Hasbihāl, in Áyine ve hiasbihāl, (Istanbul, 1327/1909), p. 69.Google Scholar

16 Tārīh-i ⊂Alā, 2:200–201.

17 Hasbihāl, p.69.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., pp. 75–76.

19 Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:259.Google Scholar

20 James, Redhouse, Türkçeden inglfzceye lugat kitāb, (Constantinople, 1921), p. 1954; “Chief secretary of a ministry.”Google Scholar See also Mehmed, Z. Pakalin, Osmanli tarih deyimleri ve terimieri sözlüğü, 3 vols. (Istanbul, 1946–1954), 3:80.Google Scholar

21 Amedi was the receiver-general of provincial correspondence addressed to the grand vizier;Google Scholar see Pakalin, , Deyimleri ve terimleri, 1:55–56.Google Scholar

22 He is also known as Giritli Mustafa because he served as governor of Crete for many years. See Inal, , Son sadriazamlar 1:75, n. 1;Google ScholarSO, 4:480–81.Google Scholar

23 Beylikçi was the head of an office at the Porte which issued diplomas and ratified foreign treaties. For beyiikçci, see Pakahn, , Deyimleri ve terimleri, 1:221.Google Scholar

24 He was a councillor and assistant to the grand vizier. For this post see SO, addenda to 4:806−7.

25 Münir, Aktepe, ed., Vak⊂a;-nüvis Ahmed Lüfti Efendi tarihi, cilt IX (Istanbul, 1984), p. 100.Google Scholar It was a new post, and the duties assigned to it were not clear. Carter, V Findley, in his book Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789–1922, (Princeton, N.J., 1980), renders it “under secretary” (see p. 170).Google Scholar

26 Lötfā, Tārāh, 9:114; see also Cevdet, Tezakir, 1:32; Inal, Son sadriazamlar, 1:260.

27 Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:262, stated that Nedim served in Damascus between December 1855 and August–September 1857 (Muharram, AH. 1274), i.e., for about 20 months. Süreyya however, in SO 4:336, stated that he served there between December 1855 and September 1856.Google Scholar The truth is with Süreyya as there is a report from the British consul general in Beirut stating that Nedim had left Beirut to go to Smyrna on 19 October 1856. (See F.O. 78/1219, Moore-Clarendon, despatch 54 (Political), dated Beirut, 6 November 1856; see also Lutfi, , Tārīh, 9:125, 129.Google Scholar

28 Mehmed, Mamduh, Esvat-i, Sud–r (Izmir, 1328 A.H.), p. 13.Google Scholar See also Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:63.Google Scholar

29 Ali, Fuad, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, p. 19;Google ScholarAhmed, Rifat, pp. 46–47, pp. 68–69.Google Scholar See also forfurther bibliography Davison, R., “Fu-ad Pasa,” in El2, 2:934−36;Google Scholar on Ali see also n. 6; see also Findley, , Bureaucratic Reform, p. 154.Google Scholar

30 On “the alliance” with Mütercim Rüsdi see Lütfī, , Tārīh, 9:175;Google ScholarAli, Fuad, Rical-ι muhimme-i siyasiye, pp. 94–96;Google ScholarFāhma, ⊂Aliyye, Ahmed Cevdet, p. 88, who called them perhaps after her father “akānīm-i selāse” (i.e., the three divine persons of the Christian Trinity).Google Scholar It should be added that a little later the relationship between Ali and Rüşdi cooled, and it was never warm again, see şeref, ,Tārīhuşāhabeieri (Istanbul, A.H. 1339), p. 203.Google Scholar

31 On the expectations of Nedim, see Cevdet, , Tezâkir, 2:92.Google Scholar

32 See Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:263,Google Scholar and Davison, , El2, 6:68.Google Scholar

33 Cevdet, , Tezâkir, 2:92;Google ScholarCevdet, , Ma'r–zāt, ed. Yusuf, Halaçoğlu (Istanbul, 1980), p. 67;Google ScholarInal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:267–68.Google Scholar

