448

TUNES FROM A SULTAN’S DIARY: MUSICAL PERFORMANCES
AND MUSICIANS IN THE RÛZNÂMES OF MAHMUD I (R.
1730-1754)

Keywords: Mahmud I, Rûznâme, Ottoman Music, Musicians, Eighteenth century
This thesis examines the musical elements in the rûznâmes (the records of the sultan’s
daily activities) of Mahmud I (r. 1730-1754) who occupied the Ottoman throne
for nearly a quarter of a century. The examination foregrounds the question of
whether these records provide data on and can be useful in writing the history of
Ottoman music. Based on the references to music in these sources, this study contributes
to our understanding of Istanbul’s musical landscape in the first half of the
18th century. Furthermore, it describes the characteristics of this music and the musical
practices of this certain period, along with Ottoman music more generally. The
first chapter analyzes musicians’ profiles in and around the Ottoman court according
to their socio-cultural and occupational backgrounds; officers, artisans, mosque
singers, Sufis, and non-Muslims. The following chapter focuses on the music in the
rûznâmes. It details of the genres of music and instruments that the sultan listened
to, illuminates Mahmud I’s musical tastes, and the musical genres and the instruments
that were popular in the first half of the 18th century. Finally, the third
chapter explores the locations where the musical performances for the sultan took
place. It also tries to shed light on Mahmud I’s Mevlevî inclinations.
iv
ÖZET
BIR SULTANIN GÜNLÜGÜNÜNDEN NAGMELER: I. MAHMUD (1730-54)
RÛZNÂMELERI’NDE MÜZIKLI EGLENCELER VE MÜZISYENLER

Bu tez, Osmanlı tahtında yaklasık çeyrek asır hüküm sürmüs olan I. Mahmud’a
(1730-1754) ait rûznâme kayıtlarındaki (hükümdarın günlük faaliyetlerinin
kaydedildigi eserler) müzige dair unsurları incelemektedir. Bu inceleme, söz konusu
kayıtların Osmanlı müzik tarihi arastırmaları için kaynak niteligi tasıyıp tasıyamayacagı
sorusunu ön plana alır. Bu kaynaklarda müzige yapılan atıflardan hareketle
bu çalısma, 18. Yüzyılın ilk yarısında Istanbul’da dolasımda olan müzigin ne tür bir
müzik oldugunu, bu müzigin niteligini ve söz konusu dönem ile daha genel olarak
Osmanlı müzigindeki müzik pratiklerinin anlasılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlar.
Tezi olusturan ilk bölüm, Osmanlı sarayında ve çevresinde bulunan müzisyen profillerini
sosyo-kültürel ve meslekî arka planları yönünden incelemektedir. Bu açıdan
memurlar, zanaatkarlar, cami müzisyenleri, sufiler ve gayrimüslimler gibi çesitli
müzisyen grupları tespit edilmistir. Ikinci bölüm, I. Mahmud rûznâmelerindeki müzige
odaklanır. I. Mahmud’un dinledigi müzik türlerini ve çalgıları detaylandırır, bu
sayede sultanın kisisel müzik zevki ile beraber 18. yüzyılın ilk yarısında popüler
olan müzik türlerine ve çalgılara da ısık tutar. Son bölüm ise, I. Mahmud için
düzenlenen müzik performanslarının gerçeklestigi çesitli mekanları inceler. Ayrıca,
I. Mahmud’un Mevlevî egilimlerini aydınlatmayı amaçlar.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Tülay
Artan, not only for her insightful feedback and critical touch which have prevented
me from making logical and historical mistakes, but also for her enduring patience
and understanding throughout this process. Also, I would like to thank the members
of my thesis defense jury, Merih Erol and Selim Karahasanoglu who shared their
precious comments with me.
Ever since my undergraduate years, the courses I have taken from Y. Hakan Erdem
and Ferenc Csirkés at Sabancı University and Cem Behar, Ismail Kara, Berat Açıl,
Abdulhamit Kırmızı at Istanbul Sehir University have been fed my interest in the
historians’ craft and fundamentally shaped my understanding of the discipline. I
am especially grateful to Cem Behar, who believed in, supported, advised me to
always question the existing assumptions on Ottoman music. I also would like to
thank Walter Feldman, who kindly responded to my endless e-mails and questions,
and whose studies introduced me to the history of Ottoman music.
Equally, I extend my gratitude to Selman Soydemir, who kindly shared the correct
readings of rûznâmes of Mahmud I on several occasions, and to Faruk Yaslıçimen
who not only who helped me in editing the quotations in Ottoman Turkish but also
encouraged me to study history. I would like to thank Samuel Huckleberry who
diligently proofread this thesis and, with his constructive feedback, helped render it
into its current form. I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to Bahadır Barut
of Sabancı University’s Information Center and to Sumru Küçüka (FASS Dean’s
Office), who patiently and quickly responded to my endless problems during the
last three years
My academic journey began at Istanbul Sehir University, where I experienced an
inspiring, supportive and vibrant environment. Unfortunately, it was shut down
during the writing of this thesis. I am indebted to the whole history faculty at Sehir
– with whom I still feel strong bonds which not unlike the strings of a lute that
resonate loudly and proudly in my heart.
I am also grateful to my dear friends Betül, Müberra, Neyyire Reyhan, Mesude,
and Esra not only for helping me in various phases of this process but also for their
friendship. It’s because of our connection that I always felt comfortable sharing my
vi
stress and happiness with.
Finally, my greatest thanks go to my family – my parents, my sister, and brother,
and two dearest nephews – who have supported me in countless ways throughout
my life and showed their understanding towards my emotional ups and downs in
this process.
vii
To my mum and dad
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. The Rûznâme as a Historical Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. The Reign of Mahmud I and the “Pax Ottomanica” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Mahmud I as a Musician and the Musicians’ Patron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4. The Rûznâmes of Mahmud I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5. Music in the Rûznâmes of Mahmud I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.6. Music of the early 18th century and “Locally Generated Modernity” . 14
1.7. Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. MUSICIANS OF THE RÛZNÂMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1. Musicians in the Palace Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.1. Commissary (kilâr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1.2. Çavusân . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2. Non-Courtly Musicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.1. Tasra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.2. Artisans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3. Sufi Musicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.1. Mevlevî Musicians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3.2. Musicians from Other Sunnî Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.4. “Mosque Singers” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5. Non-Muslims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.6. Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.6.1. Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.6.2. Unknowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.7. The Conclusion of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3. 1. THE MUSIC OF RÛZNÂMES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
ix
3.1. Musical Genres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1.1. Mehter/Mehterhâne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1.2. Türkü/Türkî . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.1.3. Temcîd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.1.4. Ilâhî . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1.5. Mevlîd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1.6. Mi‘râciyye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1.7. Na’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.1.8. Âyin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.2. Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.2.1. Instruments of Mehterhâne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.2.2. Instruments of “Chamber Music” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.3. The Conclusion of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4. THE VENUES OF MUSIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.1. Topkapı Waterfront Palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2. Bosphorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.1. The Rumelian Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.2. The Asian Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.3. Golden Horn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.4. The Vicinity of Istanbul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5. Dignitary Palaces and Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.6. The Conclusion of the Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
ARCHIVAL SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Walter Feldman’s Periodization of Ottoman Music (Feldman
1996, 36). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 2.1. The number of musicians and anonymous musician groups who
are stated to be registered in the palace, to be outside of the palace
and not stated any affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 2.2. Occupational Categories of Musicians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.1. The Days and Places of the Mevlevî Ceremonies that Mahmud
I Attended. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 4.2. Distribution of the Places Mentioned in the Rûznâmes by Years. 77
xi
1. INTRODUCTION
“[. . . ] 18th-century Ottoman music was the most creative period in
the whole history of Ottoman/Turkish music, no question. Far more
creative than the 19th century, but in Turkey, they talk more about the
19th century simply because we have more documents. This closer in
time, but in terms of real creativity, it cannot be compared to the 18th
century. In the 18th-century, new and amazing things were happening
in every generation, very very unexpected things. We’re just beginning
to the bottom of it [. . . ]” (Feldman 2019a, 51:55-52:23).
These reflections are from a lecture on “leisure in the Ottoman 18th century” given
in January 2019 by Walter Feldman, a leading scholar on both Ottoman and Jewish
music history. Since, as Feldman pointed out, the 18th century is less documented
and perhaps overshadowed by the “long 19th century” in which a set of global
changes happened, 18th century musical practices is one of the most understudied
areas in history of Ottoman music. However, the aim of this study is not to encompass
the whole of 18th century music in all its aspects, but to add to the existing
knowledge about early 18th century Ottoman music in the light of a hitherto unused
primary source. Feldman’s reflections that “new, amazing and unexpected things”
happened in this period motivated this inquiry.
Since music is not something tangible by its nature and was rarely written in premodern
Islamic societies it is less surprising that there is a shortage of documents
in the history of Ottoman music. Consequently, varied and perhaps unusual sources
that yield insights about the music of the period, whether they are musical treatises
or not, should be consulted. In line with this perspective, I analyzed the contents
of Mahmud I’s (r. 1730-1754) rûznâmes. These are the records of the sultan’s
daily activities. I took note of all the references to music, musicians and musical
performances to understand the characteristics of Ottoman music in the first half
of the 18th century. The rûznâmes have generally been overlooked as historical
sources. As such, this study questions whether these records provide data on and
1
be useful in writing the history of Ottoman music for the period in question. The
boundaries between music in the city and court were not impermeable and were
often intertwined. Since my main primary sources are the records of a sultan’s daily
activities, this study is limited to court practices.
The 18th century and rûznâmes are not the only neglected elements that led to the
conception of this study. Mahmud I, a sultan who occupied the Ottoman throne
for nearly a quarter of a century, is equally neglected as a subject of court studies.
In addition to historiographical negligence, he has rarely attracted attention even
by prominent scholars in the field of Ottoman musical history, despite the sultan
having been a musician himself and a patron of musicians. In contrast, another
sultan who was closely associated with music, Selim III (r. 1789-1807), has received
substantial attention. Mahmud I’s reign and the music in this era can be said to be
overshadowed by the reign of his predecessor, Ahmed III (r. 1703-1730) in which
courtly arts and culture are believed to have blossomed.1
Based on the musical data provided by the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, covering almost
half of his reign, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of what the
music in Istanbul was like in the first half of the 18th century. More specifically, it
surveys who the musicians in Mahmud I’s court were, takes note of the genres of
music and instruments that the sultan listened to. Finally, it explores the locations
where the sultan’s musical entertainments took place. This survey promises to shed
light on the musical practices of this certain period, along with Ottoman music more
generally.
Before pursuing the traces of music in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, some background
information regarding such as the rûznâme as a historical genre, the music of the
18th century, the reign and the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, along with his relationship
with music as a patron and a musician will help to contextualize and understand
make contextualizing and understanding the issues that we will be discussing in the
following chapters.
1A recently published edited volume, which includes articles on various subjects related to the period of
Mahmud I, fills an important gap in the literature: Gölgelenen Sultan Unutulan Yıllar, or, in English, “the
overshadowed sultan and the forgotten years” (Aynur 2020). For a monograph on the reign of Mahmud I
that focusing on mostly the domestic and foreign policies in this era, see: (Kurtaran 2014).
2
1.1 The Rûznâme as a Historical Source
The term rûznâme, deriving from Persian, is composed of the words "rûz" (day)
and "nâme" (letter, a written message) – meaning itinerary, journal, diary, daybook,
or otherwise the record of daily events.2 As a genre, the rûznâme documented the
daily events in several fields, ranging from astronomy to finance. The rûznâmes
studied in this thesis refer to the journals/court diaries/daybooks in which the daily
activities of the sultans are recorded, regardless of the importance of the days or
the incidents. The entries were written by personal secretary of sultan, called kâtibi
esrâr or sır kâtibi, who was among the agas of Has Oda (Privy Chamber) in
Enderûn. We do not have any proof that the personal secretaries named their
works as “rûznâme”. The notes they kept were either entitled vekâyi-nâme, vekâyi-i
yevmiye, mazbata-i yevmiye, zabt-ı vekâyi-i yevmiyye-i hazret-i cenâb-ı sehriyârî or
had no title at all. As a term, rûznâme was retrospectively applied. Almost all the
extant rûznâmes are single copies. It has been suggested that these texts consist
of scattered notes indicating that they were designed as historical documentation
rather than as literary works. However, some rûznâme copies, like the one kept by
Hıfzî Aga and compiled in a miscellany together with Hıfzî Aga’s poems written for
Mahmud I, are artistically produced manuscripts.3
Since there is not much research on the genre of rûznâme, we mostly owe our understanding
to an encyclopedia entry, written by Fikret Sarıcaoglu.4 According to
Sarıcaoglu, in the rûznâmes, there are two essential data sets or categories: one
is about the sultan’s official life, which is explicitly stated, and the other, about
his private life articulated in more vague expressions (Sarıcaoglu 2008, 279). Since
rûznâmes are official sources and written by personal secretaries of the sultan, it is
plausible that these scribes emphasized the official life of the sultan and provided
more specific information about official events. In giving some details about the sultan’s
private life and his tastes – albeit rare – undoubtedly embellishes their value
as historical sources.
In some of the rûznâmes, the sultan’s daily schedule is organized over hours, and,
2How to translate the word of rûznâme into English is problematic. Artan calls them as “journals” (Artan
2019, 23), Karahasanoglu as “court diaries” by distinguishing from diaries (Karahasanoglu 2019, 214), and
Woodhead as “daybook” (Woodhead, 2012).
3I owe this observation to Tülay Artan: Personal communication 30 July 2021. See also: (Aynur and Sen
2019).
4For the misuses the term rûznâme in a book in which the diary of Seyyid Hasan Muradî (1754-1766) is
examined see: (Ahıskalı, 2016).
3
in others, according to five times of prayer (Sarıcaoglu 2008, 279).5 They record
and briefly describe activities within (suriçi) and outside of the city walls (surdısı),
places he visited during his pleasure outing (binis)6 and other places he visited
throughout the day (Sarıcaoglu 2008, 279). Other than places he visited, they
documented the sultan’s meetings with officials like grand viziers or ambassadors,
the ceremonies he had attended – whether they were open to the public (such as
Friday greetings [Cuma selamlıgı], eid festivities or processions) or more intimate.
Moreover, the issues concerning the life of the city, such as natural disasters like fires
and earthquakes, births and deaths of prominent people, appointments, religious
holidays and holy nights, important developments in foreign and domestic policy are
usually included. Additionally, the names and locations of the civil, military, and
religious architectural works, gardens, and other vacation places where the sultans
had been, are mentioned in these accounts. These locations in particular serve as
source material for historical topography and Istanbul’s urban history (Sarıcaoglu
2007, 551). Although the prose is often repetitive, and, sometimes, superficial, they
provide great amount of information in various fields of study and deserve further
inquiry.
The earliest example of these sources is dated to the period of Mahmud I. Even if
one of Mahmud I’s predecessors had rûznâmes as well, such records did not survive.
It seems reasonable to start the tradition of writing rûznâme with the accession of
Mahmud I in 1730. This tradition continued during the reigns of Osman III (r.
1754-1757), Mustafa III (r. 1757-1774), Abdülhamid I (r. 1774-1789), Selim III (r.
1789-1807), and Mustafa IV (r. 1807-1808). This practice sustained, indeed, with
some notes belonging to the first years of the reign of Mahmud II (r. 1808-1839).
In all, the tradition lasted about eighty years and, for some reason, died out.
Even though the first known example of the rûznâme genre was written in the first
half of the 18th century, it does not mean that before that there were no historical
works that shared similar characteristics with the rûznâmes. For instance, the work
of Abdurrahman Abdi Aga (d. 1692), who is known as the first chronicler in charge
of recording the daily events by the order of Mehmet IV (r. 1648-1687), was called
vak‘âyinâme by the sultan himself, and it can be regarded as the predecessor of
the rûznâme tradition. However, the vak‘âyinâme genre differs from the rûznâme
genre in that the former was not written about daily events, regardless of their
importance; rather, only those events deemed important were recorded (Sarıcaoglu
5These prayer times are fajr (sunrise prayer), dhuhr (noon prayer), asr (afternoon prayer), maghrib (sunset
prayer), and isha (night prayer).
6The short-term excursions of the sultans on horseback or by boat. For more information on binis, see:
(Özcan 1992).
4
2008, 278-279). Similarly, in terms of being a permanent state service affiliated to
the Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn, one can say that the first official chronicler (vak‘ânüvis) of the
Ottoman State was Nâimâ (d. 1716). He wrote about some events, even insignificant
ones, in some specific detail, recalling attention to detail within the rûznâme genre.
It is worth noting that, together with Abdi Aga and Nâimâ, the formation and
institutionalization of history writing (vak‘ânüvislik) at the Ottoman court from the
18th to 20th centuries show parallels with the emergence of rûznâme genre.7 The
formation of the vak‘ânüvislik into a state service replaced the semi-official court
history writing called sehnâmenüvislik/sehnâmecilik (Woodhead 2012). The almost
simultaneous emergence of the rûznâmecilik at the start of the 18th century may
reflect the Ottoman court’s increased interest in history writing.8 It may also reflect
emerging interests in the personal and ordinary lives of the people (here the sultan),
which is the subject of another study.
1.2 The Reign of Mahmud I and the “Pax Ottomanica”
Between 1618 and 1730, the rule of seven out of ten sultans ended in assassination
or forced deposition.9 However, we do not encounter a single case of dethronement
from 1730, when Ahmed III was deposed, to the dethronement of Selim III in 1807.
The accession of Mahmud I was a result of the forced abdication of his predecessor
and uncle, Ahmed III, by a violent rebellion in 1730.10 Mahmud I’s twenty-four year
long reign was one of the longest of any Ottoman sultan. This period is generally
characterized by wars with Russia, Habsburgs and Iran. Relatedly, he instituted
the first Western-inspired military reforms. Sultan Mahmud I, who passed away on
December 13, 1754, gave the Ottoman State its last glorious moment in the sun and
left a long period of peace to his successors (Özcan 2020, 30).
The first half of the 18th century was dominated by a relatively peaceful and balanced
foreign policy. Until the 1760s, there were no serious territorial losses. On
the contrary, territories such as the Morea and Caucasia were reconquered. The
Ottoman economy experienced growth and flourishing such as maintaining trade re-
7Personal communication with Tülay Artan, April 2021.
8For the chronology of the reign of Mahmud I based on the chronicles of Subhî, Semdânizâde, Abdî, Izzî,
and Hâkim, see: (Kayar 2020).
9These sultans are Mustafa I (r. 1617-1618), Osman II (r. 1618-1622), Mustafa I (r. 1622-1623), Ibrahim
(r. 1640-1648), Mehmed IV (r. 1648-1687) Mustafa II (r. 1695-1703) and finally Ahmed III (r. 1703-1730).
10For more about the 1730 Rebellion, see: (Aktepe 1958; Olson 1974; Karahasanoglu 2009; and Konrad
2014).
5
lations with other realms, a rise in agricultural production, improvements in transportation
technology, amelioration of roads, and an increase in manufacturing. Population
growth, increased urbanization, and the expansion of the middle class paved
the way for changing consumption patterns which fostered economic growth. Although
by the end of the century the situation started to reverse, it is argued that
the Ottoman State was in a fortunate position politically and economically at least
in the first half of the century.11 Baki Tezcan claims this as the formative period
of the “Second Empire” between roughly 1580 and 1826, which is an era of political
transformation, not as of decline. Furthermore, he considers the 18th century,
roughly from 1703 to 1826, as the “golden age” of the Second Empire (Tezcan 2010,
195).12
Pointing out a more relaxed domestic atmosphere, Rhoads Murphey called half a
century-long period as the "Pax Ottomanica" commencing with the reign of Ahmed
III13 in 1718 and lasted, with brief interruptions, until the outbreak of a series of
wars with Russia in 1768 (Murphey 1999, 125). He associates the emerging new
forms of cultural expression with the growth of a prosperous bourgeoisie, who could
afford a semi-imperial lifestyle (Murphey 1999, 125). The increased urbanization,
expansion of the middle class, and the growth of a prosperous bourgeoisie led to
the removal of the sultan’s and his family’s monopoly on artistic and architectural
patronage. The proliferation of patronage will be very briefly discussed in Chapter
Four, which focuses on musical venues.
In terms of cultural activities and patronage of arts, Mahmud I’s reign can be
considered as a continuation of the preceding period, the reign of Ahmed III (r.
1703-1730). Just like his predecessor, Mahmud I was also an enterpricing patron of
arts. His patronage was predominantly directed towards building book collections
and libraries, as well as to architecture. He commanded to build six libraries in
Istanbul and various parts of the Empire, to which he donated books. Ismail Erünsal
describes Mahmud I’s reign as the “golden age” for Ottoman libraries (Erünsal
2008, 57-66).14 Furthermore, he established a paper mill in Yalova to accompany the
11For economic developments in the 18th century, see: (Yaycıoglu 2016, 35-40; Faroqhi 2006, 365-368; Pamuk
2000, 159-170; and Genç 2000, 252-261).
12For more information on Tezcan’s “Second Empire” thesis and a new periodization attempt of Ottoman
history, see: (Tezcan 2010).
13For a critical reading of the idea of “Tulip Period” and its development in Modern Turkey, see: (Erimtan
2008); and (Karahasanoglu 2016).
14Although Erünsal has written on this subject before, for his most recently published, revised, and extended
study on the libraries of Sultan Mahmud I, the collections of the libraries and collectors, notably the sultan
himself, see: (Erünsal 2020).
6
printing house he had reopened.15 He initiated the construction of a socio-religious
complex, later named Nuruosmaniye – but he would not live long enough to see
the final product and the complex was called after his brother, Osman III.16 Mahmud
I was also the patron of many well-known buildings such as Tophâne Fountain,
Tophâne-i Âmire, and a public bath in Cagaloglu. He renovated many others, including
the Galatasaray complex, which he reestablished as the barracks of young
recruits (acemioglan) who were going to be trained as janissaries or the sultan’s elite
infantry corps. He ensured projects aimed at meeting the water needs of Istanbul
continued. The water shortage reached its peak during the reign of Ahmed III. To
solve the crisis in Galata and Beyoglu, a cistern (taksim/maksem) was built in the
area known as Taksim today.17 Mahmud I was described by contemporary historians
as “mu‘ammir-i bilâd”, meaning “he who restored the cities and kept towns
alive” (Özcan 2020, 30). Apart from the (re)constructional activities in Istanbul,
he also contributed to the development of arts by supporting artists. His interests
in several branches of the arts were often linked to his own practices. During the
twenty-seven years he spent in a cage (kafes)18, he had plenty of time to develop his
skills in these fields. It is known that he wrote poems with the penname “Sebkatî”,
was interested in calligraphy,19 engraving, and – maybe most of all – in music.
1.3 Mahmud I as a Musician and the Musicians’ Patron
In the 17th and 18th centuries, there were a number of sultans interested in music
and patronizing musicians; such as Murad IV, Mehmed IV, Mustafa II, Selim
III, and Mahmud II. Mahmud I was one of them. We have some knowledge and
accounts of Mahmud I’s skills and interest in music. The French interpreter (dragoman)
Charles Fonton (1725-1795?), who spent most of his life in Istanbul and other
cities in Ottoman Empire, wrote a treatise in 1751 entitled "Essay Comparing Turk-
15For more information on Ibrahim Müteferrika, the activities of the Müteferrika printing house during this
period, and the books printed there, see: (Ihsanoglu and Aynur 2003); (Babinger 2004); (Sabev 2006);
(Sarıcaoglu and Yılmaz 2008); (Sabev 2020).
16Ünver Rüstem’s extensive study deals with the building style of imperial mosques in the 18th century
Istanbul, see (Rüstem 2019). Also, two studies, one of which deals with the new style of architecture
specifically in this period, and the other on the relationship between the architecture in Istanbul and
provinces, see: (Rüstem 2020; and Tanman 2020).
17For a study examining the Taksim water networks by focusing on the authority and legitimacy of the
dynasty and the new sultan who was Mahmud I, see: (Wielemaker 2020).
18The cage (kafes), also called "simsirlik", is where the princes and the deposed sultans were lived in Topkapı
Palace after the abolition of the system of sending to the sanjaks, administrative divisions of the Ottoman
Empire.
19For a study on the characteristics of the art of calligraphy in the period, also see: (Schick 2020).
7
ish Music to European music”.20 His description of Ottoman music is one of the
fundamental sources of information concerning the music and musical life in the
first half of 18th-century Istanbul. He gives detailed information on subjects like
the origin of “Turkish” music and its founding fathers. He explains the principles of
modal music concerning the pitches (perde) and rhythmic cycles (usûl), performance
practices, history and structure of the instruments in use, sometimes together with
their visuals. Fonton said of Mahmud I’s talent that “I heard that the sultan on the
throne who himself a musician, could keep usûl (rhythm) with his knees21 during
the musical performances (huzur fasılları) and only great musicians can deserve his
appreciation” (Behar 2017a, 167).
Mahmud I was very careful about the makâm22 of any song or composition that he
heard, and he was able to understand the similarities and nuances between them
(Uzunçarsılı 1977, 97). Seyhülislâm Es’ad Efendi (d. 1753) wrote the first and
only biographical dictionary (tezkire) of musicians (the fasıl23 composers and vocalists
[hânende]) of Ottoman around 1730, entitled Atrâbü’l-Âsâr fî tezkireti urefâi’ledvâr.
24 He was dismissed from the seyhülislâmlık position after serving for a short
period of time around 1748-49 and was occasionally called by Mahmud I to play the
pieces that Es’ad Efendi had composed. It is rumored that he was dismissed due to
one of these performances (Uzunçarsılı 2011, 335). Similarly, in his comprehensive
article on the musical life in the Ottoman court based on the archival documents,
Uzunçarsılı mentions that a song composed by Ahmed Refi‘ Efendi – a poet, composer,
and a companion (musâhib) of Mahmud I and his predecessor Ahmed III,
who exiled to Edirne for a reason – was heard and appreciated by Mahmud I, and
resulted in Ahmed Ref’i Efendi’s return to Istanbul from Edirne (Uzunçarsılı 1977,
97).
Kemânî Hızır Aga (d. 1760?), a court musician and another companion of Mahmud
I, compiled a treatise of musical theory entitled Tefhîmü’l-Makâmât fî Tevlîdi’nnagâmât
(“The Comprehension on Makâms in the Generation of the Melodies”).
Hızır Aga witnessed the reigns of six sultans from Ahmed III to Selim III, but
20The original title of the treatise in French is “Essai sur La Musique Orientale Comparée à La Musique
Européenne” and was translated into Turkish by Cem Behar which is included in his book Musikiden
Müzige (Behar 2017a, 137-171).
21Keeping the rhythm with knees is something that has to be learned before or during to learning process
of any kind of instrument or singing in Ottoman music.
22Makâm (mode) is the major organizing principle of Ottoman (and Near Eastern) music which “can be
represented as a musical scale with particular set of compositional rules and practices” (Jackson 2009,
408).
23A program of musical pieces all written in the same makâm and performed in a certain order.
24The transliteration of the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr into the Latin alphabet was made by Cem Behar. Together with
the text, for a comprehensive analysis on it, see: (Behar 2010).
8
apparently, he spent his most productive years at the court ofMahmud I (Pekin 2020,
219). He wrote that he played a pesrev (an instrumental genre) that he composed in
the makâm of vech-i arazbâr and usûl of müsebba (both this makâm and usûl were
his inventions) in front of the sultan. He was not only given compliments and many
goods as gifts, but also awarded with "a handful of gold" by the sultan, who was
very pleased with the invention of a new composition, a new makâm and a new usûl
(Pekin 2020, 219).
Another musician at Mahmud I’s court was an Armenian tanbûr player named
Tanbûri Küçük Artin, also known as Arutin or Harutin. Around 1736, he was
assigned to join the suit of the ambassador Mirahor Mustafa Pasa (d. 1756). He
went to the Iranian ruler Nader Shah’s court in Kandahar, Iran. After spending six
years in Iran and travels to India, he returned to Istanbul and wrote an untitled
treatise in Ottoman Turkish with Armenian characters on a practical theory of
Ottoman music in the 18th century.25
The above-mentioned musical treaties written at the time of Mahmud I, or immediately
after him, must be the fruits of his interest and support for music and
musicians.26 The compilers of those works were musicians who personally knew
Mahmud I, and must be supported morally and materially. No doubt that his encouragement
and compliments stimulated the musicians and music writers. These
examples, at the same time, reveal Mahmud I’s role as a patron of music.
Other than music patronage, Mahmud I was also a practitioner of music, as Fonton
stated. Although there is no proof of any of his vocal compositions, we do know
several of his instrumental compositions.27 Almost all of them are either in pesrev
25For Artin’s original text and an in-depth examination of his treatise, see: (Popescu-Judetz 2002).
26Even we do not know if he was acquainted with Mahmud I or get his support, a Mevlevî musician Kevserî
Mustafa Efendi also has a musical theory book (Kevserî Mecmu‘ası), was written sometime around the mid-
18th century, possibly between 1720-40. His work is one the several musical treatises written throughout
the 18th century, and an invaluable material in terms of providing hints of the performance practice and
compositional style of Ottoman music for the period in question. It includes a set of notations majority
of which were copied from Cantemir’s collection. But it also gives the notes of 190 pieces from 17th and
18th centuries, that Cantemir did not include in his collection. For detailed explanations of each note in
the Kevserî’s collection, see: (Ekinci 2016), a critical review of this study accusing the author of the lack
of coherent historiographical perspective and method, see: (Behar 2017c), and an article on this source,
see: (Ekinci 2012).
