The Rebellion 1651 and Its Implications through the Eyes of Tarih-i Naima

Sinan KAYA

Hist. 58T

Derin TERZİOĞLU

January 22th

, 2011

Kaya 2

The General Overview of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th

Century 1

During the 17th

century, the Ottoman Empire had to deal with several revolts mostly

directed by the Janissaries. The last three decades of the 16th

century resentments begun to be

felt2; in the center (saray-ı hümayun) with the introduction of seniority for the selection of

new sultan and an attempt to changing structures of janissaries and the economic condition

gradually caused several problems within society3 and the state has to be careful when making

any alterations in the structure of the society. Unfortunately, the first group disturbed from

these changes was coming from the palace and as a consequence of power struggles derived

from the alterations, the court faction begun to emerge. In 1622, the court faction, consisting

of the ulema (religious authorities), the janissaries and the palace, came together and they

were successful to dethrone Osman II and killed him dramatically (haile-i Osmaniye). In fact

the clique could dethrone Mustafa I in 1618, but the faction’s power never reached to this

level and never worked together like this event in 1622 until Edirne Vak’ası of 17034. If we

count 1622 event as a starting point of the revolts or beginning of the social unrest and the

state turmoil, we can determine some key events or revolts or with Mustafa Ali’s word ihtilal5

(revolution) for these kinds of events such as, 1622, 1651, 1656 and 16876.

1 For the 1651 rebellion, I prefer to use ‘rebellion’ and ‘event ’ respectively within the same meaning.

2 The most visible example here would be Mustafa Ali from Gallipoli, for detailed information see Cornell H.

Fleischer, Tariçi Mustafa Ali: Bir Osmanlı Aydın ve Bürokratı, (Istanbul, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1994),

241-305 3 Ömer Lütfi Barkan, ”The Price Revolution of the 16

th Century: A Turning Point in the Economic History of the

Near East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975): 23 4 Cemal Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict, unpublished M.A. dissertation at McGill

University, 1981, 102,103,104 (hereafter, I prefer to use Kafadar, Yeniçeri- Esnaf Relations); Rifa’at Ali Abou-

El-Haj, 1703 İsyanı, (Ankara: Tan Yayınları,2011); for the expanded version of the events see, Naima Hüseyin

Efendi, Tarih-i Naima, Ravzatü’l-Hüseyn fi Hülasati Ahbari’l-Hafikayn, prep. by Mehmet İşpirli, (Ankara, TTK,

2007) vol.4 p.1857,1892 (hereafter I preferred to use Tarih-i Naima and I will indicate the number of volume and

page which I will used) 5 Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, Künhü’l Ahbar, p.241, 242, 243 (I use here the course material assigned for Hist 58.T

lectured by Derin Terzioğlu) 6 Here, I used Kafadar’s way seen in his MA thesis, Cemal Kafadar, “Janissaries and Other Riffraff of Ottoman

Istanbul: Rebels without a Cause?,” International Journal of Turkish Studies, Fall 2007 vol.13, 123 (Hereafter I

prefer to use Kafadar, Riffraff)

Kaya 3

After 1622, with the strong rule realized by Murad IV (r.1623-1640) the state faced

with small revolts known as Celali and some wars waged to the West and East. How he

realized the relatively stable environment was that he tried to create a strong center strengthen

by victories in the Western –against Polish Lithuanian army- and the Eastern –against Iran-

fronts. Then he re-filled the treasury with new heavy taxation, confiscation of the wealth from

important members of the elite and reductions of the number of the Janissaries7. Social peace

was realized with the application of strict repression over Sufi tarikats with the direction and

careful selection of Murad IV by using Kadızadeli movements8 and severe punishments of

rebellious elements9.

After Murad IV, Ibrahim I (r. 1640-1648) came to the throne and his period can be

characterized relatively as stagnation period for public unrest; in fact when we can analyze the

contemporary chronicles, we can only recognize a lot of military campaigns and its problems

especially long-lasting Create campaign. Terzioğlu puts it in the time of Ibrahim I chroniclers

preferred to be silent towards religious and social events10

; however we know that after

Ibrahim I’s deposition and then Mehmed IV’s ascendancy to the throne (r.1648-1687)

Ottoman social life entered into the crisis not only socially but also religiously. In that period

Mehmed IV witnessed two great social unrests in 1651 and 1656 and had to deal with the

third wave of Kadızadeli movement despite sometimes participating actively in the

7 Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 98

8 Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694), unpublished PhD

thesis, Harvard University,1999, 190,276; Madeline C. Zilfi, the Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the

Post-Classical Age (1600-1800), (Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis, 1988), 129,181, “The Kadızadelis:

Discordant Revivalism in 17th

Century Istanbul,” JNES 45, no 4; Kafadar, Yeniçeri- Esnaf Relations,98 9 Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 98

10 Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire, and personal communication of Terzioğlu. I thank

to Derin Terzioğlu, to provide lots of materials to use for this research paper.

Kaya 4

movement11

. Along with them he experienced great loss to the gate of Vienna in 1683 and the

subsequent defeats engendered his enthronement in 1687.12

In fact, the classical view of the historiography tends to see these events as a janissary

rebellion which is the symbol of ‘degeneration’. For this point of view, janissary always

preferred to rebel against the Empire when they did not take whatever they want. This

knowledge can be acceptable in a small part of the truth, but seeing the whole event in one

cause goes us to wrong and dangerous interpretation of the events and with this eye, we had

to look at every event in the glasses of ad hoc events. However, when we make close

examination of the events and read the contemporary accounts, we can face with the deepened

nature of the events and their relations to created groups and the feature of sui generis of the

event. This explanation proves the complexity of the events experienced in the 17th

century

Ottoman Istanbul; moreover, this also shows the complicated nature of the Ottoman society,

too.

The first half of the 17th

century, the general characteristics of the rebellion could be

followed a certain way: a dissenter group was created and they rebelled and they were able to

change some people in the government positions. After the alterations, the old system was

preferred and followed. On account of this we can generally say that in that time when the

opposition was satisfied with their demands, there was no problem for the state for the first

rebellions.

