Between Two Worlds Kafadar.pdf

in a continuum with the fourteenth-century Persian chronicles of the Karamanids
and of Kadi Burhaneddin * , who were, in many ways, more faithful to Seljuk
traditions than the Ottomans ever were.
103. This anonymous work is reproduced, apparently verbatim, in the Oxford
Anonymous manuscript and (from the latter) in the Cihannuma * of Nesri * . See
Inalcik * , "Rise of Ottoman Historiography" and Ménage, "Beginnings:
104. First noted by A. Karahan, "XV. Yüzyil Osmanli Dinî Edebiyatinda Mesneviler
ve Abdülvasî Çelebi'nin Halilnâme'si," Estratto dagli Atti del III Congresso di
Studi Arabi e Islamici ... 1966 (Naples, 1967). The full text is given in Ayhan
Guldas * , "Fetret Devri'ndeki Sehzadeler * Mücadelesini Anlatan Ilk * Manzum
Vesika," Türk Dünyasi Arastirmalari * 72 (June 1991):99-110.
105. E. H. Ayverdi, Osmanli Mi'mârîsinde Çelebi ve II. Sultan Murad Devri,
806-855 (1403-1451) (Istanbul, 1972), 195-96. It is possible that he was simply
enlarging or restoring (was it perhaps destroyed by Timur's forces?) a mosque
built earlier by Orhan * , but Ertogril * was after all Orhan's * grandfather
and the principality was small enough for Sogut * to be meaningful at that time.
Mehmed * I's interest in Sogut * was the only occasion when Osman's descendants
mined their attention to that little hometown of theirs in Anatolia until the
eighteenth century.
106. On these "calendars" see Osman Turan, ed., Istanbul'un Fethinden Önce
Yazilmis * Takvimler (Ankara, 1954); Nihal Atsiz, ed., Osmanli Tarihine Ait
Takvimler (Istanbul, 1961); V. L. Ménage, "The 'Annals of Murad * II,'" BSOAS
39(1976):570-84.
107. On the "imperial project" and its critique as embodied in Popular legends
about the history of Constantinople and of the Hagia Sophia, see S. Yerasimos,
La fondation de Constantinople et de Sainte-Sophie dans les traditions turques
(Paris, 1990). Though my own understanding of the interrelationships of the
fifteenth-century chronicles is somewhat different from that of Yerasimos, I
agree with his general argument.
108. The articles by Inalcik * and Ménage in Historians of the Middle East, ed.
B. Lewis and E M. Holt (London, 1962), are indispensable beginnings for any work
on early Ottoman historiography. While they deal primarily with the
interrelationships of the early texts, these articles also contain many pointers
about the politico-ideological context in which the chronicles must be
understood. Also see Inalcik * , Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar
(Ankara, 1954); and idem, "Mehmed * I," and "Murad * II," IA * , s.v. On the
incorporation of various antinomian movements into the Bektasiyya * , see Irene
Melikoff, Sur les traces du Soufisme turc (Istanbul, 1992); and Ahmet
Karamustafa, God's Unruly Friends (Salt Lake City, 1994).
109. Naturally, not all scholars fit into this neat bipolar schema, which
nonetheless remains a useful and valid one for our discussion. Exceptions will
be mentioned in what follows.
110. Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans, 19.
111. This view of fifteenth-century Ottoman historiography, with the exception
of the notion of tribalism, is shared by Gibbons, Arnakis, Káldy-Nagy, Jennings,
Imber, and, to a large extent, Lindner.
112. V. L. Ménage, "The Menaqib * of Yakhshi * Faqih * ," BSOAS 26(1963):50-54.
113. Lindner, Nomads and Ottomans, 22.
114. Inalcik * , Fatih Devri; and idem, "The Policy of Mehmed II towards the
156