27These pieces are listed by Uzunçarsılı as follows (Those within the brackets specifies the rhythmic cycle
[usûl] of the pieces): “Ussak pesrevi (devr-i kebir), Ussak saz semaisi (aksak semai), Muhalif Ussak pesrev
(çenber), Muhalif Ussak saz semaisi, Ussak darbeyn pesrevi, Karcıgar pesrevi (devri [sic] kebir), Karcıgar
saz semaisi (aksak semai), Sehnaz pesrevi (devr-i kebir-sehsuvar), Sehnaz saz semaisi (aksak semai), Hisar
vech-i Sehnaz pesrevi (çenber), Hisar vech-i sehnaz saz semaisi (yörük [sic] semai), Muhayyer pesrevi (tâbdar),
Muhayyer saz semaisi, Sultanî Irak pesrevi, Feth-i Bagdad pesrevi, Meclis’ efruz pesrevi” (Uzunçarsılı
1977, 98). Different than Uzunçarsılı, Osman Nuri Özpekel mentioned thirty-eight pieces of Mahmud I.
These are; Acemasiran Pesrevi (Devr-i Kebîr), Acemasiran Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Ârâm-ı Dil Pesrevi
(Berefsan), Ârâm-ı Dil Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Bayati Pesrevi (Hâvî), Bûselik (Feth-i Bagdad) Saz
Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Dertli Ussak Pesrevi (Devr-i Kebîr), Dertli Ussak Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi),
Dilkeshâveran Pesrevi (Berefsan), Dilkeshâveran Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Evc Pesrevi (Hafif), Evc
Pesrevi (Bezm-i Mülûk) (Muhammes), Evc Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Evc (Bezm-i Mülûk) Saz Semâisi
(Aksak Semâi), Feth-i Bagdadi (?), Hicâz (Sehsüvar) Pesrevi (Devr-i Kebîr), Hicâz Saz Semâisi (Aksak
9
or saz semâîsi forms, which shows that he had enough command of music to compose
pieces. In addition to composing, he played a tanbûr, which was the favorite
instrument during the 17th and 18th centuries.28 Another indicator of his musical
knowledge is that he invented a makâm in the name of “ârâm-ı dil”. Although there
is no clear evidence that Mahmud I invented this makâm, the absence of any other
pieces composed in the same makâm, other than a pesrev and saz semâîsi composed
by Mahmud I, strengthen the argument that the inventor of makâm in question
was the sultan himself (Kutlug 2000, 282). Also, the instruments brought to or
made for the sultan are another indicator of Mahmud I’s music curiosity. Yirmisekizçelebizade
Mehmed Said Efendi (d. 1761), who took on several state positions
such as ambassador and grand vizier, recognized Mahmud I’s interest in music. He
brought a harpsichord (known as klavsen or klavsenk, an early version of the piano)
from France and presented it to the sultan (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 100).29 Also,
Uzunçarsılı wrote about a tanbûr, ornamented with gold and diamonds, supposedly
ordered for Mahmud I (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 101).
1.4 The Rûznâmes of Mahmud I
Since the position of sır kâtipligi has been occupied by different secretaries from time
to time, there are several journals identified as the “rûznâme of Mahmud I”. The
first record that we have comprises of an almost eleven-month-long period, between
28 September 1730 (15 RA 1143) and 31 August 1731 (27 S 1144)30, including the
last five days of the reign of Ahmed III, who abdicated by force due to a rebellion.
The text starts with Mahmud I’s enthronement (cülus) in 1730 and was kept by
the sır kâtibi Hıfzî Aga (d. 1173/1759-60).31 This rûznâme covers less than a year,
Semâi), Hicâz-i Irak Pesrevi (Çifte Düyek), Hicâz-i Irak Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Hisar Vech-i Sehnâz
Pesrevi (Çenber), Hisar Vech-i Sehnâz Saz Semaisi (Aksak Semâisi), Karcıgar Pesrevi (Devr-i Kebîr), Karcıgar
Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Mahabbet-i Ussak Pesrevi (Çenber), Meclis Efruz Pesrevi (?), Muhayyer
“Tab-dâr” Pesrevi (?), Muhayyer “Tab-dâr” Saz, Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Nevkes Pesrevi (Çifte Düyek),
Nevkes Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi), Nikriz Pesrevi (Çifte Düyek), Nikriz Saz Semâisi (Aksak Semâi –
Degismeli), Sultani Irak Pesrevi (?), Sehnâz (Sehsüvar) Pesrevi (Devr-i Kebîr), Sehnâz Saz Semâisi (Aksak
Semâi), Sevkâver Pesrevi (Hafif), Sevkâver Saz Semaisi (Aksak Semâi), Ussak Pesrevi (Darbeyn), Ussak
Saz, Semâisi (Aksak Semâi) (Özpekel 1999, 618).
28Kurtaran states that, he also learned to play the violin well enough to make masters listen to him, without
giving a reference (Kurtaran 2012, 13), but I have not come across with this data in any other sources.
29The visual of this instrument can be found in the treatise of Hızır Aga.
30The transliteration of the text has prepared by Sükran Çınar as a graduation thesis in Istanbul University
in 1974 with the title Patrona Halil Isyanı’na ve Mahmud I Devrine Âit Tarihçe (Çınar 1974).
31For more information on Hıfzî Aga and his collection of poems (siir mecmu‘ası) written for Mahmud I,
see: (Aynur and Sen 2019).
10
mostly related to the 1730 Rebellion and the deaths of the rebels, making it an
important primary source for the rebellion in question.32 Another rûznâme text
comprises almost a four-and-a-half-month period (from 20 June 1734/18 M 1147 to
6 November 1734/9 C 1734) which is probably part of a larger text.33 It was written
by sır kâtibi Ahmed. At the end of the text, Ahmed informs us that his duty expired,
and that his successor was Hıfzî Muhammed/Mehemmed Efendi from the Has Oda
(Private Chamber), who is also the author of 1731 rûznâme. The records from 24
May 1735 to 10 September 1738 were kept by Hıfzî, until he handed his duties over
to Salâhî on 12 June 1738. After serving for two years, Salâhî was succeeded by
Kadı Ömer Aga on 17 September 1740. Kadı Ömer Aga kept the rûznâme for ten
years until 1750; these records are almost entirely complete.34
Hence, we have an almost uninterrupted series of records of a decade of the reign
of Mahmud I from 1740 to 1750, as well as the scattered notes from 1730-31 and
1734.35 Since the rûznâmes from 1731-1733 and 1734-1740 appear to be missing,
the rûznâmes from 1731, 1734 and between 1740-1750 are examined in this study.
With the exception of the 1734 rûznâme, all other rûznâme texts are transliterated
into Latin alphabet as graduation theses at Istanbul University in 1960s and 1970s.
As I only have access to these transliterations, and given that these texts are rife
with mistakes of various sorts, I have decided to correct the minor typos that I took
note of, but I did not have the opportunity to check with the original manuscripts.
Hence my reservations are indicated by “[?]”. I have transcribed only the rûznâme
of 1734. All mistakes regarding this text are solely mine.36
Although the sultan’s daily affairs are generally told in a detailed manner, one should
bear in mind that they are state documents written by official scribes. Expecting
these scribes to tell how things really happened, much less secrets would be unrealis-
32Hakan Yılmaz argues that this rûznâme text has another copy in a mecmu‘a (pamphlet) located in the
library of Belgrade University, and provides an image of the first pages of this second copy (Yılmaz, 2018).
33The rûznâme of 1734 was introduced by a study by Efgan Uzun in 2013 (Uzun 2013). However, Uzun
preferred to introduce the text he discovered to those who are interested in, rather than examining it in
depth.
34The transliteration of the text of Ömer Aga was prepared as graduation thesis at Istanbul University, see:
(Özcan 1965); (Oral 1966); and (Bayrak 1972).
35Apart from these texts, there is also another one written by Köprülüzâde Hafız Ahmed Efendi, dated
1731-32, which includes the 1730 Rebellion and the events that followed. It was identified by Selim
Karahasanoglu, which was entitled as "Patron Halil Rebellion" in the catalogue (Karahasanoglu 2009a,
173). Hakan Yılmaz, on the other hand, claims that it is a rûznâme (Yılmaz 2015). Also, for another
description of the several days in the first two months of 1730 rebellion, see: (Ilhan, 2012).
36(DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. 18 M 1147 / 20 June 1734-09 C 1147 / 6 November 1734) In June 2021, when
this thesis had already been completed, the transliterated text of 1734 rûznâme is published by Kaan
Dogan (Dogan 2021).
11
tic.37 In other words, rûznâme texts are very different than personal diaries. As with
other documents produced by the imperial court, looking out for the interest of the
sultan and state is part of their nature. There must be many topics that rûznâmecis
did not write about. In this respect, it would not be wrong to suggest that these
scribes played a sensory role determining what was to be recorded, or not. In any
case, concentrating on what we have will manifest a no less useful understanding of
the Ottoman musical world in the early 18th century.
Mahmud I’s rûznâme was written neither eloquently nor vernacularly, but rather in a
literary language in prose style that one can easily understand. When we look at the
content of the rûznâme, we can see that sultan’s daily activities are sometimes very
detailed and sometimes just repeat a formula. Partly because of the changeability
of his program, some days are reported with every detail giving time slots in accord
with the five prayer times of the day. Others report that he stayed at his palace and
took a rest or went to somewhere and then returned.
The sultan’s daily activities are quite routine. He was evidently always on the move,
as he left Topkapı Palace, or wherever he stays at that time, to the pavilions, kiosks,
or gardens either dependent of Topkapı and it’s around, or to those in the shores
of Bosphorus, in Golden Horn or in the vicinity of Istanbul every day. He busied
himself with watching horse races, cirid competitions, gunshot practices, swimming
and running competitions, tomak, hunting, passing ships and boats38 or musical
performances. Before, after, or during these entertainments, which usually lasted
until afternoon (‘asr), Mahmud I grazed drank coffee before returning to the place
where he was staying. We also get a flavor for where he performed his prayer (salaat)
during these trips. One-day excursions are called “binis” (binis-i hümâyûn or binis-i
saltanat) and were made via boats or on horseback, depending on where he went.
Although it provides Mahmud I’s daily routine program in a pretty standard way,
we can also learn interesting (and sometimes funny) details, and nuances related
to his personal taste. These accounts tell us when he caught cold, for example,
or the fact that he liked cherries. We also learn about a mute (or supposed to be
mute) bî-zebân Hasan Aga, who burst out when he saw a snake. Equally, there
are references to a person, Gül Muhammed/Mehemmed, who was so talented in
preparing baklava39 that he prepared some for Mahmud I and was rewarded with
37Even some major events such as 1740 Rebellion, are missing from the rûznâmes of Mahmud I.
38For a comprehensive analysis of Mahmud I’s passing ships and boats, see: (Artan 2020).
39Baklava is a very sweet dessert made of layers of flaky pastry filled with nuts or pistachios.
12
gold coins (zer-i mahbûb) as a result of the sultan’s enjoyment.40
1.5 Music in the Rûznâmes of Mahmud I
One of the most mentioned activities in the rûznâmes are Mahmud I’s one-day
excursions, which included musical performances in the various places he visited.
Generally, even though most of these performances reveal that “he spent time with
music and had fun”,41 they also provide concrete details such as the names of the
musicians and instruments. They describe the kind of music he listened to and
where the musical gatherings took place.
Selman Benlioglu’s studies on the rûznâme of Selim III, the late 18th century sultan
also known for his interest in music, spotlight the absence of studies devoted to the
rûznâmes of Mahmûd I. In his dissertation (later published as a book) focusing on
musical patronage during Selim III’s and Mahmud II’s reigns, Benlioglu made use of
Letâif-i Vekâyi-i Enderûniye of Hafız Hızır Ilyas Aga (d. 1864) for the reign of Mahmud
II and the rûznâme of Selim III. The latter was kept by sır kâtibi Ahmed Efendi
and allowed Benlioglu to identify the musical elements in the courts of Mahmud II
and Selim III, respectively (Benlioglu 2017). Benlioglu’s other studies on Selim III’s
affiliation with Mevlevî order in the light of Sufi ceremonies (âyin) (Benlioglu 2018)
and his visits to Sufi lodges (Benlioglu 2019) are based on the rûznâme of Selim
III. Moreover, although not entirely devoted to music, Tülay Artan’s studies of the
rûznâmes of Mahmud I are one of the main sources of inspiration of this study. By
making use of the rûznâmes, she analyzes the changing culture of entertainment on
the shores of Bosphorus in the early 18th century, she pays special attention to the
terms “contemplation” (temâsâ) and “amusement” (tevakkuf ).42
40These examples are from the rûznâme of 1734.
41Some of these expressions: fasl-ı mûsikî ile emrâr-ı vakt, bir iki saz ile ârâm, musiki fasıllarıyle eglenilüp,
fasl ve âgâze ile evkat-güzâr, hânendegân ve sâzendegân ile emrâr-ı vakt olunup, ba‘zı saz ve âgâze ile
eglenilüp, istima‘-ı saz ve ba‘zı fasl ile eglenilüp. . .
42See: (Artan 1989; Artan 2019; Artan 2020).
13
1.6 Music of the early 18th century and “Locally Generated Modernity”
Before elaborating on music in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, it would be useful to
briefly look at early 18th century music and what has already been written in the
present literature about the culture and style of this music in this period. Although
the concept of "periodization" itself can be misleading and artificial most of the time,
there are numerous attempts to periodize the history of Ottoman music. These
attempts may shed light on where we locate the music of the early 18th century
in the general picture of Ottoman music. For our purpose, it is not necessary to
mention all these attempts,43 but rather the most conspicuous ones. For instance, in
his 1996 book, Walter Feldman, divided the history of Ottoman music into roughly
five periods:
Table 1.1 Walter Feldman’s Periodization of Ottoman Music (Feldman 1996, 36).
43In his article, Hasan Baran Fırat discusses the periodization issue in Ottoman music studies, from a
structuralist view, and debates on it in comparison with the periodization problems and suggestions in the
larger historiography. For an expository review on the subject, see: (Fırat 2019).
14
According to this periodization, Feldman claimed that what is known as the music
in the Ottoman lands, mainly in Istanbul, was under the dominance of Arab and
mainly “Persianate” musical cultures until the 16th century from which there are few
documentations left. As the Ottomans took the Herati court of the Timurid ruler
Sultan Husayn Bayqara (r. 1470-1506) as a model for the royal patronage. Examining
the Baburnâme in which the life of Sultan Bayqara also included, Feldman claims
that in the late 15th and early 16th centuries (what he called as “Transitional Era”),
court music in Istanbul continued the repertoires and style of Herat,44 despite there
are some differences between these two (Feldman 1996, 39-44). He asserts that much
of the Ottoman musical culture in Istanbul created roughly between 1550 and 1750
(Feldman 1996, 20) belongs to what he terms as the “Early Modern Era” of music.
It was during this time when a distinctly “Ottoman” style of music proliferated and
what Feldman examined in his book. The later 16th and early 17th centuries constitute
a time of transformation that lasted until the mid/late 18th century. Most
of what we know about Ottoman music can be dated back to this period. Music
before this era is largely based on scant data buttressed by speculation. In terms of
style and structure, “the main areas of this musical change consisted of 1) musical
genre 2) cyclical performance (fasıl) 3) primary and secondary or compound modal
entities (makâm/terkîb) 4) codified melodic progression (seyir), modulation and the
improvised taksîm 5) rhythmic cycle (usûl), tempo, melodic density 6) compositional
style and 7) instrumentation” (Feldman 1996, 23).45 According to Feldman, even
though the beginning of this transformation was noticeable towards the end of the
16th century and there were important structural changes in the 17th century, but
what constitutes a “great change” took place in the next century. This means that
the beginning and end of the 18th century – from Cantemir’s generation until the
reign of Selim III – shows evident structural and stylistic changes in the course of
Ottoman music (Feldman 1996, 24). Following the “Early Modern Era”, Feldman
called the period from the late 18th century until the Republican Era (officially
initiated in 1923) as the "Modern Era". In this period, notation became prevalent
which was also an outcome of the rise of printing activities and efforts to draw Ottoman
music towards Western music. By 1923, Ottoman music was not "Ottoman"
anymore since the regime and name of the state has changed. The musical culture
inherited from the Ottomans in this period – what Feldman called “Turkish Classical
Music” – was maintained to be produced in some way but was much affected by
the ideological orientation of the time, which is a subject of another study.
44According to the data provided by Baburnâme, Feldman summarized the features of the music at Herati
court, see: (Feldman 1996, 44).
45For a very brief but more explanatory description of the afore-mentioned stylistic change, see: (Feldman
2015, 98).
15
The study of Owen Wright, one of the most leading scholars in the musicological
studies of the Near and Middle East, corresponds closely to Feldman’s periodization
(Wright 1992a). Wright wanted to capture a clearer picture between Ottoman
music in the 17th (what he called “later Ottoman tradition”) and the preceding
centuries (“earlier court-music repertoire” or “antecedent tradition” he called). To
do so, he compared the song-text collection (güfte mecmu‘ası)46 of Hafız Post47 (d.
1694) with three anonymous and undated song-text collections of the 15th and 16th
centuries. After examining these materials meticulously, he concluded that during
the third quarter of the 16th century, the repertoire of the earlier court music had
disappeared and the process of evolution into an indigenous Ottoman crystalized
during the second half of the 17th century. He claims that with the exception of
a few musical pieces from the early court music repertoire rather than just radical
changes in formal, modal, and rhythmic structures in than pre-17th century music,
early court music repertoire has vanished by that time. This means that “the basis
of present-day classical music in Turkey can be traced back no further than the early
17th century” (Wright 1992a, 284-5). Apart from an almost total break with Persianate
repertoires and genres, in terms of “sociological axis” Wright emphasizes the
dissimilarity in the language of music and musicians between the collection of Hafız
Post and antecedent collections that he analyzed in detail. This manifests the characteristic
differences between these two traditions. In the Hafız Post Mecmu‘ası, the
great majority of the lyrics are in Ottoman Turkish, whereas in the other anthologies
Persian or Arabic language predominates. Likewise, by looking at the composers’
names documented in these sources with the help of different biographical sources
(such as tezkires) Wright found out that the great majority of the composers in the
treatise of Hafız Post has “Turkish” origins, most of whom located in Istanbul. Also,
some of these composers are from different cities of Anatolia such as Edirne, Bursa,
Gelibolu, Diyarbakır as well as Salonica in the Balkans. In contrast, the names and
nisbas (attributions) of the composers in the antecedent collections suggest that they
were from different parts of Southwest Asia and North Africa, such as the cities of
Egypt, Baghdad, and Tabriz (Wright 1992a, 16-19). Moreover, he adds that while
the musicians in the earlier sources were professional musicians trained in the court
and dependent on the patronage relations of the court, few of those mentioned in
the mecmu‘a of Hafız Post relied on the court to find patronage. In this respect,
they cannot be regarded as professional musicians who were confined to the court,
but they also participated in the process of music-making in the city (Wright 1992a,
46The genre of güfte mecmuâsı is poetic text collection comprises the texts of vocal pieces, their makâms,
usûls, composers of the pieces, and sometimes names of poets.
47Hafız Post is a well-known composer, singer, and tanbûr player in the 17th century. Transcription of the
Hafız Post Mecmu‘ası into Latin has done by Nilgün Dogrusöz, see: (Dogrusöz 1993).
16
285).
In his more recent work, Feldman revisited his previous views on the periodization,
and extended the scope of the "Early Modern Era" to the so-called “transformation”
period. By looking at the differences between two foundational sources for
the history of Ottoman music for the 17th and early-18th centuries, namely Ali
Ufkî/Bobowski’s (d. 1675?)48 and Prince Dimitrie Cantemir’s (d. 1723)49 treatises,
Feldman estimates that something must have changed between Ali Ufkî and Cantemir,
between whom there is about half a century long interval (Feldman 2015).
As the first treatise was written at beginning of the 17th century and another one at
the end, Feldman thinks that the last third of the 17th century represents a stylistic
break with the past which continued until the early 19th century. According to
Feldman, Ali Ufkî’s notational collection represents “a transitional stage between
the decline of earlier, generally Persianate courtly repertoire, and the emergence of
a distinctly Ottoman musical style between roughly 1670 and 1800" (Feldman 2015,
94). Although the second stage’s basic technical and broader aesthetic features was
based on earlier examples, Feldman thinks that the most rapid change in the history
of Ottoman music appears in this interval, between 1670-1800 (Feldman 2015,
94). He claims that around the mid-1600s, when Ali Ufkî wrote his treatise, musical
culture had a transitional character that creative musical ideas were inchoate
form at that time. Yet, in the second half of the 17th century, music in Istanbul
witnessed several shifts which solidified. A few included the integration of the vocal
repertoire, originating in later 16th and early 17th century Iran, into the music
of Istanbul as well as the development of new compositional principles (Feldman
2015, 138). This process appears to have completed by the turn of the 18th century.
Cantemir’s contemporary remark that "the art of music, almost forgot" (Cantemir
1734, 151), by referring to the music of a generation before him in the Ottoman
capital that his teachers performed. Feldman calls this era, from the beginning to
the last third of the 18th century, the “first classical age” of Ottoman music or a
local musical “renaissance” (Feldman 2015, 138) in which “the new repertoire and
performance practices had come into secure existence, and music was rather well
supported” (Feldman 2015, 98). This era began through aristocratic Muslims and
Mevlevî dervish musicians as well as the Ottoman court (Feldman, 2019, 175). This
“local musical renaissance” was documented by Cantemir, the Mevlevî Osman Dede
48Ali Ufkî was a musician, translator and dragoman with Polish origin who came to Istanbul as a war
captive and served as singer in the Ottoman Palace for about ten years. The musical treatise of Ali Ufkî
was entitled Mecmu‘a-i Sâz ü Söz. For the transliterated text of Mecmu‘a-i Sâz ü Söz, see: (Cevher, 1995).
49Prince Dimitrie Cantemir was a Moldavian prince, musician and Ottoman historian who came to Istanbul
as a hostage and stayed there for more than twenty years. Cantemir’s music theory book entitled
Kitâbu Ilmü’l-Mûsikî alâ Vechi’l-Hurûfât. For the English transliteration of Cantemir’s magnum opus,
see: (Wright, 1992b), and for the Ottoman transliteration, see: (Tura, 2001). Also, for monographs on
Cantemir and his treatise, see: (Popescu-Judetz 1999); and (Behar 2017b).
17
(d. 1730) and several Greek musicians and church cantors, such as Panagiotis Chalathzoglou
(d. 1748), Kyrillos Marmarinos (d. 1756)50 and Petros Peloponnesios
(d. 1778)51. For our purpose, Feldman’s summative remarks on the importance and
characteristics of 18th-century music worth quoting:
“By Cantemir’s generation, the Ottoman court had become a great center
of patronage for music, especially during the famous Tulip Period,
ending in 1730. Most of the 18th century saw the continuation of this
lively patronage for music, which indeed led to the most rapid and varied
developments in the entire history of Ottoman music. We know of a
great many composers, some of whom also wrote treatises in the Turkish,
Armeno-Turkish, and Greek languages. Both the practice of, and
the discourse about, music become far livelier than in the previous two
centuries, and for the first time, both involved all of the urban communities
in the major Ottoman cities, including the non-Muslims” (Feldman
1996, 126-7).
Feldman made use of relatively recent works in Ottoman studies to criticize the
argument that modernization by the “West” in the Ottoman Empire took place
between the age of Ahmed III and the Tanzimat era. He employed the preeminent
historian Rifa‘at Abou-El-Haj’s term “locally generated modernity” (Abou-El-Haj
2005) to describe the music of the 18th century, referring to the internal drivers for
this change (Feldman 2019b, 61). Ottoman efforts to approach Western music can
be traced back to the end of the 18th century that is, to the reign of Selim III at
the earliest (Behar 2010, 140). The best word to describe this “locally generated
modernity” may be the concept of “fusion”. This fusion is characterized by some
indicators, such as the blurring the boundaries between sacred and secular styles
of music, an increased non-Muslim participation in many areas of Ottoman life
(Feldman 1996, 61). Moreover, this included deep interactions between Muslim
(Mevlevî dervishes) and non-Muslim (mostly Greek elite) musicians (Feldman 2019b,
179).
Along with Wright and Feldman, Cem Behar is another noted contributor to the
field of Ottoman music history. Behar also claims that the musical tradition of the
Ottoman State can be traced back to the second half of the 16th century at the earliest.
The period between 1550s and early 17th century constitutes a breaking point
between medieval Arab and Persian (mostly Persian) musical traditions and the
50Eugenia Popescu-Judetz analyzes the texts of Chalathzoglu and Marmarinos comparatively in one of her
books, see: (Popescu-Judetz 2000).
51A study on Petros and Post-Byzantine music manuscripts, see: (Kalaitzidis 2015).
18
formation of a unique Ottoman imperial synthesis (Behar 2015, 13).52 In his book
about Seyhülislam Es’ad Efendi’s biographical dictionary (tezkire), Atrâbü’l-Âsâr,
Behar certifies Feldman’s and Wright’s claims of a new, indigenous, full-fledged musical
culture peculiar to the Ottomans. Music in the Ottoman style (tarz-ı Osmânî )
formed in the early 18th century. Es’ad Efendi and his contemporaries (like Hızır
Aga and Cantemir) was aware of this sharp contrast between “old” (mütekaddimîn)
and “new” in theory and practice (Behar 2017a, 61-73). In this respect, Es’ad Efendi
represents a break from the previous musical tradition, which manifested itself in
the venues that music was produced. Musical genres, terminology, the status of
musicians and their relationship with society, language, and in the main elements of
musical expression (makâms and usûls) formed around this basis.
All these views say almost the same thing. In a nutshell, despite some slight differences,
the prevailing argument in the current literature suggests that although
there is continuity, numerous sources allow us to talk about a transformation in
Ottoman musical culture. Even though the possible causes are understudied, it is
evident that this change became apparent as early as the second half of the 16th
and the early 17th centuries. By the early 18th century, this process had completed,
and Ottoman music reached a distinctly characteristic stage. That is to say, by the
reign of Mahmud I – whose reign is the focus of this study – the Ottoman musical
tradition in the capital in particular had already evolved which was recognizably
“Ottoman”.
1.7 Thesis Outline
Based on the information on music provided by the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, this
thesis devotes a chapter for each of the three main aspects: musicians, genres and
instruments, and the venues where performances took place. The chapter following
the introduction chapter, will analyze musicians’ profiles in and around the Ottoman
court. Although they are not generally mentioned by name, the names, or affiliations
of a considerable number of individuals, who were directly or indirectly associated
with music are also given. According to their socio-cultural and occupational backgrounds,
these individuals will be classified in this chapter. By doing this, I aim to
get a cross-sectional view of the musicians in Mahmud I’s court.
52For a brief history of Ottoman music of which many components are discussed by Behar, see: (Behar 2015,
13-40), and a recent attempt by him intended to understand the possible underlying social and historical
reasons of this change, see: (Behar 2020).
19
In the next chapter, I focus on the music in the rûznâmes. The purpose of the this
chapter is twofold. On the one hand, it examines musical genres (also known as
forms) that Mahmud I preferred. In this regard, as much as is possible, I assess
Mahmud I’s musical tastes. On the other hand, the chapter focuses on the instruments;
the instruments of mehterhâne and of chamber music in particular. In this
way, we can get an idea of the musical genres and the instruments that were popular
in the first half of the 18th century around the palace. Furthermore, we will be able
to test whether they parallel present literature.
The final chapter focuses on the venues where musical performances took place and
that Mahmud I attended. According to either their location or owners, these places
are examined in categories. This not only tells us about Mahmud I’s preferred
venues, but also gives an idea of his favorite places in summers and winters. Finally,
I discuss the frequency of Mahmud I’s Mevlevî lodge visits and the possibility of his
being a Mevlevî follower.
20
2. MUSICIANS OF THE RÛZNÂMES
This chapter examines the musicians’ profile around the palace and sultan based on
the information provided by the rûznâmes of Mahmud I. In line with this purpose,
I try to categorize the musicians identified in the rûznâmes according to their sociocultural
and occupational backgrounds (see: Table 2.2). Of course, it should be
noted that these categories overlap. For instance, a person who specializes in a
religious branch can also be a bureaucrat in the palace, or someone who has an
artisanal origin can also be part of a Sufi network and maintain his music activities
there. Therefore, this is a factor that makes the categorization difficult. Despite
this difficulty, in order to be able to see the patterns, the most sensible classification
possible will be made, and any overlapping of socio-cultural layers will be pointed
out.
2.1 Musicians in the Palace Service
The first musician group that rûznâmes of Mahmud I referred to were officers in
the palace service. Almost half of those associated with music directly or indirectly
in the rûznâmes served in various positions in the Ottoman Palace. Several singers
and instrumentalists registered in the court are said to have entertained Mahmud
I. However, since most of their names and their instruments are unknown, in this
chapter I instead focus on those who are described more fully.