However with the increase of the entrance to the mercantilist economy13

or with the

extension of trade network in the 17th

century14

, the control over the society became hard

11

Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident; Madeline C. Zilfi, Politics of Piety; Marc David Baer, Honored by Glory

of Islam,(Oxford University Press, 1998), 81-105 12

This event is really interesting. For the first time, the outside’s demands became effective for the deposition of

the sultan. With this demands, the ulema and the bureaucracy gathered in Orta Camii and they heard the demand

of outside and give their decision in the lights of this demands meaning to ‘deposition’ of the sultan. It was taken

in Baki Tezcan’s presentation at Istanbul Şehir Universty and the same information can be taken in Naima’s

adding in Feyzullah Vakası and Rifa’at Ali Abou- El-Haj, 1703 İsyanı, 155

Kaya 5

work. With the transition of the janissaries into esnaf class15

, the dimension of the social life

and the nature of the revolts can be complicated. Moreover, the state application to the

debasement of money or to decreasing the value of coin (kuruş) started to bring new burdens

to every strata of public, esnaf class in particular. Along with it, the state tried to compensate

the war expenses and palace expenses with the new and heavy taxes and state efforts to

provide circulation of the new debased money with the collection of the old one, which was

re-issued in a new currency, deepened the social unrest and state could enter easily into

turmoil. As Cemal Kafadar points out that ‘in the post-classical era, this tension between the

dynamics of fiscal discipline, on the one hand, and welfarism, on the other, provided one of

the main fault lines and one of the main causes of tremor in the Ottoman body politics’16

.

In this environment, the relationship between the Empire and its subjects was tied to

weak and the subjects were ready to rebel. After deposition of Osman II, a remarkable revolt

occurred in 1651. Actually the development of the revolt was so primitive but its

consequences and its subtitles are of great importance to consider in detail.

Before the second half of the 17th

century, interestingly, the Ottoman public

commences participating in daily political issues. We have witnessed some public angers

continued by the public outside of Istanbul (taşra). For example, in 1642 in Bursa after debate

on the issue of churches, the Ottoman administration dismissed kadı (judge) and appointed a

new one. For this appointments, public in Bursa showed reactions against government’s

decision, because common decision of public was direction of the righteous behaviors of kadı.

13

Cemal Kafadar, Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows, the Economic

Boundaries of Ottoman Economic Imagination At the End of the Sixteenth Century, unpublished PhD

dissertation at McGill University, 1986, 198-203 14

Halil İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol.29, No,1,

The Task of Economic History (Mar, 1969), pp, 97,98,99 15

Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 67-85 16

Kafadar, Riffraff, 117

Kaya 6

In the end the government had to stop the decision and re-appointed the old kadı to their

post17

.

In 1651 the Esnafs of Istanbul closed down all shops in order to protest new tax and

they wanted to dismiss some people from the government and the janissary post. When we

follow the contemporary chronicle Naima, we, for the first instances, see that the event was

suppressed within two days. However, we read the following pages of his history, we witness

the spread of the events to queen mother and crucial members of the janissary Ağas; with that

rebellion, state gave up some people who created problems for the state. In short, state

exterminated one of a powerful clique with the help of the rebellion.

Before narrating the 1651 event in detail, I want to show my methodology: in that

paper, I will utilize a contemporary source called Tarih-i Naima. Why Naima is of great

importance for me is his position to the events. In the beginning he tells the event very briefly

and then he decided to tell the event with great detail, after small hesitation; however, he did

not forget his legitimization:

Yazılmak münasib degil idi, lakin tarihden maksud ahval-i âlemin nik ü bedi ve

deka’ik u hakayıkına vakıf olmaktır. Ve her kıssadan mülahaza-i akılane ile hale

münasib hisse almaktır. Ana bina’en ol hikayat-ı garibe hafz olunmayıp bi aynihi

tahrir olunmuştur.18

In his history, he preferred to show every tiny detail of the event he narrates. His eyes tried to

see every detail of the event and reader’s eyes see both what the palace did and the clique did

against the place. When we see general picture of the narration, we see that the event finished

within two days. However the subsequent events related to 1651 event continued more than

30 days: 21.08.1651 - 22.09.165119

. Furthermore, the 1651 rebellion turned its weapons

toward janissaries; in general janissaries started a revolt, and they achieved their demands.

17

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 961 18

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1325 19

Tarh-i Naima, vol.3, 1319-1358

Kaya 7

With 1651 events, as I said before, important members of janissaries was phased out. Here my

aim is to examine the event in detail with the use of primary and secondary literature; I want

to reiterate that my main primary source would be history of Naima.

When we look at the academic works related to 1651 events, we see few articles and

thesis which either have narrated the events briefly or have showed the events in footnotes

when speaking of janissary rebellions20

. In the second half of the 17th

century the number of

janissary increased rapidly though the state tried to decrease their numbers being as the policy

of the Ottoman state of the century. The increasing the number of the janissaries meant

financial burden for society. Moreover, the Janissary Ağas gradually became so powerful and

they were never ashamed of showing their wealth to the public. These worsened economic

conditions entail new measurements. Melek Pasha in 1651 had to issue new taxes and ordered

the debasement of the currency. He attempted to collect the old coins to change new coins. In

the end the Esnafs of Istanbul participated in the activity of rebellion. They gained support of

Şeyhülislam and they desired dismissal and assassination of the Janissary Ağas. The palace

supported this rebellion and the Holly Banner (Sancak-ı Şerif) was raised in front of the

Palace which means the official permission of fighting against the janissaries. Although

janissary Ağas tried to make another plan to gain the support of the public, they became

unsuccessful. The public caught the corrupt officers and then assassinated them. It is

interesting that within the Janissary corps there were factions and most of them did not

support the Janissary Ağas and they changed their sides easily during the events21

.

