Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser: Disdain, Negligence and ... Halil İnalcık, “Power Relationships”, pp. 369–411. 7 Needless to say, the term Byzantine was coined by Renaissance

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�835�0_003

chapter 1

Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser: Disdain, Negligence and Appropriation of Byzantine Imperial Titulature in the Ottoman World

Hasan Çolak

Introduction

Titulature is one of the most vital tools for pre-modern states in terms of legiti-mising their authority not only for their own subjects but also for the polities they had contact with. Like any other medieval and early-Modern state, the titulature that the Ottomans used for themselves and for others cannot be seen as anything more than conscious choice. As Kafadar puts it, “we have to regard the fact that they (Ottomans) equated padişah and emperor,1 and placed the king below them, and called the Venetian doge beg not as coincidence but as conscious preference.”2 Accordingly, a group of studies have been devoted to the titulature that the Ottoman sultans used for themselves as a reflection of Ottoman sovereignty and legitimacy to rule.3 Those studies dealing with the

1 For more on this see Halil İnalcık, “Padişah”, Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 34 (2007), pp. 140–143.2 Cemal Kafadar, “Osmanlı Siyasal Düşüncesinin Kaynakları Üzerine Gözlemler”, Mehmet Ö.

Alkan, ed., Modern Türkiyeʾde Siyasi Düşünce, vol. i., Cumhuriyet eʾ Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyetʾin Birikimi (Istanbul: İletişim, 2001), p. 26.

3 For the larger context of Ottoman sovereignty, see Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial Household, 1400–1800 (London: Continuum, 2008). A fresh treatment of the issue of legitimisation can be found in the set of articles in Hakan K. Karateke and Maurus Reinkowski, eds. Legitimizing the Order: the Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005). The role of titulature in the legitimisation of Ottoman imperial authority has been analysed in Suraiya Faroqhi, “Die Legitimation der Osmanensultane: Zur Beziehung von Religion, Kunst und Politik im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert”, Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien, 2 (1989), pp. 49–67, and Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Sultanlarının Unvanları (Titülatür) ve Egemenlik Kavramı”, in Halil İnalcık (ed.), Osmanlılar: Fütuhat, İmparatorluk, Avrupa ile İlişkiler (Istanbul: Timaş, 2010), pp. 115–123. For a recent study of the topic with particular focus on the flexibility of the Ottoman imperial ideology to meet the diverse backgrounds of its subjects, see Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, “Khan, caliph, tsar and imperator: the multiple identities of the Ottoman sultan”, Peter Fibiger Bang and

6 çolak

international correspondence largely focus on the Ottoman-Habsburg impe-rial struggle which went hand in hand with titulature, as observed by İnalcık.4 Case studies of respective analyses of Ottoman-Polish titulature5 and the diplomacy of titulature endorsed by the Crimean rulers vis-à-vis Russia and the Ottoman Empire constitute other examples involving the Ottomans’ use of titulature in international politics.6

The Byzantine/Roman7 imperial tradition presents a very interesting case study for mechanisms of disdain, negligence, and appropriation in the Ottoman world. Although a clearly-defined consciousness as in the above-quotation from Kafadar had not yet been formed in the early Ottoman historiography, in which the representative of this genre referred to the foreign figures mainly with their names or the way they sounded—hence Lazoğlu for the Serbian polity with reference to the Serbian king Lazar or kral with reference to the Serbian term for king, and Rim-Papa or Papos for the Pope, etc.—they can by no means be regarded in complete ignorance of the importance of titulature in this period. The major problem with carrying out such a study, however, lies in the fact that there is not enough official documentation that would enable a full-fledged analysis of Byzantine-Ottoman diplomatic relations through titulature. Moreover, such major sources as the kanunname of Mehmed ii and

Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, eds., Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 175–193.

4 For İnalcık, “the evolution of the titulature used for the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire is particularly interesting for it followed closely the changes which occurred in the actual power relationships between the Ottoman and Habsburg states.” Halil İnalcık, “Power rela-tionships between Russia, the Crimea and the Ottoman Empire as reflected in titulature”, in Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, Gilles Veinstein, S. Enders Wimbush (eds.), Passé turco-tatar, présent soviétique: études offertes à Alexandre Bennigsen (Louvain: Editions Peeters; Paris: Éditions de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1986), p. 382.

5 Jan Reychman and Ananiasz Zajaczkowski, Osmanlı-Türk Diplomatikası El Kitabı, trans. Mehmet Fethi Atay (Istanbul: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993), pp. 200–211, 215–219.

6 Halil İnalcık, “Power Relationships”, pp. 369–411.7 Needless to say, the term Byzantine was coined by Renaissance scholars and the Ottomans

did not use a separate term for things Byzantine during the Early Modern period. In both rejecting and appropriating the Roman/Byzantine legacy, the term used is rumi and its derivatives. For two seminal works on this topic, see Salih Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği: 14.–17. Yüzyıllarda Rum/Rumi Aidiyet ve İmgeleri (Istanbul: Kitap, 2004), and Cemal Kafadar, “A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum”, Muqarnas 24 (2007), pp. 7–25.

7Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser

compendia as Münşeʿat of Feridun Bey do not have sections on the titulature that is used by the Ottomans in reference to Byzantine emperors.8 Therefore, the main focus will be placed on the early Ottoman intellectuals’ writings in addition to late and post-Byzantine Greek historiography and available documentary evidence. Drawing on three major terms, tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser/kaysar which were used by the early Ottoman historians in reference to Byzantine imperial tradition, this essay will also seek to explain the way the Ottomans represented the Byzantine imperial tradition in comparison with the way the Ottoman imperial enterprise and titulature took its shape over centuries. Although these terms have significant political connotations, unfor-tunately they have not received adequate scholarly attention from a Turco-Byzantine political perspective. Whilst no one has written on the implications of the term fasiliyus from the perspective of a Byzantine-Ottoman encounter, only a handful of historians devoted their energies to explain the term tekfur.9 References to the Ottoman sultans’ use of the title kayser generally attracted attention from the perspective of the imperial project of Mehmed ii10 and Habsburg-Ottoman competition over Roman imperial legacy during the reign of Süleyman.11

8 Mehmed’s lawbook contains only the titulature to be used for Ottoman dignitaries. Abdülkadir Özcan, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Kanunname-i Al-i Osman (Tahlil ve Karşılaştırmalı Metin) (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2003), pp. 22–26. Feridun Bey’s list for the titles and salutations for foreign rulers, on the other hand, does not include Byzantine emperors. Feridun Bey, Mecmuʿ-i Münşeʿatüʾs-Selatin (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1847), vol. i, pp. 8–13.