2.1.1 Commissary (kilâr)
The first individual in the palace service affiliated with music is a member of Commissary
(kilâr) – one of the chambers in the Enderûn – by the name of Ali. On 4
February 1731 (26 B 1143), Mahmud I performed the evening prayer in the hırka-i
21
serîf section of the Topkapı Palace and listened to a Qur’ânic recitation by Ali Bey.1
When the recitation was completed (hatm-i serîf ), a preacher (hoca efendi) named
Üstazi-zâde Abdullah Efendi made the duâ (prayer of supplication). Mahmud I
gifted a half purse of coins for Ali Bey and a full purse for Abdullah Efendi as a
way of showing his appreciation.2 Ali Bey can give us an idea about one of the
musician profiles in the palace. Since he was reciting the Qur’ân, he must have a
beautiful voice and makâm3 knowledge to some degree, meaning that he must be
engaged with music.4 We do not know much about Abdullah Efendi other than he
was a “hoca” (preacher), but he does not have to be related to music. The reason for
letting him to make the duâ may only be because he was a respected person. Unlike
Qur’ân recitation, there is no obligation as having a beautiful voice for making a
prayer.
Ottoman rulers visited the hırka-i serîf section of the palace on special days and
holy nights. Besides, the rûznâmes reveal that Mahmud I visited the hırka-i serîf
section of the palace, that is the former Privy Chamber (Has Oda), after almost every
divan (official affairs of state) meeting.5 When the divan concluded, he performed
the prayer, made his duâ, and left. Nevertheless, no detail has been given regarding
the day in question whether it was a special one. It was neither the day of a divan,
nor a Friday (for the hutbe prayer), an eid day or one of the five Islamic holy nights
(kandîl). This was a random visit, possibly without any special occasion. At first
glance, it may appear that this reference is not related to music directly; however,
the statement that Ali Bey is from “Commissary” and most probably a hâfız (one
who memorized the Qur’ân) gives us clues about his affiliation with music.
Another musician registered in the Commissary is a muezzin (the person who calls
1The evening of 26 Saban (27 Saban) is the night of mi‘râc (Prophet Muhammad’s ascension). Therefore,
the mi‘râciyye, which is customary to be read on this holy night, may have been read despite not being
mentioned.
2Hezâr-ahsenet ve sad-bârekallâh mâh-ı mezbûrun yirmi altıncı ahad gecesi salât-ı magribi Hırka-i Serîfe
odasında edâ ve ba‘dehû kilâr-ı âmireden Ali Bey kullarının sab‘a ile hatm-i serîf tilâvetini istima‘ ve
ba‘de’l-hatm Üstâzî-zâde Abdullâh Efendi duâsı tamâmında bir kese hoca efendiye ve nısf kese sâhib-i hatm
beye ihsân-ı hümâyûn oldu. (Çınar 1974, 31).
3Makâm (mode) is the major organizing principle of Ottoman (and Near Eastern) music which “can be
represented as a musical scale with particular set of compositional rules and practices” (Jackson 408)
4The following contemporary reference about Hâfız Mustafa Efendi’s artfully reading of the Qur’ân, reveals
the connection between reading the Qur’ân and having a beautiful voice is noteworthy: Hâlâ Imâm-ı Evveli
Sultânî Sarmısakcı-zâde Hâfız Mustafa Efendi mücevvid, hos-elhân ve nagme-serây-ı andelîb-i gülsen-i
Kur’ân olmak hasebiyle makâm-ı imâmetde mazhar-ı ikrâm [. . . ] (Izzî Efendi 2019, 520).
5The hırka-i serîf odası (or hırka-i saâdet dairesi) is a place where the Prophet Mohammed’s cloak (hırkai
serîf ) is preserved, located in the Chamber of the Holy Relicts (Kutsal Emanetler) inside the Privy
Chamber (Has Oda). Doubtlessly, hırka-i serîf was the most important item among Holy Relicts. Chamber
of the Holy Relicts was one of the most important rooms of pray and ceremony since the time of Murad III
(1574-1595). Accessions of sultans and princess marriages were held here, visiting this room before going
to the campaigns was a tradition, and prayers made on various occasions and Qur’ân recitations on Friday
nights took place here.
22
Muslims to prayer) named Ali. On 2 August 1734 (2 RA 1147), Sultan Mahmud I
went to the canopy tent (sâyebân) pitched at Büyük Çamlıca Hill of Üsküdar. While
having a good time with his boon companions (musâhibân), a man who is one of the
halberdiers (teberdârân) of the Old Palace (Saray-ı Atîk) and muezzin of the chief
harem eunuch (dârü’s-saâde agası)6 went to the sultan and sung some pieces from
makâm segâh. He also recited the mid-afternoon ezân (adhan). Mahmud I, pleased
with Ali’s performance, appointed him to the Commissary.7
These two references, indicating that both Alis were affiliated with Commissary,
recall the musicians in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr – a biographical dictionary of musicians
from the early 18th century by Seyhülislam Es’ad Efendi – who were also registered
in the Commissary. For instance, Es’ad Efendi writes that the prominent musician
Enfî Hasan Aga (d. 1724) entered the Commissary at the beginning of Ahmed
III’s reign and was trained by music masters there.8 Similarly, Kara Ismail Aga
(d. 1723/24), after receiving vocal training, was promoted to the highest level of
Enderûn – which is the Has Oda (Privy Chamber), as one of the muezzins of the
sultan.9 Another well-known composer of the time of Ahmed III, Ebûbekir Aga (d.
1750?)10, the ser-hânende (chief singer) and music teacher in the Enderûn was also
registered in Commissary.11 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarsılı, in his leading article in which
he examined the musical life in the Ottoman court based on payment documents,
stated that a document dated 1137/1724 shows musicians named Tanbûrî Ahmed,
Kânûnî Mehmed and Düdükçü (player of the musikar) Ali were registered in the
Commissary.12 Each were given thirty-three kurus, forty coins (akçe). In another
document dated 1731, Kânûnî Mehmed Çavus who was on a salary in the Commis-
6The chief harem eunuch in question must be Hacı Besir Aga (d. 1746) who stayed at this position for
twenty-nine years, between 1717 and 1746. For a monograph on him, see: (Hathaway 2014).
7[. . . ] esnâ -yı mükâlemede teberdârân-ı sarây-ı ‘atîkden dârü’s-sa‘âde agâsı mü‘ezzini ‘Ali dârü’s-sa‘âde
agâsı ta‘rîfiyle huzûr-ı hümâyûna getürdilüp mûsikîden bir fasl-ı segâh idüp hayli nâzik edâsı olup ve salût-ı
‘asrda dahi eyledügi mü‘ezzinligi pesendîde-i hümâyûn olmagla kilâr-ı Enderûn-ı hümâyûna çerâg olundı
(DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 7a).
8[. . . ] evâ’il-i saltanat-ı ‘âlî-hazret-i sehriyâr-ı gerdûn-hasmetde Enderûn-ı hümâyûn hânelerinden kilâre
idhâl ile ney-sekker-i zebân-ı sehd-i sürûd-efsânı dimâg-ı irfânına izâkâ-bahs-ı çâsni-i kand-ı elhân olmagla
mevcûd olan esâtiz-i ‘ilm-i musıkiden ahz-ı ma’lûmât ile hâiz-i kasabü’s-sabak-ı kemâlât olup [. . . ] (Behar
2010, 240).
9[. . . ] Henüz mâh-tâb-ı zât-ı ma’ârif-me’âbı müstefiz-i tâb-ı mihr-i sebâb iken devr-i merhûm Sultan Mustafa
Hân’da nefes-i halâvet-resine binâen zümre-i teberdârân-ı hassaya çırag ba’dehu Enderûn-ı Hümâyûnda
hâne-i kilâra idhâl ile mürebba’-yı sadâ-yı lezzetpeymâsı sehd-i sirin-âsâ seker-efzâ olmagın hâne-i hâssa
tahsis ve anda hizmet-i te’zine me’zun olmusdur [. . . ] (Behar 2010, 229).
10Harun Korkmaz noted that the date of death of Ebûbekir Aga is not clear, the only thing that is known
is that he died in 1750s (Korkmaz 2020a, 212). In the same article, Korkmaz introduced a fasıl mecmu‘a
compiled by Ebûbekir Aga.
11[. . . ] Serhengân-ı ma’arif-gerân-ı Enderûn-ı hümâyûndan hâne-i kilâr agayânından olup nitâk-ı zerrin-tâki
sa’y-ı mezâkın meyân-beste-i cehd ü iz’ân ve hâle-gâh-ı ihtimâmda çevgân-ı gûsisin rübûde-kâr-ı ‘ilm-i
elhân itmegin ser-ma’arif-perverî-i zîver-yâb-ı cîga-i istihsân olmusdur [. . . ] (Behar 2010, 227).
12“kiler odasına çırag olan”
23
sary, also given a large number of dresses and precious fabrics (Uzunçarsılı 1977,
94); and in the time of Mustafa III (r. 1757-1774), Tanbûrî Osman Aga who was
rewarded with clothes and money was from the Commissary (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 98).
Apart from those, there are many other musicians whom we are not able to mention
registered in the Commissary along with the Chambers of Treasury (Hazine Odası)
or Expeditionary Force (Seferli Odası) of the Enderûn.
Kilâr was one of the seven departments of Enderûn13 (in which the pages [içoglans]14
were trained) where food and beverage materials of the palace were stored, as well
as serving food to the sultan was the duty of this department. Before the 17th
century, for the training of the talented pages of Enderûn, the Large and Small
Chambers were used. In the 17th century, Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) allocated the
Chamber of Expeditionary Force for this purpose. Until the opening of a music
room, a meskhâne, in the Chamber of Expeditionary Force around the 1630s, there
was no particular place in the palace where pages could get musical training and
musicians could practice (Necipoglu 1991, 125). According to Ali Ufkî -Polish musician,
translator and writer who lived at the Topkapı Palace in the 17th century, this
room remained open all day long and instrument teachers came from outside of the
palace to give lessons to the pages (Ali Ufkî 2013, 48).15 Music teachers of the pages
could be appointed from among the musicians registered in Commissary, Treasury,
or Privy Chambers. They could also be brought from out of the palace and paid on a
monthly basis (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 87). Although the Commissary became the center
of music education for pages in the 17th century, why were so many musicians who
were not of devsirme origin -such as Enfî Hasan Aga, Kara Ismail Aga, Ebûbekir
Aga16 and possibly both of our musicians named Ali, registered, and put on a salary
in the Enderûn, along with Treasury and Chamber of Expeditionary Force?
Walter Feldman explains this phenomenon through his theory of the “bureaucratization
of music”. In the 15th and 16th century, arts and crafts were the responsibility
of pages who were trained by the palace. By the end of the 16th century, however,
changes in this system became apparent, making room for what Feldman calls
"opening up of the palace service to a wider spectrum of candidates” (Feldman
13These departments were hierarchically as following; Small Chamber (Küçük Oda), Large Chamber (Büyük
Oda), Falconers Chamber (Dogancı Odası), Chamber of Expeditionary Force (Seferli Odası), Commissary
Chamber (Kilâr Odası), Treasury Chamber (Hazine Odası) and Privy Chamber (Has Oda). The last four
chambers were in the sultan’s service.
14Içoglanı is the person with Christian-origin (usually) who entered the palace at a young age as devsirme
(recruitment) and was raised for various palace services.
15In his book about the life in the Topkapı Palace, Ali Ufkî shows the location of meskhâne in the Enderûn
and talks about its functioning, alongside the musical life in the court in detail, see: (Ali Ufkî 2013, 48-52).
16Esad Efendi writes that Enfî Hasan Aga was born in Istanbul, Fındıklı; Kara Ismail Aga was born in
Edirne; and Ebûbekir Aga was from Eyüp, Istanbul. (Behar 2010, 240, 229, 229)
24
1996, 55-57). He claims that by the early 17th century, individuals of free Muslim
backgrounds (not of devsirme origin) were also welcomed into a system originally
designed for pages. In this respect, free Muslim musicians like Enfî Hasan Aga or
Kara Ismail Aga were admitted to several departments of the Enderûn with nominal
jobs, and their salaries were channeled through these departments (Feldman 1996,
74). As Feldman claims, by the later 18th century there is fairly clear evidence that
the Commissary and the Treasury contained a significant number of people who were
mainly responsible for music-making and who might had only a formal relationship
with their branch (Feldman 1996, 78). One of the most well-known beneficiaries of
this new system was Evliyâ Çelebi. One of the nights of Ramazan in 1045/1636,
during the special ceremonies held in Hagia Sophia Mosque Evliyâ – as a hâfız –
recites Qur’ân and his beautiful voice causes Sultan Murad IV to summon him. In
the meantime, Evliyâ found a chance to show-off his musical knowledge:
"He asked me to recite something. ‘My Padishah,’ said I, ‘of the seventytwo
sciences; whether in Persian, Arabic, Turkish, Hebrew, Syriac or
Greek; of the various musical forms, whether it be türki, sarkı, varsagı,
kâr, naks, savt, zecel, ‘amel, zikr, tasnifat, kavl or haznegir; or else,
of the various verse forms, whether it be bahr-i tavil, kaside, terci‘-i
bend, terkib-i bend, mersiye, i‘diye, mu‘assar, müsemmen, müsebba‘,
müseddes, muhammes, penc-beyt, gazel, kıt‘a, müselles, müfred, ma‘ni,
or ilahi;—whatever you wish, I shall recite.’ [. . . ] ‘My emperor,’ said
I, ‘of the various makams, shall I perform yegah, dügah, segah, çargah,
pençgah, sesagaz, rast, ısfahan, nisaburek, nikriz, mahur, rehavi, ‘ırak,
hüseyni, neva, ‘ussak, saba, or muhayyer bazar? Or else shall I perform
buselik (which means ‘Kissing’) and gerdaniyye (which means ‘Hugging’),
and come to rest in the mode of zengule (meaning ‘Rattle’ or ‘Penis’)
and rast (meaning ‘Erect’)?" (Dankoff 2006, 35,37).
He attracted Murad IV’s attention with his beautiful voice, gained his appreciation,
entered the Commissary, and was trained in music (and in several branches like
calligraphy and tajweed or the knowledge and application of the rules of recitation
of Qur’ân) in this department. It appears that he did not have any other profession
other than music at the court. According to Feldman, before the 17th century,
içoglans and Iranian captive musicians17 (who were active participants of musicmaking
in the palace earlier) were central in the musical life at the Ottoman court.
By the beginning of the 17th century, however, this gave way to free Muslim musicians
in the palace service, along with the members of the religious establishment
(ilmiye) and scribal service (kalemiye), dervishes and artisans (Feldman 1996, 78).
17There were captives brought from both the East and the West, however, Feldman and Wright emphasize
the dominance of Iranian captive musicians in the court.
25
Going back to our cases, considering the changing function of the Commissary,
it is plausible to regard Ali Bey, who was possibly a hâfiz, and the muezzin Ali
as musicians in Mahmud I’s palace. We do not know for sure that if the official
positions they held were nominal, as Feldman claims. Nevertheless, especially in
the muezzin Ali’s appointment, it can be seen more clearly that his talent in music
and pleasing good voice ensured his entrance into the Commissary. It may also have
been his status as halberdier (teberdâr) could be his primary job. Regardless, it is
obvious that he was a talented musician and caught Mahmud I’s attention, leading
to his appointment into the Enderûn through skill. In other words, because he was
appointed due to his musical skills, it seems more likely that he was primarily a
musician and/or a muezzin, which were closely associated.18
2.1.2 Çavusân
Apart from a hâfız and a muezzin both affiliated with the Commissary, there are also
other officers in the palace service mentioned in the rûznâmes who were directly or
indirectly involved in music. Although we do not know what exactly their jobs were,
the title “çavus” reveals the palace connection. There are four or five çavusân (sing.
çavus) in the rûznâmes whose names we know: Hüseyin Çavus, two Said Çavuses,
Salih Çavus and Bekir Çavus. The first two, Hüseyin Çavus and Said Çavuses, are
mentioned within the context of temcîd recitations19 while others participated in
the Mevlevî ceremonies (âyin). The important point here is that these musicians
participated in these events with official positions in the palace service which are
not directly related to their musicianships.
According to the rûznâmes, on 13 July 1734 (11 S 1147), after listening to the
kettledrum (nakkâre), the chief muezzin (muezzin-bası) Hüseyin Çavus and giriftzen20
Said Çavus, together with other singer çavusân, recited the temcîd and sang
hymns (ilâhî ).21 About two months later, again we see temcîd recitations between
7-8-9 September 1734 (8-9-10 R 1147), at Vâlide Sultan’s farm. In the first of these
three days, mehterân-ı Bîrûn exhilarated people by playing nakkâre all night long
18The relationship between being muezzin and secular vocalist and, the entrance of muezzins into the court
repertoire will be examined in 2.4 of this thesis.
19Temcîd is one of the forms/genres of religious music usually recited by muezzins.
20Girift is a kind of reed flute (ney) but smaller than it, and girift-zen is who plays girift.
21leyle-i isneynde hava güsâde ve diller safâda olup siyâk-ı mezkûre üzere ba‘de’l-isâ yine sâde nakkâre ile
hisâr ve evc-i ‘ırâkda sâat dörde dek ‘azîm fasıllar eyleyüp sâmi‘îne bâdî-i nesât ü sevk olup sâat altıda
mü‘ezzin-bası Hüseyin Çavus ve girift-zen Sa‘îd Çavus hânende çavuslarla temcîd eyleyüp ve girift ile
ilahîler okunup safâ-yı hâtır-mülûkânelerine bâdî nice hâlât-ı müverrissetü’l-behce zuhûr kılınmagın zevkyâb
olundı (DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 4b).
26
and, Mahmud I enjoyed the performance of temcîd by muezzin-bası Hüseyin Çavus
together with çavusân-ı Enderûn.22 On the second night, no name has been given
but it is only said that “enjoyed with listening to temcîd and fasıl of mehter-hâne”.23
On the third night (the night between second and third days), they amused listeners
with fasıls of nakkâre while contemplating the full moon. The following day entailed
further performances of fasıls of nakkâre accompanied by games like cirid. Finally,
when night fell, the muezzin-bası (Hüseyin Çavus) and several çavusân performed
the temcîd accompanied by the girift of dervish Said Çavus.24
What we learn from these references is that temcîd, although generally performed
in mosques and tekkes by muezzins and dervishes, was recited by çavusân-ı Enderûn
led by Hüseyin Çavus, the chief muezzin in the Enderûn in 1734. Other than being
the chief muezzin, Hüseyin Çavus’s “çavus” title also reveals his connection with the
palace service, though what kind of duty he had other than being chief muezzin is
unknown. His “çavus” title might embody his muezzin-basılık position. They were
accompanied by a dervish called girift-zen Said Çavus. There is no reason not to
think these two girift-zen Said Çavuses are the same person. They are both girift
players, çavuses and accompanied the temcîd recitations in two months interval, but
is there any possibility that girift-zen Said Çavus was the chief-neyzen (neyzen-bası)?
On the 22nd of July in the same year (20 S 1147) Mahmud I went to the Gülsenâbâd
Waterfront Mansion, which was a part of the Çıragan Yalısı built by Damad
Ibrahim Pasa and located between Besiktas and Ortaköy districts. Following a short
rest there, he went to an alcove (sah-nisîn) that looks onto the semâhâne,25 where
the Mevlevî dervishes perform the ritual ceremony. There, he witnessed the semâ
in which nedîm (boon-companion) Bekir Çavus, Salih Çavus (one of the agas of
Enderûn), neyzen-bası Said Çavus and sheikh of Galata Mevlevî Lodge Abdülbâkî
Dede (d. 1751) with his dervishes participated. Ultimately, they awarded with gold
coins (zer-i mahbûb) by Mahmud I.26
22selâse gicesi ba‘de’l-‘isâ mehterân-ı Bîrûn fasıl fasıl sabâha dek sâde nakkâre ile tarab-engîz-i hâlet olup
mahall-i temcîdde mü‘ezzin-bası Hüseyin Çavus çavusân-ı Enderûn ile temcîd eglemegin safâ-yâb olundı
(DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 10b).
23Çehârsenbe gicesi siyâk-ı mezkûr üzere temcîd ve mehter-hâne faslı ile safâ-yâb [. . . ]
(DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 10b).
24[. . . ] ba‘dehû mahall-i temcîdde yine . . . evvel mü‘ezzin-bası ve çavuslar ve dervîs Sa‘îd Çavus girift ile
temcîd idüp istimâ‘ıyla safâ-yâb olundı (DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 11a).
25Semâhane of Besiktas Mevlevi Lodge must be meant here, which was adjacent to the Besiktas/Çıragan
Palace (built by Nevsehirli Ibrâhim Pasa) and pulled down by Mahmud II. Today, at the place of Besiktas
Mevlevi Lodge, Çıragan Palace is present. For more about Besiktas Mevlevi Lodge, see: (Ünver 1978);
and (Tuglacı 1990).
26Çehârsenbede ba‘de’z-zuhr Çıragan Yalısı ittisâlinde olan Gülsen-âbâd Yalısına tesrîf ve cüz‘î ârâmdan
sonra mukâbele mahalli dahi gelmekle sevketlü efendimiz semâ-hâneye nâır olan seh-nisîne tesrîf idüp
nüdemâdan Bekir Çavus ve Enderûn agalarından Sâlih Çavusla ma‘an âyin hân olup Sa‘îd Çavus neyzen-
27
Whether the neyzen-bası Said Çavus just mentioned-above is the same person as
girift-zen dervîs Said Çavus in the temcîd gatherings is an enigma. They may have
been followers of the Mevlevî order simply because the training of the ney instrument
-as well as girift as a member of ney family- was monopolized by Mevlevî s. Also,
the titles of neyzen-bası and dervish hint to a Mevlevî connection. However, if they
would be the same Said Çavuses, I do not think that they would be called differently
by the same scribe in such a short amount of time: on 13 July he was “girift-zen
Said Çavus”, on 22 July “neyzen-bası Said Çavus” and, about two months later, on
9 September he was “girift-zen dervish Said Çavus” again. Even though they were
not the same person, the chief neyzen and a girift-playing dervish were both paid
by the palace due to their çavus positions.27
We do not know much about Salih Çavus other than his appointment to the Enderûn
and possibly being a Mevlevî follower; yet, the name “Bekir Çavus” brings a wellknown
composer to one’s mind: Ebûbekir Aga (d. 1750?). He was also known as
Bekir Aga or Bekir Çavus, who was the chief singer (ser-hânende) in the Enderûn
under the reigns of Ahmed III and Mahmud I. Though the name and date match
with our Bekir Çavus, there is no information regarding Ebûbekir Aga’s affiliation
with the Mevlevî order. Also, our Bekir Çavus is a nedîm, whereas Ebûbekir Aga
was the chief singer at the court. Although, Ebûbekir Aga’s presence in Mahmud
I’s court is something to be expected, since we do not know when his tenure as chief
singer ended, he must be more than a nedîm at his time. In short, we cannot say
whether Bekir Çavus in the rûznâmes is the famous Ebubekir Aga.
The çavusân, who were high-ranking officers in the palace service, were in charge of
various duties such as welcoming the envoys, serving as ambassadors, announcing the
orders issued by sultan or grand vizier, enact execution decrees, message-carrying,
and being the masters of ceremonies (tesrifatçılık).28 The çavus seems like someone
who is assigned to various jobs as needed. It is not specified whether the çavusân
named in the rûznâme have such duties, they were only mentioned in the context
of their affiliation with music. In his encyclopedic work on Turkish music, Yılmaz
Öztuna writes that the title of çavus was given to the sultan’s aides (yâver) (Öztuna
1974, 46). If Öztuna’s definition is correct to a certain degree, it means that they had
basılık mahallinde ve Galata Mevlevî-hâne seyhi dervîsleriyle ma‘an gelüp azîm velveleli mukâbele olmagın
efendimiz dahi temâsâ eyleyüp tamâmında suyûh [ve] dervîsânı zer-i mahbûb ile mesrûr ve dilsâd buyurup
[. . . ] (DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. . . , 5b-6a).
27By looking at the history of Tayyarzâde Atâ, Ersu Pekin mentions a Mevlevî sheikh, neyzen and a girift-zen
musâhib called Said Efendi, who participated the assemblies (sing. meclîs) of many Ottoman elites during
the reign of Selim III (Pekin 2015, 44). It is a matter of curiosity whether the Said Efendi mentioned here
is the Said Çavus in the rûznâme.
28The çavusân in the divân-ı hümâyûn (Imperial Council) are meant in this context, not those served as
soldiers in the Kapıkulu Ocagı (Slaves of the Sublime Port), notably in the Janissary Corps.
28
proximity to the sultans and undertook duties like the nüdemâ or musâhiban,29 who
were in charge of entertaining and acquainting the sultans with their knowledge in
different branches of art and science. The çavusân mentioned in relation to music in
the rûznâmes fit this definition perfectly. Indeed, out of the seventy-five composers
whose status or profession were specified in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr, fourteen people held
an official position in the palace. Of those, seven were in positions directly or
indirectly related to music while seven others did not (Behar 2010, 163). Based on
the information provided by Atrâbü’l-Âsâr, Behar claims that most of the composers
in the palace service were not in a position related to music. Among them, çavusân
constituted the majority along with the gardeners (bostancılar) and council clerks
(divan kâtipleri) (Behar 2010, 180).
Besides, when looking at the sources giving information about musicians before the
18th century, such as Âsık Çelebi, Hafız Post, Evliyâ Çelebi and Ali Ufkî, we see
that of the hundreds of musicians they mention, there are only two who bear the
title of “çavus.”30 Indeed, the çavus musicians mentioned by Uzunçarsılı lived in
the 18th century. These sources create the impression that the number of çavusân
affiliated with music increased noticeably in the 18th century, or, at least, became
more visible.
There are also some references to the musicians registered in “Bîrûn,” the outer
courtyard of the Topkapı Palace as opposed to the inner courtyard, Enderûn. Almost
all of these musicians are anonymous, referred to as hânendegân ve sâzendegânı
Bîrûn (vocalists and instrumentalists registered in Bîrûn). The musicians both
from Enderûn and Bîrûn sometimes sang together, as understood from the phrases
like sâzendegân ve hânendegân-ı Enderûn ve Bîrûn.31 Other than the anonymous
ones, there is a reference to the musicians whom we know by name and, learned
that they are registered in the Bîrûn. On 7 January 1743 (11 ZA 1155) in the
Mahbûbiye Palace, two singers from Bîrûn (“hânende-i Bîrûndan”), namely Ussâkîzâde
and his son, received the favor of the sultan for entertaining him with their
vocal performances accompanied by some instruments.32 As their names indicate,
they must have been the son and grandson of a follower of Ussâkî branch of Halvetî
order. It is very likely that they were also affiliated with the same branch, but more
29Halil Inalcık uses these terms interchangeably and gives the necessary features for being a musâhib-nedîm
as written in the Qâbus-nâma, one of the major works of mirror of princess literature, written in the 11th
century (Inalcık 2010, 18).
30Among 179 musicians that Evliyâ cites by name, only two of them (yonkarcı Cafer Çavus and sestârî
Hürrem Çavus) bears the title “çavus”. (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003, 639, 641).
31E.g. in (Oral 1966, 47, 75, 152).
32[. . . ] hânende-i Bîrûndan Ussâkî-zâde ve oglu ba‘zı sâza muvaffakat ile âgâze ve istima‘ıyla eglenilüb
mezbûrân mazhâr-ı ihsân olub [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 157).
29
Table 2.1 The number of musicians and anonymous musician groups who are stated
to be registered in the palace, to be outside of the palace and not stated any affiliation.
Notes: "*" is used to distinguish those who were named.
importantly, they were registered in the "Bîrûn".
The majority of the musicians mentioned so far by their personal names and titles,
referring to various palace services derive from the 1734 rûznâme.33 Compared
with the number of musical entertainments they documented, the names of the
musicians are rarely given in other rûznâmes. The singers (hânendegân) and instrumentalists
(sâzendegân) who have official positions are mostly anonymous. Phrases
like hânendegân-ı Enderûn, hanendegân ve sâzendegân-ı Enderûn, hânendegân ve
sâzendegân-ı hassa, çavusân, çavusân-ı Enderûn, serhengân (used synonymously
with çavusân), hânendegân-ı serhengân, nüdemâ, gılmanân-ı Enderûn, hanendegân
ve sâzendegân-ı Bîrûn which are used in musical contexts reveal palace-affiliated musicians.
Records between 1740-44 contains the longest and richest records in general
and in music in particular, mentioning the musical entertainments that Mahmud I
attended. In this period, there are forty-five references in total that mention musical
gatherings held by anonymous musicians. Although more than half of them do
not specify any musicians, palace-affiliated or freelance, by name or occupation; but
by employing the above-mentioned phrases, twenty-nine of the references in all the
rûznâmes of Mahmud I refer to the anonymous singers and/or instrumentalists and
gives the names of only ten musicians affiliated with the palace (see: Table 2.1).
33Only exceptions for this are the Ali Bey from kilâr-ı âmire in the 1731 rûznâme as mentioned, and çukadar
(lackey) of Ishak Aga in the 1740-44 rûznâme (Oral 1966, 119). This Ishak Aga (d. 1763) possibly the one
who served as customs steward (gümrük emîni), along with other duties, during the reign of Mahmud I.