34 On the “Fidailer Vak'asi,” known also as “ Kuleli Vak'asi ”, see Cevdet, , Tezâkir, 2:82–83, 85–86;Google ScholarLütfī, , Tārīh, 9:152;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, pp. 100–103; n. 69, p. 102;Google ScholarDavison, , “European Archives as a Source for Later Ottoman History,” in Report on Current Research on the Middle East, 1958, pp. 33–45, especially pp. 38–41;Google ScholarUluğ, Iğdemir, Kuleli Vak'asι hakkinda bir Araştirma (Ankara, 1937).Google Scholar

35 See Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:263;Google ScholarDavison, , El2, 6:68.Google Scholar

36 On his service in Tripoli, see Ahmad, al-Na⊂ib, al-Manhal al⊂Adhb fī Tārīkh Tarābius al-Gharb, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1317 A.H.), 1:383–86;Google Scholaral-Zāwī, T. A., Wulāt Tarāblus mm Bidāyat al-Fath al⊂lArabī ilā Nihāyat al-⊂Ahd al-Turkī (Beirut, 1390/1970), pp. 128–29.Google Scholar

37 On Sāağir Ahmed tükrü, see S0 1:303;Google ScholarAktepe, M., ed., Vaka-nüvis Ahmed Lütfî Efendi Tarihi cilt X (Istanbul, 1988), p. 29.Google Scholar He was the father of Mehmed Bey, one of the Young Ottoman leaders; see Mardin, , The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton, N.J., 1962), pp. 10, 12, nn. 1, 3.Google Scholar

38 The leader Sheikh Ahmad al-Sulaimani belonged, it seems, to the Naqshbandi-Khalidi suborder. See Herif, Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey (Albany, N.Y., 1989), p. 59.Google Scholar One of his chief supporters, Hizargradli Hasan Feyzullah Efendi, was also a Naqshbandi sheikh (see Iğdemir, U., Kuleli Vak⊂asi, pp. 62–63;Google ScholarSO, 4:40). On the release of Sheikh Feyzullah from exile incurred as a punishment, see Lühfī, , Tārīh, 9:26–27.Google Scholar

39 See my article, “The Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ottoman Lands in the Early 19th Century,” W.l., 22(1982–1984), 1-36, especially p. 24.Google Scholar

40 See Davison, R., Reform, pp. 210–11;Google ScholarCevdet, , Ma'r–zār, pp. 196 ff.Google Scholar

41 See Mehmed Said's attitude towards Reşid in 1848 when the latter was grand vizier, in Fahma, ⊂Aliyye, Ahmed Cevdet, pp. 42–43;Google ScholarAli, Fuad, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, p. 11.Google Scholar

42 Tarihi ⊂Aha 2:201.Google Scholar

43 SO, 3:47–48;Google Scholar see also Ali, Fuad, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, p. 163.Google Scholar

44 Mujāhid, Z. M., al-A⊂lam al-Sharqiyya, 4 vols. (Cairo, 1949–1963), 3:125–26;Google Scholaral-Jawā⊂b, 4 10 1876.Google Scholar

45 See pp. 7–8 of Nedim's treatise, āyine ve Hasbitā (Istanbul, A.H. 1327).Google Scholar Pakalin thinks that it was published by one of Nedim's “relatives”; see his Mahmud Nedim Paşa (Istanbul, 1940), p. 8.Google Scholar

46 Hasbitāl is a long autobiographical poem written in 1861–62 (perhaps at the same time of the treatise). It was published as an addendum in pp. 68–78. The treatise was also followed by a long poem (pp. 62–68) in praise of the Ottoman sultans, each of whom were named. Nedim seems to have written another treatise (risāle) called Hikāye-i Melik-i Muhaffer (The Story of the Victorious King), perhaps in verse, but it cannot be found. Perhaps it was never published. See pp. 3–5 of Nedim, āyine ve Hasbihā, where the editor had given a short biography of Nedim. He was apparently the author of another risāle called Reddiye, in which he answered Ahmed Midhat in his book üss-i Intilāb, 2 vols. (Istanbul, A.H. 1294–1295), but it was never published;Google Scholar see Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:272 ff.Google Scholar

47 See Davison, R. H., “The Question of āi Paşa's Political Testament,” in International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2 (1980), 209–25;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDavison, R. H., “The Question of Fu'ad Paşa's Political Testament,” in Belleten 23, 89 (1959), 119–36;Google ScholarEngin, D. Akarli, Belgelerle Tanzimat: Osmanli sadriazamlarindan āi ve Fuad Paşalarin siyasi vasiyetnameleri (Istanbul, 1978).Google Scholar

