The Alexander romance and the rise of the Ottoman Empire

DimitriJ.Kastritsis

The

Alexander

Romance

and

the

Rise

of

the

Ottoman

Empire

ToappearinA.C.S.PeacockandS.N.Yıldız,eds.LiteratureandIntellectual

LifeinFourteenth- andFifteenth-centuryAnatolia.Würzburg:ErgonVerlag,

IstanbulerTexteundStudien(inpress)

Inthefragmentedworldofpost-FourthCrusadeByzantiumandthepost-Mongol ‘LandsofRum’,thefictionalheroofthemedievalAlexanderRomance

functionedasfamiliarifcontestedculturalcurrency.TheCrusadesandtheriseof theMongolEmpirehadcreatedamuchlargerworld,whichdespiteendemic violenceandpoliticalinstabilityofferedhithertounprecedentedopportunitiesfor tradeandcommunication.Insuchaworld,theAlexanderRomanceinallits manifestationsrepresentedacommonculturalheritage.Storiesaboutthe

legendaryempire-builder’stravels,conquestsanddiplomaticengagementswith realandimaginarynationsresonatedstronglyindifferentsegmentsofsociety, andbooksrecountingthemcametofunctionbothas‘mirrorsforprinces’andas literaturetobepublicallyperformed.Dependingonone’sperspective,itwas possibletorepresentAlexanderasaphilosopherandexplorerofnewlands,a championofIslamorChristianity,aByzantineEmperor,oraMuslimking(shāh, pādishāh).InByzantium,followingatraditionthathaddevelopedgraduallyover thecourseoftheMiddleAges,AlexanderwaspresentedasaChristianwhohad visitedJerusalemanddestroyedpagantemples.InIslam,hewasasacred personageidentifiedwiththeQuranicDhū’l-Qarnayn(‘thetwohornedone’).In Iran,hisconquestanddestructionofthecountrywasmitigatedbytheideathathe wasahalf-brotherofhisenemyDarius,andthereforealegitimateruler.These traditionsarewellknown,andthereisasubstantialscholarlyliteratureoneachof them.1Whatisoftenmissing,however,isabroaderhistoricalperspective,

especiallyfortheperiodinwhichtheOttomanEmpirecametoreplacetheworlds

ofByzantiumandmedievalAnatolia.Thechiefaimofthiscontributionis thereforetomovebeyondtheexistingtreatmentsofthesubjectandexamineit morebroadly.Inlightofthisrichculturallandscape,thereismuchtobegained bytakingacriticalhistoricalapproachtothedevelopmentoftheAlexander RomanceintheearlyOttomanEmpire,whilealsobearinginmindthe intertextualityoftheworksinquestion.

BythefourteenthcenturywhentheOttomanEmpirewasfounded,the breakdownofSeljuk,Byzantine,andMongolauthoritypresentedproblemsof legitimacytothosewieldingpoliticalauthority.Anincreasinglyglobalbut

fragmentedworldforcedrulerstojustifythisauthorityinabewilderingvarietyof ways.Overthecourseofthelongfifteenthcentury(ca.791–918/1389–1512),the gradualbutunevenprocessofOttomanstateformationresultedinthecreationof acomplexandsometimescontradictorydiscourseofdynasticlegitimacy.This wasfoundedontheconquestofnewterritoryforIslam;apurportedtransferof powerfromtheHouseofSeljuktothatofOsman;andevenfictionalgenealogies connectingtheOttomanstoHebrewprophetsandprestigiousCentralAsian tribes.2IntheyearsleadinguptoandfollowingtheOttomanconquestof Constantinople(aneventofenormousreligiousandpoliticalsignificance),ever presentapocalypticandmillenarianexpectationswerereinterpretedinthecontext ofwhatappearedtosomecontemporarieslikethecosmicstrugglesofendtimes.3 Onceagain,theAlexanderRomancewashighlyrelevant.Forhadtheancient conquerornotgonetotheendsoftheEarthandbuiltawallagainsttheso-called ‘uncleannations’,identifiedintheIslamictraditionwithGogandMagog?

Inthepagesthatfollow,theargumentwillbemadethatpreciselybecause oftheexistenceofsuchalarge,multilingualcorpusofstories,textsandimages relatedtotheancientconqueror,intheincreasinglygloballateMiddleAgesthese becameanidealmediumfortheformulationandcommunicationofawiderange ofmessages.Alexanderhadbecomeallthingstoallpeople,andsohisexploits

2_{Forthedevelopmentofthemainelements,seeColinImber,“TheOttomanDynastic} Myth,”Turcica19(1987),7-27.Aninterestingexampleofhowsuchelementscouldbe combinedmaybefoundinthe‘OxfordAnonymous’Ottomanhistory(BodleianLibrary, MSMarsh313).Mytranslationandcommentaryisforthcoming(TranslatedTextsfor Byzantinists,LiverpoolUniversityPress).

werethesubjectofintenseinterestandcontestation.Needlesstosay,itisstill essentialtoconsidereachtextwithinitsowntradition.Withoutthefoundation establishedbytheexistingscholarshipondifferentversionsandaspectsofthe Alexanderromance,comparativehistoricalassessmentwouldbeanimpossible task.Buttherearealsodangersinanexcessivelypiecemealapproach.Bylimiting ourselvestodisciplinaryperspectivesorspecificaspectsoftheRomance,werisk ignoringimportantaspectsofitsbroaderhistoricalandculturalsignificance. Theseincludeitsroleintheformulationandexpressionofcomplexmessages aboutpoliticsandhistory.

Inordertobeginthesystematicexplorationofsuchquestionsforthe foundationperiodoftheOttomanEmpire,itisnecessarytocomparedifferent versionsoftheRomancefromdifferentlanguages,genresandtraditions.Wewill thereforebeginwithabriefexaminationoftheprosevernacularGreekversion madeinthisperiod,toshowhowitwasclearlyinfluencedbythecultureand politicsofthetime.Thenwewillturntoamoredetailedexaminationofsome Turkishworkscomposedaroundthesametime.Aswewillsee,theperiodin questionwasagoldenageforthegenreinTurkish,andsomeoftheseworkscan beunderstoodalongsimilarlyhistoricallines.

TheByzantineAlexanderromanceintheperiodofOttomanexpansion

TheformationanddevelopmentoftheGreekAlexanderRomanceisalargeand complextopicwhichhasreceivedagreatdealofscholarlyattentionoverthe years.4MostofwhatiscontainedinthemanymedievalworksonAlexanderin differenteasternandwesternlanguagescanbetracedtodistincttextualtraditions datingtoHellenistictimes.Insomeformorother,themajorityofthesetraditions werealreadyinexistenceacenturyafterAlexander’sdeath.5Theseincluded EgyptiantalesaboutAlexander’sdescentfromthelastPharaohofEgypt;acycle ofletterssupposedlyrepresentinghiscorrespondencewiththePersianKing DariusIII(d.330BCE);aJewishtraditiondescribinghisvisittoJerusalem;anda fictionallettertohismotherdescribingfabulousadventuresattheendsofthe Earth.Aswasthecasewithotherancientliterature,muchofthisenteredthe IslamictraditionthroughSyriac,whichwasthentranslatedintoArabic.

Eventually,inthehandsofFirdawsī,thepoetofthePersian‘BookofKings’(the

4_{Foracomprehensivestudyandbibliographybytheworldexpert,seeStoneman,}

AlexandertheGreat.ForanEnglishtranslationoftheGreekAlexanderRomancewitha briefbutusefulintroduction,seeRichardStoneman,TheGreekAlexanderRomance

(London,1991).

Shāhnāma,completedca.400/1010),Alexanderwouldbecomethehalf-brotherof hisenemyDariusandalegitimaterulerofIran.6Thisdevelopmentparallelsthe originalGreekRomance,whichhadmadehimthesonofaPharaohanda legitimaterulerofEgypt.Aswewillseebelow,treatmentsoftheAlexander legendinTurkishwerebasedlargelyonthePersiantraditionasdevelopedby Firdawsī andNiẓāmī (d.613/1217?),inwhoseworkAlexanderbecamea philosopher.7

AsthesetransformationswastakingplaceintheIslamicworld,in

ByzantiumtheGreekversionoftheRomancewasundergoingitsownevolution. Bythe8thcentury,AlexanderhadbecomeaChristianwhovisitedJerusalem, destroyedpagantemples,andconstructedawallagainsttheuncleannations.8_By thelatemedievalperiod,furthermutationshadproducedanextensivetext. Amongthemanuscriptscontainingitisarichlyillustratedvolumeproducedfor anEmperorofTrebizond,nowinVenice.9Thismanuscriptcontainsextensive Turkishcaptions,whichwereprobablyaddedinanOttomancourtofthefifteenth century,10offeringanexampleofhowonetextualtraditionmayhaveinfluenced another,atatimewhenthetwoareusuallythoughtofascompletelydistinct.But asidefromissuesofintertextuality,anotherimportantfactortoconsideristhe influenceonthesetextsofcontemporaryeventsandhistoricalconditions.Aswe willseebelow,the İskendernāmesofAhmediandotherauthorscontainmany elementsthatcanbereadinlightofthehistoricalcontextinwhichtheseworks werewritten.ThesameistrueoftwolateByzantinerecensionsoftheRomance, whichliketheOttomanonesareinavernacularlanguage.Bothrecensions,one

6_{Stoneman,AlexandertheGreat,24–33.Foratranslationoftherelevantsectionofthe}

Shāhnāma,seeDickDavis,Shahnameh:ThePersianBookofKings(London,2007), 454–528.

7_{OnNiẓāmī’streatmentoftheAlexanderRomance,seeStoneman,AlexandertheGreat,} 33–38;P.J.Chelkowski,“Nizami’sIskandarnameh,”inColloquiosulpoetapersiano NizamielalegendairanicadiAlessandroMagno(Rome,1977),11–53.

8_{ThiselementistakenfromtheApocalypseofpseudo-Methodiusandalsopresentinthe} Islamictradition.Seenote98belowformoredetails.

