Studying manuscript collections may serve as a window into the richness of a given culture and tradition; Ottoman culture is not an exception. Manuscripts may also demonstrate the prosperity of this specific culture’s scholarly production and consumption. Over the last two decades, Ottoman book culture has been a trending academic topicin Turkish academia. This scholarly inquiry delves into the history of books, libraries, bibliographies, and some specific collections, along with the prominent figures associated with these collections. The classification of sciences may be used as a novel method for studying the aforementioned areas. This article aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Library, established in the seventeenth century, juxtaposed against two previously established libraries: the Maḥmūd Pasha Library and the Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Library established in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, respectively. Thus, this article aims to compare the three most significant libraries of their times through the lens of the classification of sciences. This comparative study further aims to reveal the texts that were read and written by the Ottomans and the change in the academic landscape over time. By employing the classification of sciences as a comparative tool, I hope to propose a new method for studying Ottoman manuscript collections.

The first collection1 under examination was built by the Grand Vizier Maḥmūd Pasha (d. 874/1474) during the era of Meḥmed II (r. 1451–1481). Maḥmūd Pasha was one of the most active statesmen of his age, particularly well-known participating in conquering Istanbul and rebuilding the city. Because of his charity work during this campaign, he earned the title of Maḥmūd Pasha the saint (veli). His library was established in877/1472–73. Maḥmūd Pasha endowed the library with 195 manuscripts, although their names remained undocumented. However, it is stated that these manuscripts are related to 11 different sciences. I was able to identify 185 of these manuscripts according to their fields of study: Exegesis (35), hadith (57), jurisprudence (58), taṣawwuf (4), rational theology (6), philosophy (2), logic (2), astronomy (2), grammar (5), syntax (3) and dictionary (6), (probably) morphology (5). As demonstrated by the number of manuscripts, jurisprudence, hadith, and exegesis were the three most represented sciencesin the Maḥmūd Pasha Library. This can be attributed to the library’s role as a madrasa collection designed to meet the needs of madrasa students.

The second collection was built by Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha (d. 999/1591), who marked the commencement of the so-called “age of chief eunuchs” (darüssaade ağaları dönemi) from 982/1574 to 1151/1757. In 982/1574, during the reign of Murād III (r. 1574–1595). Agha was appointed the chief eunuch and gradually became the most influential personsecond only to the sulṭān himself. He built the Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Library in 1584 and donated 105 manuscripts. In an article, Berat Açıl classified the manuscripts endowed by Agha according to the classification of sciences. According to Açıl, the collection contains the following manuscripts: exegesis (14), hadith (9), ethics (2), jurisprudence (46), sirah (1), biography (2), taṣawwuf (6), eloquence (6), dictionary (13), and philosophy, rational theology, and logic (6). Accounting for almost half of all the manuscripts, jurisprudence holds the largest representation; exegesis and dictionary follow. As discussed later, over the course of a century, the three most represented sciences have been changed and replaced by other sciences. Hadith, which was the fourth most represented science, could never find a place among the top three as it was gradually replaced by dictionary over time.

The Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Library, the main subject of this article, was established by Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha (d. 1087/1676) who was a member of the famous Köprülü family. Many academics commonly regard his reign as grand vizier (1661–76) as a period oftransformation or renewal (tecdīd). Pasha knew the importance of both Eastern and Western knowledge, and he appointed politicians who had graduated from both regions to high-ranking positions. The Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection is just one of three collections within the Köprülü Library. I used the collection’s endowment deed (vaḳfiyye) to determine the number of manuscripts and classify them according to the classification of sciences. The collection contains 1,397 manuscripts according to its vaḳfiyye: exegesis (155), recitation (16), hadith (218), jurisprudence (202), dictionary (49), rational theology (76), taṣawwuf (109), history and sirah (136), clear expression (maʿanī) (49), syntax (55), philosophy and logic (59), mathematical sciences (29), medicine (34), and literature (adab) (210). The three most represented sciences in this collection are hadith, jurisprudence, and literature. However, the number of manuscripts in exegesis and history and sirah is relatively comparable to the first three. Although hadith was not among the top three in the Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Collection, it takes the lead in the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection. Another noteworthy difference is that literature, represented poorly in the first two collections, is one of the most represented sciences in the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection.

This study also compares sciences that represented more than 10% of the collection they belong to. In the Maḥmūd Pasha Collection, exegesis, hadith, and jurisprudence were represented with 19%, 31%, and 31%, respectively. The Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Collection featured exegesis, jurisprudence, and grammar-syntax-dictionary with 13%, 44%, and 12%, respectively. In the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection, a different distribution pattern is observed. Exegesis, hadith, jurisprudence, sirah-biography-history, rational theology-philosophy-logic, and literature were represented with these ratios: 11%, 16%, 14%, 10%, 10%, and 15%, respectively. Compared with the first two collections, it can safely be argued that the distribution of sciences in the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection is far more homogenous. In the Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Collection, jurisprudence comprises 44% of the total manuscripts. Given that these three collections were built to be madrasa libraries, and the madrasa curriculum has various sciences, a more homogenous distribution according to the classification of sciences is crucial.

There are some differences among the three collections in terms of the sciences they contain. For example, there were no manuscripts related to mathematical sciences in the Ḥabeshī Meḥmed Agha Collection and no sirah-related manuscripts in the Maḥmūd Pasha Collection. Manuscripts regarding recitation, medicine, and literature were exclusively found in the Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha Collection.

To conclude, Fāżil Aḥmad Pasha seems to have taken a more conscious approach to building his library, resulting in a more homogenous collection. This aligns with his educational objectives and purposes.