30
2.2 Non-Courtly Musicians
2.2.1 Tasra
This section examines the musicians who were not registered in the palace service. In
the rûznâmes, there are seven references regarding anonymous musicians. They were
described with phrases like tasra hanendegân ve sâzendegânı, tasra hânendesi, tasra
neyzeni and tasradan hânendegân ve sâzendegân cem’ ve ihzâr olunup. . . which
clearly refer to the musicians summoning from the city. Also, we know the names
of two musicians who were supposed to be not affiliated with the palace. What
is meant by the musicians of “tasra” (the outside, exterior) should be those not
registered in the palace, rather than describing those coming from the provinces or
cities other than Istanbul. Indeed, for breaking the relationship with the palace, the
saying “tasra çıkmak” is used.
Seven references out of nine refer to the anonymous singers and instrumentalists,
any detail about them has not been given. Although their names are not specified,
the important thing for our purpose is that apart from the musicians who were
members of the palace, those who live in the city were also participating in the
musical entertainments of the sultan. It is known that many musicians occasionally
came to the palace from the city to perform for or to present their works to the
sultan. It would be misleading to assume that all the palace musicians, whom we
discussed in detail in the previous section, entered the palace service at a young
age and spent their entire lives there. As in the examples of Enfî Hasan Aga and
Ebûbekir Aga, there were a number of freelance musicians who originally lived in
the city and entered the palace for a certain period of time. It is also possible to
see other examples of musicians moving between the palace and the city in Es’ad
Efendi’s Atrâbü’l-Âsâr (Behar 2010, 179-180). There are also many musicians who
entered the palace service at a relatively young age and then left (tasra çıkmak),
as evident in the case of Kara Ismail Aga who spent the majority of his life and
his entire musical life in the palace. In addition to the importance of the palace
in music-making, mostly based on the composers and singers in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr,
Behar argues that by the 17th and 18th century the social foundations of music were
now far beyond the palace. Names, occupations, and titles of those named by Es’ad
Efendi, explicitly show that a very large portion of the city-dwellers was actively
involved in music-making and performance in Istanbul. (Behar 2010, 22).
Throughout the rûznâmes, all references to musical performances by anonymous
singers and instrumentalists were mentioned in the periods of 1740-44, and 1747-50.
31
In the rûznâmes of 1731, 1734 and between 1744-47, there are only two references
to non-courtly musicians – Çiçekçi Salih Efendi and Bursavî kemân-zen bir dervis.
Although the same individual kept all the records between 1740-50, there is not a
single reference to the anonymous musicians between 1744-47.
In the rûznâme records between 1747-50, a reference to a violin player made one’s
think that he is coming from out of the palace. On 1 November 1746 (16 L 1159), a
violinist dervish from Bursa came to the presence of Mahmud I in Mahbûbiye, played
violin, then bestowed by the sultan.34 The information that he was from Bursa, one
of the major cities of the Ottoman realm, is important in terms of showing that the
said dervish is from outside the palace and even outside of Istanbul.
2.2.2 Artisans
Musicians who were clearly outside of palace circles (such as hânenede/sâzendei
tasra), sometimes their forenames indicate an artisanal origin, and it would be
plausible to include these artisans under the title of non-courtly musicians. The most
noticeable case in the rûznâmes refers to a florist who is the only musician clearly
articulated by his name. On the day of 23 February 1731 (15 S 1143), Mahmud I
came to Gülsen-âbâd, and watched/contemplated (temâsâ etmek) the environment
for a while. He then went to another waterfront mansion, Genç Mehmed Pasa Yalısı
(named after the son of Damad Ibrahim Pasa), which is nearby and part of the
Çıragan Palace. During his rest at this place, a man named Çiçekçi Salih Efendi
(“Çiçekçi” referring to his status as a florist), came to presentMahmud I his narcissus
(zerrîn). Then subjected to the sultan’s questions and found an opportunity to show
his knowledge about his profession. In their conversation, Mahmud I learned that
Çiçekçi Salih Efendi was also knowledgeable in the science of music (ilm-i mûsikî )
and asked him to sing. After Salih Efendi’s performance, he presented his gift to
the sultan.35
In another interaction, we also have a son of a potter, named Çömlekçioglu. According
to the account, on 12 July 1745 (12 C 1158), when Mahmud I went to
34[. . . ] dîvânhâne-i Mahbûbiye’ye sâye-bahs ve Bursavî kemân-zen bir dervîs fasl-ı kemân ve hitâmında
ihsân-ı hümâyûn ile mesrûrü’l- fevâ‘id buyurdular (Özcan 1965, 121).
35[. . . ] Gülsen-âbâd nâm yalıya mürûr ve etrâf u eknâfı temâsâ ve andan yek-digere mûsıl tarîk-i fevkânî
nihâyetinden veled-i merhûm Genç Mehmed Pasa yalısı dahî seyrân ve selâmlıgında vâki‘ kasr-ı kebîrde
bir mikdâr istirâhat hâlinde Çiçekçi Sâlih Efendi nâm pîr-i rûsen-zamir tabla ile zerrîn ‘arz itmegin emr-i
serîfleriyle huzûr-ı hümâyûnlarına duhûle murahhas ve sukûfehâ-yı mezbûre esâmî ve nevâdirînden ba‘zı
mertebe suâl ve cevâbı müteâkib mezbûrun fenn-i sukûfelerinden gayrı ‘ilm-i mûsikîden behre ve haberi
oldugu samiazer[?]-i âlîleri olmagla ruhsat-ı âgâze ile itmâm-ı faslı tamâmdan sonra hediye-i sükûfe-i
zerrîn-i pîr atâyâ-yı zerrîn-i padisâh-ı âlem-gîr ile hüsn ü mukâbele siyâkında yine Gülsen-âbâd’a avdet
[. . . ] (Çınar 1974, 34).
32
the Nesâd-âbâd Waterfront Mansion (built by Nevsehirli Damad Ibrahim Pasa in
1726-27) he listened to a singer called Çömlekçioglu until mid-afternoon.36 Since
Çömlekçioglu’s full name has not been given and there is not a famous musician
with this name at that time, nothing is known about his identity other than the
information given here. There was a Çömlekçioglu Receb Çelebi (d.1692), one of
the most famous composers and singers of the 17th century, who was also a potter
and served as chief singer in the palace, but he was not alive in 1745. Bedros (or
Bedros Aga), an Armenian composer, is also known as Çömlekçioglu, but since he
lived in the late 18th and early 19th century (1785-1840), it is also not possible that
he was the one in the rûznâmes.
Apart from those musicians whose professions are clearly stated, it is very likely that
there should be other musicians with artisanal backgrounds. In the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr,
there is an artisan group of fasıl composers consisting of six people, among which
there are bookbinders (mücellitler), potters (çömlekçiler), stonemasons (tasçılar),
silk sellers (kazzâzlar) and goldsmiths (kuyumcular), whose number is very close
to the number of the palace musicians (Behar 2010, 173). In other words, the
musicians coming from the city for musical performances to the sultan were one of
the prominent groups of musicians, as much as those enrolled in the palace service.
By the middle of the 17th century the most accomplished musicians of artisanal
origin were able to become singers and musicians at the Ottoman court, and some
of them received pensions and appointments in one of the bureaucracies (Feldman
1996, 63). Although we do not know whether Çiçekçi Salih Efendi and Çömlekçioglu
were awarded by an official position or a steady income, their performance at the
court and award for this, show that artisans with musical talent were one of the
groups of musicians which have prominent roles in music-making in the palace. It
should also be noted that there is no such a sharp distinction between the musicians
of the palace and the artisans. They could be both at the same time. For example,
Çömlekçi-zâde Receb Çelebi (d. 1692), was an artisan in his youth (a potter) and
became the chief singer when he entered the palace service.
2.3 Sufi Musicians
Throughout the rûznâmes, Sufi networks are another group involved in music. In
particular, the Mevlevî network is heavily represented in this dynamic. Despite
36[. . . ] Nesâd-âbâd’a seref-bahs ve hânende Çömlekçi-oglu fasl ve edâ-yı ‘asra dek eglenilüb fülk-nisîn-i
mu‘âvedet oldular (Özcan 1965, 56).
33
records telling us that Mahmud I was observing Mevlevî ceremonies,37 the names
of participating musicians in these ceremonies are rarely mentioned, leaving the
question of their mystical leanings open. At least half of the few Sufi musicians
mentioned are affiliated with the Mevlevî order, for whom music is an indispensable
part of their culture.
2.3.1 Mevlevî Musicians
Before going into detail on the Mevlevî musicians in the rûznâmes, it would be
useful to briefly talk about the relationship of Mevlevî s and Mevlevî lodges with
music. Inspired by the whirling of its eponymous founder Mevlânâ Celâleddin Rûmî
in the 13th century as a reflection of his ecstasy (Özcan 2004), the Mevlevî ceremony
(semâ) was organized and developed in the following centuries and turned into a
ceremony with certain rituals around the 17th century. The music performed in
their ceremony, called âyin or âyin-i serîf, is the most complex and longest form
of Ottoman music and is accompanied by dervishes whirling in a certain order.
Altogether, it is like a concert planned down to the last detail and, in contrast to
other tarîkas, is open to participation from those who may not be disciples.38
In the early 17th century, Mevlevî lodges became central for music education and
transmission of music (Behar 2015, 22). It would not be untrue to say that their
lodges functioned as conservatories. As music became a social and religious ritual for
the Mevlevî s, dervish lodges became epicenters for training, development, and the
transmission of music outside of the palace school. Mevlevî lodges not only diffused
their own or other religious music, but also Ottoman secular39 music was transferred
via (Feldman 1996, 98-99). Especially during the late 18th and 19th centuries, as
they diffused the entire Ottoman repertoire to many musicians – including non-
Muslims.
The most prominent composers of Ottoman music,40 who composed several works
of religious and secular music, were also followers of the Mevlevî order. Half of
the sheikhs, dervishes or zâkirs belonging to a Sufi order in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr, were
connected to the Mevlevî community (Behar 2010, 189). Evliyâ Çelebi tells us that
37temâsâ-yı semâ-yı dervîsân or istima‘-ı semâ-yı dervîsân.
38For a study that deals with the Mevlevî order in several aspects, see: (Gölpınarlı, 1983).
39What is meant by “secular” here is that the fasıl music with worldly lyrics and not performed in the
religious institutions like mosques or tekkes.
40Such as Buhûrîzâde Mustafa Itrî (d. 1711) and Ismail Dede Efendi (a.k.a. Dervis Ismail) (d.1846).
34
the great majority of the most well-known ney (reed flute) players were Mevlevî
(Evliyâ Çelebi 2006, 343). One of the few musical notation systems before the 19th
century,41 invented by Nâyî Osman Dede (d.1729), who was the chief-neyzen and
Galata Mevlevî Lodge sheikh. At the end of the 17th century, Mevlevî musicians
became as important as the palace musicians in the Ottoman court. For example,
the ney (reed flute) became the second most important instrument of the palace
orchestra after the tanbûr (Feldman 2014, 640).
It is possible to trace this Mevlevî musician in the Mahmud I’s court via rûznâmes.
Three ney players, whose names are mentioned in the rûznâmes, indicate that some
have Mevlevî affiliations. Two of them have already been mentioned as palace
musicians: girift-zen Said Çavus and neyzen-bası Said Çavus. Neyzen-bası Said
Çavus, in particular, occupied a crucial position in the Mevlevî lodge. The duty of
neyzen-bası was not only to conduct the music band (mutrib), consisting of several
instruments during the semâ, but also to train students who want to play ney. Since
the training of this instrument was particularly well regarded in Mevlevî lodges,
anyone who learned the ney may well have been associated with Mevlevî lodges
in one way or another. On the other hand, it would be misleading to suppose
that the musicians who assume the duties of chief-neyzen (ser-nâyî/neyzen-bası) or
chief kudûm42 player (ser-kudûmî ) in Mevlevî lodges were Mevlevî followers. For
example, one neyzen-bası of the Galata Mevlevi Lodge, Naksî Ak Molla Ömer Efendi
(d. 1777), was not a Mevlevi, but, as his name suggests, a Naqshî follower (Mete
2018, 170). Even if neyzen-bası Said Çavus (and girift-zen Said Çavus) was not
a Mevlevî follower, he was nevertheless associated with Mevlevî lodges. He may
have been possibly trained in or spent his time at a lodge. Other than both Said
Çavuses, another ney player’s name is given in the rûznâmes: Tâ‘ib-zâde. The 18thcentury
sources I consulted, such as several song-text collections and Atrâbü’l-Âsâr,
do not mention of him. In the early 18th century, there was a muderris (religious
scholar, professor) and kadı (judge) named Osman-zâde Ahmed Tâib (d. 1724) who
presented various works and poetry to Ahmed III. It may be possible that Tâ‘ib-zâde
(literally “the son of Tâ‘ib”) was his son, but we do not have enough information to
confirm this probability.
The only person in the rûznâmes who was certainly a Mevlevî was the sheikh of
Galata Mevlevi Lodge, Sırrı Abdülbâki Dede (d. 1751). He was the son of Nâyi
Osman Dede (d. 1729), sheikh of the same lodge for thirty-two years before him,
who was a great composer, ney-player, and the inventor of an original notation
41Those invented by Ali Ufkî Bey, Demetrius Cantemir, Abdülbâki Nâsır Dede.
42A small double drum.
35
system. Abdülbâki Dede replaced his father in 1729 until the end of his life in 1752.
Like his father, Abdülbâki Efendi was something of a musician, for he composed a
pesrev in makâm rast, which survives today. In the rûznâmes, Abdülbâki Dede is
summoned by Mahmud I six times to the palace – four to commemorate the miraç
(ascension) nights, suggesting Abdülbâki Dede was present at most mi’râç nights
between 1741 to 1747.43
Other than neyzens and a sheikh, there is mention of a dervish violinist from Bursa
– as mentioned above – who performed for and received a reward from Mahmud I.44
Not in the palace service, the dervish nevertheless highlights the regard for which
musical Sufis were held. It is possible this dervish was a member of any Sufi order,
including Mevlevî.
2.3.2 Musicians from Other Sunnî Orders
Apart from Mevlevî s, there are also references to musicians from other Sunni networks.
One such is Çiçekçi Salih Efendi, one of the above-mentioned musicians with
artisanal background. Çiçekçi Salih Efendi was most likely a Halvetî dervish. There
is no detailed information about his identity in the rûznâmes, but it seems that he
was not a celebrated musician who made a name for himself. However, in the cemetery
(hazîre) of the dervish lodge of Nasûhîyye branch of Halvetîyye-Sabaniye order
located in Üsküdar, a tombstone belonging to a dervish by the name of “Çiçekçibası
Salih Efendi” who died in 1157/1744 (Mermutlu 2009, 660) makes us think that
this individual is our Çiçekçi Salih Efendi. Furthermore, Mehmed Nasûhî Efendi
(d. 1718), the founder of the Nasûhîyye branch, took one of his disciples and a celebrated
musician, Burnaz/Enfî Hasan Aga (d. 1724), to visit the sick boy. This boy
was of special value to him, as the boy’s father, Çiçekçi Salih Efendi, was Mehmed
Nasûhî Efendi’s disciple (Tatçı 2004, 98).
As in the Mevlevî order, music has also a central position for Halvetî-Nasuhî followers.
Nasûhî Efendi also had close connections with people at the Galata Mevlevi
Lodge, making him a connecting piece to Mevlevî ’s widespread influence over the
musical community. One of the indicators of this connection through a story of the
writing and composition of mi‘râciyye, which is a musical form inspired by the ascension
(mi‘râç) of the Prophet Muhammad. In the story, during one of the Islamic
holy nights (kandîl) in the Nasûhî Lodge in Üsküdar, Nasûhî Efendi asked Nâyî Os-
43Respectively; 20 S 1734 (22 July 1734), 26 B 1154 (7 October 1741), 9 S 1154 (20 October 1741), 26 B
1155 (27 September 1742), 26 B 1159 (14 August 1746), 26 B 1160 (3 August 1747).
44See: footnote 34 of this chapter.
36
man Dede (d.1729), the sheikh of the Galata Mevlevî Lodge, to write and compose
a mi‘râciyye.45 It was to be recited with a melody, such as mevlîd to be recited on
the anniversary of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. Osman Dede composed a
mi‘râciyye in seven chapters, which is the only extant melodic composition of this
genre today. The lyrics of the Arabic section (tevsîh) reciting at the beginning written
by Nasûhî Efendi. The first performance of Osman Dede’s composition took
place in the Nasûhî Lodge. Another indicator of Nasûhî Efendi’s affinity with the
Galata Mevlevi Lodge is about Fasih Ahmed Dede (d. 1699), who was a hücre-nisîn
(a 1001-day trainee) at the Lodge.46 To illustrate, it is documented that Nasûhî
Efendi crossed the Bosphorus, from Galata to Üsküdar, by boat on a stormy day
to meet with Fasih Dede, after a dream he had. Also, he was the one who washed
Fasih Dede’s dead body when he died and compensated the funeral costs. That’s
to say, everything that has been stating so far supports the argument that Çiçekçi
Salih Efendi in the rûznâmes who sang to Mahmud I is possibly a disciple in the
Nasûhî Lodge, and possibly he was later promoted and get the title of “Çiçekçi-bası"
(the head of florists), as written on the afore-mentioned tombstone.
As far as it is understood from the expression in the rûznâmes, Çiçekçi Salih Efendi
had no official connection to the palace. It appears that he was not a member of the
palace with a position, whom Mahmud I saw regularly. If Çiçekçi Salih Efendi had
been a court musician, he would have been designated as hânende-i Enderûn, nedîm,
musâhib or çavus, as it was for those in the Commissary. How did Salih Efendi get
to perform for the sultan if he was an outsider? He might have been invited at the
recommendation of someone from the court or with palace connections and someone
who was in the same milieu with Salih Efendi, at the same time.
In terms of music, there were some mutual permeabilities between the Ottoman court
and Halvetiyye order, as in some of other Sufi orders, most notably the Mevleviyye.
When we look at the Âtrâbü’l-Âsâr, among seventeen musicians who bear titles
which indicated attachment to a Sufi order, such as sheikh, dervish, and zâkir, two
were affiliated with the Halvetî order (Behar 2010, 189).47 One of them was Enfî
Hasan Aga (d. 1724), who became famous during the time of Ahmed III, served in
the kilâr-ı hassa for about ten years (since 1715), and achieved the highest musical
position at the court. Enfî Hasan Aga was also a Halvetî dervish.48 The other
45According to another rumor, Osman Dede composed this piece after seeing Nasûhî Efendi in his dream in
which Nasûhî Efendi told him the lyrics (Ak 2009, 136).
46Hücre-nisîn is someone who takes the education program (çile) in Mevlevî order for 1001 days.
47As expected, among seventeen Sufi musicians in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr, those from Mevlevî order is highest in
number, with eight people.
48Enfî Hasan Aga penned a book deals with the saints and Sufis of Istanbul, especially those in the Üsküdar
37
Halvetî dervish that Es’ad Efendi mentions is Kara Ismail Aga (d. 1723/24). Kara
Ismail Aga who spent his entire musical life in the palace, entered the palace service
at a young age and served in various positions from apprenticeship in the halberdier
corps (baltacılar zümresi) to being one of the muezzins of the sultan (Behar 2010,
173-176, 229). Based on the figures of which palace musicians who were followers of
the Halvetî order, Çiçekçi Salih Efendi’s invitation to Mahmud I’s presence seems
related to the tightly-knit Halvetî-Nasûhî network – of which he was a disciple.
2.4 “Mosque Singers”
Another group of individuals who were involved in music in the rûznâmes are the
ones described as muezzins, muezzin-basıs (chief muezzins) and na’thâns, who recite
the poetic praises of the Prophet Muhammad. All of these titles were associated
with the lower ulemâ, along with imâms (prayer leaders), hâfızs, vâizs and hatips
(preachers). Feldman grouped them as “mosque singers,” as they were usually in
the mosques, but he also uses this term in the synonym for muezzins.49 Hence,
muezzins fall under the category of “mosque singers”. That’s why I also prefer to
call all of these people but especially muezzins as “mosque singers”.
The muezzin had a spiritually essential task in reciting the ezân (adhan), which
informed Muslims about prayer times. Their voices were chosen in part for their
beauty, but, equally important, was their competence in their musical knowledge.
To be able to sing artfully, they had to know usûl and makâm, the basic rules of
modal music. This knowledge determined where they would sing. Every mosque
has at least one muezzin. Grand mosques (sing. selâtin camii) which are built by
the sultan, or his wife or children, like Süleymaniye Mosque, had more than one
muezzin. For instance, twenty-four muezzins are registered in the endowment deed
of Süleymaniye Mosque (Sahin 2015, 67).50 In such mosques, there was a chief
muezzin (ser-muezzin/muezzin-bası) in charge of organizing the other muezzins.
Just as in the Grand Mosques, there were chief muezzins in the Ottoman palace
as well. The muezzin of the sultan was also called as chief muezzin (ser-müezzin-i
sehriyarî or ser-müezzin-i Hazret-i Padisahî ) (Öztuna 1974, 55). The chief muezzins
in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I must be sultan’s muezzin, not those who served in
in the 16th-18th centuries, also contains information about his own life, see: (Enfî Hasan Hulûs Halvetî
2007).
49Cem Behar called them as “küçük din adamları” meaning clergy from lower rank (Behar 2010, 163).
50The author gives no date.
38
the Grand Mosques.
According to Feldman, musical practice among the higher and lower ‘ulemâ, and
members of the scribal service (kalemiye) grew in the late 16th century – at the
same time as a distinctly Ottoman musical tradition formed. While higher ‘ulemâ
concealed their musical abilities (such as Es’ad Efendi, who was a seyhü’l-islâm),
lower ‘ulemâ (like muezzins) had no such worries as they shared their interests.
More importantly, by the middle of the 17th century, talented musicians could enter
the palace service not only for religious performances but also as the performers
of so-called “secular” vocal performances. The court’s openness to outsiders coincided
with the decline of musicians of devsirme origin. During the 17th century, the
muezzins in the palace were also performers in the vocal fasıl ensemble (Feldman
1996, 80-84). For the majority of Ottoman musicians, who did not rely on music
to make a living, the highest-paid “professional” musicians performing the courtly
repertoire were the muezzins (Feldman 1996, 47).51 Additionally, they could compose
both in the secular and religious musical forms. This is what Feldman once
called “blurring the boundaries between sacred and secular styles of music” (Feldman
1996, 61). To illustrate, Ser-müezzin Çârseb Mustafa Aga (d. after 1730),
Tosun-zâde Abdullâh Aga (d. 1715), Kara Ismail Aga (d. 1723/24), Tab‘î Mustafa
Efendi (d. 1770?) were both muezzins and fasıl singers (fasıl hânendesi) or chief
singers (ser-hânende) at the court. Benlioglu’s study on court musicians in the 19th
century, identified eighty-one musicians in total during the reigns of Selim III and
Mahmud II. Eleven of these musicians were from the lower ‘ulemâ class. The vast
majority of them, including Sakir Aga (d. 1840), Ismail Dede Efendi (d. 1846)
and Ser-müezzin Rifat Bey (d. 1888), were muezzins of the sultan (Benlioglu 2017,
135-137). This shows that almost ten percent of the musicians in the palace during
the 19th century were muezzins, which is a considerable amount.
In the rûznâmes, "mosque singers" are mentioned in various times and in various
occasions. While their names were never mentioned in the 1731 rûznâme, the chief
muezzin, named Hüseyin Çavus, was mentioned three different times in 1734.52 His
mentions were due to his note-worthy performance during temcîd gatherings. He
was singing temcîd with other singer çavusân of Enderûn (described by çavuslar, hânanede
çavuslar or çavusân-ı Enderûn) and usually accompanied by giriftzen/neyzen
Said Çavus.53 Muezzins also sung the mi‘râciyye composed by Nâyî Osman Dede.
51The issue of what the concept of "professional musician" means in Ottoman context and especially in
Istanbul has been discussed by some scholars so far, but a conclusion has not been reached yet (Pekin
2013, 55).
5211 S, 8 and 10 R of 1147 (respectively 13 July, 7 and 9 September 1734).
53Hüseyin Çavus and Said Çavus were already mentioned in the context of courtly musicians, in the first
39
On the night of 26 September 1742 (26 B 1155), the sheikh of Galata Mevlevî Lodge
– Osman-zâde Sırrı Abdülbâki Dede – with the muezzin-bası54 and serhengân with
dervish appearance (serhengân-ı zıyy-ı dervisân) came to the Mahbûbiye and recited
mi‘râciyye – as was the custom. Another night of mi‘râc, on 5 September 1744 (27
B 1157), Mahmud I went to the Besiktas Palace to listen to the mi‘râciyye by the
same group of people. There was a slight change that time; instead of serhengân,
there were several muezzins. Nevertheless, they were once again rewarded.
Another reference on mosque singers is about na’thâns and reciters of mevlîd/mevlûd
(mevlûdci/mevlûdhân), which is mentioned in the rûznâme of 1734. During the
birthday celebrations for the Prophet (mevlîd) on 12 August 1734 (12 RA 1147),
Mahmud I came to the palace in Besiktas in the evening. He listened to the na’t
(na’t-ı nebevî ) recited by the na’thân of Hagia Sophia Mosque and the recitation of
the mevlîd (mevlîdü’n-nebî ). Each part (bahir) was recited by a different person –
namely Çaylak-zâde, Sûmî-zâde and Altı-zâde Çıragı Efendi who was said to be the
preacher (hatîb) of Ebû Eyyüb Mosque. After the ceremony, these four people were
rewarded with twenty kurus each.55 Among those mevlîdhâns, Çaylak-zâde must be
Çâlâk-zâde Seyh Mustafa (d. 1757), who was the son of the Halvetî sheikh Çâlâk
Ahmed Dede (d. 1711). Çâlâk-zâde later became the sheikh of the Halvetî lodge in
Cagaloglu. He was a celebrated zâkir, mevlîdhân – and a prolific composer of several
religious forms (Ergun 2017, 182-3). Saadet Nüzhet Ergun noted sixty-seven pieces
composed by Çâlâk-zâde in various forms of religios music (Ergun 2010, 357-381).
If we only look at these four references on the recitations of temcîd, mi‘râciyye,
na’t and mevlîd, we see that mosque singers did not go beyond religious music .
Muezzins sang temcîd and mi‘râciyye, na’thâns na’t and mevlîdhâns mevlîd. On
2 August 1734, however, a muezzin of the chief harem eunuch, named Ali, came
to Mahmud I’s presence, and recited the ezân, made a fasıl in makâm segah and
was acclaimed by the sultan.56 This reference may be the only one in the entire
rûznâme of such detail, describing in which makâm muezzin Ali sang and what kind
of manner he had as a singer (hayli nazik edâsı. . . ). Ali’s case seems to confirm
Feldman’s claim that muezzins are also competent in secular vocal fasıl repertoire
in the palace. Still, one reference would not be sufficient to suggest this was true
of all muezzins (or mosque singers in general) in the palace service in that period.
part of this chapter.
54Whoever he was at this position in that year, his name is not given.
55[. . . ] Ayasofiyye na‘t-hânı hâfız efendi na‘t-ı nebevî kırâ‘at eyleyüp hitâmında mevlûdü’n-nebî ‘aleyhü’sselâmın
ol fıkrasın Çaylâk-zâde ikinci fıkrasın Sûmî-zâde üçünci fıkrasın Ebû Eyyüb Câmi’nin hatîbi Altızâde
Çıragı Efendi kırâ‘at eyleyüp [. . . ] (DABOA.TS.MA.d..., 8a).
56See: footnote 7 of this chapter.
40
The rûznâmes do not give us enough information to verify this.
2.5 Non-Muslims
There are only two references on non-Muslim musicians. The first of these is Sivelioglu,
known as Sivelioglu Kemâni Yorgi (Corci) or Yorgaki Efendi. He was a
Greek composer of fasıl music and a very talented instrumentalist. He is said to
have introduced the viola d’amore (sinekemânı) to the Ottomans and a “source of
pride” for the Ottoman court, by a contemporary diplomat, Charles Fonton (Behar
2017a, 168). About ten of his compositions are known today. We can learn from the
rûznâmes that Sivelioglu was the lackey (çukadar) of Ishak Aga, who was the treasurer
of customs (gümrükçü). In the rûznâmes, he is referred to as a singer rather
than as an instrumentalist. On 26 June 1742 (22 R 1155),57 27 March and 18 April
1743 (1 and 23 S of 1156), he sang (âgâze) to Mahmud I. It is noted that in two
of these performances, he sang türkü, which is a folkloric genre in Ottoman music.
Although the language of the rûznâmes is not very detailed, the word âgâze in this
account indicates a vocal performance. We can assume that he sang rather than
played any instrument, and that he was good at singing türkü, but not sarkı. Also,
since his name was mentioned thrice, he is supposed to be one of the prominent
musicians at Mahmud I’s court. It is also possible that he came in other times but
was not recorded.
Another reference to a non-Muslim musician is dated 14 March 1742 (7 M 1155).
The entry is about a non-Muslim Greek singer who was a fur merchant and gave
a vocal performance to the sultan (kürkçü keferesinden bir hânende). Although his
name has not been given, it is very likely that this individual was Zaharya – one
of the most celebrated composers of Ottoman music – since they have so much in
common.58 Zaharya was a very talented vocalist in the Fener Rûm Orthodox Church
57In the transliterated text that I use (Oral 1966) the first reference to Sivelioglu does not given. Selman
Benlioglu, who retransliterated the rûznâmes of Mahmud I but not publish yet, states by personal
communication that on 22 R 1155, Sivelioglu sang “türkmânî türkü” in Nesâd-âbâd Waterfront Mansion.