9_{VeniceHellenicInstitute,MSGr.5.Highresolutiondigitalimagesoftheentire} manuscriptareavailableonthewebsiteoftheInstitute.Forafacsimileedition,see NikoletteS.Trachoulias,TheGreekAlexanderRomance(Athens:Exandas,1997). Trachoulias’sunpublishedPh.D.thesisisthemostdetailedstudyoftheoriginalGreek manuscript:NikoletteS.Trachoulia,“TheVeniceAlexanderRomance,HellenicInstitute CodexGr.5:AStudyofAlexandertheGreatasanImperialParadigminByzantineArt andLiterature”(unpublishedPh.D.thesis,HarvardUniversity,1997).

10_{SeeDimitrisKastritsis,“TheTrebizondAlexanderRomance(VeniceHellenicInstitute} CodexGr.5):TheOttomanFateofaFourteenth-CenturyIllustratedByzantine

Manuscript,”JournalofTurkishStudies36(2011):103–31;GiampieroBellingeri,“Il ‘Romanzod’Alessandro’dell’IstitutoEllenicoDiVenezia:GlosseTurche‘Gregarie’,”in

rhymedandtheotherinprose,canbedatedapproximatelytotheyearsaroundthe BattleofKosovo(1389).11AsCorinneJouannohasshown,inbothofthesethe riseoftheOttomanEmpirehasinfluencedthepresentationofthePersians.12

ThepresentationofthePersiansasOttomansismoststrikinginthecase oftheprosevernacularversion,atextthatenteredvernacularGreekfrom

Serbian.13Thisistheworkthatwouldbecomepopularintheearlymodernperiod inprintededitionsunderthetitle‘theChapbookofAlexander’(Fylladatou

Alexandrou).JouannohasspokenofaByzantinenationalistperspectiveand“a

portrayalunderTurkishinfluences.”Shehasinmindpassagessuchasthe

following,inwhichDariusrespondstoAlexander’saccessionbysendinghimthis letter:

ὉΤάρειοςὁβασιλεύς, ἴσα µὲτοὺςἐπίγειουςθεούς, εἰςὅληντὴνοἰκουµένην βασιλεύει, ὁποὺλάµπειὡσὰνὁἥλιοςτῶνβασιλέωνβασιλεὺςκαὶτῶν αὐθεντάδωναὐθέντης, εἰςτοὺςηὑρισκοµένουςεἰςτὴνΜακεδονίανγράφω. Ἤκουσενἡβασιλεία µουκαὶἔδειξάν µουὅτιὁβασιλέαςὁἐδικόςσαςὁ Φίλιπποςἀπέθανεν·παιδὶ µικρὸἄφηκενεἰςἐσᾶςνὰβασιλεύει … Καὶτόµουνὰ δεκτῆ<τε> τὸπιττάκι µου, ἐγλήγορανὰ µοῦστείλετε [τὸνἈλέξανδρον]. Καὶτὸν Καταρκούσηἔστειλαεἰςἐσᾶςἐνεπιστεµένονκαὶπολλὰἠγαπηµένονκαὶνὰ ὁρίζειτὸντόποντὸνἐδικόσαςκαλὰκαὶἔµορφα·καὶτὸφουσάτοντὸἐδικόσας, ὅτανἔλθηὁκαιρὸςτοῦταξιδίου, νὰστείλετεκαλὸνστρατὸνκαὶτὸλιζάτονὅλον νὰ µοῦτὸστείλετε. ΚαὶτὸπαιδὶτοῦΦιλίππουἐµὲνὰ µοῦτὸφέρετεἐγλήγορα µὲ ὅλατὰβασιλικὰσηµάδια. Εἶναιβασιλέωνπαιδίαεἰςἐµένακαὶἕωςσαράντα, ὁποὺδουλεύουν·καὶἐὰναὐτὸνἰδῶὅτιἔναιἄξιοςδιὰβασίλειον, ὀλίγους χρόνουςτὸνθέλωκρατήσεικοντά µου, καὶπάλιντὸθέλειστείλειβασιλέαεἰς σ’ἐσᾶς. Εἰδὲπάλινοὐδὲντὸνἰδῶὅτιἄξιοςοὐδὲνεἶναι, ἄλλονθέλωστείλειεἰς σ’ἐσᾶςβασιλέα.

Dariustheking,equaltotheterrestrialgods,whorulesintheentireinhabited worldandshineslikethesun,kingofkingsandmasterofmasters,writestothe peoplewhoareinMacedonia.Myroyalhighnesshasreceivedwordandithas beenindicatedtomethatyourkingPhiliphasdied,leavingasmallboytorule overyou…Assoonasyoureceivemyepistle,youshouldsendmeAlexander immediately.ForIhavesentmytrustedandmuchbelovedKatarkousestoyou, inordertoruleyourlandforyouinagoodandseemlymanner.Asforyourarmy, withthecomingofthecampaignseasonyoushouldsendmeagoodcontingent, alongwiththetributeinitsentirety.BringPhilip’ssontomequickly,alongwith alltheroyalinsignia.Forhereatmycourtthereareasmanyasfortysonsof kingsservingme.IfIseethat[Alexander]isworthyofakingdom,afterkeeping

11_{SiegfriedReichmann,ed.,DasByzantinischeAlexandergedichtnachdemCodex}

Marcianus408.BeiträgezurklassischenPhilologie13(Meisenheim,1963);Anastasios LolosandVasilisL.Konstantinopulos,eds.,ZweiMittelgriechischeProsa-Fassungen DesAlexanderromans.BeiträgeZurKlassischenPhilologie141,150(Königstein,1983). Onthedevelopmentoftheprosevernacularrecension,seeUlrichMoennig,Die

Spätbyzantinische Rezension *ζ des Alexanderromans (Köln,1992). 12 _Corinne

Jouanno,“ThePersiansinLateByzantineAlexanderRomances:APortrayal underTurkishInfluences,”inStonemanetal.,TheAlexanderRomanceinPersiaandthe East,105–15.

himbymysideforafewyears,Iwillsendhimbacktoyouasyourking.ButifI seethatheisunworthy,Iwillsendsomeoneelsetoyoutobeyourking.14

Whatisstrikingaboutthispassageisthestrongresemblancebetweenwhat DariusisdemandingandthevassalagearrangementsonwhichtheOttoman Empirewasbuilt.Thesearewellknownandattestedinmanycontemporary sources.15

Theabovepassagedemonstrateshowdifficultitcanbetodisentangle long-standingtextualtraditionsfromchanginghistoricalcircumstances.Since thesetraditionswerelivingandorganic,theycouldbereinterpretedtotakeon newmeaninginthecontextofthetimes.ForDarius’slettertoAlexanderwith itsboastfulimperialpretensionsisanelementalreadypresentintheearliest recensionsoftheRomance.However,intheperiodofOttomanexpansion,it tookonnewmeaningandcouldbeembellishedandreinterpretedinlinewith thevassalagearrangementsofthetime.Thiswasaperiodwhenitwas

commonforByzantineauthorsandoratorstomakeuseofthefamiliarliterary toposofthearrogantbarbarianindescribingOttomanrulers.16Inthiscontext, itwasobviousthatDariusshouldbeinterpretedasanOttomanruler,andthat therestofhislettershouldbemodifiedtoreflectthedemandsOttomanrulers weremakingoftheirChristianvassals.Theseincludedmilitaryassistanceand thepaymentoftribute,calledherelizaton(cf.liege).Inaworldstillheavily influencedbytheFourthCrusade,theuseofaLatinfeudaltermshouldcome asnosurprise.ThesamerecensionalsocontainsseveralSerbianterms,which areproofofitstranslationfromSerbian,butalsooftheinfluenceof Stefan Dušan’s ‘Empire of the Serbs and Greeks’. Inthelater‘Chapbookof

Alexander’,lizatonwaschangedtokharadzion(fromkharāj);forbytheearly modernperiod,OttomanculturewaswellestablishedandtheCrusadeshad becomeadistantmemory.

14_{Mytranslation.OriginalinLolosandKonstantinopulos,ZweiMittelgriechischeProsa}

-Fassungen,vol.1,142–44.TheversionpresentedhereisthatoftheFmanuscript. 15_{OneexampleisthechronicleofChalkokondyles(e.g.books1.55,2.6).SeeLaonikos} Chalkokondyles,TheHistories,tr.AnthonyKaldellis(Cambridge,Massachusetts,2014), 82–85,100–01.ManuelPalaiologosdescribeshisexperiencesasanOttomanvassalinhis letters:seeG.T.Dennis,TheLettersofManuelIIPalaeologus:Text,Translation,and Notes(Washington,DC,1977).

16_{ThemanyexamplesincludeJohnKananos’sdescriptionofMuradIIinhisaccountof} the1422OttomansiegeofConstantinople:“Hecame,wildandsavageinmanner,andhe swaggeredarrogantly,swollenwithprideandhaughtyofbearing;ashegazed

AfterthisbrieflookatthedevelopmentoftheGreekAlexander romanceintheperiodofOttomanexpansion,itisnowtimetoturntothe Turkish İskendernāmeswrittenaroundthesametime.Aswewillsee,similar referencestohistoricalcircumstancescanbedetectedtheretoo.

