An Example of Partiality and Competition Among Ottoman Scholars in the Late 16th Century: The Letters of Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi and Ganîzâde Nâdirî
Uğur ÖztürkThis article examines three interconnected letters written by Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi and Ganîzâde Nâdirî as examples of bias, competition, and political connections among Ottoman scholar-bureaucrats in the late 16th century. The mentioned letters were penned in response to the events surrounding the appointment of Tursunzâde Abdullah to the professorship at Gazanfer Agha Madrasa, following an examination held in the presence of the Chief Judge of Rumeli of the time, Sunullah Efendi, in May 1597. Niksârîzâde, who embarked on his academic career as a mulāzim, alternately held positions as a judge and a professor. Aspiring to be appointed as a professor at Gazanfer Agha Madrasa, Niksârîzâde wrote a critical letter protesting the assignment of Tursunzâde to this position after the examination, targeting both Tursunzâde and Sunullah Efendi. Ganîzâde Nâdirî responded to this strongly-worded letter by dissecting its sentences and engaging in a kind of verbal sparring, employing similar harsh expressions. Niksârîzâde, in turn, replied to Nâdirî's letter with sarcastic and witty remarks. These three letters shed light on the existence of significant factions both on a personal level and within the Ottoman scholarly community of that era. The letters, previously unused in studies on early modern Ottoman ulema, provide valuable insights into the nature of bias, competition, animosities, and networks of Ottoman scholars in the late 16th century. Additionally, they reveal how a determined scholar sought justice through unconventional means. The unique characteristics of these letters position them as rare examples outside the literary compilations and as texts written in a distinct style. This study first provides background information on the lives of Niksârîzâde, Tursunzâde, and Ganîzâde, and then presents the contents of the three mentioned letters. Subsequently, Niksârîzâde's initial letter and Ganîzâde’s responsive letter are presented in Latinized form. Niksârîzâde's second letter in reply was only included in the review because it was quite missing in the copy.
16. Yüzyıl Sonlarında Osmanlı Uleması Arasındaki Tarafgirlik ve Rekabete Dair Bir Örnek: Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi ve Ganîzâde Nâdirî’nin Mektupları
Uğur ÖztürkBu makalede 16. yüzyılda Osmanlı uleması arasındaki tarafgirlik, rekabet ve siyasi bağlantıların boyutlarına örnek olarak Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi ve Ganîzâde Nâdirî tarafından yazılmış birbiriyle bağlantılı üç mektup incelenmektedir. Bu mektuplar Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi ve Tursunzâde Abdullah’ın talip olduğu Gazanfer Ağa Medresesi müderrisliğine, dönemin Rumeli Kazaskeri Sunullah Efendi’nin huzurunda yapılan imtihanla Tursunzâde’nin Mayıs 1597’de atanması üzerine kaleme alınmıştır. İlmiyedeki kariyerine mülazım olarak başlayan Niksârîzâde, dönüşümlü olarak kadılık ve müderrislik görevlerinde bulunmuştur. Gazanfer Ağa Medresesi’ne müderris olarak atanmak isteyen Niksârîzâde, bu görevin imtihan sonrası Tursunzâde’ye verilmesi üzerine hem Tursunzâde’yi hem de imtihana başkanlık eden Sunullah Efendi’yi eleştiren ve yaşadığı olaya itiraz eden bir mektup kaleme almıştır. Oldukça iğneleyici ifadelerin yer aldığı bu mektubu ise Ganîzâde Nâdirî, cümleleri tek tek çözümleyerek yine benzer ağır ifadelerle bir tür atışma şeklinde cevaplandırmış ve Niksârîzâde’ye göndermiştir. Niksârîzâde de Nâdirî’nin mektubunu yine alaycı ve nükteli bir şekilde cevaplandırmıştır. Bahsi geçen üç mektup bir yandan yaşanan durumun kişisel boyutlarına, diğer yandan da devrin Osmanlı uleması içinde bazı ciddi hiziplerin ya da gruplaşmaların olduğuna dikkat çekmektedir. Erken modern dönem Osmanlı uleması üzerine yapılmış çalışmalarda bugüne kadar kullanılmamış olan bu mektuplar, 16. yüzyılın sonlarına doğru Osmanlı âlimleri arasındaki tarafgirliğin, rekabetin, husumetlerin ve şahsi irtibatların mahiyetine dair önemli bilgiler sunarken aynı zamanda da hamisiz kalmış bir âlimin hangi yollarla hakkını aradığını göstermektedir. Bu özellikleriyle söz konusu mektuplar edebî münşeat mecmualarının dışında kalmış ve farklı bir üslupla yazılmış nadir kaynak metinler olarak değerlendirilebilir. Bu çalışmada ilk önce Niksârîzâde, Tursunzâde ve Ganîzâde’nin hayatlarına ve bahsi geçen üç mektubun muhtevasına yer verilmiştir. Sonrasında ise Niksârîzâde’nin ilk mektubuyla Ganîzâde’nin cevâbî mektubu Latinize edilmiştir. Niksârîzâde’nin cevâbî ikinci mektubu ise nüshada oldukça eksik olduğu için sadece incelemeye dâhil edilmiştir.
