ṬURSUN BEG (b. 829/1426? - d. 896/1491? )

(1)

Ṭ.B.gives his nameas Ṭūr-ı Sīnā.1 _While _Halil_İ_nalcık _notes _that_the _court _regis

-tersofBursaprovidesomeinformationontheauthorandhisfamily,2mostofwhatis

known of Ṭ.B.’s life derives from his work entitled Tārīḫ-i Ebü’l-fetḥ [Henceforth

Tārīḫ]. Eventhough Ṭ.B.doesnotgivehisfather’snameandmentionsonlyhisuncle

Cebe ʿAlī Beg (d. before 1491), the governor of Bursa, entries in court registers re

-cordhisnameas“ṬursunBegibn ḤamzaBeg.”3Consideringthatthefatherof Ḥam

-zaBeg(d. ?)and ʿAlī Beg,thegovernorof Iznīq in825/1422,wasFīrūzBeg(d. 825

/1421), Ṭ.B.’sfamilyappearstohaveplayedanimportantroleinOttomanaffairsbet

-ween theyears 782-885/1380-1480.Thusit becomes clearwhy underMeḥmed II(r.

848-850/1444-1446 and 855-886/1451-1481) Ṭ.B. was entrusted with the most im

-portant and delicate missions which he relates in his history.His name is also

men-tioned in the court records of Bursa in 889/1484, 892-93/1487, and 896-97/1491.4

Ṭ.B.’sdateofbirthisunknownbutmusthavebeensometimeafter829/1426.5The

fact that Bursacourt registersrefer to himas “mevlānā”6_suggests _that_he _must _have

had a medrese education, which appears to have equipped him with the necessary

skills and knowledge to perform the duties of a münşī. In his Tārīḫ, Ṭ.B. not only

shows hisknowledgeofTurkish, Arabic,andPersian, butalsodisplaysthe subtleties

of the literary arts, and his complete mastery of all the skills of a münşī.7 Ṭ.B. also

maintainsthatduringhisfortyyearsofservice, heheldtheofficesoftheSecretaryof

the Councilof State(dīvān kātibi), ChiefFinancial Officerof Anatolia(Anad̤olı def

-terdārı), StewartoftheChiefFinancialOfficerofAnatolia (Anad̤olıDefterKetḫüd

ā-lıġı), and states that he also served as scribe (yazıcı) in the registration of houses,

fields,andvineyardsofConstantinopleafteritsconquest.8

While Ṭ.B.’sdetaileddescriptionofthebuildingoftheBoġazkesencastle(Rumeli

ḥiṣārı) suggests that he was present during its construction in 856/1452 as well as

duringthe siegeofConstantinoplein857/1453,theinformationheprovides onMe

ḥ-medII’s860/1456Belgradecampaignsuggeststhatheparticipatedinthatexpedition

as well.9 _He _also _appears _to _have _been _present _in _the _circumcision _feast _of _princes

BāyezīdandMuṣṭafā inEdirnein861/1457.10

HavingenteredGrandVizierMaḥmūdPaşa’s(d.879/1474)servicemostprobably

in the years 861-862/1456-1457, Ṭ.B. participated in every campaign his master led

until his dismissal from office in 872/1468. It is certain that he was with Maḥmūd

Paşa on his Serbian campaign of 862/1457 and partook in Meḥmed II’s Qastamonu

campaign as secretary of council (dīvān kātibi) under Maḥmūd Paşa in 865/1460.

After participatingintheWallachian campaignof866/1461and inthecaptureof the

island of Lesbos (Midilli), he served Maḥmūd Paşa on the Bosnian campaign of

(2)

2

Hungarians in 869/1464.Later he was present with the Sultan and his Grand Vizier

onthefirstandsecondAlbaniancampaignsof870-871/1466-1467.

In872/1468,inthe aftermathofthecampaignagainstQaramanoġlıPīrAḥmed(d.