The story narrated above is the most detailed story that I have found in the secondary

sources. Unfortunately we never understand and recognize the whole event completely,

20

As far as I see now, the event stayed in a closer context: Cemal Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 88-119;

Marinos Sariyannis, “ ’Mob’, ‘Scamps’ and ‘Rebels’ in 17th

Century Istanbul: Some Remarks on Ottoman Social

Vocabulary,”, IJTS, vol.11 Fall 2005, (hereafter Sariyannis, Mobs) 21

Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 96,97.

Kaya 8

because in this narration we need to know what the names of the people and the names of the

cliques and the interesting events were. For this reason, I turned my eyes to contemporary

account Naima and try to understand the complicated nature of the event.

The 1651 Rebellion within the Eyes of Naima

The whole narrative about the event is in the 5th

volume of his history. In the

transcription prepared by Mehmet İşpirli in 2007 the event was in the 3rd

volume between the

pages 1319 and 1358.

Naima stars his narration by telling misbehaviors on the issue of taxation. He does not

forget from which the power of the janissaries came: 1622, the event of dethronement of

Osman II. The janissaries thought, according to Naima, that it was not suitable for us to gain a

little money and they decided to make profit more than 3 times then before they had gained.

To realize this notion, they used sarrafs and Jewish people participating in trade activities.

When we turn our eyes to Naima we see that:

Sabıka Yeni Cami’ vak’asından sonar sipah münkesir olup Yeniçeri zabıtları

dahi kendi karları sevdasında olmakla22

kulun mevacib hususuna i’tiraz ihtimali ber-

taraf olduğun vükela-i mal gördükte “Miriye seksene alınan guruş geri mevacibe

seksene verilmek hamakattir. Mesela bir mevacibde zuyufa tebdil olunsa bin keseden

ekall mertebe üç yüz kise fazla kalır bu bir azim kardır” deyü kimini Yahudiler ve

sarraflar yediyle tebdil edip ve kimini Arnavudluk’ta vaki’ ba’zı yerlerde kem-ayar

akçe kestirip getirip mevacibe mal-ı Karun cem’ etmeği adet etmişler idi.23

In the time of paying salary for the Janissaries, the Empire appointed Defterdar Emir

Mustafa Pasha to collect required money. Emir Mustafa saw that the whole money consists of

Beğ of Belgrade and Bosnian’s debased coin (akçe) and the drinking taxes collected from the

owner of the pubs (kızıl kırpık pare). Then the Emir demanded from the Esnafs in Istanbul

22

This theme was repeated later. 23

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1319

Kaya 9

that for gold the Esnafs of Istanbul had to pay 118 akçes. For that order, the money started to

be collected by bezzazistan kethüdası who was responsible for the collection of the taxes.

Bezzazistan Kethüdası and Sarachane Kethüdası went to the Esnaf and narrated the

order. The Esnaf opposed to this order (Ma’azallahi te’ala bu ne olmaz iştir). It is interesting

to point out that Naima uses the term ‘cumhur-u azim ile’, (with the power of society [the

Esnafs]), he could have recognized the power of these people when gathering. The Esnafs’

crowd decided to go to the grand vizier Melek Ahmed Pasha to show his reaction against the

order. When they narrated why they did not accept this tax, here Naima gives important

knowledge about what the janissaries participated in what kind of transactions in Istanbul:

copper and nuts and salt in Black Sea, soap and gum and ox in the Mediterranean. This

knowledge proves the idea that the Janissaries made trade via sea and dominated the market.

The grand vizier who listened to the problems of the Esnafs was angered to them and

dismissed then he said you have to pay it (Melek Ahmed Paşa hiddet ü sür’at-i gazab üzre

mecbur idi, ta’abbüs ile fukaraya azar idüp ‘Sürün bunları taşra yıkılın bire kafir gidiler,

varın tedarük edin verin’).

After Melek Ahmed’s dismissal, the Esnafs of Istanbul’s next station was Şeyhülislam

Aziz Efendi’s house. The Esnafs wanted Aziz Efendi to say the Sultan giving up the orders.

On the demand, Aziz Efendi’s response was so clear that your demand was not my

responsibility. After that, the Şeyhülislam would receive unexpected response from the

Esnafs, the Esnafs said that you had assassinated sultan Ibrahim I and his vizier, why do you

want to be interested in our problems? (Sultan İbrahim ve veziri katl ettiniz, ya şimdi bizim

ahvalimiz için ne aceb karışmazsız?). Here we understand clearly that the public did not

forget what happened in the past. After that answer, the Şeyhülislam said that if your demand

is to warn the Sultan about the opposition realized by the Esnafs of Istanbul, I can write a

petition narrating your problems to the Sultan, but the Esnafs of Istanbul wanted Şeyhülislam

Kaya 10

to go with together to the Palace. After that movement, the Esnafs decided to close down their

shops until the solution would be announced.

The crowds, whose numbers more than ten thousand, new destination would be the

Palace. The Esnaf with the Şeyhülislam went to the Palace and they reiterated their problems.

The Sultan said that no one destroys the laws issued in the time of my father Suleiman and I

do not agree with the idea of corruption of the order of my Esnafs had been. After that

response, the firman was issued. When the crowd started to dissolve, one of them (the Esnafs)

said important warming on current situation of the state:

Padişahım zulm ile alem harab oldu. Sana bildirmezler, vezir ketm eder, hala

on altı nefer kimesne vardır ki sana padişahlık ettirmezler. Beytülmal ve miriye ait

emvali cümle ekl ü bel’ ederler ki cümleden Kara Çavuş ve Bektaş Ağa ve kethüda

bey ve Samsoncu Sarı Kâtip ve Deli Birader ve fülan ve fülan bunlar zülm ü ta’addi

ile alemi haraba verib devletine müstevli oldular.

Mısra’ “Ali Osman devleti düşmüş ocağa yanıyor”

deyü zari künan-ı nale vü figan edip, “Mademki bunlar katl olunmayıp cezaları

evrilmeye. Padişahlık edemezsin ve memleketinde fitne vü fesad mündefi’ olmaz”

dediler. Vezirin azli ve ocak ağalarının katli babında ayak basıp ibram ettiler.24

Examining the whole paragraph directed by an Esnaf can be recognized that three groups

were formed with the sayings. The first group was the Esnaf and the second group was the

Palace and the third group was the janissary Ağas causing the damage of the stability of the

market.