48 See n. 1 above; Mardin, , Genesis, pp. 155 ff.Google Scholar

49 Nedim, , āyine, pp. 9, 36. Mustakil means “absolute,” according to Redhouse p. 1846.Google Scholar See also “Istiklgl,” in El2, 3:260.Google Scholar Redhouse, however, gave the same meaning for müstebid (1831). But k. Sami in Kamus-u Türki differentiated between them. For musgakil he wrote “Kendi başina” which can mean “absolute,” and for istibdad he added: “Hiç bir nizam ve kanun tabi olmak…,” i.e., [he] who does not follow any order or law. See pp. 1340, 96, respectively, see also p. 103.

50 Nedim, , āyine, p. 9. He summarizes that in five words: “vuk;–f ve ikdām ve himmet.”Google Scholar

51 See my article, “Sultan Abdulhamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda al-Sayyadi,” in Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), 131–53.Google Scholar

52 Cevdet, , Ma'r–zāt, p. 197;Google ScholarInal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:265;Google ScholarAbdulrahman, Heref, Tārīh Muşāhabeleri (Istanbul, A.H. 1339), p. 173;Google ScholarDavison, , EI2, 6:68;Google ScholarMardin, , Genesis, p. 43.Google Scholar

53 This is the accepted view (see Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:265ff.Google Scholar for Nedim's application to return to Istanbul and the approval of the Porte). But Cevdet thought the contrary was true. He wrote in Ma'r–zāt (p. 197) that Nedim planned “to arrive in Istanbul on precisely the day the conspirators attacked the Porte.” It is likely that Cevdet was biased because he disliked Nedim.Google Scholar

54 On his return, see Basbakanlik Arsivi, Meclis-i Mahsus, no. 1420 (dated 15 Safer 1284), where it stated that Nedim returned “me-zun-en ve muvakkaten” (by permission and [only] temporarily); see also Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:266. However, Ali may have suspected that Nedim was implicated the affair (see a quotation attributed to Said Paşa in Inal, Son sadriazamlar), but it requires a further investigation.Google Scholar

55 See Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:38, quoting Cevdet;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, pp. 209–10;Google Scholarcf., Mardin, Genesis, pp. 113–14.Google Scholar

56 Compare the list of ministers in Sānāme-i Devlet-i ⊂Aliye for 1284 (1867–1868), p. 35, and 1285 (1868–1869), p. 35;Google Scholar see also SO, 2:90; 3:230 4:52Google Scholar for the biographies of Cevdet, A., Safvet, M., and Qabuli, M., respectively; and 2:11 for Server who was appointed prefect of Istanbul (Sehir Emini) at the same time.Google Scholar

57 See Davison, , E12, 2:935;Google Scholar on Fuad see also Ali, Fuad, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, pp. 141–74.Google Scholar

58 Mahmud, Celaluddin, Mir⊂āt-i Hatkīkat (Istanbul, A.H.1326–1327), vol. 1:35;Google ScholarAli, Fuad, Ricā-i mühimme-i siyāsiye, p. 99.Google Scholar

59 Cevdet says in Ma'r–zāt, p. 207, that the sultan waited two or three days before deciding finally on Nedim.Google Scholar

60 According to Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:270.Google Scholar

61 Elliot-Granville, , F.O. 78/2177, despatch 329 dated Constantinople, 11 09 1871.Google Scholar

62 A list in the Sāināme of 1289, p. 35.Google Scholar

63 He was appointed in 21 October 1871, after the dismissal from that post of Yusuf Kamil a leftover from the time of Ali, see SO, 4:71, 539;Google ScholarInal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:224.Google Scholar

64 This must have been an exceptional appointment, due perhaps to the fact that many high- ranking officers were in Crete.