(Yirmi ikinci yevm-i Isneyn’de Nesâd-âbâd’a tesrîf ve Türkmânî türkü âgâze ider Gümrükcü’nün çukadarı
ve Sîveli-oglu dimekle ma‘rûf bir kefere ba‘zı âgâze ve istima‘ıyla imrâr-ı vakt olunup ba‘de-edâ-yı asr filikaya
süvâr olup mu‘âvedet buyurdular). I thank Selman Soydemir to share the correct version of this
reference, with me.
58Not much is known about Zaharya. Until recently, there was even uncertainty about when he lived (Inal
1958, LV). Öztuna says that Zaharya sang in the presence of Ahmed III and Mahmud I, and became
famous in the time of Ahmed III (Öztuna 1969, 399). Brandl claims that he was “the chief musician”
under these two sultans (Olley 2017, 179). He is not mentioned in Uzunçarsılı’s article on the palace
salaries of musicians (Uzunçarsılı 1977).
41
(kilise mugannîsi), where he was a tanbûr player with a unique musical style.59 He
was also said to have tutored Mevlevî musicians. What we know about Zaharya
is no more than these rumors, which are not based on strong evidence. Even the
exact date of his death is unknown, but it is estimated that he died around 1740.60
Since some of his works are documented as “Mîr Cemil” in some sources, there is
an unspecified assumption that he may have converted to Islam in his later years
(Öztuna 1969, 399). According to rûznâmes, he was still alive in 1742. So, the
terminus post quem of Zaharya’s date of death is 1742, in the light of our current
knowledge. The term “kefere” (plural of kâfir, meaning infidel) shows that he still
had not converted to Islam at that year but was still summoned to perform for
Mahmud I.
Apart from these two non-Muslim musicians, the rûznâmes also mention a group of
new converts including players (bâziçe-bâz), singers, and instrumentalists – but their
names are not given.61 Other than those few references, rûznâmes do not mention
any other non-Muslim musicians at Mahmud I’s court. Yet, there are also other
non-Muslim musicians known to be acquainted with Mahmud I. For example, an
Armenian tanbûr player, Tanbûrî Küçük Artin (Harutin), who was assigned to join
the delegation sent to Nadir Shah (King of Iran), was Mahmud I’s court singer. Also,
a Rabbi named Moshe Faro (Haham Musi), a composer and an accomplished tanbûr
player, was a leading musician during the reign of Mahmud I. In his collections of
secular music, Petros Peloponnesios (d. 1778) (also known as Petraki or Tyriaki
in Ottoman sources) identified several non-Muslim composers including Cantemir,
Zaharya (Hânende Zacharis), Tanbûri Haham Musi (Moshe) and Kemânî Yorgi. He
also refers some other composers who are likely to be non-Muslims but not known
from other sources, namely Papas, Usta Yesefin, Antoninin, Tanburi Atrizin (or
Arizouni), Peligracoglu, Ciohacoglu, Hocanmasisin (Kalaitzidis 2015, 143). Apart
from them, we have two theoretical treatises from the first half of the 18th century
written by two Greek Orthodox theorists who are Panayiotes Chalathzoglou (d.
1748) and his student Kyrillos Marmarinos (d. 1760), along with Küçük Artin’s
musical treatise.62 All these individuals lived in the 18th century and most of them
were contemporaries of Mahmud I, but just two of them were mentioned in the
59Ibnülemîn cites Nuri Seyda’s article on Zaharya published in Ikdâm newspaper on 26 July 1898. Nuri
Seyda states that Zaharya was a priest at Fener Rum Orthodox Church, but no other source confirms his
statement. (Inal 1958, 305).
60(Ezgi 1933, 46) and (Öztuna 1969, 399).
61(13 ZA 1154 / 20 January 1742) On üçüncü yevm-i sebtte Topkapusu halvet olunub ba’zı hânende sâzende
ve bâziçe-i bâz mühtedî nev-müslim dahî getirilüb leyl-i ahadda mahall-i mezbûrda ârâm olunub kesb-i safâ
olundu. (Oral 1966, 91).
62For a study on Phanariot Greek musicians in the Ottoman in the 18th century, see: (Plemmenos, 2002).
42
rûznâmes of Mahmud I.
Jacob Olley claims that musical life amongst the Greek Orthodox and Armenian
millets revolved primarily around the institution of the Church – especially for vocal
music. He adds that “the visibility of non-Muslims at the Ottoman court increased
during the 19th century” (Olley 2017, 179-80). Famous non-Muslim musicians63 who
established relations with the palace through performing at the musical gatherings
or of teaching music in the palace all lived in the 19th century. Similarly, roughly
twelve percent of the musicians of Selim III and Mahmud II era were non-Muslims
(Benlioglu 2017, 135-137). Olley has also argued that while they played a greater
role during the mid to late 19th century, looking at the sources from the 19th century,
such as the anthology of Hâsim Bey and manuscript collections of Hamparsum, non-
Muslims remain statistically underrepresented (Olley 2017, 181). This may be also
valid for the rûznâmes of Mahmud I. Even Evliyâ Çelebi mentions several Greek and
Jewish musicians in the mid-17th century.64 The rûznâmes, as an official source,
fails to mention their names. It is possible to assume that although they were
minority in musical sphere, non-Muslim musicians were less represented than they
really were, especially in the more official sources.
Furthermore, instances of non-Muslim and Muslim musicians coming together for
the purpose of training or music-making are not uncommon in the Ottoman realm.
“Since the 17th century the Mevlevî dervishes had become the teachers to many
of the Armenian, Greek, and Jewish musicians in Istanbul and Edirne” (Feldman
2019b, 179). For instance, Rauf Yekta Bey, the musician and musicologist in the
early 20th century, stated that Zaharya spent most of his time in the Mevlevî lodges
and other Sufi lodges. In this way, he was able to recite various religious musical
forms such as âyin, ilâhi, durak, na‘t and ezân (Paçacı-Tunçay 2013). It is known
that another Greek contemporary of Zaharya, Petros Peloponnesios (d. 1778), was
a Greek cantor and composer who went to the Galata Mevlevî Lodge on a regular
basis. There he learned how to play the ney, established close relationships with
dervishes. When he died, dervishes wanted to bury him with his ney (Erol 2016).
In the 19th century, the two most talented students of Ismail Dede Efendi were
Armenian Hamparsum Limonciyan and Nikogos Aga. In a nutshell, Mevlevî lodges
bridged Muslim and non-Muslim musicians. There were also some cases where non-
Muslims taught Muslims. For example, Selim III’s tanbûr instructor was a Jewish
63Such as Tanbûrî Izak (d. 1814), Hamparsum Limonciyan (d. 1839), Bedros Çömlekçiyan (d. 1840)
Oskiyam (d. 1870?), Kemânî Amâ Corci (d. 1805?).
64Such as Urum Angeli (dâirezen, tanburcu), Ermeni Avınç (tanburcu), Ermeni Aydın (dâirezen), Ermeni
Haçatur (dâirezen), Yahudi Pıtıkoglu (dâirezen), Yahudi Yanko (miskali). (Evliyâ Çelebi 2006, 343). Also,
for a study on the comparative list of hundreds of musicians whose names are mentioned by Evliyâ Çelebi,
see: (Pekin 2012).
43
musician Isaak Romano, known as Tanbûrî Izak (d. 1814). Izak, as well as a
Moldavian violin player Kemâni Miron were teachers in the Enderûn.
These intercommunal relationships are also reflected in several paintings. An engraving
from 1756 by Alexander Russell (1715? -1768) showing a concert given by
a Syrian band in Ottoman Aleppo, includes five performers wearing different kinds
of attire and head-dresses, which denoted their sects. According to Russell’s own
description, there is a Turk (reads Muslim) playing the daff (tambourine), a Christian
playing the tanbûr, a dervish playing the ney, a Christian of a middle rank
playing Arab fiddle (rebab), and lastly a man beating small drums with his hands
(Russell, 1756, 95). So, we have a group of musicians from Aleppo, two of whom
are known to be Turkish/Muslim, and two of them Christians. Also, painting of a
concert in the British Embassy in Istanbul from 1779 shows a similar picture. In
this painting, there are twelve musicians in the scene: a Muslim playing the tanbûr,
two Mevlevî musicians playing the ney. The three singers playing the tambourine
at the same time are evidently Muslims, but the rest – wearing black hats – are all
non-Muslims. The players of violin, ney, rebab, and santûr are Greeks. The tanbûr
player is possibly a Jew, because of the turban wrapped around his hat. Suffice it
to say, this band is composed of six Muslim and six non-Muslim musicians making
music altogether. Both visuals display the intercommunal relations at the Ottoman
in the context of music.65
2.6 Others
2.6.1 Women
Another group of musicians who were underrepresented are women. In fact, there is
not a single reference to a female musician in the rûznâmes. Undoubtedly, they were
not as visible as male musicians, but we know female musicians (concubines/câriye)
were an important part of music at the Ottoman court. Just as male musicians were
trained in Enderûn, talented female concubines in the palace service were encouraged
to take private music lessons in the harem. Teachers could either come to the
palace on certain days of the week or for the instruments which are hard to learn or
take a long time, training could be given in teachers’ homes (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 87).
Uzunçarsılı details the salaries of concubines’ music teachers. In the harem, there
65Panagiotis Poulos examines the spaces of musical interaction amongst the various communities in Ottoman
Istanbul, especially focusing the 19th century, see: (Poulos 2019).
44
was even a musical ensemble composed of female musicians. They were frequently
depicted in the Ottoman miniature paintings and paintings of European travelers by
the 16th century as instrumentalists, dancers, or singers, who entertained themselves
as well as the sultan and/or his wife. Female instrumentalists playing in a garden in
the album of Ahmed I (the early 17th century), Gemminger and Mueller’s dancing
ladies and musicians in the harem (mid-17th century), female musicians at the
feast of Vâlide Sultan organized in honor of Madame Girardin (wife of the French
ambassador) (late 17th century), female instrumentalists of Levnî (late 18th century)
are just a few examples.
There were certainly many women as composers, singers, or instrumentalists in the
Ottoman court, but very few of their names have been recorded or survived today.
Dilhayat, about whom very little is known, was the most celebrated female composer
of Ottoman music. Claims that she lived during the times of Selim III and Mahmud
II are dubious as her name appears in almost all the song-text collections (güfte
mecmu‘aları) written since the middle of the 18th century (Korkmaz 2020b, 271).
Talip Mert, who studied Dilhayat’s tereke (estate records)66 in 1999, determined
that she died in 1740 (Mert 1999, 70). Uzunçarsılı wrote that Mahmud I raised
several musically talented concubines in his palace, and he provided some of the
first lines of the lyrics of these concubines’ compositions (Uzunçarsılı 1977, 87). By
looking at the song-text collections, Harun Korkmaz has found out that one of these
compositions belonged to Dilhayat. This suggests that she was one of Mahmud I’s
musician concubines (Korkmaz 2020b, 271). If this is the case, the missing parts
of the rûznâmes, especially those covering the years between 1734-40, promise to
provide clues that would help to trace her in archival documentation.
2.6.2 Unknowns
There are several names in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I mentioned in the context of
music that we are not able to recognize and thus categorize because any detail has not
been given about them and we cannot find clues. These include a violinist Kemânî
Ibrâhim,67 and a vocalist Çorbacı-zâde.68 Other than that, Kemânî Ibrahim must
66A document containing a list of all the movable property left behind by a deceased person.
67[10 Z 1154/16 February 1742] [. . . ] Kasr-ı Incülü’ye sâye-endâz-ı iclâl [. . . ] Ibrâhim nâmında kemânî ba‘zı
sâza muvaffakât ile ikrâm idüb istima‘ ile eglenildi (Oral 1966, 98).
68(4 ZA 1155/31 December 1742) [. . . ] Kasr-ı Bahâriye’ye tesrîf-i iclâl [. . . ] Çorbacı-zâde dimekle ma‘rûf bir
hânende pîsgâh-ı meymenet-mu’tâdda ba‘zı âgâze-i beste ve istima‘ [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 159). [. . . ] Topkapu’da
vâki‘ Sevkiye’ye tesrîf ve Çorbacı-zâde dimekle meshûr [?] bir hânende huzûr-ı feyz-bahsâlarında ba‘zı sâza
muvaffak[ât] ile âgâze ve istima‘ıyla eglenilüb mehûr [?]-ı ihsân u erkanlar ile mesrûru’l-fu‘âd [. . . ] (Oral
1966, 164). Selman Soydemir, who will publish the re-translation of the rûznâme soon, states that it is
45
be an ordinary violin player because we do not know any celebrated violin player
by this name. Finally, Çorbacı-zâde, as his full name is not given, we do not know
for sure who he was, whether he was a son of a company commander of Janissary
corps69 or the son of a soup maker/seller. Öztuna mentions a composer and singer
named Çorbacı-zâde Mustafa Efendi, who died possibly around 1755 (Öztuna 1969,
48). This man might be the Çorbacı-zâde in the rûznâmes. Nevertheless, I cannot
see anyone with this name in the Atrâbü’l-Âsâr, in which Öztuna gives reference as
his source of information for this individual. In short, it is possible, but not certain,
that our Çorbacı-zâde might be Öztuna’s Çorbacı-zâde Mustafa Efendi.
2.7 The Conclusion of the Chapter
To summarize, when we look at the individuals directly or indirectly associated with
the music in the Mahmud I’s rûznâmes from a bird’s eye, we see a colorful picture.
Although there are underrepresented or even not represented groups, many musicians
coming from various backgrounds and various professions were mentioned –
some of them by name. This microcosm of musicians in Ottoman music showcased
Ottoman society: officers, artisans, mosque singers, Sufis, and non-Muslims. For
most of these individuals, music-making may not be the main source of income,
because they had different titles other than hânende or sâzende. Although almost
half of them held various positions in the court, they were not called/titled as musicians.
Furthermore, the names of these musicians show a certain pattern, even
though it is hard to say that the rûznâmes represent every group perfectly: the vast
majority of them (with two exceptions who were Yorgi and Zaharya) are Muslims.
This picture ties in well with what Owen Wright wrote in 1992. When he was comparing
a mid-17th century source with those written in the 15th and 16th century,
he saw the domination of musicians of Muslim background in the 17th century who
were partly amateurs; on the contrary to the musicians of “antecedent tradition,”
who were from different parts of the Middle Eastern region (mostly Persians) and
professional musicians trained in the court and dependent on the patronage of the
court. All in all, the musicians in Mahmud I’s palace who received salaries either
on a regular basis or on occasions, are one of the clear signs of Mahmud I’s musical
patronage, very likely inherited from his predecessor, Ahmed III.
originally written as “Sorbacı-zâde” but it must be Çorbacı-zâde. (18 Z 1155/13 February 1743).
69For “Çorbacı” in millitary, see: (Özcan, 1993).
46
Table 2.2 Occupational Categories of Musicians.
Notes: Unsure ones are indicated with "?".
47
3. 1. THE MUSIC OF RÛZNÂMES
In the previous chapter, I delineated the profile of the musicians at the Ottoman
court in the early 18th century based on the rûznâmes of Mahmud I. The present
chapter examines the music itself through the musical genres and instruments in the
same account.
3.1 Musical Genres
3.1.1 Mehter/Mehterhâne
Similar to chamber music in Western music being performed by orchestras in smallsize,
Ottoman music was performed by an ensemble of small number of performers.
The main exception to this comparison is that mehter refers to the Ottoman
military band (also known as mehterhâne, tablhâne, or tabl u ‘alem). It is one
of the most (in)famous symbols of glory and power of the Ottoman state. The
mehter ensemble consists of percussion and wind instruments, including the zurna
(shawm), boru (trumpet), tabl (double-headed drum), zil (cymbal), and nakkâre
and kös (smaller and bigger kettledrums). When exactly the mehterhâne was established
is an enigma. Although there were military bands in the old Turkic and
Islamic states, the earliest documents that mention terms mehter and mehterhâne
are found in the 16th century. In the next two centuries, this institution was given
special attention by musically inclined sultans (Özcan 2003, 545-546). As an inseparable
component of the Ottoman military, the mehterhâne was abolished with the
Janissary army in 1826. In tracing its institutional life before its abolishment, the
most important written source on mehterhâne is the Seyahatnâme of Evliyâ Çelebi
since he writes about different types of mehters and various occasions in which
mehters played. Moreover, Ali Ufkî in the mid-17th century and Cantemir in the
early 18th century included several references to mehter music in their collections.
48
In terms of function, it is possible to divide mehterhâne into two groups: official and
unofficial mehters. Evliyâ referred to official mehters as “âl-i Osman mehterhânesi”
or “tabl-ı Osmânî ”. By referring to the concepts of official and unofficial, he sometimes
uses mehter-i Enderûn and mehter-i Bîrûn. In contemporary scholarship,
Feldman uses official and unofficial mehters to emphasize this dichotomy (Feldman
1996). The official mehter was paid by the sultan, so it can be regarded as the
most professional musician group in Ottoman music. The most well-known duty
of the official mehter was to boost the morale of the Ottoman soldiers during the
campaigns while disturbing enemies with loud and thundering sounds. In peaceful
times, they regularly performed in the presence of the sultan, accompanied him in
processions (alay) and announced the absolute power of the sultan with their songs
and prayers. They were in charge of performing on several formal occasions, such
as sultan’ enthronements, sword-wielding ceremonies, welcoming ceremonies for ambassadors,
1 and banquets honoring princes (Popescu-Judetz 2007, 61). Among the
daily duties of the official mehter is to play nevbet – playing rhythm with percussions,
especially with drum (davul) – every day after prayer times (mostly after
the afternoon and morning prayers) from towers of the city. They also greeted the
sultan every afternoon with prayers (duâ). It should be noted that mehters were
performed in a highly ritualized manner, in which every detail was predetermined,
not unlike a theater show.
Although the one belonging to the sultan is the most magnificent, he was not the
only one who has a mehter ensemble under his command. High-ranking officers
were also entitled their own mehters; equally, the higher their rank, the greater the
number of musicians their mehter had. Evliyâ speaks of layers (kat) which indicate
the numbers of each instrument and thus show the magnitude of a mehter ensemble.
As he writes about an eight-layer mehter, for example, he meant that there are eight
nakkâre, eight zurna, eight kös, etc. in that certain mehter ensemble. Depending
on the status of the officer, these layers would range from three to twelve. Sultan’s
mehter would generally be in nine layers except during war, when these numbers
were doubled (Popescu-Judetz 2007, 66).
Unofficial mehters, by contrast, did not get regular payments from the sultan. They
were designated for outdoor dance and celebratory music, and performed in public
and private festivities like weddings.2 They were attached to the mehter chief
1For the mehterhânes played during the passage of al-Hac Ahmed Aga, who was appointed as the Iranian
ambassador, from Üsküdar, see: (Izzî Efendi 2019, 368).
2Salomon Schweigger (d. 1622), a German traveler and embassy preacher who had been in Istanbul between
1578 and 1581, provides an illustration of a mehter at a wedding (Schweigger 2004, 207). Also, despite
his dislike, his travel book contains the oldest notated and published piece of Ottoman music which is a
mehter (mehter havası) (Schweigger 2004, 209).
49
(mehter-bası) (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003, 624-5).3 When large ensembles are needed, they
joined the official mehter ensemble (Sanal 1964, 5). Apart from those, we know
very little about unofficial mehters. At the first glance, it is difficult to distinguish
between official and unofficial mehters, as writers like Evliyâ generally used the term
mehter more comprehensively, usually without describing. Neither Evliyâ nor the
Surnâme-i Vehbî,4 in which there are many scenes of various kinds of entertainments
like cirit and güres (wrestle) accompanied by mehter ensembles, tell whether the
mehters they refer to are official or unofficial. Sanlıkol claims that since this distinction
emerged as a result of the terminological dichotomy between official (state) and
unofficial (entertainment), there must have been some differences between both in
terms of repertoire and instrumentation (Sanlıkol 2011, 49). Analyzing 17th-century
miniatures, Feldman claims that urban unofficial mehters used instruments such as
the musikâr/miskal (panpipe), the dâire (tambourine), the çalpara (castanets), and
even the santur – in addition to zurna (shawm) (Feldman 1996, 61,65,66). These
instruments are not often used in the standard (official) mehters probably because
they do not produce sounds loud enough for grand festivals. In the Surnâme-i Vehbî,
there are many passages and illustrations in which the mehter is accompanied by
male and female dancers (sing. rakkas and çengî ). This is an impossible combination
for official mehters (Sanlıkol 2011,49). Therefore, it appears that these kinds
of mehter ensembles are unofficial.
In connection with this, their repertoire will also differ from the official mehters, as
they would perform different types of music for different purposes and in different
settings. The unofficial mehter repertoire, called nevbet or fasıl, focused on pesrev
and semâ‘î, as well as improvised taksîm (Feldman 2012, 3). The repertoire of the
mehter expanded during the 18th century to incorporate instrumental adaptations
of the classical vocal forms such as beste, naks, semâ‘î. They also included several
folk tunes like ezgi, türkü and kalenderî (Feldman 2012, 3). In the 16th century,
European observers such as Schweigger and Nicholas Nicholay thought that mehter
music was too loud and unesthetic. In the 18th century, people like Madam Montagu,
Toderini and M. Guer argued that mehter was, contrary to what earlier writers
had claimed, rather pleasant and harmonious (Aksoy 2003, 48, 88). Furthermore,
Toderini expressed his appreciation in describing mehter music as extraordinary
and wonderful (Toderini 2018, 145). In addition to the changing political conditions
from the 16th to the 18th centuries, that the mehter incorporated instrumental
adaptations of several classical and folk genres mentioned above in the 18th century
3Evliyâ named this group as kârhâne-i mehterân-i Yedikulle (Evliyâ Çelebi 2006, 336).
4Surnâme-i Vehbî is an illustrated account of Sultan Ahmed III’s four sons’ circumcision festival written in
1720 by Seyyid Vehbî Efendi (d. 1736) and illustrated by Levnî (d. 1732) and his assistants.
50
may have helped change these views. This expansion of the repertoire of mehter
may be related to unofficial mehters being more active in the urban entertainments
in this period, allowing them to expand their cultural reach.
Mahmud I’s rûznâmes contains several references to the performances of official and
unofficial mehters. While most of the mehters in these references are called mehter-i
Bîrûn and tasra mehterhanesi, some of them were just called mehter or mehterhâne.
However, there are also some cases where they were used interchangeably.
In some references, mehters are mentioned in official occasions despite some of them
not specified as to whether they are official mehters or not. For instances, during
the processions organized for several occasions such as Mahmud I’s sword-wielding
ceremony (taklîd-i seyf ), while Mahmud I was on his way to Palaces of Davud Pasa
and Sa’dâbâd or Sepetçiler Kiosk, while Saliha Sultan – the mother of Mahmud I –
was on her way to Vâlide Sultan Farm, during the welcoming ceremony of Ottoman
navy returning from the Mediterranean Sea mehters accompanied.5 Moreover, a
mehterân-ı Birûn showed up in sport competition (cirit) that took place at Vâlide
Sultan Farm on 9 September 1734 (10 R 1147). The next day, on Friday, 10 September,
(11 R 1147), when Mahmud I was giving gifts to his subjects the mehterhâne-i
Birûn accompanied him again. The main purpose of these mehters was for official
ceremonies. If the mehterhâne accompanied the sultan, it was to announce his or
his mother’s travels from one place to another. They also symbolized critical developments
for the state, which was an important part of the representation of glory
and power of the state and the sultan.
There are also references about unofficial mehters who undertook the duties of official
mehters, such as accompanying the sultans during their travels or at various games
and races. While Saliha Sultan was making a trip to and from Göksu on horseback,
(11 July 1734/9 Safer 1147), or on her way to Sa’dâbâd (6 September 1734/7 R
1147), the tasra mehterhânesi played fasıls while accompanying her entourage.
In addition to these official mehters or to those unofficial mehters who performed
official duties, there are also references in the rûznâmes about tasra mehterhânesi
who took part in various musical entertainments but not in official ceremonies. On
July 12 (10 S 1147), tasra mehterhânesi played until midnight under gloomy skies
in a tent, which people having fun with. On the night of August 8 (8 R 1147) of the
same year, fasıls were performed at night by the mehterân-i Birûn before a temcîd
was recited. On September 8 (9 R 1147) mehterhâne performed again, together with
temcîd. Although it is not stated whether they were official or unofficial mehters, it
5Respectively (23 RA 1143 / 6 October 1730), (10 C 1143 / 21 December 1730), (5 B 1154 / 16 September
1741), (9 M 1160 / 21 January 1747), (7 R 1147 / 6 September 1734), (6 C 1147 / 3 November 1734).
51
would not be unreasonable to assume that they were unofficial.
To put it briefly, while some mehters are described with different terms such as
Bîrûn and tasra, looking at the context of their performances makes it difficult to
say which or when there are two separate mehters as official and unofficial, and
to distinguish one from another. Except for a few, these references are mostly
mentioned in the rûznâme of 1734. All the references to the unofficial mehters are
found only in this rûznâme text. Other texts covering the rest of the years refer only
to mehter in general terms. What can be assumed, however, according the rûznâme
of 1734, is that mehter performances increased in the summer months while there
is almost no mention of the other months. There are also other references in which
the mehter is not even mentioned. Instead, these references mention the nakkâre,
one of the most important instruments of the mehter ensemble, which accompanied
the sultans during daily entertainment and traveling. These references are discussed
in the nakkâre section.
3.1.2 Türkü/Türkî
Türkî is the only genre that is clearly stated in the rûznâmes that Mahmud I listened
to apart from some religious genres. Türkî as a folkloric genre, is a general term
used for vocal metrical songs with Turkish lyrics on various religious or worldly
themes. Unless their names are referenced in the lyrics, the âsık (poet) of its lyrics
are mostly forgotten. Their compositions are shaped by the collective contribution
of performers over time (Senel 2012).
In the rûznâmes, there are five references over a five-day timespan to the listening
of türkî s, to be more specific “türkmen-i türküs”. These performances took place at
Nesâd-âbâd Palace on 26 June 1742, in the mansion of Ishak Aga on 28 June given
by Ishak Aga’s lackey (çuhadar), in Kuleli Garden on 1 July and in Topkapı Palace
on 4 July.6 As it is understood from the fact that he repeatedly invited musicians
to the palace and listened to türkmen-i türkî s, he must have liked this genre. I
could not come across the term türkmen-i türkî in other sources I have looked at.
Evliyâ mentions several types of türkî and uses this word for the folk songs of
different communities living in Ottoman lands, such as Rum türküleri, Ermenice
türküler, Arnavutça türküler, Sirvânî yayla türküsü (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003). Türkmeni
türkî must have indicated an Anatolian rural style. Çârseb Mustafa Aga, the chief
muezzin in the palace, was noted for his Türkmen style in instrumental playing by
6Respectively 22 R 1155, 24 R, 27 R1155 and 1 CA 1155.
52
Es’ad Efendi.7 Presumably, he was playing the çögür or the tanbura, which were
highly regarded among non-classical lutes for folk songs (Feldman 1996, 173).
Nine months later, on 27 March 1743 (1 S 1156), when Mahmud I was in the
Sepetçiler Kiosk in Sarayburnu, Sivelioglu Kemânî Yorgaki Efendi, who was mentioned
before, sang "gevherî türküler" together with other non-Muslims, which
amused Mahmud I.8 A few days later, on 18 April 1743 (23 S 1156), Sivelioglu
came to the palace and sang again, but no information was given about the content
of this performance. Gevherî türküler may well refer to the türkî s whose lyrics
were composed from the poems of the poet Gevherî. Gevherî was a folk poet who
flourished during the second half of the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries.
Çârseb Mustafa Aga included lyrics of many türkî in his song-text collection, some
of which written by poets like Köroglu, Gevherî and Türkmen Ali (Uslu 2009, 202).
Similarly, genres such as Hasanoglı türküsü and Abdî Sâh türküsü, which Âsık Çelebi
mentioned in his biographical dictionary in the last third of the 16th century (Pekin
2012), must have taken their names from their âsıks (poets).
Our information about türkî is mostly based on those provided by Ali Ufkî and
Evliyâ Çelebi. In two manuscript song collections of Ali Ufkî from the mid-17th
century (Mecmu‘a-i Sâz ü Söz and untitled [Turc 292 ]), around one hundred fifty
pieces out of the more than five hundred pieces in various genres he notated were
composed in folkloric genres including türkü, varsagı and hava (air) (Behar 2016,
60). In the Mecmu‘a-i Sâz ü Söz, there are more than ninety türkî notes, which
constitutes the oldest notated evidence of türkî melodies (Cevher 1995). Even Ali
Ufkî himself composed nine türkî s (Cevher 1995, 12-13). Ali Ufkî who stayed in
Topkapı Palace for almost twenty years, notated numerous examples of folk music
forms that he heard in and around the palace of Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) and
Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640-1648). Particularly in the court of Murad IV, türkî had
an important place. Several âsıks around Murad IV show the importance given to
the tradition of âsıklık in the Ottoman palace (Güray 2019, 332-336).9 If Murad IV
would have a rûznâme, we would probably find many references to türkî s that he
listened to.
