484

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

i
ABSTRACT
The Chief Harem Eunuchs were one of the most powerful figures of the Ottoman Empire in the Early Modern period. This rise, which started at the end of the 16th century with the takeover of the management of the New Palace and then the Evkafü’l-Haremeyn, continued until the middle of the 17th century. In this process, it is seen that the aghas, who had great power and wealth, donated manuscript collections as well as many other pious foundations. The subject of this thesis is the manuscript collections of the chief harem eunuchs and the relations of the aghas with the books. The scope of the study includes their collections in Süleymaniye Manuscript Library today and their collections that we can reach through archival documents. Moreover, to have a better idea about the aghas, apart from the manuscripts they endowed, it is also evaluated their leaved and confiscated manuscripts. When interpreted together with the practices of the period, the aghas seem to instrumentalize the books within the framework of legitimacy and patronage relations. The need for books increased with the effect of the patronage networks and the state's expanding structure, which became increasingly important. On the other hand, the manuscripts in their heredity and the personal notes in the manuscripts reflect their personal tendencies to some extent. This showed that the aghas did not completely commodify the books. Although they did not have a professional relationship with the books like the scholar class, they were not wholly uninterested.
Key Words: Early Modern, Chief Harem Eunuch, Book Culture
iv
ÖZET
Darüssaade Ağaları Erken Modern dönemde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun en güçlü figürlerinden biridir. 16. yüzyılın sonlarında önce Yeni Saray'ın ardından da Haremeyn Evkafı'nın yönetimini devralmalarıyla birlikte başlayan bu yükseliş 17. yüzyılın ortalarına kadar devam etmiştir. Bu süreçte büyük bir güce ve zenginliğe sahip olan ağaların pek çok vakıf eserinin yanı sıra kitap koleksiyonları da vakfettikleri görülmektedir. Bu tezde Darüssaade Ağalarının kitap koleksiyonları incelenerek ağaların kitaplarla olan ilişkileri ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışma için günümüze ulaşmış koleksiyonların yanı sıra arşiv belgelerinden izleri sürülebilen vakfettikleri diğer koleksiyonlar da tez kapsamına dahil edilmiştir. Ağalarla ilgili daha fazla fikir sahibi olabilmek için sadece vakfettikleri kitaplar değil, terekelerinden çıkan ya da müsadere edilen kitapları da incelenmiştir. Dönemin pratikleriyle birlikte değerlendirildiğinde Ağaların kitapları bir meşruiyet ve hamilik ilişkileri çerçevesinde araçsallaştırdıkları fikri doğmuştur. Gittikçe önem kazanan himaye ağlarının ve devletin genişleyen yapısının etkisiyle kitaplara duyulan ihtiyaç artmış Ağalar da bu ihtiyacı ellerindeki imkanları akıllıca kullanarak doldurmuşlardır. Diğer taraftan Ağaların terekelerinden çıkan kitaplar ve günümüze ulaşmış yazmalardaki kişisel notları bir miktar kişisel eğilimlerini yansıtmaktadır. Bu da ağaların kitapları tamamen metalaştırmadıklarını, her ne kadar kitaplarla ulema sınıfı gibi profesyonel bir ilişkileri olmasa da tamamen ilgisiz olmadıklarını gösterdi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Erken Modern, Darüssaade Ağası, Kitap Tarihi
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express firstly my sincere gratitude to my advisor Berat AÇIL. I am grateful not only for being the most important person in the formation and finalization of this thesis but also for helping me find my dream field of study. This thesis is not only the result of his advisory during my graduate education; at the same time, it is an output of the Ottoman Book Culture course, which he accepted me while I was still a senior student at Şehir University. He continuously supported me even when our university shut down, and we locked down during Covid-19. It was an honor to study with him for me.
I am also grateful to my professors at Şehir University, where I took both undergraduate and graduate education, for their unending support. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Günhan Börekçi, my first academic advisor, who encouraged me for my lated academic life, and to all History Department, Engin Deniz Akarlı, Abdulhamit Kırmızı, Kahraman Şakul, Ayşe Başaran, Abdurrahman Atçıl, Tufan Buzpınar, Nicole Kançal-Ferrari, Coşkun Çakır, Yunus Uğur and Mehmet Genç for their unending support and guidance. I would also like to thank my Turkish Language and Literature professors, Hatice Aynur and Fatih Altuğ, for their support, kindness, and guidance.
I would also like to thank Sami Arslan for opening the Manuscript Center at FSM Vakıf University to me during my study and for accepting me to every Manuscript course and workshop. The Aşir Efendi collection, which he patiently scanned and read with me, gave me a second perspective I needed for this thesis. I am also grateful to Sami Arslan and Ayşe Başaran for accepting to be thesis jury members. Their contributions and
Additionally, I am extending my special thanks to my friends, Fatma Aladağ, Büşranur Bekman, and Nimet İpek both for their academic and friendly support. They taught me how critical, good companions are in academic life.
Finally, I am incredibly grateful to my family, especially my grandmother Zeynep Aktülün, for her prayers and support. I am also thankful to my kids for their understanding and patience when I can’t spare time for them. I hope they understand that one of my goals is to be a good example for them.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii
ÖZET ........................................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... v
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ix
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 4
2. CHIEF HAREM EUNUCHS AS COLLECTORS ...................................................... 13
2.1. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa (d. 1590) ........................................................................................... 18
2.2. ‘Abbās Ağa (d.1690s) .......................................................................................................... 25
2.3. Yūsuf Ağa (a. 1671-1687) .................................................................................................... 26
2.4. Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa (d.1746) ...................................................................................................... 29
2.5. Moralı Beşīr Ağa (d.1752) ................................................................................................... 31
3. PATRONAGE IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD AND CHIEF HAREM EUNUCHS .............................................................................................................................. 34
3.1 Manuscripts as a Mean of Patronage ................................................................................ 38
3.2 The Manuscripts in Their Inheritance .............................................................................. 58
3.3 Personal Written Marks by Eunuchs in Manuscripts ..................................................... 61
4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 70
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 75
vii
ABBREVIATIONS
BOA Directorate of State Archive Ottoman Archives
YEK Süleymaniye Manuscript Library
AA1 The collection of ‘Abbās Ağa
AA2 The collection of ‘Abbās Ağa in Egypt
HMA The collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa
HBA1 The library collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
HBA2 The dārülḥadīs̱ collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
HBA3 The Medina collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa’s Collection (HMA)............................................................................... 42
Table 2 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Collection I (AA I) ............................................................................................ 45
Table 3 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Collection II (AA II) ......................................................................................... 49
Table 4 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Collection I (HBA I) .................................................................................... 51
Table 5 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Eyüp Collection (HBA II) ............................................................................ 53
Table 6 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Medina Collection (HBA III)....................................................................... 54
Table 7 Comparison of Six Collections................................................................................................. 56
Table 8 List of the Chief Harem Eunuchs ............................................................................................. 75
Table 9 Manuscripts in the dārülḥadīs̱ of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa ..................................................................... 77
Table 10 Manuscripts in the Library Collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa ...................................................... 81
Table 11 Collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa ...................................................................................... 100
Table 12 ‘Abbās Ağa’s waqf in Aynasor and İstanbul ........................................................................ 103
Table 13 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Endowment in Egypt ( ................................................................................... 105
Table 14 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s tereke ........................................................................................................ 106
Table 15 Maḳtūl (Moralı) Beşīr Ağa’s tereke ..................................................................................... 110
Table 16 ‘Abbās Ağa’s tereke ............................................................................................................. 115
Table 17 Yūsuf Ağa’s tereke ............................................................................................................... 116
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The Qur’anic Manuscript endowed by ‘Abbās Ağa with his seal in the Museum of Islamic Art in Jerusalem ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 2: The first ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa without the date ....................................... 62
Figure 3: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H.1158 (1745-46) ................................... 63
Figure 4: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H. 1143 (1730-31) .................................. 64
Figure 5: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H. 1151 (1738-39) .................................. 65
2
1. INTRODUCTION
Ottoman book culture studies is a relatively new field; however, it is a very generous study field through various Ottoman manuscripts collections. There are many manuscripts waiting to be studied in the Süleymaniye Manuscripts Library, Topkapı Palace Library, many public libraries in various parts of Turkey and some university libraries such as Istanbul University. Among various manuscript libraries, Süleymaniye is a hub where some individual, endowment, or public libraries are preserved together currently, and other public libraries that are not physically here are accessible from the database.1 The individual Ottoman collections here were created by Ottoman statesmen, scholars, or members of the dynasty. Apart from these collections created by ststesmen or scholars, there are the collections of the chief harem eunuchs, the two collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa and Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa.
The 16th and 17th centuries, corresponding to the rise of the chief harem eunuchs, also witnessed massive economic and political transformation in the Ottoman Empire. At the end of this period, the administration was no longer formed from just dynasty and their devshirme servants, but the newly emerging elite classes also joined the administration. This change gave rise to both a new typology of the ruling class and new behavior patterns, as well as new policies developed by the dynasty for these new groups. There are already some studies demonstrating that the most striking changes in the palace administration and the image of the sultan took place during the reign of Murad III (r. 1574-1595). During these changes, the chief harem eunuch became the most powerful official in the palace and even in the empire, as an actor in the right place at the right time. This rise, which had very practical reasons, continued for a century and a half. Until Grand Vizier Ḳoca Rāġıb Paşa executed Ebū’l-Vuḳūf ‘Aḥmed Ağa, the chief harem eunuchs continued to be the actors that even the grand viziers were beware of. In addition to their political and economic power and influence, chief harem eunuchs were mostly significant manuscript collectors. Among them, there are those who endowed large collections as well as those who owned their personal collections. The aim of this thesis is to deal with this interesting relationship of the chief harem eunuchs with manuscripts. Contrary to the majority of the Ottoman
1 For access the database: http://yazmalar.gov.tr/
3
bureaucrat class, the aghas2 did not have any scientific or cultural productions, but why did they need to have or endow large book collections? The thesis is limited to their most visible period between 1582-1758; from Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa to Ebū’l Vuḳūf ‘Aḥmed Ağa. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, the first chief harem eunuch, was already a very powerful figure before he took this title; he officially occupied the highest position in the palace administration by taking over the management of the palace and the responsibility of the pious imperial foundations (Evḳāfu’l-Ḥaremeyn). The execution of Ebū’l-Vuḳūf ‘Aḥmed was interpreted by the sources of the period as the grand vizier breaking the power of the aghas. Although the institution continued until the Republican period, it had lost its power in the administration.
In the thesis, I will try to demonstrate why such significant figures of the early modern period had large manuscript collections. The manuscripts in question are not limited to the endowed collections mentioned above. Most of the aghas, if not all, who have remained in office for a considerable period of time, had books that were either donated or in their terekes (estates). I will try to understand why the chief harem eunuchs who were responsible for the administration of Topkapı Palace and Evḳāfu’l-Ḥaremeyn endowed large madrasah or library collections. The books they owned and endowed how much reflected the spirit of the time, the political necessities, and their own preferences.
1.1. Methodology
The study contains two stages; the first provides background information to make sense of the behavior of the eunuchs on book ownership. This part examines both the changing conditions of the period and how the aghas rose under these conditions. Since the early modern period and chief harem eunuchs have already been studied extensively, I tried to extract a panorama of this period from secondary sources. The second part aims to understand the behavior of the aghas about books. Therefore, it lists the books they owned and endowed. Some of these lists have already been published, and some are accessible through primary sources.3 These endowments and estate lists are in the
2 I use the word Ağa/agha in two different ways. When I mention a certain agha and together with his name, I wrote the word as Ağa, if I am not mention to a certain agha, I did not consider it as a proper name and wrote it as agha.
3 It must be noted that founding most of the unpublished manuscript lists became possible thanks to İsmail Erünsal's footnotes. For instance, Beşīr Ağa’s estate is misrecorded as ‘Meşir’ in the catalog, so it was not possible to find it by scanning.
4
documents of Topkapı Sarayı and Kamil Kepeci from the Presidency Ottoman Archives (BOA), in the Evkaf-ı Hümayun Mahkemesi Müfettişliği Defterleri from the Qadi Registers (ḳāḍī sicilleri), and in manuscript form in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library (YEK). I examined three collections belonging to two chief harem eunuchs in YEK. There are two more endowed collections that we can determine through archival documents. In addition to the endowed ones, I reached five estates (tereke) records. However, since some of these collections belong to the same aghas, there are ten collections belonging to five aghas in total in this study. I followed two different paths regarding the books themselves. First, I made lists of the books they have endowed and owned, trying to see if there were any notable differences or trends. Secondly, I examined the surviving manuscripts and wanted to see what we can learn from them about the aghas. These surviving manuscripts are in the two collections of Beşīr Ağa and Habeşī Mehmed Ağa’s collection in the Süleymaniye Manuscripts Library. The manuscripts remaining from the aghas are not only these endowed collections. According to the archival documents, some manuscripts were confiscated or taken from their estates to Topkapı Palace Library. However, during my thesis, doing research on manuscripts was impossible due to the ongoing works in the Topkapı Palace Library. It would have been more explanatory to find the personal notes of other aghas like those of Beşīr Ağa and to evaluate them by comparison.
I used the IJMES transcription system for Ottoman Turkish, including names and Ottoman Turkish terms. Though the titles of the books are mostly in Arabic, I used Ottoman Turkish transcription system for all of them, too, to be consistent in the thesis since I was transcribing from documents written in Ottoman Turkish. On the other hand, for the published works, I used the name as it is seen in the published material instead of transcribing. I did not transcribe the widely used names in modern Turkish such as sultans, sultan, and grand vizier, which are used in modern Turkish. I used the Merriam-Webster dictionary for words that were translated into English.
1.2. Literature Review
Chief harem eunuchs were significant actors at the end of the 16th century, and they continued to consolidate their power throughout the 17th century. This era of transition was previously frequently
5
described as a crisis period, where the sultan’s disappearance was seen as a sign of weakness4. Various recent studies claim that these changes were natural components of state the formation.5 Since these two opposing narratives in literature may fundamentally change my approach to the subject, I will briefly include the studies that evaluate the period, rather than just the literature written about the chief harem eunuchs.
Among the studies dealing with the period as a transition and transformation Abou-el-Haj comes forefront. In his very early study regarding household policies, the sultan accepts the relocation of the grand vizier’s mansion outside Topkapı Palace as the starting point of the bureaucratization. Thus, the state and the sultan were no longer inseparable. In other words, the grand vizier, one of the sultan’s households until then, has his own people and creates his own household. Household policies had a decisive role in the administrative and political transformations of the empire (Abou-el-Haj, 1974, p.438). Then, he argues, in his work Formation of the Modern State, that the change seen was not unique to the Ottoman Empire, as similar patterns were observed in European states. In other words, while the state meant the same thing as the person of the king at the beginning, it is natural to separate what belongs to the dynasty and that to the people over time (Abou-El-Haj, 2005, p. 6).
Baki Tezcan, in his book The Second Ottoman Empire, claims that the changes experienced by the Ottomans during this period were not a regression but inherent steps toward becoming a modern state, as Abou-el-Haj argues. Tezcan deals with this claim, which Abou-el-Haj regards comparatively and theoretically, in a detailed way by developing it on economic and administrative aspects. He states that the changes in the economic system after 1580 also transformed the social structure of the entire empire (Tezcan, 2010, p. 22). Meanwhile, the new focus on administration and the fact that the sultan had to share his power with these new actors were important indicators of the second empire (Tezcan,
4 The decline narrative can be traced back to Ottoman 17th century chroniclers like Dimitrie Cantemir. Among the most important defenders of this paradigm, in modern period, there are prominent and well-known Ottoman historians such as Bernard Lewis, "Some Reflections on the Decline of the Ottoman Empire", Studia Islamica 1 (1958) 111–127. Halil İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Klâsik Çağ (1300-1600), (2003) çev. Ruşen Sezer, İstanbul: YKY.
5 Here I refer to those more closely related to my study, for more see: Cemal Kafadar, "The Question of Ottoman Decline," Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 4/1–2 (1997–98), pp. 30–75. Leslie Peirce, "Changing Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries," Mediterranean Historical Review 19/1 (2004): 22.
6
2010, p.196). The rise of the high-level bureaucratic class that participated in politics, which Tezcan conceptualizes as the political nation, is related to some extent to the rise of the chief harem eunuchs. In the context of transformation, the chief harem eunuchs, who were more powerful than most grand viziers for almost an entire century and had their own households outside the palace including strong patronage relations, have not been adequately examined. However, in one of his later articles, Tezcan discusses the place of aghas in this political equation in a much more specific way (Tezcan, 2011).
Another research area that must be considered is concerned with the changes in the palace and the harem during this period. Considering the close relations of the eunuchs with the residents of the harem, especially with the women of the dynasty, the relocation of the harem to the Topkapı Palace and the increasing power of women are issues that require a close inspection. Leslie Peirce’s book, The Imperial Harem, explains how the harem began to participate increasingly in the administration with the changing nature of the state from the end of the 16th century. Starting from a much earlier period, Peirce tells how and why the hāṣekī and vālide sulṭāns emerged, gained legitimacy, and started to form their factions within the palace. She conceptualizes the situation of the palace at the end of the 16th century quite well with the concept of “sedentary sultan” (Peirce, 1993, p. 25). Therefore, the palace people, who adapted to the new situation of the sultan and the state, started to gather in the Topkapı Palace. In her study, Peirce explains how the harem, as the center of dynastic policies, adapted to the changing nature of the state and consolidated power by institutionalizing in this context (Peirce, 1993). This study explains how gathering the dynasty in the capital and moving the harem to Topkapı Palace gave the eunuchs the opportunity to be in the right place at the right time while changing the equilibrium of the palace by opening the door to the new formations and structuring.
İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı’s book, Saray Teşkilatı, is the most basic study that deals with functioning and institutional structure. In the 10-page chapter on harem eunuchs, he covers the institution in a comprehensive way, from its emergence to its organizational forms (Uzunçarşılı, 2014, pp. 159-169). However, the section based on Ottoman chronicles views Ottoman institutions as static. For example, the road to being the chief harem eunuch is described quite precisely. However, when taken individually, it is possible to see that the path to become a chief eunuch has changed over time
7
and does not have a very standard way. Another important but academically criticized work on the organization and functioning of the harem is Çağatay Uluçay's book Harem. Given its orientalist perspective6, it is a basic work presenting the general functioning of the harem (Uluçay, 2017). There is a chapter on the chief harem eunuch that resumes the palace functions, but some comments are very subjective, like most of the chief eunuchs being ignorant, nervous and having an inferiority complex (Uluçay, 2017, p. 214). A more recent book by Ali Akyıldız, Valide Sultan, describes the functioning of the harem by putting the valide sultan in the center. Compared with the previous two works, this book, which is much more objective and academically agreeable, deals with the relations of the valide sultans and their duties and importance in the imperial ceremonies and, therefore, the legitimacy of the dynasty (Akyıldız, 2017).
There are some monographs written about the valide sultans. However, these studies mentioned very few about their relationships with the chief harem eunuchs and how they reinforced each other. For example, Özlem Kumrular’s biographical studies of the Nurbanu, Kösem, and Safiye Sultans found that it is possible to see how the chief eunuch established the connections of the valide sultans with ambassadors and outside the palace or their role in the factionalism in the harem (Kumrular, 2015, 2017). Although this relation of empowerment of the chief eunuch with the valide sultans is a phenomenon frequently mentioned and emphasized, there is no independent study wherein all aspects of these relations are discussed concretely.
After these studies that deal with the early modern period, palace, and harem, another study subject, which is not directly related to the harem eunuchs but shows their historical roles, is the factions in the palace and the role of historiography in the factional struggles. The abolition of the practice of going to the sanjak of the princes was another crucial change seen in this period as this change resulted in the increased influence of harem eunuchs on the sultans. Günhan Börekçi’s article deals with how the danger of the disruption of the dynasty at the beginning of the 17th century impacted the politics of the palace and the practices of the princes to ascend to the sanjak. In other words, apart from the changing
6For its critic see: Leslie Peirce, The Imperial Harem, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
8
imperial policies, a practical reason such as the danger of disruption was also effective in the increased power of the hāṣekī and vālide sulṭāns and the importance of the palace factionalism (Börekçi, 2009, p. 55-56). Additionally, Börekçi discusses palace factionalism during Ahmed I’s reign (r.1603-1617) in his dissertation. He further examines the chief harem eunuch Ḥacı Muṣṭāfā Ağa as a royal favorite separately in this context (Börekçi, 2010, pp. 242-249).
Gabriel Piterberg’s An Ottoman Tragedy, which discusses the murder of Osman II, is one study that can elucidate the historical importance of the harem eunuchs. Presumably, there is no other striking example than the murder of a sultan to show the significance of the factions in the palace and the role of the chief harem eunuch. While trying to reveal the path to Osman II’s murder, Piterberg highlights the remarkable level of influence that the eunuch reached through the alliance with the valide sultan, as an aspect of the change that the palace went through at that time. According to Piterberg, although Osman II had a powerful and loyal eunuch, he lost because he lacked a mother who would give the winning combination of the period (Piterberg, 2003, p. 18). Further, he examines the reflections on the murder of Osman II in Ottoman historical sources and evaluates the cultural reflections of the chief harem eunuch, ranging from traitor to loyal servant, in related historical texts (Piterberg, 2003).
Another study on palace factionalism is Tülün Değirmenci’s book, İktidar Oyunları ve Resimli Kitaplar, wherein she explores the relationship between illustrated books on history and the power factions in the palace. Değirmenci claims that the illuminated manuscripts produced in the palace give a message to the ruling elites in the palace. She especially examines how the images presented in the manuscripts’ miniatures reflect power struggles. The study mentions the harem eunuchs because they had responsibility for the production of some manuscripts dedicated to the sultan. The images in the miniatures reveal an idea of the type of power that the harem eunuchs acquired, especially in the manuscripts that were patronized by the chief harem eunuchs (Değirmenci, 2012). Another study related to illustrated books on history is Emine Fetvacı’s dissertation, Viziers to Eunuchs: Transitions in Ottoman Manuscript Patronage. Fetvacı’s study is limited to the reign of Murad III. This period is important for both the palace and the chief harem eunuch signifying the period when the change begins. As its name suggests, the thesis shows how the different manuscripts, patronized by viziers and chief
9
eunuchs, reflect different sultanic images (Fetvacı, 2005). These two are important studies because they show concretely how the chief harem eunuchs instrumentalized the patronage of manuscript production to serve the political authority.
Tezcan’s later article, mentioned above, discusses how historiography was used in the sultan’s image. According to Tezcan, Murad III insisted on absolutism, whereas the ruling elite wanted to limit the sultan’s political authority (Tezcan, 2011, p. 227). Historiography was an area where the reflections of this struggle can be easily seen. In this equation, the chief harem eunuch was clearly a supporter of the sultan against the ruling elite (Tezcan, 2011, p. 238). As emphasized in most studies on this subject, with his position representing the dynasty, the chief harem eunuch was the supporter of the sultan against the newly formed bureaucratic power.
Another article by Tezcan mentions the patronage relations of the chief harem eunuchs and two treatises written about them. Mollā ‘Alī, an African scholar, demonstrates the success of the patronage networks of the harem eunuchs. Tezcan argues that the power given to the chief harem eunuchs and the rise of Mollā ‘Alī in the scholarly class were conscious political moves composing the sultan’s absolutism projects during this period (Tezcan, 2012b, p. 115). His second article compares the two opposite narratives on harem eunuchs in the context of the effects of patronage relations on the political framework, namely, Rāfi‘u'l-Ġubūş fī Feżā’ili'l-Ḥubūş, written by Mollā ‘Alī, and Risāle-i Teberdāriyye, written by Dervīş ‘Alī. These narratives illustrate the cultural patronage relations of the eunuchs (Tezcan, 2018).
The next sources are monographs on the chief harem eunuchs. Jane Hathaway is undoubtedly the person who most contributed with her books and various articles, of which Chief Eunuch of the Ottoman Harem (Hathaway, 2018) is the most comprehensive. It deals with the eunuchs in chronological order according to their political, economic, and cultural backgrounds. The book initially discusses the functions of eunuchs in harems and palaces throughout history and specifically the history of eunuchs who came to the Ottoman court from Africa. Hathaway states that the post of the chief harem eunuch began with the move of Murad III to the harem. From then until the end of the Empire, 76 chief eunuchs
10
took charge (Hathaway, 2018, p. 2). Although she did not express this clearly, she acknowledged the eunuchs until Ebū’l-Vuḳūf as the most influential ones in terms of economy, religion, and culture. As chief harem eunuchs had reached substantial power, they can be the subject of separate studies on their historical, political, economic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. Naturally, it is impossible to say that the study covers every subject aspect. Hence, there are other articles by Hathaway wherein she discusses different angles of the issue in detail. For example, in her article, she mentions ‘Abbās Ağa’s pious foundations in Egypt and the features of his books (Hathaway, 1994). Furthermore, she discusses in another article the increasing power of aghas through their visibility in palace ceremonies (Hathaway, 2019). Hathaway states that her first meeting with the chief harem eunuchs was during her dissertation study on Ottoman Egypt (Hathaway, 2018). Therefore, she provides detailed information about the relations of the eunuchs with Egypt and their influence on the region. Although there is no separate study on household policies and chief eunuchs, Hathaway’s dissertation focuses on the influence of eunuchs on households in Egypt (Hathaway, 1997).
Hathaway’s monograph of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa, despite its brevity and all its shortcomings, is still the only biographical book published about a chief harem eunuch (Hathaway, 2005). As Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa reached the highest position that a chief harem eunuch could achieve in terms of political power, it is understandable that he is the one who is most worthy of study. In this short book, Hathaway summarizes Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s relationships in political and cultural contexts. A much larger monographic work on Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa is a dissertation of Ayhan Ürkündağ (Ürkündağ, 2017). The dissertation deals with his life and political effects, foundations, and books. Moreover, in the light of some archival documents, it corrects previous information and fills in incomplete ones. Although Hathaway's work is illuminating in terms of Ağa's relations in Egypt, it has many shortcomings as she does not use Ottoman archives. For example, Ürkündağ reveals a very critical point about his life in exile, his appointment to Medina by the sultan, based on documents in the Ottoman archives (Ürkündağ, 2017, p. 24).
The most crucial part of the power of the chief harem eunuchs was their economic relations and opportunities. Hathaway mostly deals with their economic relations, specifically with Egypt, as her main field of study is the Arab provinces, and the Haremeyn foundations are closely related there. Haremeyn
11
foundations are indispensable because they extend all over the empire and because of the size of their income. Besides, the chief eunuchs also became superintendents, and some of the sultan’s waqf had economic importance close to the Haremeyn foundations. For example, Hagia Sophia and Şehzade Mosque foundations were given under the supervision of the chief eunuch in 1598 and some others in 1716 (Uzunçarşılı, 2014, p. 165). Ahmet Arslantürk and Kadir Arslanboğa published a registry containing a list of all foundations under the supervision of the chief eunuch in the second half of the 17th century. The registry has both the list of foundations and their income (Arslantürk & Arslanboğa, 2015). Although the article does not evaluate the importance of these foundations comprehensively, it is still a notable article as it indicates the richness and diversity of the foundations in question.
Hathaway also evaluates the cultural activities and influences of the harem eunuchs. She claims that the books owned by both ‘Abbās Ağa (Hathaway, 1994) and Beşīr Ağa (Hathaway, 2005) largely reflect the tendencies of education in the palace but can also point to their personal tendencies to some extent. These evaluations of the eunuchs’ book ownership require some more reflection and discussion because for these certain collections to offer us a perspective, comparative study is necessary.
Another unpublished master’s thesis, which deals with the reflections of the chief harem eunuchs in historical texts, was written by Yıldız Karakoç in 2005. This thesis deals with the emergence and rise of the chief harem eunuchs and their image in society in contemporary chronicles and a few other texts. One of these texts is the book by Mustafa Âlî titled Ḥālātü'l-Ḳahire, while the other is the work by Mollā ‘Alī titled Rāfi‘u'l-Ġubūş.
So far, I have mentioned a few names of historical sources written about the chief harem eunuchs during the Ottoman period. Some of these works are studied and published. The most well-known work containing the biographies of the aghas is Ahmet Resmi Efendi’s Hamiletü’l-Kübera. The book contains short biographies of all the chief harem eunuchs until Moralı Beşīr Ağa and was probably written to be presented to him. The treatise has been published both as a book by Ahmet Nezihi Turan (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000) and evaluated and published in an article by Zeynep Aycibin (Aycibin, 2001). The works titled Risāle-i Teberdāriyye and Rāfi'u’l Ġubūş are not published in full text, but they have been evaluated in the abovementioned studies. Another 19th-century biographical work on the chief harem
12
eunuchs can be found in the Turkish Historical Association (Turan, 1999), but it is not accessible to researchers at the moment.7
Although not directly related to the chief harem eunuchs, İsmail Erünsal’s Osmanlı Kütüphaneleri ve Kütüphanecilik is among my main resources while working on manuscripts. The book, which gives information about the functioning, history, and known status of the Ottoman libraries, was the source from which I learned the most about the books of the aghas. I gathered from Erünsal’s books that the manuscripts taken from the personal rooms of two Beşīr Ağas and confiscated can be found today in Topkapı Palace.
7 The institution stated that they are preparing the work for publication and therefore they are not sharing it with the researchers at the moment.
13
2. CHIEF HAREM EUNUCHS WHO WERE BOOK COLLECTORS
The existence of eunuchs in both the harem and the palace dates to much earlier times. In Orhan Bey's famous Mekece endowment deed, the trusteeship of his foundation was assigned to Muḳbil, a eunuch and indentured servant (Hathaway, 2018, p. 42). In the chronicle of Neşrî, it is mentioned that two eunuchs were present at the wedding procession of Isfendiyar Bey's daughter (Kocaslan, 2014, p. 76). Various clues indicate the presence of eunuchs in the early period of Istanbul’s palaces. For example, in an accounting book belonging to the entourage of one of Bayezid II’s princes, the names of five ṭavāşiyān (eunuchs) are mentioned after dāye hatun (wet nurse) (TSMA.D.743/1). Besides these (eunuchs) aghas, who served as mentors, accountants, and guards, a chief eunuch was also responsible for the management of the Old Palace (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000; Uzunçarşılı, 2014).
Since Ottoman sources such as Tayyârzâde Atâ (Tayyarzâde Atâ, 2010, p. 259) stated that Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa established the office of the chief harem eunuch, studies such as Altındağ (Altındağ, 1994, p. 1) and Hathaway (Hathaway, 2018, p. 2) also accept that the office was established with the transfer of palace administration to Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa. However, Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa was not the first dārüssa‘āde ağası. Usage of this title predates Meḥmed Ağa, as is evinced in the inscription of the Selman Ağa Mosque in Üsküdar. This inscription belongs to the year 914 AH (1508-9 CE) and clearly uses the term "ağa-yı dārüssa‘āde" for Selman Ağa. Therefore, it is possible to say that there were chief harem eunuchs before Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, though not prominent in the historical sources. However, Ahmed Resmî Efendi does not mention a new office or a position that was resigned from chief threshold eunuch (bābüssa‘āde ağası); he only states that Meḥmed Ağa was honored with this office8 (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 45). As such, at this point, we can claim that the duty of the chief harem eunuch changed with the transfer of the harem to Topkapı Palace.
8 The full expression: “…Sultân Murâd-ı Sâlis’in evâ’il-i devletlerinde dârüssa’âde ağalığı ile kâm-kâr olan Mehemmed Ağa…”
14
Nevertheless, after the harem was moved entirely to the Topkapı palace at the beginning of the Murad III reign, the Old Palace did not immediately fall out of use. The harems of the former sultans were sent there, and another chief eunuch (Sarāy-ı ‘Atīḳ Ağası) continued to manage the Old Palace. At the same time, there were already other eunuchs in the new palace before transition, both in the harem and in the third court, which was the previous residence of the sultan. The eunuchs in the third court were called bābüssa‘āde ağası (chief threshold eunuch), and they were also called white eunuchs because of their Caucasian or Balkan origins (Uzunçarşılı, 2014, p. 339). These white eunuchs had overseen the new palace's administration and had served in the highest position among the palace officials. Therefore, the harem eunuchs had been of lower status, until the administration of the new palace was given to the chief harem eunuch. Uzunçarşılı states that, although their status was lower, the chief harem eunuchs were in the closest position to the sultan; so they obtained an intangible position of influence (Uzunçarşılı, 2014, p. 161). However, it should be noted that there is a problem with chronology here. When the sultan moved to the harem and became inaccessible, the chief harem eunuch was already in the highest position of authority. When the chief threshold eunuch was at the top of the palace administration, the sultan was settling in the third court, and white eunuchs and his companions from enderūn (palace school) had the opportunity to be closer to him. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to associate the power of the eunuch only with his ability to reach the sultan.
Studies on the chief harem eunuchs tend to explain the rise of the aghas in this period with the changing position of the harem in the palace hierarchy, as the harem moved to Topkapı Palace and the sultan's room was moved to the harem. However, an overview of the century shows that this rise was not only related to the changing position of the harem but that there was a more significant transformation in administration, and the harem was only one aspect of the change. First, linking the fact that they had a say in administration with the increasing influence of the sultan’s mother and favorite concubines is not enough to explain how the eunuchs were still so powerful even when the women withdrew from the administration. Secondly, this would completely ignore the change in the administrative system and the new actors. However, Tezcan reveals how the aghas were a balancing actor during these changes. In this period, the state gradually separated from the dynasty and the sultan
15
and a new group that Tezcan conceptualized as a ‘political nation’ (Tezcan, 2011). In addition to all this, the aghas skillfully instrumentalized their position in the palace, their economic opportunities, and personal ties to establish power. It may be said that books are included in these opportunities.