TheTurkish İskendernāmetradition

WhilethevernacularGreekAlexanderRomancewasevolvingalongthelines discussedabove,paralleldevelopmentsweretakingplaceontheothersideofthe Christian-Muslimdivide.Ithasbeenallegedthat“inclassicalOttomanliterature theAlexanderlegendwasusedrelativelyrarely,perhapsbecauseitssubject mattergavelittlescopefortheallegoricaltreatmentofthethemeoflove.”17Asis sooftenthecaseinthefieldofOttomanstudies,thisratherdatedassessmentis basedonanimperfectknowledgeofextantmanuscriptsandtheperspectiveof lateandpost-sixteenthcenturyOttomanliteraryculture.Ifonechoosestofocus insteadonthelongninth/fifteenthcentury),aratherdifferentpicturewillbeginto emerge.Infact,mostattestedTurkishversionsoftheAlexanderRomancedate fromthistime,whentheAlexanderlegendwasclearlyverypopularindeed.The mostimportantAnatolianTurkish İskendernāmewasthatofAhmedi,composed aroundtheturnofthefifteenthcenturyandpresentedtotheOttomanprince Süleyman(d.813/1411).18Thefactthatthisworksurvivesinoveronehundred copiesatteststoitswideappeal,bothwithinandoutsidethebordersofthe burgeoningOttomanstate.19Knowntomosthistorianstodaymainlyfromofits epicaccountofearlyOttomanhistory,infactAhmedi’spoemisaphilosophical andencyclopedicworkwithabroadandimportanthistoricalsection,ofwhichthe Ottomandynastyformsonlythefinalpart.TheimportanceofAhmedi’s

presentationofhistoryintheuniversalisttermsoftheAlexanderromanceis evidentfromthefactthatlaterhistories,suchastheanonymousChroniclesofthe

HouseofOsmanpublishedbyFriedrichGiese,wereframedintermsofhiswork

andembellishedwithhisverses.20

17_{E.vanDonzeletal.,“IskandarNāma,iii.InclassicalOttomanliterature,”EI}2_4,fasc. 61–64(1973),128–29.

18_{ThereisstillnocriticaleditionofAhmedi’sİskendernāmeinitsentirety.Theclosestto} areliableeditionisafacsimile: İsmailÜnver, İskender-Nāme: İnceleme,Tıpkıbasım

(Ankara,1983).ThesectiononOttomanhistoryisavailableincriticaleditionwith Englishtranslation:KemalSılay,ed.,HistoryoftheKingsoftheOttomanLineageand TheirHolyRaidsAgainsttheInfidels.SourcesofOrientalLanguagesandLiteratures64 (Cambridge,Mass.,2004).Sılay’stranslationisnotalwaysreliable.

19 _{İsmailÜnver,“İskender(Edebiyat),”TDVİA22(2000),559.}

Ahmedi’s İskendernāmewillbetreatedinmoredetailinthefollowing section.Butfirst,inordertoplacetheworkinthepropercontext,itisnecessary toconsideratleastinpassingsomeotherworksonAlexandercomposedduring thelongfifteenthcentury.Twooftheseareofparticularinterest.Thefirstisan extensiveworkbyHamzavi,anauthorbestknownforhis Ḥamzanāmewhowas supposedlyAhmedi’sbrother.21_{LikeAhmedi’swork,Hamzavi’s İskendernāme} wascomposedintheearlyfifteenthcentury,andsomeofitsversesaretaken directlyfromAhmedi.Itispartproseandpartverse(mens̱ūr-manẓūm),andwill alsobeconsideredbelow.ThesecondisbyAhmedRıdvan,anauthorwhowas activeattheendoftheperiodunderexaminationunderBayezidII(r.886–918/ 1481–1512).22AhmedRıdvanwasfromOhridinMacedoniaandwasapparently ofChristianorigin.Afterservingthestateinimportantposts(includingdefterdar

andsancakbey),heretiredtoavillagenearDimetokagrantedtohimbythesultan

anddiedearlyinthereignofSüleymanI(r.926–74/1520–66)AhmedRıdvan’s

İskendernāmeisarhymedworkwhichtakesAhmediasitsmodel.Itwas

previouslythoughttosurviveonlyinasinglecopy,butaccordingtoitseditor İsmailAvcıisinfactrepresentedbyatleasttwomanuscripts.AlthoughAhmed Rıdvan’s İskendernāmeisclearlymodelledonthatofAhmedi,thereareimportant differencesinstyleandcontent.ThesehavebeenstudiedbyAvcı,butthework hasyettoreceiveaserioushistoricalinterpretation—whichishardlysurprising, consideringthatevenAhmedi’smorefamousandimportantworkhasnoreceived suchatreatment.WhilethereisnospacehereforadetaileddiscussionofAhmed Rıdvan’s İskendernāme,itisworthpointingoutthatitsrelationshiptothatof Ahmediissimilartoathemeandvariationsinmusic.Ifnothingelse,thefactthat someoneattheendofthefifteenthcenturywouldtakethetroubletoproducean ‘improved’versionofAhmedishowsthatbythattime,theearlierworkhad alreadyachievedthestatusofaclassic.

Thethree İskendernāmesdiscussedaboveconstitutesomeofthemost importanttreatmentsoftheAlexanderlegendinTurkish.Afulllistwouldbe muchlongerandwouldincludeotherOttomanauthors,someassociatedwith manuscriptsinlibrarycatalogues,othersknownonlyfrombiographical dictionaries.Theonlywaytogainaclearpictureofthenumberandnatureof theseworksisbysystematicexaminationofthemanymanuscriptsbearingthe titleof İskendernāme,bothinsideandoutsideTurkey.23Suchanexamination

21 _On

Hamzavi,seeFranzBabinger,DieGeschichtsschreiberderOsmanenundihre Werke(Leipzig,1927),13–14; İsmailAvcı,TürkEdebiyatında İskendernâmelerve Ahmed-iRıdvân’ın İskendernâmesi(Ankara,2014),54–59.

22_{Avcı,TürkEdebiyatında İskendernâmeler,161–77.}

23_{TheclosestwehavetosuchalististhelongintroductorysectioninAvcı,Türk}

wouldrevealthetruenatureandauthorshipofthesemanuscripts,aswellasany fuetherrelationshipofintertextualityconnectingthemtoAhmediandother influentialworks.Finally,nolistofTurkishworksonAlexanderwouldbe completewithoutmentioningtheSadd-iIskandarī (‘WallofAlexander’)ofthe greatChaghataypoetMīr ʿAlī ShīrNavāʾī (d.1501).Althoughitmayseemodd toconsideraChaghataypoetalongsideauthorswritinginAnatolianTurkish,in factthereiseveryreasontobelievethatNavāʾī’spoetrywasimportantand influentialintheOttomanworld.LikethatofAhmedi,itwasreadacrosspolitical anddialectalboundaries,andwasimitatedbyOttomanpoetsaslateasthe

nineteenthcentury.24

Evenaslateasthesecondhalfofthesixteenthcentury,atimebeyondthe ‘goldenage’beingconsideredhere,thename İskendernāmeappearsunderthe titleofanOttoman‘HistoryofHungary’(Tārīḫ-iUngurus).Theauthorofthe workinquestionwasacertainMahmudBey,anOttomandragomanofHungarian origin,whoclaimedtobetranslatingfromaLatinmanuscriptdiscoveredina capturedcastleinHungary.25Thisisnottheplacetospeculateatlengthaboutthis intriguingcase.Nonetheless,itisworthdrawingattentiononcemoretothe

universalappealoftheAlexanderlegend,whichmusthavebeenespeciallystrong forconvertslikeAhmedRıdvanandMahmudBey.The‘HistoryofHungary’also bringstotheforetheassociationbetweentheAlexanderRomanceandhistory, whichaswewillseeisclearlyevidentintheworksofAhmediandHamzavi.But intheperiodunderconsideration,thegenreofhistorywasnotyetclearlydefined intheOttomanworldandsharedmuchwithotherformsofrepresentingthepast. Forthisreason,beforediscussingAhmediandHamzaviinearnest,afewwords aboutthewiderliterarycontextareinorder.

ThelongfifteenthcenturywasagoldenagenotonlyfortheAlexander Romance,butforOldAnatolianTurkishstorytellingingeneral.26Sincetales

24_{M.E.Subtelny,“Mīr ʿAlī ShīrNawāʾī,”EI}2_{7(1991):90–93(p.91:“Theimpactof} Nawāʾī’sworksonallTurkicpeoplesandlanguagescannotbeoverestimated…”).See alsoEleazarBirnbaum,“TheOttomansandChagatayLiterature:AnEarly16thCentury ManuscriptofNavā’ī’sDīvāninOttomanOrthography,”CentralAsianJournal,20 (1976),157–90.

25_{TijanaKrstić,“OfTranslationandEmpire:Sixteenth-CenturyOttomanImperial} InterpretersasRenaissanceGo-Betweens,”inChristineWoodhead,ed.,TheOttoman World(MiltonPark,2012),134–36.

abouttherealorlegendarypastwererepresentedinavarietyofepics,

hagiographies,anddidacticliterature,the İskendernāmesofAhmediandother authorsshouldbeconsideredalongsidesuchworks.Thesearenotalwayseasily categorizedasbelongingtooneoranotherdistinctgenre.Worksusuallythought ofashagiographiesarenotalwayseasytodistinguishfromepics,whichmay themselvesdealeitherwithlegendaryheroesorcontemporaryevents.To

complicatemattersfurther,especiallytowardtheendoftheperiod,suchmaterial alsofounditswayintocompilationsbearingthetitleofhistory(tārīḫ,pl.tevārīḫ). Itisclearthatinthefifteenthcentury,historywasnotincompatiblewithanepic style;forinhisfamousaccountofOttomanhistory,Ahmediusedthetermtārīḫ (‘history’)alongsidedāstān(‘ballad’).27Bytheturnofthesixteenthcentury,such epicaccountswerebeingreworkedtoconformtomoreclassicalmodelsof

dynasticanduniversalhistory.28Howevertheepicstylewasnotabandoned,as provenbythefactthatAhmedRıdvan’s İskendernāmealsocontainsahistorical sectionsimilartothatinAhmedi’swork.Infact,thetellingofstories(ḥikāyet, ḳıṣṣa)abouttherealorlegendarypastwaskeptaliveinOttomansocietyby professionalstorytellers(rāvī orqiṣṣa-ḫwān,Tk. ḳıṣṣa-ḫvān),whoplayedan indispensibleroleinalargelyilliteratesociety.