9 For an updated historiography, and analysis see Alexios G. Savvides, “On the Origins and Connotation of the Term ‘Tekfur’ in Byzantine-Turkish Relations”, Byzantion, 71/2 (2001), pp. 451–461. See also Alexios G. Savvides, “Tekfur”, Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (2000), vol. x, p. 413, and Alexios G. Savvides, “Τεκφούρ: οι χριστιανοί ηγεμόνες και στρατιωτικοί αρχηγοί του βυζαντινο-τουρκικού μετώπου (13ος-15ος αιώνες) [Tekfour, Christian rulers and mili-tary leaders of Byzantine-Turkish frontier (13th–15th centuries)]”, Vyzantiaka 17 (1997), pp. 365–368.

10 Halil İnalcık, “Mehmed ii”, Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, 28 (2003), pp. 395–407.11 Gilles Veinstein, “Charles Quint et Soliman le Magnifique: le Grand défi”, in Gilles

Veinstein, ed., Autoportrait du Sultan Ottoman en Conquérant (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 2010), pp. 239–253. Gülru Necipoğlu presents the Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry with regard to the representation of power in arts. Gülru Necipoğlu, “Süleyman the Magnificent and the rep-resentation of power in the context of Ottoman-Habsburg-Papal rivalry,” The Art Bulletin 71 (1989), pp. 401–27.

8 çolak

Definitions and Political Connotations

As far as the origins of the term fasiliyus are concerned, there is no doubt that it is the transliterated form of the Byzantine term for the emperor, basileus.12 Initiated by emperor Heraclius in 629,13 this title was reserved only for the Byzantine emperor in Byzantine political ideology. Among the late and post-Byzantine historians, only a small minority used the term basileus for the Ottoman sultans while the majority of this small minority consists of such fig-ures as Kritovoulos and George of Trebizond who served the Ottoman sultan Mehmed himself. George of Trebizond even produced eulogies for Mehmed in one of which he used such titles as autokrator and basileus basileon (emperor of emperors) for Mehmed and drew on such themes as Mehmed’s divinity using Byzantino-Christian terminology.14 On the other hand, such few intel-lectuals as Chalkokondyles used this title to refer to the Ottoman sultan as a criticism of Byzantine emperors, whom the latter historian called basileus of Hellenes.15 At least two decades after 1453, the Ottoman sultan is referred to as basileus in the patriarchal documents as well. In a recently-discovered synodal register of 1474, for example, the concept of basileus is retained and attributed to the Ottoman sultan.16

Possibly in accordance with the way the Byzantine emperors called them-selves, medieval Arab and Persian historians such as Ibn Bibi have largely used the term fasiliyus with reference to the Byzantine emperor. In addition, that title also appears in the formulas of official letters prepared by Muhammad

12 Dimitri Korobeinikov, “Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium and the Mamluk Sultanate in the Fourteenth century”, al-Masaq, 16/1 (2004), p. 55.

13 Irfan Shahid, “Heraclius ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 34/35 (1980–1981), p. 225.

14 For but one example, see George of Trebizond, Collectanea Trapezuntiana: texts, docu-ments, and bibliographies of George of Trebizond, ed. John Monfasani (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies in conjunction with the Renaissance Society of America, 1984), p. 528. For George’s treatise on the Divinity of Mehmed (whom he calls Manuel), see pp. 570–573.

15 Hasan Çolak, “Bizans Tarihyazıcılığında ‘Dönüşüm’: Laonikos Chalkokondylesʾte Bizanslı ve Osmanlı İmajı (1299–1402)”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15 (2008), pp. 333–353.

16 Dimitris G. Apostolopoulos, “Du sultan au basileus? Dilemmes politiques du Conquérant”, in Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople aux xive–xvie siècles: rupture et conti-nuité, actes du colloque international Rome, 5–6–7 décembre 2005 (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2007), pp. 245–246.


bin Hindushah Nakhchiwani in late 14th century (Dastur al-Katib).17 As will be shown further on, the term fasiliyus was used only by a handful of early Ottoman historians, who mostly preferred the term tekfur and its variants (tekvur, tekur, tekir etc.).

With regard to the origins of the term tekfur, there are two views, first of which suggests that it is the misspelled form of the name of the Byzantine emperor Nikiforos. So, instead of a dot above the first letter which stands for the letter n, and thus reads Nikifor (

), the authors put two dots which stands for the letter t, and reads tekfur (

). Therefore, according to this the-ory, the name of the Byzantine emperor Nikiforos turned out to be used as a generic title for the Byzantine emperors.18 The second view says that it comes from the Armenian term taghavor meaning crown-bearer.19 Of these two views, the second one associating the term tekfur with the Armenian taghavor has been largely accepted.20 According to such pre-Ottoman texts as Ibn Bibi, Ibn Battuta and the epic of Dede Korkud, the term tekfur was used to refer not only to the Byzantine emperors and princes, but also the local Byzantine frontier warfare leaders, commanders of akritai, the Komnenian emperors of Trebizond, and the kings of Lesser Armenia.21 As a political term, at least dur-ing the Ottoman period, tekfur has a demeaning connotation in terms of equal-ling the Byzantine emperors with their servants.22

Originally used for the pre-Constantinian emperors, and in line with the emperor Diocletian’s tetrarchy, the title caesar was used in reference to those junior emperors under an augustus. Until the eleventh century it was reserved primarily for the sons of an emperor.23 According to Pseudo-Kodinos, the offices of the palace appear in the following order: despot, sebastokrator, caesar, etc.24 From the 14th century onwards, the title caesar was chiefly used

17 Korobeinikov, “Diplomatic Correspondence”, p. 69, n. 25.18 Savvides, “On the Origins and Connotation”, pp. 452–453.19 Ibid., pp. 453–454.20 For a recent example see Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Beyliğiʾnin Kurucusu Osman Beg”,

Belleten, 261 (2007), p. 499.21 Savvides, “Tekfur”, p. 413.22 As İnalcık writes, “for the Ottomans they [Byzantine Emperors] were nothing more than

tributary tekvurs.” Halil İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar I (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995), p. 53, n. 262.

23 Alexander Kazhdan, “Caesar”, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. i. p. 363; John Bagnell Bury, The imperial administrative system in the ninth century, with a revised text of Kletorologion of Philotheos (London: Publication for the British Academy, 1911), p. 36.

24 Jean Verpeaux, ed., Traité des Offices: Introduction, texte et traduction (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1966): p. 300. The same text says that high

10 çolak

for foreign princes such as those of Vlachia, Thessaly, and Serbia. Kazhdan says on the basis of Moravcsik’s work that the Russian appropriation of the term as tsar was based on the Roman pattern.25 The same should also apply to Seljuks, Ottomans and Habsburgs. The title kayser as a reflection of Byzantine impe-rial tradition was obviously known and adopted among the Seljuks of Rum as epitomised in the name of a Seljuk prince named Kayserşah, recounted in Neşri’s26 and Yazıcızade’s work27 as well, symbolising both the Byzantine and Persian traditions.28 Similarly it was also adopted as a name among the Seljuk administrators as well.29 As will be shown below, the use of the title kayser constitutes a distinctively positive and non-negative case on the part of the Ottoman intellectuals.