878-879/1474), Maḥmūd Pasa̧ was dismissed from office. Ṭ.B.,however, was again

in MaḥmūdPaşa’s servicein 874/1470upon thelatter’s appointmentto theoffice of

High Admiral (Qapudān-i Deryā) when the Sultanset out to conquer the island and

castle of Negroponte (Eğriboz). Ṭ.B. was also present in the 878/1473 Otluqbeli

campaign. Following Maḥmūd Paşa’s dismissal from office and his subsequent

execution on the Sultan’s order,11 Ṭ.B. participated in the campaigns which were

personally led by Meḥmed II, namely, the Moldavian campaign in the summer of

881/1476, the Hungarian campaign in the following winter, and the Albanian

campaign of883/1478.The information Ṭ.B.providesontheconquest of ʿAlā’iye in

876/1471, theCrimean campaign of879/1474,and the campaignsagainst Rhodes in

885/1480islimited.12

Tārīḫ provides important insight on Ṭ.B.’s life after Meḥmed II’s death. In the

introduction, Ṭ.B. states that he committed a sin and deserved to be killed but was

forgivenbyBāyezīdII(r. 886-918/1481-1512).13_The_famous_Ottoman_statesman_and

historian Kemālpaşazāde (d. 940/1534) sheds light on this particular matter stating

that, whenMeḥmed II’s princesBāyezīd and Cemfought for theOttoman sultanate,

Ṭ.B. actually did not side with Prince Bāyezīd but served Prince Cem as Chief

Financial Officer (defterdār). When Cem was defeated by Bāyezīd at the Battle of

Yeñişehr (22 Rebī’ü’l-āḫir 886/20 June 1481), Ṭ.B. was captured with prominent

membersofPrinceCem’sretinue.Kemālpasaz̧ ādeexplainsthat Ṭ.B.wasforgivenby

theSultan.14Theeffectsofthiseventcanbeseenin Ṭ.B.’sTārīḫ.15

According toVictor Ménage, thelast campaign Ṭ.B. attended was the expedition

of 893/1488 against the Mamluks which culminated in the Ottoman defeat at the

Battle of Aġaçayırı. Tārīḫ indeed ends suddenly with this event. According to the

Ottomanhistorian Sa’adü’d-dīn(d.1007/1599), afterthatbattle,a numberofofficers

alleged to have shown cowardice including “the ketḫüdā and the defterdār of

Anatolia” were sent to Istanbul and imprisoned for a while. Considering that these

were posts Ṭ.B. recorded among the offices he held during Meḥmed II’s reign, it is

possible that the author wasamong the officers disgraced afterthe campaign, which

mayexplaintheabruptendingofhisTārīḫ.16

WORK

①Tārīḫ-iEbü’l-fetḥ

Ṭ.B.’smajor historical work, Tārīḫ-iEbü’l-fetḥ,17is not asystematic chronicle of

events but essentially a panegyric on the reigns of Meḥmed II and of its dedicatee

Bāyezīd II. It belongsto a genreof history writingwith a literarypedigree that goes

backtoJuvaynī’s(d.681/1283)Tārīḫ-iCihāngūşā andisthefirstexampleofitstype

in Ottoman Turkish. The introduction of the work can be placed in the tradition of

(3)

3

case Ṭ.B.,offersadviceonrulershiptothereigningOttomansultan.Themainsection

of Tārīḫ conforms to its Persian models in that Ṭ.B. uses the events he describes as

exemplary incidents or occasions for eulogizing the Sultan. Hence his tendency to

omit or gloss over events which, to the modern mind,might seem important, and to

emphasize incidents which might appear trivial. For example, the most prominent

incidentin Ṭ.B.’saccountofthefirstQaramancampaignin855/1451isMeḥmedII’s

refusal to accede to the demands of the janissaries, which the author evidently

selected as an exemplary instance of the sultanic siyāset (execution for the greater

good of the state and order) necessary for the preservation of order. In other places,

Ṭ.B. highlights events, notably the defeat of the Moldavians in 866 /1461-62,18

becausetheyareexemplaryillustrationsofdivineinterventioninhumanaffairs.

The most prominent element in Tārīḫ is panegyric. The specific models, which

Ṭ.B. seems to havehad in mind,were the panegyrichistories of Tīmūr. This is sug

-gested not simply by the literary style, which emulates Niẓāmaddīn Shāmī (d. 812

/1409) and Sharafaddīn Yazdī (d. 858/1454), but also by Ṭ.B.’s direct reference to

Yazdī19 and his comments that Meḥmed II had waged moreHoly Wars than Tīmūr.