The first step of this rise was related to gaining the power of the sultan’s mother, to whom they were much closer than the sultans. As a matter of fact, the first chief harem eunuch and the sultan's mother, who used the title of Vālide Sulṭān for the first time (Akyıldız, 2017, p. 50), were seen concurrently during the Murad III period. In her Imperial Harem, Peirce describes the path to the establishment of this title in detail, basing her narrative partly on the changing nature of the state. Although this change in the harem began during the reign of Süleyman II and Hürrem, he states that this unusual situation was not considered legitimate during this period (Peirce, 1993, p. 30). However, the title of Vālide Sulṭān became institutionalized with Nurbanu Sultan, the mother of Murad III and took its place in imperial ceremonies. It is not possible to determine whether the changing nature of the state or the attitudes of Suleyman II, differing from his ancestors, which triggered this change. The dilemma of the changing nature of the state or the personal preferences of the sultans is also discussed in the decisions of Murad III. In other words, it is impossible to determine precisely how many of these changes arose from intentional structural changes and how many were merely practical results. In any case, the fact that Suleyman did not send Hürrem to a province was the first step in the institutionalization of hāṣekī . Hürrem Sultan's residence in Topkapı Palace either, after her mother-in-law passed away was the first step in moving the harem permanently to Topkapı. However, since the next favorite concubines started to create their own networks while they were in the province with their princes, it was considered natural, since the favorite concubine was accepted as the future sultan’s mother (Peirce, 1993). Nevertheless, favorite concubines and sultan’s mothers, whose public visibility was very limited, needed to create their own networks to have authority in the capital and palace. The aghas were proper to be unique allies for the women of the harem, both because of their intermediary role between the harem and the outside world (Hathaway, 2019) and because they dealt with the accounting and pious foundations of the dynasty’s women (Arslantürk & Arslanboğa, 2015). Therefore, as the sultan’s mother became stronger, the aghas, who were her legal, economic, and diplomatic representatives, would have
16
gained in strength together. In this case, empowering Murad III's chief harem eunuch was not the initial reason for their rising; because of their power, they became an ally of the sultan. Hence, Hathaway states in her article about Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa that Meḥmed Ağa did not become powerful when he became the chief harem eunuch. He, on the other hand, pushed for the establishment of this office because of the power he already wielded (Hathaway, 2011).
One of the most important reasons for the rise of the sultan's mother and the chief eunuch was end the termination of the practice of princely visits to the sanjaks. This was not the first time that the princes were influenced by their mothers and eunuchs, but it was a unique situation in that the influence of their mothers and eunuchs became more prominent. The princes were sent to learn the arts of statecraft with their entourage and mothers. The eunuchs were also serving as mentors and accountants in the royal entourage. Moreover, mothers or eunuchs were not weak characters during these sanjak periods. The pious foundations patronized by the sultan’s mothers in the provinces were signs of their power and legitimacy at that time. Nonetheless, there were also statesmen, soldiers, and scholars in the entourage of the princes when they governed a province. When the tours to the sanjak province ended, the princes started living in the harem until ascending the throne. This new situation changed the formation of network practices, and they could only interact with their mothers and eunuchs in general. The princes received their first education from the chief harem eunuch, and the room called Şehzadeler Mektebi (Prince’s School) on the upper floor of the chief eunuch's room (Kocaslan, 2014, p. 161). An official document showing the importance of this issue belongs to Kösem Sultan. When she fell out with the harem eunuchs, she tried to limit their authority and broke their power in the palace. She ordered that the chief threshold eunuchs teach the prince the Qur’an, and the silāḥdār ağa (sword-bearer) taught writing instead of the chief harem eunuch from then on (Kumrular, 2015, p. 264). This attempt by Kösem Sultan confirmed that the eunuchs had a strong influence on the princes because of this early education. The closeness of the eunuchs with the future sultan, while they were still a prince, must have strengthened their existing power.
A similar influence can be assumed after the settling of princes settled in the ḳafes (cage) with an entourage following the completion of their education and circumcision because eunuchs were among
17
the very few people they could see. Apart from this influence, the aghas were essential and necessary allies, both for the princes and the sultans. When the princes were in the province administration, they had to prove themselves as the proper candidate for the throne with their political and military success. Then, throughout the period when they were waiting in the ḳafes for news of who would ascend to the throne, their mothers and eunuchs were lobbying to bring them to the throne. Piterberg claims that the most important political alliance of the period was the league of the chief harem eunuch-sultan’s mother, referring to the importance of the issue in the context of the murder case of Osman II. According to Piterberg, the essential cause of Osman's murder was the lack of support for his challenging policies due to the absence of a mother figure (Piterberg, 2003). In other words, the relationship between the chief eunuch and the sultan’s mother signified not only an emotional commitment but also a critical political alliance with the sultans.
This was the last but perhaps the most critical reason that increased the power and influence of the chief harem eunuch, namely, that he was an ideal ally for the sultan. Baki Tezcan mentions why the chief eunuchs were chosen as an ally in the context of the transforming nature of the state in the early modern period. He states that the trend towards the modern in this period was manifested in two areas. The first is the formation of a state apparatus that differs from the personality of the sultan, and the second is the expansion of the ruling class. Although economically powerful, the not-yet politically privileged classes forced the rulers to give up some of their sultanate authorizations and leave them to a state-organized on an impersonal basis in order to join the ruling class (Tezcan, 2011, p. 224). At the end of the 16th century, the sultan still had the power to insist on absolute reign or at least to propagate it. On the other hand, the elites had the power to object to the intervention of the sultanate in their own fields by ignoring the historical work written with an absolutist approach in this century. As Tezcan cites, the chronicler of the period Selanikî reveals that Murad III made a great effort to prevent the elites from becoming independent. As a counterpart of the grand vizier post, which he destabilized, he supported and strengthened the chief harem eunuch as an alternative based in the palace and could provide himself with loyal supporters (Tezcan, 2011). The chief eunuch’s (in this case Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa) contribution to the preparation of Zübdetü't-Tevārīḫ, which is the propaganda of the absolutist
18
policies of Murad III, was symbolic of his support of the sultanate against the elites (Değirmenci, 2012) (Fetvacı, 2005) (Tezcan, 2011).
Therefore, the change that paved the way for the harem eunuchs primarily concerned with the position of the harem and the sultan’s mother but was immediately followed by a change in the bureaucratic structure of the state and the position of the sultan. As a matter of fact, while the chief eunuchs were initially the representatives of the sultan’s mother or dynasty’s women, when the sultan placed the harem eunuch in an ally position, they became the representatives of the dynasty. Hathaway's article examining the increasing public visibility of chief eunuchs over time also supports this view. This increasing visibility over time also arose from practical concerns, such as their role as an intermediary between the imperial harem and the outside world, as well as a political reason to balance the decreasing public visibility of the sultan (Hathaway, 2019).
So far, I have provided background information on the position of the chief harem eunuch, and I will now turn to their biographies. The biographies of chief harem eunuchs have been included in different studies before. To avoid repetition, I will only refer to the chief eunuchs who were book collectors in the context of this thesis.
2.1. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa (d. 1590)
Ahmed Resmî Efendi gives the date of arrival of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa to the office of the Chief Harem Eunuch as H. 982 (1574) in his book of Hamîletü’l-Küberâ (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 45). This date is also the year Murad III ascended to the throne. However, Hathaway accepts the date 1588 when the chief eunuch became superintendent of Evḳāf-ı Ḥaremeyn (pious imperial foundation for Mecca and Medina) for the de facto establishment of the office. (Hathaway, 2018, p. 57). On the other hand, Tayyarzâde Atâ specified in his Tārīḫ-i Enderūn the beginning of Meḥmed Ağa’s official duty as the date when he took over the palace management in 1582 and stated that he fulfilled this duty for nine years until his death (Tayyarzâde Atâ, 2010, p. 259). As Akyıldız emphasizes, there is no known official document confirming when the chief harem eunuch ceased to be subordinate to the chief threshold
19
eunuch (Akyıldız, 2017, p. 134). As previously mentioned, I think that the office of chief harem eunuch was not new; only the place of duty had changed. The different dates given in the sources were probably the dates when he took over the palace administration and the Ḥaremeyn foundations. As a matter of fact, his takeover of the palace made him officially the highest official in the palace, and his takeover of the Ḥaremeyn foundations made him the most powerful actor not only in the palace but also in the empire.
The issue of determining an accurate date is significant in associating the creation of this office with Murad III's policies. Aycibin states that since the office emerged at the beginning of Murad III's reign, it cannot be directly related to his policies (Aycibin, 2020, p. 77). However, Tezcan states that Murad III chose Meḥmed Ağa to support his absolutist policies against the ruling elite (Tezcan, 2011). Even if we accept Meḥmed Ağa as the chief harem eunuch in 1582 (Tayyarzâde Atâ, 2010, p. 259), various sources reveal him as an influential figure in the palace before this date. After enlarging the harem, Murad III had an inscription written on the entrance, symbolizing the end of construction. It is stated in this inscription that the expansion activity took place upon the request of Meḥmed Ağa (Kocaslan, 2014, p. 192). Therefore, the power of Meḥmed Ağa was not related to Murad III, but the sultan must have thought that if this power was consolidated, he would be an ideal ally for him. He consolidated the office of chief harem eunuch by placing the palace administration and the Haremeyn foundations under his control.
The most critical step in this consolidation must be the transfer of the imperial foundation from the chief threshold eunuch to Meḥmed Ağa. These foundations provided a great network to the aghas — both in the capital and in the provinces throughout the Empire — as well as a significant economic resource. The eunuchs were very suitable actors for the management of the imperial foundations. As it is known, those who contributed the most to these foundations were the women of the dynasty or the sultan’s mothers (or a favorite concubine, such as Hürrem Sultan). The chief harem eunuch was the representative of imperial women in judicial and economic terms. Hence, they mostly entrust the supervision of their foundations to the aghas. Another natural relationship of the chief eunuch was with
20
Egypt. These African aghas came from today's Ethiopia, as the name of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa referred.9 Hathaway's studies on the history of the eunuchs show that most of these eunuchs from Ethiopia stayed in the houses of ruling elites in Egypt before arriving at the sultan's palace. An important part of the Evḳāfu’l-Ḥaremeyn revenues had come from Egypt since the Mamluk period. The relations of African landlords in Egypt, on the one hand, facilitated the operation of foundations and collection of revenues; on the other hand, they should have increased their prestige here and further developed their relations (Hathaway, 2018).
In my opinion, another meaningful sign of Meḥmed Ağa's involvement in the administration was the palatial mansion that the sultan assigned to him in 1587 (Karakoç, 2005). Metin Kunt remarks that the Ottoman Empire was a state of households. The most extensive household is the sultan's one; the other households were like miniatures of the sultan's (Kunt, 1999). When the princes governed a province, they formed their households. Thus, they would come to power with their administrative officers. These households were the administrative units of the Empire. In this context, the fact that the sultan gave a mansion to Meḥmed Ağa -which is the mansion of a deceased threshold eunuch- and that the agha used this mansion to create his own household outside the palace has an unignorable symbolic meaning. A recent article by Ezgi Dikici examines the various properties of Meḥmed Ağa and three other contemporaries, including this mansion. In this article, Dikici reveals that the mansion is larger than the house of Meḥmed Ağa, containing an oven, shops, a fountain on the outer wall, and a large dīvānhāne (reception hall) in the inner courtyard (Dikici, 2021, p. 16); the mansion had a far more expansive function. This clearly allowed him to hold meetings in his own house rather than his office in the palace and to establish connections with the non-palatial world. However, he had already made his office in the harem suitable for meetings with his work in the palace (Hathaway, 2018, p. 63). He used his room in the harem as an office and held the weekly meetings of the imperial foundations here. The mansion must have contributed to the consolidation of his power by developing personal connections beyond his official duties.
9 Ḥabeşistān is the equivalent of Ethiopia's historical name, Abyssinia, and Ḥabeşī literally means Abyssinian.
21
According to Altındağ, the chief harem eunuch became responsible for the entire accounting of the palace, particularly managing goods and stockpiles (Altındağ, 1994, p. 1). It should be noted that this practice started after he took over the management of the palace from bābüssa’āde ağası in 1582. We also learn from Intizamî, who wrote Sûrnâme, that dārüssa‘āde ağası also took over the responsibility of the naḳḳāşhāne (palace workshop) where the manuscripts were produced for the sultan, beyond duties of palace administration. An illuminated manuscript on Sūr-ı Hümāyūn (imperial ceremony), organized in 1582, was prepared for the sultan in the palace workshop around 1588. At the end of this text, İntizamî reveals that he consulted Meḥmed Ağa about the arrangement of miniatures while the illustrated copy was being produced (Tanındı, 2002, p. 44). The first four miniatures of Şehinşâhnâme-i Murâd-ı Sâlis, a much earlier work (1581), also depicted Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa (Tanındı, 2002, p. 43). Moreover, these miniatures revealed his political power by depicting the visit of Sokollu Mehmed Paşa (d.1579). In this context, it should be noted that in the above-mentioned inscription, the harem refers to Meḥmed Ağa as agha in "bâb-ı ‘adâlet" (gate of justice) (Kocaslan, 2014, p. 192). This term simply refers to the sultan’s palace, but it emphasizes its official judiciary capacities, and the inscription states that Meḥmed Ağa was on duty in the harem of this gate of justice. Considering the depiction of Meḥmed Ağa, who punished Sokullu's assassin, the relationship between the agha and justice is remarkable. Since all these descriptions were within the knowledge of the sultan, the sultan was not disturbed by the fact that the dārüssā‘ade ağası was the representative of the sultan’s justice.
The manuscripts in which Meḥmed Ağa was depicted are not limited to these two. In the history book named Zübdetü't-Tevāriḫ, which Murad III comissioned to Seyyid Lokman, he was depicted together with the sultan. In contrast, it was common until then for the viziers to be shown next to the sultan (Tanındı, 2002). Değirmenci emphasizes that the changing images in the miniatures also reflect the changing balance of power in the political scene (Değirmenci, 2012). That this miniature was included in the sultan’s copy could be a sign of the sultan's approval in the changing balance of power. An illuminated copy of Zübdetü't-Tevāriḫ was prepared for Meḥmed Ağa in the palace workshop and this was quite sufficient to attest to his power. Because until then, the illustrated copies had prepared only for the Sultan and the grand vizier.
22
Meḥmed Ağa's relationship with manuscripts was not limited to his role in production. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa is one of the few chief eunuchs whose collection still is in the Suleymaniye Library today.10 The collection in question includes the books that Meḥmed Ağa donated to the complex he had built in Fatih. Although it has not survived, it is known that there is both a madrasah and a dārü’l-ḥadis (school of ḥadis̱) in the complex (Gündüz, 2003), and the books were donated to meeting the need here. Meḥmed Ağa's foundations are not limited to this complex. Jane Hathaway states that he had two sebīl-mekteb (public fountain-school) on Divan Yolu in 1582, citing from Ayvansarayî (Hathaway, 2018, p. 194). The buildings of these sebīl-mektebs have not survived, and we do not have information about the books donated to these places. Sebīl-mektebs were common Mamluk structures but were not very popular in the Ottoman Empire. Meḥmed Ağa was the first and last chief eunuch to try this structure in Istanbul. The ones built by subsequent aghas were, built in Egypt.
In general, the reign of Murad III is noted for its cultural fecundity. Illuminated manuscripts produced in this period are among the best examples. Gazanfer Ağa, who was the chief threshold eunuch at the same time as Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, is also known for his patronage in the cultural field and his interest in books. Therefore, Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa’s initiatives in the cultural field may also reflect his own tendencies or maybe a necessity arising from the cultural atmosphere of the period. Nevertheless, the most critical aspect of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa's cultural patronage was that he became an model for the next chief eunuchs and that there was an effort to continue this tradition. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa served as the chief harem eunuch until his death in 1590. After his death, his estate was sold and added to his own pious foundations with the sultan's edict (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 45). Meḥmed Ağa was buried in the mausoleum in his complex11.
After the death of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, the agha of the Old Palace, Server Ağa was appointed in his post. Ahmed Resmî says that Server Ağa remained in this office for nineteen months until 1592 but was dismissed due to his conflict with the white aghas (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 46). After
10 An article on this collection: Berat Açıl, “Habeşî Mehmed Ağa’nın (ö. 1590) Vakfettiği Kitaplar ve Akıbetleri”, Turkology, 05-2020,67-83.
11 This complex, built by Meḥmed Aġa, is located in Fatih-Çarşamba today, except for the madrasah and dervish lodge.
23
Server Ağa was dismissed, he became the first chief eunuch to be exiled to Egypt (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 46), which would become a tradition in the future.
Server Ağa seems to have received a great reaction when he tried to change some of the customs in the palace. After this conflicted environment in the palace, the office was given to Bosnalı Muṣṭāfā Ağa. The agha, who remained in office for four years until 1596, retired due to his illness. The next chief eunuch ‘Osmān Ağa was murdered with the threshold eunuch Gazanfer Ağa by the sipahis (cavalry) in 1602 after staying in this position for seven years. It can be thought that the faction conflicts within the palace were as effective as the Jelali Rebellions and military failures in the death of ‘Osmān Ağa. In 1596 and 98, the control of some sultanic foundations under the chief mufti and the grand vizier's supervision was also given to the custody of the chief harem eunuch ‘Osmān Ağa. ‘Osmān Ağa joined the Gazanfer Ağa-Safiye Sultan faction in the palace, supporting the Janissaries. Gazanfer Ağa, who survived some other turmoil in the previous years, could not escape in 1602 when the cavalrymen demanded his life from the sultan. However, the next chief eunuch, ‘Abdürrezzāḳ Ağa, also belonged to the Safiye Sultan faction. He was able to stay in office for two years. When Ahmed I (r. 1603-1617) ascended to the throne, he sent his grandmother Safiye Sultan to the Old Palace and discharged her supporters. Hence, ‘Abdürrezzāḳ Ağa was also dismissed and then murdered. He invited Ḥacı Muṣṭāfā Ağa, who was sent to Egypt during the reign of Mehmed III (r.1595-1603), to Istanbul. After staying as the sultan's companion for about a year, he was appointed as the chief harem eunuch instead of Reyḥān/Cevher Ağa. Gazanfer Ağa was an ally of Safiye Sultan, who was the chief threshold eunuch during the reign of three sultans. With the murder of Gazanfer Ağa and the sending of Safiye Sultan to the Old Palace, there was surely a great power vacuum in Topkapı Palace. Ḥacı Muṣṭāfā Ağa, who came to the office of the chief harem eunuch directly with the support and request of the sultan, took the place of previous actors in the palace very well.
Hence, Ḥacı Muṣṭāfā Ağa, who took office in 1605, remained for 15 years without interruption and more than 16 years in total. He went down in history as one of the most powerful chief eunuchs, especially due to his role in enthroning Mustafa I (r.1617-1618) and Osman II (r.1618-1622). We do not
24
have any documents regarding any book collection of Ḥacı Muṣṭāfā Ağa yet, but there are some examples of his role as a patron in producing books. Fahri Çelebi, who could not get the praise he expected from the sultan for his work, complained to Muṣṭāfā Ağa about the situation. Based on this narrative, Değirmenci argues that Muṣṭāfā Ağa's responsibility for the manuscripts prepared for the sultan is an institutionalized aspect (Değirmenci, 2012).
In her book, Değirmenci evaluates the manuscripts in which Muṣṭāfā Ağa played an intermediary role for production on behalf of the sultan. A calligraphy album, a miniature album, and a fālnāme (book of fortune) presented to Ahmed I are among those books. Değirmenci indicates that with Muṣṭāfā Ağa's encouragement and support, Kalender first prepared a calligraphy album, a picture album, and then a fāl-nāme and presented it to the sultan. Since Muṣṭāfā Ağa's role as a patron continued under different sultans, it is possible to compare these manuscripts. During the reign of Ahmed I, two protégés of Muṣṭāfā Ağa, Fahri Çelebi, and Kalender Paşa, were both engaged in paper arts. On the other hand, Şehnāme-i Türkī, which was prepared during the reign of Osman II period, has a different characteristic. Değirmenci evaluates that Muṣṭāfā Ağa's patronage was representative of the sultan's position due to the differences in the works he patronized of these two different sultans. In other words, while encouraging the production of these books, he prioritized the appreciation of the sultan rather than his own. Another significant point about Şehnāme-i Türkī is that an illuminated copy has been prepared for Muṣṭāfā Ağa. The copy, which is in the Paris National Library today, was probably prepared for Muṣṭāfā Ağa. In this copy, the author Meddâh Medhî praised Muṣṭāfā Ağa as his benefactor and stated that he protected many other courtiers. The practice of commissioning a copy reminds us of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa. As Değirmenci states, Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa was a role model for the aghas who came after him in patronage.
However, Değirmenci draws attention to the image of Muṣṭāfā Ağa that differs from Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa. Muṣṭāfā Ağa's depiction indicates his powerful position that enthroned the sultan. The copy prepared for the Sultan was completed, but the copy prepared for Muṣṭāfā Ağa, including the description, was not completed. Değirmenci questions whether Muṣṭāfā Ağa's dismissal to Egypt while the copy was about to be finished could be related to this depiction. Although it is difficult to give a
25
definite answer to this question, there are reasons to assume it was possible. As mentioned above, Muṣṭāfā Ağa was sent to Egypt after his properties were confiscated by the grand vizier Güzelce Ali Paşa, while the preparation of this manuscript was about to end. Therefore, he may have had a book collection because he had a copy prepared for himself - just like Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa - but this collection may have been confiscated with his other properties. Muṣṭāfā Ağa was summoned from Egypt in 1622. When Murad IV came to the throne, he assigned Muṣṭāfā Ağa as the Chief Harem Eunuch again, but Muṣṭāfā Ağa died in 1624. Thus, he received office a second time for a little more than a year.
Lastly, Muṣṭāfā Ağa renewed the sebīl-mekteb built by Kayitbay in 1468-69 in Cairo and established a foundation that would enable ten orphans to take education there. Besides, according to the archive documents, he built a school with the mosque in Yenice Rumeli and the village Pentrahor near Istanbul.
2.2. ‘Abbās Ağa (d.1690s)
After Muṣṭāfā Ağa's death, İdris Ağa took his place, and he remained in office for 16 years until the end of Murad IV's reign. After Murad IV's death, he was dismissed when İbrahim (r.1640-1648) ascended to the throne. From İdris Ağa to ‘Abbās Ağa, thirteen chief eunuchs served, some of whom remained in office only for a few days and some for several years (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000). This may be viewed as a reflection of the instability in the palace and harem, traces of which were seen all over the empire during the reign of Sultan Ibrahim. Among them, Hoca Sünbül Ağa, who facilitated the capture of Crete, cannot be neglected. Sünbül Ağa wanted to go to Egypt after being removed from the palace due to the fear of the wrath of the sultan (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 50). However, since the regiment's ships were apparently gone, agha wanted to go as soon as possible, and in 1644 (perhaps he was afraid of the confiscation of his properties), he set out with a ship that was not well equipped for the journey. The ship was captured by the Knights of St. John, and Sünbül Ağa died during the conflict.
Ahmed Resmî narrates that Sultan İbrahim had given Sünbül Ağa a precious horse as a gift. When he learned that Ağa was killed and the horse was taken to Crete with the other valuables, he
26
ordered the preparation of the navy (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 50). It is not known whether the reason for the Venetian war was really the sultan's precious horse. However, Kumrular reveals that in the knights' own historical sources, it is told that among those seized from the ship were many gold and precious stones, as well as valuable horses from the sultan's stables and many valuable books (Kumrular, 2015, p. 231).
‘Abbās Ağa was the eunuch of Valide Turhan Sultan. Hathaway states that Muṣlī Ağa was also brought to the office by Turhan Sultan, but that Muṣlī Ağa spent five years in office mostly on his sickbed, and during this time, he was overshadowed by the already compelling ‘Abbās Ağa (Hathaway, 2018, p. 112). ‘Abbās Ağa, who came to office in 1668 with the death of Muṣlī Ağa, retired in 1671 after staying in office for four years and went to Egypt. Jane Hathaway wrote an article about the personal belongings of ‘Abbās Ağa, who died in Egypt in 1697 (Hathaway, 1994). In this foundation document, which is in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, there are some personal properties and belongings of the agha, as well as manuscripts. ‘Abbās Ağa was an excellent example of the life of the eunuchs in Egypt after they were dismissed or retired. After retiring, ‘Abbās Ağa lived in Egypt for nearly thirty years. They were making new investments with the power, wealth, and network they gained thanks to the supervision of the imperial foundation, both for personal wealth and imperial foundation. In this article, Hathaway points to the influence that the aghas had on Egypt's economic and cultural structure. Moreover, the importance of this document is that it reflects the personal property of the chief eunuch. In other words, it is different from endowing a school or a madrasah. Apart from this document, there is another foundation deed that ‘Abbās Ağa had prepared in 1080 (1669/1670) when he was the chief harem eunuch. According to this deed, agha had built a dārü’l-ḳurrā in the neighborhood of Nevbethane, İstanbul, and donated the manuscripts he wanted to be studied here (Buluş, 2019, p. 185).
2.3. Yūsuf Ağa (a. 1671-1687)
Yūsuf Ağa became the chief harem eunuch in 1671, with the retirement of ‘Abbās Ağa, and remained in office for more than sixteen years. During this period, we witness that the power of the chief
27
harem eunuchs increased. In one of her works, Hathaway shows the rising power of representation by examining the miniature depictions of the aghas and their place in imperial ceremonies from 1582 to the middle of the 17th century. In the beginning, the chief eunuchs had the role of intermediary between the harem and the outside world; their public visibility increased over time, sometimes representing the sultan and sometimes the dynasty in imperial ceremonies (Hathaway, 2019). In 1684, the chief eunuch seemed to have become the sultan's representative. On this date, Yūsuf Ağa greeted the Crimean Khan in Edirne, accompanied him, and then dressed in the sable fur that the sultan endowed (Turan, 1999, p. 152). Despite this strengthening, the effects of the Köprülü reforms here as well as in other fields, are quite evident. To stay away from the factional conflicts within the palace, the Köprülüs took some other precautions as well as moved the office of the grand vizier outside the court. It became customary for the harem treasurer to be the next chief harem eunuch as a precautionary measure. Yūsuf Ağa was also the harem treasurer before becoming the chief harem eunuch (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 58). One of the head eunuchs of the sultan’s mother or one of her companions would not be directly the chief harem eunuch. Thus, it would be possible to prevent the sultan’s mother from gaining too much power and forming a political power center in the palace (Hathaway, 2018).
After the execution of Merzifonlu12, Yūsuf Ağa was dismissed due to the continuing discontent resulting from military failures, and his properties were confiscated. The record of this confiscation gives unique information about Yūsuf Ağa's properties, especially his books. He was imprisoned for a week after his dismissal but was released on the condition that he handed over one hundred and fifty kīse aḳçe (purses of silver coins) to the treasury. In the article related to Yūsuf Ağa’s biography, Turan gives a list of confiscated properties and books (Turan, 1999, p. 158). The important aspect of this list for the current study is that it is the personal books of the agha taken from his personal rooms in the palace. Therefore, they reflect more personal preference than the books he donated to a madrasah. Some
12 The faction conflicts in the palace played a major role in this execution. Yūsuf Ağa, who used the pasha's failure in Vienna as an excuse, ensures the execution of the grand vizier with various slanders. However, when the discontent caused by the military failure continued to increase, Yūsuf Ağa was dismissed to calm the rebels. For more detail see: Turan, A. N. (1999). Bir Biyografi İnşa Denemesi: Kızlar Ağası Yusuf Ağa -Kara Yüzlü Kanlı Arap mı? Ağa-yı Sâde-dil mi?-. İslâmiyât, II (4), 145–162.
28
of the books were taken from his room in Enderun, and some of them were collected from the Çinili Köşk, where agha resided in the palace. Yūsuf Ağa's wealth was astonishing. Chief harem eunuchs were wealthy and powerful because of their proximity to the dynasty and the pious foundations under their supervision. Thanks to this wealth, they spent on charitable purposes such as mosques, madrasahs, and fountains, just like the dynasty or viziers. Turan points out that Yūsuf Ağa did not establish any pious foundation. It seems that Yūsuf Ağa did not consider the building of mosques and schools, in contrast to Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa or ‘Abbās Ağa. After his property was confiscated, when he set out for Egypt, he attracted attention due to his pompous behavior and was caught in İznik and brought back to Yedikule. Yūsuf Ağa was freed from this arrest by paying the missing part of the one hundred and fifty purses which he promised and went to Egypt. In the meantime, even though agha's properties in Egypt were confiscated and sold, some of his goods were bought by his protégés or supporters in Egypt and given back to Ağa. After staying in Egypt for four years, Ağa went to Medina as the şeyhü’l-ḥarem who guarded the Prophet Muhammad’s tomb (Turan, 1999, p. 161).
One of the reforms brought by the Köprülüs is the appointment of retired eunuchs to the tomb of the Prophet as şeyhü’l-ḥarem. Sending the deposed chief eunuchs to Egypt was an attempt to remove them from the imperial center. However, the Köprülüs may have thought that the aghas also constituted a remarkable power center in Egypt. Revenue from Egypt comprised a significant portion of the Haremeyn foundation’s wealth. The chief eunuch was managing these foundations under his supervision in cooperation with local powers. Hence, for local households, the relationship with the chief harem eunuch could turn into a local power (Hathaway, 1997). The Köprülüs transferred the control of these foundations from the local households to the military elite, namely the agha and master sergeant of Janissaries. With this move, the Köprülüs aimed to establish stronger central control over province revenues (Hathaway, 1997, p. 151). On the one hand, Yūsuf Ağa's wish to become a şeyhü’l-ḥarem was accepted to drive him away from Egypt. On the other hand, the Köprülüs may have sought to take advantage of the power and authority of the chief eunuch in the provinces in order to keep the şerīf of Mecca under control (Hathaway, 1997). Whatever the purpose of the Köprülü family members, Yūsuf Ağa, after becoming şeyhü’l-ḥarem took control of the Valide Foundation, which provided income for
29
a hospital and soup kitchen established in Mecca in 1678 by Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan (İpşirli Argıt, 2014, p. 188). This means that no matter where Yūsuf Ağa was exiled, he maintained his power and influence with his networks of relations in the palace and all over the Empire.
2.4. Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa (d.1746)
Ironically, despite all these reforms of the Köprülüs, the most powerful chief eunuch in Ottoman history, Beşīr Ağa, came 25 years after Yūsuf Ağa’s period of service. He remained in office for 29 years, from 1717 to 1746, attaining unprecedented power both at court and in the Empire. Moreover, his power was not only political; he was also an undeniable actor in the religious and cultural context of this period. Many of the buildings which he endowed are still standing today. Furthermore, there are two distinct manuscript collections in his name in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library.
Beşīr Ağa is the only chief eunuch whose separate biography is written. There is a book and a dissertation on his life. Because Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa is a very good stereotype of the chief eunuch, he is an appropriate example of the patronage relations of the black eunuchs with each other, their relations with Egypt, and their representation of power in political, cultural, and religious areas. Two articles by Baki Tezcan draw attention to the network of eunuchs. He deals in detail with how eunuchs formed their own factions in the harem with the examples of both Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa and Beşīr Ağa. Molla Ali, patronized by Meḥmed Ağa, despite being neither a eunuch nor a courtier, shows the strength of the eunuchs' networks as being the first African ḳāż‘asker (chief judge) in Ottoman history (Tezcan, 2012b). It is possible to see in the example of Beşīr Ağa that the relations among the eunuchs are still quite strong after almost a century.
Beşīr Ağa also came to İstanbul from Egypt as the protégé of Yapraḳsız ‘Alī Ağa, one of the former chief eunuchs. When Yapraḳsız ‘Alī Ağa became the chief harem eunuch after returning from Egypt, Beşīr Ağa rose rapidly in the hierarchy of the harem eunuchs. However, the continued rise of Beşīr Ağa when Yapraḳsız ‘Alī Ağa was exiled to Egypt for the last time must have been the result of his political successes and his good relations with Valide Gülnuş Sultan (Hathaway, 2005). He initially
30
became Mustafa II's companion and then his treasurer, the previous duty of chief eunuch since the Köprülüs period. Similarly, Beşīr Ağa also patronized other eunuchs. He brought Moralı Beşīr Ağa, who would become the next chief harem eunuch, to the office of treasurer (Hathaway, 2005).
After being dismissed, the general custom was to exile the chief eunuch to Egypt. However, this exile is more of a retirement away from the center rather than a punishment. They usually continued to receive salaries. It is understood that some lived in exile in Egypt among the chief eunuchs before coming to office. This exile was not only applied to the chief harem eunuchs but also to the eunuchs at the lower levels. However, the exile of Uzun Süleymān Ağa to Cyprus in 1713 seems to be an exception to the retirement life of the aghas in Egypt. Süleymān Ağa remained in exile until his death, and his property in Egypt was tried to be determined and confiscated (Ürkündağ, 2017, p. 19). Contrary to Süleymān Ağa, Beşīr Ağa was forgiven by the sultan a year later and appointed to the post of şeyḫü’l-ḥarem (Ürkündağ, 2017, p. 24). Being a şeyḫü’l-ḥarem before becoming chief eunuch distinguished Beşīr Ağa from previous chief eunuchs. In 1717, Şehid Ali Paşa, who caused the exile of Süleymān Ağa, died, and Nevşehirli İbrahim Paşa, who replaced him, ensured that Beşīr Ağa, with whom he had worked before, was appointed as the chief eunuch (Ürkündağ, 2017, p. 26).