Early Ottoman Intellectuals

Firstly, it must be said that Ottomans produced their first works of history only after one and a half centuries following the foundation of their state in quest of securing their legitimacy not vis-à-vis the Byzantine emperors but vis-à-vis the khans of the East.30 So, the very birth of Ottoman historiography itself is a product of a dynastic competition. Excluding the lost work of Yahşi Fakih,31 the

dignitaries, namely despots, sebastokrators and, caesars, “if there are any”, help lift the shield on which the emperor sits, which shows their rarity in the late Byzantine court possibly because they were mainly foreign at that time. Perpeaux, ed., Traité des Offices, pp. 255–256.

25 Kazhdan, “Caesar”, p. 363. On the use of the title tsar for the Ottoman sultan by his Slavic population, see Kołodziejczyk, “Khan, caliph, tsar and imperator”, pp. 184–185.

26 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, Neşri Tarihi, eds. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed A. Köymen (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1987), p. 30.

27 Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, Oğuznâme, Selçuklu tarihi: giriş, metin, dizin, ed. Abdullah Bakır (Istanbul: Çamlıca, 2009), p. 186.

28 Michel Balivet, Romanie byzantine et pays de Rum turc: Histoire d’un espace d’imbrication gréco-turque (Istanbul: ISIS Press, 1994), p. 89.

29 For two notable examples of Celaleddin Kayser Pervane and sübaşı İlmeddin Kayser see respectively Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, pp. 394 and 845.

30 Halil İnalcık, “Beginning of the Ottoman Historiography”, in Bernard Lewis and Peter M. Holt, eds., Historians of the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1962), pp. 152–156.

31 We know about his work through later Ottoman historians referring to it such as, Enveri, Oruç Beg, and Aşıkpaşazade who relied on his book. On Yahşi Fakih, see Victor L. Ménage, “The Menâqıb of Yakhshi Faqîh”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26 (1963), pp. 50–54.


earliest Ottoman literary work about themselves is Ahmedi’s addenda attached to his famous Iskendername,32 written for Süleyman Çelebi between 1402 and 1410. Another form of writing during the early Ottoman period consisted of translations from the major Arabic and Persian histories with appendices on the Ottomans. Among such translations, one can cite the Turkish translation of the Persian work of Ibn Bibi on the history of the Seljuks, translated, and further enlarged with sections on the Ottomans in 1425 by Yazıcızade Ali. The fact that the latter was among the entourage of the Ottoman embassy to the Mamluk court during the time of Murad ii makes his contribution even more significant for the purposes of the present study. Another important genre of early Ottoman historiography was ghaza-names/ghazavat-names, works about the wars Ottomans fought against non-Muslims,33 two prominent examples of which are Mihaloğlu Ali Bey’s Gazavat-name and an anonymous Gazavat-ı Sultan Murad b. Mehemmed Han written after the Battle of Varna.34

Additionally, we have three major sources who relied on the lost work of Yahşi Fakih, namely Enveri, Oruç Beg, and Aşıkpaşazade. Finishing his Düsturname around 1465, Enveri knew Arabic and Persian and participated in the Midilli campaign in 1462, where he performed the call to prayer.35 Son of a silk merchant and himself a secretary, Oruç Beg finished his account during

32 Pál Fodor, “Ahmedîʾs Dâsitân as a Source of Early Ottoman History”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae xxxviii/1–2 (1984), pp. 41–54.

33 Agah S. Levend, Gazavât-nâmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Beyʾin Gazavât-nâmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000).

34 Halil İnalcık and Mevlud Oğuz, eds., Gazavat-ı Sultan Murad b. Mehmed Han: İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) üzerinde anonim Gazavatname (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978). An English translation of this work appears in Colin Imber, trans., The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 41–107. Written after 1453, by an anony-mous author, probably of kul origin, this source gives us a vivid description of the age of what Ottoman historians call the 1444 Crisis, i.e. the troublesome time the Ottoman state faced before the Battle of Varna. Prior to this battle where the Ottomans defeated an allied European army, the Ottoman polity felt that they might be forced to leave their European holdings. İnalcık, Fatih Devri Üzerinde, pp. 1–53. To these, one may also add two more ghazavat-nâmes on the Battle of Varna, one written in Ottoman Turkish by Zâʿifî still in manuscript, and the other written in Persian by Kâşifî. Gürol Pehlivan, “Varna Savaşı ve Bir Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Gazâvatnâmeler (Varna Savaşı ile İlgili Yeni Bir Yayın Münasebetiyle)”, Turkish Studies 3/4 (2008): 600–602.

35 Necdet Öztürk, ed., Fatih Devri Kaynaklarından Düsturname-i Enveri, Osmanlı Tarihi Kısmı (1299–1466) (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2003), p. xxxiii.

12 çolak

the reign of Bayezid ii (1481–1512).36 Coming from a ghazi/dervish background, Aşıkpaşazade Derviş Ahmed37 finished his account around 1484.

Neşri, the author of Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma (Cosmorama) possibly belonged to the ulema.38 Finishing his work between 1486 and 1493, Neşri39 compiled his sections for the period before the Ottomans from some works he did not name, and for the parts relating to the Ottomans, he largely elaborated the work of Aşıkpaşazade.

Tursun Beg’s Tarih-i Ebuʾl-Feth40 was written sometime between 1496 and 1500, and it covers the reign of Mehmed ii and part of the reign of Bayezid ii. The importance of that source results from the fact that Tursun Beg held high offices in government service for forty years. Thus, his approaches to impe-rial titles are of paramount importance. His representation of the Ottoman dynasty is also important due to the fact that he wanted to “show the supe-riority of the Ottoman House to rival Islamic dynasties in Iran and Egypt” as İnalcık and Murphey observe.41

Born in Edirne, İbn Kemal Kemalpaşazade functioned as the grand mufti between 1526 and 1534. One of the most prolific writers of his time, he pro-duced works on medicine, philosophy, poetry, jurisprudence and history in

36 Christine Woodhead, “Urudj”, Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (2000), vol. x, p. 908. On the rela-tions between manuscripts of Oruç and the anonymous chronicles see Victor L. Ménage, “On the Recensions of Uruj’s History of the Ottomans”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 30/2 (1967), pp. 314–322. For an edited manuscript of Oruç see Franz Babinger, Die frühosmanischen Jahrbucher des Urudsch. Quellenwerke des islamischen Schrifttums (Hanover: 1925). A facsimile edition of his Manisa manuscript can be found in the appendix of Nihal N. Atsız, Oruç Beğ Tarihi (Istanbul: Tercüman, 1972).