Feldman argues that Evliyâ’s and Ali Ufkî’s positions about folkloric genres contrast
with Es’ad Efendi and Cantemir who lived half a century later than they and were
not interested in such “non-classical” genres, thus almost never mentioned them.
7[. . . ] vâdi-i Türkmânî üzere sâzendeligi dahi var idi (Behar 2010, 236).
8[. . . ] Siveli-oglu [ve] sâ’ir kefere ba‘zı Gevherî türküler âgâze ve istima‘ıyla eglenilüb [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 172)
9Cenk Güray gives the names of those âsıks in the court of Murad IV who were supposedly Jannisaries
(Güray 2019, 332-336).
53
While Evliyâ and Ali Ufkî were professional court musicians and close witnesses of
courtly repertoire, Es’ad Efendi and Cantemir were aristocratic amateurs. Since the
musicians in the palace were obliged to entertain the sultan with various genres of
dance, erotic and other “light” music, music in the Ottoman court was not restricted
to “classical” courtly genres (Feldman 1996, 69). Although we only know one genre
that can be regarded as non-classical that Mahmud I listened to, apart from several
religious ones, it still gives us an inkling of the musical diversity in the court of
Mahmud I.
Apart from türkî, most of the music whose genres are specified in the rûznâmes are
in the other forms of religious music, such as mosque music and Sufi music, if to
make such a division. While mentioning forms such as temcîd, ilâhi, mevlîd and
mirâciyye with mosque music usually sung by muezzins, Mahmud I also listened to
na’t and âyin mystical music several times, which are performed in Mevlevî lodges.
Nevertheless, forms of na’t, ilâhi and mirâciyye can be sung both in mosques and
tekkes. Since these two categories have commonalities, such a distinction will not
be applied here.
3.1.3 Temcîd
Temcîd, meaning "honoring and exalting", is a genre for praying and invocations
made to Allah. It was recited in the minarets by muezzins. Temcîd became associated
with three Islamic holy months: the first two of which (Receb and Saban)
a temcîd was recited after the night prayer (isha). During Ramazan, it was recited
after the meal eaten before starting to fast (sahur). Apart from three holy
months, it was also recited in some other blessed nights like kandîls. Temcîd is a
pre-composed work but having no usûl (rhythmic cycle). It was primarily sung solo,
but the muezzin’s choir would also intervene at certain points (Feldman 1992, 194).
It is composed of several parts of praising to Allah, kalimat at-tawhîd (unification of
the oneness of God), salutations to the Prophet, an invocation (münacât) verse in
Turkish, and some short verses read in between (Sahin 2015, 67). Although it was
under the category of mosque music, it was also performed in Sufi lodges.
In the rûznâmes, we see that temcîd was performed several times on 13 July (11
S 1147) and 7-8-9 September (8-9-10 R 1147) in the year 1734.10 As said before,
temcîd was performed during the three holy months or on blessed nights. However,
none of these performances mentioned in the rûznâmes were made within one of
10In connection with the performers, these temcîd performances were already mentioned in the previous
chapter.
54
these three months, and it appears that it was not a special day such as feasts or
kandîls. It is noted that only the 11th of Safer is the beginning of the month of July
(ibtidâ’-ı mâh-ı temmûz). Chronicles of the period equally do not mention special
occasions on these days either (Kayar 2020, 613-771). Furthermore, even though
temcîd was a vocal genre and sung by muezzins without instruments, in two of
these performances here, it was accompanied by the ney and the girift which is also
a member of ney family. It may have been done this way because it was performed
in front of the sultan, a place other than a mosque or a lodge, at Vâlide Sultan’s
Farm. But of course, these are no more than speculations.
3.1.4 Ilâhî
Ilâhî (hymn) is the general name of the poems composed in religio-mystical themes.
It is composed with a rhythmic cycle and its lyrics are mostly in Turkish. Depending
on its subject, ilâhî can be sung in different places and for different occasions. It
would not be correct to categorize ilâhî either as mosque music or Sufi music, because
it is a genre that can be sung both in mosques and Sufi lodges. The only distinction
worth mentioning is that while tekke ilâhî s could sometimes be sung accompanied
by instruments, mosque ilâhî s were performed entirely orally without instruments.
In the rûznâmes, ilâhi was only mentioned once. On the day of 13 July (11 S 1147)
when the temcîd was performed, as mentioned just above, ilâhis accompanied by
girift were also sung at the same gathering.
3.1.5 Mevlîd
Mevlîd or mevlîd-i serîf, which literally means birth, is the name of the ceremonies
held on the birth anniversary of the Prophet Muhammad in 12 Rebi‘ü’l-evvel. Although
other genres were also performed in these ceremonies, mevlîd, the ceremony’s
name, has its own distinct genre. Usually, Süleyman Çelebi’s (d. 1409) mesnevî –
called Vesîletü’n-necât (Path to Salvation), which is the most known mevlîd text
written in Turkish – is recited with an improvised melody without any rhythmic cycles.
The term mevlîd ceremony, which was held in one of the grand mosques after
the so-called mevlîd procession (mevlîd alayı) was attended by the sultan, eventually
encompassed a wider sense over time and included all the ceremonies held in either
the Ottoman palace or mosques on the twelfth day of the month in question.
All the days of mevlîd celebrations in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I corresponding to
55
between 1154/1741 and 1162/1749 are mentioned. Almost all of them were performed
in the same way. On the night between 11 and 12 Rebi‘ü’l-evvel, after the
sermon given by the sheikh of Hagia Sophia Mosque, the mevlîd was recited at places
like Mahbûbiye and Topkapı Palaces. The next day (on 12 Rebi‘ü’l-evvel), Mahmud
I went to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque with a procession (alay-ı muhtesem) for the
mevlîd ceremony. After listening to mevlîd recitations and to the letter brought from
the sherif of Mecca, various gifts were given to those who attended the ceremony
and recited the mevlîd. The mevlîd almost always happened in exactly the same
way for about ten years with only minor changes, such as location. For example,
in 1734 the mevlîd took place at Besiktas Palace instead of Sultan Ahmed Mosque.
Although in his book published in 1788-89, Swedish ambassador and writer with
Armenian origin Mouradgea D’Ohsson (1740-1807), gives an engraving of a mevlîd
ceremony held in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque; going to the Sultan Ahmed Mosque
with a procession in the day of mevlîd during the reign of Mahmud I may became
a custom sometime between 1734 and 1740, and it seems to be continued the times
ahead. Furthermore, details about who came to the ceremony, the reciters, etc. were
documented more in 1734 than in any of the mevlîd records kept between 1740-50.11
3.1.6 Mi‘râciyye
Mi‘râciyye, as another religious genre mentioned in the rûznâmes, was recited on
another Islamic holy night, on 27th of the month of Receb. It describes the ascension
of Prophet. It is also one of the pre-composed genres which lacked a fixed rhythmic
cycle (usûl). It composed of six parts (bahir) each were composed in different
makâms. It would not be correct to include this genre only in the category of mosque
music too, as it was mostly sung in the various Sufi lodges. Even its composer, Nâyî
Osman Dede (d.1729), was a Mevlevî sheikh.12 The term mi‘râciyye refers only to
the compositions of Osman Dede, as it is considered by later musicians a masterpiece
(Feldman 1992, 196).
In the rûznâmes, mi‘râciyye were sung (kıra‘at-ı mi‘râciyye) almost every year for
nine years, between 1740 and 1749, except for a few times (1743 and 1748). Although
these ceremonies sometimes took place in the Mevlevî lodge in Besiktas, they
were also held in different locations such as the palaces of Mahbûbiye, Sepetçiler or
Beylerbeyi. Abdülbâki Dede, the sheikh of the Galata Mevlevî Lodge at that time,
was invited with his dervishes most of the time.
11See: footnote 55 of the previous chapter
12For the composition story of mi’râciyye, see: page 36-37 of this thesis.
56
3.1.7 Na’t
The na’t or na’t-ı serîf is an improvised or composed chanting of poems (medhiye)
related to the love of the Prophet. It has also no fixed usûl. The na’t were solo
performances both in tekkes and mosques. Although several pieces in na’t form were
composed, only one of them is sung today: “na’t-ı Mevlânâ”. The composition is by
Buhûrîzâde Mustafa Itrî (d. 1712), a court musician associated with Mevlevî order,
in makâm rast with Persian lyrics written by Mevlânâ Celâleddin Rûmî. Itrî’s na’t
is one of the most crucial parts of the Mevlevî ceremony (âyin), which is sung as an
opening piece at all âyins regardless of which makâm they are composed in.
There is only a reference in the rûznâmes in which a na’t is recited. On 12 August
1734 (12 RA 1147), the night of the mevlîd, the na’thân (na’t reciter) of the Hagia
Sophia Mosque recited “na’t-ı nebevî ” and at the end of the ceremony, before the
mevlîd recitation, twenty kurus was given to him together with the mevlîd reciters.
Whether na’t-ı nebevî refers to a piece other than Itrî’s na’t is not known. Since
the term nebevî is about the prophet, it is quite possible that Itrî’s na’t-ı Mevlânâ
shared the same popularity as he was already-famous composer in 1734 and that
any mention of a na’t refers to his composition.
3.1.8 Âyin
One of the most frequently mentioned musical forms in the rûznâmes is the Mevlevî
âyin or âyin-i serîf. Âyin is the most complex and the longest musical form in
Ottoman music, composed to be sung during the Mevlevî ceremony (semâ) which
is a zikr (remembrance) of the Mevlevî order. It consists of four pre-composed
vocal sections (selâm), accompanied by various instruments – notably ney (reed
flute) – as well as an instrumental prelude (pesrev) and improvisations (taksîm) and
rhythmless chants (na’t). Singing the niyaz ilâhisi (suppliance chant) at the end is
optional.13 Although some of the âyins were composed in the same makâm from
beginning to end, there are also others that begin and end in different makâms. The
lyrics of âyins were selected from Mevlânâ Celâleddîn Rûmî’s works like the Mesnevî,
Dîvân-ı Kebîr and Rubâ‘iyyât, along with poems of his son, Sultan Veled, and some
Mevlevî poets. The earliest known Mevlevî âyin dates back to the mid-17th century
composed by Kösek Dervis Mustafa Dede (d. 1684). Prior to that there are also
three âyins known collectively as “ancient compositions” (beste-i kadîmler), whose
composers are unknown (Feldman 1992, 189).
13For detailed information on the performance of semâ and âyin, see: (Özcan, 2004).
57
Although the term “âyin” is not generally mentioned in the rûznâmes, as it is the
music of the Mevlevî ceremony, there are references to Mevlevî ceremonies that
Mahmud I attended. There are several references in the rûznâmes that Mahmud
I participated in the Mevlevî ceremonies, almost all the periods covered by the
rûznâmes, except 1731 which coincided with politically unstable times. It can be
said that Mahmud I regularly attended these ceremonies. Generally, he visited two
or three times within two or three months then did not visit for the rest of the year,
unless it was not recorded. While there are no references to visits during the winter
months, all the references coincided with the summer months without exception,
especially in the months of July and August.
3.2 Instruments
As briefly mentioned in the introduction part of this thesis, one of the areas of the
musical change in Ottoman music between 1600-1700 were instruments. Although
the rûznâmes of Mahmud I mention instrumentalists (sâzendegân), instrumental
fasıls that Mahmud I listened to (fasl-ı saz istima’ı, bazı saz ve âgâze ile eglenilüp),
and vocal pieces accompanied by instruments (bazı saz muvafakatiyle), little is said
about the instruments themselves.
Toderini, who joined the Venetian ambassador’s entourage and lived in Istanbul
between 1781-86, divides musical instruments he saw in Istanbul into two basic
categories. One category consists of instruments such as the Zurnà (shawm), Kabà
Zurnà (law shawm), Borù (trumpet), Zil (cymbal), Daul (davul, drum), Tombelek
o Naarà and Kios (kös, kettledrums), which Toderini calls “Mehterhane, that is,
war instruments” (Mechter Hanè, Stromenti Musici Militari) (Toderini, 238). The
other group includes the Keman (violin), Ajaklì Keman (footed violin), Sinè Keman
(breast violin), Rebab, Tambur, Nèi (ney), ghirif (girift), Evvi ancora il Nèi Ottavino
(?), Mescal (miskal, panpipe), Santur (dulcimer), Canun and Dairè (tambourine).
Toderini named this category “Instruments of Chamber music” (Musici Stromenti
da camera) (Toderini 1787, 236-239). Here, I group instruments mentioned in the
rûznâmes according to Toderini’s categorization.
58
3.2.1 Instruments of Mehterhâne
The most frequently mentioned instrument in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I is the
nakkâre, which was an integral part of the mehter ensemble. It is one of the three
drums in the mehter ensemble, consisting of two small bowl-like drums beaten with
hands or two wooden sticks (zahme or tokmak). The one who plays it called nakkârezen.
Apart from its usage in war, the nakkâre is regarded as one of the most prominent
instruments for open-air entertainment, festivals, and wedding ceremonies. Together
with some of the instruments of the official mehter ensemble like zurna, def
and tabl, it might also accompany dancers with the instruments of “chamber orchestra”
such as santur, rebâb, and miskal (Pekin 2018, 464). In a festival book
commissioned by Ahmed III for the circumcision of his four sons in 1720, there are
several scenes that depict nakkâre accompanying dancers. Nakkâre-zens could play
nakkâre while sitting in the various ceremonies. On occasions like processions, where
they had to move, they tied their instruments in front of the saddles if they were
on horses, or bind it to their waists with a belt if they were on foot. In Van Mour’s
painting of a Ottoman wedding (between circa 1720 and 1737), we see a man with a
nakkâre strapped to his back and a nakkâre-zen who beats with sticks while walking
in front of three ney-players.
In the rûznâmes, the nakkâre appears in similar kinds of scenes. While Mahmud I
watched games, races, or competitions such as cirit and tombak, he listened to fasıls
of the nakkâre. Likewise, in ordinary recreational gatherings or while Mahmud I was
contemplating the passers-by the sea (güzerânları temâsâ) nakkâres accompanied.
In addition, while Mahmud I and his mother, Saliha Sultan, traveled from one place
to another, nakkâres accompanied to announce their passing to people. Thus, we
see the nakkâre also in the functions of unofficial mehters. It appears that the
nakkâre had a kind of special place from other mehter instruments. While no standalone
fasıls are organized for any other instrument, there are many references in
the rûznâmes to the fasıls in which the nakkâre is played alone. For example,
where expressions such as “sade zurna faslı” or “sade kös faslı” are never used,
“sade nakkâre faslı or nakkâre-i sâde” (meaning “only the nakkâre. . . ”) became a
recurring pattern throughout the rûznâmes. It should also be noted that with few
exceptions, all references to those nakkâre fasıls are mentioned in the rûznâme of
1734.
There are two references when a nakkâre was accompanied by the zurna and tabl –
both members of the mehter ensemble. It was once during the game of cirit and
59
once in a procession ceremony in which the Iranian ambassador attended.14 The
zurna is a woodwind instrument which has a powerful sound and is usually played
outdoors. The tabl (or davul), double-headed drums, is one of the kettledrums in
the mehter, played with two mallets which make both a deep bass sound and a thin
treble sound. There is also a reference which shows the tabl and kös were played
together. The kös/kûs is another percussion instrument in the mehter ensemble,
which is much larger and sounds much louder compared with the medium-sized
nakkâre. It was taken on campaigns and played on official occasions (Feldman 2012,
3). It is mentioned that on 6 October 1730 (23 RA 1143), the tabl and kös were
played together with the mehterhâne during the procession of Mahmud I’s swordwielding
ceremony on the way to Eyyüb Mosque, which took place after he acceded
to the throne.
3.2.2 Instruments of “Chamber Music”
The most important instrument in the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, that could be in a
“chamber orchestra”15 is the ney or nây. The ney, a rim-blown flute made of the
reed is one of the most ancient instruments and an indispensable member of the
Mevlevî ceremony (semâ) and regarded sacred for Mevlevî s. As the teaching of this
instrument was monopolized by the Mevlevî lodges, it is generally identified with the
Mevlevî order. More than half of the ney-players that Evliyâ named were affiliated
with Mevlevîyye (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003, 638). With the rise of Mevlevî musicians in the
18th century, it probably gained greater importance among wind instruments such
as the miskal (Behar 2019, 35). By the 17th century, the ney underwent a technical
development in the Ottoman realm which distinguishes it from former neys. While
the Arab nay and the Persian ney do not use a mouthpiece, the Ottoman ney added
one, called bas-pâre, and was made of bone or ox horn, which provides a smoother,
stronger, and brighter sound.
Most of the references to the ney or ney-players in the rûznâmes are in the context of
Mevlevî ceremonies.16 Apart from the performances in the Mevlevî lodges, Mevlevî
neyzens also played at weddings, coffee houses, "concerts" and took part in perfor-
14(17 S 1154/ 28 October 1741) gulâm-ı nakkâre-zen ile zurna fasl u temâsâsıyla evkât-güzâr [. . . ] (Oral
1966, 77-78); (9 M 1160 / 21 January 1747) darb-ı Mehter-hâne’ye ruhsat-ı hümâyûn olmagla darb-ı tabl
u nakkâre iderek bün-i kasrdan müretteb alay-ı muhtesem ile zehâb [. . . ] (Bayrak 1972, 2).
15As Ersu Pekin conveys, the term of “chamber music” (musici di camera) was first used by Ali Ufkî in the
mid-17th century (Pekin 2018, 464). Toderini also employed this term to describe to music that he heard
in Istanbul.
1630 June 1734 (28 M 1147), 22 July 1734 (20 S 1147), 7 July 1745 (7 C 1158).
60
mances of different genres of music throughout in Istanbul (Pekin 2015, 43). This
can be seen in the rûznâmes as well. On 7 August 1742 (5 C 1155) in the Nesâdâbâd
Pavilion, one of the ney-players coming from the city (tasra neyzenlerinden bir
neyzen) played a secular fasıl with the ney, in company with other instruments.17
The girift is also one of the instruments mentioned in the rûznâmes.18 It is one of the
twelve kinds of ney mentioned by Evliyâ (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003, 626). In the rûznâmes,
it is only used as an accompanying instrument in temcîd recitations, unlike the ney,
not in the context of Mevlevî ceremonies.
Another instrument that rûznâmes mentioned in the context of semâ ritual is
kudûm.19 Kudûm is a small double drum beaten with sticks played in the Mevlevî
lodges, also known as nakkâre. Evliyâ gives the names of some nakkâre-zens in the
section entitled “the players of kudûm” (kudûm sâzendeleri). This makes one think
that these two instruments are the same, with perhaps some small differences, but
called by different names in different contexts (Evliyâ Çelebi 2003, 638). The tanbûr,
a long-necked lute having six strings (three pairs) played with a tortoiseshell
plectrum, another of the chamber music instruments mentioned in the rûznâmes.
Although there were other stringed instruments in similar forms, the tanbûr can be
defined as a distinctly Ottoman variety, with its very long neck and hemispherical
body. By the end of the 17th century, the tanbûr became a fixture in fasıl ensembles.
It also displaced every other member of the lute family such as – notably –
ûd, seshâne and sestâr (Feldman 1996, 142). In the very first paragraph of his theory
of music book, Cantemir expresses the prominence of the tanbûr among other
instruments around 1700, as follows:
“The instrument called tanbûr is the most perfect and complete of all
instruments which we know or have seen because it performs completely
and without fault all the sounds and melodies which appear by means
of the breath of man”.20
Cantemir also puts a drawing of a tanbûr at the end of the theory section of his book
17Nesâd-âbâd’a tesrîf ve pîsgâh-ı sevket-meâbda bâzîçe-i satranç ve tasra neyzenlerinden bir neyzen ve ba‘zı
sâz muvaffakâtiyle fasl u istima‘ıyla evkât-güzâr [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 126).
1813 July 1734 (11 S 1147) and 9 September 1734 (10 R 1147).
19(30 June 1734/ 28 M 1147) kasr-ı Mînâ’da ârâm-ı cüz‘iyeden sonra civârında olan mevlevî-hânenin yevm-i
mukâbelesi olmagla mahall-i sehriyârîye tesrîf olunup devr-i felek-âsâ dervîsân tarî-i Mevleviyye’nin semâ‘î
[?] ve nâyı kudûmün (âheng-i tarab-engîzin) istimâ‘ıyla zevk-yâb olunup [. . . ] (DABOA.TS.MA.d...„ 3a).
20“Bizim bildigimiz yahut gördügümüz sazlardan cümlesinden kâmil ve tamam tanbur dedikleri sazdır, öyle
ki benî-âdem’in nefesinden zuhur eden sadâ ve nagmeyi bi’t-tamam ve bilâ kusur icra eder.” (Behar 2017b,
51). English translation belongs to Walter Feldman (Feldman 1996, 143).
61
and shows the places of pitches (perde) of Ottoman music on its neck. Furthermore,
all 18th-century writers such as Cantemir, Toderini, Hızır Aga, Fonton, Kevserî,
and Blainville mention and provide an illustration of the tanbûr in their works.
Ersu Pekin claims that the tanbûr was the symbolic beginning of the characteristic
"classicization" path of Ottoman music (Pekin 2015, 51). Similarly, for Feldman,
it points to technical improvements and radical changes in music styles (Feldman
2015, 99).21 Despite being an important instrument in the following century, the
rûznâmes only mention the tanbûr once. It is recorded that a sergeant (serheng)
of the grand vizier, who is very skilled in playing the tanbûr, was summoned. As
requested, he performed fasıls and was eventually rewarded with gold coins (zer-i
mahbûb) (18 Z 1153 / 6 March 1741). The reason for this rarity may be that the
fasıls that Mahmud I attended were mentioned without much detail and tanbûr was
the chief instrument of fasıl music, yet it was also sometimes used for religious or
Mevlevî music.
Another stringed (and bowed) instrument in the rûznâmes is the kemân (violin),
which is mentioned twice. These references are about two violinists, one, named
Ibrahim (19 Z 1154/ 25 February 1742), and the other, only known as having come
from Bursa and being a dervish (16 L 1159/1 November 1746). On each occasion,
they entertained the sultan by playing this stringed instrument. But which kemân
was that? Throughout the 18th century, there are two kinds of violin (kemân) in
Ottoman ensembles: kemânçe (kemân) or ayaklı kemân (footed kemân), and the
viola d’amore or sinekemânı (brest kemân). The former, made of the shell of the
coconut, was the only bowed instrument in Ottoman music since before the 16th
century and extending to the mid-18th century (Feldman 1996,128). Yet, by the
mid-18th century, the kemânçe was gradually replaced by the European violin, the
viola d’amore. Fonton writes in 1751 that viola d’amore was first introduced to
the “Orientals” by Yorgi (Sivelioglu). He stresses that no one plays this instrument
better than Sivelioglu, adding, “since the European violin is not very popular in
the Orient – except in taverns – we can assume that this instrument will disappear
after Yorgi. A different violin, which they call kemân that does not resemble ours,
is much more popular” (Behar 2017a, 168). Hızır Aga gives a drawing of the more
traditional kemân (kemânçe) in 1793, by saying just “kemân”. It appears more likely
that the violins mentioned in the rûznâmes are not the viola d’amore, which had
just become known in the 1740s, but rather the kemânçe.
The last instrument that the rûznâmes of Mahmud I mentioned is the erganun.
Made in various sizes but usually rather large, the erganun was usually situated
21For a detailed analysis on tanbûr, see: (Feldman 1996, 142-153).
62
in churches. On 19 March 1741 (1 M 1154) the grand vizier brought a “strange
instrument” (sâz-ı ‘âcibe), called erganun, from Europe to be played for Mahmud
I.22 It is not mentioned whether the sultan liked it or not. Even as one of the
instruments in Hızır Aga’s treatise, is unfamiliar to the Ottoman musical world
(Pekin 2020, 50). He writes that it consists of twenty-four pipes and is played by
two people while one pressing the keys while the other is blowing. He says that its
voice is loud enough to be heard even at a distance of half an hour. Pekin claims
that Hızır Aga’s erganun may have been an organ that traveled from the East to
the West, and then came back to Istanbul in the 18th century, or it could have
been played in a Catholic church in Istanbul at that time (Pekin 2020, 265). It is
written in the rûznâmes that the erganun was brought from Europe. As Mahmud
I’s interest in music was known, this instrument may have been brought as a gift
maybe because it was thought that he would find it interesting.23
3.3 The Conclusion of the Chapter
To conclude, it is remarkable that almost all the genres that Mahmud I listened to are
the genres of religious music. He rarely missed blessed nights like mi‘râç and mevlîd.
There is no record in the rûznâme of Selim III who was another musically inclined
sultan known for his involvement in the Mevlevî order, for example, celebrated such
holy nights (Benlioglu 2017, 230-244). Especially in the example of the temcîd,
these forms were commonplace not only on Islamic holy nights but also on other,
“ordinary” nights. Another remarkable issue is that there is no mention of the
forms of fasıl repertoires in the rûznâmes. In the 18th century, Cantemir talks
about three types of fasıl: instrumental (sâzende faslı), vocal (hânende faslı) and
joint instrumental-vocal (hânende ve sâzende müsterek faslı). While taksim, pesrev
and saz semai are performed in the instrumental fasıl, vocal forms such as gazel,
beste, naks (agır semai), kâr and yürük semai were performed in the vocal fasıl.
All these forms are performed in a certain order in the joint instrumental and vocal
fasıl (Kantemiroglu 2001). None of these forms of fasıl repertoires are mentioned in
the rûznâmes of Mahmud I.
Concerning the instruments, although rûznâmes does not provide much data about
the instruments of the time, this much information nevertheless supports the exist-
22kefere-i frengden vürûd iden erganon ismi ile müsemmâ bir sâz-ı ‘acîbe irsâl idüb sevketlü efendimiz dahî
Oda-i Bagdâd’a tesrîf ve sâz-ı mezbûr ile fasl olunub [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 36).
23We learn from chronicler Silahdâr that during the Ottoman-Polish War in 1672 (1083) Ottomans were
already familiar with this instrument (Türkal 2012, 624).
63
ing literature on instruments of the first half of the 18th century. The references
concerning the ney and tanbûr, the performances of violinists, a catchy reference to
the erganun, as well as the prominence of the nakkâre among other mehter instruments
inform us about the repertoire of instruments in the Mahmud I’s court and
in the early 18th century, along with Mahmud I’s music taste.
64
4. THE VENUES OF MUSIC
In the previous chapters, I surveyed musicians, and musical genres, as well as the
instruments based on the data provided by rûznâmes of Mahmud I. This chapter, by
contrast, examines the venues where Mahmud I participated in musical entertainments.
These places will be divided into six categories according to their location or
the owner. For example, those located in the Rumelian and Asian shores of Bosphorus,
Golden Horn, Topkapı Palace, the vicinity of Istanbul, or those belonging to
dignitaries (pl. ricâl, deriving from the Arabic meaning “men”).
4.1 Topkapı Waterfront Palace
The Topkapı Palace located at the tip of the peninsula, which has several kiosks in
its walls, is the primary location that hosted Mahmud I’s musical entertainments.
Most references do not specify the specific building where entertainment occurred
at the Topkapı Palace (see: Table 4.2) What we know about them is that numerous
musical performances took place in the imperial palace. Furthermore, as Topkapı
was the sultan and his family’s winter residence, almost all performances here took
place during the winter months.
Mahbûbiye Palace in Sarayburnu, at the very tip of the peninsula, was built during
the reign of Mahmud I. With a dozen and a half of references, “the new palace” is
presumably the most preferred place by Mahmud I for musical gatherings throughout
the whole rûznâmes. While there is a dramatic increase in Mahmud I’s visits to
Mahbûbiye in the years of 1742 (8) and 1746 (6), there is not a single reference to
there in the years of 1747, 1748, and 1749.1
Apart from Mahbûbiye, several kiosks or palaces within the borders of Topkapı
1For a study on Mahbûbîye, see: (Esin, 2009) and a description of this newly-built palace by a contemporary
source, see: (Izzî Efendi 2019, 418-420).
65
Palace namely Sevkiye, Incili, Sogukçesme, Sepetçiler, Orta-kösk2 and Yalı-köskü
were also mentioned in the rûznâmes regarding the musical gatherings of the sultan.
However, the references given to them are too few, compared to Mahbûbiye.
4.2 Bosphorus
Throughout the 18th century, the imperial seat gradually moved/relocated from
Topkapı to the waterfront on the Bosphorus. Although not as much as Topkapı,
there are quite a few references to musical performances at palatial settings on the
Rumelian and the Anatolian shores of the Bosphorus in the rûznâmes. Artan makes
an analogy to “the theatre of life on the Bosphorus” in reference to the Rumelian
coast, which witnessed a set of ceremonial and ritualistic festivities (Artan 1989).
4.2.1 The Rumelian Shore
Among the buildings located in both shores of Bosphorus, the Besiktas Waterfront
Palace takes center stage in the rûznâmes, denoting where most of Mahmud I’s
musical gatherings took place. The first building in the district of Besiktas is called
Besiktas Palace. Dated to the time of Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617), the Palace grew by
erecting several kiosks and palaces in a similar manner to Topkapı Palace (Artan
1989, 353). It was designed for summer visits during the reigns of Ahmed III and,
his successor, Mahmud I. Since the last days of Ahmed III’s reign, Besiktas had
already become the foremost imperial summer palace – to the point where the court
of Topkapı moved in summers (göç or göç-i hümâyûn [imperial migration]).