Since Beşīr Ağa passed away while he was a chief eunuch in Istanbul, he did not experience an exile or retirement life in Egypt after his duty. However, it is understood that he had a short stay during his previous exile period. Nevertheless, their investment patterns reveal a great deal of information about the life, relationships, and solidarity of the eunuchs in Egypt. Ḥasan Ağa, the deputy of Beşīr Ağa, bought a house in the neighborhood where the eunuchs lived in Cairo and later transferred it to Ağa's foundation (Hathaway, 2005). The rules determined by Beşīr Ağa for this house and his foundation show his effort to continue to watch his protégés after his death. This effort of the eunuchs to be close and support each other led to the emergence of a neighborhood in Cairo where the eunuchs lived. In addition to this personal foundation, Beşīr Ağa built a sebīl-mekteb in Cairo, just like Muṣṭāfā Ağa and ‘Abbās Ağa (Hathaway, 2005, p. 95).
31
Although it is not possible to reach the records or documents of all his donations, Beşīr Ağa is the chief harem eunuch who provides the largest data to this study with both his foundations and personal books. When Beşīr Ağa died, his property was confiscated and transferred to the treasury, as he did not have heirs like all other eunuchs. The determination and confiscation of Ağa's properties took one year. Among his confiscated wealth, precious manuscripts were found both in his room in Karaağaç and in his room in Topkapı Palace (Erünsal, 2015, p. 195).
Beşīr Ağa's biggest collection donation was to the library in his complex in Cağaloğlu. In 1735, he created a library in the dārülḥadīs̱ that he had built in Eyüp. This is a smaller collection than Cağaloğlu and was created to meet the educational requirements of dārülḥadīs̱. Some additions were also made to this collection over time. Another library was built in addition to the school, which was built at the request of the people of Zitcovich. He also sent manuscripts to the library in Medina in 1739. There are various narratives about the richness of this library, and various additions were made by both the agha and others over time (Erünsal, 2015, p.193). Beşīr Ağa was noted for his many charitable works and activities until his death in his room in Topkapı Palace in June 1746.
2.5. Moralı Beşīr Ağa (d.1752)
Ağa's cognomen Moralı comes from the fact that his earlier master, ‘Aḥmed Paşa, was the tax collector of Morea. Ahmed Resmî states that he entered the palace after his master died. (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 66). While talking about the two Beşīr Ağas, Uzunçarşılı says that they were strong enough to influence Mahmud I and that the grand viziers were always chosen from their factions. He emphasizes that the first Beşīr Ağa, as a wise man, did not do anything to the detriment of his master, even if he intervened in state affairs. However, his successor, Moralı Beşīr Ağa, who remained in office for six years, did terrible things that almost caused the sultan to be dethroned (Uzunçarşılı, 2014, p. 163).
Ahmed Resmî had written the biography of the chief eunuchs Ḥāmiletü’l-Küberā when Moralı was alive and perhaps presented it to him. The biography of Moralı was presented in the book as someone still the chief harem eunuch. However, a chapter entitled “postscript of the biography of deceased Beşīr Ağa” was added at the end of the work. Contrary to the previous biography, this
32
addendum, which was apparently written after the agha died, profiled Beşīr Ağa quite negatively (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 69). As mentioned in some historical sources, it cannot be known whether Ağa was responsible for the fires in Istanbul and the destruction of the Üsküdar Ḳāḍī Nu‘mān Efendi's house, as mentioned in some historical sources (Aycibin, 2020, p. 75) (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 73). However, even the fact that these rumors were circulating in the city indicates that he conflicted with the ulama, and the people of Istanbul were dissatisfied with him. In the end, the grand vizier was forced to demand the execution of Moralı, even though he was from his faction. Beşīr Ağa was executed in Kız Kulesi (Maiden's Tower) in June 1752 and was buried in a cemetery in Üsküdar, where other harem eunuchs were buried (Hathaway, 2018, p. 153) (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 170).
Unlike his predecessors, Moralı Beşīr Ağa was a calligrapher who produced artworks in addition to the works he patronized. Apart from the many inscriptions that have survived, there are also a few works attributed to him in the Topkapı Palace Library (Özcan, 1992). Erünsal says that Ağa has a library in the madrasah he had built in Morea (Erünsal, 2015, p. 209). Agha's precious manuscripts were also confiscated (Erünsal, 2015, p. 212). Erünsal, in another article, reveals a list of those who presented books to Mahmud I in a document that existed in Topkapı Palace. It is written that an unnamed chief eunuch donated 3.252 books here. Erünsal claims that this unnamed person was most likely Moralı Beşīr Ağa (Erünsal, 2020, p. 298).
Moralı remained in office for a relatively short time - only six years - and was executed for alleged involvement in the turmoil in the capital. Since he was executed and his property was confiscated, the extent of his wealth and personal library collection is known. Ahmed Resmî offers interesting information about Moralı’s interest in reading books. He says that there are rumors that agha was busy studying at night, sometimes reading Ibn Sinā's eş-Şifā, sometimes Vassāf, sometimes Şevket's Divān, and sometimes Hassāf. Ahmed Resmî Efendi implies that these rumors aimed to manipulate the bibliopole market, so they do not reflect the truth. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether Moralı actually read the works he mentioned. In other words, we have no way of knowing for certain whether a eunuch will read both medicine, literature, and Hanafi fıḳh books based on these words of Ahmed Resmî Efendi. At the same time, another contemporary witness, French Jean-Claude Flachat, who knew
33
Ağa closely, praised him for reading books every day (Aycibin, 2020, p. 80). Overall, we do not have any information on Moralı’s donation of books or libraries, contrary to all these narratives regarding his interest in books and the presence of a vast number of books in his estate.
34
3. PATRONAGE IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD AND CHIEF HAREM EUNUCHS
In the previous chapter, I tried to explain how and why the agha’s chief harem eunuchs rose to power. However, their economic and political power is not enough to explain the large number of books they owned or donated. The harem eunuchs were not scholars. In other words, they did not receive a madrasah education and usually did not pursue any scientific, intellectual, cultural production. Therefore, it was not natural for aghas to own or donate book collections to the same degree as people from the scholarly class. They were not wholly ignorant or illiterate either; to the contrary, they were responsible for the primary education of both the women in the harem and the princes. This early training included subjects such as reciting the Qur'an, writing (most probably calligraphy), and courtly manners. Moreover, there were famous calligraphers among them, and even their epitaphs have survived to the present day (Özcan, 1992). In addition, the fact that some of them had books in their estates other than those they donated indicates that they were at least interested in literature that was circulating. Studies that touch upon the relationship between aghas and book collections (as discussed by Değirmenci and Fetvacı) investigate the role played by aghas in the production of manuscripts at the palace. However, these detailed studies focus on the political effects and the messages of these manuscripts. Although Açıl suggests that less valuable works, in literary and artistic terms, emerged due to the changing patronage networks and the aghas. (Açıl, 2015, p. 341), there are not yet any detailed studies that deal with the subject from this perspective. Considering all these findings together, we may think of a eunuch profile that is not completely unrelated to art and education but which has less literary and artistic background compared to previous periods.
The prestigious manuscripts produced in the palace, in which the aghas played a role (as the patron himself or as the sultan's representative), constitute the top examples of patronage. In other words, it is the part where both the producer and the consumer were at the top. Although these manuscripts are very few, there are many academic studies on these prestigious books. The illustrated manuscripts that Fetvacı examines diachronically reveal the changing images of the sultan, the grand vizier, and the aghas
35
at the end of the 16th century. Undoubtedly, the previous Ottoman sultans also patronized the illustrated manuscripts for their self-propaganda. However, while the earlier manuscripts aimed to immortalize the military successes of the sultans, Fetvacı shows that legitimacy is sought elsewhere in the reign of Murad III. The sultan is no longer presented with his warrior qualities but his inherited holiness (Fetvacı, 2005).
The chief harem eunuch must have tried to legitimize his changing position in the palace and his closeness to the sultan with these manuscripts and to have the palace people accept it. He should have been imitating the sultan imposing on the ruling elite that he was still the legitimate ruler due to some of his innate characteristics, even though he no longer went on a campaign and did not fight in campaigns. Fetvacı and Değirmenci emphasize that the manuscripts produced for the palace and kept in the palace library were borrowed and read by the people of the palace (Değirmenci, 2012) (Fetvacı, 2005). Hence, the audience over which the legitimacy was claimed this wider group of people who could access the palace library. Another chief aim of these works was the inculcation of courtly etiquette and hierarchy.
A sub-step of the patronage network was the new ruling class, defined by Tezcan as economically powerful but without military success, and those who had recently joined the administration. In her book İktidar Oyunları ve Resimli Kitaplar, Değirmenci states that these books are borrowed to be read or copied in the grand vizier's own house (Değirmenci, 2012), just like in the palace. This evaluation made by Değirmenci for the grand vizier can also reflect a practice among the new ruling elite. In this period, when the new ruling class opened the door to a new formation that could be defined as bureaucrat-elite instead of recruited soldiers, it is understandable that the commodity of the changing patronage culture was manuscript and libraries. The new elite class in question had to have a network of educated protégés to staff the administration.
Another critical group in this transformation process of the state was the scholars, which Tezcan and Atçıl discussed in detail. Atçıl states that these scholars cultivated an increasingly influential voice in the administration since the beginning of the 16th century and conceptualizes the scholar class taking part in the administration as scholar-bureaucrats (Atçıl, 2017). Tezcan, on the other hand, deals
36
specifically with the relationship between the sultan and the ulema. He suggests that sultans who were particularly absolutist in their ruling tried to create a scholarly class that would support them by bringing the scholars they patronized to high positions (Tezcan, 2012a). As the necessity of this early modern period, both the sultan and the new elites had a similar relationship with the scholarly class. However, in the context of this thesis, I will only touch on the relationship of the chief harem eunuch with the ulema class. The madrasah in the complex built by Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa in the current Çarşamba district has been discussed in the context of this relationship. Tezcan mentions that Meḥmed Ağa assigned the brother of the prince's teacher Nevālī Efendi as a müderris to his madrasah. Additionally, some other scholars, such as Memikzāde Meḥmed13 and Azmizāde Muṣṭāfā14, who taught in his madrasah while Meḥmed Ağa was still alive, later came to high positions in the Ottoman scholarly class (Tezcan, 2012b). However, perhaps the best example of Meḥmed Ağa's power is the rise of Mollā ‘Alī, who succeeded in participating in Divān-ı Hümāyūn by rising to the rank of ḳāḍī‘asker, even though he was African like Meḥmed Ağa (Tezcan, 2011). Thus, Meḥmed Ağa adopted two different patronage methods - (1) employing already powerful scholars in his madrasah and adding them to his networks and (2) including his protégés in the ulema class, thus supporting their flourishing careers.
As stated in the previous chapter, the chief harem eunuchs consolidated their power by wisely using their positions and opportunities to form networks. The example of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa shows how powerful these networks were. To strengthen his position in the palace, Meḥmed Ağa obtained protégés from different parts of the court, such as ḥaṣ oda.15 Thus, in the parts of the palace where the chief harem eunuch could not be dominant, he could have people who supported him and looked around for him. While doing this, they may have aimed to consolidate their dominance in the palace, or they may have done it to maintain control since they were responsible for the palace management. Like these factions within the palace, the aghas also acquired protégés outside the palace, from which their real
13 He also became ḳaż‘asker in 1648. Mehmet İpşirli, "Mustafa Efendi, Memekzâde", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/mustafa-efendi-memekzade (12.07.2022).
14 His father also was the teacher of Murad III, and he became ḳaż‘asker in 1623. Halûk İpekten, "Azmîzâde Mustafa Hâletî", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/azmizade-mustafa-haleti (12.07.2022).
15 Ḥaṣ oda was the sultan's room in the third courtyard outside the harem and dominated by white eunuchs and those from the palace school.
37
power came. Establishing a madrasah, donating books, and acquiring protégés among the scholarly class should be seen as one of these strategic moves. However, such strategies were not unique or innovative to the aghas; they most likely imitated the sultan's patronage behavior.
However, their strategic moves would not work if they didn't have some advantages, such as their intermediary identities. It was vital for them to be able to enter the harem, where no one else was allowed, but such access made sense because the aghas had a strong network outside. Their most important job, which allowed them to network outside, was their supervisory role in pious foundations. Firstly, Murad III gave Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa the control of the foundations (Evḳāf-ı Ḥaremeyn) with the largest revenues in the empire. Additionally, he transferred some sultanic/imperial foundations, which had significant incomes, to the control of ‘Osmān Ağa, the chief harem eunuch of the time, in 1006 AH (1598 CE) (Ahmed Resmî Efendi, 2000, p. 45). The control of large foundations meant the control of large, official revenue streams. The distribution of income-generating properties to the enterprise, the appointment of trustees to control the income and expenses, and the appointment of the people to work would have provided am extensivenetwork spanning both upper and lower strata of society from across the empire. The management of foundations was a great opportunity for the aghas, both economically and in terms of networking. So, these ewqaf should be evaluated as another pillar of patronage.
The Ottoman Empire was an empire where infrastructural needs such as education, health, and clean water were met through pious foundations. These foundations, especially infrastructural ones that required large investment, were often built by powerful statesmen such as grand viziers or members of ruling dynasties. Due to their closeness to the dynastic networks, the eunuchs had cultivated a natural relationship with the foundations, even before the administration of the ḥaremeyn foundations. Especially the large-scale foundation works built by the valide sultans had an important place in ensuring the dynasty's legitimacy. The eunuchs, who were the representatives of the dynasty women legally and economically, were closely involved in establishing their foundations and later superintending and controlling their income. Hence, their previous relationship with foundations suggests that they were aware of the relationship between ruling legitimacy and pious foundations. The mosque and madrasah
38
built by Meḥmed Ağa were at the same level as the ones built by dynasty members and grand viziers. He must have envisioned this as both a display of power and a symbol of legitimacy.
All these aforementioned social formations may be labeled as behavioral patterns of that period emerging by changing some of the old structures (such as foundations) and combining them with some innovations. Legitimization by establishing pious foundations and proving that they have the competence to have a say in the administration by creating their households or protégé network may be connected with the transformations of the state in the early modern period. That manuscripts and libraries became one of the commodities of the changing patronage culture in this period was an expected result of the transition from a recruited or warrior-dominated ruling class to another bureaucrat or scholar-dominated ruling class.
Therefore, the chief harem eunuchs, as critical actors of the early modern period, established patronage networks among the groups that could have a say in the administration by establishing foundations and acquiring protégés. Since these groups were closely related to books and education, books also became the commodities of patronage networks.
3.1 Manuscripts as a Mean of Patronage
In this section, I will examine the manuscripts donated by the aghas, which can be considered a mark of their patronage networks and benevolence. Some of these manuscripts are still in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library as a collection. On the other hand, we can only be aware of the existence of some other collections through archival documents. I cannot claim that these collections I have evaluated here are all the manuscripts donated by these chief eunuchs. It could only be possible with a thorough examination of the archives of the General Directorate of Foundations and qadı registers, which include endowment records. However, this is beyond the scope of my thesis. Here, I will discuss three collections still accessible in Süleymaniye Manuscript Library and three other collections I can find through previous studies.
Firstly, there are two critical points to note about the scholarly method of this investigation. The first issue is how I classify or name these inventories. Currently, book groups collected from different
39
places under the roof of the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library are called “collections”. However, some of these books were actually separate libraries before they came to Sülemaniye, such as the Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa's library in Cağaloğlu. On the other hand, some other books were brought together and made into a collection, but they did not have a separate place for them in the library. They were donated to be stored in other buildings, such as mosques, madrasahs, or dervish lodges, where they were placed in cabinets or shelves. Sometimes an officer was assigned to protect the books. For example, Rüstem Paşa collection, which I examined earlier, was placed on the shelves on the walls in the classroom of the madrasah. In other words, there was no library room devoted to these books in the madrasah, and it was only available to students and teachers studying in this madrasah. Therefore, naming as collection the books which were not placed in a separate building or room can help us qualitatively distinguish these manuscript groups. I will use the terms library or collection from time to time to point out the original form of these collections. However, I must be noted that the use of these terms is still somewhat ambiguous. Only in the context of this thesis, I can distinguish between “library” and “collection” in this way. As a matter of fact, unlike the Rüstem Paşa madrasah, I am unsure about the examples that have a separate room and bookkeeper (hāfıẓ-ı kütüb) for books as collections. This remains a point of further investigation and research.
The second issue is regarding the classification of sciences. In this pre-modern period, there was no definite standard for classifying books according to their subjects. Abdülhamid II commissioned the first standard catalogs of the waqf libraries of Istanbul in 1884. Before then, there was not any standard classification system like Dewey or Hamidian. Nevertheless, the subjects of tefsīr, ḥadīs̱, and fiḳh, respectively, always came first. Subjects such as literature, tasavvuf, and ethics are a little more ambiguous or transitional. For example, Mes̱nevī-i Şerīf is mentioned among the literature books in one register (HBA 2), but in another register, it is listed among tasavvuf (Sufism/mystic) books (HBA 1). In some waqf deeds, the names of the books are listed at the end of the document, and sometimes, they could be classified according to their subjects in this list, just like the manuscripts donated to the dārülḥadīs̱ in Eyüp by Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa. On the other hand, sometimes manuscript names were listed in the document, but their subject was not mentioned, as in the foundation deed of Rüstem Paşa Madrasah
40
(Arslantürk, 2011). However, in both cases, there is a traditional order of first muṣḥafs (Qur’ans), then tefsīrs (exegeses), then ḥadis̱, and then fıḳh books. On the other hand, there was no standard for books listed after fıḳh books. Sometimes siyer (life of Prophet), sometimes naḥiv (Arabic syntax), and sometimes tasavvuf manuscripts follow them. The Prophetic biographies were sometimes grouped with history books, and in other instances, they were listed separately. We can see the same also in the sciences of theology and logic. Because of these differences, I could not make a standard classification. Thus, I tried to use that classification if it exists in the original foundation record, as it would better reflect the perception of the period. Otherwise, I tried to apply the library register of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa because it is the most comprehensive.
Three of the six collections that are the subject of this section have not survived as cohesive collections. Since we have the endowment records of these three collections, it was possible to obtain a comprehensive list of the books. One of these collections, ‘Abbās Ağa’s endowment in Egypt, was previously reviewed by Hathaway (Hathaway, 1994). Three other collections are still accessible in Süleymaniye Manuscript Library today. Nevertheless, we also have their endowment records, so distinguishing the books endowed by aghas is possible. This point is critical because these waqf libraries do not remain in their original conditions. Sometimes the manuscripts have been lost, or later benefactors have added other manuscripts to the library. If the original waqf deeds or records have survived, we can see the changes in collection over time. The deeds or early records show us more accurately the approaches and preferences of the aghas regarding books. Açıl previously reviewed the collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, and he also mentioned these changes in collections (Açıl, 2020).
The first collection is Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, whom Değirmenci describes as an idol for later chief eunuchs (Değirmenci, 2012, p. 45). Meḥmed Ağa had a complex built in today's Fatih district, and he donated the collection to the mosque which was a part of this complex. It is known that Ağa built a madrasah with ten rooms, although it did not survive (Gündüz, 2003). As it is understood from the endowment deed, the manuscripts were placed in the cabinet in the mosque. At this point, although Meḥmed Ağa had a madrasah built in the complex, the donation of the collection in question to the
41
mosque raises questions. According to the foundation deed, Meḥmed Ağa set the condition that the manuscripts could be used only by professors and students of his madrasah. Given this, why did he put the manuscripts in the mosque instead of in the madrasah building? Perhaps there was another collection donated to the madrasah, but it has not survived to the present day, or there was no appropriate place in the madrasah for manuscripts, or Ağa thought that the mosque was a more secure location for them. Moreover, Meḥmed Ağa built another madrasah in Sultanahmet district, which is still known as Kızlar Ağası Medresesi.16 Did Meḥmed Ağa also donate books to this madrasah? If so, where are they now? This question demands further research into this topic in consultation with additional archival documents.
When it comes to the collection, Berat Açıl had already evaluated the manuscripts of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa by comparing waqfiye and current manuscripts. According to the article, Meḥmed Ağa stated that he donated 105 books in the foundation deed, but only 66 of these manuscripts, whose names the agha mentioned in the record, have survived. However, since later additions to the collection continued, 188 manuscripts are registered in this collection today (Açıl, 2020). In this endowment deed, the manuscripts were arranged without any classification. Berat Açıl classifies the works in his article, but since I applied Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa's library classification to other manuscript lists which did not have his own classification, I tried to apply the same classification to this collection with a few minor changes. In addition, as Açıl states in the article, there are a few manuscripts whose names were not mentioned in the deed, but they have Ağa’s waqf record. Most likely, Ağa added these manuscripts to the collection after he created the endowment deed but before he died (Açıl, 2020, p. 83). Therefore, I included these added manuscripts into the classification system. With these added works, Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa's collection has 94 works and 114 volumes. Although the manuscripts were endowed to a mosque, the collection includes all the topics included in a formal madrasah education.
When we look at the distribution of topics in the collection, most manuscripts are fıkh books. Dictionaries and tasavvuf manuscripts follow with 13 and 11 works, respectively. Afterward, there are
16 https://kulturenvanteri.com/yer/mehmet-aga-medresesi-sultanahmet/#16/41.007253/28.976154
42
nine works of tefsir, seven works of hadis, seven works on rational theory, and six works on the Arabic language in the collection. The predominance of fıkh was common and expected in madrasah collections. The striking difference in this collection is the presence of a number of dictionaries. Although the number of dictionaries is generally less than the subjects such as hadis and Arabic language, in this collection, they come right after fıkh. Naturally, dictionaries were used as supplementary material but were also read in madrasahs to improve knowledge and experience besides the curriculum (İzgi, 2021, p. 77). Indeed, the dictionaries here are in other collections as well. Ṣıḥaḥ-ı Cevherī is in 3 collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa. Ḳāmūsu'l-Muḥīt is also present in two other collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa. Again, Ahterī was one of the dictionaries in many Ottoman libraries. The high number of dictionaries in this collection is due to the fact that there were two copies of some dictionaries such as Ahterī, Ḳāmūs, and Ṣıḥaḥ. Although it is a relatively small collection, having two copies of some dictionaries increases the rate remarkably. Probably, we can relate the high rate of dictionaries and tasavvuf books that were not directly the subject of madrasah education to the fact that the aghas were not directly related to madrasah education as well.
Table 1 Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa’s Collection (HMA) 17
17 I will give the lists of the collection and all collections that I mention in appendix.
0%
0%
5%
5%
10%
10%
15%
15%
20%
20%
25%
25%
30%
30%
35%
35%
40%
40%
45%
45%
10%
10%
7%
7%
36%
36%
12%
12%
7%
7%
14%
14%
1%
1%
1%
1%
6%
6%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Work
Work
Volume
Volume
43
Table 1: The collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa, according to the article of Berat Açıl (Açıl, 2020).
The next endower is ‘Abbās Ağa, but none of his manuscript collections have reached us today. We have information about some thanks to the Evḳāf-ı Hümāyūn registers and some others through a document in the BOA (KK.d. 2441). Ayşe Buluş transcribed and published the waqf deed in her Ph.D. thesis (Buluş, 2019). According to the waqf deed, he had charitable works built in various parts of İstanbul, including many mu‘allimhāne (schools). Moreover, he rebuilt a mosque in Aynasor.18 After the manuscripts are listed in this deed, it is noted that some of them were donated to the mosque in Aynasor. Besides, the rest of the books were donated to the dārülḳurrā in Nevbethāne district. Moreover, he donated Qur’ans to Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem and also endowed for the reciters of these Qur’ans (Buluş, 2019, p. 185). Two precious Qur’ans sent by Ağa to Jerusalem are exhibited in the Museum of Islamic Art in Jerusalem today.19 A study on the Qur’ans in Jerusalem provides information about ‘Abbās Ağa's donation of these two Qur’ans. This book also states that another Qur’an manuscript donated by ‘Abbās Ağa is present in the collections of the Israel National Library today (Berakât, 2021, p. 233). Since we do not have any other manuscripts, thanks to these two Qur’ans in Jerusalem, we know the general details of ‘Abbās Ağa’s seal.
18 I could not find this name in BOA's guide on place names, however according to the information in the deed, this is a village under the Çemişgezek district of Diyarbakır province.
19 I would like to thank Nimet İpek who located and photographed these manuscripts in the museum collections.
44
Figure 1 The Qur’anic Manuscript endowed by ‘Abbās Ağa with his seal in the Museum of Islamic Art in Jerusalem20
‘Abbās Ağa’s endowments show that the Qur’an endowing had a special place for the harem eunuchs. Usually, among the books dedicated to madrasahs, there were not many Qur’an manuscripts. However, these documents demonstrate that ‘Abbās Ağa donated many Qur’an manuscripts to be read, especially in mosques. In the Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa Library, which I will mention later, four muṣḥafs that had calligraphic value were listed together with other books. There could be two main reasons for this inclination. The first one, which I mentioned in the previous sections, is about the education of the princes, which the aghas were responsible for in the palace. When Kösem Sultan fell out with the harem eunuchs had ordered that the prince take the lessons of reading the Qur’an from the threshold eunuch instead of the chief harem eunuch (Kumrular, 2015, p. 264). This order shows that the chief harem eunuch usually taught the princes to read the Qur’an. Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa calls himself lālā (teacher of prince), as we will see later, is probably because he was a lālā for Ahmed III during his princedom. The second reason for the interest of the aghas with Qur’an manuscripts should be their relationship with the calligraphy. We understand from the same order of Kösem Sultan that the instruction of calligraphy
20 The picture has taken by Nimet İpek.
45
constituted an important part of the education the aghas provided to the princes. In addition to the fact that many aghas are calligraphers, I should also mention that some of the valuable epigraphs written by aghas, such as Moralı Beşir Ağa are still preserved in some historical buildings. Among the books in the estates of the aghas, there are also many Qur’an, mostly the ones that have artistic value in terms of calligraphy.
The first document is a copy of ‘Abbās Ağa's endowment deed, which is in the Sicil Registers of the Evḳāf-ı Ḥaremeyn Court. After listing the manuscripts which he donated, the document clarifies which manuscripts were donated to where and under what conditions. It was forbidden to take the manuscripts out of the building where they were donated. Tefsir and hadis works were divided almost equally between the mosque and dārülḳurrā. Most of the fıḳh books were sent to dārülḳurrā, whereas manuscripts related to tasavvuf and theology were sent to Aynasor. As an exception in the issue of lending, it was allowed that some multi-volume manuscripts in dārülḳurrā be lent in return for a pledge. These manuscripts were fıkh manuscripts, such as el-Baḥrü'r-Rā’iḳ in 12 volumes, Ekmel in 23 volumes, Ḥidāye in 13 volumes, and Şeyh Rıżā in 3 volumes. Most likely, this solution served to facilitate the work of students who wanted to study and reproduce these manuscripts, since the library in the madrasah was only open two days a week (Buluş, 2019, p. 191).
Table 2 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Collection I (AA I)
Another collection of ‘Abbās Ağa is one that he donated in Egypt, according to an archival document in Topkapı Palace. As mentioned above, we know the details of the manuscripts donated by
0%
0%
20%
20%
40%
40%
60%
60%
80%
80%
18%
18%
15%
15%
36%
36%
8%
8%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
8%
8%
5%
5%
Work
Work
Volume
Volume
46
‘Abbās Ağa through two archival documents. In the first one, after listing the manuscripts, it is stated that some of these manuscripts were placed and used in the rebuilt mosque in Aynasor, and the other part was donated to the dārülḳurrā in Nevbethane district in Istanbul (Buluş, 2019). The second document is slightly different from the first in terms of its contents. Generally, manuscripts were donated to a madrasah or mosque for educational purposes. In other words, the aghas established or renewed an educational institution and then donated required books for education. However, this second document of ‘Abbās Ağa seems to be the donation of ‘Abbās Ağa's personal belongings before he died (TS.MA.d / 7657). After ‘Abbās Ağa was dismissed in 1671, he lived in Cairo for some time and likely donated his property to guarantee its continued usage by his household. While the other endowment documents that I examined for this thesis include the buildings prepared for education, the incomes allocated to them, and the conditions regarding the functioning of the endowment, in this document, it is only stated that the listed goods were ‘Abbās Ağa's donations in Egypt. Among the endowments in question, there were land incomes, residences, and commercial structures listed along with the manuscripts. Therefore, it is not clear exactly where and for what purpose these goods were donated. However, since the waqfs in Egypt were also related to the networks that the aghas created among themselves, I place this document here, not in the estate section where I will evaluate their personal manuscripts.
As Hathaway frequently mentions in her studies, the chief harem eunuchs had a very close relationship with Egypt. First, these African aghas were usually castrated in Egypt and served in large mansions here before being taken directly to the Imperial Palace. Later, they obtained protégés here to control the incomes of the Evḳāfu’l-Ḥaremeyn and to establish a ground for a comfortable retirement when they retired or were exiled by being dismissed. Therefore, they owned enough property to form a eunuch neighborhood. In this context, this document may indicate that he donated his personal property before his death so it would not be transferred to the beytü’l-māl21 and his protégés or household could continue to use them. For this reason, the content of these books may be different from the collections prepared for an educational institution. On the other hand, there were also some other manuscripts
21 As the aghas were eunuchs, they lacked any opportunities for familial inheritance. Therefore, their goods were transferred to Beytü’l-māl (imperial treasury) after they died.
47
among Ağa's goods transferred to beytü’l-māl after his death. Therefore, this foundation is more appropriately listed in this section, rather than its role in representing the personal preferences of Ağa.
In this document, apart from one complete Qur’an and 60 fragments of the Qur'an, the names of 25 books are listed. However, the books are not limited to these titles. It is further stated that there are 24 more manuscripts. While talking about these, the word ḳıt‘a is used in the document. The word ḳıt‘a can indicate that these books were not complete or that they were small fragments of texts. Although I will only evaluate the works whose names are mentioned during the classification, it should be noted that the collection was far more extensive than it first appeared.
Hathaway has previously dealt with the manuscripts that ‘Abbās Ağa donated in Egypt. She tends to evaluate some manuscripts as a sign of personal tendencies (Hathaway, 1994). For instance, she lists the history book of Medina named Hulāṣātu’l-Vefā, the book of dream interpretation named Ta‘bīr-i Şerīf, and other tasavvuf books. However, when compared with the other collections, we can see that the madrasah collections also contained some tasavvuf works. As mentioned above, dictionaries and tasavvuf books were read in madrasahs to improve the knowledge of the students and to offer experiences beyond the standard madrasah curriculum (İzgi, 2021, p. 77). Therefore, the existence of these manuscripts alone cannot be evidence of the mystical tendencies of the agha. However, like my comment about Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa regarding dictionaries, the abundance of tasavvuf books that are not directly included in the madrasah curriculum can be attributed to the fact that the aghas are not figures directly related to madrasah education.
Hathaway also associates the book of dream interpretation with Medina and the institution of şeyhu’l-ḥarem. However, the interpretation of dreams was already a vital subject in Ottoman Sufi culture and literature. We know that dream interpretation was a part of the relationship between Sufi sheiks and their followers. This is evident, for example, in the dream narratives that have been recently published.22 On the other hand, the dream interpretations are not the kind of works that were never included in the
22 For the dream narratives see: Kafadar, C. (2009) “Mütereddit Bir Mutasavvıf: Üsküplü Asiye Hatun’un Rüya Defteri 1641-1643”, Kim Var İmiş Biz Burada Yoğ İken, İstanbul: Metis, 123-191. Felek, Ö. (2014) Kitābü’l-Menāmāt: Sultan III. Murad’ın Rüya Mektupları. İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Niyazioğlu, A. (2020) 17. Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Rüyalar ve Hayatlar, İstanbul: Doğan.
48
collections. There are, for example, two ta‘bir-nāmes in the library collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa. Therefore, it is quite natural for ‘Abbās Ağa, who had tasavvuf works in his collection, to have a dream interpretation manuscript present in his collection. Additionally, the tradition of retired chief harem eunuchs to be şeyhü’l-ḥarem would start with Yūsuf Ağa after ‘Abbās Ağa.
On the other hand, the list also includes works that reflect the Ottoman madrasah curriculum, such as Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī23, Ḥidāye24. It is possible to consider these works as a reflection of the influence of the palace education system on the agha, as well as a reflection of the household policy of the aghas. Although the aghas did not receive a formal madrasah education, they were familiar with the issue since they were also responsible for the education in the palace. On the other hand, it can be thought that the aghas kept these books not only for themselves but also for their protégés in their household. In the early modern period, as mentioned above, people who were educated in households also took office in the state, and the elites formed their networks in this way, and the aghas did not fall behind from this practice. Another possibility is that the aghas acquired these manuscripts over time and donated the books they already had when a madrasah or school was built. ‘Abbās Ağa also received these books, but since he felt he was getting old without the opportunity to establish any institution, he donated them.