37 Halil İnalcık, “How to Read ʿÂshıq Pasha-zâdeʾs History”, in Halil Inalcık, ed., Essays in Ottoman History, 31–50; İbrahim Kaya Şahin, Aşıkpaşa-zade as Historian: A Study on the Tevarih-i Al-i Osman (Unpublished M.A. Thesis: Sabancı University, 2000).

38 Christine Woodhead, “Neshrî”, Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1995), vol. viii, p. 7.39 On Neşri and his work see Victor L. Ménage, Neshrî’s History of the Ottomans: Sources and

Development of the Text (London: Oxford University Press, 1964). For the facsimile edi-tion of Neşri’s work see Franz Taeschner, ed., Gihannuma: die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlana Mehemmed Neschri (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1951–55). For its edition and translit-eration see Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma (2 vols.).

40 The text edited in facsimile in Halil İnalcık and Rhoads Murphey, eds., The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by Tursun Beg, text published in facsimile with English transla-tion (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978); and transliterated into the Latin alpha-bet in Mertol Tulum, ed., Tursun Bey, Tarih-i Ebüʾl-Feth (Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları, 1974).

41 İnalcık and Murphey, eds., The History of Mehmed the Conqueror, p. 18.


Persian, Arabic and Turkish. His ten-volume Tevarih-i Al-i Osman is regarded as one of the most important works in Ottoman historiography.42

In addition, there are around fifty anonymous chronicles dating from the second half of the 15th century in the libraries and archives around the world of which Giese collected thirteen manuscripts found in European libraries and formed a single text.43 Written in simple Turkish mostly by gazis from lower classes with lower levels of education, the anonymous chronicles tend to recount the events with little scholarly concern and are instrumental in terms of showing the reflection of the imperial titles in popular use.

Ottoman Approaches to Byzantine Imperial Titulature

Without exception, all of these early Ottoman sources use the term tekfur to refer to the Byzantine emperor, as well as the local Byzantine governors. When used for the Byzantine emperors, this is the most common term which served the mechanism of disdain, often used in conjunction with negative appella-tions such as “accursed” (melʿun or laʿin). The Byzantine emperor also appears as tekfur when the Ottoman historians make quotations from the Byzantines themselves. The anonymous gazavatname, for instance, puts the following in the mouth of the Byzantine envoy: “Our king tekvur sends [his] many salu-tations” (Kralımız tekvur sana vafir selam ider).44 And two of these sources also contain references to Byzantine emperors as fasiliyus. These are the ones which are compiled by use of pre-Ottoman sources, namely Yazıcızade Ali, and Neşri. Therefore, one may suggest that they knew the pre-Ottoman sources and were familiar with the term fasiliyus and copied it from the other sources without questioning them. This probably was not the only reason. First of all, often writing for the Ottoman sultans, these historians were not ignorant of

42 The volumes that are useful for the purposes of this essay are the following: Kemalpaşazade, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, vii. Defter, ed. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957), and Kemalpaşazade, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, viii. Defter, ed. Ahmet Uğur (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1997).

43 Friedrich Giese, ed., Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, Tevârih-i Al-i ʿOsmân (Breslau: Breslau xvi, 1922–25). For the transliteration of Giese’s text into Latin alpha-bet see Nihat Azamat, ed., Anonim Tevârih-i Al-i Osman (Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1992). On the value of the anonymous chronicles as his-torical sources see Necdet Öztürk, “Anonim Tevarih-i Al-i Osman’ların Kaynak Değerleri Hakkında”, xii. Türk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara 12–16 Eylül 1994) Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, vol. iii (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999), pp. 755–762.

44 İnalcık and Oğuz, eds., Gazavat, p. 6.

14 çolak

the significance of titulature for the empire-builders. The following quotation from Neşri which he entitled “Useful information” ( faʾide) can be informative in that respect:

Han and Hakan, which are circulating among populace, are the titles of the kings (müluk) of Turks. Likewise, Fağfur is the name of the titles of the kings of China. Ray is the title of the kings of India. Kisra is the title of the kings of Persia. Kayser (Ceaser) is the title of the kings of Rum (i.e. Byzantium). Firʿavn is the title of the kings of Egypt. Tübbaʿ is the title of the kings of Yemen. Necaşi is the title of the kings of Ethiopia. Afşin is the title of the kings of Uşrusene (in central Asia) and Sol is the title of the kings of Cürcan (in Northern Iran). Isbehbed is the title of the kings of Azerbaijan. Arslan is the title of the kings of Taberistan. Ahşid is the title of the kings of Fergana (near Uzbekistan).45

Therefore it is impossible to think of the early Ottoman intelligentsia as com-plete ignorers of titulature and thus, the survival of the term fasiliyus in the work of Neşri, and Yazıcızade should not be regarded as merely a matter of literary tradition. Another point to be made here is that while Neşri shows his knowledge of the Roman imperial title kayser in the above quotation, his use of this title for Byzantine emperors is very rare, to which point we will return below.

Secondly, these two were not the only sources to mention the pre-Ottoman period. Enveri, for example, was another such source and used the term tekfur in almost every page in reference to the Byzantine emperor and local Byzantine governors. Contrary to the normal use, by tekfur he also referred to the Frankish governors in the Aegean and the mainland Greece. In one case, for instance, he referred to the Frankish governor of Chios Martino Zaccaria (whom he names Mese Marti) as tekfur of Midilli.46 Similarly he named Pierre dale Carceri of Euboea (Mese Pir) as tekfur.47 Gavriilos (Gifrilos) of Monembasia, whom he says was a monk under the rule of the Pope is also recounted as a tekfur in Enveri’s Düsturname (Adı ol tekfurun idi Gifrilos / Ol keşişidi anun başı Papos).48 Likewise, the Catalan duke of Athens appears as “Gadalan tekfurı”.49 Enveri also

45 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. p. 20.46 Irène Mélikoff-Sayar, Le Destan d’Umur Pacha (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,

1954), p. 57.47 Ibid., p. 69.48 Ibid., p. 72.49 Ibid., p. 85.


extensively used Byzantine titles such as domestikos (ten times), and paraki-momenos (twice) even though to refer to the holders of these titles rather than the posts themselves. He affiliated the title Domestikos to John Kantakuzenos the vezir of emperor Andronikos: They said that the tekfur was Andronikos / He had a vezir named Domestikos (Didiler tekfur idi Andronikos / Bir veziri var adı Domestikos).50 Similarly he refers to Alexis Apokaukos as Parakimomenos, who opposes John Kantakuzenos upon the latter’s ascension to throne: In Selanik, there is Parakimomenos / He does not submit, the Pope is his ally (Selanik içre Parakimomenos / Boyun eğmez ana yardımcı Papos).51 Despite confusing the titles with the title-holders, one might expect him to use the term fasiliyus at least in confusion given the close ties between the Byzantine emperors and Umur Pasha but he uses the term tekfur for them without exception. Exactly the same rule applies to John Kantakuzenos when he becomes emperor after Andronikos’ death, i.e. he becomes a tekfur.52 Ahmedi might have mentioned the title fasiliyus, as his work covers the pre-Ottoman period, but he did not either. Another historian who could have mentioned the Byzantine emperor as fasiliyus might be Tursun Beg from the perspective of the Ottoman dynasty but he did not, as his main purpose was to show the House of Osman as superior to the Islamic dynasties in Iran and Egypt.