Afewexampleswillsufficetoillustratewhytheliteraryproductionofthe longfifteenthcenturydefieseasycategorization.ThechronicleofAşıkpasazade presentsitselfasahistory(tārīḫ)butinfactcombinesdescriptionsofevents witnessedbytheauthorwithlegendaryaccountssupposedlyderivedfromalost bookofexploits(menāḳıbnāme).29Theproseepic Ṣalṭuḳnāme(‘BookofSaltuk’) wasallegedlycompiledinthe1470sfromvariousoralaccountsattherequestof theOttomanprinceCem.Itcontainsamongothermaterialsupernaturaltalesand echoesoftheFourthCrusadeandOttomanconquestoftheBalkans.30Aroundthe

Facsimile,SourcesOfOrientalLanguagesandLiteratures33(Cambridge,Mass.,1996); Yerasimos,LafondationdeConstantinople.

27_{Forthedifferentmanuscripts,seeSılay,HistoryoftheKings,25.AlthoughSılayhas} notincludeditinhisedition,theworddāstānappearsintheheadingofmostofthese, andisalsousedelsewhereintheİskendernāme.

28_{AclassicstudyofthisreworkingisPaulWittek,“TheTakingofAydosCastle:A} GhaziLegendandItsTransformation,”inGeorgeMakdisi,ed.,ArabicandIslamic StudiesinHonorofH.A.R.Gibb(Leiden,1965),662–72.

29_{Onthissource,seeV.L.Ménage,“TheMenāqibofYakhshī Faqīh,”BSOAS26} (1963):50–54.SeealsoKafadar,BetweenTwoWorlds,99–105.

30_{ForanexcerptinEnglish,briefpresentationandbibliography,seeAhmetT.}

Karamustafa,“SarıSaltıkbecomesaFriendofGod,”inJohnRenard,ed.TalesofGod’s Friends:IslamicHagiographyinTranslation(Berkeley,2009),136–44.SeealsoKafadar,

sametime,amysticalworkknownasthe Ḫıżırnāme(‘BookofKhidr’)was composedintheAnatoliantownofEğirdir.31Thisisessentiallyamystical cosmography,presentedintheformoftheauthor’sjourneytodifferent metaphysicalspheresundertheguidanceoftheholyfigureKhidr(Khiḍr,Tk. Hıżır,onwhommorebelow).Duringthecourseofhismysticaljourney,the authormeetsthe‘guardiansofthelandsofRum’,whoareholywarriorsinthe traditionofthe Ṣaltuḳnāme.Finally,the Ḫalīlnāmeisaromanceonthelifeofthe prophetAbrahamwhichalsocontainsahistoricaldescriptioninverse.32_Inthis respect,itisnotunlikeAhmedi’s İskendernāmewhichwascompletedlessthana decadeearlier.However,unlikeAhmedi’shistoricalsectionwhichisbroadand didactic,thatinthe Ḫalīlnāmeconcernsasinglebattle,andisthereforedetailed anddescriptive.

ThefluidandintertextualnatureoffifteenthcenturyAnatolianTurkish literatureshouldnotbetakentoimplytheabsenceofdistinctcategoriesofgenre andstyle.Indeed,thereiseveryreasontobelievethatauthorswereawareof differentmodalitiesandcomposedorcompiledtheirworksaccordingly.Abasic distinctionwasbetweenpoetry(naẓm)andprose(nes̱r).Poetrywasgovernedby formsandmetres,mostlyderivedfromthePersiantradition,andeveninprose therewereparticularregisterswithdistinctconnotations.33Insubjectmatter,too, thereweremodalities:storiesrecountingmilitaryexploitsagainstinfidels

(ġazavātnāme)weredistinctfromonesdescribingmorespiritualendeavours (vilāyetnāme).Needlesstosay,suchdistinctionscouldeasilybecomeblurredina culturethatveneratedwarriorsaintsandfrequentlyviewedmilitarystrugglesin stronglyreligiousterms.Therewerealsogenreswithalongpedigreeinthe Islamicworld.Theseincludedthe‘talesoftheprophets’(ḳıṣaṣü’l-enbiyā)and the‘wondersoftheworld’(ʿacāʾib,‘mirabilia’).34Thislastcategorycouldcover averybroadterrainindeed,whichincludedcosmography,descriptionsofspiritual journeysattainableonlythroughmysticalcontemplation,andaccountsofthe

ḤamzanāmecycleconcernedtheProphet’suncle;itscompilerwasHamzevi,whose

İskendernāmewillbeconsideredbelow.

31_{OnthisworkseeYürekli,ArchitectureandHagiography,5,38–39,65;MehmetN.} Bardakçı,EğirdirZeyniZaviyesiveŞeyhMehmedÇelebiDivanı(Isparta,2008);Sibel Kocaer,“TheJourneyofanOttomanWarriorDervish:TheHızırnâme(BookofKhidr). SourcesandReception”(PhDthesis,SOAS,2015).

32_{AbdülvasiÇelebi,Ḫalīlnāme.EdAyhanGüldaş (Ankara,1996).Foratranslationon} theBattleofÇamurlu(1413)see,DimitrisJ.Kastritsis,TheSonsofBayezid(Leiden, 2007),221–32.

33_{Forsomeintriguingalbeitpreliminaryobservations,seeBarbaraFlemming,“Noteson} the{IsAr}FutureanditsModalFunctions,”inBarbaraKellner-HeinkeleandMarek Stachowski,eds.,Laut- undWortgeschichtederTürksprachen(Wiesbaden,1995),43–57. 34_{Forapublishedexampleofthe‘talesoftheprophets’genre,see İsmetCemiloğlu,14.}

afterlifeandtheendoftimes.AnimportantcaseinpointisYazıcıoğluAhmed Bican’sDürr-iMeknūn(‘theHiddenPearl’,ca.1453),aworkofcosmologymost famousforitssectionsontheApocalypseandthefoundationofConstantinople.35 Whenweconsiderthatthisworkwasthemainsourceforrelevantsectionsofthe anonymous‘ChroniclesoftheHouseofOsman’,itbecomesclearjusthow problematicsuchcategoriesas‘learned’versus‘popular’canbefortheOttoman fifteenthcentury.ThereislittledoubtthatYazıcıoğluAhmedwasoneoftheelite intellectualsofhisday;andinthewordsofthemainauthorityonhiswork,the “apparent‘simplicity’ofthelanguageandthecolloquialstyleof[thework]are nottobetakenatallasindicationsthattheintendedaudiencewaschieflymade upofsimplefolk,illiteratefarmersandtoothlessoldwomen.”36

Inshort,thecultureoftheearlyOttomanEmpireisstillpoorlyunderstood, anditsrichliteratureconformspoorlytomodernWesternliterarycategoriesor thestylisticconventionsoflaterOttomanauthors.37Inordertoassessproperlythe literaryproductionofthelongfifteenthcentury,itisnecessarytoconsiderawide rangeoftextscomposedandcompiledduringthattime,whoserelationshipis largelyintertextual.Tocomplicatemattersevenfurther,thesetextssituated themselvesnotonlyintermsofeachother,butalsointhelargercontextofArabic andPersianliterature.Althoughlanguagemustclearlybetakenintoaccount,to dosoproperlyrequiresgivingupsuchmoderncategoriesas‘nationalliterature’ infavourofonesmoresuitedtotheperiodofstudy.Forthiswasatimewhen TurkishhadfullyemergedasaliterarylanguageinAnatoliaandtheBalkans,but authorsstillvieweditasavernacular‘languageoftheland’whoseuserequired justification.38

Questionsoflanguageandstylearecloselyconnectedtothoseofgenre andaudience.Allareessentialwhenconsideringthe İskendernāmesofAhmedi andHamzavi,towhichwewillnowturn.

Alexanderasphilosophicalmeditation:Ahmedi’s İskendernāme

35_{AhmedBicanYazıcıoğlu,Dürr-iMeknun,ed.LabanKaptein(Asch,2007).Seealso} theaccompanyingstudy:LabanKaptein,ApocalypseandtheAntichristDajjalinIslam: AhmedBijan’sEschatologyRevisited(Asch,2011).

36_{Kaptein,Apocalypse,25.OntheconnectionbetweenYazıcıoğluAhmedBicanandthe} anonymouschronicles,seeYerasimos,LafondationdeConstantinople,60ff.

37_{Forstylisticchangesinthesixteenthcentury,seethebibliographyinFlemming,“Notes} onthe{IsAr}Future,”aswellasKaptein,Apocalypse,25(“officialSchrifttum…

Ahmedi's İskendernāmehasattractedinterestmainlyforofitsepictreatmentof theOttomandynasty,whichiswidelyviewedastheearliestaccountofOttoman historyinTurkish.ThishasbeendescribedvariouslyasanappendixtoAhmedi’s longerworkanda‘mirrorforprinces’.Infact,aswewillsee,thereareproblems withbothcharacterizations.ForifAhmedi’saccountofOttomanhistoryisan appendix,thensoistheentireaccountofhistoryinwhichitiscontained.Andifit isamirrorforprinces,thensoisthe İskendernāmeasawhole,alongwithalarge proportionofmedievalTurkishandPersianliteratureingeneral.

ModerninterestinAhmedi’streatmentoftheOttomansstemsfromits placeinPaulWittek’scontroversialaccountofOttomanorigins(theso-called ‘ġazā thesis’).39Wittekwasimpressedbythefactthatinthissectionofhiswork, AhmediplacedastrongemphasisontheOttomans’roleas ġāzīs,namely

religiouslymotivatedraidersbentonexpandingthe‘AbodeofIslam’(dāral -Islām).InacritiqueofWittek’suseofthesources,HeathLowryhasmadethe argumentthatAhmedi’saccountofOttomanhistorywaswrittenasa‘mirrorfor princes’(naṣīḥat-nāme)aimedatdissuadingBayezidIfromattackingother Muslimpowers.40_{WhiletherearecertainlyproblemswithWittek’sinterpretation,} aswewillseebelow,Lowry’stheorydoesnotholduptoscrutinyeither.For whileitistruethatpartofAhmedi’saccountofBayezid’sreigniscriticalofthe Ottomanruler’sattacksonotherMuslims,itisalmostcertainthattheseverses wereaddedafterBayezid’sdownfallatthehandsofTimur.