Naima, here, turned to camera to the janissary Ağas who got the news from Istanbul

and were thinking the consequences of the event. The Ağas who convened in Orta Camii

(Ahmediye Camii) were supported by queen mother. Here Naima intervenes in narrative and

he speaks about queen mother:

Çün Büyük Valide noksan-ı akıl muktezasınca ağaların tarafını tutup ağalara kapı-

kethüdalık eden mekkar u hilekarlar çöyle i’tikad ettirmişler idi ki devleti tutup duran

24

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1321.

Kaya 11

ağalardır, eğer ağalar giderse alem herc ü merc olur, ol fettanların süret-i hakta

söyledikleri bu makule efsunu Valide hazretleri gerçek sanıp, ağalar giderse devletin

hali nice olur alem ita’attan çıkar i’tikadında olduğu için ağayan dedikleri insafsız

mütegallibeye sahip çıkıp anlara bir zarar geldiğini istemezdi, da’ima himayet

ederdi.25

This paragraph symbolizes political language of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th

century.

Except for Murad IV, the Ottoman politics was depended upon court factions mostly directed

by the Janissary ağas. However, the queen mother played in wrong card.

Then in Orta Camii the vizier (Siyavuş Pasha), the Şeyhülislam (Aziz Efendi) and the

janissary Ağas convened a meeting. Bektaş Ağa said grand vizier that we are not happy what

you did today, if you work with us together, you can not realize your duty as a vizier. If the

time showed the date of 1622, the vizier would generally accept what the Ağas said. But the

balance was disturbed. On account of this, grand vizier says that this duty was given by our

exalted Sultan; I am only responsible for him. The exalted Sultan knows who valuable for the

post is or not. After that meeting, the janissaries decided to collect men in order to strength

their positions. And the janissaries Ağas went to the Esnafs of Istanbul and ordered open their

shops. But the Esnafs responded that these shops will only be opened with imperial decree.

(Ağa yabana söylemiş hatt-ı hümayunsuz dükkanlar açılmaz).26

In that time, the queen mother

Kösem sent news to the Ağas, and she said that as long as you kill them in inner palace, you

will not reach your desires. (Siz bunları içeriden taleb ve katl etmeyince muradınıza na’il

olamazsınız).

After these words, the queen mother Kösem went to the palace and she established

another clique related to the janissary Ağas and whose aim was to dethronement of Mehmed

IV and to make Suleiman sultan. With this group, we have for cliques: the first one is the

Janissary Ağas controlled Bektaş, Kara Çavuş Mustafa Ağa and Kethüda Bey Ömer Ağa. The

25

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1322 26

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1323

Kaya 12

second group was Kösem’s clique whose members are Baş-lala Eski Süleyman Ağa, the

teacher of the sultan Hoca Reyhan Ağa, Mushaib İsmail Ağa, Dilaşub Sultan who was wife of

Suleiman and who had some mental problem (safdil ve mezcub meşreb), the leaders of

rebellions and Başkapı oğlanı and Bostancı Başı Ali Ağa and Kireççi Başı whose name was

not indicated in Naima’s history. The first and second cliques would work together. The third

group was bureaucracy showing the events and preferring not to be involved in a discussion.

The last group was the Esnafs of Istanbul. We can add another group who did not make a

decision about the side of the event.

In the palace, the newly created group’s demands were spread through the palace. The

news reached to Turhan Sultan. She created a new group against Kösem Sultan. In same

night, before the janissary Ağas moved, the palace clique established by Turhan and her men

would move swiftly. This group went firstly to the Sultan and the group demanded Kösem,

the Sultan rejected this wish. However, the group would not stop and they moved to the

Kösem’s room. The group moved easily and they entered her room by killing some guardians

of Kösem. At last, Kösem was executed by Küçük Mehmed who was the member of Zülüf

and has encouraged people. ( Zülüflerden Küçük Mehmed nam bir merd-i div-hey’et darabat-ı

pey der pey) and her room was plundered. Her property was confiscated. Naima, until the end

of the Kösem’s event) was silent and this silence showed his stance towards the event.

However, after her dying, he started to praise her behavior through three pages (1329-1321).

In these pages, Naima shows commercialization of the Ottoman Empire with the example of

Kahveci Mehmed Halife who has great property and his network in the market. Then, he

makes general descriptions of the state:

Devlet-i Aliyye’de her zaman nüfüz-u kelam ve istiklal bir ta’ifeye düşüp

irade-i Rabbaniye ta’alluk ettikte isti’dad u ta’ayyün ol zümreden zail ve zümre-i

uhraya müntakil oluncaya dek her biri saye-i saltanatta atıp tutmak ve dilhahları üzre

tasarrüfatla kam-yab olmak umur-ı tabi’yye mesabesinde bir manadır. Ancak şu kadar

Kaya 13

var ki bu makule ikbal-i hassü’l-has ile izz ü ihtisasa na’il olanların her kangisi nizam-

ı akl üzre hareket edip Hakk’ın ve halkın hukuk ve hududuna ri’ayette kusur etmeye.

Anın gibiler zahiren ve batinen tevfik ile mü’eyyed ve meka’id-i alemden savn ile

zaman-ı devletleri mümted ola-gelmiştir. Anlar ki, ifrat u tefrit caniblerine gidip her

emirde hakk-ı i’tidal ki nizam-ı vücud-ı ka’inat ana mebnidir, ne idiğini bilmeye

yahud mura’atında kusur eyleye27

.

At the same time, Samsoncu Ömer28

came to the palace and people of the palace showed the

danger to Samsoncu and he could meet the grand vizier and he demanded the heads of four

Arab people in order to stop the rebellion (Size zarar ihtimali yoktur. Nihayeti bu dört arabıın

başların isterler ve bu da’vadan feragat etmezler. Siz emni-hatır isterseniz bu hizmette teşmir-

i sak-ı himmet etmek gereksiz). From inner side of the palace, some people being member of

the palace clique attacked to Samsoncu. He rescued his life by running away.