While this favorable comparison with Tīmūr is above all a panegyric device, it is

possible that Ṭ.B. intendedtohint thattheOttomans hadthrown offtheignominy of

the defeat of 804/1402.20 The panegyric mode frequently determines the way in

which Ṭ.B. presents events. Most obvious in this regard perhaps is the fact that the

failed siegeof Belgradein 860/145621is presentedasa victory. Inthis specificcase,

Ṭ.B. glosses over the scale of the Ottoman defeat entirely and uses the death of

Yanqo(JanosHunyadi)asevidencethattheSultanhadachievedhisend.22

Ṭ.B.makes it clearthat he useda variety ofsources forhis introduction although

hedoesnot,forthemostpart,specifythem.Inseveralcases Ṭ.B.referstohissources

simply as “kütüb-i ḥikemiyye,” or uses phrases such as “kütüb-i mu’teberede gör

-dügümüzüzere,” “ḥükemādanmenqūldurki,” and“ḥikāyetitaqrīrbuyurdu,” “ḥikāyet ederlerki.”23_While_most_of_these_phrases_indicate_a_plurality_of_sources_(for_instance,

“philosophicalbooks”),itisnotclearwhetherthesearetobetakenliterallyorsimply

asdevicesusedtoaddweightto Ṭ.B.’sownstatements.

Ṭ.B. seems to have interwoven material from both oral and written sources with

that drawnfrom hispersonal experiences. Asourcewhich heidentifies byname and

parts of whichcan be collatedwith passagesin his introductionis Naṣīraddīn Ṭusī’s

(d. 672/1274)Aḫlāq-ıNaṣirī.24Asecond identifiablesource Ṭ.B.seemsto haveused

but does not mention by name is the Chahār Maqāla of Niẓāmī-i ʿArūdī of Samar

-qand (d. 552/1157).25Although Ṭ.B. himselfdoes not acknowledge, itis certain that

his written sourcesare not limited tothose he usedin his introduction.While Ṭ.B.’s

skill in modifying his sources renders them hard to detect, it is clear that he used

Neşrī’s Cihān-nümā, which disproves the commonly held idea that Ṭ.B. did not use

writtensourcesinthecompositionofhisTārīḫ.26

Oftheoralsources Ṭ.B.usedinhisintroduction,themostimportantwasMaḥmūd

(4)

4

devoted almosthalf ofTārīḫ’s foreword. Apart fromMaḥmūd Paşa; Ṭ.B. sometimes

impliesthathequotesotherpeople,27whomhedoesnotidentify.

Ṭ.B.’s Tārīḫ’s purpose, apart from being a history of his time, was also to guide

and aidBāyezīdIIandjustifyhisrule. Thisisevidentaboveall inthe“Introduction”

to the book,wherehe followsthe usualconventions of“Advice to Kings”literature.

The historical events that the Tārīḫ includes are as follows: An introductory section

praises the Ottoman dynasty and especially Murād II. Murād II’s abdication and ac

-cessiontothroneforasecondtimein848/1444.MeḥmedII’sascensiontothethrone

in 855/1451. Meḥmed II’s campaign toQaraman; 855/1451.The construction of the

Boġazkesen castle;856/1452.The characteristicsofthe Boġazkesencastle. The con

-quest of Constantinople; 857/1453.The re-building of Constantinople.The conquest

ofthecastlesofEynoz(Enez)andTaşoz(Thasos);858/1454.Thecausesofthebattle

of Belgrade; 860/1456. The circumcision feast of the Sultan’s sons; 861/1457. The

battleofMora(Morea)andMaḥmūdPasha’smissiontoSerbia;862/1458.Adescrip

-tion of Mora. Maḥmūd Pasha’s setting forth to the Serbian lands. The Sultan’s

expedition Mora; 863/1459. The Conquest of Semendire (Smederevo) and Amasra;

864/1459. The conquest of the province of İsfendiyar, Sinop and Qoylu-ḥiṣār; 865

/1461, The Eflāk (Wallachia) expedition; 866/1462. The conquest of Midilli (Mity

-lene); 866/1462.TheConquest ofBosna(Bosnia);867/1463.Thedeath ofQaraman

-oġlı İbrāhīm Bey; 868/1464. The alliance of the crusaders, their attack on the Otto

-manprovincesandtheirdefeat;867/1463.