Therefore, we are faced with two possibilities. In the first one, such histori-ans as Neşri and Yazıcızade might actually be comparing the Ottomans to the Anatolian Seljuks by employing the term fasiliyus for those Byzantine emperors contemporary to the Seljuks, and tekfur for those Byzantine emperors contem-porary to the Ottomans. In other words, they had a message between the lines behind their use of both terms whereby the Seljuks were reflected as inferior to the Ottomans in state hierarchy. The second possibility would be that these his-torians’ use of these two terms was an expression of the fact that the Ottomans put the Byzantine Empire under their vassalage or gave an end to its existence.

In order to account for the reasons for the survival of the title fasiliyus in Yazıcızade and Neşri, we should see in which contexts they used it. Yazıcızade used the term fasiliyus around 30 times and by contrast used tekfur only 16 times.53 His mention of fasiliyus mainly corresponds to the good relations between Byzantine emperors and the Seljuk sultans of Rum. So, most of the

50 Ibid., p. 93.51 Ibid.52 Ibid.53 Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, pp. 9, 184, 195, 199, 245, 246, 252, 253, 277, 279, 280, 281,

287, 288, 294, 699.

16 çolak

time, the context is mainly the treaties,54 the exchange of gifts or ambassadors between the two,55 Izzeddin’s stay in Constantinople,56 their collaboration against Izzeddin’s rival Rükneddin,57 the sons of Izzeddin in Byzantine ser-vice and the Turks whom the Byzantine emperor settled in the Balkans under their leadership.58 In many of these cases, Yazıcızade uses the term fasiliyus interchangeably with tekfur while in one case he refers to the Komnennian emperor of Trebizond as “Tarabozon Fasilyusı”.59 A more noteworthy case is that in one sentence he refers to the Byzantine emperor as fasiliyus and the Armenian king of Cilicia as “the Armenian tekfur”: “Kings and sultans of Islam, Armenian tekfurs, and the Roman Fasiliyus (Rum Fasilyusı) endeavoured to glorify that benevolent dynasty”.60 His chronologically final mention of the title fasiliyus, and the Byzantine emperor, relates to the early 14th century, when a number of Anatolian emirates rebelled against Temurtaş, the Ilkhanid governor of Anatolia between 1317 and 1327, which period coincides with the reign of Osman, the first Ottoman ruler. Yazıcızade mentions that during that time, the Bulgarian kings (Ulgar begleri) attacked the Fasiliyus and conquered most of Rumelia.61

Neşri used the title fasiliyus only five times in his section on the Seljuks of Rum, and in his section on the Ottomans he used only the title tekfur for Byzantine emperors. In two out of these five cases, the term fasiliyus is used in reference to the lands of Byzantine emperor (bilad-ı fasiliyus).62 In another case, the reference is made to the holder of the city of Constantinople: “He [Sultan Kılıçarslan] had more conquests than . . . fasiliyus the owner of the lands of Istanbul . . . (. . . sahib-i bilad-ı İstanbul fasiliyusdan . . . bunlardan dahi çok nesne fütuhı vardı)”.63 The other two allusions to the term in Neşri’s work refer directly to the Byzantine emperor ( fasiliyus) when Izzeddin was stay-ing in Constantinople.64 However, it is difficult to say that Neşri attributed a special importance to that term as can be understood from his use of other

54 Ibid., pp. 219–221.55 Ibid., pp. 259–262, 868, 893.56 Ibid., pp. 194–199, 771–774, 848.57 Ibid., p. 777.58 Ibid., pp. 854–856.59 Ibid., p. 846.60 Ibid., p. 215.61 Ibid., p. 908.62 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. pp. 32, 34.63 Ibid., vol. i. p. 30.64 Ibid., vol. i. p. 38.


somewhat insignificant terms alongside fasiliyus such as tekfur, and melik,65 a title that often translates as an independent ruler or a king.

So, is it possible to say that the early Ottoman intelligentsia saw their state as superior to the Seljuks of Rum, and thus referred to the Byzantine emperors before the Seljuks mainly as fasiliyus and not as tekfur? In order to answer this question, one has to first acknowledge that most of those sources which cover the pre-Ottoman period, definitely mention the Seljuks of Rum, and state that Osman was sent political insignia by the Seljuks such as a sword, a flag, a horse, and a drum.66 In addition to that, in almost all of the early Ottoman histories, there is the mention of the Seljuk Sultan Alaaddin, who bestows Osman with independent rule in response to his help for Alaaddin. According to Imber, this Alaaddin is a legendary figure which the early Ottoman historians employed in order to support the Ottoman dynasty, or as he calls it “Ottoman dynastic myth”, vis-à-vis its rivals.67 However, not all the elements about the Seljuks are that positive in these sources. In almost all of these early histories, for example, there is the story of what one may call the Ottoman declaration of indepen-dence from the Seljuks of Rum, and there is a discrepancy among these sources about Osman’s stance towards the Seljuk Sultan. According to Aşıkpaşazade’s version of the story, when Dursun Fakih said that Sultan Alaaddin’s permission should be sought for appointing a judge and an imam for the Friday prayer in Karacahisar, Osman gave him the following answer straightaway:

I have taken this city with my own sword. The God, who has given him the title of sultan, has given me the title of khan by my holy war. . . . And why should I be indebted to him because of this standard [that he sent to me], because I myself held it high and attacked the infidels. . . . And if he claims that he is the son of the Seljuk family, I claim that I am the son of Gök Alp. And if he claims that he has come to this land before us, I claim that my grandfather Süleyman Şah came here before him.68

Interestingly enough, Neşri corrects this story and remarks that Osman, even if he had gained his independence, respected Alaaddin. In this version, coins are minted with the name of Alaaddin, and the Friday sermon is given in his

65 In two consequent pages, for example the titles ‘tekfur-ı Kostantiniyye’ and ‘melik-i Kostantiniyye’ appear alongside fasiliyus. Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. p. 28.