65 On Namik, Paşa, see Gövsa, İ. A., Türk Meşh–rlari Ansikiopedisi (Istanbul, 1946), p. 274;Google Scholarşehabeddin, Akalin, “Mehmet Namik Paşa,” in Tarih Dergisi (Eylül, 1952), 4:127–46.Google Scholar

66 See Mardin, , Genesis, pp. 58–59, n. 106.Google Scholar On this suborder, see Yahar, N. öztürk, Kutsal Gonünüllü Velî Kuşadali, ğbrâhim Haivetî (Istanbul, 1982).Google Scholar

67 According to I. Parmaksizoğlu, when he was a member of the senate in 1877, Namik Paşa suggested that all ministers should be Muslims, but Mütercim Mehmed Rüşdi Paşa opposed him and accused him of “aşirilik” (exceeding the limits); see Türk Ansikiopedisi, 25:114.Google Scholar

68 Abdulkadir, Altunsu, Osmanli Seyhülisiamlari (Ankara, 1972), pp. 202–3.Google Scholar He was a grandson of Grand Vizier Koca Yusuf Paşa (on him see SO, 4:667–68).Google Scholar

69 Altunsu, , Seyhülislamlari, p. 203;Google ScholarMehmed, T. Brussali, Osmanh, Müellijfleri, 2:40;Google Scholarşeref, , Tārīh Muşīhabeleri, p. 307.Google Scholar

70 In fact he was left over from the period when Ali was president of the Council of State, but Nedim brought about his dismissal in favor of Namik Paşa after about a month. On Kamil, Y. see SO, 4:71–72;Google ScholarInal, , Son Sadriazamlar, 1:196 ff.Google Scholar On this episode, see ibid., 1:107, 224 f.

71 See Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:236 f.;Google ScholarAli, Fuad, Ricā-i muhimme-i siyāsiye, pp. 162–63;Google ScholarMardin, , Genesis, p. 13 n. 5, p. 191, 233;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, p. 183.Google Scholar

72 See Karal, E. Z., Osmanli Tarihi, cilt VIII, Birinci Mehrutiyet ve Istibdad Devirleri, 1876–1907 (Ankara, 1962), p. 280.Google Scholar

73 She was the daughter of Damad Halil Rifat by his wife Seniha Sultan. See SO, 3: 11–12, and 2:307; Sultan Abdülaziz was her maternal uncle.Google Scholar

74 Celaluddin, , Mir⊂āt-i, Hakīskat, 1:35;Google Scholar cf. also Davison, , Reform, p. 279;Google ScholarFindley, , Bureaucratic Reform, p. 222;Google ScholarPakalin, , Mahmud Nedim, p. 9.Google Scholar

75 It is reported that Sultan Abdülaziz had said when Ali died that he was at last a free man; see Davison, , Reform, p. 279, n. 37;Google Scholarcf., Inal, Son sadriazamiar, 1:27.Google Scholar

76 The statement is quoted in Mahmud, K. Inal, “Sultan Abdülaziz-e dair,” in TTEM, n.s., 9 (05, 1925), p. 177;Google Scholar see also Findley, , Bureaucratic Reform, p. 221.Google Scholar

77 See Davison, , Reform, pp. 281 f.; cf., Findley, Bureaucratic Reform, p. 153.Google Scholar

78 On Ali, Fuad, see SO, 3:578.Google Scholar He was 26 years old at the time, see Inal, , Son sadriazamiar, 1:304 and n. 2.Google Scholar

79 On Mehmed, Rasid see SO, 2:356–57. On the way of his dismissal, see al-Jawā⊂ib dated 11 10 and 12 12 1871;Google Scholar for more information about him, see two long obituaries of him in al-Jinān 7 (1876), 473–75; and al-Jawā⊂ib, 6 09 1876.Google Scholar

80 There is quite a bit of material about those two personalities. First of all, Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:483–599 (for Avni), and 1:436–82 (for şirvanizade Mehmed Rüsdi).Google Scholar On Avni, see also Pakalin, M. Z., Hüseyin Avni Paşa (Istanbul, 1941);Google Scholar see Kuran, E., El2, 3:621;Google Scholar concerning possible palace involvement in Avni's exile see Inal, , in TTEM, 9 (86), p. 178;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, pp. 264–65.Google Scholar

81 On him, see SO 2:177;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform, p.282;Google ScholarMordtmann, , Stambul, 1:105.Google Scholar

82 TTEM 9(86), p. 180.Google Scholar

83 See n. 70; SO, 2:386–87 and 4:71–72.Google Scholar

84 Inal, , Son sadriazamlar, 1:107 f.Google Scholar

85 See my article, “The Roots of the Ascendancy of āli and Fu'ad at the Sublime Porte: 1855–1871,” forthcoming in the proceedings of the Congress on the Tanzimat held in Ankara, , 31 10 to 3 11 1989.Google Scholar

86 Nedim, , āyine, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

87 ibid.