InordertoplaceincontextAhmedi’streatmentoftheOttomansandother Islamicdynasties,itisnecessarytotakeabroaderlookofthe İskendernāme’s contentandreception.Suchanendeavourishamperedbytheabsenceofaproper edition,aswellasbystillcommonmisconceptionsaboutthestyleandnatureof thework.Someofthesedatebacktothesixteenthcentury,whencertainOttoman intellectualsviewedAhmedi’spoetrywithdisdain,expressingtheincorrectview

thathis İskendernāmewaslittlemorethanatranslationofNiẓāmī’sworkonthe

samesubject.InthewordsofKınalızadeHasanÇelebi(d.1015/1607),theauthor ofabiographicaldictionary,“althoughthe İskendernāmebytheabove-mentioned isfamous,nonethelesspeopleknowwhatkindofendeavoritis.Itiseven

39_{PaulWittek,TheRiseoftheOttomanEmpire(London,1938).Thiswasrecently} republishedwithothermaterialandausefulintroduction:ColinHeywood,ed.,Paul Wittek,TheRiseoftheOttomanEmpire:StudiesintheHistoryofTurkey,Thirteenth -FifteenthCenturies(MiltonPark,2012).

rumoredthatwhenAhmediwouldpresenttheabove-mentionedbooktonotables ofhiscenturytheywouldsaythatevenasomewhatgood ḳaṣīde[panegyric poem]wassuperiortoabookofthiskind.”41

Suchstatementstellusmoreabouttheliterarytastesoftheauthorandhiscircle thanaboutthework’soriginalreception.Amoreaccurateindicationofthismay begainedbythelargenumberofextantmanuscripts,aswellasthefactthatmany oftheseareluxurycopiespreparedforOttomanrulersandmagnates.These includetheearliestOttomanillustratedmanuscriptinexistence(819/1416), probablymadeforMehmedI,aswellasanimpressiveillustratedcopybelonging toMehmedIIandothersfromaroundthesametimeprobablycommissionedby hisviziers.42_{Suchelitepatronageaside,aswewillseebelow,Ahmedi’sverses} wereapparentlyalsopopularoutsidecourtcircles,fortheywereincludedin variousotherworksofalesscourtlynature.

Asforthequestionoftheoriginalityofthe İskendernāme,asÜnverand othershavepointedout,despiteheavyinfluencefromNiẓāmī andotherauthors, Ahmedi’sworkisnotameretranslationoradaptationfromthePersian.43 Nonetheless,itisworthpointingoutsomeofthemainelementsAhmedihas borrowedfromNiẓāmī,Firdawsī andotherauthors,sinceanawarenessoftheseis essentialforanyinterpretationofthe İskendernāme.Oneessentialelement

AhmedihastakenfromNiẓāmī isthedualcharacteroftheprotagonistandhis exploits.InbothworkstherearetwosidestoAlexander,whoisbothconqueror andexplorer,bothkingandphilosopher.Toacertainextent,thisdualismreflects thecriticaldistinction(establishedbyal-Ghazālī,d.505/1111)betweenthe externalsofreligionandsociallife(ẓāhir)andinnerormysticalspiritualtruth (bāṭin).44Throughhisconquestsandtravels,Alexandermovesfromworldly conquesttophilosophicalenlightenment,whichcomeswiththerealizationofthe vanityofpower.Alexander’sdualcharacterisevidentinthestructureofboth works;forNiẓāmī’sisactuallytwoworksinone,andlaterrecensionsof Ahmedi’sconformtoasimilarlybipartitestructure.45ThishasledCaroline

41_{Sılay,HistoryoftheKings,xiv,note26(tr.Sılay).}

42_{Onthesemanuscriptsandtheirillustrations,seeAysinYoltar,“TheRoleofIllustrated} ManuscriptsinOttomanLuxuryBookProduction:1413—1520”(Ph.D.thesis,New YorkUniversity,2002),37–74,99–204.

43 _Ünver,

İskender-Nāme,12,17–18.

44_{AusefulbasicintroductiontothisimportantdistinctionmaybefoundinMarshallG.S.} Hodgson,TheVentureofIslam.Vol.2:TheExpansionofIslamintheMiddlePeriods

(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1974),180–200. 45 _The

SawyertocompareAhmedi’sworktoaBildungsromaninwhichthemain charactergainsknowledgethroughhisexperiencesandbecomesfullyformed.46 AsSawyerpointsout,inAhmedithepointoftransitionisAlexander’s

explorationsbysea.ThiselementtooispresentinNiẓāmī,aswellasbeinga literarytoposgoingbackatleastasfarastheOdyssey.Anotherelementfrom Niẓāmī whichisfoundinbothAhmediandHamzavi’sworksisAlexander’s retinueofanachronisticallyselectedancientphilosophers.Theirnamesand characteristicsvarybyauthor,butallthreeworkscontainawho’s-whoofancient thinkers.

HavingacknowledgedAhmedi’sbasicdependenceonNiẓāmī,itisnow timetoconsiderwhatmakeshisworkunique,bothinliterarytermsandinthe contextofearlyOttomanhistoryandculture.Toassessallthisisamonumental task,sohereafewgeneralcommentsandexamplesmustsuffice.First,itshould benotedthatnotallmanuscriptsofAhmedicontainthesametext.Sawyerhas comparedthebestknownmanuscriptofthe İskendernāme(thefacsimile publishedbyÜnver,dated14Ramadan847/3January1444)toonecopied45 yearslater(894/1488–89).47Basedonanumberofdifferences,mostnotablythe factthatthelatermanuscriptlacksboththepoeminpraiseoftheProphet’sbirth (Mevlid)andthatonOttomanhistory,sheconcludesthatitmustrepresentacopy ofanearlierdraft.Thisisareasonableassumption,whichmakespossiblean examinationofthedevelopmentoftheworkunderOttomanpatronagein

responsetokeypoliticalchallenges.Sawyerarguesthatinthelaterversion,there isastrongeremphasisonIslamandempire,whichsuitedtheneedsofAhmedi’s Ottomanpatronsaround805/1402.Thisisevidentinthehistoricalsection presentingtheOttomansas ġāzīs,theMevlidwhichisthefirstofitskindin Turkish,aswellasotherpartsofthework.Sheconcludesthatinthelate recension,“AlexanderhasmadehimselfavirtualMuslimbytravelingtothe HijazandvisitingthetwoHolyCitesofIslam,constitutingaprecedentforthe patrons’aspirationtotakeAl-Madinatayn,andthusthecaliphate.”48However, thisisprobablyastretch,sincethereislittleevidencethattheOttomans’imperial aspirationsattheturnofthefifteenthcenturywerequitesolofty.49

Iskandarnāma-yibaḥrī).Forabriefdescriptionandreferences,seeStoneman,ALifein Legend,33–38.

46_{CarolineG.Sawyer,“RevisingAlexander:StructureandEvolutioninAhmedî’s} Ottoman Iskendernâme (c. 1400),” Edebiyât 13 (2003): 232.

47 _Sawyer,

“RevisingAlexander,”230–42. 48_{Sawyer,“RevisingAlexander,”242.}

Nevertheless,Sawyeriscorrectinnotingthestrongeffectofthehistorical circumstancesaround805/1402onlaterrecensionsofAhmedi’swork,,especially itshistoricalsectionwhichisquiteextensiveinthelaterversions.Inthese,the accountofOttomanhistoryisprecededbyanequallyextensivetreatmentofthe MongolsrulersoftheMiddleEastandtheirsuccessors:specificallytheIlkhanids, Chobanids,andJalayirids.Theinclusionofsuchasectionisstrikingonanumber oflevels.Ashasalreadybeensuggested,bytheendofthefifteenthcentury,the ‘Ottomandynasticmyth’hadcometorelynotonlyonlegitimationthroughthe conquestofnewterritoryforIslam,butalsoonatransferofauthorityfromthe SeljuksandthelegendarytribeofKayı,aprestigiousbranchoftheOğuzTurks.50 ButintheearlypartofthecenturywhenAhmedicompletedhiswork,thatmyth hadnotyetfullydeveloped.Itispreciselyforthatreasonthatthehistorical sectioninthe İskendernāmeissointeresting.Infact,aswewillseelaterwhenwe turntoHamzavi,thereisevidenceofinterestinOghuzTurkicoriginsalreadyin theearlyfifteenthcentury.AhmedialsomentionstheOghuz,ifonlyinpassing. AsforideathattheOttomanswerevassalsoftheSeljuks,thisisalsopresentin Ahmedi,probablybecauseitwasinalostchroniclehewasusingashismain sourcefortheOttomansection.51Despitethepresenceoftheseelements,however, inAhmedithefocusissquarelyontheancientkingsofIran,classicalIslamic history,andmostintriguingly,IlkhanidMongolsandtheirsuccessors.

Sawyer’scomparativeexaminationofthetworecensionsprovidessome indicationofhowthehistoricalsectioninAhmedievolvedovertime.Intheearly draftversion,thissectionappearstohaveconsistedonlyoftheancientkingsof Iran(bothbeforeandafterAlexander)andtheearlyhistoryofIslam(the

emergenceoftheProphet,theRightlyGuidedCaliphs,andsomekeymembersof theUmayyadandAbbasiddynasties).52Thiswaslaterexpandedtocoverallof Islamichistorydowntotheauthor’sowntime.Butsuchafeatrequiredbridging thesignificantchronologicalgapbetweentheAbbasidCaliphal-Muʿtaṣim bi’llāh(d.227/815)andtheriseoftheOttomans(ca.700/1300).Thisposedan isproofthatatthetimetheholysitesofIslamwereconsideredverydistant,andadesire tocontrolthemwasseenasasignofmadness.