After that time, Naima’s eyes changed swiftly, he sometimes preferred to show the

Janissaries and sometimes turned his eyes to the Ağa Kapısı which was the gathering place for

the supporters of Esnaf and the Palace. In the janissary barracks, Bektaş Ağa said that in this

night a lot of candles were moving in the palace, I wonder what will happen. At the same time

Samsoncu Ömer came in the barracks and he said our plan had been known, and the queen

mother Kösem was killed. After those words, the janissary Ağas convened a meeting.

In the place, firstly the grand vizier and Lala started speaking of the death of Kösem

and the grand vizier said that we continue our work and God punishes who is guilty.

Moreover some people being the member of Kösem’s faction was executed (Kireççi başı ve

sa’ir hem distanlara eman verilmeyip). In the Ağa Kapısı the state official gathered including

the Sultan. In the end of the meeting, Janissary Ağas was supposed as ‘rebels’, and the Palace

took the extraordinary measures and the holy banner was raised (Pes padişah-ı alem-penah

ferman edip alem-i şerifi çıkarıp nesb ettiler).

27

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1331 28

Look at footnote ‘23’

Kaya 14

Interestingly, Naima does not forget to turn his eyes to people who did not make a

decision for the selection of the clique. Naima’s example would be the mufti Abdülaziz

Efendi. When he thought of the situation, one of his men Tiryaki Solak Ahmet said that you

are invited by the Palace, you should go there. However, the response of Abdülaziz Efendi is

of great importance to see general political environment in that period:

Amma ağaların hatırı vardır, şimdi bunların yedd-i galibeleri mukarrerdir, cümle ocağı

hasm mı edelim deyü cevap verdi. Ahmed Ağa “Behey efendi! Hatır mahalli degildir

her halde taraf-ı padişhide bulunmakta selamet vardır. Bu zümrenin peymane-i ikbali

dolup hadlerini tecavüz etmişlerdir. Bunların başlarına hayr gelmez, alamet-i zavalleri

katı zahirdir. Zinhar taraf-i padişaha varmaktan gayri fikre zahib olmayasız” dedikte,

“Yine bu galip heriflerin hatırı feda olunmaz, cumhur-u ulema da ol tarafa

gitmişlerdir”.29

Abdülaziz Efendi would play the wrong card and he selected the clique of the janissary Ağas.

The Janissaries gathered in Orta Camii, and they discussed what happened in the

Palace. People said that these people killed Kösem Sultan and her men, and the classical

religious rhetoric was repeated. In the end, the janissary Ağa, Kethüda Bey, Bektaş Ağa and

other Ağas from different branch (ocak), Asesbaşı Ömer and Baş Çavuş Önder Ali created the

main faction towards the Palace. Indeed, the four factions decrease two main factions: The

Palace and the Janissaries.

In the Palace, the new selection for the new post was realized, because the Müfti, the

Kadıasker and the Istanbul Efendisi did not come and they became rebels. Hocazade Mesud

was selected for Rumeli Kadıasker , for Istanbul Kazası Beyazi Hasan Efendi was preferred.

The most important problem was raised on the selection of the Şeyhülislam. In first minutes

of the meeting the palace clique and Turhan Sultan demanded Ebu Sa’id as a Şeyhülislam,

however vizier wanted Baha’i Efendi as Şeyhülislam because his language was good to get

down the problems (Baha’i ceriyyü’l-cenan ce hadidü’l-lisan bir pervadır). Why Ebu Sa’id

29

Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1334

Kaya 15

did not desire was that he did not come when the holly banner was raised. However, Hanefi

Efendi who was the religious scholar came to the Palace before Ebu Sa’id to gain the

appointment of the post of Şeyhülislam. In the end Hanefi Efendi gained the post. However,

someone had gone to Ebu Sa’id and he came to the Palace and he gathered the post. But

Hanefi Efendi did not want to give the appointment document to Sa’id Efendi, but at last

Sa’id Efendi became the Şeyhülislam. Indeed, in Palace everyone confused about what will

happen, to give this theme, Naima gives Hocazade’s words: Efendi şimdi böyle iktiza eyledi,

iş bitsin de sadr-ı Rum dahi olursun, elem çekmen.

The Palace sent some servants to every street of Istanbul to announce that people who

have the member of the Islam community should gather in front of the Palace and within two

hours people would fill the every corner of the Palace. Moreover, it is noted that a lot of

janissaries changed their decisions and came to the Palace. After that movement, the Palace

decided to send a firman which warned the rebels:

Siz ki, Yeniçeri ağalarından Yeniçeri ağası ve kul Kethüdası ve Bektaş Ağasız.

Gerktür ki huzuruma gelip ayak divanına hazır olasız. Muhalefet ederseniz

hakkınızdan gelinir30

.

When we look at the firman, we can easily see that the Palace clique strengthened its hands.

In that movement we should remember some important information: in the dethronement of

Osman II, the palace had had to go Yeni Camii (Valide Sultan Camii) and they tried to make

an agreement with the Janissaries; however, the place, in that time, preserved its

determination and the hands of the Janissaries experienced disempowerment in that time.

Moreover, the two factions’ centers were also important. The Palace faction settled in

Ağa Kapısı; the Janissary clique was ready in Orta Camii (Fatih) to fight. The two centers

both were closed to each other and away from each other. Interestingly, during 17th

century

30

Tarih-i Naima, vol.3, 1337

Kaya 16

movement such as Janissary Rebellions and Kadızadelis movement the opposition group

generally located in Fatih; however, Naima gives no hints why the opposition group preferred

to settle down here.

When the firman came to the Orta Camii, the crowd read this aloud and one of the

janissaries Ağas Kara Çavuş said that we never go there, but we never rebel our Sultan, the

state was deceived. There Naima wanted to make a comment on the issue and he said that the

janissary Ağas did not understand what the true nature of the state is and their role within the

state would be. However, some of the janissaries continued to change their position and they

started going to the Palace.