Since the waqf deed of ‘Abbās Ağa did not list the manuscripts according to their discipline, I sorted them according to Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa's library catalog. The books on dream interpretation (ta‘bīr-nāme) and sermons (mevā‘iẓ) are somewhat ambiguous in classification. Mevā‘iẓ books are classified under the title of Islamic Ethics in modern library classifications. Besides, in the classification of Eyüp dārü’l-hadīs̱, siyer and mevā‘iẓ books are grouped together. Since there is no mevā‘iẓ or ethics category in the classification I use, I thought it would be appropriate to list these books under the “literature” category as in the library record of HBA II.
23 The Quran interpretation of Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī (d.1286). The full name of the work is Envârü’t-tenzîl ve esrârü’t-teʾvîl, but it was usually mentioned shortly as Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī. (Cerrahoğlu, İ. "Envârü’t-tenzîl ve Esrârü’t-Te’vîl", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/envarut-tenzil-ve-esrarut-tevil (17.07.2022).
24 The book of Mergīnānī (d.1197) on Hanafi fiqh. The work was in great demand and was taught in Ottoman madrasas. It has been claimed that it comes right after the Quran with the Buhārī's Cāmiʿu'ṣ-ṣaḥīḥ in terms of eloquence (Kallek, C., "el-Hidâye", TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/el-hidaye (17.07.2022).
49
Table 3 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Collection II (AA II)
Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa is the one who donates the most manuscripts among the chief harem eunuchs. Understandably, the number of his foundations is much higher than the others since he has remained in office the longest. His benevolence may have contributed to the long duration of his power, and to his enduring reputation as an agha after his passing. The example of Yūsuf Ağa provides an opportunity for comparison. Yūsuf Ağa was similar to Beşīr Ağa regarding power and wealth, but he was dismissed by the confiscation of his properties and was freed from execution at the last minute. Although his property was largely confiscated when he was dismissed, when he set out to go to Egypt, the pomp of his entourage disturbed the soldiers, and he was arrested again and brought back to Istanbul. It should be noted that both aghas similarly witnessed major political upheavals. However, Beşīr Ağa survived these crises, which took place close to him, with great success. Claiming that Beşīr Ağa's many foundations and philanthropy were directly related to his easy recovery from crises would be an exaggeration. However, it is probable that the public image of the two aghas becomes even more critical in times of crisis. Yūsuf Ağa did not coordinate any charitable work which could legitimize his glamorous wealth. However, Beşīr Ağa acquired a good image and strong networks through his generosity and philanthropy. The manuscript collections are just a minuscule part of his large and various endowments. His two manuscript collections are still accessible in Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, but the manuscripts he donated are not limited to these.
0%
0%
5%
5%
10%
10%
15%
15%
20%
20%
25%
25%
30%
30%
35%
35%
Exegesis
Exegesis
Hadith
Hadith
Fiqh
Fiqh
Tasavvuf
Tasavvuf
Medicine
Medicine
Life of
Life ofthetheProphetProphetandandHistoryHistory
Literature
Literature
4%
4%
4%
4%
32%
32%
20%
20%
8%
8%
24%
24%
8%
8%
Work
Work
Volume
Volume
50
Beşīr Ağa's largest collection donation was to the library in his complex in Cağaloğlu. This collection is currently registered in Süleymaniye Manuscript Library under the name of Beşir Ağa Koleksiyonu. Although the number changes over time, there are 690 works in 1007 volumes in the most recent analysis. In 1735, he also created a library in the dārülḥadīs̱ that he had built in Eyüp. This is a smaller collection than Cağaloğlu and was designed to meet the educational requirements of dārülḥadīs̱. Some additions were also made here over time. Another library was built in addition to the school, which was built at the request of the people of Ziştovi (today Svishtov). Ağa also sent 98 books to this library, and he also sent 72 books at once to the library in Medina in 1739. However, since it is understood from the narratives that this library is very rich, various additions were made by both the agha and others over time (Erünsal, 2015, p. 193,194). Beşīr Ağa had many charitable works until his death in his room in Topkapı Palace in June 1746.
Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa donated 631 works, consisting of 715 volumes, to his collection in Cağaloğlu. He placed the books in the library room he had built next to the mosque and assigned four hāfıẓ-ı kütüb to tend the collections. However, after a few decades, it was noticed that some of the manuscripts were lost due to extensive borrowing - contrary to the waqf conditions - and the library was closed. In 1198 AH (1784 CE), the manuscripts were recounted, the deficiencies were determined, and then the library was reopened. I used this library register of 1784 to see the manuscripts donated by Ağa. In this register, which is currently in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library Yazma Bağışlar section, the manuscripts were listed by comparing them with the endowment deed. According to this inspection, 34 volumes were lost during these four decades. Both at the beginning and end of the register, it was mentioned that the manuscripts were checked by comparing them with the endowment deed. In addition, according to these notes, it was decided that the supervisor would count every year from then on, and the lost manuscripts will be compensated from the goods of bookkeepers.
Since I will include three different collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa here, I will briefly refer to this collection as HBA 1, the collection of Eyüp as HBA 2, and the collection of Medina as HBA 3. We describe this collection as a library because it was built as a separate building within the complex. There
51
is a mosque, madrasah, two fountains in the complex, and a separate library room. This room is not inside the madrasah; rather, it is a separate room that can be entered through the mosque (Eyice, 1992). This may have something to do with accessibility. That is, when the library was inside the madrasah, it was reserved for the use of only those who studied and gave education in that madrasah. However, a library accessible from the mosque is accessible to a much wider audience. However, it should be noted that this “broader audience” did not include the “public” in the modern sense; access was still generally limited to scholars and madrasah students. However, during the 18th century, separate libraries began to rise which were not strictly attached to a specific madrasah or school.
At first glance, as in other collections, most of the books are on fıkh. The collection has more diverse topics in direct proportion to its size. This diversity in the library can also be evaluated in the context of appealing to a broader audience. Moreover, a closer look at books even better shows the variety of manuscripts. Two ta‘bīrnāme under the title of literature are an example of this diversity.
Table 4 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Collection I (HBA I)
Table 4: The collection of Cağaloğlu Library, according to Yazma Bağışlar, 2278.
The second-largest collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa consists of the manuscripts he donated to the darülhadis. This collection is still in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library and is registered under the
0,00%
0,00%
5,00%
5,00%
10,00%
10,00%
15,00%
15,00%
20,00%
20,00%
25,00%
25,00%
9,89%
9,89%
14,83%
14,83%
21%
21%
7%
7%
6%
6%
3%
3%
5%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
7%
7%
6%
6%
4%
4%
5%
5%
1%
1%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Works
Works
Volumes
Volumes
52
name of Hacı Beşir Ağa Eyüp. As it can be understood from its name, the darülhadis was a part of the complex built by Ağa in Eyüp. He was assigned three bookkeepers and a book clerk to this library in its endowment deed, which he prepared in 1735. Beşīr Ağa donated 151 works consisting of 168 volumes to the collection. The collection has 200 volumes in total today. The list of these manuscripts was added at the end of the endowment deed. The endowment deed is in the Hacı Beşir Ağa collection with catalog number 682 as a notebook form. Erünsal also suggests that a copy of the deed is in the archives of the General Directorate of Foundations. Since there is already a classification in the deed, I have listed the manuscripts according to the original classification.
This madrasah was an educational institution that focused on hadis education, just like Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa's madrasah in the Fatih district. Whereas Mehmed Ağa’s madrasah has not survived, Beşīr Ağa’s dārülḥadīs̱ has survived to our day. Turning to the collection, the “literature” section draws immediate attention due to its extensiveness. Apart from literature, the number of texts in the other categories is remarkably stable in subjects such as exegesis, hadis, fikh, and history. However, the picture changes a little when we look closely at the manuscripts listed in the literature category. For example, Zemaḥşerī’s commentary on the Māḳāmāt is a treatise containing religious and moral advice, but since it was written in ornate prose, it should have been included under the title of literature. In addition, works that can be described as bibliographic or encyclopedic such as Keşfü'ẓ-Ẓünūn or Netāyicü'l-Fünūn were also grouped under the title of literature. However, in the studies on the classification of sciences, scholars usually place the sciences related to language such as syntax, prosody, and poems (devānin), under the title of literature (Ertuğrul, 2019, p. 189) (Şenel, 2019, p. 225). However, contrary to these earlier classifications, for example, in the classification of HBA I, devānin and prosody are classified separately, and syntax books were listed separately in all other classifications (HBA I, HMA). Therefore, the extensive number of literary works should be interrogated more closely in light of its categorization.
Another remarkable difference is that the manuscripts on medicine, philosophy, geometry, and astronomy were gathered in one group. Although medicine, geometry, and astronomy may seem to be grouped under one title as arithmetical and natural sciences, philosophy is not an arithmetical science.
53
Thus, it seems these books were grouped according to the theoretical sciences more generally, unlike the Cağaloğlu library classification. For instance, in the library register, philosophy books are listed alongside books on logic.
Table 5 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Eyüp Collection (HBA II)
Table 5: The collection of the dārülḥadīs̱ in Eyüp, according to the Hacı Beşir Ağa Koleksiyonu 682.
The third collection (HBA III) of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa is the one he donated to the madrasah in Medina, which is unfortunately lost to us today. We learn from the endowment dated 1739, a copy of which is among the records of the Evḳāf-ı Hümāyūn court, that Beşīr Ağa rebuilt a madrasah in Medina and sent the manuscripts listed here. Since manuscripts are listed without classification in this document, I classified them according to the library register. Except for one book, its name, Şerh-i Mahsude İftah, may have been miswritten. I could not identify this book, which is most likely a Miftāḥ commentary, probably because it was written incorrectly. Therefore, I must leave this book out of the classification. Ağa donated 72 works, in 85 volumes, including this unidentified work. However, Erünsal, based on the information he compiled from various historical documents and sources, claims that Ağa continued to send books. The richness of this library was praised in various sources (Erünsal, 2015, pp. 193). However, Erünsal states that for now, we only have the names of 72 works that were sent for the first time. According to this list, it is seen that fıkh, tefsir, and hadis books dominate, not surprisingly.
0%
0%
5%
5%
10%
10%
15%
15%
20%
20%
25%
25%
30%
30%
8%
8%
7%
7%
13%
13%
7%
7%
9%
9%
6%
6%
11%
11%
26%
26%
5%
5%
9%
9%
Work
Work
Volume
Volume
54
Dictionaries and syntax books come after, but no other literature manuscript is used in Arabic language education. This may be due to the small number of books or may raise another question. The madrasah education in the empire that spread over the wide Arabian, Balkan and Anatolian geography did differ in terms of the books taught in madrasah curriculum.
Table 6 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s Medina Collection (HBA III)
Finally, if we look at these collections comparatively, there is no critical difference, especially in the books of exegesis, hadis, and fikh that form the core of these collections. Although the ratios of fikh books vary between 13% and 51%, they are the most numerous in all collections. The only exception to this is the HBA II collection, and the literature books in this collection were double the fikh books, with a rate of 26%. However, as mentioned above, this literature title includes various books on different subjects. Therefore, I think this high ratio is somewhat misleading. Although there was more than a century between the first collection, HMA and HBA I collections, it is not surprising to see that the trend toward fikh books was the same. The primary function of the Ottoman madrasahs, after all, was to train the jurists necessary for the functioning of the Empire.
Tefsir is the discipline that usually comes right after fıkh in the registers, but not always. Whereas dictionaries are more in HMA and history and siyer books are more in AA II. Even though the ratios vary, fıkh, hadis, and tefsir books are in every collection.
While making this comparison, I focused on the number of works, not volumes. Because some multi-volume books can be misleading in this comparison, for example, some fıḳh books donated by ‘Abbās Ağa consisted of many volumes, such as 23, 13, and 12. Since students frequently borrowed
0%
0%
10%
10%
20%
20%
30%
30%
40%
40%
50%
50%
60%
60%
19%
19%
10%
10%
51%
51%
8%
8%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Work
Work
Volume
Volume
55
these manuscripts, preparing them as multiple volumes made them more practical. A similar case is true for the Qur’an manuscripts. The Qur’ans were also prepared in multi-volumes for ease of reading and carrying. While some contained 20-page pieces, some could have selections from widely read short suras. Again, ‘Abbās Ağa's endowments include 60 Qur’an fragments. Therefore, while Qur’ans and tefsīr books are counted together in the classification, I have listed them separately so that these volumes are not misleading and the number of tefsīr books can be seen more accurately.
Turning back to the collections, tasavvuf books exist in all of them, except for the collection sent to Medina. Therefore, I checked two other collections to see if the manuscripts related to tasavvuf in the aghas' collections could reflect their tasavvuf tendencies. Since all the manuscripts that I examine in this study belong to the aghas, judging just by looks would not be accurate. However, there were manuscripts of tasavvuf in both the 16th-century Rüstem Paşa Madrasah and the 18th-century Aşir Efendi Library. Combining this data with the knowledge that the tasavvuf works were taught in madrasas, although they were not included curriculum (İzgi, 2021), it is seen that it is quite common to find tasavvuf books among library collections. This does not mean that the aghas did not have mystical tendencies, but it is not possible to claim this based only on the manuscripts they dedicated or own.
Only the Medina collection does not contain any tasavvuf manuscript. Considering that Beşīr Ağa continued to send books to this library later, it can be assumed that this first collection included the texts related to the core courses that the madrasah needed to begin its education. In this collection, which already consists of a few books, there are books such as syntax, dictionaries, belle-lettres (ādāb), and geometry, which are accepted as the basic steps of madrasah education, following the books of fıkh, hadis and tefsir.
However, there is no question about the ‘Abbās Ağa’s history books. Seven of the 25 book collections were history books. These books, which also included Ottoman histories besides Islamic and world histories, can be read as an indication of ‘Abbās Ağa’s interest in history.
56
Table 7 Comparison of Six Collections
57
Beyond detailing the categorization and subects of the collection, I will also briefly touch on the language of the texts in these collections. Since the language of instruction in Ottoman madrasahs was Arabic, it is not surprising that almost all these books were in Arabic. Sometimes the documents or endowment deeds mentioned the language of manuscripts, especially if they were not in Arabic. For example, in ‘Abbās Ağa’s collection, it was stated that Ebussuud's fatwas were in Turkish like Türkī Ebussu‘ūd Fetāvāsı. Or it was noted that the book was a translation such as Terceme-i Ṣadru’ş-Şeri‘a in Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa’s collection. On the other hand, in the same collection list, Ahī Çelebi’s book was not mentioned in its language. However, we can assume it is in Turkish because all three works of chief Ahī Çelebi were Turkish (Bayat, 1988).
When it comes to the two major collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa, there is an increase in the number of non-Arabic works. It is difficult to say whether this increase should be evaluated in terms of the size and diversity of the collection or whether the date was late. To make a more consistent assessment of this subject, it is required to make comparisons with different libraries and collections in the context of their respective periods. As mentioned, the collections include topics such as fikh, exegesis, and hadis used in madrasah education. Almost all these works consist of Arabic works. Therefore, knowledge of Arabic was an initial requirement for Ottoman scholars. Therefore, another essential subcategory of texts in madrasahs was the resources related to Arabic language education. Syntax, grammar, rhetoric books, and dictionaries were the basis of language education in madrasahs. The collections, which were relatively small and contained books on this basic part of education, naturally included more Arabic books. However, as the collections expand and books read for knowledge and manners could be given more space in addition to basic education, there will be expected to be more Turkish and Persian books. This is exactly what we can see in Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa's library collection. Naturally, this collection's ratio of Turkish and Persian works is higher, including many literary works and divāns.
Firstly, to give an example of the date factor, the fikh work called Şifā’ü'l-Mümīn was written by Minkâri Ali Hâlife in 1653 and presented to Mehmed IV. Since the subject of fikh was one of the essential categories of texts, the existence of this Turkish book should be related to the date effect. In other words, it is impossible to see this Turkish fikh book in the collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa,
58
which was gathered at the end of the 16th century. Additionally, it was impossible to see Tārīh-i Naimā in the collections of either Meḥmed Ağa or ‘Abbās Ağa. In the collection of Beşīr Ağa, there is the first edition of this Turkish history book, in 1734. Therefore the probability of seeing Turkish works increased with the passage of time. This is why we look at the library collection, and we can see that the number of Turkish works has increased considerably to 65. Although a few of them are small treatises in compilations, there are also multivolume books such as Evliya Çelebi's travel book.25
3.2 The Manuscripts in Their Inheritance
Although I have evaluated obtaining manuscripts as an indication of the patronage network and philanthropy of the aghas, in this part, I will try to assess the issue from another perspective. As mentioned before, the transformations in the early modern period also affected the patronage networks and the object of patronage. Being rich, powerful, and intellectual became more critical for being an acceptable ruler. However, is it possible to claim that the aghas owned manuscripts only for political motives? At this point, it should be mentioned that the chief harem eunuchs were the heirs of an intellectual tradition. Hathaway underlines that eunuchs have been in charge of the education of princes and women in palaces since China and the Early Islamic Empires (Hathaway, 2018, p. 22). As mentioned above, regarding the relations of the aghas with the women of the harem and the princes, the eunuchs in the Ottoman Palace were no exception to this situation. Even though they were not scholars, for example, calligraphy was not an exception among the chief harem eunuchs. As a matter of fact, they collected manuscripts with high calligraphic value, as in the example of Moralı Beşīr Ağa. It is impossible to speculate on the intellectuality in the conventional sense because they did not go through formal education like a madrasah, but distinguishing educated elites and uneducated, ordinary people with a sharp line according to modern standards would be wrong.
Even though the endowments of ‘Abbās Ağa in Egypt seemed like his personal belongings and were evaluated in this way, as mentioned above, they may have been acquired for the education of the
25 HBA 448,449,450,451,452
59
household or may have the purpose of being donated eventually. For this reason, these manuscripts alone cannot be treated as evidence of the personal preferences of the aghas. Therefore, looking at the inheritance of other aghas may provide more insight into their attitudes towards books.
There is a tereke (inheritance) record of ‘Abbās Ağa in the Ottoman archives, but the document has no date. Nevertheless, there was no other chief harem eunuch with the same name, so it is certain that he is the same person as ‘Abbās Ağa, whose foundations are discussed in the previous sections (BOA. KK.d. 2441/1). According to the document, the goods listed here were transferred to the imperial treasure since the agha had no heir. Ağa had three Qur’an manuscripts of seven volumes, three evrād-ı şerīf, and 59 books, according to this list. Unfortunately, the titles of the books are not listed. Although there is no detailed information, the fact that there were books in his tereke gives an idea about the agha. Moreover, the three manuscripts evrād-ı şerīf may be evidence of ‘Abbās Ağa’s mystic tendencies. In the previous section, I claimed that the tasavvuf works among his endowed manuscripts could not be evidence of his personal preferences because these books could be seen in madrasahs. On the other hand, since the evrād books were the works created by Sufi groups for their daily invocations (Kara, 1995), Ağa may have used these three books for his daily prayer. Since these evrāds were cheap compared to the Qur’ans in the list, the agha must have kept them for his own use rather than for their artistic value.
Muṣlī Ağa, who was in office just before ‘Abbās Ağa, has in his estate a Qur’an manuscript worth 250 ġuruş, and four books whose names were not specified worth 66 ġuruş (BOA. TS.MA.e. 223). On the other hand, Yusūf Ağa, who came after ‘Abbās Ağa, had more and various manuscripts in his inheritance. As mentioned in the previous section, despite Yusūf Ağa's great wealth, there is no endowment record of him. Since he was not a philanthrope, he most likely reserved these books for his personal usage. The fact that there were no fıkh books among them confirms this idea. Since Ahmet Nezihi Turan previously published this manuscript list, I benefited from this article (Turan, 1999, p. 158). Yusūf Ağa's books were taken from two separate rooms in the Topkapı Palace, 69 volumes from his room in Enderun, and 20 volumes from Sırça Saray26. Among the manuscripts, two Qur’ans were very valuable in terms of calligraphy, and some books, such as Şehnāme and Kıṣaṣ-ı Enbiyā, can be
26 Today Çinili Köşk which is a part of Istanbul Archaeology Museum, located in the outside courtyard of Topkapı Palace.
60
considered prestigious because they were illuminated. The books on the list are about history, literature, tefsīr, and tasavvuf. Another striking point is the large number (20 volumes) of Turkish works (Turan, 1999, p. 158). These books of Yusūf Ağa were confiscated when he was dismissed in 1687; some of them were placed in the Enderun collection and some in the Hazīne collection (Erünsal, 2015, p. 394).
Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa's tereke, is not as rich as his foundations, but there are more books than previous ones (BOA. TSA.d. 23.). In total, 216 volumes of books were recorded from Ağa's rooms in Ḳaraağaç and Serāy-ı Cedīd. Fifty of them were mentioned as ‘kütüb and resā’il’ (books and pamphlets) without specifying their names. Beşīr Ağa's books show a similar variety to the library foundation. Beşīr Ağa's books show a similar variety to his library endowment. It can be said that it is almost the same as the diversity in the library; with the tefsir, hadis, fıkh, literature, tasavvuf, history, the Prophet's life, medicine, geometry, dictionary, and rational theology subjects. Since Ağa's tereke contains valuable manuscripts, it was noted that some of them were taken to the Revan collection and some to the Harem in Topkapı Palace.
However, the most valuable manuscripts were Moralı Beşīr Ağa's estate. Since Moralı was executed six years after taking office, it can be thought that he did not have many waqfs. On the other hand, he had a quite rich collection of books. At least, he had one library endowment, contrary to Yusūf Ağa. Erünsal cites that he established a library in his madrasah in Arhos in Morae. Moralı's confiscated books were astonishingly numerous and valuable. In the document (BOA. TSA.d. 23), only the manuscripts that seem to be very valuable are listed with their names and qualities. Then, at the end of the list, it reveals there were also 3.252 kütüb and resā’il without any qualification. The manuscripts were recorded with the knowledge of their calligraphers because most of them were very famous, like Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān or Ḥocazāde. The listed books reach a total number of 4.678, with 3.252 at the end. Frankly, the number of books by Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa is not surprising when considering his tenure. But for an agha who was in office for six years, it must have taken a particular interest to be able to put together so many valuable manuscripts. As a matter of fact, this supports the narrative of Ahmed Resmî Efendi that Moralı deliberately spread gossip and rumors to manipulate the second-hand booksellers (ṣaḥḥāf) market to his own advantage. All the listed manuscripts in Moralı's estate were Qur’an or prayer books.
61
Calligraphic works with high artistic value are often either of these two. Additionally, the manuscripts mentioned in the list as ḳıṭa‘āt or cerīde were the works in which leaflet calligraphy was brought together. Although we do not know what the 3.252 books were about, according to the listed manuscripts, this collection may be perceived as an art collection rather than a library collection.
After revealing the relation of the aghas with books as a means of patronage in the previous part, I wanted to show in this part that the books may not be just patronage commodities for the aghas by looking at the books in their tereke. Rather, these personal books reflect more on their personal tendencies than might be immediately apparent. For example, Moralı’s prestigious manuscript collection reflected his fondness for calligraphic art and also his calligraphic skill. Turkish works among Yūsuf Ağa’s books and evrād manuscripts of ‘Abbās Ağa also indicate their preferences in some measure. Therefore, even if they are not a scholar or do not have a professional relationship with books, we can at least say that books were not just commodities for these aghas.
3.3 Personal Written Marks by Eunuchs in Manuscripts
In this last section, I will try to touch on the personal traces of the aghas on the manuscripts. In this context, since Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s manuscripts are the largest ones that have reached today, they can provide the most information. On the other hand, I can examine only those available in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library. Although we know that the confiscated books of the aghas, including Ḥacı Beşīr, are in the Topkapı Palace, it was impossible to access the materials in the Palace Library during my research. Therefore, the data I have does not provide an opportunity for generalized or comparative analyses. Rather, this offers a specific and focused analysis of the collections of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa.
62
Figure 2: The first ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa without the date
The aghas left mostly ownership or endowment records in addition to their seals on the manuscripts. In the Beşir Ağa’s library collection, there are four different ownership records, two ownership seals, and an endowment seal of Beşīr Ağa. Ownership records were written at three different times but on the same manuscripts. In other words, some manuscripts have two different ownership statements of Beşīr Ağa. The first ownership record belongs to the time when Beşīr Ağa was the imperial treasurer (hazīnedār-ı şehriyārī).27 Although there is no date in this record, since we know that Beşīr Ağa was in this post between 1707-13, it should be written between these dates. The next record is from 1730-31 (H.1143). In this note, Beşīr Ağa mentions himself as the superintendent of the Evḳāf-ı Ḥaremeyn. Indeed, he became the chief harem eunuch in 1717, and the superintendency of Evḳāfü’l-Ḥaremeyn was already the duty of the chief harem eunuch. However, Beşīr Ağa preferred revealing his superintendent duty rather than being the chief eunuch. After eight years (H.1151-52), he mentions himself as ağa-yı dārüssa‘āde, in another record. The last ownership record was in 1745-46 (H. 1158), just before he died. In this recording, he refers to himself again as ağa-yı dārüssa‘āde. The expressions used in these notes provide important clues about the self-portrayal of the Ağa.
27 The statement I: “isteṣḥabehu lālā Beşīr Ağa hazīnedār-ı şehriyārī beşşerehu’llāhu te‘ālā bi-mā iradihi fi'd-dünyā ve'l-āhire ve ce‘alehu maṣḥūben bi-luṭfihi'l-hafiyyi ve'l-celiyyi bi-ḥürmeti min ersele li'l-‘ālemīn raḥmeten ve şefī‘an ve ḳīle fī ḥakkihi innā erselnāke beşīran” (HBA51)
63
Figure 3: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H.1158 (1745-46)28
The Ağa uses some generic forms for endowment records but embellishes them with more prayer phrases. For instance, “el-mülkü li’llāh” that he uses in the last record dated H. 1158 (1745-46) was a phrase emphasizing that all properties belong only to God, as a reflection of the Ottoman understanding that all ownerships are temporary.29 Açıl previously mentions this temporality idea in his article on the relation Ottoman scholars with books (Açıl, 2017). He deals with this relationship through the concepts of blessing (nimet), watch (nevbet), and conversation (sohbet) that Cârullah Efendi used in his ownership statements. The word nevbet used by Cârullah Efendi was a concept that emphasizes temporality (Açıl, 2017, p. 53). In other words, this ownership was just guarding duty. Like this understanding of nevbet, Beşīr Ağa emphasizes his temporality idea by stating in his ownership note that this book was under his guard.
On another note, he states that he hopes for the prophet's intercession by referring to his duty in Evḳāfü’l-Ḥaremeyn.30 Since serving and maintaining the Prophet's tomb and its city of Medina were among the duties of this pious foundation, the agha obviously believed that this task would enable him to achieve the intercession. Again, in these records, he often refers to the Qur’an. It seems that he established a link between himself and the Qur’anic verses he referred to. When referring to Surah Duha,
28 (Hacı Beşir Ağa 579-M). The seal of Beşīr Ağa written “yā hafiyye’l-elṭāf neccinī mimmā ehāf ‘abduhū Beşīr”
29 The statement IV: “el-mülkü li’llāh dehale fī hıfẓ-i ‘abdihi el-Ḥāc Beşīr Ağa-yı Dārüssa‘ādeti'ş-şerīfe li-sene s̱emān ve ḥamsīn ve mi’e ve elf”
30 The statement II: “elem yerżuke er-raḥmān fī sūreti'ḍ-ḍuḥā min kütüb-i ‘abdürrācī şefa‘ahu seyyidü'l-kevneyn Ḥācı Beşīr nāẓıru'l-ḥaremeyn-i şerifeyn sene 1143”
64
he implies that he was well-pleased. This satisfaction may be related to the manuscript he owned; after all, this note is a book's ownership note. However, when we consider the whole of the surah, he was probably implying his satisfaction with his life that he started as an enslaved African and finished as the most powerful name of the empire, as the ağa-yı dārüssa‘āde. Because in this surah, Allah reminds the prophet that he sheltered him when he was an orphan and guided him.31 Another reference is much more clearly linked to the Ağa. Beşīr literally means good news, and the Qur’an uses the word “beşīr” to say that the prophet was sent as good tidings to humanity. As can be seen from the short examples here, these ownership notes not only provide historical information about the aghas' habits of acquiring books but also give information about their self-perceptions and their religious and cultural mentality. For this reason, I would like to be able to access and compare more such notes of other aghas.
Figure 4: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H. 1143 (1730-31)
Beşīr Ağa's last ownership statement is dated 1745-46 and currently written on 592 manuscripts. he probably wrote his ownership statement on all his endowed books. Additionally, in some of these manuscripts, there are also ownership notes that he wrote before. Eighty of the manuscripts in the collection have the record dated H.1143 (1730-31). In eight manuscripts, there is the record that he wrote while he was still treasurer. This type of record shows us that these eight manuscripts32 most probably
31 Full translation of Surah Duha: By the bright forenoon, (2) and by the night when it covers the world with peace: (3) (O Prophet), your Lord has neither forsaken you, nor is He displeased. (4) Indeed what is to come will be better for you than what has gone by. (5) Verily your Lord will soon give you so amply that you will be well-pleased. (6) Did He not find you an orphan and then gave you shelter? (7) Did He not find you unaware of the Right Way, and then directed you to it? (8) And did He not find you in want, and then enriched you? (9) Therefore, be not harsh with the orphan; (10) and chide not him who asks, (11) and proclaim the bounty of your Lord. (Abul Ala Maududi, Tafheem-ul-Quran, https://quran.com/ (13.07.2022).
32 YEK, HBA, 51,52,53,54,173,179,180,472.
65
accompanied the Ağa on all his journeys when he was exiled to Cyprus, then appointed as the şeyhü’l-ḥarem in Medina, and later recalled to Istanbul as the chief harem eunuch. For other ownership notes, which occur on 15 manuscripts dated H. 1151(1738-39) and 1152 (1739-40)33, the note form has not changed even though the date has changed34. The ownership records written at these times may indicate that Ağa was enrolling in the books collectively at once instead of dealing with his books one by one. Or it may suggest that he acquired the books in bulk. Another example that can give an idea about how Ağa acquired the books is in the Eyüp collection. Fifteen manuscripts have the ownership notes written by a person named ‘Alī bin ‘İzzet. Most likely, Beşīr Ağa bought these books in bulk from ‘Alī bin ‘İzzet's estate.35 Therefore the manuscripts containing early records of Ağa purchasing books in bulk, as in this example. However, the large number of manuscripts that he donated to the library may have been collected through a more collective effort.
Figure 5: The ownership statement of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa dated H. 1151 (1738-39)
I scanned the frontpages (ẓahriye) of the manuscripts for this study, but I could not find any sign showing that the Beşīr Ağa had read these books. At this point, I should note that the manuscript
33 YEK, HBA, 86,90,114,200,202,303,304,322,350,413,414,474,488,493,501,573,592,611.
34 The statement III: “kefā li’l-mer’i vā‘iẓan en yeḳūlū fīmā melektühu kāne hāẕa’l-fulān min ni‘me’l-mün‘amü’l-müte‘āl ‘alā ‘abdihi el-‘āciz el-Ḥāc Beşīr Ağa-i Dārüssa‘ādeti’ş-şerīfe hatema’llāhu lehu bi’l-ḥasbī fe’l-ziyāde el-vāḳı‘ fī sene iḥdā ve ḥamsīn ve mi’e ve elf”
35 YEK, HBAE, 24,25,27,28,29,31,32,53,59,62,65,91,93,100.
66
frontpages may include reading notes and ownership notes. Texts in the collection of ‘Āşir Efendi36 offer a fitting example of this. He did not write only ownership notes on his books, but also he had reading notes, commissioning notes, and sometimes permissions (icāzet). More specifically, some of his ownership statements also say that he read the book37. Of course, the most important difference between ‘Āşir Efendi and Beşīr Ağa was that ‘Āşir Efendi was a chief judge. Therefore, since Beşīr Ağa was not a scholar, he cannot be expected to have any icāzet. However, the reading notes of the aghas would not be too surprising since the reading notes were not a practice specific to the scholars in Ottoman culture.
The personal marks of Beşīr Ağa are not only these ownership statements. As I exemplified above, there are also ownership seals present alongside ownership records. Moreover, in the same manuscripts, there is a last written foundation statement and foundation seal. However, this record was written by the Evḳāf-ı Ḥaremeyn supervisor, not by Beşīr Ağa himself. Therefore, I did not consider it necessary to mention. In the Eyüp collection, there are also foundation records and seals on the frontpages of the manuscripts. However, there is only statement II, which is dated to H. 1143, from the personal written notes of Beşīr Ağa. The 35 manuscripts of this collection have this ownership note. In Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa's collection, there is also a foundation record on the front pages of manuscripts. Although there is no indication that a supervisor wrote it, there is also no indication that Meḥmed Ağa wrote it.
Since the aghas did not leave any written sources about themselves, even these short notes they left on the manuscripts are critical for us to understand their mentality. Thanks to these notes, for example, we understand that Beşir Ağa held a similar opinion of texts as the scholars of his time. Thus, it seems evident that the notes they left on their endowed books in this section, just like the books they inherited, offer further ideas about their habits and inclinations. Although books were an intermediary of the patronage networks for the aghas, other details can be discovered through close investigation.