50_{Imber,“TheOttomanDynasticMyth.”}

51_{Sılay,HistoryoftheKings,27.OnAhmedi’streatmentoftheMongolsandSeljuks,see} alsoBakiTezcan,“TheMemoryoftheMongolsinEarlyOttomanHistoriography,”inH. ErdemÇıpaandEmineFetvacı,eds.,WritingHistoryattheOttomanCourt:Editingthe Past,FashioningtheFuture(Bloomington,2013),23–38.WhileTezcannotesthese featuresofAhmedi’spresentationofhistory,hedoesnotadequatelyexplainthem.Thisis notsimplythecaseofmakingthetransitionfromaworlddominatedbytheMongol worldorderto“afuturethatlookedpromisingtoTurcomanpoliticalpower”(30). Ahmedi’spresentationoftheMongolsandOttomansmustbeunderstoodinthecontext oftheTimuridchallenge.

obviousproblem,sincefollowingthefragmentationofAbbasidauthoritythere weremanypossibledynasticlinestofollow.Itisintriguingtospeculateabout whyAhmedimadethechoiceshedid.Forratherthandevotechapterstosuch importantdynastiesastheSeljuks,hechosetocontinuehisaccountofthe AbbasidsdowntotheMongolsackofBaghdad(656/1258),thenturntothe MongolIlkhanidsandtheirsuccessors.53_{Whatthissuggestsisafocusonthe} ultimatesourceofpoliticalauthority.Thiswasaconvenientviewforthepoetto take,sinceitmadepossiblemeditationsaboutthecyclicalnatureofpower movingbackandforthbetweenthestrongandtheweak,thejustandtheunjust. WiththesackofBaghdadandtheendoftheweakAbbasidcaliphate,power passedtothepowerfulbutunjustMongolswhohadsackedthecity;andwiththe weakeningoftheMongolIlkhanate,tovariousinterimrulers(andeventuallythe Ottomans,whowerebothstrongandjust.

AhmedihadafurtherreasonforplacinganaccountoftheMongolsbefore thatofhisOttomanpatrons.Doingsoallowedhimtofocusonthefundamental challengeofhistime:thatposedbytheCentralAsianrulerTimur,amanwhose authorityrestedonconnectionstothefamilyofChingisKhan.54Itwasconvenient forAhmedi’snarrativethatoneofthefactorsprecipitatingtheOttomanconflict withTimurwastheescapetotheOttomansofamemberoftheJalayiriddynasty. Forthisconnectionprovidedthepoetwithaconvenientbridgetolinkhishistory oftheIlkhanatewiththatoftheOttomans.55IndiscussingthefalloftheJalayirids, AhmedicouldmentionTimur,whoseinjusticehecouldthencontrastwiththe justiceandpietyoftheOttomans.SinceTimur’sauthoritywasexplicitlybasedon theChingisidworldorder,hisinjusticewasofaMongolbrand;andinthe

aftermathof1402,wheneverAhmedispokeaboutMongolinjustice,hisaudience wouldhavethoughtofTimur.

Takeforexamplethefollowingcouplets,whichcomeatthebeginningof theOttomansection:

OlMoġolsulṭānlarınuñ ʿadlini Niceyidiişitimdişerhini

İtmedileranıkimCingīz Ḫān Ẓulmden ḫalḳaideridi ʿayān

53_{Foradetailedtableofcontentsandtherelevanttext,seeÜnver,İskender-nāme,44–45,} 60b–65a.

54_{OnthelegitimationofTimur’spower,seeBeatriceForbesManz,TheRiseandRuleof}

Tamerlane(Cambridge,1989),14–16.OntheJalayirids,seeJ.M.Smith,Jr.,“Djalāyir, Djalāyirid,”EI2vol.2,fascs.5–7(1956),401–02.

Ẓulmitdilervelī ḳānūnıla Ellerinboyamadılar ḫūnıla

Listennow,andIwillexplaintoyouwhatthejusticeoftheseMongolsultanswas like.

TheydidnotoppressthepeopleinthesamemannerasChingisKhan.

Theyoppressedthem,butbythelaw;theydidnotpainttheirhandswithblood.56

Suchreferencestooppression“bythelaw”wouldhavemadesenseinaworld dominatedbyMuslimsclaimingtorepresentaMongolworldorder.InAhmedi’s verses,suchrulersarecontrastedstarklywiththeOttomans,whoare

distinguishedfortheirgenuineMuslimpiety,generosity,andreluctanceto oppressthepeopleeveninthenameoflaw.

Infact,weknowfromothersourcesthatintheOttomansocietyofAhmedi’s time,therewasresistancetowhatwasperceivedasthegovernment’seffortto oppressthepeoplebylegalmeanssuchastaxation.57However,thesesourcesare generallycarefultoavoidplacingtheblameontheOttomandynastyitself. Instead,theyblameitsfunctionariesandespeciallytheÇandarlıfamilyofviziers. TherearehintsofsuchanegativevieweveninAhmedi,butotherwisethepoet’s accountoftheOttomandynastyisoverwhelminglypositiveuntilthemiddleof thereignofBayezidI.58However,itchangesabruptlywhenBayezidlearnsofthe deathoftheMamlukrulerBarqūqanddecidestoattackhisdomains.Ahmedi criticizesBayezid’spursuitofempireattheexpenseoftheMamluks,presentingit asanactofvanitythatgoesagainstdivinepredestination.Suchaviewclearly reflectstheperspectivepost-1402.Foritwasthepursuitofempireattheexpense ofotherMuslimrulersthatprecipitatedTimur’sinvasionofAnatolia.

Accordingtothepoet,thiseventisterrifyingeventocontemplate,forits perpetratorisanoppressorentirelylackinginjustice:

ÇünTemürüñhīç ʿadliyoġ-ıdı

56_{Ünver, İskender-nāme,verses7541–43.SeealsoSılay,HistoryoftheKings,25.My} translation.

57_{ThemainsourceforcriticismofearlyOttomantaxationaretheso-calledOttoman} AnonymousChronicles.SeeFriedrichGiese,ed.,Diealtosmanischenanonymen Chroniken(Breslau,1922),21–33.ForanEnglishtranslationoftherelevantpassages, seeBernardLewis,ed.,IslamfromtheProphetMuhammadtotheCaptureof

Constantinople(OxfordandNewYork,1987),135–41,226–27.

Lā-ciremkim ẓulmücevriçoġ-ıdı

ForsinceTimurwascompletelydevoidofjustice,ofcoursehistyrranyand oppressionweregreat.59

ContrarytoLowry’sview,acarefulreadingofthesecondpartofAhmedi’s accountofBayezid’sreignsuggeststhattheseversescouldonlyhavebeen

writtenafter1402.60Forassuggestedalready,thispartisverydifferentfromwhat comesbefore.ThankstothefundamentalworkofV.L.Ménage,itisaccepted thatmostofAhmedi’sepicaccountofOttomanhistoryisderivedfromalost chronicle,whichisrelatedtootherhistoricalnarrativesofthefifteenthcentury.61 ThismusthaveendedinthemiddleofBayezidI’sreign,sowhatcameaftermust havebeenwrittenbyAhmedihimselfunderthepatronageofBayezid’ssuccessor EmirSüleyman.FromthetoneofthenegativeversesonthelatepartofBayezid’s reign,itisimpossibletoacceptthatthesecouldhavebeenwrittenasadvice literaturedirectedatBayezid.Instead,thegradualevolutionofthehistorical sectionshouldbeseenasfulfillingtheideologicalneedsofAhmedi’spatrons, whowerechangingandwhosepoliticalneedswereevolvingovertime.Inthe aftermathof1402,Bayezid’saggressivepoliciesvis-à-visotherMuslimrulers wereoutoffavour.Ahmedi’snewpatronEmirSüleymanhadeveryreasonto distancehimselffromthem,whilealsocelebratinghisancestors’roleasjust rulerswhoexpandedtherealmsofIslamattheexpenseofChristendom.

NowthatthehistoricalsectionofAhmedi’s İskendernāmehasbeen discussed,itistimetoturntoitsremainingcontents.Forourpurposes,whatisof

59_{Ahmedi(ed.Ünver),İskender-nāme,67b(verse7831).}

60_{Lowry’sargumentisasfollows:“Acarefulreadingofthefulltextestablishesthat} AhmedihadinitiallyenvisagedtheworkforBayezid,asanattempttowarnhimaway fromtheerrors(hiswarsagainsthisfellowMuslimrulersinAnatolia)whichwere ultimately(whiletheworkwasstillinprogress)toleadtohisdownfall”(Lowry,The NatureoftheEarlyOttomanState,17).LowrybasesthisassessmentontheworkofV.L. ΜénageandPalFodor,howeverhehasmisunderstoodbothauthors,whosimplysuggest thatanearlierdraftoftheOttomansectionwasalreadyinexistenceunderBayezid.SeeV. L. Μénage,“TheBeginningsofOttomanHistoriography,”inBernardLewisandP.M. Holt,ed.,HistoriansoftheMiddleEast(London,1962),168–79,170;PálFodor, “Aḥmedī’sDāsitānasaSourceofEarlyOttomanHistory,”ActaOrientaliaAcademiae ScientiarumHungaricae38(1984):41–54,41–43.Infact,Ahmedi’spresentationofthe OttomansasġāzīsservedBayezid’sneedswell,sincethisprovidedsomejustificationfor conflictwithotherMuslimrulersincludingtheMamluksandTimur.Butatthetime,that policyhadnotyetendedindisaster.OntheOttoman-Mamlukconflict,seeCihanYüksel Muslu,TheOttomansandtheMamluks:ImperialDiplomacyandWarfareintheIslamic World(London,2014),65.