At the same time, in the place some members of the court wanted to fight against the

janissaries. However, Ebu Sa’id Efendi, the Şeyhülislam, said that we should not show any

kind of reactions against them, because the janissaries begun to dissolve, gradually their

power would weaken. In that time the Janissary Ağas sent a petition written by Kara Hasan-

zade Çelebi, in that petition they expanded their demands and they wanted more ten people

who were the member of the Zülüf class participating in the execution of Kösem with the old

demand of four Arab people. The Palace was responded quickly that no one was given and no

one did send to exile. The Janissary Ağas took new measurements, and Ağas wanted to collect

all powers to fight, however, someone said that there were not enough people to create the

opposition (Behey ağas sen ne söylersin, odalarda yoldaş kalmadı. Hep Saray-ı Hümayuna

gittiler, kimi zabt edelim).

In that time a person called Samsoncu Ömer, whose ethnic origin was Turk, proposed

a new plan which if we burn some houses in Istanbul and we allow the Janissaries to make

plundering, we will re-gain our strength. After that proposal, the response of the janissary

Ağas represented the classical rhetoric of the janissary and the state:

Kaya 17

Bre Ömer bre eşek bu senin söylediğin söz ne asıl sözdür, sus ol makule türrehatı

ağzına alma bir kaç günlük ömr için din ü devlete a’da vü küffar gibi ihanet mi edelim.

Ve cihan durdukça siper-i lanet ve ocağımızın temeli münhedim ve muzmahill olmağa

sebeb ve illet mi olalım31

.

Moreover, the reaction made by the Janissary Ağas included the Islamic rhetoric; interestingly

the state used the same rhetoric, too. Moreover if we examine the person proposing the plan,

we will have some important information about the point of view on ethnic origins of people

in the 17th

century. From the last years of the 16th

century to the end of 17th

century chronicles

started to criticize people coming to Istanbul from Anatolia, they called them Turks (etrak pl.

or Etrak-i ‘Avam) and they were obsessed against them. These people’s names transformed

etrak to manav in Istanbul. Mustafa Ali writes about them as manav namı ile ma’ruf olan

kasibin-i enam, which Andreas Tietze notes in Ali’s time a contemptuous designation for low-

class city dwellers of ruler stock.32

Moreover, Ali also wrote that these manavs engage in

trade and sometimes become rich. And Ahmet Refik said about them haricden beş yıldan

beru İstabbul’a gelüb tavattun iden… eğer mavavgadlar ve eğer çift bozanlardır. We also see

them in the kadı records as sair tavaif-i islamiye gibi anlar da eyili yaramazlı bir taifedir33

.

We can understand that Naima is so conscious when using the term ‘Turk’34

. After that

answer, the janissary Ağas made a new plan to gather people in Orta Camii. The new plan

would be that Ağas would bring gold and silver coins and people would be called; after

coming to money no one responded it negatively. In the end, Kethüda Bey started shouting to

Bektaş Ağa:

Tu yüzüne! Allah bela versin! Bre tama’kar Arnavud ! Ne eyledinse eyledin,

bize mal lazımdır başımıza ne halet gelir. Devlet yüz çevirdkte akçe her derdimize

derman olur hemen mal cem‘ edelim deyüp, bizi kendi halimize koymayıp ifsad

eyledin. Ve cem’-i mal için dünyanın fesadatın ettirip bizi baştan çıkardın dedi. Imdi

31

Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1339 32

Sariyannis, Mobs, 4 33

Ibid, 4 34

In that point we never forget the Ottomanization process narrated by Mustafa Ali from Galippoli.

Kaya 18

görelim bu kadar malımız var bir adam yanımıza meyl ettirebilir misin görelim akçe

ne işimize yaradı deyip hararetinden bi-hadd şütüm eyledi35

.

In these words, we can easily recognize that the power of the janissary Ağas commence

breaking. After this fighting, Şeyh Veli who was one of the most respectable man for the

janissary Ağas changed its side and said that you (the janissary Ağas) became Pharaoh, and

you disturbed the order of the society. You did not accept the counsel given by the state. The

janissary Ağas opposed this argument and said that when you take our money from us, you

did not say anything. Şeyh Veli responded that now it’s the time to turn our face, and he left

the Orta Camii, and went to the Palace. Şaban Efendi, Sun’i-zade, Çelebizade followed the

way opened by Şeyh Veli. Then Kudsi-zade went to his home and started to wait the

consequences of the event. Müfti Aziz Efendi with his Bostancıbaşı preferred the same way

and he went to his house located in Samatya. These men were now waiting the destiny which

will be drawn about them.

The place gave the news about the dissolution of the janissary clique, and people

started to discuss on what the next movement would be. In that movement, the janissary Ağas

wrote a petition to Baha’i Efendi and Lala Suleiman Pasha to be forgiven by the exalted

Sultan, because the Janissary Ağas knew that the next action against towards Ağas would be

execution; on account of this, we left our properties and post which will be given after the

event, we want only to preserve our lives (Cümlemiz mansıblarımızdan geçtik, kuşça canımızı

bize bağışlan). With the convincing the Sultan, the lives of Ağas was preserved. Now it is

time to arrange the appointments. The Kul Kethudalığı was given to Küçük Kasım whose

main feature in Naima’s history was his old age. Mustafa Ağa was appointed as the

Samsoncubaşı. Kara Çavuş who had been one of the main members of the janissary Ağas’

clique was firstly dismissed his position and the given the province of Tımaşvar for

continuing his life as timar. Other members of the clique Yadigar, the Kul Kethudalığı was

35

Tarih-i Naima, vol. 3, 1339

Kaya 19

given the province of Bosnia as timar. Bektaş Ağa who was the chief of the clique was given

the sanjak of Bursa for timar. And Mehmed Pasha went to the Orta Camii and read the new

appointments and the Ağas accepted the rules. Then the palace Cinci Limni Cühud Hüseyin

were appointed as the Şehir subaşısı.