36 YEK, Aşir Efendi Koleksiyonu.
37 “teşerrefe bi-istiṣḥabihi ve ḳıra‘atihi Muṣṭafā ‘Āşir el-‘Ārif Re’is-zāde sene 177 ‘ufiye ‘anhümā” (Aşir Efendi Koleksiyonu 38)
67
4. CONCLUSION
The chief harem eunuch was one of the most important figures of the Ottoman Empire from the end of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century. This process, which they started as the ruler of the harem in the Old Palace, continued as the representative of the whole dynasty and the most powerful figure of the empire. This incredible rise of the harem eunuchs was related to the relocation of the harem to Topkapı Palace, the settlement of the Sultan, the empowerment of women due to the dynastic crises, and finally - and perhaps most importantly - the new elites who started to participate in the administration. The harem eunuchs who came to Topkapı Palace with the relocation of the harem enjoyed the advantage of being the only persons who could easily go between the harem and the outside world after the sedentary sultan moved to the harem. This intermediary role should have been an advantage for the eunuchs as well as a solution for the sultan when he needed it. The eunuchs were the support the sultan needed when he decided to give up the image of a ġāzī sulṭān (warrior) and paint a more sacred and inaccessible image. Chief harem eunuchs were chosen to support this image and the legitimacy of the sultan’s absolutism against the emerging ruling elite. III. Murad had given the most powerful foundations of the Empire to the superintendency of the chief eunuch to strengthen the chief eunuch against the grand vizier and other ruling elites. It seems that the eunuchs fulfilled what was expected of them duly. Then the management of the sultanic foundations, under important rulers such as the grand vizier and chief judge, was also transferred to the harem eunuchs.
So far, the rise of harem eunuchs was about being in the right place at the right time. Although the sultan's support was the most critical factor in this rise, the wise policies of the chief eunuchs also supported their power. They used the power of the Evḳāfu’l-Ḥaremeyn to acquire protégés all over the empire. So that most of them had created an environment in Cairo where they could live comfortably until their death, in the case of retirement or dismissal (even if all their properties were confiscated, as in the case of Yusūf Ağa). Their endowment and book collections are partly associated with these clever protégé-acquisition and networking efforts. Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa established a close relationship with the scholarly class thanks to his madrasah and to his protégé Mollā ‘Ali, who became the first African ḳādī‘asker. Establishing a madrasah or providing the books that madrasahs needed, or both, were the
68
requirements of efforts to develop good relations with people who could feed into the administration and establish strong networks. Another important aspect of these foundations was to provide political legitimacy. Chief harem eunuchs earned significant income from their duties in the palace and foundations. Every one of them who has been in office for a long time had considerable wealth. Since they had managed the waqfs of the harem women, they must have experienced how establishing a waqf was an essential tool of legitimacy. In other words, the harem eunuchs endowed many educational institutions by imitating this dynastic tradition as the valide sultans often did.
Book endowments or collections were partly related to the zeitgeist of the early modern period. The new elite trying to join the administration might have felt compelled to appear more educated. They wanted to prove that they could be at least as educated and intellectual as the recruited statesmen who took all their education in the palace school (Enderūn) by being recruited as a child. This newly educated class had received a lower-level version of the palace education at the house of their patrons to join the state bureaucracy in this period.
The eunuchs also used books both as a means of legitimacy and patronage, in accordance with the atmosphere of the period. It has been revealed by previous studies that the patronage of the aghas in the manuscript's production purposed political and social legitimacy. The endowed books listed in this study also supported these legitimacy efforts. It is possible to say that they mainly determine the books they endowed according to the requirements of time and place.
Naturally, it is not possible to generalize about all chief harem eunuchs; obviously, each of them had different tendencies. While Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa established libraries in various regions of the Empire and endowed large numbers of books, there is no record of any endowment of Yusūf Ağa, who became as powerful and wealthy as Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa during his tenure. Besides, his confiscated manuscripts were also lesser than Beşīr Ağa’s. Moralı, on the other hand, collected highly prestigious manuscripts gathered his collection, but they were confiscated when he was executed. On the other hand, this study cannot claim that all the books of the chief eunuchs are listed here. Yusūf Ağa had possibly tried to avoid confiscation and hide his goods. Moreover, Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa's collection may not have been his only collection because he built another madrasah near Sultanahmet, although the contents of its
69
collection remain lost to us. Therefore, further analysis and research is necessary to consider general trends for all chief harem eunuchs.
Another important point about the relationship of the eunuchs with the manuscripts was the notes they wrote on the manuscripts. Beşīr Ağa gave the most information on this subject because he left different ownership records on his books at different times. Although these records provide an idea about his mentality, I have not come across any notes that he has read these books. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach more personal notes like those of Beşīr Ağa. If it were possible to examine more manuscripts that were confiscated or taken from the estates, it would be more revealing to compare their personal tendencies. For example, although Moralı seems to have created a kind of art collection rather than a book collection, he may have acquired to read from thousands of books that were not listed with names among his confiscated books. Researching this issue may be the next step whenever it is possible to reaccess the collections of the Topkapı Palace Library.
Therefore, the relationship of eunuchs with books was not like that of a scholar. However, it would be wrong to claim that they only commodified books. After all, Beşir Ağa wrote notes on the books he owned are an expression of value. Slight trend differences in the books' subjects may indicate that the eunuchs were interested in reading like history or tasavvuf books. On the other hand, when these limited relations with books are combined with their dominance of patronage relations, it may indeed be one of the reasons for the decline in literary and artistic levels seen in this period. This subject is one of the advanced research topics that require more detailed research with the contents of the books.
Finally, I would like to note another issue that I could not address due to the limited scope of this thesis. I could only touch on the collections directly related to the harem eunuchs. However, the continuity of these collections and the contributions to these collections by later aghas or valide sultans is also an issue worth examining and remains the next research topic. The question of who contributed to the aghas’ collections – and to whose collections the aghas contributed - is a question that remains for the next stages of research.
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Başkanlık Osmanlı Arşivi
Kamil Kepeci, Defterler [KK.d./2441]
Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi [TS.MA.e /223-38] [TS.MA.d /7657, 23, 743]
Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi
Aşir Efendi Koleksiyonu, 38.
Hacı Beşir Ağa Koleksiyonu
Hacı Beşir Ağa Eyüp Koleksiyonu
Mehmed Ağa Camii Koleksiyonu
Yazma Bağışlar Koleksiyonu, 2278.
Secondary Sources
Açıl, B. (2015). Carullah Efendi’nin Edebiyat Koleksiyonunu Kenardan Okumak. In Osmanlı Kitap Kültürü: Cârullah Efendi Kütüphanesi ve Derkenar Notları. İlem Kitaplığı.
Açıl, B. (2017). On Yedinci Yüzyıl İstanbul’unda Âlim ve Kitap İlişkisi: Cârullah Efendi Örneği. Sahn-ı Semân’dan Dârülfünûn’a Osmanlı’da İlim ve Fikir Dünyası (Âlimler, Müesseseler ve Fikrî Eserler) - XVII. Yüzyıl, 45–56.
Açıl, B. (2020). Habeşî Mehmed Ağa’nın (ö. 1590) Vakfettiği Kitaplar ve Akıbetleri. Turkology, 05–2020.
Ahmed Resmî Efendi. (2000). Hamîletü’l-Kübera (A. N. Turan, Ed.). Kitabevi.
Akyıldız, A. (2017). Haremin Padişahı Valide Sultan (1. Baskı). Timaş.
Altındağ, Ü. (1994). Darüssaade. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/darussaade
Arslantürk, A., & Arslanboğa, K. (2015). 1668-1670 (h.1079-1080) Yıllarında Dârüssaâde Ağası Nezâretı̇ndekı̇ Vakıflarla İlgili Bazı Arşiv Kayıtları. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 4(Number: 34), 15–15. https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS2871
71
Arslantürk, H. A. (2011). Bir Bürokrat ve Yatırımcı Olarak Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın Veziriazamı Rüstem Paşa. Marmara Üniversitesi.
Atçıl, A. (2017). Scholars and Sultans in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press.
Aycibin, Z. (2001). Ahmed Resmî Efendi’nin Hamîletü’l-Küberâ’sı ve Müstakim-zâde Zeyli. Belgeler, 12(26), 183–282.
Aycibin, Z. (2020). Sultan I. Mahmûd ve Dârüssa’ade Ağası Moralı Beşîr Ağa. In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmûd ve Dönemi (1730-1754): Vol. 1. Cilt (pp. 72–89). Dergah Yayınları.
Bayat, A. H. (1988). Ahî Çelebi, Mehmed. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/ahi-celebi-mehmed
Berakât, B. A. (2021). Kudüs’te Mushaflar Tarihi. Nida.
Börekçi, G. (2009). İnkırâzın Eşiğinde Bir Hanedan: III. Mehmed, I. Ahmed, I. Mustafa ve 17. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Siyasî Krizi. Dîvân Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, 14(26), 45–96.
Börekçi, G. (2010). Factions and Favorites at the Courts of Sultan Ahmed I (r. 1603-17) and his Immediate Predecessors. The Ohio State University.
Buluş, A. (2019). 15-18. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Kütüphane Vakfiyeleri. Marmara Üniversitesi.
Değirmenci, T. (2012). İktidar Oyunları ve Resimli Kitaplar: II. Osman Devrinde Değişen Güç Simgeleri. Kitap Yayınevi.
Dikici, E. (2021). Eunuchs and the City: Residences and Real Estate Owned by Court Eunuchs in Late Sixteenth-Century Istanbul. YILLIK: Annual of Istanbul Studies, 3(7), 7–37.
Ertuğrul, A. (2019). Şemseddin Âmulî ve İlimler Ansiklopedisi Eseri: Nefâisü’l-fünûn fî arâisi’l-uyûn. In M. Arıcı (Ed.), İlimleri Sınıflamak: İslâm Düşüncesinde İlimler Tasnifi (pp. 167–198). Klasik.
Erünsal, İ. (2015). Osmanlılarda Kütüphaneler ve Kütüphanecilik: Tarihi Gelişimi ve Organizasyonu. Timaş.
Erünsal, İ. (2020). I. Mahmud Devri Kütüphaneleri. In Gölgelenen Sultan, Unutulan Yıllar: I. Mahmûd ve Dönemi (1730-1754) (Vol. 1, pp. 284–307). Dergah Yayınları.
72
Eyice, S. (1992). Beşir Ağa Külliyesi. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/besir-aga-kulliyesi
Fetvacı, E. (2005). Viziers to Eunuchs: Transitions in Ottoman Manuscript Patronage, 1566-1617. Harvard University.
Gündüz, F. (2003). Mehmed Ağa Külliyesi. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/mehmed-aga-kulliyesi
Hathaway, J. (2018). The Sultan’s Eunuch | Jane Hathaway (No. 369). Retrieved May 12, 2021, from https://www.ottomanhistorypodcast.com/2018/08/sultanseunuch.html
Hathaway, J. (1994). The Wealth and Influence of an Exiled Ottoman Eunuch in Egypt: The Waqf Inventory of ʿAbbās Agha. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 37(4), 293–317.
Hathaway, J. (1997). The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt. Cambridge University Press.
Hathaway, J. (2005). Beshir Agha: Chief Eunuch of the Ottoman Imperial Harem. Oneworld Publications.
Hathaway, J. (2011). Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Agha: The First Chief Harem Eunuch (Darüssaade Ağasi) of the Ottoman Empire. In A. Q. Ahmed, B. Sadeghi, & M. Bonner (Eds.), The Islamic Scholarly Tradition: Studies in History, Law, and Thought in Honor of Professor Michael Allan Cook (pp. 179–195). Brill.
Hathaway, J. (2018). The Chief Harem Eunuch of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge University Press.
Hathaway, J. (2019). The Ottoman Chief Harem Eunuch in Ceremonies and Festivals. Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association, 6(1), 21–37.
İpşirli Argıt, B. (2014). Rabia Gülnuş Emetullah Sultan. Kitap Yayınevi.
İzgi, C. (2021). Osmanlı Medreselerinde İlim: Riyâzî ve Tabiî İlimler. Küre.
Kara, M. (1995). Evrâd. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/evrad
Karakoç, Y. (2005). Palace Politics and the Rise of the Chief Black Eunuch in the Ottoman Empire. Boğaziçi University.
Kocaslan, M. (2014). IV Mehmed Saltanatında Topkapı Sarayı Haremi: İktidar, Sınırlar ve Mimari. Kitap Yayınevi.
73
Kumrular, Ö. (2015). Kösem Sultan. Doğan Kitap.
Kumrular, Ö. (2017). Haremde Taht Kuranlar: Nurbanu ve Safiye Sultan. Doğan Kitap.
Kunt, M. (1999). Devlet, Padişah Kapısı ve Şehzade Kapıları. Osmanlı/Teşkilat, 6, 33–44.
Özcan, A. (1992). Moralı Beşir Ağa. In TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/besir-aga-morali
Peirce, L. P. (1993). The Imperial Harem. Oxford University Press.
Piterberg, G. (2003). An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play. University of California Press.
Şenel, C. (2019). İbnü’l-Ekfâni’nin İrşâdü’l-kâsıd’da İlimler Sınıflandırması. In M. Arıcı (Ed.), İlimleri Sınıflamak: İslâm Düşüncesinde İlimler Tasnifi (pp. 199–238). Klasik.
Tanındı, Z. (2002). Topkapı Sarayı’nın Ağaları ve Kitaplar. U.Ü. Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 41–56.
Tayyarzâde Atâ. (2010). Osmanlı Saray Tarihi Târîh-i Enderûn (Vol. 1). Kitabevi.
Tezcan, B. (2010). The Second Ottoman Empire: Political and Social Transformation in the Early Modern World. Cambridge University Press.
Tezcan, B. (2011). Tarih Üzerinden Siyaset: Erken Modern Osmanlı Tarihyazımı. In D. Aksan & H. Virginia-Goffman (Eds.), & O. G. Ayas (Trans.), Erken Modern Osmanlılar (pp. 223–266). Timaş.
Tezcan, B. (2012a). Bilim Üzerinden Siyaset. In B. Tezcan & D. Quataert (Eds.), Hakim Paradigmaların Ötesinde (pp. 169–194). Tan.
Tezcan, B. (2012b). Karanlığı Dağıtmak: Molla Ali’nin Yaşamı ve Eserleri Işığında 17. Yüzyıl Başlarında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Irk Siyaseti. In B. Tezcan & K. K. Barbir (Eds.), & Z. N. Yelçe (Trans.), Osmanlı Dünyasında Kimlik ve Kimlik Oluşumu (pp. 91–116). Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Tezcan, B. (2018). Dispelling the Darkness of the Halberdier’s Treatise: A Comperative Look at Black Africans in Ottoman Letters in the Early ModernPeriod. In T. H. Karateke, H. E. Çıpa, & H. Anetshofer (Eds.), Disliking Others: Loathing, Hostility, and Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands (pp. 43–74). Academis Studies Press.
74
Turan, A. N. (1999). Bir Biyografi İnşa Denemesi: Kızlar Ağası Yusuf Ağa -Kara Yüzlü Kanlı Arap mı? Ağa-yı Sâde-dil mi?-. İslâmiyât, II(4), 145–162.
Uluçay, M. Ç. (2017). Harem. Ötüken.
Ürkündağ, A. (2017). Darüssaade Ağası Hacı Beşı̇r Ağa ve Hayratı. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi.
Uzunçarşılı, İ. H. (2014). Saray Teşkilatı. Türk Tarih Kurumu.
75
APPENDICES
Table 8 List of the Chief Harem Eunuchs
Ağa-yı Dārüssa‘āde
Date
Sultan
Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa
972-999
Murad III
Server Ağa
R999-1000
Murad III
Sünbül Ağa
1000-1001
Murad III – Mehmed III
Ḥacı Muṣtafā Ağa
1001-C 1004
Mehmed III
‘Os̱mān Ağa
C 1004- 23 C 1011
Mehmed III
İbrāhīm Ağa
1011 – 1011
Mehmed III
‘Abdürrezzāḳ Ağa
23 R 1011 – 6 Ş 1012
Ahmed I
Reyḥān Ağa
6 Ş 1012 – 23 R 1014
Mustafa I - Osman II
Ḥacı Muṣṭafā Ağa
23 B 1014 – R 1029
Osman II
Süleymān Ağa
R 1029 – 9 B 1031
Mustafa I
‘Abdurraḥmān Ağa
9 B 1031 – 1031
Mustafa I
Süleymān Ağa
1031 – 14 Za 1032
Murad IV
Ḥacı Muṣṭafā Ağa
14 Za 1032 – L 1032
Murad IV
İdrīs Ağa
L 1032 – 16 L 1049
Murad IV – İbrahim
İbrāhīm Ağa
17 L 1049 – 1050
İbrahim
Hoca Sünbül Ağa
1050 – S 1054
İbrahim
‘Abdülḳadīr Ağa
S 1054 – S 1054
İbrahim
Hoca Sünbül Ağa
S 1054 – B 1054
İbrahim
Taşyatur ‘Alī Ağa
B 1054 – S 1055
İbrahim
Celālī İbrāhīm Ağa
S 1055 – R 1057
İbrahim
İsḥaḳ Ağa
R 1057 – B 1057
İbrahim
Muṣāḥib Meḥmed Ağa
B 1057 – Ş 1057
İbrahim
İsḥaḳ Ağa
Ş 1057 – N 1057
İbrahim
Mes‘ūd Ağa
N 1057 – R 1058
Mehmed IV
Celālī İbrāhīm Ağa
R 1058- L 1059
Mehmed IV
Ḳız Meḥmed Ağa
17 L 1059 – 6 L 1061
Mehmed IV
Uzun Süleymān Ağa
6 L 1061 – Ş 1062
Mehmed IV
Behrām Ağa
Ş 1062 – 7 Ca 1066
Mehmed IV
Dilāver Aḥmed Ağa
7 Ca 1066 – 1 R 1068
Mehmed IV
Solaḳ Meḥmed Ağa
1 R 1068 – 11 Za 1073
Mehmed IV
Muṣlu Muṣṭafā Ağa
11 Za 1073 – 26 L 1078
Mehmed IV
‘Abbās Ağa
26 L 1078 – 9 Ra 1082
Mehmed IV
Muṣāḥib Yūsuf Ağa
9 Ra 1082 – 22 Z 1098
Mehmed IV – Süleman II
Hazīnedār ‘Alī Ağa
22 Z 1098 – B 1099
Süleyman II
Muṣṭafā Ağa
B 1099 – Ra 1101
Süleyman II
Lala Aḥmed Ağa
R 1101 – 25 N 1102
Süleyman II – Ahmed II
Ḥazīnedār İsmā‘il Ağa
26 N 1102 – 7 B 1103
Ahmed II
Ḳaba Nezīr Ağa
7 B 1103 – 11 Ş 1105
Ahmed II
İsḥaḳ Ağa
11 Ş 1105 – B 1106
Mustafa II
Yapraḳsız ‘Alī Ağa
B 1106 – 14 Ca 1112
Mustafa II
Solaḳ Nezīr Ağa
14 Ca 1112 – 10 Ra 1115
Mustafa II
‘Abdurraḥmān Ağa
17 Ra 1115 – 12 M 1116
Mustafa II – Ahmed III
Süleymān Ağa
12 M 1116 – 25 S 1125
Ahmed III
76
‘Anber Meḥmed Ağa
25 S 1125 – R 1129
Ahmed III
Mercān Ağa
R 1129 -1133
Ahmed III
Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
1133 – 13 Ca 1159
Ahmed III - Mahmud I
Küçük Beşīr Ağa
12 Ca 1159 – 28 Ş 1165
Mahmud I
Ḥazīnedār Beşīr Ağa
28 Ş 1165 – 20 Za 1168
Mahmud I
Ebū’l-Vuḳūf Aḥmed Ağa
20 Za 1168 – 25 S 1171
Osman III – Mustafa III
77
Table 9 Manuscripts in the dārülḥadīs̱ of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
No
Name in Waqfiye
Volume
Current Name
Catalog No
1
Ḳaḍī Beyżāvī
1
Envârü’t-Tenzîl Ve Esrârü’t-Te’vîl
7
2
Tefsīr-i Ḥüseyin Vā‘iẓ
1
Mevâhib-i ʿaliyye
-
3
Mollā Ḥüsrev ‘alā Beyżāvī
1
Hâşiye ʿalâ Envâri’t-Tenzîl Li’l-Beyzâvî
27
4
Mir’atü’t-Te’vīl ‘alā Beyżāvī
1
Mirâtü't-Te'vil
25
5
Nuġbetü'l-Beyān fi Tefsīrü'l-Ḳur’ān
1
Nuğbetü’l-Beyân Fî Tefsîri’l-Ḳurʾân
24
6
Şerḥ-i Huṭbeti'l-Keşşāf
1
Nuğbetü'r-Reşşâf Min Hutbeti'l-Keşşâf
31
7
Ḥāşiye-i ‘Abdülkerīm ‘ale’l-Keşşāf
1
El-Muḥâkemât ʿale’l-Keşşâf Beyne’ş-Şeyḫayn Ḳuṭbi’r-Râzî Ve’l-Aḳsarâyî
-
8
Tefsīr-i Baḥrü’r-Rāyiḳ
1
-
9
Tefsīr-i Ebī’s-Su‘ūd
1
İrşâdü’l-Akli’s-Selîm İlâ Mezâya’l-Kitâbi’l-Kerîm
12
10
Naḳdu’n-Nüṣūṣ
1
Nakdü'n-Nusûs Fi Şerhi Nakşi'l-Fusûs
93
11
Mecmū‘a-i Fāl-i Ḳur’ān
1
-
12
Tefsīr-i Manẓūm li-Şeyh [silinmiş]
6
Tuhfetü'l-Fakir Bi-Ba'zi Allami't-Tefsir
13-14-15-16-17-18
13
‘Umdetü'l-Aḥkām
1
Umdetü’l-Ahkâm
53
14
Ḳıt‘a fi'l-Ḥadīs̱
1
15
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī li-Kirmānī
4
Şerh-i Sahihi'l-Buhârî
41-42-43-44
16
Ṣaḥīḥü’l-Buhārī
2
El-Câmiʿu’s-Sahîh
51-54
17
Şerḥü'l-Mişkāt li- ‘Aliyyi’l-Ḳārī
4
Mirkâtü'l-Mefâtih Li-Mişkâti'l-Mesâbih
45-46-47-48
18
Meşārıḳ-ı Şerīf
1
19
Şerḥ-i Ekmeleddīn li’l-Meşārıḳ
1
Tuhfetü'l-Ebrâr Fî Şerhi Meşâriki'l-Envâr
49
20
Nuḥbetü’l-fiker fî Iṣlāḥ-i Ehli’l-Es̱er
1
21
Ḳavā‘idü’l-Uṣūl-i Ḥadīs̱
1
22
Meşārıḳu’l-Envār li’ṣ-Ṣāġānī
1
Meşâriku'l-Envâri'n-Nebeviyye Min Sıhâhi'l-Ahbâri'l-Mustafâvî
56
23
Evżaḥ li’n-Nişābūrī
1
El-Evzah Fi Furûi'l-Hanefiyye
62
24
Menār-ı İbn Melek
1
25
Ḥāşiye-i Azmīzāde me‘a Dānī
1
27
İtḳān-ı Suyūtī
1
El-İtkân Fi Ulûmi'l-Kur’ân
6
28
Şerḥ-i Tecrīd fī Uṣūl
1
29
Fetḥü’l-‘Azīz fī Şerḥi’l-Vaḥy
1
30
Mecālis-i Şihāb
1
Tırâzü’l-Mecālis
157
31
Cāmi ‘-i Fuṣūleyn
1
Camiu’l-Fusûleyn
64
32
Kitābü’l-Ḳudûrī
1
Muhtasaru’l-Kudurî
70
33
Şifā’ü’l-Mü’mīn
2
Şifaü’l-Mümin
87
34
Fetāvā-yı Bezzāziyye
1
El-Fetavâ'l-Bezzaziyye
75
78
35
Teysīrü’l-Vuṣūl ilā Cāmi‘i’l-Uṣūl
1
Teysîrü'l-Vusûl İlâ Câmi‘İ’l-Usûl Min Ehâdisi'r-Resûl
33
36
Mevāhibu’llāh
1
37
Şerḥ-i Mülteḳa’l-Ebḥar
El-Münteka Fi Şerhi'l-Mülteka
67
38
Hāliṣatü’l-Ḥaḳāyıḳ
1
Hâlisetü'l-Hakâik
80
39
Kitābü’l-Nūru’n-Nebevī fi’l-fıḳh
1
Nûru’n-Nebevî
72
40
Hidāye Şerḥü’n-Bidāye
1
El-Hidâye Fî Şerhi'l-Bidâye
74
41
Ḥāşiye-i Tecrīd li-Ṭosyevī
1
42
Te’līf-i Şeyhülislām
1
43
İbrāhīm Çelebi
1
44
Şerḥ-i Siyer-i Kebīr
1
45
Rāḥatü’ṣ-Ṣāliḥīn
1
Râhatü's-Sâlihîn Ve Savâiku'l-Münafıkîn
81
46
Şerḥ-i Ṭariḳatü’l-Muḥammediye
1
El-Hadikatü'n-Nediyye Fi Şerhi't-Tarikati'l-Muhammediyye
86
47
Ṭariḳatü’l-Muḥammediye
2
Et-Tarikatü'l-Muhammediyye
90
48
Vaṣiyyetü’l-Muṣṭafā li-Murteżā
1
Vasiyyetü'n-Nebî Aleyhi's-Selâm li-Aliyyi'l-Murtaza
94
49
Tuḥfetü’l-Ḥāṣekiyye
1
50
Cilā’ü’l-Ḳulūb
1
51
Kenzü’l-Esrār
1
52
Tuḥfe fī Menāḳıb-ı Ehl-i Ṣuffa
1
et-Tuhfe fi Menakıbi Ehli's-Suffe
121
53
Tezkire-i Ḳurṭubī
1
54
Ḥindī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
55
Şerḥ-i Kāfiye li-Şihāb
1
Şerhu'l-Kafiye
177
56
Iṣlāḥ Īżāḥ
1
57
Şerḥü’l-Hemziyye li-İbni’l-Ḥacer
2
el-Minahu'l-Mekkiyye fi Şerhi'l-Kasideti'l-Hemziyye
148
58
Kitābü’l-Hemziyye
1
Şerhu'l-Kasideti'l-Hemziyye
147
59
Şerḥ-i Dürretü’l-Ġavvās Şehāb
1
60
Şerḥ-i Me‘ani’l-Ekrād
1
61
Ḥasan Çelebi ‘ale’l-Muṭavvel
1
Haşiye Ale'l-Mutavvel
167
62
Şerḥ-i Miftāḥ li’l-‘allāme Şirāzī
1
Şerh-i Miftahu'l-Ulum
169
63
Şerḥ-i ḳısm-ı s̱ānī Miftāḥ Seyyidü’l-Şerīf
1
El-Kısmü's-Sani Mine'l-Misbah Şerhi'l-Miftah
168
64
Şerḥ-i Miftāḥ-ı Sa‘ādeddīn
1
Şerh-i Miftahi'l-Ulum
170
65
Mülahhaṣ
1
66