61_{SeeV.L.Ménage,Neshrī’sHistoryoftheOttomans:TheSourcesandDevelopmentof}

theText(London,1964),xv.LikeothersurvivingearlyOttomanchronicles,this containedanaccountofBayezid’sreformoftheqadis(ed.Sılay,verses273–78;ed. Ünver,verses7809-7814).SeeHalil İnalcık,“TheRiseofOttomanHistoriography,”in

interesthereisthereflectionofcontemporaryeventsnotonlyonpassageswhere thesearetreatedexplicitly,butalsoonothersdescribingtheexploitsofAlexander. Sawyerhasalreadymadesomeintriguingsuggestionsalongtheselines.62_One concernsAhmedi’sdescriptionoftheweddingbetweenAlexanderandGülşah, daughterofZarasp,apartofthe İskendernāmethatstandsoutfromtherestofthe textandhasbeenstudiedbyRobertDankoff.63_{HereSawyerhassuggestedthat} thepoetwasdrawingaparalleltoanactualroyalweddingofhisowntime,which hemusthavewitnessedinperson.Thiswasthe1381unionoftheOttomanprince Bayezid(thefutureBayezidI)andtheEmirofGermiyan’sdaughterDevletHatun. Theweddingwasofgreatregionalsignificance,sincetheOttomansreceivedas dowrythelion’sshareoftherivalemirate,includingitscapitalKütahya.Its celebrationinversewouldhavesuitedperfectlyAhmedi’spatronage

requirementswhenhebegancomposingthe İskendernāme;foratthetimehewas stillattheGermiyanidcourt,andthechangingpowerdynamicbetweenthetwo emirateswouldhaveledhimtoconsiderachangeofpatron.ButifAlexanderand Gülşah’sweddingalludestoarealevent,wemightexpecttofindsimilar

reflectionsinotherpartsofthework.Indeed,itishighlyrewardingtoread differentpartsofthe İskendernāmeinlightofthetumultuouseventsofthetime. Sawyerhasalreadyprovidedseveralconvincingexamplesofversesontheevils ofinternecinewarfare,whichwouldhaveresonatedintheperiodofdynasticwars following1402.64

ManymoreexamplesmaybeaddedtothosesuggestedbySawyer,but twomustsufficehere.ThefirstisAhmedi’sdescriptionofthedeathand

successionofAlexander,whereonceagainparallelsmaybedrawntothedeathof BayezidIandtheensuingcivilstrife.ThesecondishisaccountofAlexander’s warswithDarius.LikethevernacularGreekAlexanderRomancediscussedabove, thismaybereadinlightoftheOttomanstruggleagainstByzantium.Letusbegin withthefirstexample,Alexander’sdeathandsuccession.Inlaterecensionsofthe

İskendernāme,thiscomestowardtheendofthework,followingthehistorical

sectionandvariousmetaphysicalmeditationsandvoyagestotheendsofthe Earth.65SomeofthismaterialisalreadypresentinSawyer’searlierrecension, whichcontainsachapterentitled“AlexanderDhu’l-Qarnaynobservesthetombof thepreviousAlexander.”66Whileitisimpossibletodiscussthisindetailwithout referencetothemanuscriptinquestion,itisreasonabletoassumethatitalso

62_{Sawyer,“RevisingAlexander,”229.}

63_{RobertDankoff,“TheRomanceof İskenderandGülşāh,”inSabriM.Akural,ed.,}

TurkicCulture:ContinuityandChange(Bloomington,1987),95–103. 64_{Sawyer,“RevisingAlexander,”241.}

65_{Ünver45–46.}

referstoAlexander’sdeathandthevanityofthepursuitofpower—themes alreadypresentinNiẓāmī andtheoriginalAlexanderRomance.However,inthe laterrecensionofAhmedi,thesethemesreceivemuchgreateremphasis.Herethe questionofAlexander’sdeathandsuccessionisintimatelyconnectedtothe historicalsection,whichispresentedintermsofpastandfuturekings,endingof coursewiththeOttomans.

ThefundamentalturningpointinthenarrativecomeswhenAlexander askshis‘vizier’Aristotletotellhimaboutfuturerulersfollowinghisowndeath. Aristotleanswersthathehasreachedthelimitsofhisknowledge,anddefersto Khidr,whobecomesAlexander’smainguidefromthatpointon.InAhmedi’s work,thebinaryoppositionbetweenthesetwoauthoritiesplaysacrucialrole:for Aristotlerepresentsthephysicalandseen(the‘external’, ẓāhir)whereasKhidr standsforthemetaphysicalandunseen,thatwhichcanonlybeperceivedthrough insightandprophecy(the‘internal’,bāṭin).NoneofthisisnewtoAhmedi; Alexander’squestforthewateroflifehasanancientandcomplexhistory,and Khidr’sroleashisguideonthequesttofinditcanbetracedtotheQur’an.67But onceagain,inAhmedi’sworktherearehistoricalreflectionsspecifictothetime andplaceofcomposition.ForjustasthehistoryoftherulersafterAlexander’s deathbelongstotherealmoftheunseen,sodothenewlandstobeconqueredfor IslambytheOttoman ġāzīs.IfAhmedi’sworkisreadalongsideotherearly Ottomanliterature,suchastheSalṭuḳnāme,itbecomesclearthatKhidrisnotonly Alexander’sguide,butalsotheguideandprotectorofthe ġāzī warriorsinthe Balkans,whoseheroisSarıSaltuk.68

Therealmoftheunseen,accessibleonlythroughKhidr’sinsight,also includesruminationsonlifeanddeath,themeaningofman,andthefarreachesof theworld.SohowdoesAhmedipresentthepartoftheRomancedealingwith Alexander’smortalityandposterity?Wemayconsiderthefollowingverses, whichfollowfuneralorationsbytheusualpanoplyofGreekphilosophers:

Hervaṣıyyetk’itdi-diolnīk-nām Yirinegetürdileranıtemām

Pesoradananıalupgitdiler Oldidügiyirdepenhānitdiler

Renc ṭartupgencdirdi ̮itdinihān

67_{OnthewateroflifeandKhidr’srole,seeStoneman,AlexandertheGreat,152–56.On} Khidr’smultipleroles,seeJohnRenard,FriendsofGod:IslamicImagesofPiety, Commitment,andServanthood(Berkeley,2008).

Anıdaḫı ̮itdinihān āḫırcihān

İşbudurki ̮isitdüņ̃ aḥvāl-isipihr Cehdeylepesañabaġlamamihr

Biñyılanda ḳalur-ısañşād-mān Çünkigitdüñbirnefesdururhemān

Thetestamentofthatrenownedonewascarriedoutperfectly.

Theytook[hiscorpse]andleft,concealingitintheplacehehadindicated.

Hetoiledandamassedtreasure,hidingitaway;butintheendhehimselfwas hiddenawaybytheworld.

Fortheconditionofthecelestialspheresisasyouhaveheard;sostrivenotto attachyouraffectionstothem.69

Evenifyouareabletostayhappyforathousandyears,whenyouaregonewhat remainsislikeabreathofair.70

ItistemptingtoreadsuchversesasreferringtothefateoftheOttomanruler BayezidIafterhisdefeatatAnkara.Ofcourse,avalidargumentmaybemade thatatthetimewhenAhmediwascomposingtheverses,theephemeralnatureof worldlypowerhadlongbeenamajortoposinPersianandTurkishpoetry.Andin fact,evenAhmedi’scomparisonofAlexander’sreigntoabreathofairisalready presentinFirdawsī’sShāhnāma.Nonetheless,itisreasonabletoassumethat whenhearingsuchverses,Ahmedi’saudiencewouldhavethoughtamongother thingsofthefateofBayezidI.AfterdefeatingandcapturingBayezid,Timurhad spentanentirewinterinAnatoliadismemberinghisempirebeforehiseyes.This ordealprovedtoomuchforBayezid,whoeventuallydiedincaptivity,probably byhisownhand.Bayezid’scorpsewasleftbehindbyTimurwhenheleftthe region.Thenitbecametheobjectofpoliticalstrugglesbetweenhissons İsa, MehmedandSüleyman,eachofwhomwantedtogainlegitimacybypresiding overitsburialintheOttomancapitalBursa.Intheend,theprincewhoburied BayezidwasMehmedI,whocarriedout“thetestamentofthatrenownedone[…] perfectly,”takingBayezid’scorpseand“concealingitintheplacehehad

indicated,”namelyhispiousfoundationinBursa.Butdespitetheelaborate funeralceremoniescarriedoutbyMehmed,ayearlaterAhmedi’spatronEmir

69_{Thankstothedoublemeaningofmihr(whichmeans‘affection’butalso‘thesun’)itis} possibletointerpretthiscoupletintermsofPtolemaicastronomy:“strivenottofixyour suninthecelestialspheres.”

Süleymantookcreditfortheburialbyplacinghisownnameonhisfather’s tomb.71

Inshort,itwouldappearthatBayezid’sfuneralwaseverybitasmemorableas hiswedding,soitisnotunreasonabletoreadAhmedi’saccountofAlexander’s funeralasanindirectreferencetothatevent.Indeed,suchaconnectionseemsall themorelikelyinlightofAhmedi’sdescriptionofhissuccession: 72

Pesdiledi ̮İskenderūs’uRūkiyā ŞāhẔū’l-Ḳarneyntaḫtına ḳoya

Olzamānolmış idibirfeylesūf Kimcihān ḥālinebulmısdıvuḳūf

…

Didiatamsaltanatidüp ṭaleb Çekdidürlüdürlürenciletaʿab …

Renc-ile ̮atamdirdibuncagencümāl Ḳodıgitdiañane ḳaldıvebāl

…

Pādişāhlıḳ olkimçoḳ rencübelā Çekübenbirkişitācutaḫtala

Görmedinandantemettüʿ zārola Mülkandan ṣoñraayruġa ḳala …

Pesvarupbirkūşeitdiiḫtiyār Ṭāʿatameşġūlolupleylünehār …

Çünkiböyleoldı ḥāl-isalṭanat Düşdi ḫalḳuñarasındaşeyṭanat

Hergişibirşehriduṭupoldışāh Buanı ḳıldıvüolbunıtebāh …

Fitnevü āşūbdoldırūzigār Erdeşir-işāholınca āşıkār

ThenRūkiyā wishedtoplace İskenderūsonthethroneofShahDhū’l-Qarnayn.

Bythattime,hehadbecomeaphilosopher,whohadgainedawarenessofthestateof theworld.

…

Hesaid:“Myfatherdesiredthesultanate,andsufferedmuchtoilandtrouble.” …

71_{Ontheseeventsandtheirrepresentationinacontemporarysource,seeKastritsis,The}

SonsofBayezid,98–100.