The second expedition to Bosnia; 868/1464. The Venetian siege of the castle of

Midilli and the dispatch of Maḥmūd Pasha. The dispatch of Maḥmūd Pasha to the

Balkans; 868/1464. The firstArnavud (Albanian) expedition and the construction of

the fortress of İlbasan; 870/1466. The second Albanian expedition; 871/1467. The

Qaraman expeditionand theexpulsionof PīrAḥmed; 872/1468.Theconquestof the

castle of İgriboz (Negroponte); 874/1470. The expeditions to Qaraman; 875/1471.

TheconquestofAlā’iyye(Alanya);876/1471.TheAqqoyunluattackontheOttoman

lands; 877/1472.Thedefeat ofUzun Ḥasan;878/1473.The conquestof thecastle of

Kefe (Caffa); 879/1475. The Qara Boġdan (Moldavia) expedition; 881 /1476. The

conquestof İskenderiyye(Shkodër)andAqçaḥiṣār(Krujë);883/1478.GedükAḥmed

Pasha’s expeditionagainsttheislandof Pulya(Apulia);884/1479andMesīḥ Pasha’s

expedition to the island of Rodos (Rhodes); 885/1480. The expedition on to the

Mamluksandthedeathof MeḥmedII;886/1481.Theinterregnum. Theaccessionof

Bāyezīd II to the Ottoman throne; 886/1481. The Qara Boġdan expedition and the

conquest of Kili (Kilia) and Akkerman; 889/1484. The dispatch of Qaragöz Beg to

the Arabian lands and the dispatch of ʿAlī Pasha to Qara Boġdan; 890/1485. ʿAlī

PashaandAdmiralHersekzādeAḥmedPasha’sArabianexpedition;893/1488.

Ṭ.B.’s Tārīḫ finishes abruptly with a mes̱nevī in which he prays for the ruling

SultanandfortheOttomandynasty,expresseshisthankstoGodforgrantinghimthe

facility toexpound onthe Sultan’sholywars,and finally stateshis intent tocontinue

(5)

5

doned his history’s composition. While it is possible that he was too unwell to con

-tinuehiswork,itisalsopossiblethatsomeunknowneventforcedhimto abandonit.

A comparison of Ṭ.B.’s introductory and concluding remarkssuggests that the author

anticipated writing a rather long and ornamented conclusion to his work. Thus, it

seems reasonableto deduce thatsomething possibly went awry for Ṭ.B. during ʿAlī

Paşa’sArabianexpeditioninwhichtheformerwasmostprobablypresent.28

The inconsistencies and weakness in Ṭ.B.’s panegyric, together with the

frequent clumsinessofhis style,makesitdifficulttojudgehis Tārīḫ as an unqualified

literary success, whichmay accountfor thelater neglectofthework.OnlyKemālpa

-şazādeseems tohavemade useof itbefore the twentieth century. However, since it

was the first work ofits kind in Ottoman Turkish, some deficienciesin style canbe

consideredinevitable.

Ṭ.B. evidently learned to write in this inşā style as a result of his employment in

theOttomanchancery. Thischancerystyle,exemplifiedintheinşā manuals,wasone

in which Ottoman men of letters aspired to write,29 _and_Ṭ_.B.’s _T_ā_r_īḫ_is _an _early

exampleofthisgenre.30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

①Tārīḫ-iEbü’l-fetḥ

Manuscripts:(1)Istanbul,IstanbulÜniversitesiKütüphanesi,TY4369;256pages,

15 lines, taliq. (2) Istanbul, Ayasofya Kütüphanesi, No. 3032; 180 fol., 13 lines,

naskh. Presentation copy to Bāyezīd II. (3) Istanbul, Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi,

Revan 1097;194 fol., 13 lines, naskh.(4) Istanbul,Topkapı SarayıKütüphanesi, Re

-van1098;193 fol., 13 lines, naskh.(5)Istanbul, TopkapıSarayıKütüphanesi, Hazine

1470; 171 fol., 13 lines, naskh. (6) Vienna, Österreichische Natioalbibliothek, no.