66 For an introduction on the emblems and symbols of royalty in Ottoman tradition, see Rhoads Murphey, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty, pp. 71–75.

67 Colin Imber, “Ottoman Dynastic Myth”, Turcica 9 (1987), p. 13.68 Şahin, Aşıkpaşa-zade as Historian, pp. 82–83.

18 çolak

name.69 Thus, while Aşıkpaşazade portrays a self-asserting ruler, Neşri empha-sises the “legitimist” approach of Osman.70 Clearly, there was no consensus among these early Ottoman historians on the adoption of political legacy directly from the Seljuks of Rum.

The Ottomans were not the first beglik to inherit the Seljuk legacy in Asia Minor. The first such beglik was that of Karamanoğulları who were based in inner Anatolia, in the heartlands of former Seljuk sultanate. It was probably because of such begliks as Karamanoğulları or Germiyanoğulları in central and western Asia Minor respectively that the Ottomans did not or could not adopt the Seljuk legacy as a core element of their imperial ideology. In many instances, they rather employed a gaza/holy war ideology, and used it even as a constituent element during their conflicts with these Anatolian begliks. In such conflicts, as we read from these early Ottoman histories, such non-Ottoman begliks are often accused of preventing the Ottomans from launching holy war against the ‘infidels’, epitomised in the following quotation that Neşri attrib-uted to Murad I on the latter’s response to the envoy of the Karamanoğulları: Mani-yi gazaya gaza gaza-yı ekberdir;71 i.e. launching holy war on those pre-venting holy war is a greater holy war. Though on a more limited scale due possibly to their geographical detachment from the non-Muslim lands, the other begliks, too, used similar tools against the Ottomans72 and employed the gaza ideology as part of such a competition. In 1367, for example, most of the Turcoman begliks participated in a gaza on the castle of Korykos in Southern Asia Minor under the leadership of Karamanoğlu Alaaddin Ali Beg, which resulted in failure.73

Therefore we may say that the political legacy of the Seljuks was not the foremost component of the Ottoman imperial ideology. For this reason, one may suggest that Neşri might be comparing the Ottomans to the Seljuks. However, his use of the term fasiliyus alongside the somewhat unimportant term tekfur in the same sections, and his corrective stance against the ideas of

69 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. p. 108.70 Şahin, Aşıkpaşa-zade as Historian, pp. 82–83.71 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. p. 222. A broader analysis of the diplomacy

between the Ottomans and the other Anatolian begliks with a focus on Saruhanoğulları can be found in Feridun Emecen, “Osmanlılarʾın Batı Anadolu Türkmen Beylikleri Fetih Siyaseti: Saruhan Beyliği Örneği”, in Feridun Emecen, ed., İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001), pp. 113–120.

72 For an analysis of the tools that the Ottomans and the other begliks used against each other, see Hasan Basri Karadeniz, Osmanlılar ile Anadolu Beylikleri arasında Psikolojik Mücadele (Istanbul: Yeditepe, 2011), pp. 53–161.

73 For more information on this campaign see M. C. Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Karamanlıʾların Gorigos Seferi (1367)”, Tarih Dergisi, 6 (1954), pp. 161–174.


Aşıkpaşazade on Osman’s independence from Seljuks of Rum make it difficult for us to acknowledge this view. If Neşri wanted to use an illustrious title for the Byzantine emperor, he would have probably used the title kayser, the term he used in his faʾide section on the imperial titles.74 However, only rarely did he use the title kayser for the Byzantine emperor.75

So let us focus on the second possibility: Were these historians who did not use the term fasiliyus consciously or unconsciously reflecting the politi-cal reality that the Byzantine Empire was in decline, or was no more by the time they were writing their works? In other words, was the disappearance of the term fasiliyus a result of a decrease in the Byzantine imperial authority in the international arena or simply the fact that it ceased to exist? As far as the Ottoman perspective is concerned, despite the fact that between 1371–1394 and 1424–1453 Byzantine Empire became a tributary vassal to the Ottomans,76 put-ting an end to Byzantium was seen an important objective for the completion of building a centralised empire, and to that end, from the late-fourteenth cen-tury onwards, Ottoman sultans besieged Constantinople several times under Bayezid I, Murad ii, and finally Mehmed ii. Hence, we may say that the term fasiliyus, which was definitely not as common as in the pre-Ottoman period, lacked the importance that it had in the Byzantine context. This may be the reason why it was used on a very limited scale and with a non- negative but non-positive agenda in the Ottoman historiography, thus serving the mecha-nism of negligence.

The next Byzantine imperial title that needs to be reviewed in this context is caesar (kayser/kaysar in Turkish). Yazıcızade used that term on two occasions with reference to the Romano-Byzantine tradition,77 and to Zahireddin, the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, as an imperial title in addition to another one, fağfur, along Chinese tradition.78 Tursun Bey who used the title tekur (tekfur) for the Byzantine emperor extensively,79 explained in two cases that the tekur of Kostantiniyye is called kayser-i Rum.80 In one instance, Mihaloğlu Ali Bey talked about the Byzantine emperor as kayser.81 He used this term in another

74 Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, vol. i. p. 20.75 In one case, Neşri mentioned that Orhan used to demean the Kaysar very much. Ibid, 191.76 Stephen W. Reinert, “Fragmentation (1204–1453)”, in Jonathan Shepard, ed., The Expansion

of Orthodox Europe: Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007), pp. 318–321, 323–325.

77 Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, pp. 175, 376.78 Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, p. 204.79 Tulum, ed., Tursun Bey, pp. 46, 50, 51, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 77, 101, 103, 109, 110, and 120.80 ‘Kayser-i Rum dirilür idi.’ Tulum, ed., Tursun Bey, pp. 43, 50.81 Levend, Gazavât-nâmeler, p. 251.

20 çolak

occasion for the Chinese emperor as kayser-i Çin.82 In such few cases in which the Byzantine emperor is referred to with the title kayser, there is no negative connotation as is often the case with the title tekfur. Excluding the Greek cor-respondence, the title kayser constitutes the only Byzantine title transmitted into the Ottoman titulature, though on a limited scale.