Muġni’l-Lebīb
1
Muğni'l-Lebib An Kütübi'l-Earib
181
67
Tuḥfetü’l-Edeb mine’l-Luġat
1
68
Divānü’l-Edeb fi’l-Luġat
1
69
Şāmilü’l-Luġat
1
70
Şerefnāme Lugat-i Fārisī
1
Şeref-Nâme
189
71
Müzhirü’l-Luġat
1
El-Müzhi Fi Ulumi'l-Lüğa
193
72
Vanḳulu Baṣma
1
Tercüme-i Sıhahi'l-Cevheri
191
73
Luġat-i Mirḳāt
1
Mirkatü'l-Lügat
192
74
Cümelü’l-Ġarā’ib
1
75
Ṣıḥāḥ-ı Cevherī
1
Es-Sıhah Fi'l-Lüga
190
76
Dīvān-ı Ni‘metullāh
1
Divân-ı Nimetullah
132
77
Dīvān-ı Vaḥşī
1
Divân-ı Vahşi
133
78
Dīvān-ı Feyẓī-i Hindī
1
79
Dīvān-ı Ebī Temām
1
Divân-ı Ebi Temmâm
130
80
Dīvān-ı Sa‘īd Naḳşibendī
1
Divân-ı Sa'id
135
79
81
Vāḥidī Şerḥ-i Dīvānü’l-Mütenebbī
1
Şerhu Divâni'l-Mütenebbi
145
82
Dīvān-ı Şeyh Şerefüddīn
1
Divân-ı İbni'l-Fârız
131
83
Dīvān-ı Kemālpaşazāde
1
Divân
134
84
Mes̱nevī-i Şerīf
1
85
Dīvān-ı ‘Ömer bin [silinmiş]
1
86
Şerḥ-i Ḥazreciyye fi’l-‘Arūż
1
Fethu Rabbi'l-Beriyye Bi-Şerhi'l-Kasideti'l-Hazreciyye
141
87
Şerḥü’l-Ḥamāse
1
Şerhu'l-Hamase Li-Ebi Temmâm
146
88
Ḳıṭ‘a mine’l-Muḥāṣarāt ve’ş-Şi‘r
1
89
Şerḥü’l-Ḥazreciyye li’d-Demāminī
1
Şerhu'l-Aruzi'l-Hazreciyye
143
90
Mecmū‘a-i Eş‘ār ‘Azmī ve ‘İzzī
1
91
‘Arūż li-ibn Cinnī
1
Kitabü'l-Aruz
155
92
Münteḥabü’l-Ḥall
1
Müntehab Hall-İ Mutarrez Der Fenn-İ Muamma Ve Lüğaz
163
93
Şerḥ-i Maḳāmāt li-Zemaḥşerī
1
Şerhu'l-Makamât
149
94
Ravżatü’n-Nāẓır Nüzhetü’l-Ḥāẓır
1
Ravzatü'n-Nazar Ve Nüzhetü'l-Hatır
136
95
Mevāridü’l-Baṣā’ir
1
Mevaridü'l-Basair Li-Feraidi'd-Darair
164
96
Ravżatü’l-Feṣāḥa
1
97
Meḥāsini’l-Leṭāyif
1
98
Münşe’āt-ı Ṣafedī
1
Münşeatü's-Safedi
162
99
Meḥāsinü’l-Kelām
1
Mehâsinü'l-Kelâm
159
100
Mecmū‘a-i Siyāhīzāde
1
101
Mecmū‘a-i Resā’il
1
102
Esrār-ı ‘Arabiyye li-ibni’l-Enbār
1
Esraru'l-Arabiyye
171
103
‘Iḳdü’l-Ferīd
1
Ikdü'l-Ferid Li'l-Meliki's-Sâ'id
120
104
Şerh-i Sıḳṭü’ẓ-Ẓend
1
Sıktü'z-Zend Ve Zav'ih
139
105
Ṣılatu’l-Ḥalef
1
106
Sāniḥātü’ṭ-Ṭālevī
1
Sanihat Zuma'l-Kasr Fi Mutarahat Beni'l-Asr
138
107
Destūr-i Münşe’āt
1
108
Netāyic-i Fünūn
1
109
‘Azīzü’l-Belāġa
110
Mecmū‘ bi-Haṭṭ-ı Emin ***
1
111
İhvānü’ṣ-Ṣafā
1
İthafü İhvani's-Safa Bi-Nübezin Min Ahbari'l-Hulefa
109
112
Resā’il li-Ṣubḥuddīn
1
113
Silsilenāme
1
114
Muraḳḳa‘ bi-haṭṭ-ı İsma‘īl Efendi
1
115
Keşfü’ẓ-Ẓünūn
1
Keşfü'z-Zunun An Esami'l-Kütüb Ve'l-Fünun
156
116
Sükkerdānü’s-Sulṭān
1
Sükkerdanü's-Sultan El-Meliki'n-Nasır
117
Kitāb-ı Müstaẓraf
2
El-Mustatraf Fi Külli Fenni Mustazraf
160,161
118
Şem‘ī ‘alā Gülistān
1
119
Resā’il ***
1
120
Mekātib-i Ḳāḍī Fāẓıl
1
121
Risāle-i Es̱eriyye
1
Risale-İ Ed'iyye
165
122
Münşātü’l-Mürevvici’z-Zekiyye
1
123
El-İşārāt ilā Merātibi’z-Ziyān
1
El-İşarat İla Ma'rifeti'z-Ziyârât
110
80
124
Risāle-i Ferā’iẕ li-ibn Kemālpaşazāde
1
El-Feraid Ve'l-Fevaid
152
125
Mecmū‘a-i Ḥāletī bi-haṭṭ-ı ‘Azmīzāde
1
Haşiyetün Ala Düreri'l-Hükkâm
65
126
Mecmū‘a-i Resā’il-i Uhrā
1
127
Mecmū‘a-i Kütüb li-evvelühā
1
128
Dede Cönkü
1
129
Taṣnīf Ebī Ḥayyān
1
Et-Tedrîb Fi Temsili't-Takrîb
173
130
Taḳrībü’l-Muḳarreb
1
Takribü'l-Mukerreb
174
131
el-Kāmil li-ebi ‘Abbās el-Müberred fi’l-Edeb
El-Kâmil
153
132
Tārīhü’l-Muḥtaṣar fī Aḥvāli’l-Beşer
1
133
Tārīhü’l-Hamīs
1
El-Hamis Fi Ahvali'n-Nefsi'n-Nefis
112
134
Tārīh-i Na‘ima
2
Tarih-İ Nâima
114-115
135
Tārīh-i Ḥayatü’l-Ḥayevān
1
136
Cānibü’l-Ġarbi fī Menāḳıb ibn ‘Arabī
1
el-Canibü'l-Garbi Fi Halli Müşkilati'ş-Şeyh Muhyiddin Arabi
91
137
el-Melāhin li-ibn Düreyd ve’l-Ehdāl
1
Kitabü'l-Melahin
194
138
Tārīh-i Vaṣṣāf
1
Tecridu Ebyat-İ Tarih-İ Vassaf
113
139
Cihān-nümā
1
Cihannûma
111
140
Mecmu‘a-i Usṭurlāb ve Rub‘
1
Risale Fi'l-Ameli Bi'l-Usturlab
28
141
Eşkālü’t-Te‘sīs
1
142
Ḳıṭ‘a min Şīfā
1
Eş-Şifa
102
143
Heyākil fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
144
Coġrafya-i Maḳbūl
1
Coğrafya
104
145
Şerḥ-i İşārāt li-Ṭosyevī
1
Şerhu'l-İşârât Ve't-Tenbihât
100
146
Şems-i Ma‘ārifü’l-Kübrā
1
Şemsü'l-Maarif Ve Letaifü'l-Avarif
89
147
*** fī ‘ilmi’l-Hey’e
1
Et-Tabsıre Fi'l-Hey'e
106
148
el-Münḳıẕ mine’l-Heleke fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
El-Münkızü Mine'l-Heleke Fi Def'i Mazarri's-Semai'l-Mühlike
107
149
Eḳālimü’t-Te‘ālīm
1
Ekalimü't-Te'alim
126
150
Şerḥ-i ‘Uyūnü’l-Ḥikme
1
Şerhu Uyuni'l-Hikme
101
151
Mā lā Yesā’u’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
Ma La Yesau't-Tabibe Cehlüh
108
81
Table 10 Manuscripts in the Library Collection of Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa
No
Name in the Library Record
Volume
Current Name
Catalog No
1
Muṣḥaf
1
-
2
Muṣḥaf
1
-
3
Muṣḥaf
1
Kur'an-ı Kerim
3
4
Muṣḥaf
1
Kur'an-ı Kerim
4
5
Tefsīr-i Te’vīlāt
1
Te'vilatü'l-Kur'an
9
6
Tefsīr min Me‘ālimü’t-tenzīl
4
Me'âlimü't-Tenzîl
51-52-53-54
7
Tefsīr-i Medārikü’t-tenzīl
1
Medarikü't-Tenzil Ve Hakaiku't-Te'vil
55
8
Tefsīr-i Cerīrü’ṭ-Ṭaberī
1
Camiu'l-Beyan Fi Te'vili Ayi'l-Kur'an
15
9
Tefsīr-i Necmü’d-dāye
1
Tefsir
58
10
Kıṭ‘a min Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
İrşadü'l-Akli's-Selim ila Mezaya'l-Kur'ani'l-Azim
16
11
Tefsīr-i Ḥüseyin Vā‘iẓ
1
el-Mevâhibü'l-Aliyye
57
12
Tefsīr-i Ġurāb
1
-
13
Tefsīr-i Keşşāf
2
El-Keşşaf An Hakaiki't-Tenzil
46-47
14
Tefsīrü’l-Baḥr li Ebī Ḥayyān
2
El-Bahru'l-Muhit
21-22
15
Tefsīr-i İmām Biḳā‘ī
2
Nazmü'd-Dürer Fi Tenasübi'l-Ayât Ve's-Suver
78
16
Hāşiye-i Biḳā‘ī
1
Mesaidü'n-Nazar Li'l-İşraf ala Makasidi's-Suver
76
17
Tefsīr-i Şeyḥ Baġdādī
1
Zübdetü Asari'l-Mevahib ve'l-Envar
31
18
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
1
Envaru't-Tenzil ve Esraru't-Te'vil
12
19
Haşiye ‘alā Beyżāvī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
62
20
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
İrşadü'l-Akli's-Selim ila Mezaya'l-Kur'ani'l-Azim
17
21
Ḳıṭ‘a min Tefsīr-i Ebu’l-Leys̱
1
Tefsiru'l-Kur'ani'l-Kerim
20
22
Tefsīr-i Sure-i Yūsuf
1
23
Tefsīr-i Ḳaḍī
1
Envaru't-Tenzil ve Esraru't-Te'vil
11
24
Tefsīr li İbn Kemāl Paşazāde
1
Tefsiru'l-Kur'ani'l-Kerim
10
25
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
İrşadü'l-Akli's-Selim ila Mezaya'l-Kitabi'l-Kerim
18
26
Tefsīr-i Müfredātü’l-Ḳur’ān
1
Müfredatü Elfazi'l-Kur'ani'l-Kerim
77
27
Tefsīr-i Cemāleyn ‘alā Celāleyn
1
El-Cemaleyn Ale'l-Celaleyn
68
28
Tefsīr-i Ḥüseyin Vā‘iẓ
1
El-Mevâhibü'l-Aliyye
56
29
Tefsīr li İmāmü’t-Tāzifī
1
El-Muhtasarü'r-Raşif Min Zülali'l-Kaşif
23
30
Tefsīr li İmām Fahreddīnü’r-rāzī
6
Mefatihü'l-Gayb
40-41-42-43-44-45
31
Tefsīr-i Ebī Ca‘fer Cerīrü’ṭ-Ṭaberī
1
32
Tefsīr-i Lübābü’t-te’vīl fī Me‘ānü’t-tenzīl
1
Lübabü't-Te'vil Fi Me'âni't-Tenzil
29
33
Cild-i Evvel min Tefsīr Lübābü’t-te’vīl
1
Lübabü't-Te'vil Fi Me'âni't-Tenzil
27
34
Cild-i S̱ānī min Tefsīr Lübābü’t-te’vīl
1
Lübabü't-Te'vil Fi Me'âni't-Tenzil
28
82
35
Tefsīr-i Cevāhirü’l-eṣdāf bi’türkī
1
Cevahirü'l-Asdaf
25
36
el-Cild-i evvel min Tefsīrü’l-Fārisī
1
37
el-Cild-i Evvel min Tefsīr-i Me‘ālimü’t-tenzīl
2
Me'âlimü't-Tenzîl
49-50
38
Ḳıṭ‘a min Tefsīr-i Fārisī
1
Tefsir
38
39
Ḳıṭ‘a min Tefsīr-i Fārisī
1
Tefsir
39
40
el-Cild-i evvel min Tefsīr-i Ḥasanü’l-‘askerī
1
Tefsirü'l-Askeri
26
41
Tefsīr-i ba‘żı Sūretü’l-Ḳur’ān
1
42
Fütūḥāt-ı ‘Ayniyye fī Tefsīr-i Fātiḥa
2
Fütuhat-ı Ayniyye
33
43
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il eks̱eruha müte‘alliḳa bi’t-tefsīr
1
44
Tefsīr-i Sūre-i Fetḥ
1
45
Risāle-i fī Tefsīr Sūre-i Fātiḥa
1
46
Risāle-i Usūle fī ba‘żü’l-mevāżı‘
1
Tefsire Ait Bazi Risaleler
8
47
Hāşiye-i Sa‘dī me‘a ‘İṣām ‘alā Cüz’-i Neb’e
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
67
48
Ta‘liḳāt-ı Şemseddīn ‘ale’l-Beyżāvī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
63
49
Ta‘liḳāt-ı ‘Abdurraḥīm ‘ale’l-Beyżāvī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
60
50
Hāşiye ‘ale’l-Keşşāf li Ḳuṭbuddīn er-Rāzī
1
Haşiye Ale'l-Keşşaf
69
51
Ṣadreddīn-zāde ‘ale’l-Beyżāvī
1
Ta'likat Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
64
52
Tefsīr-i Beyżāvī ‘ala Cüz’-i Neb’e
1
Envaru't-Tenzil ve Esraru't-Te'vil
24
53
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
54
el-Cild-i Evvel ve’s̱-S̱ānī min Şeyhzāde ‘ale’l- Ḳāḍī
2
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
65-66
55
Hāşiye-i Tefsīrü’l-Keşşāf
4
56
Hāşiye-i ‘İṣām ‘ale’l-Beyżāvī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
61
57
Tefsīr-i Ebu’l-Leys̱
1
Tefsiru'l-Kur'ani'l-Kerim
19
58
Keşfü’l-Keşşāf
1
Keşfü'l-Keşşaf
48
59
Kitābü’n-Neşr li ibn Cezerī
1
en-Neşr fi'l-Kiraeti'l-Aşr
6
60
Şerḥ-i Şāṭıbī
1
-
61
Tefsīr-i Fātiḥa li Yūsuf es-Sürānī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
75
62
Kitābü’l-İtḳān li Suyūtī
1
el-İtkan fi Ulumi'l-Kur'an
7
63
Hāşiye ‘ale’l-Keşşāf li Ḳaḍī ‘Aḍudiddīn
1
Haşiye Ale'l-Keşşaf
70
64
Müfredātü’l-Ḳur’ān li Rāġıb el-İṣfahānī
1
65
el-Cild-i Evvel min Tefsīr-i Me‘ālimü’t-Tenzīl
1
66
Ṣaḥīḥü’l-Buhārī
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih
162
67
Ṣaḥīḥü’l-Buhārī
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih
161
68
Ṣaḥīḥ-i Müslim
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih
163
83
69
Meṣābīḥ li İmāmü’l-Beġavī
1
Mesabihu's-Sünne
171
70
Şerḥ-i Meṣābīḥ li Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
1
Tuhfetü'l-Ebrâr
149
71
Şifā-i Şerīf li Ḳāḍī ‘İyāż
1
eş-Şifa bi-Ta'rifi Hukuki'l-Mustafa
159
72
Kitāb-ı Muvaṭṭā li İmām Mālik
1
el-Muvatta
177
73
Ḳıṭ‘a min Cāmi‘ü’l-Uṣūl li ibn Es̱īrü’l-Cezerī
1
Camiu'l-Usul min Ehadisi'r-Resul
89
74
Ḳıṭ‘a min Cāmi‘ü’l-Uṣūl
1
Camiu'l-Usul min Ehadisi'r-Resul
90
75
el-Cild-i S̱ānī min Şerḥi’l-Şifā li Şehābeddīn
1
Nesimü'r-Riyaz fi Şerhi Şifai'l-Kadi Iyaz
116
76
el-Cild-i S̱ālis̱ min Şerḥi’l-Şifā li Şehābeddīn
1
Nesimü'r-Riyaz fi Şerhi Şifai'l-Kadi Iyaz
117
77
Ḥıṣnu’l-Haṣīn li Muḥammed el-Cezerī
1
El-Hisnü'l-Hasin Min Kelami Seyyidi'l-Mürselin
661-1
78
Şerḥ-i Cāmi‘ü’l-Kebīr li Suyūṭī
4
Cem'u'l-Cevâmi'
91-92-93-94
79
Kitābü’l-Mevżū‘āt ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Mevzu’ât
178
80
Ḳıṭ‘a-i Ūlā min Terceme-i Meşārıḳu’l-Envār li ‘Os̱mān-zāde
1
Meşariku'l-Envar
87
81
Şerḥ-i Ḥadīs̱-i Erba‘īn
1
82
Nihāye fī Ġarībü’l-Ḥadīs̱ ve’l-Es̱er li ibn Es̱īr
1
en-Nihaye fi Garâibi'l-Hadis Ve'l-Âsâr
182
83
Şerḥ-i Şemā’il li Muṣliḥuddīn
1
Şerhü'ş-Şemaili'n-Nebeviyye Ve'l-Hasaili'l-Mustafaviyye
121
84
Kitāb-ı Dürrü’l-Ḥāliṣ fi’l-Mu‘cizāt
1
85
Nuḥbetü’l-Fiker fī Uṣūlü’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
86
Şerḥ-i Nuḥbetü’l-Fiker li ibnü’l-Ḥacer el-‘Asḳalānī
1
Nüzhetü'n-Nazar fi Tavzihi Nuhbeti'l-Fiker
83
87
Şerḥ-i Nuḥbetü’l-Fiker li ibnü’l-Ḥacer el-‘Asḳalānī
1
Nüzhetü'n-Nazar fi Tavzihi Nuhbeti'l-Fiker
82
88
Şerḥ-i Ṭariḳat-i Muḥammediye li Giridī
1
89
Şerḥ-i Ṭariḳat-i Muḥammediye li Receb Efendi
1
el-Vesiletü'l-Ahmediyye ale't-Tarikati'l-Muhammediyye
363
90
Sübḥatü’l-‘Uşşāḳ fi’l-Ḥadīs̱ ve Menāsik-i Ḥacc li Sinān Efendi
1
Sübhatü'l-Uşşak
Menâsik-İ Hacc
493/1-2
91
Delā’ilü’l-Hayrāṭ
1
Delailü'l-Hayrat ve Şevariku'l-Envar fi Zikri's-Salat
100
92
Kitābü’l-Kāşif li-Ma‘rifet-i Ricāl Kütüb-i Sitte li Zeheb
1
el-Kaşif Li-Ma'rife Ricali'l-Kütübi's-Sitte
167
93
Kitāb fī ‘İlmü’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
94
Ġāyetü’s-Su’āl fī Haṣā’iṣü’r-Rasūl
1
Gayetü's-Süu'l fi Hasaisi'r-Resul
166
95
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il fīhā Şerḥ-i Ḥadīs̱-i Erba‘īn ve diger Şerḥ-i Ḥadīs̱-i Erba‘īn li ibn Kemāl def‘a Şerḥ-i Ḥadīs̱-i Erba‘īn İṣfahānī ve ġayruhā
1
656
96
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il fīhā Eḥādīs̱
1
97
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il fi’l-Ḥadīs̱ ve Ġayruhu
1
84
98
Risāle li ‘Abdullaṭīf er-Rāzī fi’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
99
Şemā’il-i Şerīf
1
eş-Şemailü'n-Nebeviyye ve'l-Hasailü'l-Mustafaviyye
664-1
100
Mecma‘ü’l-Vesā’il fī Şerḥü’ş-Şemā’il li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Cem'u'l-Vesail fi Şerhi'ş-Şemail
120
101
Şerḥü’l-Meṣābiḥ li Beyżāvī
1
Tuhfetü'l-Ebrâr
150
102
Kitābü’l-Münteḳā fī Evṣāfü’n-Nebī
1
el-Müntaka fi Evsafi'n-Nebiyyi'l-Mustafa
174
103
Kitābü’n-Nihāye fī Ġarībü’l-Ḥadīs̱ li ibn Es̱īr
2
en-Nihaye fi Garâibi'l-Hadis ve'l-Âsâr
179-180
104
Kevkebü’l-Münīr li Alḳamī bi-Şerḥ-i Cāmi‘ü’l-Ṣaġīr
2
el-Kevkebü'l-Münir Fi Şerhi'l-Camii's-Sağir
102-103
105
Kitābü’l-İsti‘āb fi’l-Aṣḥāb
1
el-İsti'ab fi Ma'rifeti'l-Ashab
85
106
Kitāb-ı Haṣā’iṣ li Suyūṭī
1
el-Hasaisu'n-Nebeviyye
97
107
Şerḥ-i Şir‘atü’l-İslām li Seyyid ‘Alī-zāde
1
108
Tezkire-i Ḳurṭubī
1
Tezkiretü’l Kurtubi
342
109
Tenḳīḥ Şerḥ-i Müşkilātü’l-Buhārī
1
et-Tenkih li-Elfazi'l-Camii's-Sahih
88
110
Mebāriḳu’l-Ezhār fī Şerḥ-i Meşārıḳu’l-Envār
1
Mebariku'l-Ezhar fi Şerhi Meşariki'l-Envar
136
111
Şifā li Ḳāḍī ‘İyāż ve Ġayruhu
1
eş-Şifa bi-Ta'rifi Hukuki'l-Mustafa
157
112
Meḳāṣıdu’l-Ḥasene li Seḥāvī
1
el-Makasidü'l-Hasene Fi Kesirin mine'l-Ehadisi'l-Müstehire
173
113
el-Münāvi’l-Kebīr
4
Feyzü'l-Kadir bi-Şerhi'l-Camii's-Sağir
104-105-106-107
114
Cāmi‘ü’ṣ-Ṣaġīr
1
el-Camiu's-Sagir min Hadisi'l-Beşiri'n-Nezir
95
115
Şerḥ-i Elfiye li ‘Irāḳī
1
Fethu'l-Muğis bi-Şerhi Elfiyyeti'l-Hadis
79-1
116
Ṣaḥīḥü’l-Buhārī
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih
160
117
Şu‘bü’l-İmān
1
Şu'abü'l-İman
366
118
Şerḥ-i Şemā’il li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Cem'u'l-Vesail fi Şerhi'ş-Şemail
119
119
Şerḥ-i Mişkātü’l-Meṣābiḥ li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
3
Mirkatü'l-Mefâtih li-Mişkâti'l-Mesâbih
146-147-148
120
Nihāye fi’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
en-Nihaye fi Garâibi'l-Hadis ve'l-Âsâr
183
121
Şerḥ-i Şifā li
*
el-İstifa li-Beyani Meani'ş-Şifa
118
122
Şerḥ-i Mevāhibü’l-Ledünniyye
4
el-Mevakibü'l-Ledüniyye Bi'l-Minahi'l-Muhammediyye Şerhi
151-152-153-154
123
Mişkātü’l-Meṣābiḥ
1
Mişkatü'l-Masabih
170
124
Şerḥ-i Mişkātü’l-Meṣābiḥ
4
Mirkatü'l-Mefâtih li-Mişkâti'l-Mesâbih
142-143-144-145
125
el-Münāvi’l-Kebīr
4
Feyzü'l-Kadir bi-Şerhi'l-Camii's-Sağir
108-109-110-111
126
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī li Ḳasṭalānī
4
İnşâdü'l-Sârî Li-Şerhi Sahihi'l-Buhârî
131-132-133-134
85
127
Nihāye li ibn Es̱īr
1
en-Nihaye fi Garâibi'l-Hadis ve'l-Âsâr
181
128
Meşāri ‘u’l-eşvāḳ ilā Meṣāri‘u’l- ‘uşşāḳ fī feżā’ilü’l-cihād
1
Meşariu'l-Eşvak ila Mesari'i'l-Uşşak
169
129
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī li Kirmānī
2
el-Kevakibü'd-Derari Fi Şerhi Sahihi'l-Buhârî
135
130
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī li Ḳasṭalānī
3
İnşâdü'l-Sârî Li-Şerhi Sahihi'l-Buhârî
128-129-130
131
Şerḥ-i Mişkātü’l-Meṣābiḥ
4
Mirkatü'l-Mefâtih li-Mişkâti'l-Mesâbih
138-139-140-141
132
Cāmi‘u’ṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ li İmām Müslim
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih (Sahih-İ Müslim)
164
133
Muvaṭṭā li İmām Mālik
1
134
Kevkebü’l-Ezher fī ‘İlmi’l-Es̱er
1
el-Kevkebü'l-Ezher Fi İktifa İlmi'l-Eser
433
135
Şerḥü’l-Muvaṭṭā li Şeyh el-İmām el-‘Allāme Muḥammed ez-Zürḳānī
2
Şerhu'l-Muvatta
155-156
136
Şerḥ-i Meşārıḳ li ibn Melek
1
Mebariku'l-Ezhar fi Şerhi Meşariki'l-Envar
137
137
[silinmiş]fażīlet-i Āl-i Muṣṭafā
1
-
138
Şerḥ-i ‘Aynü’l-‘İlm li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
(Şerhu Ayni'l-İlm Ve Zeyni'l-Hilm)
365
139
Şerḥ-i Şir‘atü’l-İslām
1
Şerhu Şir'ati'l-İslam
122
140
Taḳrībü’l-Tehzīb li ibn Ḥacer el-‘Asḳalānī
1
Takribü't-Tehzib
472
141
Enfa‘u’l-Vesā’il
1
Enfau'l-Vesail ila Tahriri'l-Mesail
209
142
Haṣā’iṣü’l-Kübrā
1
143
Tezkire-i Ḳurṭub
1
Tezkiretü’l Kurtubi
341
144
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī li ‘Ayn
5
Umdetü'l-Kari fi Şerhi'l-Buhari
123-124-125-126-127
145
Şerḥ-i Ḥıṣn-i Ḥaṣīn
1
el-Hirzü's-Semin li'l-Hisni'l-Hasin
113
146
Menāsikü’l-Ḥacc
1
Menasik-I Hac
300
147
Risāle-i Cilā’ü’l-Ḳulūb ve eṭrāfa muhaşşā bi-Şifā’i’l-Ḳulūb
1
Cilâu'l-Kulub
Şifaü'l-Kulub
351
148
Cāmi‘u’l-Usūl
1
-
149
Aḥkāmu’l-Aḥkām
1
İhkamü'l-Ahkam Fi Şerhi Ehadisi Seyyidi'l-Enam
84
150
Ravżu’l-Fā’iḳ fi’l-Mevā’iẓ ve’r-Refā’iḳ
1
er-Ravzu'l-Faik Fi'l-Mevaiz ve'r-Rakaik
357
151
Eyyühe’l-Veled
1
-
152
Eyyühe’l-Veled
1
Eyyühe'l-Veled
340
153
Mevāhibü’l-Ledünniyye el-muṣaḥḥeḥ bi-ḳalemi ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
-
154
Şerḥ-i Şifā li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Şerhu'ş-Şifa bi-Ta'rifi Hukuki'l-Mustafa
115
155
Hidāye
1
el-Hidâye
307
156
Şerḥ-i Hidāye li Ekmeleddīn
2
el-İnaye fi Şerhi'l-Hidaye
272-273
86
157
Şerḥ-i Hidāye li ibn Hümām
1
Fethu'l-Kadir li'l-Acizi'l-Fakir fi Şerhi'l-Hidaye
275
158
Şerḥ-i Ḳudūrī li Zāhidī li İmām Rāzī
1
159
Şerḥ-i Muḥtaṣar-ı Viḳāye li Ḳuhistānī
1
160
Şerḥ-i Kenzü’l-‘ayn
1
161
Tebyīnü’l-Mehārim li Sāfī Efendi
1
Tebyinü'l-Meharim
210
162
Vāḳı‘ātu’l- Müftīn li ‘Abdulḳādir bin Yūsuf
1
Vaki'âtü'l-Müftîn
334
163
Tuḥfetü’l-Mülūk
1
Tuhfetü'l-Mülûk
212-1
164
Merci‘u’l-Muṣallī
1
Merciu'l-Musalli
293
165
Fetāvā-yı ‘Abdullāh Efendi
1
Behcetü'l-Fetava
322
166
Fetāvā-yı ‘Abdurrahīm Efendi
1
(Fetvalar Dergisi)
321
167
Hulāṣatü’l-Fetāvā
1
168
Kitābü’l-Uṣūl li İmām Muḥammed bin Ḥasan eş-Şeybānī
1
El-Asl Fi'l-Furu' -El-Mebsut-
206
169
Fetāvā-yı Hindiyye
3
Fetava-yı Hindiyye
329-330-331
170
Ṣurratü’l-Fetāvā fi’l-fıḳh
1
171
Fetāvā-yı Ḳāḍīhan
1
Fetevâ Kadihan
324
172
Fetāvā-yı Anḳaravī
1
Fetavây-ı Ankaravî
315
173
Fetāvā-yı Yaḥyā Efendi
1
(Fetvâlar Dergisi)
332
174
Fetāvā-yı Ḳāḍīhan
1
Fetevâ Kadihan
325
175
Fetāvā-yı Ḳāḍīhan
1
Fetevâ Kadihan
326
176
Fetāvā-yı Bezzaziyye
1
el-Fetava'l-Bezzaziyye -el-Camiu'l-Veciz fi'l-Fetava -el-Feta
317
177
Fetāvā-yı Ẓahiriyye
1
el-Fetava'z-Zahiriyye
319
178
Fetāvā-yı Hayriyye
1
el-Fetava'l-Hayriyye
318
179
Fetāvā-yı Ḳāḍīhan
1
Fetevâ Kadihan
327
180
Dürer Ġürer
1
Dürerü'l-Hukkam fi Şerhi Ğureri'l-Ahkam
237
181
Hidāye Şerḥ-i Bidāye
1
182
Dürer Ġürer
1
Dürerü'l-Hukkam fi Şerhi Ğureri'l-Ahkam
238
183
Hāşiye-i Dürer
1
Gunyetü Zevi'l-Ahkam fi Buğyeti Düreri'l-Ahkam
224
184
Hidāye
1
el-Hidâye
306
185
Hāşiye ‘alā Ekmeli’l-Hidāye
1
el-Hidaye Şerhi El-İnâyeye Haşiye
221
186
Hāşiye-i Hidāye li Sa‘dī Çelebi
1
el-Hidaye Şerhi El-İnâyeye Haşiye
230
187
Kitābü’l-Ḥāvī fi’l-Fıḳh
1
188
Hidāye
1
el-Hidâye
305
189
Sa‘dī ‘ale’l-Hidāye
1
el-Hidaye Şerhi El-İnâyeye Haşiye
232
190
Hidāye
1
el-Hidâye
240
191
Ekmel ‘ale’l-Hidāye
1
192
Şerḥü’l-Hidāye li Ḥabbāzī
1
Haşiye ale'l-Hidaye
276
193
Hizānetü’l-Müftīn
1
Hizânetü'l-Müftîn
313
194
Cāmi‘u’l-Fuṣūleyn
1
Cami’u'l-Fusuleyn
219
195
Hāşiye-i Ahī ‘ale’ṣ-Ṣadr
1
Zahiretü'l-Ukba fi Şerhi Sadrişşeri'ati'l-Uzma
227
87
196
Şerḥ-i Mecma‘u’l-Baḥreyn
1
Mecma'ü'l-Bahreyn Ve Mülteka'l-Nehreyn Şerhi
262
197
Resā’il-i Şürünbülāli ‘ale’d-Dürer
1
Mecmua
214
198
Nehr-i Fā’iḳ Şerḥ-i Kenzü’l-Deḳā’iḳ
1
en-Nehrü'l-Fâik Bi-Şerhi Kenzi'l-Dakâik
261
199
Ḳuhistānī
1
200
Baḥrü’r-Rā’iḳ
3
el-Bahru'r-Raik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
242-243-244
201
Fetāvā-yı Ẓahīriyye
1
el-Fetava'z-Zahiriyye
320
202
Şerḥü’l-Kenz li ‘Ayn
1
Remzü'l-Hakaik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
260
203
Ḳuhistānī
1
Camiu'r-Rumuz Şerhu'n-Nükaye
285
204
Ḳuhistānī Kebīr
1
205
Ṣadru’ş-Şerī‘a
1
Şerhu'l-Vikaye
278
206
Şerḥü’l-Kenz li Zeyla‘ī
3
Tebyinü'l-Hakaik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
251-252-253
207
el-Muġnī fi’l-Fıḳh
1
el-Muğni fi Usuli'l-Fikh
203
208
Şerḥ-i Kenzü’l-Deḳā’iḳ li ‘Aynī
2
Remzü'l-Hakaik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
257-258
209
Şerḥü’l-Kenz li Zeyla‘ī
2
Tebyinü'l-Hakaik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
255
210
Şerḥü’l-Kenz li Zeyla‘ī
1
Tebyinü'l-Hakaik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
254
211
Kitāb-ı Ekmeleddīn
1
el-İnaye fi Şerhi'l-Hidaye
273
212
Ahī Çelebi ‘alā Ṣadru’ş-Şerī‘a
1
Zahiretü'l-Ukba fi Şerhi Sadrişşeri'ati'l-Uzma
226
213
Feyżu’l-*** fi’l-Fıḳh
1
415
214
Hızānetü’r-Rivāyāt
1
Hizanetü'r-Rivayat Fi'l-Furu
236
215
Ṣadru’ş-Şerī‘a
1
Şerhu'l-Vikaye
279
216
Kitābü’r-Reşād fī Şerḥü’l-İrşād
1
er-Reşad Fi Şerhi'l-İrşad
239
217
Kitābü’l-Kāfī li Ḥākimü’ş-Şehīd
1
el-Muhtasaru'l-Kafi fi'l-Fikhi'l-Hanefi
288
218
Kitāb-ı Ḳudūrī
1
Muhtasaru’l Kuduri
291
219
Minaḥu’l-Ġaffār fī Şerḥ-i Tenvīrü'l-Īṣār
1
Minahü'l-Gaffar Li-Şerhi Tenvîri'l-Ebsâr
241
220
Mülteḳa’l-Ebḥar li İbrāhīm el-Ḥalebī
1
Mülteka'l-Ebhur Fi'l-Furu'
299
221
Fetāvā-yı Valvaliciyye
1
el-Fetava'l-Valvâliciyye
328
222
Hidāyetü’l-Mübtedī
1
223
Fetāvā-yı Esrāru’d-Debūsī
1
El-Esrar
310
224
Kitāb-ı İbrāhīm el-Ḥalebī
1
Gunyetü'l-Mütemelli Fi Şerhi Münyeti'l-Musalli
233
225
Kitāb-ı İbrāhīm el-Ḥalebī
1
Gunyetü'l-Mütemelli Fi Şerhi Münyeti'l-Musalli
234
226
Tuḥfetü’ş-Şāhān
1
Tuhfe-i Şâhân
211
227
Ḳudūrī
1
Muhtasaru’l Kuduri
292
228
Fıḳhu’n-Nāfi‘
1
el-Fikhu'l-Nâfi'
283
229
Tuḥfetü’l-Mülūk
1
Tuhfetü'l-Müluk Fi'l-Furu'
213
230
Kitāb fī Ḥaḳḳu’l-Buyū‘
1
Kitabü'l-Buyu' Nefisü'l-Müttecer Bi-Şirai'd-Dürer
214-35
231
Niṣābu’l-İḥtisāb me‘a Hediyetü’l-Mühtedīn
1
Nisabü'l-İhtisab
303-1
88
232
Niṣābu’l-İḥtisāb
1
-
233
Muḳaddimet-i Ebu’l-Leys̱ el-Semerḳandī
1
Mukaddimetü Ebi'l-Leys
671-2
234
‘Unvānu’l-Fażl li ‘İsā er-Rāşidī
1
Unvanü'l-Fadl Ve Tiraz Mülki'l-Adl
282
235
Resā’il-i Şürünbülāli
1
Mecmua
214
236
Baḥrü’r-Rā’iḳ
1
el-Bahru'r-Raik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
245
237
Baḥrü’r-Rā’iḳ
1
el-Bahru'r-Raik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
246
238
Baḥrü’r-Rā’iḳ
1
el-Bahru'r-Raik fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
247
239
Mütenevvin-i İs̱nā ‘Aşer
1
-
240
Iṣlāḥ ve’l-İżāḥ li ibn Kemālpaşazāde
1
İzahu İslahi'l-Vikaye
207
241
Kitāb-ı Harāc Ebu Yūsuf
1
Kitabü'l-Harac
235
242
‘Azmizāde ‘ale’d-Dürer
1
Dürerü'l-Hükkam Haişyesi
223
243
Hāşiye-i Vānī ‘ale’d-Dürer
1
Nakdü'd-Dürer
222
244
Telhīs-i Cāmi‘u’l-Kebīr fi’l-fıḳh
1
Telhisü'l-Camii'l-Kebir
217
245
Ta‘līkāt li ibn Kemāl ‘ale’l-Hidāye
1
Mecmua
656
246
Mu‘īnü’l-Ḥükkām
1
-
247
İbn Melek ‘alā Mecma‘u’l-Baḥreyn
1
Mecma'ü'l-Bahreyn Ve Mülteka'l-Nehreyn Şerhi
263
248
Mecmū‘a-i Ḳudūrī Efendi
1
-
249
Mevāhib fī İhtilāfi’l-meẕāhib
1
Kitabü'l-Mevahib Fi Mesail Fıkhi'l-Erba Mezahib
301
250
Muḳaddime-i Ġaznevī
1
El-Mukaddimetü'l-Gazneviyye
297
251
İhtiyār ‘ale’l-Muhtār
1
El-İhtiyar Li-Ta'lili'l-Muhtar
204
252
Fetāvā-yı Anḳaravī
1
Fetavây-I Ankaravî
316
253
Şerḥü’n-Niḳāye li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
(Fethu Bâbi'l-İnâye Bi-Şerhi Kitabi'n-Nükaye
270
254
Şerḥ-i Mülteḳa
1
El-Ata Fi Şerhi'l-Mülteka'l-Ebhur Fi'l-Furu'
266
255
Şerḥ-i Ferā‘iż li Maḥmūd Vardarī
1
Hibetullah?