984, 169 fol., 13 lines, naskh (GustavFlügel,Die arabischen,persischen,türkischen HandschriftenderkaiserlichenundköniglichenHofbibliothekzuWien,No.984.)

Editions: (1) Tursun Bey Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth. Ed. A. Mertol Tulum (Istanbul,

1977). (2) Tārīḫ-i Ebü’l-fetḥ. Ed. Meḥmed ʿĀrif. Tārīḫ-i ʿOs̱mānī Encümeni Mec

-mū’ası İlāvesi(Istanbul, 1330/1912). (3) The Historyof Mehmedthe Conqueror/ by

Tursun Beg. Ed. Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey (Minneapolis, 1978). Facsimile

withEnglishtranslation.

GeneralBibliography

AgahSırrıLevend. GazavâtnâmelerveMihaloğluAliBey’inGazavâtnâmesi (An

-kara, 1956). V.L. Ménage. “The Beginnings of Ottoman Historiography.” In Histo

-rians of theMiddle East.Ed. B.Lewis andP.M. Holt(London, 1962). Halil İnalcık. “The Rise ofOttoman Historiography.” In Historiansof the MiddleEast.Ed. B.Le

-wis and P.M. Holt (London, 1962), 164-167.V.L. Ménage. Neshri’s History of the

Ottomans (London, 1964). Yaḥyā bin Meḥmed el-Kātib. Menāhicü’l-inşā’: The Earliest Ottoman Chancery Manual. Ed. Şinasi Tekin (Cambridge, Massachusetts,

(6)

6

Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, LXIX (1977), 55-71. Halil

İnalcık. “The Policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek Population of Istanbul and the

Byzantine Buildings of the City.” In The Ottoman Empire, Conquest, Organization, and Economy (London, 1978), 231-249. Selahattin Tansel. Sultan II. Bâyezid’in Si

-yasi Hayatı (Istanbul, 1966). V.L. Ménage. “[A review of] H. İnalcık and R. Mur

-phey: TheHistoryofMehmed theConquerorbyTursun Bey.” BSOAS,XLIII(1980),

144-145. Colin Imber. The Ottoman Empire, 1300-1481 (Istanbul, 1990). Kenan

İnan. A SummaryandAnalysis ofThe Târîh-iEbü’l-Feth(History ofthe Conqueror) of Tursun Bey (1488). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (The University of Manches

-ter, 1993). Meḥmed Neşrī. Kitāb-i Cihān-nümā: Neşri Tarihi. Eds. F.R. Unat and

M.A. Köymen. Vol. 2 (Ankara, 1995). Selahattin Tansel. Osmanlı Kaynaklarına

GöreFatihSultanMehmed’inSiyasiveAskeriFaaliyeti(Ankara,1999).Kenan İnan.

“The Incorporation of Writings on Periphery in Ottoman Historiography: Tursun

Bey’s Comparison of Mehmed II and Bayezid II.” International Journal of Turkish

Studies,9/1-2(2003),105-117.Kenan İnan.“OntheSourcesofTursunBey’sTārīḫ-i

Ebü’l-fetḥ.” The Ottoman Empire: Myths, Realities and ʿBlack Holes’. Ed. Eugenia

Kermeli and Oktay Özel (Istanbul, 2006), 75-109.Kenan İnan. “The Effects of Or

-namented ProseStyleonOttomanHistoriography:TheTārīḫ-iEbü’l-fetḥ [Historyof

thefatherofConquest]byTursunBey.”InPublicPowerinEurope:StudiesinHisto

-rical Transformations.Ed. James S.Amelang and Siegfried Beer (Pisa,2006), 125

-142.

1 _He _adds _that _he _was _also _known _as_Ṭ_ursun _Beg ₍_{Tursun Bey}_{Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth.}_{Ed. A. Mertol}

Tulum (Istanbul, 1977), 5). Sehī Beg also mentions in connection with Ṭ.B.’s name that the poet

Ḥayātī (before 918/1512)waskilledbecauseofacoupletwhichhecomposedfor Ṭ.B.SeeHeştBihişt: The Teðkire bySehī Beg,ed.GünayKut (Cambridge,Massachusetts,1978),201;Teðkire-iSehī,ed. MeḥmedŞükrī (Istanbul,1325/1907),70.