As far as the Ottoman context is concerned, it is often maintained that in accordance with his imperial vision, Mehmed ii saw himself as “kayser-i Rum” in addition to representing his authority along Turko-Mongolian and Islamo-Persian traditions following his predecessors’ path.83 Indeed, Mehmed’s impe-rial vision cannot be analysed without reference to Byzantine tradition. In addition to such post-Byzantine intellectuals as Kritovoulos and George of Trebizond, who were referred to above, those Italian figures like Cyriacus of Ancona saw Mehmed as an emperor inheriting the Byzantine imperial legacy84 and Mehmed’s vision probably was not very much different. Likewise, accord-ing to Theodore Spandounes, Mehmed was allegedly claiming his descent from the Komnenoi, something Spandounes does not believe in: “He believed that they derived their origins from the Emperor of Constantinople, Komnenos (“Comningo”). . . . For my part, I incline to give credence to the Turkish histo-rians who, as I have related, say that it was descended from that humble peas-ant among the shepherds of Tartary of the race of Ogus. . . .”85 Despite such flirtations with the idea of inheriting Byzantine imperial ideology, however, Mehmed did not use the title kayser or basileus in his Greek correspondence

82 Levend, Gazavât-nâmeler, p. 292.83 As İnalcık maintains, Osman, who contended himself with the titles of beg, gazi and emir,

was unable to use the title sultan because the Ilkhanid rulers were aggressively punishing those Anatolian begs who assumed that title. While his son Orhan included sultan among his titles after the collapse of Mongol power in Asia Minor, his grandson Murad assumed the title hüdavendigar, the great sovereign. In an effort to build a centralised empire subordinating the Turko-Islamic begliks of Anatolia, Bayezid asked from the Abbasid caliph the title of sultanüʾr-Rum. During the Interregnum after his catastrophic defeat in the hands of Timur, all of his sons used the title çelebi until his youngest son Mehmed eliminated his brothers and resumed the title of sultan. His son Murad II styled himself as padişah-ı alem-penah (the great şah the refuge of the world). Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı Sultanlarının Unvanları”, pp. 115–117.

84 Julian Raby, “Cyriacus of Ancona and the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 43 (1980), pp. 242–246.

85 Theodore Spandounes, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, trans. Donald M. Nicol (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 11.


as Korobeinikov prudently noted.86 Instead he usually preferred the titles great authentis and great emir accompanied by the traditional Turkish title beg which had a noble and sovereign connotation.87 In a letter to the Knights of Rhodes dated 1450, Mehmed used the title great authentis and great emir both for himself and his father Murad: “o megas authentis kai megas amiras soulta-nos o Mechemetpeis, o uios tou megalou authentou kai megalou amira soultanou tou Mouratpegi.”88 In the aftermath of his conquest of Constantinople, in the ahdname to the Genoese of Pera penned in Greek, the title that Mehmed used was “o megas authentis kai megas amyras soultanos o Mechmet Mpeis, o uios tou megalou authentou kai megalou amyra soultanou tou Mourat Mpei”89 while the Turkish translation of the document renders this title as “ulu padişah Sultan Mehmed Han.”90 In his correspondence with the Greek archontes,91 and the Venetian doge,92 he retained the same title with small alterations in spelling and minor variations such as including his title sultan and his father’s name. The title megas amiras is exactly the same as the one that John Palaiologos used in a letter to Saruca Beg in reference to Murad ii sometime between 1424 and 1429: my brother the most illustrious great emir (ton adelfon mou ton endoxota-ton megan amiran).93 The Turkish translation made in the Ottoman court “after eighty days” renders the said address as “karındaşım ulu padişah.”94 Therefore, despite his imperial vision, Mehmed’s use of titulature in Greek does not show a rupture from that of his father Murad ii. Such a rupture would show its first signs in the reign of Bayezid ii who used the title basileus in most of his Greek

86 Dimitri Korobeinikov, “How ‘Byzantine’ were the early Ottomans? Bithynia in ca. 1290–1450”, Osmanskii mir i osmanistika. Sbornik statei k 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia A.S. Tveriti-novoi (1910–1973) (Moscow: Institut vostokovedeniia ran, 2010), p. 239.

87 Babinger’s claim that from among his titles, Mehmed dropped beg, “this old-fashioned title . . . at least in Greek documents, after the conquest of Constantiople” is simply inac-curate. Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, trans. Ralph Manheim (Princeton, n. j.: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 418.

88 Franz Miklosich and Joseph Müller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, vol. iii., Acta et Diplomata Graeca Res Graecas Italasque Illustrantia (Vindobonae: Carolus Gerold, 1865), p. 286.

89 Ibid., p. 287.90 For facsimile copies of the original Greek document and the Turkish translation see

respectively Halil İnalcık, “Ottoman Galata, 1453–1553”, in Halil İnalcık, ed., Essays in Ottoman History (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), pp. 338–341, and 336–337.

91 Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, pp. 290, and 301.92 Ibid., pp. 293, 295, 298 (in two documents), 302, and 306.93 Tahsin Öz, “Bizans İmparatorunun Bir Namesi”, Belleten 15 (1951), p. 220.94 Öz, “Bizans İmparatorunun”, p. 221.

22 çolak

correspondence,95 be retained by Selim I,96 and come to maturity in that of Süleyman I after half a century from the conquest of Constantinople.97

A similar case of a century-late adoption of the Byzantine political legacy through titulature occurred in Russia. Cherniavsky writes that “the steps which the Russian Prince took toward this [Byzantine-Roman] throne were slow and hesitant. . . . Only with the coronation of Ivan iv as Tsar, in 1547, does the confu-sion in the diptychs cease. Titulature shows the same ambivalence.”98 Around that time, competition for the Roman imperial legacy against the Habsburgs was in the Ottoman agenda. As Paolo Giovio writes on the occasion of Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1532, Süleyman believed that the West belongs to him on the ground that he is the legitimate successor to Constantine.99 On another note, as Farooqi analysed through his study of several Ottoman and Mughal documen-tary and narrative sources, in their competition over the title of caliph against the Ottomans, several Mughal emperors referred to the Ottoman sultans as “Qaiser-i-Rum (Caesar of Rum), Khawandkar-i-Rum (Lord of Rum) or simply as Sultan-i-Rum (Sultan of Rum).”100 The adoption of Roman imperial legacy in a reformulated fashion can also be seen in the works of Ottoman political think-ers of the time.101 The Ottoman grand mufti and historian Kemalpaşazade, for example, could not have devised his account of the Ottoman political ideology

95 Bayezid used the title basileus only once in his first four Greek documents dated 1481 and 1482 in Miklosich and Müllerʼs collection. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, p. 310. In the other three documents in the same years, he held onto Mehmedʼs tradition. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, pp. 309, 312, and 313. After 7 December 1482, he used the title basileus (or basileus ton basileon; emperor of emperors) on a constant basis. Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, pp. 320, 325, 330, 331, 332, 337, 338, 339, 344 (in two documents), 350, 353 (in two documents), 355, 356, and 357.

96 For two cases of Selimʼs use of the title basileus in his Greek correspondence with Venetians, see Ibid., pp. 359, 360.