At the same time, Naima turned his face to the old palace (Saray-ı Atik). There Kösem

Sultan was buried in the cemetery of Ahmed I. Moreover her servant was sent to the old

palace and their lives were preserved. Naima did not forget to show the outside of Istanbul.

There Bektaş Ağa and his servants were preparing his necessary things to leave the city.

Thought in this time we see the event has finished, we can see that the state does not closed

the book when following the subsequent pages of Naima’s history.

Then Bektaş Ağa did not leave from the city. He firstly went to Samsoncus and he

wanted to hide himself. They said that if you do not obey the orders of the state (ulu’l emr),

we cannot protect you. He then went to Terlikçi Mehmet Çelebi who has the member of

Halveti branch. He started to hide himself. At the same time, state controlled Bektaş Ağa

whether he went to Bursa or not, and the state was appointed Boyacı Hasan Ağa to find

Bektaş. He searched for Bektaş and he was not being successful. Then he said that if someone

says where Bektaş is, he was gifted by the state. A boy who went to bazaar to buy some meals

to Bektaş Ağa said that if you show what I will gain, I can say where Bektaş Ağa is. Then

Bektaş Ağa was found in his hidden place and he fought and he killed some people. At last

the boy who helped Boyacı Hasan Ağa wanted to carry Bektaş Ağa to the place. However,

Boyacı Hasan Ağa warned that if you go to the Palace with Bektaş Ağa arrested without

hiding him, you will be disturbed in the future by the janissaries. On account of this, the boy

and Boyacı Hasan Ağa went to the Palace with Bektaş Ağa and he was executed in the Palace.

The Palace confiscated his property and Naima notes his death as ‘boğup cüssesini meydana

siyasete ilka ettiler’.

Kaya 20

The same destiny would be drawn for Kara Çavuş. Here Naima gives the name of him:

Mustafa Ağa. He appointed as Kethüda and then he show the reaction against Boyacı Hasan

Paşa and Kara Çavuş was picked to the Palace. He went to the Sultan, and the Sultan asked I

wonder why you created disturbances (fitne) in society, he responded that I am not guilty, the

head of the rebel was Bektaş Ağa and Kul Kethudası. The sultan said that are you one of the

ağas? He said that yes, I am one of them but I cannot say anything to them (Bektaş Ağa and

Kethüda) because they are riffraff (mütegallibe). Sultan then said that I sent firman to come

back to the Palace, why did you obey this rule? He said that I tried to obey but Bektaş Ağa

and Kethüda did not allow. In the end the Sultan said the last words: kill him. In the way, he

cried a lot, but Bostancıbaşı, responsible for the execution, said the general rule for rebels:

Ağa hazretleri bu ağlamak evvel gerek idi, son peşimanlık fa’ide vermeyeceği meşhurdur.

Ulu’l-emre muhalefet fi’l-hakika candan el yumaktır ve devlete istila edip bir perva atıp

tutmak kişiyi kendiyi bela vü helak deryasına atmaktır.36

Then he was executed by two kuls.

The next of the chain of the execution was old Kul Kethudası Mehmed Ağa. When he

went to Bosnia, he heard the execution of Bektaş and Kara Çavuş. He was afraid of and he

run away with his some servants and the state understood he run away and he issued a firman

to catch him. At least he caught and he was executed. Naima said that if he was not afraid of

and he went to Bosnia, he would save his life. In the end state confiscated the three Ağa’s

property and these properties directly sent to the treasury. Naima said his last words about the

three:

Hasılı kelam, bir iki sene aleme velvele verip, Devlet-i Aliyye’yi kabza-i

tasarruflarına alan ağaların akıbeti-i hali bu vecihle hitam bulup keen-lem-yekün

oldular. Ve sa’ir etba’ u levahıkları dahi muzmahil olup bunların kuvvetiyle hadden

36

Tarih-i Naima, vol3., 1347

Kaya 21

tecavüz edenler cezaların buldular, nitekim tafsili gelse gerektir. Tavr-i haddi tecavüz

eden bağilerin hakkında adaletullah böyle cari ola-gelmiştir.37

Moreover, we left the Mufti Aziz Efendi in his house when he was waiting for his gift from

the state. On account of not selecting the clique of the Palace, he was exiled to the island of

Sakız. With the last movement, the event was being finished.

Some Comments instead of Conclusion

In that paper, I try to look at general characteristics of Ottoman Empire in the 17th

century and focus on a rebellion happened in 1651 in particular. Within the borders of

Ottoman modernization (1789-1899) Ortaylı says for the 19th

century as ‘the Longest

Century’ for the Empire; if we consider the early-modern Ottomans, the 17th

century can be

named as ‘the Longest Century’ for the Ottoman Empire. Where my thought came from is

that if we look at the 18th

century we can see only two rebellions38

and stable and growing

bureaucracy. On the other hand, in the 17th

century Ottoman Empire and its bureaucrats had to

deal with military, socio-cultural changes. Indeed it developed into religious issue and the

state had to intervene with religious preferences for people. For this reason the Empire

sometimes had to support the Kadızadeli movement39

, in the end of the century it extended its

borders with the event of Sabbatai Sevi40

and the state tried to reach the unified religious

practices which were not suitable for the Ottoman Empire41

.

In the first years of the 17th

century, Ottoman Empire had to deal firstly with the

Austrian Wars and the alteration of the selection method of the Sultan. In the inner of the

palace, the struggle between power centers was widened and the groups started to be created.

37

Tarih-i Naima, vol3., 1349 38

Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 120,121,122 39

Derin Terzioğlu, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri (1618-1694), unpublished PhD

dissertation at Harvard University in 1999. 40

Fariba Zarinebaf, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul 1700-1800, (University of California Press, 2010), 106

and the relationship between Jewish converts and the Empire see David Marc Baer, Honored by the Glory of

Islam,(Oxford University Press, 2008), 121, 138 41

Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, (California University Press, 1995).