2_Halil_İ_{nalcık, “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time,”}_{Wiener Zeitschrift für die}

Kunde des Morgenlandes, LXIX (1977), 55-56.

3_İ_{nalcık, “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time,” 56.} 4_İ_{nalcık, “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time,” 55.}

5_{According to Halil}_İ_nalcık,_Ṭ_{.B.’s father Hamza Beg got married with the sister of Osman Celebi, of}

the Teke dynasty in 830/1426. It is most probable that this lady was Ṭ.B.’s mother. See Halil İnalcık, “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time,” 59-60.

6_İ_{nalcık, “Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time,” 56.}

7_Halil_İ_nalcık,_“Tursun_Beg,_Historian_of _Mehmed_the_{Conqueror’s}_Time,”_Wiener_Zeitschrift_für_die

Kunde des Morgenlandes, LXIX (1977), 55-71. Ṭ.B. includes an example of his official epistolary style,namelyaletterto İsfendiyāroġlı İsmā’īl(d. 884/1479),inthebodyofhiswork.See Ṭ.B., Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth,ed.A.MertolTulum(Istanbul,1977),106[Henceforth: Ṭ.B.,Tārīḫ].

8_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,₅_-_6. 9_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,_78-84. 10_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,_84-91.

11_For_detailed_information_on_the_reasons_of_Ma_ḥ_m_ū_d_Pas_̧_a’s_execution,_see_İ_smail_Hakkı_Uzunçars_̧_ılı,

“FatihSultanMehmed’inVezir-iAzamlarındanMahmudPaşaileŞehzadeMustafa’nınAralarıNeden Açılmıştı,”Belleten,XXVIII/112(1964),719-728.

(7)

7

12_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,₄₀_-_180. 13_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,_19.

14_Ibn_Kem_ā_l,_Tevâr_ḥ_h_-_i_Al_-_i_Osmân:_VIII._Defter_,_ed._Ahmet_U_ğ_ur_(Ankara,_1997),_20._See_also_İ_smail

HakkıUzunçarşılı,OsmanlıTarihi(Ankara,1983),vol.4,161-179.

15_{Surprisingly,}_Ṭ_.B. _mentions_Prince _Cem_only_once_in_his_T_ā_r_īḫ_within _the_context_of _Me_ḥ_med_II’s

expeditionagainstAqqoyunluUzun Ḥasan(d.883/1478),whentheOttomanrulerleftCeminEdirne towatchoverRumelia.See Ṭ.B.,Tārīḫ,158.

16_V.L._Ménage,_“[A_review_of]_H._İ_nalcık_and_R._Murphey:_The_History_of_Mehmed_the_Conqueror_by

Tursun Bey,” BSOAS, XLIII (1980), 144-145. See also Sa’adü’d-dīn, Tācü’t-Tevārīḫ, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoğlu,vol.3(Istanbul,1979),253-261.

17 _For _detailed _descriptions _of _T_ā_r_īḫ’s _manuscripts, _see _Agah _Sırrı _Levend, _{Gazavâtnâmeler} _ve

MihaloğluAli Bey’inGazavâtnâmesi(Ankara,1956),16;TheHistoryofMehmedtheConqueror/by Tursun Beg, ed. Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey (Minneapolis, 1978), 27-29. Tārīḫ was most probably written after 895/1490. Tulum states that Ṭ.B. providesinformation onMamluk affairs up until895/1490,butnotafterthisdate,andsuggeststhathemayhavecomposedhisworkbetweenthe years895/1490and900/1495.See Ṭ.B.,Tārīḫ,XXIV.

18_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,₁₇₀_-_173.

19_In_mentioning_Medh_-_i_T_ī_m_ū_r_(“The_Praise_of_T_ī_m_ū_r”)_of _Sharaf_al_-_d_ī_n _Yazd_ī_,_Ṭ_.B._leaves _no_doubt

thathehadactuallyreadoratleastseenthework. Ṭ.B.,Tārīḫ,125.