“Myfathertoiledtoamassallthatwealthandproperty,butabandoneditwhenhe departed,andwasleftwithnothingbuttheburdenofsin.

…

WhoeverthroughgreatpainsisabletobecomePadishah,takingpossessionofthe crownandthrone,

Haveyounotseenthathisprofitbecomesmisery,sovereigntylaterendingupinthe handsofanother?”

…

Sohewentandchoseamountain[ashisdwelling],wherehebusiedhimselfwith worshipdayandnight.

…

Whenthesultanatecameintosuchastate,thedevil’sworkmanifesteditselfamong thepeople.

EachpersonseizedatownandbecameShah,oneeliminatingtheother. …

Theworldwasfilledwithtroubleandconfusion,untiltheappearanceofShah Ardashīr.

Onceagain,thereisanobviousintertextualrelationshipbetweenAhmedi’sverses andtheworksofFirdawsī andNiẓāmī.ItistothesecondofthesetwoPersian poetsthatwemaytraceAlexander’sphilosophicallyinclinedsonIskandarūs. Nonetheless,inlightoftheOttomansucessionstrugglesof805–816/1402–13,it isnotdifficulttoimaginewhatmusthavegonethroughthemindsofAhmedi’s audiencewhenhearinghisversesaboutcivilstrifeandinterregnum.Ahmedi’s patronEmirSüleymanwasnoasceticonamountaintop,butthereisevery indicationthathewasphilosophicallyinclined,andmanydifferentsources presenthimastornbetweentheburdenofruleandapreferenceforliterary symposia.73

SofarwehaveconsideredhowAhmedi’sversionoftheAlexander Romancecanbereadasareflectionofthepoliticalcrisisof805/1402.Nowitis timetoturntoadifferentcase:theconflictbetweentheOttomansandByzantium. Ashasbeensuggestedalready,theOttomanconquestsintheBalkanscarried profoundsignificanceforthelargerIslamicworld.Notonlydidtheyinvolvethe conquestofnewterritoryforIslam,buttheperiodinwhichAhmediwaswriting witnessedthefirstOttomansiegeofConstantinople,acitywhosepotential conquestcarrieddeepsignificancefromanIslamicperspective.Giventhe

religiousandideologicalimportanceofthestruggleinquestion,wemightexpect ittobereflectedinaworksuchasthatofAhmedi,withitsfocusonIslamicpiety andhistory.Indeed,wehaveseenalreadythatAhmedi’saccountoftheOttoman dynastymakesmuchoftheOttomanrulers’pietyandroleas ġāzīsexpandingthe territoryofIslam.Butmightwenotalsoexpectthepoettorepresentthedefining

conflictofhistimeinotherpartsofhis İskendernāme?Wehavealreadyseensuch reflectionsinthevernacularGreekAlexanderRomanceproducedaroundthis time.Shouldwenotexpecttofindthemalsoontheothersideoftheconflict?

ContrarytoSawyer’sassertionthat“itisnotclearwhatinspiredAhmedî tochooseanAlexandernarrative”astheframeworkforauniversalhistory,there iseveryreasontobelievethatthepoetmadeaconsciouschoicetoengagewith thelegendofAlexander.74_{ByAhmedi’stime,theancientconquerorhadbecome} thesymbolparexcellenceofuniversalknowledgeandworldempire;andof courseeveninitsoriginalformtheAlexanderRomanceincludedaconflict betweentheworldsofPersiaandGreece.Thismusthavesuggestedobvious parallelstotheperiodinwhichAhmediwasliving,whenasimilarconflictwas takingplacebetweentheGreek-speakingChristianrulersofRum(namely Byzantium)andthoseotherRumis,theMuslimOttomans.However,thematter wascomplicatedconsiderablybythefactthatinthePersianiterationofthe Romance,theconflicthadbecomeonebetweentwoPersiankings.Forin

Firdawsī’sversion,AlexanderisDarius’shalf-brotherthroughPhilip’sdaughter, sentastributetoDarius’sfatherandlatersentback.75Itisthesetwomenwho comeintoconflictafteradisputeovertribute,whichispresentedintheformofan exchangeofdiplomaticletters—anelementalreadypresentintheoriginalGreek versionoftheRomance.ButalthoughAlexanderisraisedinGreeceasPhilips son,hisrealfatherisPhilip’soverlordDarab;andheislaterabletotakethe throneofIranbecauseofthemurderofDarab’slegitimatesuccessor,hishalf -brotherDara(DariusIII).

Forseveralreasons,Firdawsī’sversionofthestorywasill-suitedtoa presentationmeanttoevoketheByzantine-Ottomanconflict.Firstofall,

Alexanderhadtobeidentifiedwith‘us’ratherthan‘them’(i.e.theByzantines). InIslamictradition,evenwhenAlexanderiscalled‘IskandarofRome’(Iskandar -iRūm),heisnottobeconfusedwiththeinfidelemperorsofByzantium;heisa sacredpersonagewhoappearsintheQur’an.EvenifAhmedihadchosento identifyByzantiumwithPhilip,thisposeditsownproblems;forhewaswritingat atimewhenFirdawsī’sstoryofatributeprincessandforeign-raisedusurper wouldhaveprobablystruckhisaudienceasabittooclosetohome.Alreadyatthe timeofOrhanGazi(d.763/1362),Byzantiumwasfollowingapolicyofroyal marriagesinanefforttocontroltheOttomansuccession.After1402,the Byzantineswentevenfurther,attemptingtotakeadvantageoftheOttoman successionstrugglesbyharbouringOttomanprincesasdiplomatichostages.For allofthesereasons,Ahmedimusthavefeltaneedtoaltertheaccountof

74_{Sawyer,“RevisingAlexander,”229.}

Alexander’soriginsandconflictwithDariusinordertoprovideamore satisfactoryoutcome.Ideallythiswouldallowhisaudiencetodrawtheright parallelstotheByzantine-Ottomanconflict,withnoriskofassociatingAlexander withsuchnegativeelementsasdiplomaticmarriagesandrival spretendersto thethrone.Howcouldthisbeachieved?

AsÜnverhaspointedout,Ahmedi’sversionofthestorycloselyfollows thatofFirdawsī,butwithimportantdifferences.76_{InAhmedi,Firdawsī’sstoryis} precededbyanunrelatedconflict:thatbetweenAlexander’sfatherthePersian kingandCaesarofRome(Ḳayṣar-ıRūm).Thisappearstobeanelementoriginal toAhmedi.Itssignificanceisclearbothfromitsplacementattheverybeginning ofthestory,andfromthefactthatAhmedihaschangedthenamesofFirdawsī’s Persiankingsinordertoaccommodateit.InAhmedī,Alexander’sfatheriscalled Dārā (orDārābīd):

Olzamānki Īrān’aDārābīdŞāh Dileginceseyriderdimihrümāh

Nireyeyüz ṭutsabulurdı ẓafer Ṭopraġaelursaolurdıgüher …

Ḳaṣditdiki ̮iledeRūm’asipāh Rūm’ıfetḥ idüpañadaḫı ̮olaşāh …

Nireyeuġrasa ġāretdürişi Ḳandairerse ḫasāretdürişi

Niredemaʿmūryirbulsayıḫar Ḳanḳışehrikimalur-ısayaḫar …

Ḳayṣer’eçünkimirişdibu ḫaber Göñlioldı ġuṣṣadanzīrüzeber

Bildikim ṭāliʿ dönüpbaḫtoldışūm Gidiserbī-şekkelindenmülk-iRūm

Zīraolpīr-idiDārā nev-cüvān Olżaʿīf-idivübunev-pehlivān

Pīrdenhergizyigitlikgelmeye Yigid-ilepīrhem-serolmaya …

Düşdiatdan Ḳayṣeruoldıesīr Baḫtıdönenekimoladest-gīr …

ḲayṣeriçündikdiDārā andadār Aṣdıanı ḳaldıansuz ḳaṣrudār

…

Çünki Ḳayṣaröldiisüz ḳaldıRūm OldıDārā’nuñ ḳamuolmerzibūm

Diri ḳalangerşerīfügervażīʿ OldılarmecmūʿıDārā’yamuṭīʿ

WheninIranthecourseofSunandMoonfollowedthewishesofDarabidShah,

Wherever[Dara]turned,hewouldfindvictory;wheneverhetouchedtheground, gemswouldappear.

…

HeresolvedtodispatchcavalryagainstRum.ByconqueringRum,hewouldbecome itsShahaswell.

…

Whereverhewent,hisoccupationwasplunder;whereverheappeared,hisworkwas devastation.

Whereverhefoundcultivatedland,hewouldruinit;wheneverhecapturedacity,he wouldburnit.

…

WhenCaesarreceivednewsofthis,outofgriefhisheartturnedupside-down.

Heknewhisstarhadchanged,hisfortuneturnedill-fated;withoutadoubt,hewould losepossessionofRum.

ForhewasoldandDaraayoungman;hewasweak,[hisadversary]ayoung champion.

Heroicactswillnevercomefromoldmen.Thesewillneverbetheequalsofyoung warriors.

…

Caesarfelloffhishorseandbecamecaptive.Forwhowilllendahandtosomeone whosefortunehasturned?

…

AndDarasetupagibbetforCaesarandhangedhim.Suddenlynothingwasleftbut hishomeandpalace.

…

WhenCaesardied,Rumwasleftwithoutamaster.Allthatcountry77_{waslefttoDara.}

Thosestillalive,bothnobleandhumble,allsubmittedtoDara’swill.78

Inversessuchastheabove,itishardnottoseeareflectionoftheconflict betweentheOttomansandByzantium.Itisparticularlyinterestingtonotethe emphasisonyouthandoldage,whichisreminiscentofIbnKhaldūn’sideas,

77_{TheuseofthePersiantermmarzbūmisperhapssignificant;althoughitcanbe} translatedsimplyas‘country’,italsoimpliesaborderlandbelongingtoahostilepower (cf.marzbān,‘marcherlord’).