309
256
Mülteḳa’l-Ebḥur
1
-
257
Mecma‘u’l-Müntahebāt
1
Mecma'u'l-Müntehabât
333
258
Ṣadru’ş-Şerī‘a
1
Şerhu'l-Vikaye
277
259
Żiyā’u’l-Ma‘nevī fi’l-Fıḳh
1
-
260
Muhtāru’n-Nevāzil
1
-
261
Eşbāḥu’n-Neẓā’ir
1
el-Eşbah Ve'n-Nezâir
205
262
Ḳuhistānī Kebīr
1
263
Hāşiye-i Eşbāḥu’n-Neẓā’ir
1
Umdetü Zevi'l-Besair Li-Hall Mühimmati'l-Eşbah Ve'n-Nazair
220
264
Baḥrü’r-Rā’iḳ
3
El-Bahru'r-Raik Fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
248-249-250
265
Şerḥ-i Ferā’iż li-Seyyid eş-Şerīf
1
Şerhu'l-Feraizi's-Siraciyye
308
266
Hāşiye-i ‘alā Şerḥü’l-Mecma‘u’l-Ḳāsım
1
267
‘İddetü’l-Bidāye
1
Uddetü Ashabi'l-Bidaye Ve'n-Nihaye Fi Tecridi Mesaili'l-Hidaye
281
268
Kitabü’t-Tevfīḳ
1
89
269
Ta‘līmü’l-Müte‘allim ve Muḳaddime-i Ebu’l-Leys̱ ve Fıḳhu’l-Ekber
1
270
Ta‘līmü’l-Müte‘allim
1
271
Şerḥ-i Ta‘līmü’l-Müte‘allim
1
Şerhu Ta'limi'l-Müteallim
537
272
Merāḳi’l-Felāḥ Şerḥ-I Nūru’l-Īżāḥ
1
Maraki'l-Falah Bi-İmdadi'l-Fettah Şerhu Nuri'l-İzah
271
273
Şerh-i Manẓūme ibn Vehbān
1
-
274
Şerh-i Manẓūmetü’l-Vehbāniye
1
-
275
Şerh-i Manẓūmetü’n-Nefiye
1
-
276
Et-Teshīl
1
Et-Teshil Fi Şerhi Lataifi'l-İşarat
216
277
Cāmi‘u’l-Uṣūl fi’l-Hanefiyye ve’ş-Şāfi‘iyye
1
Cami'u'l-Usulü'l-Hanefiyye Ve'ş-Şafi'iyye
192-1
278
Taġyīr Tenḳīḥ
1
Tağyiru't-Tenkih
188
279
El-Bedāyi‘
2
Fusulü'l-Bedayi' Fi Usuli'ş-Şerayi
202
280
Uṣūl-i Cāmi‘u’l-Kebīr
1
Usulü'l-Camii'l-Kebir
208
281
Mecmū‘a-i Resā’il
1
282
Terceme-i Nefahātü’l-Üns li La‘mī Çelebi
1
Fütuhu'l-Mücahidin Li-Tervihi Kulubi'l-Müşahidin
346
283
Terceme-i Minhācü’l-Fā’izīn ve Maḳṣadü’l-Aḳṣā ve Nefahātü’l-Üns
1
Mecmua
345
284
el-Lü'lüü'l-Menşūr fī Naṣiḥati Vulāti'l-Umūr li Semhūd
1
El-Lü'lüü'l-Mensur Fi Nasihati Vulati'l-Umur
549
285
Keşfü’l-Ġayyūb li Ḳuṭbu’l-Şurnūbī
1
El-Keşfü'l-Gayyubi Li'l-Kutbi'ş-Şurnubi
373
286
Kitāb-ı İsmā‘īl el-Ḥaḳḳī
1
Tuhfe-I Vesimiyye
Kitabü's-Süluk
359
287
Naḳdü’l-Hāṭır
1
Nakd-I Hatir
382-1
288
Kimyā’i’l-Fenā fī Şerḥ-i Esmāi’l-Ḥüsnā
1
Kimyaü'l-Ğina Fi Şerhi Esmai'llahi'l-Hüsna
360
289
İrġām-ı Evliyā-i’ş-Şeyāṭin fī Ṭabāḳāti’l-Ṣūfiyye
1
İrgamü Evliyai'ş-Şeytan Bi-Zikri Menakibi Evliyai'r-Rahman
338
290
Nefahātü’l-Üns li ‘Abdurraḥmān el-Cāmī
1
Nefehatü'l-Üns Min Hadarati'l-Kuds
380
291
Emedü’l-Aḳṣā li Debūsī
1
El-Emedü'l-Aksa
339
292
Tenbīhü’l-Muġterīn li Şa‘rānī
1
Tenbihu'l-Mugtarin
350-1
293
Faṣlu’l-Hiṭāb li Muḥammed bin el-Fārisī
1
Faslü'l-Hitab
372-1
294
Futūḥāt-ı ‘Ayniyye li İsma‘īl el-Anḳaravī
1
Fütuhat-I Ayniyye
370-1
295
ed-Dā’i ve’d-Devā’i
1
Ed-Da' Ve'd-Deva
353
296
Leṭā’ifü’l-Minen ve’l-Ahlāḳ
1
Lataifü'l-Minen Ve'l-Ahlak Fi Beyani Vücubi't-Tehaddüs
375
297
Şerḥü’l-Mesnevī li Ḥaḳḳı Efendi
1
-
298
Kitāb fi’d-De‘āvāti’l-Me’s̱ūre
1
-
299
Terceme-i Naḳşu’l-Fuṣūṣ
1
Zübdetü'l-Fuhus Fi Nakşi'l-Fusus
347-1
300
Kitāb fī ‘İlmi’l-Taṣavvuf
1
301
Zeynü’l-budūr fī Şerḥ-i Esmā’i’l-Ḥüsnā
1
Zeynü'l-Buduri'l-Esna Bi-Şerhi Esmai'llahi'l-Hüsna
361-3
302
Divān-ı Ḥāfıẓ-ı Şirāzī
1
-
90
303
‘İlmü’l-Hüdā ve Esrāru’l-İhtidā
2
İlmü'l-Hüda Ve Esrarü'l-İhtida Fi Fehmi Esmai'llahi'l-Hüsna
368-369
304
Terceme-i Risāle-i İmam Ḳuşeyrī
1
Er-Risaletü'l-Kuşeyriyye Tercümesi
344
305
İḥyā’ü’l-‘Ulūm
1
İhyau Ulumi'd-Din
336
306
Terceme-i Nefahātü’l-Üns
1
Nefehatü'l-Üns Min Hadarati'l-Kuds
381-1
307
Mes̱nevī-i Şerīf
1
Mesnevî
377
308
Tuhfetü’l-Ezḥār
1
-
309
en-Nevāḳıt ve’l-Cevāhir li Şa‘rānī
1
El-Yavakit Ve'l-Cevahir Fi Beyani Akaidi'l-Ekabir
384
310
Mes̱nevī-i Şerīf
1
Mesnevî
376
311
Şerḥ li Ümmiyetü’ş-Şerefü’l-Müsemmā Nehcü’s-Sa‘āde li ‘Ömer bin ‘Abdulvehhāb
1
312
Kitāb-ı Ġunye li Şeyh ‘Abdulḳādir Efendi
1
El-Gunye Li-Talibi Tariki'l-Hak
367
313
Rāḥatü’ṣ-Ṣāliḥīn
1
Rahatü's-Salihin Ve Sevaiku'l-Munafikin
354
314
Mecmū‘a-i Resā’il-i Laṭīfe
1
-
315
Edebü’d-dīn ve’d-Dünyā
1
Edebü'd-Dünya Ve'd-Din
337
316
Havātimü’l-Ḥikem
1
Havatimü'l-Hikem Ve Hallü'r-Rumuz Ve Keşfü'l-Künuz
352
317
Fütūḥāt-ı Mekkiye
1
El-Fütuhatü'l-Mekkiyye Fi Ma'rifeti Esrari'l-Malikiyye
371
318
Risāle li Ṣadreddīn Ḳonevī ve diger li Naṣr eṭ-Ṭūsī
1
Mecmua
652
319
Münīre fi’l-‘Aḳā’id
1
-
320
Kitāb fi’l-‘Aḳā’id bi’t-Türkī
1
321
Kitābü’l-Bedr er-Reşīd
1
322
Hidāyetü’l-Hayāra fī Ecvibeti’l-Yehūd ve’n-Naṣārā
1
Hidayetü'l-Hayara Fi Ecvibeti'l-Yehud Ve'n-Nesara
413
323
Kitāb fi’l-‘Aḳā’id bi’t-Türkī
1
324
Şerḥ-i Fıḳhu’l-Ekber li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Minahu'r-Ravzi'l-Ezher Fi Şerhi'l-Fikhi'l-Ekber
406-1
325
Hāşiye ‘alā Şerḥü’l-Mevāḳıf li Muṣliḥuddīn
1
Haşiye Ala Şerhi'l-Mevakif
396
326
Müfīdü’l-‘Ulūm li Muḥammed bin ***
1
Müfidü'l-Ulum Ve Mübidü'l-Humum
410
327
Risāle-i Birgivī Meḥmed Efendi
1
Mecmua
671
328
Uṣūl-i Erba‘īn li İmām Ġazzālī
1
329
Şerḥ-i ‘Umde me‘a Senūsiye
1
330
İṣfahānī ‘ale’ṭ-Ṭavālī
1
Metaliu'l-Enzar Fi Şerhi Tavalii'l-Envar
401
331
İs̱bāt-ı Vācib
1
Risale İsbatü'l-Vacib
385
332
Şerḥ-i Mevāḳıf fi’l-Kelām
1
Şerhu'l-Mevakif
409
333
Hāşiye-i Tecrīd li Seyyid eş-Şerīf
1
Haşiye Ala Tecridi'l-Akaid Li'l-İsfehani
391
334
Tehāfütü’l-Felāsife
1
Tehafütü'l-Felâsife
389
335
Baḥrü’l-Kelām li Nesefī
1
Bahru'l-Kelam Fi Akaidi Ehli'l-İslam
387-1
336
Mecmu‘a Havāşī-i İsbāt-ı Vācib li Es‘ad Efendi
1
İsbatü'l-Vacib Haşiyesi
390
337
Celāleddīn Nesefī
1
91
338
Kemāleddīn ‘alā Hayāli
1
Akaidü'n-Nesefiye'ye Taftazânî Tarafindan Yapilan Şerha Hayâlî'nin Haşiyesinin Haşiyesi
394
339
*** ‘alā Hayāli
1
-
340
Resā’il-i İmām Ġazzālī
1
Mecmua
650
341
Münḳıẕ ‘ani’l-żelāle li İmām Ġazzālī
1
El-Münkiz Mine'l-Zelal
411
342
Te’lifāt-ı Birgivī Meḥmed Efendi
1
Mecmua
672
343
Resā’il-i Maḥmūd Efendi
1
653
344
Miftāḥu’l-Felāḥ li Şeyh Süleymān Efendi
1
Miftahu'l-Felah
378
345
Nūru’l-Mübīn fī Ehem Umūru’d-dīn
1
Nuru'l-Mübin Fi Ehemmi Umuriddin
383
346
Ḥasan Çelebi ‘alā Şerḥ-i Mevāḳıf
1
Haşiye Ala Şerhi'l-Mevakif
395
347
Mecmu‘a Ḥafīd et-Taftāzānī
1
El-Fevaid Ve'l-Feraid
678
348
Mecmu‘a Resā’il Evveluhā fi’l-‘Aḳā’idü’l-Muhtelife
1
349
Mecmu‘a Resā’il fi ‘Ulūmü’l-Ḥikemiyye
1
350
Kāşifü’l-Esrār ‘an Ṭavāli‘u’l-Envār
1
Kaşifü'l-Esrar An Tevaliu'l-Envar
404
351
Şerḥ-i Meḳāṣıd li Taftāzānī
1
Şerhu'l-Makasid
407
352
Şerḥ-i Ṭevāli‘
1
353
Şerḥ-i Tecrīd
1
Teşyidü'l-Kavaid Fi Şerhi Tecridi'l-Akaid
400
354
Şerḥ-i Meḳāṣıd li Taftāzānī
1
Şerhu'l-Makasid
408
355
Urcūze’l-Ḥākim bi-emri’llāh ve Ḥavāṣ el-Ḥurūf ve ‘ıḳdü’l-manẓūm ve ġayruhā
1
Mecmua
659
356
Şerḥ-i Tenḳīḥ li Nuḳrekārī
1
Tenkihu'l-Usul Şerhi
197
357
Şerḥ-i ‘Aḍud fi’l-Uṣūl
358
Taḳrīr ‘ale’l-Taḥrīr
1
359
Telvīḥ ‘ale’t-Tevżīḥ
1
360
Tevżīḥ fī Uṣūli’l-Fıḳh
1
Et-Tavzih Fi Halli Gavamizi't-Tenkih Fi'l-Usul
191
361
Ruḥāvī ‘alā ibn Melek
1
Haşiye Ala Şerhi'l-Menar Li'ibn Melek
195
362
Ḥasan Çelebi ‘ale’t-Telvīḥ
1
Haşiye Ale't-Telvih Fi Keşfi Hakaiki't-Tenkih
193
363
Hāşiye-i ibn Melek ‘ale’l-Menār
1
Menarü'l-Envar Şerhi
200
364
Bedī‘ li ibn Sā‘ātī fi’l-Uṣūl
1
Bediu'l-Nizam El-Cami' Beyne Kitabeyi'l-Bezdevi Ve'l-İhkam
186
365
Şerḥ-i MuḥtaṣarMünteha li ‘Aḍud
1
366
Seyyid Şerīf ‘ala Ḳāḍī ‘Aḍud
1
367
Muġnī fi’l-Uṣūl
1
-
368
Taḥḳīḳ ‘ale’l-***
1
369
Hāşiye-i Telvīḥ li Mollā Hüsrev
1
Haşiye Ale't-Telvih Fi Keşfi Hakaiki't-Tenkih
194
370
Fuṣūlü’l-Bedāyi‘ li Mollā Fenārī
1
Fusulü'l-Bedayi' Fi Usuli'ş-Şerayi'
202
92
371
Şerḥ-i Menār li ibn Ferişte
1
-
372
Esāsü’l-Belāġa li Zemahşerī
1
Esasü'l-Belağa
622
373
Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
Es-Sihah Fi'l-Lüga
630
374
Ḳāmūsu’l-Muḥīṭ
1
El-Kamusü'l-Muhit Ve'l-Kabusü'l-Vasit
636
375
Luġat-ı Papus fī Terceme-i Ḳāmūs
1
376
Vanḳulı Terceme-i Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
Terceme-I Sihahi'l-Cevheri
640
377
Ḳāmūs-ı Eṭıbbā li ‘Abdurraḥmān
1
Kamusü'l-Etibba Ve Namusü'l-Elibba Fi'l-Müfredati't-Tibbiyye
658-1
378
Luġat-ı Ahterī
1
Ahteri Kebir
620
379
Kitāb-ı Müfredāt ve Havāṣuhā fi’l-luġa
1
380
Lisānü’l-‘Arab
1
Lisanü'l-Arab
641
381
Lisānü’l-‘Arab
1
Lisanü'l-Arab
642
382
Lisānü’l-‘Arab
1
Lisanü'l-Arab
643
383
Maẓharü’l-Eşkāl ve Luġat-i Mes̱nevī li Muḥammed bin Şa‘bānzāde
1
384
Luġat-ı Ḥalimī
1
Lügat-I Halimî
638
385
Kitāb-ı Şāhidī
1
Tuhfe-I Şahidi
629
386
Luġat-ı Fārsī
1
387
Ḳāmūsu’l-Muḥīṭ
1
El-Kamusü'l-Muhit Ve'l-Kabusü'l-Vasit
637
388
Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
Es-Sihah Fi'l-Lüga
631
389
Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
390
Tehẕībü’l-Luġa li İmām Ezherī
1
Tehzibü'l-Lüğa
625
391
Cāmi‘u’l-Luġa
1
Cami’u'l-Lüga
627-1
392
Fā’iḳu’l-Luġa
1
393
Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
394
Ṣıḥāḥu’l-Cevherī
1
395
Luġat-ı Ahterī
1
Ahteri Kebir
621
396
Muḳaddimetü’l-Edeb li Zemaḥşerī
1
397
Aḳṣa’l-Ereb
1
Aksa'l-Ereb Fi Tercemeti Mukaddimeti'l-Edeb
624
398
Lisānü’l-‘Arab
1
Lisanü'l-Arab
644
399
Sāmī fi’l-Esāmī
1
Es-Sami Fi'l-Esami
679M
400
Esmā’ü’l-Ef‘āl
1
401
Külliyāt-ı Ḳānūn fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
El-Kanun Fi't-Tib
510
402
Kitāb-ı Mūcez
1
403
Şerḥ-i Mūcez li Ḳazvinī
1
Şerhu Mucezi'l-Kanun
509
404
Şerḥ-i Mūcez li Mahmūd el-Emşāṭī
1
Şerhu Mucezi'l-Kanun
508
405
Şerḥ-i Mūcez li Fetā?
1
406
et-Taṣrīf li-men ‘Aceze ‘ani’t-te’līf li ibn Halef ez-Zehravī
1
Et-Tasrif Li-Men Aceze Ani't-Te'lif
502
407
Maddetü’l-Ḥayat fi’n-Nefsi mine’l-Āfāt
1
Maddetü'l-Hayat Ve Hifzu'n-Nefs Mine'l-Afat
517
408
Laḳṭu’l-Menāfi‘ li ibn Feraḥ
1
Laktu'l-Menafi
516
409
Muṣaḥḥaḥāt-ı Eflaṭun
1
Musahhahat-İ Eflatun
649
410
Tedbīrü’l-Mevlūd
1
Tedbirü'l-Mevlid
501
93
411
Enmūzecü’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
Unmuzecü't-Tib
518
412
Ravżatü’l-‘Iṭr li Muḥammed bin Maḥmūd bin Cāmī eş-Şirvānī
1
Ravzatü'l-Itr
506
413
Havāṣu’l-Ḥubūbāt ve’l-Ḥayevānāt
1
414
Kitābü’l-Edviye Te’līf-i ‘Abdurreşīd
1
Kitabü'l-Edviye
515
415
Ḳıṭ‘a min Kāmilü’ṣ-Ṣınā‘a li ‘Alī bin ‘Abbās
1
Kamilü's-Sina'ati't-Tibbiyye
514
416
Ḳānūn Ebū ‘Alī
1
Mucezü'l-Kanun Fi't-Tib
520
417
Taṣrīf fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
418
Ḳānūn li Şeyh ibn Sīnā
1
El-Kanun Fi't-Tib
513
419
*** fi ‘İlmi’l-Mīzān
1
420
Ḳānūn li Şeyh ibn Sīnā
1
421
Rütbetü’l-Ḥekīm
1
422
Şerḥ-i Esbāb-ı ‘Alāmāt
1
423
el-cild-i evvel es-Siyer
1
424
el-cild-i S̱ānī es-Siyer
1
425
el-cild-i S̱ālīs̱ es-Siyer
1
426
Kitāb-ı Siyer ‘Azīz Efendi
1
427
Mevhibe-i Seniyye min Sīreti’z-Zekiyye
1
428
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il evveluhā Ḥilye-i Hāḳanī
1
Mecmua
654
429
Terceme-i Tārīh-i Mekke-i Mükerreme li Bāḳī Efendi
1
430
Terceme-i Tārīh-i Medīne-i Münevvere li Muḥammedü’l-‘Āşıḳ
1
Hulasatü'l-Ahbar
465
431
Fetḥü’l-Vehbī
1
Fethü'l-Vehbi Ala Tarihi Ebi Nasr El-Utbi
488
432
Zeyl-i Şeḳāyıḳ li Nev‘ī-zāde
1
433
Tārīh-i Muḥtaṣar fī İhtiyāri’l-Beşer
1
El-Muhtasar Fi Tarihi'l-Beşer
491
434
Cāmi‘u’l-Laṭīf fī Faṣl-ı Mekke ve ehlihā
1
435
Şāh-nāme
1
Şeh-Nâme
486
436
Nihāyetü’l-edeb li Aḥmed bin ‘Abdülvehhāb
1
Nihayetü'l-Ereb Fi Fünuni'l-Edeb
499
437
El-Ḥuṭūṭu’l-Müfred
1
438
Tuḥfetü’l-Kibār fī Esfāri’l-Biḥār
1
Tuhfetü'l-Kibar Fi Esfarü'l-Bihar
463
439
Neşeḳu’l-Ezher fī ‘Acāyibü’l-Aḳṭār
1
Neşeku'l-Ezhar Fi Acaibi'l-Aktar
497
440
Neşeḳu’l-Ezher fī ‘Acāyibü’l-Aḳṭār
1
Neşeku'l-Ezhar Fi Acaibi'l-Aktar
498
441
Tārīh-i Al-i ‘Os̱mān li Ḳaraçelebi-zāde
1
-
442
Tuhfetü’l-Elbāb ve Nuhbetü’l-‘Acāb
1
Tuhfetü'l-Elbab Ve Nuhbetü'l-A'cab
461
443
Terceme-i Tārīh-i İbn Ḥalliḳān
1
Vefeyatü'l-A'yan Ve Enba Ebnai'z-Zeman Tercümesi
466
94
444
Zeyl-i Şeḳāyıḳ
1
Hadaiku'l-Hakaik Fi Tekmileti'ş-Şekaik
478
445
Tārīh-i Evliyāt ‘Alī Dede
1
Muhâdaratü'l-Evâil Ve Müsâmerati'l-Evâhir
492
446
Tārīh-i Nişancı
1
Tarih-I Müntehab Li'l-Fehmi'l-Akreb
459
447
Tārīhü’l-Hind el-‘Arabī
1
448
Münteḥab-ı Tevārīh-i Ḥükemā
1
449
Tārīhü’Tevārīh li Hoca Efendi
1
Tacü't-Tevarih
447
450
Tārīh-i Evliyā
1
451
Tārīh-i ‘İzzetü’l-*** fī Evṣāfü’n-Nebī
1
452
Tārīh-i Evliyā
1
453
Tārīh-i Evliyā
1
454
Tārīh-i Evliyā
1
455
Tārīh-i Evliyā
1
456
Sīretü’l-Ḥaleb
2
457
Terceme-i Tārīh-i ‘Aynī
3
Ikdü'l-Cüman Tercümesi
467-468-469
458
Tārīh-i ‘Aynī
4
Ikdü'l-Cuman Fi Tarihi Ehli'l-Zaman
454-455-456-457
459
Siyerü’n-Nebī
1
Siyer-İ Kebir
215
460
Zeyl-i Şeḳāyıḳ li ‘Aṭāyi
1
Hadaiku'l-Hakaik Fi Tekmileti'ş-Şekaik
477
461
Tārīh-i Mir’atü’l-Kā’ināt
1
Mir'atü'l-Kainat
458
462
Terceme-i Tārīhü’l-erī
1
463
Kitāb-ı Vesā’il ilā Ma‘rifeti’l-Evā’il
1
464
Ṭabaḳātü’l-Şa‘rāvī
1
Levakihu'l-Envar Fi Tabakati'l-Ahyar
489
465
Kitābü’l-Ensāb li Sem‘ānī
1
466
Tārīh-i Yeminī li ebī Naṣr
1
Tarihu'l-Yemini
460
467
Harīṭatü’l-‘Acāyib
1
Kit'a Min Harideti'l-Acaib Fi Zikri'l-Mesafat
656-59
468
Ṣuver-i ‘Ālim
1
469
Terceme-i ‘Acāyibü’l-Mahlūḳāt
1
Acaibü'l-Mahlukat
656-35
470
Dürretü’l-Behiyye fī Kisvetü’l-Ḥücre
1
Ed-Durretü'l-Behiyye Fi Kisveti'l-Hucreti'n-Nebeviyye
476
471
Risāle-i Ḥasīb
1
472
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il li Nūḥ Efendi
1
Mecmua
652
473
Ḳavl-i Evvel fi’n-Nücūm
1
474
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il fīhā el-Mūzecü’l-Lebīb
1
Mecmua
655
475
Ġāyetü’l-Ġāyāt
1
Gayetü'l-Gayat Fi Ehadis Ve Hikayat
670-1
476
Tezkiretü’l-Evliyā bi’t-Türkī
1
Tezkiretü'l-Evliya Tercümesi
471
477
Levāḳıḥu’l-Envār fī Ṭabaḳatu’l-Ahyār
1
Levakihu'l-Envar Fi Tabakati'l-Ahyar
489
478
Zühretü’r-Riyāż
1
479
Mecmu‘a-i Resā’il evveluhā fī ‘İlāci’r-Ruḥānī
1
480
Kitābü’t-Temyīz
1
Kitabü't-Temyiz Fi'l-Muhadarat
523
95
481
Şerḥ-i Bānet Su‘ād li Penbe-zāde
1
Şerhu Kasideti -Banet Suad-
535
482
Şerḥ-i Ḳaṣīde-i Bürde Şeyh-zāde
1
483
Şerḥ-i Ḳaṣīde-i Bürde li Sa‘du’llāh
1
484
Şerḥ-i Ḳaṣide-i Ferezdaḳ
1
485
Mevaridü’l-Beṣā’ir li Ferā’iẕü’l-Żamā’ir
1
Mevaridü'l-Besair Li-Feraidi'z-Darair
612
486
Müsteḳṣā fi’l-Ems̱āl
1
El-Müsteksa Fi'l-Emsal
542
487
Mizānü’l-Ḥaḳ
1
Mizanü'l-Hak Fi İhtiyari'l-Ehak
543
488
Kitāb fi’l-Edebiyāt
1
489
Baḥrü’l-Kelām fi’l-Edebiyāt
1
490
Divān-ı Hālid bin Zeyd
1
Divan
518-4
491
Mecmu‘a-i Müfredāt Ebyāt
1
492
Mecmu ‘a-i Resā’il-i Laṭīfe fi’l-‘ulūm
1
493
‘Uḳūdu’l-Cummān
1
Hallü Ukudi'l-Cuman
535
494
Ravżatü’l-Ahyār
1
Ravzu'l-Ahyar El-Müntehab Min Rebii'l-Ebrar
518-9,10
495
Mecālisü’n-Nefā’is
1
496
Şerḥ-i Bedī‘iyyāt li Ebī Bekīr
1
(Bedî'iyye Şerhi)
523
497
Ravżatü’l-Ahyār li Muhammed bin Ḳāsım
1
Ravzu'l-Ahyar El-Müntehab min Rebii'l-Ebrar
518-10
498
Sirācü’l-Mülūk
1
499
Divān-ı Mevlānā Cāmī
1
500
Divānü’ṣ-Ṣabābe
1
Divanü'l-Sebâbe
518-7
501
Risāle fī ‘ilmü’l-ahlāḳ
1
El-Ahlak
518-8
502
Risāle Ẕübdetü’n-Neṣāyiḥ li ‘Os̱mān bin Muṣṭafā
1
Zübdetü'n-Nasayih
520
503
Reyḥāne li Şihābüddīn
1
Reyhanetü'l-Elibba ve Zehratü'l-Hayati'd-Dünya
519
504
Ḥayevetü’l-Ḥayevān
1
Hayatü'l-Hayevan
440-7
505
Ta‘bīr-nāme li Halīl bin Şāhīn
1
el-İşarat Fi İlmi'l-İbarat
341
506
Ta’bīr-nāme
507
Mecmū‘a Ḳaṣā’id ve Tevārīh
1
508
Mecma‘ü’l-Ems̱āl li‘Askerī
1
509
Minaḥu’l-Mekkiyye fī Şerḥi’l-Hemziyye
1
el-Minahu'l-Mekkiyye fi Şerhi'l-Kasideti'l-Hemziyye
531
510
Şerḥ-i Divānü’l-Mütenebbī
1
Şerhu Divani'l-Mütenebbi
526-2
511
Lāmiyetü’-‘Acem li Halīl Ṣafedī
1
Gaysü'l-Müscem fi Şerhi Lamiyyeti'l-Acem
530
512
Divānü’l-Edeb
1
513
‘Iḳdü’l-Ferīd
1
el-Ikdü'l-Ferid Li'l-Meliki's-Sa'id
532
514
Muhtaṣar Aġanī? li Biḳā‘ī
1
96
515
Sükkerdān
1
516
Muṭavvel li Sa‘deddīn el-Taftāzānī
1
517
Muṭavvel li Sa ‘deddīn ber-muhaşşā li Enẓar?