20_Ottoman_{historians’}_treatment_of_T_ī_m_ū_r_is_usually_very_harsh_as_he_dismembered_the_Ottoman_State

when he defeatedBāyezīd I (r.791-804/1389-1402) at the Battleof Ankara in804/1402. For early Ottoman chroniclers’ approach to Tīmūr, see Feridun Emecen, “İlk Osmanlı Kroniklerinde Timur

İmajı,” İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası (Istanbul, 2001), 161-173. Prominent Ottoman historian Muṣṭafā ʿĀlī (d. 1008/1600) has a different approach to Tīmūr’s activities and claimsthatBāyezīdshouldhavesubmittedtoTīmūrasavassal.FordetailedinformationonMuṣṭafā ʿĀlī’sapproachtoOttoman-Timuridrelations,seeCornellH.Fleischer,BureaucratandIntellectualin theOttomanEmpire:TheHistorianMustafaAli(1541-1600)(NewJersey,1986),273-292.

21_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,₇₈_-_84.

22 _“Çün _ma_ṭ_l_ū_b_-_ı _p_ā_dis_̧ā_h _qatl_-_i _raq_ī_b _idi_ve _b_ī-ḥ_amdi’ll_ā_h _müyesser _oldı, _pes _va_ṣ_l_-_ı_ḥ_ab_ī_b_--_ki _nev

-’arūs-ı pür-nāz-ı memleket-iLāzdur-- taḥṣīlinüñesbābıve tarīqımübāşeretiiçün...” Ṭ.B., Tārīḫ,83. For detailed information on Janos Hunyadi’s life, see Joseph Held, Hunyadi: Legend and Reality

(Boulder,1985).

23_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,₁₀_-_29. 24

The famous philosopher and astronomer was born in Ṭus in 507/1113 and died in Baghdad in 692/1293. Ṭusī mentionsinhis introductionthat hecomposedhis workattherequestof Naṣral-dīn

ʿAbdal-raḥīm b.Ebū Manṣūr,therulerof Qūhistān.He entitleditafter the nameof his patron.See Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 2, 441. For detailed information about Ṭusī’s life and works, see Naṣr al-dīn Ṭusī, The Nasirean Ethics, trans. G.M. Wickens(London,1964).

25_A_ḥ_mad_b._ʿ_Umar_b._ʿ_Al_ī_of_Samarqand,_poetically_named_Ni_ẓā_m_ī_and_entitled_ʿ_Ar_ū_d_ī₍_ʿ_the_prodist’)

flourishedinthe6th/12thc.andappearstohavespentmostofhislifeinKhorasanandTransoxania.A poetandcourtier,healsoperformedastrologyandmedicine.Hispoetryisfarinferiortohisprose.Itis by virtueof Chahār Maqālah,composedprobably inthe year551/1156, that Niẓāmī of Samarqand deserves tobeconsidered amongstthe famous names of Persianliterature. SeeEdwardG.Browne,

Revised Translation of the Chahār Maqāla (“Four Discourses”) of Niẓāmī-i ʿArūdī of Samarqand

(London,1921),X-XII.

26 _The _clearest _and _best _example _of _his _use _of _Nes_r_̧_ī_can _be _found _in _his _account _of _the _Battle _of

(8)

8

Kenan İnan, “On the Sources of Tursun Bey’s Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth,” The Ottoman Empire: Myths, Realitiesand ʿBlackHoles’,ed.EugeniaKermeliandOktayÖzel(Istanbul,2006),75-109.

27_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,_12.

28_On_the_reasons_for_Ṭ_.B.’s_sudden_ending_of_his_work,_see_V.L._Ménage,_“[A_review_of]_H._İ_nalcık

andR.Murphey:TheHistoryofMehmedtheConquerorbyTursunBey,”BSOAS,XLIII(1980),144.

29_Ṭ_.B.,_T_ā_r_īḫ,_7:_“Ḥ_ilye_-_i_ins_̧ā_’_ile_mütezeyyin_bir_ṣū_ret_ta_ṣ_v_ī_r_-_ü_-_taqr_ī_r_idem_”

30 _The _History _of_Mehmed _the _Conqueror _/ _by _Tursun _Beg_,_ed. _Halil_İ_nalcık _and _Rhoads _Murphey

(Minneapolis,1978),20.

Kenan İNAN