88 See Davison, , Reform, p. 271.Google Scholar

89 ibid., pp. 272–77.

90 Bernard, Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1961), p. 121. See also a call for pan- Islam in Bahīret, no. 604, dated 14 Safer 1289 (23 April 1872) and no. 606 and in several other following issues;Google Scholar and Es⊂ad, Efendi, Itthād-i Islām (Istanbul, 1873), pp. 7–10, 21.Google Scholar

91 Nedim, , āyine, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

92 ibid.

93 See Davison, , Reform, pp. 326–27;Google ScholarUzunçarşeli, I. Hakki, Midhat Pasa ye Yildiz Mahkemesi (Ankara, 1967), p. 14;Google Scholar see also [Midhat, Paşa], Midhat Pāşā, Hayāt-i Siyāsiyesi Hidemāti, Menfā Hayātisi, ed. Ali, Hayder Midhat (Istanbul, A.H. 1325), pp. 161–62.Google Scholar

94 On Sheikh, Zafir, see Muhammad, Z. Mujāhid, al-A⊂lām al-sharqiyya, 4 vols. (Cairo, 1949–1963), 3:125–26;Google Scholar see also [al-Muwaylihi, I.], Mā Hunālika (Cairo, 1895), pp. 200 ff.;Google Scholar see also Hāhir, A. al-Zāwī, A ⊂lām Lībiyī (Tripoli, 1390/1971), pp. 363–64. Sheikh Zafir was the same sheikh who later became close to Sultan Abdulhamid II; see my article, “Sultan Abduihamid II and Shaikh Abulhuda al-Sayyadi,” in Middle Eastern Studies, 15 (1979), 131–53; especially p. 139.Google Scholar

95 Al-Jawā⊂ib, 4 10 1876; this was a weekly paper that appeared in Istanbul edited by Ahmad Fans al-Shidyaq.Google Scholar

96 See pp. 138–42 of my article cited in n. 94.

97 On Başīret, see Selim, Nüzhet, Türk Gazetecilğ 1831–1931 (Istanbul, 1931), pp. 53–54;Google Scholar see also Davison, , Reform, p. 276Google Scholar quoting Mordtmann, , Stambul, 1:242.Google Scholar

98 Bahīret, no. 610, dated 23 Safer 1289 (2 05 1872); see also Hahāik-ül Vehāyi⊂, no. 562,Google Scholar dated Rebi, I 1289 (14 05 1872).Google Scholar

99 Bahīret, no. 621, dated 6 Rebi, I 1289 (14 05 1872).Google Scholar

100 ibid., no. 615, dated 29 Safer 1289 (8 May 1872).

101 ibid., no. 621, dated 6 Rebi 11289 (14 May1872).

102 This description is based on Bahīret, no. 621, on Hasāik-ül Vehāyi⊂, no. 562, both dated 6 Rebi, I 1289, and on al-Jawā⊂ib of 15 05 1872).Google Scholar

103 It is not clear whether the sandals are among the holy relics in the Topkapi Saray Museum in Istanbul. In a list of relics published by Kemal, çiğ entitled Topkapi Müsezi Mukaddes Emanetler Resimli Rehberi (Istanbul, 1966)Google Scholar no reference to “sandals” is given (1 thank my colleague DrKupferschmidt, U. for drawing my attention to this publication).Google Scholar But in a booklet published by Tahsin, öz, Hirka-i Saadet Dairesi ve Emanat-i Mukaddese (Istanbul, 1953), an entry on p. 32Google Scholar entitled “Na'ilin'i Saadet” lists one wooden sandal, 0.23 [cm!] long, upon which the Throne Verse (Quran, 2:256) is engraved. Whether this one sandal is what was discovered, or whether there are another pair sandals is not clear. Bahīret mentioned “a pair.” For a photograph of a sandal of the Prophet, see Schimmel, A., And Muhammad Is His Messenger (Chapel Hill, NC., 1985), p.41.Google Scholar