1
518
Şerḥ-i İsti‘āre li ‘Uṣāmeddīn
1
519
Şerḥ-i ‘Arūż li İṣfehānī
1
520
Mu‘avvel Şerḥ-i Ebyāt-i Muṭavvel
1
el-Muavvel Şerhu Ebyati'l-Mutavvel
521
Muhtaṣar fi’l-Me‘ānī
1
522
Hāşiye ‘ale’l-Miftāḥ li Sa‘deddīn
1
523
Hāşiye-i Muṭavvel li Seyyid
1
524
Muṭavvel fi’l-Me‘ānī
1
525
Muhtaṣar fi’l-Me‘ānī
1
526
Hāşiye-i Muhtaṣar li Ḳāsım ‘İbādī
1
527
Tenṣīṣ ‘ale’l-Telhīṣ
1
Nefaisü't-Tensis Fi Şerhi't-Telhis
528
Hāşiye-i Mollā Hüsrev ‘ale’l-Muṭavvel
1
529
Seyyid ‘ale’l-Miftāḥ
1
530
Seyyid ‘ale’l-Muṭavvel
1
531
Şerḥ-i Şeyh-zāde ‘ale’l-Miftāḥ
1
Şerhü’l-Miftahi’l-Ulum
556
532
Şerḥ-i Miftāḥ li Ḳuṭbuddīn
1
Şerhü’l-Miftah
555-3
533
Şerḥ-i Miftāḥ li Seyyid Şerīf
1
534
Hāşiye-i Hālhālī ‘ale’l-Me‘ānī
1
535
Kitāb-ı Sibeveyh
1
536
Şerḥ-i Muġni’l-Lebīb li Aḥmed bin Mollā
1
537
Şerḥ-i Muġni’l-Lebīb
1
538
Kitāb-ı Mollā Cāmī
1
539
Müfīdü’l-İ‘rāb
1
Müfidü'l-İ'rab
599
540
Şerḥ-i Ebyāt Mollā Cāmī
1
541
Şerḥ-i Acūrūmiyye li Hālid bin el-Ezherī
1
Şerhu'l-Acurrumiyye
580-1
542
Şerḥ-i Rażī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
543
‘Uṣām ‘ale’l-Cāmī
1
544
Şerh-i Kāfiye Mutevāssıṭ
1
545
Şerh-i Dibāce
1
546
Şerḥ-i Rażī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
547
‘Uṣām ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
548
Mollā Cāmī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
97
549
Kitāb-ı Sibeveyh
1
55
‘Uṣām ‘ale’l-Cāmī
1
551
Şerḥ-i Rażī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
552
Hāşiye ‘ale’l-Mufaṣṣal li ibn Ḥācib
1
553
Teshīl li ibn Mālik
1
554
Taṣrīḥ ‘alā Tevżīḥ-i Elfiyye
1
et-Tasrih bi-Madmuni't-Tavzih
575
555
Ḍav ‘ale’l-Miṣbāḥ
1
ed-Dav'ü Ale'l-Misbah Fi'n-Nahv
596
556
Seyyid ‘Alī-zāde ‘ale’l-Dībāce
1
557
Hāşiye-i Hindī li Toḳādī
1
558
Hāşiye-i Hindī li Mergiyā
1
559
Fāżıl Hindī ‘ale’l-Meṣābiḥ
1
560
Meḳālīd ‘ale’Meṣābiḥ
1
561
Ḥabīsī ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
562
Demāmīnī ‘alā Muġni’l-Lebīb
1
Tuhfetü'l-Arib fi Şerhi Muğni'l-Lebib
594
563
Şerḥ-i Muġni’l-Lebīb li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
Şerhu Muğni'l-Lebib An Kütübi'l-Earib
595
564
Şerḥ-i Muhtaṣar Muġni’l-Lebīb
1
565
Vāḳiyye ‘ale’l-Kāfiye
1
566
Şīrānşī? ‘ale’l-‘Uṣṣām
567
Hāşiye-i Çārperdī ‘ale’ş-Şāfiyye
1
568
Def‘a Çārperdī
1
569
Def‘a Çārperdī ‘ale’ş-Şāfiyye
1
570
Şeyh Raḍıyüddīn ‘ale’ş-Şāfiyye
1
571
Şerḥ-i Şāfiyye li Seyyid ‘Abdullāh
1
572
Şerḥ-i Merāḥ li Ḥasan Paşa
1
573
Bīnā fi’ṣ-Ṣarf
1
574
Hāşiye-i Şerḥü’l-Meṭāli‘ li Seyyid Şerīf
1
575
Hāşiye-i Ḥāmegānī
1
576
Hāşiye-i Seyyid eş-Şerīf ‘ale’ṭ-Ṭaṣavvurāt
1
577
Öḳlidis
1
Mecmua
440
578
Terceme-i Ḥikmet li ‘Abdī Efendi
1
579
Ḳāḍī Mīr
1
580
Mirzacan ‘alā Ḥikmetü’l- ‘Ayn
1
Şerhu Hikmeti'l-Ayn
415
581
Cāmi‘ü’d-Deḳā’iḳ
1
Camiu'd-Dakaik Fi Keşfi'l-Hakaik
418
582
Mecmū‘a-i Mīr fi’l-Edeb
1
583
Şerḥ-i Meṭāli‘ li İṣfehānī
1
̱
98
584
Hāşiye-i Minḳārī-zāde ‘ale’l-Mīr Ebi’l-Feth
1
Haşiye Ala Haşiyeti Mir Ebi'l-Feth
578
585
Hāşiye-i Veliyüddīn ‘ale’l-Mīr
1
Haşiye Ala Haşiyeti Mir Ebi'l-Feth Ale'ş-Şerhi'l-Hanefiyye
577
586
Mes‘ūd Rūmī me‘a Hāşiye-I ‘Abdurraḥīm
1
Haşiyetü'l-Esved Ala Şerhi Mesudü'ş-Şirvânî Er-Rûmî Ala Âdâbü's-Semerkandî
575
587
Mecmū‘a-i Ḥüseyin Efendi
1
588
Hidāyetü’l-Ḥikmet li Ebherī
1
Hidayetü'l-Hikme
417
589
Şerḥ-i Sa‘deddīn ‘ale’l-Şemsiyyeti’t-Taṣavvurāt ve’t-Taṣdiḳāt
1
590
Hulāṣatü’l-Viḳāfī tercemetü’l-Fetḥiyye
1
591
Muhtṣaru’l-Bārī‘ li Ebī’l-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Ebi’r-Ricāl
1
592
er-Raġīb fi ‘İlmi’l-Haṭṭ bi’r-Remel
1
593
Ṭılsımāt bi’l-Fārisī
1
594
Kitābü’r-Remel
1
595
Kitāb fī ‘İlm-i Cerri’l-Esḳāl
1
Risale fi İlm-i Cerri'l-Eskal ve Nahviha mine'l-Acâib
440-6
596
Şerḥ-i Şeceret-i Baṭlamyos
1
597
Mecmū‘a-i Resā’il fi’l-Hey’e
1
598
Risāle-i Dürrü’l-Aḥkām-ı Ṭāli‘ bi’l-Fārisī
1
599
Muḳaddime-i Ūlā fi’n-Naḥv
1
560
Şerḥ-i Eşkālü’t-Te’sīs
1
561
Şerḥ-i Çaġmunī me‘a Hāşiye-i
1
562
Cāmi‘u’l-Aḥkām
1
563
Tuhfetü’l-Elbāb ve Netīcetü’l-Efkār fi’n-Nucūm
1
Ḳalem defterinde isimleri mevcūd olup lakin el-yevm ḥīn-i tahrīrde kütühānede cisimleri mevcūd olmayan kitāblardır ki ẕikr olunur
564
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
565
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
1
566
Tefsīr-i Keşşāf li Zemahşerī
1
567
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
1
568
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
1
569
el-Ḳavā’id ve’ḍ-Ḍelāletü’l-Feżā’il
1
570
Ḥıṣnu’l-Ḥaṣīn li Muḥammed ibnü’l-Cezerī
1
571
Ṣaḥīḥ-i Müslim
1
572
Ṭarīḳat-i Muḥammediyye
1
99
573
El-Cild-i S̱ānī min Kitābü’n-Nehār fī Ġarībi’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
574
Mevżū‘ātü’l-‘Ulūm
1
575
Tevżīḥ fī Uṣūli’l-Fıḳh
1
576
Şerh-i Tenḳīḥ li ibn Kemāl
1
577
Dürer Ġürer
1
578
Hāşiye-I Dürer li ‘Azmī-zāde
1
579
El-cild-i Rābi‘ min Şerḥi’l-Kenz li Zeyla‘ī
1
580
Şerḥ-i Mülteḳā
1
581
Dürer Ġürer
1
582
Tenvīrü’l-Ebṣār
1
583
Veṣāyā-yı Ḥażret-i ‘Alī
1
584
Risāle-i Esmā-i Ḥüsnā
1
585
Mes̱nevī-i Şerīf
1
586
Şerḥ-i Fuṣūṣ-i Mes̱nevī
1
587
Risāle-i Ḥilye-i Haḳanī
1
588
A‘cebü’l-‘Acāyib
1
589
Mecmū‘a-i Mīr fi’l-Edeb
1
590
Eṭval ‘ale’t-Telḥīṣ li-‘Uṣām
1
591
Terceme-i Nūḥ Efendi
1
592
Külliyāt-ı Ebu’l-Beḳā
1
593
Luġat-ı Ḳāmūs
1
594
Şerḥü’t-Teẕhīb li Ḥabīṣī
1
595
Muḥtaṣar ‘ale’t-Telhīṣ li Taftāzānī
1
596
Şerḥ-i Telhīṣ
1
597
Hāşiye-i Ḥasan Çelebi
1
598
1
599
Muġni’l-Lebīb
1
600
Terceme-i ‘Uşşāḳiyye li ibn Ḳarasitān
1
100
Table 11 Collection of Ḥabeşī Meḥmed Ağa
No
Name in Waqfiye
Volume
Current Name
Catalog No
1
Tefsīr-i Ebussuʿūd
1
İrşadü'l-Akli's-Selim Ila Mezaya'l-Kitabi'l-Kerim
19
2
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
Envaru't-Tenzil Ve Esraru't-Te'vil
20
3
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
Envaru't-Tenzil Ve Esraru't-Te'vil
21
4
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
Envaru't-Tenzil Ve Esraru't-Te'vil
22
5
Tefsīr-i Nişābūrī
1
Garaibü'l-Kur'an Ve Regaibü'l-Furkan
24
6
Usūletü’l-Ḳurʾān
1
Es'iletü'l-Kur'an Ve Ecvibetüha
16
7
Hāşiye-i Saʿdī Efendi ʿalā Tefsīri’l- Ḳāḍī
4
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Ve Esrari't-Te'vil
33-34-35-36
8
Ḥāşiye-i ʿIṣām ʿalā Tefsīri’l-Ḳāḍī
1
Haşiye Ala Envari't-Tenzil Li'l-Beyzavi
37
9
Ḥāşiye-i Keşf ʿale’l-Keşşāf
3
El-Keşşaf An Muşkilatü'l-Keşşaf
43-44-45
10
Buhārī
1
11
Şerḥü’l-Buhārī
4
El-Kevakibü'd-Derari Fi Şerhi Sahihi'l-Buhari
57-58-59-60
12
Ḳıṭʿa mine’l-Buhārī
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih'ten Bir Parça
63
13
Ṣaḥīḥ-i Müslim
1
el-Camiu's-Sahih (Sahih-i Müslim)
65
14
Meṣābiḥ
1
-
15
Meşārıḳu’l-envār
1
Mesarik Al Envar An Nebeviyye Min Sihah Al Ahbar A
66
16
İḥyāʾü ʿUlūm
1
İhyaü Ulumi'd-Din
120
17
Fütūḥāt-ı Mekkiye
1
el-Fütuhatü'l-Mekkiyye Fi Ma'rifeti Esrari'l-Malikiyye Ve'l-M
125
18
Şirʿatü’l-islām
1
Mefatihu'l-Cinan Ve Mesabihu'l-Cenan Fi Şerhi Şir'ati'l-İsla
123
19
Ḳāḍīḥān
1
el-Fetavayi Kazihan
118
20
Tatarḫān
4
el-Fetave't-Tatarhaniyye
114-115-116-117
21
Zaḫīretü’l-fetāvā
1
-
22
Ḫulāṣatu’l-fetāvā
1
-
23
Bezzāziye
1
el-Fetave'l-Bezzaziyye
113
24
el-Hidāye
1
Fethu'l-Kadir Li'l-Acizi'l-Fakir Fi Şerhi'l-Hidaye
91-92-93
25
ʿİnāye şerḥü’l-Hidāye
1
-
26
Ġāyetü’l-beyān şerhü’l-Hidāye
2
Gayetü'l-Beyan Ve Nadiretü'l-Akran
97-98
27
Ġāyetü’l-beyān
6
Gayetü'l-Beyan Ve Nadiretü'l-Akran
99-100-101-102-103-105
28
Dürer Ġurer
1
Dürerü'l-Hukkam Fi Şerhi Ğureri'l-Ahkam
81
29
Dürer Ġurer
1
-
30
Viḳāye
1
-
31
Ṣadru’ş-şerīʿa
2
Sadrü'ş-Şeria Şerhu'l-Vikaye
109
101
32
Yaʿḳūb Paşa
1
-
33
Ḳudūrī
1
-
34
Nihāyetü’l-kifāye
1
-
35
İbnü’l-hümām
3
Fethu'l-Kadir Li'l-Acizi'l-Fakir Fi Şerhi'l-Hidaye
91-92-93
36
İnāye
1
El-Inaye Fi Şerhi'l-Vikaye
87
37
Kenz
1
Kenzü'd-Dakaik
110
38
Şerḥü’l-Kenz li’z-Zeylaî
2
Tebyinü'l-Hakaik Fi Şerhi Kenzi'd-Dakaik
84
39
Ḫulāṣatu şerḥi’l-Ḳudūri
1
-
40
Sirācü’l-Muṣallī
1
Siracü'l Musalli
82
41
Şerḥü Munyeti’l-muṣallī
1
Ğunyetü'l-Mütemelli Fi Şerhi Münyeti'l-Musalli
80
42
Tercüme-i Ṣadru’ş-şerīʿa
1
-
43
Mecmaʿu’l-baḥreyn
1
Mecmau'l-Bahreyn Ve Mülteka'n-Nehreyn
111
44
İrşād
1
El-İrşad Fi Şerhi'l-Fikhi'l-Ekber
72
45
Tavżīḥ
1
-
46
Telvīḥ
1
-
47
Ḥasan Çelebī Ḥāşiyetü’t-Telvīḥ
1
Haşiye Ale't-Telvih
71
48
Şerḥü’l-Menār li-İbni’l-Melek
1
-
49
Ferāʾiż
1
-
50
Şerḥü Ferāʾiż
1
Şerhu'l-Feraizi's-Siraciyye
119
51
Mevāhibü’l-ledünnīye
1
El-Mevahibü'l-Ledünniyye Bi'l-Minahi'l-Muhammediyye
150
52
Miftāḥu’s-saʿāde
1
Miftahu's-Saade
112
53
Bostānu’l-ʿārifīn
1
-
54
Mes̱nevī
1
-
55
Nefeḥātü’l-üns
1
-
56
Fārisī ve ʿArabī resāʾil fī’t-taṣavvuf
1
-
57
Mecmūʿa
1
-
58
Tenbīhü’l-ġāfilīn
1
Tenbihü'l-Gafilin
127
59
Faṣlü’l-hiṭāb
1
Faslü'l-Hitab Fi'l-Muhadarat
126
60
Miftāḥ
1
-
61
Miftāḥ mine’l-ḳısmu’s̱-s̱ālis̱
1
-
62
Şerḥü’l-miftāḥ li Seyyīd eş-Şerīf
1
El-Misbah Fi Şerhi'l-Kismi's-Salis Mine'l-Miftah
157
63
Şerḥü’l-miftāḥ li Saʿdeddīn
1
-
64
Muṭavvel
1
-
65
Muhtaṣar
1
-
66
Şerḥü’l-Mevāḳıf
1
Şerhu'l-Mevakif
135
67
Şerḥü’l-Maḳāṣıd
1
Şerhu'l-Makasid
134
68
Meṭāliʿü’l-enẓār
1
Metaliu'l-Enzar fi Şerhi Tavalii'l-Envar
133
69
Ḥāşiyetü Ḥasan Çelebī ʿalā Şerḥi’l-Mevāḳıf
1
Haşiye ala Şerhi'l-Mevakif
131
70
Mesʿūd maʿa ʿİmād
1
Şerhu'l-Adabü's-Semerkandi
163
71
Ḥāşiyetu Maṭāliʿ
1
-
72
Ḳāmūs
1
el-Kamusü'l-Muhit ve'l-Kabusü'l-Vasit
190
73
Ḳāmūs
1
-
102
74
Ṣıḥaḥ-ı Cevherī
1
es-Sihah fi'l-Lüğa
187
75
Muḫtāru’ṣ-Ṣıḥāḥ
1
-
76
Aḫterī
1
-
77
Aḫterī
1
-
78
Mufaṣṣal
1
-
79
Rażī
1
-
80
Rażī
1
-
81
Seyyīd ʿAbdullāh
1
-
82
Çārperdī
1
Şerhu'ş-Şafiye
180
83
Çārperdī
1
Şerhu'ş-Şafiye
181
84
Şerḥü Ḳavāʿid-i iʿrāb
1
-
85
1
El-Camiu's-Sahih (Sahih-i Müslim)
64
86
1
El-Kafi Fi Şerhi'l-Vafi Fi'l-Fikh
74
87
1
Fütuhü'l-Mücahidin Li-Tervihi Kulubi'l-Müşahidi
122
88
1
Haşiye Ala Şerhi't- Tecridi'l-Cedid Li-Ali El-Kuşi
132
89
1
Tahrirü'l-Kavaidi'l-Mantikiyye Fi Şerhi'ş-Şemsiyye
145
90
1
Şerh-i Divan-ı Hafiz
148
91
1
Mukaddimetü Ebu'l-Leys Semerkandi
149
92
1
El-Misbah Fi Şerhi'l-Kismi's-Salis Mine'l-Miftah
157
93
1
Şerhu'l-Kafiye
172
103
Table 12 ‘Abbās Ağa’s waqf in Aynasor and İstanbul
No
Name
Volume
Waqf Place
1
Muṣḥaf
3
2
Muṣḥaf
5
3
Muṣḥaf
14
4
Kimyā-yı Sa‘ādet
1
5
Seydī ‘Alīzāde
1
6
Türkī Ebussu‘ūd Fetevāsı
1
7
Hidāye
1
8
Mülteḳā
1
9
Cevāhirü’l-Fıḳh
1
10
Muḳaddime-i Ġaznevī
1
11
Ḳāḍīhan
1
12
Dürer Ġürer
1
13
Dürer Ġürer
1
14
Ṣadru’ş-şeri‘a
1
15
Kūhistānī
1
16
Hidāye
13
17
Ekmel
23
18
Baḥr-i Rā’iḳ
12
19
Mülteḳā
2
20
Meşāriḳ
1
21
Meşāriḳ
1
22
Meşāriḳ-i ibn Melek
1
23
Meşāriḳ-i ibn Melek
1
24
Şerḥ-i Şifā
2
25
Müşḳātü’l-Meṣābiḥ
1
26
el-İ‘tīṣām
1
27
Naḥv
1
28
Mollā Cāmi
1
29
Şerḥ-i Kāfiye
1
30
Şerḥ-i Merāḥ
1
31
Tārīh-i ibn Halliḳān
1
32
Nefehātü’l-Üns
1
33
Ebu’l-Leys̱ Tefsīri
4
34
Tefsīr-I Nişāburī
2
35
Leṭā’if
1
36
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
37
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
38
Ḳāḍī Zekeriyyā
1
39
Tefsīr-i Medāriḳ
1
104
40
Ahi Çelebi
1
41
Ṣarf
1
42
Şevāhid-i Nübüvve
1
43
*
1
105
Table 13 ‘Abbās Ağa’s Endowment in Egypt (
No
Name
Volume
1
Ḳāḍīhan
1
2
Ṣadru’ş-şeri‘a
1
3
Dürer Ġürer
1
4
Hidāye
1
5
Şerḥü’l-Münye
1
6
Risāle-i Nūḥ Efendi
1
7
Muḳaddime-i Ġaznevī
1
8
Şerh-i Reciyye fi’l-Ferā’iż
1
9
Şerhü’l-Meşārıḳ
1
10
Mecmū‘a-i Mevā‘iẓ
1
11
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
12
Eczā-i Şerīfe
60
13
Türkī Ta‘bīr-i Şerīf
1
14
Ṭabaḳātü’l-Evliyā
1
15
Hulāsātü’l-Vifāḳī [Vefā]
1
16
Hāşiye li Aḥmed Çelebi
1
17
Tārīh-i ibn Kes̱īr
2
18
Ravżatü’l-Ekber
1
19
Tevārīh-i Āl-i ‘Os̱mān
1
20
Ḳıra‘ātü’l-Evrād
1
21
Ahlāḳ-ı Ālā’I
1
22
Kimyā-i Sa‘ādet
1
23
Cāmī
1
24
Şerḥ-i Menātıḳu’l-Ḥar
1
25
Tefsīr-i Ebu’l-Leys̱
1
26
Şerḥü’l-Mücāz fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
27
Ẕākirāt fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
106
Table 14 Ḥacı Beşīr Ağa’s tereke
No
Name
Volume
Notes
1
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
7
5 cild ḥareme 2 cild silaḥdāra
2
Du‘ā-nāme
3
ḥareme
3
Kütüb ve Resā’il
30
2 cildi ḥareme
4
Muraḳḳa Ḳıṭ‘a
1
5
Du‘ā-nāme
6
6
Tefsīr-i Keşşāf
1
Revān kütübhānesine
7
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī Beyżāvī
2
8
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
9
Tefsīr-i Ebussu‘ūd
1
10
Tefsīr-i Necmeddīn
1
11
Tefsīr-i ibn Naḳīb
1
12
Tefsīr cild-i evvel cild-i s̱ānī
2
13
Tefsīr-i Rāġıb
1
14
Tefsīr-i S̱eḳaleyn
1
15
Tefsīr-i Türkī
3
16
Şerḥ-i Sūre-i Neb’e
1
17
Ḳavā’idü’ṣ-Ṣuver
1
18
Keşf ‘ale’l-Keşşāf
1
19
Cāmī‘ü’l-Müfredāṭü’l-Ḳur’ān
1
20
Delā’ilü’l-Hayrāt
1
21
Meṭāli‘u’l-Mirāt Şerḥ-i Delā’ilü’l-Hayrāt
1
Revān odasına
22
Şemā’il-i Şerīf
1
23
Şifā-i Şerīf
1
Revān odasına
24
Şerḥ-i Evrād-ı Netīce
1
25
Nıṣf-ı Evvel Birmāvī fī Şerḥ-i Buḥārī
1
26
Şerḥ-i Mişkāt li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
5
27
Teysīr Şerḥ-i Cāmi‘ü’ṣ-Ṣagīr
1
28
Mecmu‘-i Eḥādīs̱
1
29
Müte‘alliḳ fi’l-Ḥadīs̱
1
30
Şerḥ-i Harf-i A‘ẓam li ‘Alī el-Ḳārī
1
31
Kitāb-ı Mūġaẓa
1
32
Cüz’-i eveel mine’l Mūġaza
1
33
Mevżū’ ‘ale’l-‘ulūm
1
34
Tefsirü’l-vuṣūl li Cāmi‘u’l-Uṣūl
1
35
Hidāye
1
Revān odasına
36
Dürer ve Ġürer
1
37
Şerḥ-i Eşbāhü’n-Neẓā’ir
1
107
38
Şerḥ-i Hidāye li ibn Hümmām
4
39
Muḳaddime-i Ebu’l-Leys̱
1
40
Terceme-i Mülteḳā
2
41
Fetāvā-yı Ẓahiriyye
1
42
Fetāvā-yı Ṣ***
1
43
Mefātiḥu’ṣ-Ṣalāt
1
44
Terceme-i Tuhfetü’l-Mülūk
1
45
Şerḥ-i Birgili
1
46
Celāl Ḳarabaġī Ḥalhālī
1
47
***
1
48
Kitābü’l-Hendese
1
49
İsti‘āre
1
50
Kitābü’l-Īżāḥ
1
51
Şerh-i Kāfiye
1
52
Ṣarf me‘a Şāfiye
1
53
Müsāmere bi’l-Ebrār
1
Revān odasına
54
Keşfü’l-Esrār
1
55
***
1
56
Mes̱nevī
1
57
Miftāḥü’l-Ebyāt
1
Revān odasına
58
Minḥācü’ṣ-Ṣādıḳiyye
1
59
Mecmū‘a Rāḥatü’ṣ-Ṣāliḥīn
1
60
Ḥiyevetü’l-Ḥayevān
1
61
Ḥiyevetü’l-Ḥayevān li Kenzī
1
62
Edebü’d-Dīn
1
63
*** Envār
1
64
Hulāṣatü’l-Vefā
1
65
Uṣūlü’l-Ḥikem
1
66
Naẓmüddīn
1
67
Sirācü’l-Mülūk
1
68
Tuhfetü’l-‘İyād
1
69
Mükāşefetü’l-Ḳulūb
1
70
Fuṣūl-i Ḥallü’l-‘Aḳd
1
71
Nüzhetü’n-Nāẓır
1
72
Nüzhetü’l-Enām
1
73
Resā’il-i İḥvānü’ṣ-Ṣafā
1
74
Temyīz fi’l-Ahlāḳ
1
75
Nefḥu’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
76
Kitābu’l-Ḳānī
2
77
Cild-i evvel Aġānī
1
78
Fuṣūlu’l-Bedāyi‘
1
79
Cemheretü’l-Kelām
1
108
80
Mizānü’l-Edeb
1
81
Aḳṣa’l-‘İreb
1
82
Esbāb-I Nüzūlü’l-Ḳur’ān ve Ḳıṣāṣu’l-Enbiyā
1
83
Kitāb-ı Ḳıṣāṣ
1
84
Tārīh ve Siyer
4
85
Siyer-i Kebīr
1
86
Şerḥ-i Siyer-i KEbīr
1
87
Cāmi‘u’s-Siyer
1
88
Manẓūme Ġazvet-i Bedir
1
89
Sīretü’l-Esāmī
6
90
Nevādirü’l-Ḥikāye
1
91
Telhīṣ Tārīh
1
92
Tārīh-i İdrīs Bidlīsī
1
93
Tārīh-i Münteḥab
1
94
Cihān-nümā bā-haṭṭ-ı Kātib Çelebī
1
Revān odasına
95
Ḳānūn-i Dünyā
1
96
Cild-i evvel min **
Revān odasına
97
İrtişāfü’ẓ-Ẓurūf
1
98
Kitāb-ı Ems̱āl
1
Revān odasına
99
Netāyicü’l-Fünūn
1
100
Netīcetü’z-Zemān
1
101
Mefā** el-Simā
1
102
Esāsü’l-İḳtibās
1
103
Meḥāżıru’l-Evā’il
1
104
Ṭabaḳātü’l-Memālik
1
105
Tezkire-i Dāvud
1
106
Mirḳātü’l-Mir’āt
1
107
*** esḥār
1
108
Enḥāfu’l-
1
109
Şemsü’l-Ma‘ārif
1
110
Maḳāmātü’l-Berdiye
1
111
**
1
112
**
1
113
Kitābü’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
114
Mecmū‘a fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
115
Risāle fi’ṭ-Ṭıb
1
116
Şerḥu’l-Ḳāmūs
1
117
Baṣma Luġat-ı VanḲulı
1
118
Cild-i Sānī min ** el-Luġat
1
119
Lehçeeü’l-Luġat li Es‘ad Efendi
2
Revān odasına
120
Mefātiḥu’l-Ġayb
1
121
Kitābü’l-Bāri‘
1
109
122
Deḳāyiḳ-i Ahīr
1
123
*** ‘alā Kelām
1
124
Şerh-i Ḳaṣīde-i Bürde
3
125
Şerḥ-i Hāfıẓ li Sūdī
1
126
Kitāb-ı Hamīs
1
127
Mecmū ‘a-i Müfīd
1
128
Mecmū ‘a ve Resā’il
20
129
Cerīde
2
110
Table 15 Maḳtūl (Moralı) Beşīr Ağa’s tereke
No
Name
Volume
Notes
1
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Kūfī haṭṭla bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥażreti ‘Os̱mān
Revān odasına
2
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Kūfī haṭṭla bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥażreti ‘Alī
3
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
teslīm-i ḥarem
4
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
5
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
teslīm-i ḥarem
6
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā Dede
teslīm-i ḥarem
7
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
teslīm-i ḥarem me‘a inci püsküllü kīse
8
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
ikisi teslīm-i ḥarem
9
Yāsin-i Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
me‘a incili kīse teslīm-i ḥarem
10
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
bā haṭṭ-ı Kütahyalı
teslīm-i ḥarem
11
Kebīr Ḳıṭ‘a Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Revān odasına
12
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
me‘a inci püsküllü kīse
teslīm-i ḥarem
13
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Şeyh olmaḳ gerekdür
teslīm-i harem
14
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
teslīm-i ḥarem
15
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammed
16
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Arab-zāde
17
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı kūfī
Revān odasına
18
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
19
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şükrullāh
Revān odasına
20
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ahmed ibn ‘Alī Sünbūlī
21
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Abdurraḥmān
teslīm-i ḥarem
22
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Halīl
İki cild ve ṣaġīr ḳıṭ‘a me‘a incili kīse
23
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
3
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭla
Revān odasına
111
24
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
4
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
25
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Hocazāde
26
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
3
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
27
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ Halīl
28
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
teslīm-i ḥarem
29
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
ṣaġīr ḳıṭ‘a
Revān odasına
30
Yāsin-i Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
teslīm-i ḥarem
31
Cüz’-i Neb’e
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
32
Du‘ā-nāme
1
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Os̱mān Efendi
33
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
8
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭla
34
Yāsin-i Şerīf
1
Sīm varaḳ üzere ḥak olunmuş
teslīm-i ḥarem
35
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed Mīr
teslīm-i ḥarem
36
Ḥilye-i Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
Kütübhāneye
37
Cerīde
30
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
38
Ḳıṭa‘āt
50
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ ile
39
Eczā-i Ḳıṭa ‘āt
42
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ ile
40
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ramażān Efendi
teslīm-i ḥarem
41
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
2
Kebīr Ḳıṭ‘a
Kütübhāneye
42
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā Dede
teslīm-i ḥarem
43
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Yāḳūt
44
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
45
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ Aḥmed
teslīm-i ḥarem
46
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Seyyid ‘Abdullāh
teslīm-i ḥarem
47
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā Dede
48
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed
Revān odasına
49
Du‘ā-nāme
2
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
teslīm-i ḥarem
50
Du‘ā-nāme
1
bā haṭṭ-ı İbrāhīm Ḳonevī
51
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed ‘Ārif
siyāh üzere altun ile mektūb
112
teslīm-i ḥarem
52
Cerīde
3
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ ile
53
Muharrec
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
54
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dede
55
Cerīde
2
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Os̱mān Efendi
56
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı İsmā‘īl Efendi
57
Ḥurūfāt
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī Halīfe
58
Muraḳḳa‘
5
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
59
Cüz’
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
teslīm-i ḥarem
60
Cerīde
3
bā haṭṭ-ı Seyyid ‘Abdullāh
Kütübhāneye
61
Muṣavver Cerīde
1
62
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Alī ibn ‘Abdullāh
Revān odasına
63
Ḳıṭa‘āt
184
Mu‘teber haṭṭ ile
Revān odasına
64
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
4
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
teslīm-i ḥarem
65
Ḥurūfāt
1
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ ile
Kütübhāneye
66
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Ṣadef cildli bā haṭṭ-ı Emīr Efendi
teslīm-i ḥarem
67
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Hocazāde
68
‘Amel-i Eskidārī ve bir Meşḳ
4
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ ile
69
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
teslīm-i ḥarem
70
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Naḳḳaşzāde
71
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Müfessirü’l-Fārisī
Revān odasına
72
Du‘ā-nāme
11
Ḥüsn-i haṭṭ
teslīm-i ḥarem
73
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
Ṣaġīr ḳıṭ‘a
Revān odasına
74
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
4
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Acem kebīr kıṭ‘a
75
Cüz’ mine’l-Muṣḥaf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı kūfī
76
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Yāḳūt Musta‘ṣımī
Revān odasına
77
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
teslīm-i ḥarem
113
78
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Birgili
teslīm-i ḥarem
79
Du‘ā-nāme
1
bā haṭṭ-ı
80
Evrād
1
bā haṭṭ-ı İbrāhīm bin Ḥamza
81
Ḳaṣīde-i Bürde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
82
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Maḥmūd
83
Münācāt
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
84
Sūre-i Kehfden Cüz’-i Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
85
Sūre-i Kehfden Cüz’-i Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
86
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
87
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Abdülvehhāb
88
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş Muḥammed
89
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Hāfıẓ Halīl
90
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Hamdullāh
91
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed Mīr
92
Cüz’-i Neb’e
1
bā haṭṭ-ı İbrāhīm
93
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Nureddīn
94
Du‘ā-nāme
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed ‘Arab-zāde
95
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
9
bi-lā ketebe
96
Du‘ā-nāme
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Aḥmed Şerīf
97
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Ġayr-ı mu‘reb
Revān odasına
98
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā ibn ‘Ömer
teslīm-i ḥarem
99
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı İsmā‘īl Efendi
Revān odasına
100
En‘ām-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḳaraḥiṣārī
teslīm-i ḥarem
101
Cerīde
1
Dede haṭṭıyla
Revān odasına
102
Cerīde
20
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
103
Ḳıṭa‘āt
80
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
104
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeyh
105
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
106
Cerīde ve Ḥurūfāṭ
25
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
107
Ḳıṭa‘āt ve Muharrec
146
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ ‘Os̱mān
108
Ḳıṭa‘āt
4
bā haṭṭ-ı İsmā‘īl Efendi
109
Cerīde
4
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Ömer Efendi
110
Cerīde
4
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥaffāf-zāde
111
Cerīde
7
bā haṭṭ-ı İsmā‘īl Efendi
112
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā Efendi
113
Cerīde
5
bā haṭṭ-ı Emīr Efendi
114
114
Ḳıṭa‘āt
16
Ḳoca İsmā‘īl Efendi haṭṭıyla
115
Cerīde
16
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
116
Ḳıṭ‘a ve muharrec
47
bā haṭṭ-ı Dervīş ‘Alī
117
Ḳıṭa‘āt
7
bā haṭṭ-ı Şeker-zāde
118
Ḳıṭa‘āt
12
bā haṭṭ-ı Muṣṭafā Eyyūbī
119
Cerīde
3
bā haṭṭ-ı Eyyūbī
120
Ḳıṭa‘āt
44
bā haṭṭ-ı Emīr Efendi
121
Muharrec ve Ḳıṭa‘āt ve Du‘ā-nāme
46
bā haṭṭ-ı Dede
122
Cüz’-i Şerīf
6
Kūfī haṭṭla
123
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Berber-zāde
Revān odasına
124
Cerīde
2
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥüseyin Çelebi
125
Cerīde ve Du‘ā-nāme
4
bā haṭṭ-ı Muḥammed Rāsim
126
Ḳıṭa‘āt ve Muharrec
89
bā haṭṭ-ı Hocazāde
127
Cerīde
9
bā haṭṭ-ı Hocazāde
128
Cerīde
3
bā haṭṭ-ı ta‘līḳ
129
Ḳıṭa‘āt
10
bā haṭṭ-ı Naṣūḥ Paşa-zāde
130
Cerīde
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Ḥāfıẓ Muḥammed
131
Sūre-i Kehf
2
bā haṭṭ-ı ‘Os̱mān Efendi
teslīm-i harem
132
Cerīde
4
Mu‘teber haṭṭla
Revān odasına
133
Muharrec ve Ḳıṭa‘āt
302
Mu‘teber haṭṭla
134
Muṣavver Muraḳḳa‘āt
2
135
Ḳıṭa‘āt
27
Mu‘teber haṭṭla
136
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Aṣḥāb-ı Kirām
137
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
bā haṭṭ-ı Hocazāde
teslīm-i ḥarem
138
Tefsīr-i Fārisī Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
Revān odasına
139
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
140
Kütüb ve Resā’il ve Ḳıṭa‘āt
3252
teslīm-i harem
115
Table 16 ‘Abbās Ağa’s tereke
No
Name
Volume
Notes
1
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
1
3300 ġurūş
2
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
3
1265 ġurūş
3
Muṣḥaf-ı Şerīf
3
600 ġurūş
4
Evrād-ı Şerīf
3
50 ġurūş
5
Kütüb-i Muḥtelife
59
18000 ġurūş
116
Table 17 Yūsuf Ağa’s tereke
No
Name
Volume
Notes
1
Muṣavver Şehnāme
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
2
Türkī Fīrūz Şāh
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
3
Terceme-i Me‘alimü’t-Tenzīl
2
Enderūn’daki odasından
4
Orta Ḳıṭ‘a Muṣḥaf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
5
Muṣavver Muraḳḳa‘
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
6
Evrād-ı Şerīf
8
Enderūn’daki odasından
7
Muṣavver Ḳıṣaṣ-ı Enbiyā
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
8
Ṣaġīr ḳıṭ‘a kitāb
3
Enderūn’daki odasından
9
Nā-temām Türkī Tefsīr
2
Enderūn’daki odasından
10
Feraḥ-nāme
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
11
Otuz varaḳ Kelām-ı Şerīf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
12
Tārīh-i ‘Ālī
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
13
Diğer Kelām-ı Şerīf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
14
Türkī Tārīh
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
15
Hocazāde haṭṭıyla Kelām-ı Şerīf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
16
Mir’atu’l-‘Uşşāḳ
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
17
Diğer kebīr ḳıṭ‘a Muṣḥaf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
18
Türkī Tārīh
3
Enderūn’daki odasından
19
‘Os̱mān Çelebi haṭṭıyla Muṣḥaf
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
20
Fütūhāt-ı Şām
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
21
Cevāhirü’l-Ġarā’īb
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
22
Gülistān-ı Ṣa‘dī
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
23
Me’alimü’t-Ta’ayyün
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
24
Türkī Kitāb
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
25
Melāz-ı Müte‘ayyin
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
26
Yūsuf u Züleyhā
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
27
Nā-temām Türkī Tefsīr
2
Enderūn’daki odasından
28
Envārü’l-‘Aşıḳīn
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
29
Türkī Tārīh-i Fezleke
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
30
Tārīh-i Peçevī
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
31
Külliyāt-ı Aḥmed Paşa
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
32
Türkī bir miḳdār tefsīr
1
Enderūn’daki odasından
33
Resā’il-i mütenevvi‘a ba‘ż-ı dīvān
23
Enderūn’daki odasından
34
Fütūhāt-ı Şām
2
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
35
Fīrūz Şāh
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
36
Mi‘rāc-ı Nebevī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
37
Leṭāyif-nāme-i Cinānī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
38
Ḳıṣaṣ-ı Enbiyā
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
39
Tārīh-i Ṭāberī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
40
Türkī Tefsīr-i Şerīf
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
41
Taṣavvuf
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
42
Şeyhzāde ‘Alī, el-Ḳāḍī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
43
Tefsīr-i Ḳāḍī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
44
Ṭabaḳāt-ı Ṣūfiye
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
45
Tārīh-i Şāhī
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
46
Türkī Risāle
3
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
47
Türkī Mev‘iża
3
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından
48
Türkī Tefsīr, bir miḳdar
1
Sırça Sarāy’daki odasından