According to the rûznâmes, Besiktas Palace and the waterfront mansion (yalı) or
palace of Çıragan,3 the Gülsen-âbâd Kiosk (adjacent to the Çıragan Palace),4 and
the Mevlevî lodge inside of this palace, were where Mahmud I attended musical
gatherings until 1745. Except those which took place in the Mevlevî lodge, Mahmud
I went to these places not only in spring and summer but also in winter months,
despite being known as summer palaces. Other than these, the Mevlevî lodge located
2Orta-kösk may be one of the mansions in Topkapı, as can be understand from several expressions such
as “Orta-kösk, which is situated in Topkapı” (Topkapu’da vâki‘ Orta-kösk). I thank Selman Soydemir for
informing me about Orta-Kösk.
3Built by the son-in-law of Ahmed III and the grand vizier Damad Ibrahim Pasa (d. 1730).
4Çıragan Yalısı ittisâlinde olan Gülsen-âbâd Yalısı’na tesrîf [. . . ] (DABOA.TS.MA.d...„ 5b).
66
in this palace deserves special inquiry, as it may reveal the extent of Mahmud I’s
Mevlevî inclinations.
One of the buildings of the Besiktas Palace is the Mevlevî lodge, which stood next
to Çıragan. There are several references in the rûznâmes to the Mevlevî ceremonies
that Mahmud I watched/listened to. A great number of the recorded ceremonies
took place in the Mevlevî lodge located in the Besiktas Palace, whereas another three
did not (see: Table 4.1). It is not documented in the rûznâmes whether Mahmud I
went to one of the other nearby Mevlevî lodges active at the time in Galata, Yenikapı
or Kasımpasa. Undoubtedly, we cannot expect that the rûznâmes, which reports
short notes about each day, to record all of Mahmud I’s visits to Mevlevî lodges.
It is also very possible that there are unrecorded ones. These details do not tell
us much about the content of those ceremonies, such as repertoire and performers.
Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that it does provide quite rich data about
those visits, which I think reveal Mahmud I’s affiliations with the Mevlevîyye.
We can see that Mahmud I attended Mevlevî ceremonies at least a few times a
year in 1734 and in between 1741 and 1748. There are no such records between
1730-31 and 1748-50. Looking at the timing of these ceremonies that Mahmud I
attended, we can see that the months of July and August (Cemaziye’l-ahir according
to the Islamic calendar) are the most numerous. A little less than half of those
visits took place during this month. One explanation for the increased frequency of
Mevlevî ceremonies in the month of Cemaziye’l-ahir in the rûznâmes, regarding those
ritual ceremonies, might be due to it commemorating the death of the eponymous
founder of the Mevlevî order, Mevlânâ (d. 5 C 672). That’s why the activities
may have increased during this month. Other than that, the months before and
after Cemaziye’l-ahir (Cemaziye’l-evvel and Receb) follows with respectively five
and seven references. The common point of these three Islamic months is that they
coincide with summer, when the weather is nice. We cannot see such visits in winter.
All his visits to the Mevlevî lodge took place in June, July, August, September, and
rarely October.
Baha Tanman states that Mevlevî lodges in Istanbul were located outside of the
dense settlement areas, intended as excursion spots (mesîre). The Mevlevî lodge in
Galata was built in a hunting ground, the lodge in Yenikapı was located in a garden,
Kasımpasa Mevlevî Lodge was on a slope of a valley covered with flower gardens and
orchards. The Üsküdar Lodge was built in an area with garden mansions and the
Bahâriye Lodge was established among the mansions on the shores of Bahâriye in
Eyüp. These secluded spaces were later taken over by the city’s populace, especially
in the first quarter of the 20th century (Tanman 1994, 178-179). Besiktas Mevlevî
67
Lodge that Mahmud I visited regularly was also built in between waterfront palaces
on the shores of the Çıragan. His visits to this place coincided with the summer
months may be that it was also built as excursion spot. Said differently, this place
may allow Mahmud I to relax and contemplate due to their location, which is more
convenient in the summer months.
There is a certain order to the days on which these ceremonies take place. Abdülbâki
Gölpınarlı states that before Selim III, there were no specific days and hours
dedicated to those ceremonies. Instead, he says, they were organized whenever
the dervishes felt ecstasy, excitement, love, and enthusiasm. Selim III, who was a
Mevlevî follower, went to the lodges whenever he wanted to. The sultan’s arrival
frequently forced the mukâbele (semâ, the Mevlevî ritual) to be organized. Over
time, Mevlevî elders became uncomfortable with the sultan’s arrival acting as a
conduit to the semâ, rather than necessarily representing the love and enthusiasm
they felt. Thereafter, they decided to hold those ceremonies once or twice a week in
each lodge of Istanbul. In the five Mevlevî lodges in Istanbul, certain days were determined
as the day of mukâbele.5 Yet, Mevlevî ceremonies could also be organized
on some other days upon special occasions like the month of Ramazan, holy nights,
or religious festivals (Gölpınarlı 1963, 99-100).
After Selim III, Wednesday became the day of mukâbele of the Besiktas Mevlevî
Lodge, whereas prior there is little certainty as to a regular practice. The rûznâmes
of Mahmud I does not provide such a messy picture regarding the days of mukâbele,
which concentrates on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Almost half of the references of
Mahmud I’s Mevlevî lodge visits took place on Wednesdays, with Thursday having
fewer. Other than these two days, there are also a couple of references to Tuesdays,
Fridays, and Saturdays. Although it is said that before the time of Selim III the
days of mukâbele were not fixed, according to the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, it seems
that there was a sort of stable picture during the time of Mahmud I.
Among the references to the Mevlevî ceremonies that Mahmud I attended, two of
them stand out particularly. On 7 and 20 October in 1741 (26 B and 9 S 1154),
the sheikh of Galata Mevlevî Lodge, Abdülbâki Dede, came to Topkapı Palace
with his two dervishes. The sultan gifted them dervish clothings (libâs-ı dervisân).
The first day was the night of m’râç but it is not written whether these dervishes
performed a semâ. However, the other day Mahmud I watched the semâ they
performed. The arrival of the dervishes to the palace is quite noteworthy as it
shows the Mevlevî ceremony was not only for worship and zikr, but also it had
5The schedule was as follows; Friday: Kulekapısı (Galata), Saturday: Üsküdar, Sunday: Kasımpasa, Monday:
Yenikapı (Mevlevihane kapısı), Tuesday: Kulekapısı, Wednesday: Besiktas (Later Bahâriye in Eyüp),
Thursday: Yenikapı (Gölpınarlı 1963, 100).
68
functioned as a visual demonstration. This brings one’s mind the summoning of
whirling dervishes to various events today, such as weddings and circumcisions, for
entertainment purposes.
We do not know for sure whether Mahmud I was a follower of a Sufi order. His frequent
visits to the Besiktas Mevlevî Lodge and summoning dervishes to the Topkapı
Palace make one think that he was a Mevlevî. Similarly, while in the rûznâme of
Selim III records the sultan’s numerous visits to the Mevlevî lodges between 1791-
1806 were identified (Benlioglu 2019, 345-347), the thirty-two incidents in Mahmud
I’s rûznâmes, covering six years less than Selim III’s, seems to strengthen this possibility.
As understood from the rest of the rûznâmes that Mahmud I was closely
interested in music, which may be related to his Mevlevî identity if it was the case.
Mahmud I’s artistic disposition and his interest in music may have brought him
closer to the Mevlevî order and thus Mevlevî lodges, one of the most important
music centers of the time.6
6In his monograph of Mahmud I, Ugur Kurtaran states that although Mahmud I was quite pious, there is
no record regarding his affiliation with any Sufi order, but he also had a fondness for all major Sufi orders
like the other sultans before him (Kurtaran 2014, 47). Efgan Uzun who introduced the rûznâme of 1734,
agrees with Kurtaran. He also thinks that there is no information about Mahmud I’s Sufi affiliations in this
piece of rûznâme, although Mahmud I was not completely ignorant to Sufism, so which tariqa he belongs
to is not clear (Uzun 2013, 698). Tülay Artan, in her recently published article, notes that Mahmud I’s
frequent visits to the Mevlevî lodges, probably in a certain routine, point out his Mevlevî identity, adding
that this issue awaits the further investigation of his rûznâmes (Artan 2020, 102).
69
Table 4.1 The Days and Places of the Mevlevî Ceremonies that Mahmud I Attended.
70
Other than the buildings in Besiktas Palace, one of the Mahmud I’s frequent destinations
for musical entertainment in the Rumelian side of Bosphorus was the waterfront
mansion of Nesâd-âbâd at Defterdar landing, in Ortaköy. Nesâd-âbâd was
built during the time of Ahmed III by Damad Ibrahim Pasa and changed hands
among the female members of the imperial family during the 18th century (Artan
1989, 366). According to the rûznâmes, Mahmud I went to Nesâd-âbâd as often
as he went to Besiktas Palace to spend time with the music. This is where the
previously mentioned Çömlekçi-oglu came to perform the Türkmânî türkî s. Moreover,
one of the ritual ceremonies of the Mevlevî dervishes that Mahmud I watched
took place in Nesâd-âbâd.7 All the references to this place in the rûznâmes are
in summer months, (namely June, July, and August) which indicates that it was
a summer palace during the reign of sultan in question. The last reference of the
venue of music in the Rumelian coast is Taksim, from where water from a reservoir
was distributed to various parts of the city. No details are given about this place
except to say that Mahmud I came to Taksim district (Mahall-i Taksim) in the
mid-afternoon and enjoyed with fasl u âgâze.8
4.2.2 The Asian Shore
The other coast of the Bosphorus was also preferred by Mahmud I. Palaces or
kiosks on the Asian shore such as Büyük Çamlıca, Beylerbeyi, Kuleli, Seref-âbâd (in
Üsküdar), along with the gardens of Sultaniye (between Pasabahçe and Beykoz) and
Yemisçi (in Beylerbeyi) are mentioned in the rûznâmes. Nevertheless, the waterfront
mansion in Göksu, located at the entrance of the Göksu River, was perhaps the most
frequent of musical performances that Mahmud I attended, notably in the summers
of 1734, 1741, and 1742.
These performances were sometimes witness unusual and so-called “picturesque”
scenes. For instance, there is a reference to a morbidly overweight man who is
very good at swimming and singing while swimming in the Göksu River, who was
rewarded for his show.9 That man was not the only one singing in the water.
Some musicians (serhengân) gathered in a boat in front of the kiosk at Göksu
7(11 C 1154/24 August 1741) Nesâd-âbâd’a tesrîf ve revzeneden dervîsânın devr ü semâlarını müsâhede [. . . ]
(Oral 1966, 65).
8(14 CA 1155/18 July 1742) vakt-i ‘asrda mahall-i Taksîm’e tesrîf ve ba‘dehû ba‘zı sâz ve âgâze ile eglenilüb
[. . . ] (Oral 1966, 123).
9(28 R 1155/2 July 1742) Yirmi sekizinci yevm-i ahadde Göksu’ya tesrîf ve bir semiz kimesne fenn-i sibâhatte
mahâreti olmagla deryâda ba‘zı beste âgâze idüb mazhar-ı ihsân oldu. (Oral 1966, 120).
71
sang songs to the audience in the kiosk under the full moon (Artan 2020, 129).10
Considering that the light from the full moon must have been quite effective in an
era where there was no electricity, it is not difficult to imagine this picturesque scene.
About one month later, the musicians entertained listeners in the kiosk with their
music. But this time they were accompanied by dwarves, who must have been part
of the show.11 “Singers, mutes and dwarves performing on water more probably
constituted a novelty, at least for the court of Mahmud I (Artan 2019, 31).
4.3 Golden Horn
Artan writes in 1989 that “in Sultan Mahmud’s reign the pleasure palaces were
shifted from the Golden Horn and Kagıthane to Bosphorus” (Artan 1989, 54). She
also claims in 2020 that while Ahmed III preferred Sa‘d-âbâd Palace12 because it
was an isolated place, Mahmud I’s choice was Göksu (Artan 2020, 127). Artan adds
that, although not totally abandoned, Sa‘d-âbâd and other palaces and gardens on
the shores of Golden Horn fell out of favor during the reign of Mahmud I. Their
reduced popularity, even considering their recent restorations completed after 1730,
restored during the reign of Mustafa III (r. 1757-1774) (Artan 2020, 142).
Although Bosphorus (especially courtly settings at Göksu and Besiktas) was the
most popular place for Mahmud I after Topkapı, there were numerous musical performances
that took place notably in the Palaces of Sa‘d-âbâd and Bahâriye,13 along
with in the gardens of Karaagaç14 and Tersâne,15 both gained importance during
the reign of Ahmed III (see: Table 4.2). These highlight that the district of Golden
Horn was the third most mentioned of Mahmud I’s musical gatherings after Topkapı
and Bosphorus. We can see that Mahmud I attended performances in Sa‘d-âbâd
(15) and in Bahâriye (10) several times from 1740 onwards. No specific time or season
seems to have been preferred for the visits to Golden Horn. Although Mahmud
10(4 CA 1154/18 July 1741) Göksu’ya teveccüh ve leb-i deryâda vâki‘ kasra sâye-endâz-ı iclâl [. . . ] pîsgâh-ı
kasrda derûn-ı zevrakda serhengân fasl u âgâze idüb eglenildi (Oral 1966, 59-60).
11(2 C 1154/15 August 1741) Göksu’ya seref-bahs-ı iclâl [. . . ] serhengân [ve] cüceyân zevraka süvâr ve
pîsgâh-ı kasrda fasl-ı sâz ba‘dehû nisâr-ı zer olunub [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 64).
12For a comprehensive study on Sa‘d-âbâd, see: (Eldem 1977).
13For more information on Bahâriye Mansion, see: (Artan, 1993).
14For more information on the garden and waterfront mansion in Karaagaç, see: (Artan, 1994).
15For a study on Tersâne Garden as an entertainment place in the 17th and 18th centuries, see: (Ertürk,
2013).
72
I and his retinue visited these places and participated in musical entertainments
mostly in spring, we can see them in winter months as well.
4.4 The Vicinity of Istanbul
Looking at the musical entertainments that took place in the vicinity of Istanbul,
few locations attract our attention which are Kasr-ı Vidoz, Vâlide Sultan Çiftligi
(The Farm of Queen Mother), Alibey or Alibeyköy Çiftligi (The Farm of Ali Bey),
and Vezir Bahçesi (The Garden of Vizier) (see: Table 4.2).
Among those locations, the farm belonging to Saliha Sultan was the most frequented
place in the vicinity of Istanbul that Mahmud I had visited. Saliha Sultan’s (the
Queen Mother) farm in Alibeyköy was referred to as Vâlide Sultan Çiftligi and
Alibey/Alibeyköy Çiftligi. The multiple references given to this place either called
Vâlide Sultan Çiftligi or Alibey/Alibeyköy Çiftligi. Putting aside that these visits
coincided with spring months, there is not much detailed information about the
contents of these musical entertainments. The rûznâmes does not say who the performers
were or what kind of music they performed. Other than Saliha Sultan’s
farm, a reference to Kasr-ı Vidoz is worth mentioning. There is not much information
in the chronicles about this location other than being in the vicinity of the
Davud Pasa Palace (Artan 2020, 124). The rûznâmes mentions that on 1 February
1741, singers gathered in a boat (or boats) in the pool at Kasr-ı Vidoz while people
watched from the palace, listening to their songs.16 Together with the musicians in
Göksu River singing from the boat, this reference shows that the performances in
which the musicians in the boats came in front of the palaces and sang to those who
were in the palaces were not infrequent during the reign of Mahmud I.
4.5 Dignitary Palaces and Gardens
Finally, let us look at the palaces and gardens which are mentioned in the context of
musical entertainments, the owners of which were the state dignitaries, who appear
to be interested in music. These are namely Mahall-i Halîfe-i Kozbekciyan (the place
16[. . . ]Kasr-ı Vidoz’a tesrîf ve havuzda olan zevraka nev-be-nev hânende-i serhengân vaz‘ ve fasl u âgâze ile
kesb-i safâ [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 28). The word Oral wrote as “Kotuz” is Vidoz or Fidoz. I thank Selman
Soydemir for informing me.
73
of the kozbekci)17 , Sadr-ı A’zâm Sarayı, Kasr-ı Mehmed Pasa, Ishak Aga Yalısı,
Aga Bahçesi, the palace prepared for Numan Pasa,18 the Bostancıbası’s pavilion19
located in a diary,20 and the pavilion newly built by the chief harem eunuch in
Cedid Aga garden.21 As Artan claims, while the number of palaces belonging to
dignitaries visited by Mahmud I increased gradually between 1740-50, the musical
activity carried by the sultan and his retinue from Rumelia to Asian shores of the
Bosphorus reached elite households (Artan 2020, 131). This indicates the fact that
the patronage of arts and artists was no longer under the monopoly of the sultan,
but high-ranking bureaucrats were also able to become patrons. This displays the
broadening base of patronage. Although we cannot locate all the places mentioned
by the rûznâmes, it is quite possible that most of them (like Ishak Aga’s mansion)
were on the shores of Bosphorus.
Within half a dozen references, it is clear that Mahmud I visited the grand vizier(s)’s
palace for musical entertainments most frequently in this group.22 It is not surprising
considering that the state official the sultan saw the most and spent the most time
with was the grand vizier. However, it seems difficult to pinpoint a specific location,
as there were sixteen grand viziers who served during Mahmud I’s twenty-four-yearlong
reign.23
The second most mentioned place is Kasr-ı Mehmed Pasa. Possibly belonging to
a grand vizier but the actual owner remains unidentified. Despite this building (it
17Kozbekci is one of the servants in the chief harem eunuch’s office.
18[. . . ] Âhar [Ahır?] kapı kurbunda vâki‘ Nu‘mân Pasa kullarına akd olunan sultan sarayına tesrîf (Bayrak
1972, 59). I do not know who Numan Pasa in question was, but the commander-in-chief (ser-asker)
of Bender (a city in Moldova) during the Ottoman-Russian War in 1738-1739 who had the same name
(Kurtaran 2015, 597).
19Bostancı-bası is the head of the Bostancı Ocagı, who is responsible for the security of the Bosphorus and
the nearby islands. These individuals also performed duties such as using the helm of sultan’s boat and
discharging death warrants of those who were ordered to be killed.
20(8 CA 1160/ 18 May 1747) [. . . ] bostâncı-bası aganın mandıra ta‘bîr olunan mahalde ziyâfeti olmagla
sevketlü efendimiz esb-i gerdûn [ile] mesîre-süvâr ve gül-gest-i dest ederek ta‘dâd-ı ganem olunan mahalde
vâki‘ kasrda bir mikdâr ârâm ve ta‘dâd-ı ganemi müsâhede ve mahall-i mezbûr kurbunda âmâde olunan
sâyebâna sâye-bahs ve temâsâ-yı musâri‘ûn ve bâzîçe-i kol ve istima‘-ı fasl ile eglenilüb [. . . ] Selman
Soydemir states by personal communication that although it is certain that the dairy in question is on
the Asian side of Istanbul, it may be around Kadıköy-Haydarpasa or Bostancı districts. It was where
state-owned sheeps are raised by the incumbent of bostancı-bası. Here, from time to time, bostanc-ıbası
gives a feast in honor of the sultan on the occasion of the sheep counting.
21[. . . ]Cedid Aga bahçesinde darü’s-sa‘âde aga kullarınun müceddeden binâ eyledügi kasra tesrîf ve fasl ile
eglenüp [. . . ] (Özcan 1965, 124).
22Chronicler Izzî Efendi, a contemporary source, also mentions about the musical entertainments of the
sultan that took place at the palace of the grand vizier on 1 October 1745 (6 L 1158) and 13 Ocak 1747
(6 M 1160) (Izzî Efendi 2019, 125, 336).
23In the rûznâmes, when the palaces of grand viziers are mentioned in the context of Mahmud I’s musical
entertainments, those who were in this seat at those times (in other words, the grand viziers whose palaces
Mahmud I had visited) are as follows: Nisancı Hacı Ahmed Pasa (d. 1753), Hekimoglu Ali Pasa (d. 1757),
Seyyid Hasan Pasa (d. 1748) and Boynuegri Seyyid Abdullah Pasa (d. 1761).
74
was also referred to as Sancak Köskü and was part of Davud Pasa Palace) being
a venue for stately banquets at the end of the 17th century, its construction date
remains unknown (Artan 2019, 29). There is generally no detailed information
about musical performances that took place in Kasr-ı Mehmed Pasa. The rûznâmes
mostly discuss the performing musicians anonymously, of which Mahmud I and his
retinue enjoying the music (fasl u âgâze ile eglenilüp). But some cases show the
contrary. The performance of Çiçekçi Salih Efendi (23 February 1731/15 S 1143),
for instance, who was mentioned in the second chapter of this thesis, took place at
the Kasr-ı Mehmed Pasa.24
Another venue that is mentioned several times throughout the rûznâmes in the
context of musical entertainments is Ishak Aga’s mansion, located in Hünkar Iskelesi,
Beykoz. Ishak Aga, who was the treasurer of customs (gümrükçü) during the reign
of Mahmud I, also built a garden and a public fountain in the same place. That’s
why the “Aga Bahçesi” mentioned in the rûznâmes is possibly the one built by
Ishak Aga. There are half a dozen references to the musical performances that took
place in either Ishak Aga’s mansion or his garden. Most of these references are from
rûznâme of 1742 and coincide with spring or summer months.25
4.6 The Conclusion of the Chapter
In addition to all these, Sultan Ahmed Mosque, which is not included in one of these
categories, should also be mentioned as venue of Mahmud I’s musical performances,
visiting wherein the mevlîd ceremonies must be a kind of a ritual during Mahmud
I’s reign. When we look at the general picture based on these almost eleven-yearlong
records of Mahmud I, we can see a variety of different venues of the musical
entertainments that he had attended. They demonstrate how mobile Mahmud I was
in contrast with his predecessor, Ahmed III. When Ahmed III, who was reputed for
his thalassophobia, wanted to move away from Topkapı Palace, he first preferred the
Tersâne and Karaagaç gardens on the shores of the Golden Horn. He also preferred
Sa‘d-âbâd, which was a secluded place far from the coastline (Artan 2020, 106).
24In the rûznâme of 1731, “Genç Mehmed Pasa Yalısı” is written (Çınar 1974, 34), rather than Kasr-ı
Mehmed Pasa, but it is possible that these two venues are the same.
25One of these references are worth to mention in terms of revealing the location of this place, the title of Ishak
Aga and musical performances there: (24 R 1155/28 June 1742) Hünkar Iskelesi olmagla ma‘rûf mahalle
karîb sahil-sarây-ı Gümrükçü’ye seref-bahs ve ba‘dehû edâ-yı zuhûr esbe süvâr ve Ishak Aga’nın hânesinde
vâki‘ kasr-ı mürtefi‘a tesrîf ve gılmanân-ı Enderûn’a ruhsat-dâd-ı bâziçe-i tomak ve istima‘-ı hânendegân
ve sâzendegân-ı Enderûn ile evkât-güzâr ve ba‘dehû edâ-yı ‘asr tenâvül-i ta’am ve Ishak Aga’nın çukadarı
Tür[km]an-i Türkî âgâze idüb [. . . ] (Oral 1966, 119).
75
In addition to Topkapı Palace and the Golden Horn, Mahmud I and his retinue
frequently participated in the musical entertainments held at the venues located
on the shores of Bosphorus, particularly those in the palaces of Besiktas, Nesâdâbâd,
and Göksu. While visits to the shores of Bosphorus related to the musical
gatherings were very little beforehand, there is a noticeable augmentation especially
in the years 1741 and 1742. This must be the outcome of the increasing settlement
on both shores of Bosphorus during the 18th century by both the Ottoman dynasty
and wealthy Istanbullu seeking an escape from problems in the city.26
26The possible reasons and the process of this increasing settlement of Bosphorus, see: (Artan 1989); and
(Hamadeh 2004).
76
Table 4.2 Distribution of the Places Mentioned in the Rûznâmes by Years.
Notes: The letters represent the abbreviation of the Hijri months. The numbers next to the
letters (eg “3(Z)”) show the number of visits in the specified month.
77
78
5. CONCLUSION
The main objective of this thesis, which is limited to a short period of time, had been
to determine whether the rûznâme genre, in general, and the rûznâmes of Mahmud
I, in partihapterular, can be sources for the study of Ottoman music history. If
so, how can they contribute to this field of study, and what kind of musical data
can they provide? When I look at the rûznâmes of Mahmud I – which documented
more than eleven years of his reign day by day – from this perspective, I answer the
first question affirmatively without any hesitation. Frankly speaking, the rûznâmes
of Mahmud I told me more about music than I expected when began my research.
Along the way, I realized that other than musical treatises, the rûznâmes could also
provide data on music and be useful for writing the history of Ottoman music. I do
not suggest that this study comprises the entirety of Mahmud I’s reign or all 18thcentury
music. Yet, it is clear that they shed light on Mahmud I’s music preferences
and music in the first half of the 18th century. For researchers who study on 18thcentury
Ottoman music or Mahmud I’s reign specifically, it is a remarkable source
that should not be ignored.
When we take a step back and look at the musical performances documented in
Mahmud I’s rûznâmes, we see the following picture: With few exceptions, almost
no musical entertainment recorded in the rûznâmes covering first year of Mahmud I’s
accession (from 1730 to 31), which was dominated by a rebellion. Although it covers
a short period of time, the rûznâme of 1734, in which a four and a half monthslong
period is documented, we see a considerable increase in the number of musical
performances organized. Yet, the dramatic augmentation in the frequency of musical
performances took place between 1740-44. These five years (most notably between
1741-2) recorded many performances with Mahmud I’s participation. It is difficult
to say for sure whether this was the scribe’s choice or because Mahmud I was more
involved in these kinds of entertainments during this period. Evidently, however,
during this period a rise is in question. In the five years between 1745-49, however,
we see this trend gradually decreases. Musical performances recorded in this period,
79
especially in the last two years, were fewer than the number of fingers on a given
hand. Although the same sır kâtibi (who was Kadı Ömer Aga) kept the rûznâme
between 1740-1750, there is a noticeable difference of content between the first and
last half of the decade. The only exception to this is the Mevlevî ritual ceremonies.
While in the second half musical performances of so-called “secular” music (fasıls)
decreased, it is difficult to say whether this is also valid for the Mevlevî ceremonies
since it appears Mahmud I’s visitations remained steady in these two halves.
Furthermore, these performances took place mostly during the daytime. If Mahmud
I was to visit palaces located on the shores of Bosphorus or the Golden Horn, for
example, he often returned to Topkapı Palace before sunset. Moonlit nights, or
nights of kandîls, appear to be the only exception to this as they were nights when
the sultan and his retinue partied until morning. Although these were more frequent
in summer and spring, they were often held even in winter. With the exception of
Ramazan, records were kept concerning the sultan’s musical gatherings held at any
time of the year.1
In the first chapter that follows the introduction chapter, I categorized musicians
mentioned by name according to their socio-cultural and occupational backgrounds
(see: Table 1.1). This categorization displays a colorful scene of musicians with
various backgrounds including officers, artisans, mosque singers, Sufis, and non-
Muslims. This stage exhibits that Mahmud I was a ruler who enjoyed patronizing
musicians, as his predecessor did. Although Mahmud I had new rituals and tastes
of his own, I think it would be plausible to view his reign as a continuation of
Ahmed III’s in terms of cultural growth and patronage of arts. For example, a
significant portion of the musicians in Mahmud I’s court were inherited from Ahmed
III’s time on the throne, despite all of them are not mentioned in the rûznâmes.2
Relatedly, it would not be wrong to assume that there is a direct correlation between
patronizing musicians and the development of music production. Ibn Sina, the great
10/11th-century polymath, one reflected that “art and science will migrate if not
appreciated”. Mahmud I’s role as a patron must be one of the contributing reasons
behind Walter Feldman’s statement that “in the 18th-century, new and amazing
things were happening” (Feldman 2019a, 52:17).
Following chapter explores musical instruments and genres. By examining each
closely, I was able to make firm distinctions between religious genres, such as temcîd,
mevlîd, mi‘râciyye, and na’t. It is apparent that Mahmud I preferred these genres.
1Except for a Mevlevî ceremony on 8 N 1160/13 September 1147, there is not a single reference to musical
entertainments of Mahmud I that was held in this month.
2For musicians of the reign of Ahmed III based on the biographical dictionaries of Sâlim, Safâyî, and Seyhî
Mehmed Efendi’s Vakâyiü’l-Fuzalâ, see: (Karabasoglu, 2011).
80
Although the secular fasıls are frequently mentioned throughout the rûznâmes, no
details are given regarding their contents. Additionally, it seems that Mahmud I
enjoyed listening to türkî, a folkloric genre, on several occasions. Although instruments
are rarely mentioned in the rûznâmes, instruments such as the ney, tanbûr or
violin gives an insight into the instrument repertoire of this period, which parallels
the present literature.
