The Third Annual International Graduate Student Workshop ...

differentiate the mediated and the real sources, as he had no task to analyze or study
any fact, but just to retell the facts that have been already well-known.
This is quite a characteristic image also for Turkish historiography, when the
historiographs profiting successively one from another, create some mess that makes
difficult the defining of the main source. Nevertheless, the researchers have been able
to indicate some examples of Turkish historiography, which have been extremely
important for Yeremia’s History. I find unnecessary to put here the fragments that are
literally repeated in Qyomurchyan’s work. Yet, the resemblance between Qyomurchyan
and Turkish historiographs Lutfi and Solakzade (17 th century) is evident, or at least it is
clear that they have used the same sources. The next Turkish source that has been
used by Qyomurchyan, is the work “Fezleke” of 17 century’s famous historiograph
Katip Chelepi (Kâtip Çelebi), which is dedicated to the history of the Ottoman Empire in
1592 – 1657. Qyomurchyan shows an interesting taste choosing this historiograph, as
he is a realistic author, because he describes the 34 years of the included period of time
as witness. As it was shown by research, Qyomurchyan had some critical approach,
which is proved by those noticeable digressions present between him and his argued
sources. Actually, he used also other sources and had the chance to make choice
before giving his reliable confidence to any of them.
th
As we have mentioned above, Yeremia Chelepi has widely used also Armenian
sources, but instead of just enumerating them, I would like to concentrate on the fact of
applying Armenian national epos or its particular subjects bequeathed to all of us and
Qyomurchyan by Armenian historiography in History.
Thus, Turkish sources report contradictory information about sultan Bayezid II’s
(1481 - 1512) death and for the most part remain silent about the murder of the father
5