The second half of the 16th century coincides with a different and important period in Ottoman history in terms of the connections of the scholar-bureaucrats who grew up during the reign of Selim II (d. 1574) and later Murad III (d. 1595) with the ruling power and their patronage relations and positions. Ataullah Efendi (d. 1571), Ebussuud Efendi (d. 1574) and then Hoca Sadeddin Efendi (d. 1599) made many appointments themselves, especially in the last three decades of this century. Those who were related to them, and those who had become members of the ilmiye either through mulāzemet or through kinship as being a son-in-law of a prominent scholar, were able to carve out a prominent place in their own careers. Especially those who received mulāzemet from Sadeddin Efendi and were under his patronage reached more prestigious positions in their careers. Although many criticisms were made against Sadeddin Efendi by the authors of the period, his rivals in the ilmiye did not target him, but his apprentices or the people he was in contact with. For example, the dismissal of Molla Masum, Hoca Sadeddin Efendi’s apprentice, by an initiative led by Bostanzâde Mehmed, and the subsequent writings to the Valide Safiye Sultan (d. 1619) and Mehmed III under the leadership of Sheikh Mehmed Dâğî (d. 1611) by those connected to Sadeddin Efendi, shows the extent of partiality and collaboration among the ulema. Apprentices who contacted highranking scholars during madrasa education joined their teachers’ circle when they achieved a position and acted together with them on many issues. Some scholars who reached a certain position in their careers and wanted to keep their current position, aspired to prestigious madrasas and the small number of these madrasas required examinations for appointment. In such cases where there was more than one candidate, an examination would be held before the kazaskers (military judge) of the Rumelia and Anatolia and the deserving person would be appointed as a muderris. In Niksârâzâde’s letter, it is understood that such an examination took place and was chaired by Sunullah Efendi, the kazasker of Rumelia at the time, who is referred to as musteshār in the text. The muderrises who were not appointed after these examinations either appealed to a high-ranking officer or wrote public letters to make their voices heard and to show their discontent about the examination.
As Niksârîzâde points out, the type of letter used to object to an appointment was one of the methods frequently used by the ulema for different reasons in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the munsheāt, a collection of correspondences between the ulema, these and similar letters written within a certain discipline and with stereotypical expressions, are generally divided into five main groups: congratulations, acknowledgements, condolences, recommendations, and objections. These letters, dominated by a certain style of construction, were written in a format with a defined beginning and ending. Depending on the position of the addressee and the purpose of writing, intonations and the language of construction caused the letters to be written in different ways. As seen in this study, the munsheāts show the extent of personal connections between the ulema and are also parallel to the appointment records (ruūs books, etc.) of the ilmiye.
Niksârîzâde wanted Hocazâde Mehmed Efendi, who was the kazasker of Anatolia, to chair the examination for the selection of muderris, and even thought that the important muderrises of the period, such as Ahizâde (the then qādī of Istanbul), Kafzâde and Kinalizâde, would have objected to this selection. In his letter of objection, Niksârîzâde criticized Tursunzâde and Sunullah Efendi in particular on scholarly grounds and, by referring to the food and drink culture of his time, implied that Tursunzâde and his supporters spent time in taverns. We do not know whether Tursunzâde responded to Niksârîzâde’s accusations, but Atâyî mentions some correspondences between the two. Ganîzâde is the one who annotated Niksârîzâde’s letter and replied. The fact that he responded to the letter with the similar harsh words shows that there was a grouping among some scholars and that students who received mulāzemet from the same teacher supported each other.
Ganîzâde asserted that Niksârîzâde was a Christian (ashâb-ı teslîsden, i.e. from the people of the Trinity) and a madman, that his knowledge came from his madness, and even said that he received his mulāzemet from the taverns of Balat. Niksârîzâde wrote a letter in response to these accusations, but the copy containing this letter is quite worn and incomplete. In this incomplete and worn letter, Niksârîzâde quoted Persian couplets in particular and chose to respond to the criticism of his knowledge of Arabic language in the first letter in a different way. In his second letter, Niksârîzâde again criticized Tursunzâde’s scholarly competence and mentioned his connection with Sinan Pasha. These letters, which are the written form of the conflicts between Ibrahim Pasha-Niksârîzâde and Sinan Pasha-Tursunzâde-Sunullah Efendi-Gazanfer Agha, show that the appointment of the muderris and the events that followed had a political background.
The three letters analyzed in this article show the partiality among the ulema in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. The letters can also be considered as an example of a scholar trying to express the injustice he experienced individually and seeking his own rights. Thus, it is possible to see the extent of the complex relations between the ulema through Niksârîzâde’s first letter, which brings an individual incident into the public sphere.
In conclusion, although the letters we have analyzed in this study are out of the general munsheāt style and contain non-literary, sarcastic, and insulting expressions, and their content can be considered as a supplement to the appointment records of muderris.