In the final chapter, I presented a comprehensive table to be able to see when
and where these entertainments took place. This table tells me that Mahmud I
attended a variety of different venues for musical entertainment. While the Topkapı
Palace and Golden Horn were not neglected, we see that Bosphorus was becoming
an entertainment hotspot during Mahmud I’s reign. The most frequently mentioned
places of his musical entertainments were the newly built Mahbûbiye and the newly
restored Sa‘d-âbâd (the symbolic place during the reign of Ahmed III). However,
there are a great number of references to Göksu and Nesâd-âbâd, which are located
on the Asian and Rumelian shores of the Bosphorus. The rûznâmes also reveal the
extent of Mahmud I’s Mevlevî inclinations. Visits to Mevlevî lodges throughout the
rûznâmes (except 1731), or the invitation of dervishes to the palace to be performed,
supports the possibility that Mahmud I was a Mevlevî disciple.
Although this study refrains from generalizing to the whole of 18th century music,
and Feldman speaks about the whole 18th-century music while saying that “the
new and amazing things were happening”, I can say that I also have seen many
references that excite me in terms of the music of this short period in question. The
fact that a non-Muslim – who made a name for himself as an instrument player –
came to Mahmud I’s palace more than once and sang türkî s, that temcîd – a form
of religious music sung only in three Islamic holy months, especially in Ramazan
– was also sung other than these specific times. There were also the mehterhânes’
too much involvement in daily activities, that the coming of Mevlevî dervishes to
the palace to perform their ritual ceremony, that the variety of venues where the
musical entertainments held (especially on the shores of the Bosphorus) are just a
few of them.
This study not only aimed to shed light on overlooked sultan Mahmud I’s relationship
with music, and the music in the early 18th century, but also to highlight the
importance of the rûznâme genre as a source for data for the historical research
on Ottoman music. Undoubtedly, various missing points have been disregarded by
this preliminary attempt which is limited to a certain time frame. For example,
a comparative study of the rûznâmes of Mahmud I and other rûznâmes has writ-
81
ten throughout the 18th century3 would provide a more comprehensive perspective
about the music of the 18th century. Likewise, learning more about the authors of
the rûznâmes of Mahmud I, which I am not able to, might explain the differences
between the texts to find out what they preferred to write or not. Lastly, although
we have rûznâmes covering a significant period of Mahmud I’s reign, the rûznâme
texts of more than half of his reign are lost today. If they could be included, this
thesis would have been more all-inclusive. At any rate, if this study contributes or
inspires any future studies, it means that it has achieved its primary goal.
3Such as the rûznâmes of Mustafa III (r. 1754-1774), Abdülhamid I (r. 1774-1789) and Selim III (r.
1789-1807).
82
ARCHIVAL SOURCES
DABOA.TS.MA.d.10732. 18 M 1147 / 20 June 1734-09 C 1147 / 6 November 1734.
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abou-El-Haj, Rifa‘at Ali. 2005. Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman
Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries, Second Edition. Syracuse University
Press.
Ahıskalı, Recep. 2016. Bir Kâtibin Kaleminden Istanbul’un 12 Yılı (1754-1766).
Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi.
Ak, Ahmed Sahin. 2009. Türk Din Mûsikîsi: Câmi ve Tekke Mûsikîsi. Ankara:
Akçag.
Aksoy, Bülent. 2003. Avrupalı Gezginlerin Gözüyle Osmanlılarda Musiki. Istanbul:
Pan Yayıncılık.
Aktepe, M. Münir. 1958. Patrona Isyanı (1730). Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi
Basımevi.
Artan, Tülay. 1989. “Architecture as a Theatre of Life: Profile of the Eighteenth
Century Bosphorus.” PhD diss., Massachusetts Insitute of Technology.
Artan, Tülay. 1993. “Bahariye Kasrı.” In Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 1 Istanbul p. 537.
Artan, Tülay. 1994. “Karaagaç Sahilsarayı ve Bahçesi.” In Dünden Bugüne Istanbul
Ansiklopedisi. Vol. 4 Istanbul p. 439.
Artan, Tülay. 2019. “Contemplation or Amusement? The Light Shed by Ruznames
on an Ottoman Spectacle of 1740-1750.”, In Entertainment Among Ottomans, ed.
Ebru Boyar, and Kate Fleet. Leiden: Brill pp. 22-42.
Artan, Tülay. 2020. “I. Mahmud Saltanatında Bogaziçi Eglenceleri: Temâsâ,
Tefekkür, Tevakkuf ve ‘Sehr-i Sefa’.” In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I.
Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları
pp. 92-159.
Aynur, Hatice., and Sen, F. Meliha. 2019. “Hıfzî Aga’nın (ö. 1173/1759-60) I.
Mahmûd Için Yazılan Siirler Mecmûası (TSMK-Revan 1977) Üzerine.” In Akademik
Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 3 (4): 39-73.
Babinger, Franz. 2004. Müteferrika ve Osmanlı Matbaası, trans. Nedret Kuran-
Burçoglu. Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
84
Bayrak, Kamuran. 1972. “Kadı Ömer Efendi. Rûznâme-i Sultan Mahmud Han-ı
Evvel (1160-1163 / 1747-1750).” Graduation thesis. Istanbul Üniversitesi.
Behar, Cem. 2010. Seyhülislâm’ın müzigi: 18. yüzyılda Osmanlı/Türk musıkisi ve
Seyhülislâm Es’ad Efendi’nin Atrabü’l-Âsâr’ı. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları
Behar, Cem. 2015. Osmanlı/Türk Musikisinin Kısa Tarihi. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları.
Behar, Cem. 2016. Saklı Mecmua: Ali Ufkî’nin Bibliothèque Nationale de
France’taki [Turc 292] Yazması. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Behar, Cem. 2017a. Musikiden Müzige. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Behar, Cem. 2017b. Kan Dolasımı, Ameliyat ve Musıkî Makamları: Kantemiroglu
(1673-1723) ve Edvâr’ının sıra dısı müzikal serüveni. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Behar, Cem. 2017c. Review of Kevseri Mecmuası: 18. Yüzyıl Saz Müzigi Külliyatı
(CD ilâveli), by Mehmet Ugur Ekinci. In The Journal of Ottoman Studies (49):
435-491. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/760083
Behar, Cem. 2020. Orada bir musiki var uzakta. . . . Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Benlioglu, Selman. 2017. “Osmanlı Sarayında Mûsikinin Himâyesi: III. Selim ve II.
Mahmud Dönemi.” PhD diss., Marmara Üniversitesi.
Benlioglu, Selman. 2018. “Sarayda Düzenlenen Tarikat Ayinleri Isıgında III. Selim’in
Tekke Müzigiyle iliskisi.” In Sakarya Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi
20(37): 1-20.
Benlioglu, Selman. 2019. “Ruznameye göre III. Selim’in Mevlevihane ve Mukabele
Ziyaretleri.” In Sehvar Besiroglu’ya Armagan, ed. Namık Sinan Turan, Seyma
Ersoy Çak. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık pp. 341-352.
Bobovius, Albertus [Ali Ufkî]. 2013. Saray-ı Enderun: Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yasam,
trans. Türkis Noyan. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Cantemir, Demetrius. 1734. Historia Incrementorum atque Decrementorum Aulae
Othmanicae (The History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire), trans.
Nicholas Tindal. Vol. 1 London: Printed for James, John and Paul Knapton.
Çelebi, Evliyâ. 2006. Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi: Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi
Bagdat 304 Numaralı Yazmanın Transkripsiyonu-Dizini, prep. Robert Dankoff,
Seyit Ali Kahraman, Yücel Daglı. 1. Kitap. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Cevher, M. Hakan. 1995. “Ali Ufki ve Haza Mecmua-i Saz ü Söz. Transkripsiyon
ve Inceleme.” PhD diss., Ege Üniversitesi.
Çınar, Sükran. 1974. “Patrona Halil Isyanı’na ve I. Mahmud Devrine Ait Bir
Tarihçe.” Graduation thesis. Istanbul Üniversitesi.
Dankoff, Robert. 2006. An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi. Leiden:
Brill.
85
Dogan, Kaan. 2021. Sır Kâtibi Ahmet Aga- Sultan I. Mahmud’un Günlügü. Istanbul:
Libra Kitap.
Dogrusöz, Nilgün. 1993. “Hâfız Post Güfte Mecmuası (Türkçe Güfteler).” Master’s
thesis. Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi.
Ekinci, Mehmet Ugur. 2012. “The Kevserî Mecmûası Unveiled: Exploring an
Eighteenth-Century Collection of Ottoman Music.” In Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 22(2): 199-225.
Ekinci, Mehmet Ugur. 2016. Kevseri Mecmuası: 18. Yüzyıl Saz Müzigi Külliyatı.
Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.
Eldem, Sedad Hakkı. 1977. Sa’dabad. Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlıgı.
Emel, Esin. 2009. "le ’mahbubiye’, un palais ottoman "alla franca"". In IJBF
Online. Berlin, Boston: K. G. Saur.
Ergun, Saadet Nüzhet. 2017. Türk Musikisi Antolojisi. Istanbul: Vadi Yayınları.
Erimtan, Can. 2008. Ottoman Looking West: The Origins of the Tulip Age and its
Development in Modern Turkey. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Erol, Merih. "18. Yüzyıl Rum Ortodoks Müziginin Altın Çagıydı." Interview
by Vartan Estukyan. AGOS. April 03, 2016. Accessed July 01,
2021. http://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/14588/18-yuzyil-rum-ortodoks-muzigininaltin-
cagiydi.
Ertürk, Volkan. 2013. “XVII. ve XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Osmanlı Sultanlarının Bir
Eglenme ve Dinlenme Mekânı Olarak Tersane Bahçesi.” In Journal of History
School (15): 91-125.
Erünsal, Ismail E. 2008. Ottoman libraries: a survey of the history, development
and organization of Ottoman foundation libraries, ed. Cemal Kafadar, Gönül Alpay
Tekin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Civilizations.
Erünsal, Ismail E. 2020. “I. Mahmûd Devri Kütüphaneleri.” In Gölgelenen Sultan,
Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.1
Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 284-207.
Ezgi, Suphi. 1933. Nazarî-Amelî Türk Musikisi. Vol.1 Istanbul.
Faroqhi, Suraiya N. 2006. “Declines and Revivals in Textile Production.” In The
Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Suraiya N. Faroqhi. Vol. 3 New York: Cambridge
University Press pp. 356-375.
Feldman, Walter. 1992. “Musical Genres and Zikir of the Tarikats of Istanbul.” In
The Dervish Lodge. Architecture, Art and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, ed. Raymond
Lifchez. California: California University Press pp.187-202.
Feldman, Walter. 1996. Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition and
the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire. Berlin: VWB.
86
Feldman, Walter. 2004. “Osmanlı Sufi Tarikatlarında Müzik.” In Osmanlı
Toplumunda Tasavvuf ve Sufiler, haz. Ahmet Yasar Ocak. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu pp. 627-648.
Feldman, Walter. 2012. “Mehter.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, ed.
P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W.P. Heinrichs.
Accessed: June 4, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912islamSIM5149.
Feldman, Walter. 2015. “The Musical ‘Renaissance’ of Late Seventeenth Century
Ottoman Turkey: Reflections on the Musical Materials of Ali Ufki Bey (c. 1610-
1675), Hafız Post (d. 1694), and the ‘Maraghi’ Repertoire.” In Writing the History
of Ottoman Music, ed. M. Greve. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag pp. 87-138.
Feldman, Walter. 2019a. “Leisure in the Ottoman Eighteen Century”,
YouTube video, 58:31, “NYUAD Institute”, Uploaded date: May 5,
2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-c6vDrKYMAabchannel =
NY UADInstitute.51 : 57.
Feldman, Walter. 2019b. “The Emergence of Ottoman Music and Local Modernity.”
In YILLIK: Annual of Istanbul Studies (1): 173-179.
Fırat, Hasan Baran. 2019. “Dönemlendirme Çalısmaları ve Osmanlı-Türk Müzigi
Tarihyazımı: Bir Bilanço Denemesi.” In YILLIK: Annual of Istanbul Studies
(1):145-64.
Genç, Mehmet. 2000. Osmanlı Imparatorlugu’nda Devlet ve Ekonomi. Istanbul:
Ötüken Yayınları.
Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. 1963. Mevlevî Âdâb ve Erkânı. Istanbul: Yeni Matbaa.
Gölpınarlı, Abdülbaki. 1983. Mevlana’dan Sonra Mevlevilik. Istanbul: Inkılap
Kitabevi.
Güray, Cenk. 2019. “Osmanlı’dan kalan bir siir ve müzik mirasi: Gazi Murad
Reis’ten IV Murâd’a ‘vakanüvislik’ örnegi olarak Yeniçeri âsikları.” In Dîvân’dan
Nagmeler: Farklı Boyutlarıyla Edebiyat-Mûsikî Iliskileri pp. 323-345.
Halvetî, Enfî Hasan Hulûs. 2007. Tezkiretü’l-Müteahhirîn: XVI.-XVIII. Asırlarda
Istanbul Velîleri ve Delileri, prep. Mustafa Tatcı and Musa Yıldız. Istanbul: MVT
Yayıncılık.
Hamadeh, Shirine. 2014. The City’s Pleasure: Istanbul in the Eighteenth Century.
SeattleLondon: University of Washington Press.
Hathaway, Jane. 2014. Hacı Besir Aga: Osmanlı Sarayının En Ünlü Haremagası,
trans. Hazal Yalın. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Ihsanoglu, Ekmeleddin., and Aynur, Hatice. 2003. “Yazmadan Basmaya Geçis: Osmanlı
Basma Kitap Geleneginin Dogusu (1729-1848).” In The Journal of Ottoman
Studies (22): 219-255.
Ilhan, M. Mehdi. 2012. “Patrona Halil Isyanı Yayınlanmamıs Bir Yazmanın Degerlendirmesi.”
In 7. Uluslararası Türk Kültürü Kongresi Bildirileri I, Istanbul Tar-
87
ihi: Medeniyetlerin Bulusma Noktası Olarak Istanbul, 5-10 Ekim 2009, 603-622.
Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi.
Inal, Ibnülemin Mahmut Kemal. 1958. Hos Sadâ: Son Asır Türk Musikisinasları.
Istanbul: Maarif Basımevi.
Inalcık, Halil. 2010. Has Bagçede Ays u Tarab. Istanbul: Is Bankası.
Izzî Efendi, Süleyman. 2019. Izzî Tarihi (Osmanlı Tarihi 1157-1165/1744-1752).
Tarih ve Toplum Bilimleri Serisi Istanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Baskanlıgı.
Jackson, Maureen, 2009. “Music.” In Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, ed.
Gábor Ágoston, Bruce Alan Masters. New York: Facts on File pp. 403-409
Kalaitzidis, Kyriakos. 2015. “Post-Byzantine Musical Manuscripts as Sources for
Oriental Secular Music: The Case of Petros Peloponnesios (1740-1778) and the
Music of the Ottoman.” In Writing the History of Ottoman Music, ed. M. Greve.
Würzburg: Ergon Verlag pp. 139-150.
Kantemiroglu [Dimitrie Cantemir]. 2001. Kitâbu Ilmi’l-Mûsikî alâ Vechi’l-Hurûfât
[Mûsikîyi Harflerle Tesbit ve Icra Ilminin Kitabı], prep. Yalçın Tura. Istanbul:
Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Kara, Kerim. 2003. "Mehmed Nasûhî.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 28 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 500-502.
Karabasoglu, Cemal. Lâle Devri Mûsikisinasları: Sâlim ve Safâyî Tezkireleriyle
Vakâyiü’l-Fuzalâ’daki Mûsikisinâslara Dâir Bilgiler. Istanbul: Kutup Yıldızı
Yayınları.
Karahasanoglu, Selim. 2009a. “A Tulip Age Legend: Consumer Behavior and
Material Culture in the Ottoman Empire: 1718-1730.” PhD diss., Binghamton
University State University of New York.
Karahasanoglu, Selim. 2009b. Politics and Governance in the Ottoman Empire:
The Rebellion of 1730: An Account of the Revolution That Took Place in Constantinople
in the Year 1143 of the Hegira/Vâki’a Takrîri Biñyüzukirküç’de Terkîb
Olunmusdur. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Civilizations.
Karahasanoglu, Selim. 2016. The Tulip Age in Ottoman Historiography: A Critique.”
In History from Below, ed. Selim Karahasanoglu, and Deniz Cenk Demir.
Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University Press pp. 163-187.
Karahasanoglu, Selim. 2019. “Ben-Anlatıları: Tarihsel Kaynak Olarak Imkânları,
Sınırları.” In Turkish History Education Journal 8 (1): 211- 230.
Kayar, Melih. 2020. “I. Mahmûd Devri Kronolojisi: 2 Ekim 1730-14 Aralık 1754 (19
Rebîülevvel 1143- 28 Safer 1168).” Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud
ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.2 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp.
606-689.
88
Konrad, Felix. 2014. “Coping with "the Riff-Raff and Mob: Representations of
Order and Disorder in the Patrona Halil Rebellion (1730).” In Die Welt des Islams
3(4), Vol. 54. Leiden: Brill pp. 363-398.
Korkmaz, Harun. 2020a. “I. Mahmûd Devrine (1730-1754) Ait Iki Fasıl Mecmuası.”
In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed.
Hatice Aynur. Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 204-217.
Korkmaz, Harun. 2020b. “I. Mahmud’un Cariyesi Dilhayat’ın Ölümsüz Eserleri.”
In Z Dergisi (4): 270-273.
Kurtaran, Ugur. 2014. Sultan Mahmud I ve Dönemi. Ankara: Atıf Yayınları.
Kurtaran, Ugur. 2015. “Sultan Birinci Mahmud Dönemi Osmanlı-Rus Siyasi Iliskileri.”
In Türk Dili Arastırmaları Yıllıgı: Belleten 79 (285): 589-610.
Kutlug, Yakup Fikret. 2000. Türk Mûsikisinde Makamlar. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi
Yayınları.
Mermutlu, Bedri. 2009. “Üsküdar’da Bir Elit Mezarlıgı: Nasûhî Haziresi.” In Uluslararası
Üsküdar Sempozyumu VI, Istanbul, 6-9 Kasım, 635-664. Istanbul: Üsküdar
Belediyesi.
Mert, Talip. 1999. “Dilhayat Kalfa’nın Mirası.” In Musiki Mecmuası 52(466): 68-72.
Mete, Aysegül. 2018. "Mevlevî Mûsikisinaslar (XVIII. Yüzyıl).” In Sakarya Üniversitesi
Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 20(38): 165-199.
Murphey, Rhoads. 1999. “Westernisation in the Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Empire:
How Far, How Fast?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23: 116-39.
Necipoglu, Gülru. 1991. Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapi
Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries. New York: The Architectural
Foundation-MIT Press.
Olley, Jacob. 2017. “Writing Music in Nineteenth Century Istanbul: Ottoman
Armenians and the Invention of the Hampartsum Notation.” PhD diss., King’s
College London.
Olson, Robert W. 1974. "The Esnaf and the Patrona Halil Rebellion of 1730: A
Realignment in Ottoman Politics?." In Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 17(3): 329-44.
Oral, Yavuz. 1966. “Kadı Ömer Efendi. Rûznâme-i Sultan Mahmud Han-ı Evvel
(1153-1157/1740-1744.” Graduation thesis. Istanbul Üniversitesi.
Özcan, Abdülkadir. 1992. “Binis.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 6 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 184-185.
Özcan, Abdülkadir. 2003. “Mahmud I.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 27 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 348-352.
Özcan, Abdülkadir. 2020. “I. Mahmûd ve Döneminin Kısa Panoraması.” In Gölgelenen
Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice
89
Aynur. Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 20-33.
Özcan, Nuri. 2003. “Mehter.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi. Vol.
Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 545-549.
Özcan, Nuri. 2004. “Mevlevî Âyini.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 29 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 464-466.
Özcan, Özcan. 1965. “Kadı Ömer Efendi. Rûznâme-i Sultan Mahmud Han-ı Evvel
(11571160/1744-1747).” Graduation thesis. Istanbul Üniversitesi.
Özpekel, Osman Nuri. 1999. “Sair ve Bestekâr Osmanlı Padisahları.” In Osmanlı
Kültür-Sanat Ansiklopedisi." Vol: 10 Ankara: Osmanlı Kültür-Sanat Ansiklopedisi
pp. 607-627.
Öztuna, Yılmaz. 1974. Türk Musikisi Ansiklopedisi. Vol.2 Istanbul.
Paçacı-Tunçay, Gönül. 2013. “Zaharya.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 44 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 76-77.
Pamuk, Sevket. 2000. A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Pekin, Ersu. 2012. “Âsık Çelebi’nin Musannifleri, Hanendeleri, Sazendeleri.” In Bir
Allâme-i Cihan: Stefanos Yerasimos Anısına, ed. Edhem Eldem, Ersu Pekin, and
Aksel Tibet. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi pp. 505-574.
Pekin, Ersu. 2012. “Evliyâ Çelebi’nin Müzik Kaynakları.” In Evliyâ Çelebi Seyahatnamesi’nin
Yazılı Kaynakları, ed. Hakan Karateke and Hatice Aynur. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu pp. 286-342.
Pekin, Ersu. 2013. “Iki Itrî için Üç Yazı.” In Itrî ve Döneminde Disiplinlerarası
Bakıslar. Itrî ve Döneminde Disiplinlerarası Bakıslar Sempozyum Bildirileri, Istanbul
Üniversitesi Kongre ve Kültür Merkezi Beyazıt Yerleskesi, 3 December 2012,
51-88. Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür Sanat Vakfı.
Pekin, Ersu. 2015. "Istanbul’un Sesleri: Osmanlı Döneminde Istanbul’daki Müzikler.”
In Antik Çag’dan XXI. Yüzyıla Büyük Istanbul Tarihi, ed. Coskun Yılmaz.
Vol. 7 Istanbul: Istanbul Büyüksehir Belediyesi (Kültür A.S.) Yayınları pp. 36-
61. Accessed: June 15, 2021. https://Istanbultarihi.ist/235-Istanbulun-sesleriosmanli-
doneminde-Istanbuldaki-muzikler
Pekin, Ersu. 2018. “Surnamenin Müzigi 2: 18. Yüzyıl Baslarında Istanbul’da
Müzik.” In Filiz Çagman’a Armagan, ed. Ayse Erdogdu, Zeynep Atbas, and Aysel
Çötelioglu. Istanbul: Lale Yayıncılık pp. 455-528.
Pekin, Ersu. 2020. “Hızır Aga’nın Çalgıları: Tefhîmü’l-Makâmât’ın Resimklerini
Okuma Denemesi.” In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi
(1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 218-281.
Plemmenos, J. G. 2002. “Ottoman Minority Musics: The Case of
the Phanariot Greeks of Istanbul.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.20438.
90
Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia; Sirli, Adriana Adabi. 2000. Sources of 18th century
Ottoman Music: Panayiotes Chalathzoglou and Kyrillos Marmarinos’ Comparative
Treatises on Secular Music. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.
Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia. 1999. Prince Dimitrie Cantemir. Istanbul: Pan
Yayıncılık.
Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia. 2002. Tanburi Küçük Artin: A Musical Treatise of the
Eighteenth Century. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık.
Popescu-Judetz, Eugenia. 2007. Türk Musiki Kültürünün Anlamları, trans. Bülent
Aksoy. Istanbul: Pan Yayınları.
Poulos, Panagiotis, 2019. “Spaces of Intercommunal Musical Relations in Ottoman
Istanbul.” In YILLIK: Annual of Istanbul Studies (1): 181-191.
Russell, Alexander. 1756. The Natural History of Aleppo. London: Printed for A.
Millar.
Rüstem, Ünver. 2019. Ottoman Baroque: The Architectural Refashioning of
Eighteenth-Century Istanbul. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rüstem, Ünver. 2020. “Imparatorlukta Yenilenme, Mimarîde Çagdaslık: I. Mahmûd
ve Osmanlı Baroku.” In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi
(1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.2 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 482-615.
Sabev, Orlin (Orhan Salih). 2020. “I. Mahmûd Döneminde Müteferrika Matbaası.”
In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed.
Hatice Aynur. Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 456-471.
Sabev, Orlin. 2006. Ibrahim Müteferrika ya da ilk Osmanlı Matbaa Serüveni. Istanbul:
Yeditepe Yayınevi.
Sahin, Ahmet. 2015. “Osmanlı Istanbul’unda Dinî Musiki.”, In Antik Çag’dan XXI.
Yüzyıla Büyük Istanbul Tarihi, ed. Coskun Yılmaz. Vol. 7 Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyüksehir Belediyesi (Kültür A.S.) Yayınları pp. 66-73. Accessed: June 15,
2021. https://Istanbultarihi.ist/239-osmanli-Istanbulunda-dini-musiki
Sanal, Haydar. 1964. Mehter Musikisi. Istanbul: Millim Egitim Basımevi.
Sanlıkol, Mehmet Ali. 2011. Çalıcı Mehterler. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Sarıcaoglu, Fikret, and Coskun Yılmaz. 2008. Müteferrika: Basmacı Ibrahim Efendi
ve Müteferrika Matbaası: Basmacı Ibrahim Efendi and the Müteferrika Press. Istanbul:
Esen Ofset.
Sarıcaoglu, Fikret. 2007. “Üsküdar’da Osmanlı Padisahları: Göçler, Binisler ve
Selâmlıklar (XVIII. Yüzyıl).” In Uluslararası Üsküdar Sempozyumu V, Istanbul,
1-5 Kasım, 549-568. Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediyesi.
Sarıcaoglu, Fikret. 2008. “Rûznâme.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 35 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 278-281.
91
Schick, Irvin Cemil. 2020. “I. Mahmûd Döneminde Hat Sanatı.” In Gölgelenen
Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur.
Vol.1 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 430-455.
Schweigger, Salomon. 2004. Sultanların Kendine Yolculuk 1578-1581, trans. S.
Türkis Noyan. Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi.
Senel, Süleyman. 2012. “Türkü.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi. Vol.
41 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 612-616.
Tanman, Baha M.. 2020. “I. Mahmûd Dönemi Mimarîsinde Payitaht-Eyalet Iliskileri.”
In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud ve Dönemi (1730-1754),
ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.2 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları pp. 516-555.
Tanman, Baha. 1994. “Istanbul Mevlevîhâneleri.” In The Journal of Ottoman Studies
(XIV): 177-183.
Tatçı, Mustafa. 2004. Üsküdarlı Muhammed Nasûhî ve Divânı, Istanbul: Kaknüs
Yayınları.
Tezcan, Baki. 2010. The Second Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press.
Toderini, Giambatista. 1787. Letteratura Turchesca. Venezia: Presso Giacomo
Storti.
Toderini, Giambattista. 2018. Türklerin Yazılı Kültürü ve Edebiyatı, trans. Mehmet
Serdar Bekar. Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi.
Tuglacı, Pars. 1990. “Çıragan Mevlevihanesi.” In Tarih ve Toplum, 13(73): 44-45.
Türkal, Nazire Karaçay. 2012. “Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Aga, Zeyl-i Fezleke
(1065-22 Ca.1106 / 1654-7 Subat 1695).” PhD diss., Marmara Üniversitesi.
Ünver, A. Süheyl. 1978. “Besiktas-Çıragan Mevlevihanesi Hakkında.” In Mevlânâ
ve Yasama Sevinci. Konya pp. 165-171.
Uslu, Recep. 2009. “Esad Efendi’de Müzik Estetigi.” In Musikisinas (10): 192-232.
Uzluk, Feridun Nafiz. 1963. “Tas Yazıtlarda Türkçe Vakfiyeler, Arapça Yazıtlarda
Türkçe Söz ve Siirler.” In Türk Dili Arastırmaları Yıllıgı: Belleten (11): 251-267.
Uzun, Efgan. 2013. “Sultan I. Mahmud’a Ait Bir Ruzname (H. 1147/M. 1734).”
In Turkish Studies - International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and
History of Turkish or Turkic 8(7): 687-703.
Uzunçarsılı, Ismail Hakkı. 1977. “Osmanlılar Zamanında Saraylarda Musiki Hayatı.”
Belleten (41): 79–114.
Uzunçarsılı, Ismail Hakkı. 2011. Osmanlı Tarihi, Vol. IV (1). Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basımevi.
Wielemaker, Alexander. 2020. “The Taksim Water Network: Renegotiation of Authority
and Dynastic Legitimacy.” In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmud
ve Dönemi (1730-1754), ed. Hatice Aynur. Vol.2 Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları
pp. 556-603.
92
Woodhead, Christine. 2010. “Sehnâmeci.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Islam Ansiklopedisi.
Vol. 38 Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı pp. 456-458.
Woodhead, Christine. 2012. “R¯uzn¯amedji.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second
Edition, ed. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel,
and W.P. Heinrichs. Accessed: 19 July 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-
3912islamSIM6356.
Wright, Owen. 1992a. Words without Songs: A Musicological Study of an Early
Ottoman Anthology and Its Precursors. London: Routledge.
Wright, Owen. 1992b. Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations Part 1:
Text. Londra: University of London.
Yaycıoglu, Ali. 2016. Partners of the Empire: The Crisis of the Ottoman Order in
the Age of Revolutions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Yılmaz, Hakan. 2015. “1730 Patrona Isyânı ile Ilgili Kısa Kroniklerden Rûznâme
Yazarı ‘Ahmed’ Kimdir?” In Sosyal ve Kültürel Arastırmalar Dergisi 1(2):103-126.
Yılmaz, Hakan. 2018. “Patrona Vak‘ası Hakkında Yazılmıs Kısa Kronikler ve Devrin
Vak‘anüvisi Küçük Çelebi-zâde ‘Âsım’ın ‘T¯ar¯ıhçe’si.” In Dogu-Batı 21(85): 178-216.
93