Kaya 22

This groups or factions grew in dramatically and in 1622 the court faction was so successful

in the event of the deposition of Osman II42

. In that period the importance and effectiveness of

the Janissary rose within the decision-making process of the state mechanism. Moreover, the

queen mothers were so active and interestingly two queen mothers represent two cliques and

Turhan Sultan showed Kösem’s death easily.

Along with these changes, the economic structure of the state transformed into the

mercantilist economy and people were accustomed to these regulations. Moreover the

Janissary soldiers melting into society and they started to controlled some important branches

of the economic life such as bread43

although some people showed reaction to the new

regulations44

. Even the state started to send the rules of market regulations to the Janissary

barracks although the state only sent these regulations to only the Esnafs. On account of this

we can easily say that the economic life in the 17th

century in Ottoman Empire became

complicated.

My research subject is on the 1651 rebellion and its reflections on one of the

contemporary chronicles Tarih-i Naima. What it was great importance of this is that for the

first time the public showed a reaction towards both the state regulations and the Janissary

applications and with the support of the state, the Janissary Ağas was exterminated and the

market breathed easily. As Cemal Kafadar puts it, the Esnafs of Istanbul did not want to

damage the structure of the market and they are not subjected to ‘zorbalık’45

. In the end they

were successful to continue their rules. Another important point I want to emphasize is the

strength of ‘public memory’. When the Şeyhülislam rejected go to the Palace with Esnafs, the

42

Baki Tezcan, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World,

(Cambridge, 2011), 14-45, and “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early

Modern Era,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, vol29, no.23, 2009. 43

Cemal Kafadar, Riffraff, 118 44

Marinos Sariyannis, “Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: the Rise of a ‘Mercantile

Ethic,” I thank to Derin Terzioğlu to provide this article to my use. 45

Kafadar, Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations, 97

Kaya 23

Esnafs’ reactions were considerable: the Şeyhülislam was remembered his role of the

dethronement and execution of the Ibrahim I and his vizier. It sounds good to say that Tarih-i

Naima can show the confusion of people during the event.

In the end of the 17th

century, we can say that the Empire was so successful to adapt

itself to the changes. Within the 17th

century, the public places developed and spread rapidly

such as coffeehouses and shadow theatre46

, and we can see in the changing commercial

vocabulary and practices (e.g. the use of poliçe), agricultural activity (the introduction of

tobacco, culinary techniques (the ubiquity of tomato paste), design concepts (three

dimensional wall paintings), pastime habits (card games), or items of personal use (watches,

clocks and eyeglasses) among Ottoman Turks47

. The Ottoman society went through great

changes in the 17th

century and it must be reconsidered in great detail.

46

Kafadar, Riffraff, 120 47

Cemal Kafadar, “A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the Serenissima,”

Journal of Turkish Studies: Raiyyet Rüsumu Essays presented to Halil İnalcık on his 70th

birthday by his

colleagues and students, ed. by Şinasi Tekin and Gönül Alpay Tekin, Vol.10, 1986, p,211

Kaya 24

Bibliography

Baer, Marc David, Honored by Glory of Islam,(Oxford University Press, 1998).

Barkan, Ömer Lütfi, ”The Price Revolution of the 16th

Century: A Turning Point in the

Economic History of the Near East,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975).

El-Haj, Rifa’at Ali Abou, 1703 İsyanı, (Ankara: Tan Yayınları,2011).

Fleischer, Cornell H., Tariçi Mustafa Ali: Bir Osmanlı Aydın ve Bürokratı, (Istanbul, Tarih

Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1994).

İnalcık, Halil, “Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire,” The Journal of Economic History,

Vol.29, No,1, The Task of Economic History (Mar, 1969).

Kafadar, Cemal, A Death in Venice (1575): Anatolian Muslim Merchants Trading in the

Serenissima,” Journal of Turkish Studies: Raiyyet Rüsumu Essays presented to Halil İnalcık

on his 70th

birthday by his colleagues and students, ed. by Şinasi Tekin and Gönül Alpay

Tekin, Vol.10, 1986.

---- Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, (California University

Press, 1995).

---- Janissaries and Other Riffraff of Ottoman Istanbul: Rebels without a Cause?,”

International Journal of Turkish Studies, Fall 2007 vol.13.

----When Coins Turned into Drops of Dew and Bankers Became Robbers of Shadows, the

Economic Boundaries of Ottoman Economic Imagination At the End of the Sixteenth Century,

unpublished PhD dissertation at McGill University, 1986.

---- Yeniçeri-Esnaf Relations: Solidarity and Conflict, unpublished M.A. dissertation at

McGill University, 1981.

Naima Hüseyin Efendi, Tarih-i Naima, Ravzatü’l-Hüseyn fi Hülasati Ahbari’l-Hafikayn, prep.

by Mehmet İşpirli, (Ankara, TTK, 2007) vol.3 and 4.

Kaya 25

Sariyannis, Marinos, “Kadızadeli Movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon: the Rise

of a ‘Mercantile Ethic”.

---- “’Mob’, ‘Scamps’ and ‘Rebels’ in 17th

Century Istanbul: Some Remarks on Ottoman

Social Vocabulary,”, IJTS, vol.11 Fall 2005.

---- “Ottoman Critics of Society and the State, Fifteenth to Early Eighteenth Centuries:

Towards a Corpus For the Study of Ottoman Political Thought,” Archivum Ottomanicum,

Vol.25, 2008.

Terzioğlu, Derin, Sufi and Dissident in the Ottoman Empire: Niyazi-i Mısri(1618-1694),

unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, 1999.

Tezcan, Baki, The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early

Modern World, (Cambridge, 2011).

---- “The Second Empire: The Transformation of the Ottoman Polity in the Early Modern

Era,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, vol29, no.23, 2009.

.

Zarinebaf, Fariba, Crime and Punishment in Istanbul 1700-1800, (University of California

Press, 2010).

Zilfi, Madeline C., The Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Post-Classical Age

(1600-1800), (Bibliotheca Islamica, Minneapolis, 1988).

---- “The Kadızadelis: Discordant Revivalism in 17th

Century Istanbul,” JNES 45, no 4.