97 For but one example from 1529, see Ibid., p. 361.98 Michael Cherniavsky, “Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Medieval Political Theory”,

in Shepard, ed., The Expansion of Orthodox Europe, p. 406.99 Salih Özbaran, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği, pp. 121–122.100 Naimur Rahman Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations (A Study of Political & Diplomatic

Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556–1748) (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 2009), pp. 200, 211. An overview of the competition between the Otto-mans and Mughals on the issue of the caliphate can be found in Ibid., pp. 173–221.

101 A parallel radical change in political terms at that time was regarding the use of caliphal ideology in Ottoman politics which also reflected on the titulature that Süleyman used. In addition to hadimüʾl-Harameyniʾş-Şerifeyn, servant of the Holy Cities, which had been in use since the time of his father Selim, the conqueror of Syria and Egypt, Süleyman also began using the titles halife-i Müslimin and halife-i ruy-i zemin. Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlı


regardless of this phenomenon. According to him, Mehmed ii endeavoured to leave “no one among Byzantines who could be named tekfur”.102 Likewise, despite on a rare occasion, he used the title kayser for Mehmed ii,103 some-thing which Mehmed’s ulema would not and did not display in their works. Shortly, the least negative Byzantine title that the Ottoman historians used was reserved more to the Ottoman sultan, though on a limited and somewhat hesi-tant fashion, than to the Byzantine emperor.

Conclusion

Overall, Ottoman approaches towards Byzantine titulature showed three dif-ferent, and sometimes overlapping, forms from among which the Ottoman intellectuals constructed their narratives depending on various dynamics such as their personal background, the audience they wrote for, and the time they lived in. The abundance of the title tekfur in all of the intellectuals, and the continuation of the title fasiliyus with reference to the Byzantine emperor in only a handful of works cannot be explained solely by a literary tradition. Of the two other reasons suggested above, the first one relating to the Ottomans and the Seljuks in state hierarchy does not seem to be quite definitive, at least until we find some further references to the term fasiliyus. For now, though, it appears that we have to rely on the second possibility, that the disappearance of the term fasiliyus was the result of a decline of Byzantine imperial image for the Ottoman historians or the decline of the Byzantine Empire itself. That the two intellectuals who used the term fasiliyus, Yazıcızade and Neşri, did not attribute a special importance to that term shows their negligence on the use of proper Byzantine titulature for the Byzantine emperors. What further perplexes the situation, however, is the non-negative at least and positive at most approach of the Ottoman historians towards the term kayser. Although Ottoman appropriation of the title kayser came to fruition as late as the reign of Süleyman, the fact that this title had never attracted a negative stance as in the case of tekfur should be regarded as a distinct pattern that the Ottoman intellectuals displayed towards Byzantine imperial ideology. Used more fre-quently for the Ottoman sultans than the Byzantine emperors—despite being introduced by such authors as Neşri as the proper title used for the Roman, i.e.

Sultanlarının Unvanları”, pp. 118–119. Gilles Veinstein, “La question du califat ottoman”, Gilles Veinstein, ed., Autoportrait du Sultan, p. 261.

102 Savvides, “On the Origins and Connotation”, p. 461.103 Kemalpaşazade, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, vii. Defter, p. 439.

24 çolak

Byzantine, rulers—the title kayser represents a positive side of the Byzantino-Roman imperial tradition. In short, Ottoman approaches to Byzantine imperial tradition showed three major mechanisms through titulature, namely disdain, negligence, and appropriation, which were implemented in different contexts when the Byzantine Empire as an enemy had to be disdained, and when as an older state with a more established tradition, it had to be sometimes neglected and sometimes appropriated.

Bibliography

Apostolopoulos, Dimitris G., “Du sultan au basileus? Dilemmes politiques du Con-quérant”, in Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople aux xive–xvie siècles: rup-ture et continuité, actes du colloque international Rome, 5–6–7 décembre 2005 (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2007), pp. 241–251.

Atsız, Nihal N., Oruç Beğ Tarihi (Istanbul: Tercüman, 1972).Azamat, Nihat, ed., Anonim Tevârih-i Al-i Osman (Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi

Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları, 1992).Babinger, Franz, Die frühosmanischen Jahrbucher des Urudsch. Quellenwerke des isla-

mischen Schrifttums (Hanover: 1925).———, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, trans. Ralph Manheim (Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1978).Balivet, Michel, Romanie byzantine et pays de Rum turc: Histoire d’un espace d’imbrication

gréco-turque (Istanbul: isis Press, 1994).Bury, John Bagnell, The imperial administrative system in the ninth century, with a

revised text of Kletorologion of Philotheos (London: Publication for the British Acad-emy, 1911).

Cherniavsky, Michael, “Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Medieval Political Theory”, in Jonathan Shepard, ed., The Expansion of Orthodox Europe: Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007), pp. 403–421.

Çolak, Hasan, “Bizans Tarihyazıcılığında ‘Dönüşüm’: Laonikos Chalkokondylesʾte Bizanslı ve Osmanlı İmajı (1299–1402)”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 15 (2008), pp. 333–353.

Emecen, Feridun, “Osmanlılarʾın Batı Anadolu Türkmen Beylikleri Fetih Siyaseti: Saruhan Beyliği Örneği”, in Feridun Emecen, ed., İlk Osmanlılar ve Batı Anadolu Beylikler Dünyası (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2001), pp. 113–120.

Farooqi, Naimur Rahman, Mughal-Ottoman Relations (A Study of Political & Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556–1748) (Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 2009).


Feridun Bey, Mecmuʿ-i Münşeʿatüʾs-Selatin (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1847).Fodor, Pál, “Ahmedî’s Dâsitân as a Source of Early Ottoman History”, Acta Orientalia

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae xxxviii/1–2 (1984), pp. 41–54.George of Trebizond, Collectanea Trapezuntiana: texts, documents, and bibliographies

of George of Trebizond, ed. John Monfasani (Binghamton, n.y.: Medieval & Renais-sance Texts & Studies in conjunction with the Renaissance Society of America, 1984).

Giese, Friedrich, ed., Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, Tevârih-i Al-i ʿOsmân (Breslau: Breslau xvi, 1922–25).

Imber, Colin, “Ottoman Dynastic Myth”, Turcica 9 (1987), pp. 7–27.———, trans., The Crusade of Varna, 1443–45 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).İnalcık, Halil and Murphey, Rhoads, eds., The History of Mehmed the Conqueror by

Tursun Beg, text published in facsimile with English translation (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1978).

İnalcık, Halil, “Padişah”, Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 34 (2007), pp. 140–143.———, “Beginning of the Ottoman Historiography”, in Bernard Lewis and Peter M. Holt,

eds., Historians of the Middle East (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1962), pp. 152–168.———, “How to Read ‘Âshıq Pasha-zâde’s History”, in Halil Inalcık, ed., Essays in

Ottoman History, 31–50.———, “Mehmed ii”, Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi vol. 28 (2003), pp. 395–407.———, “Osmanlı Beyliğiʾnin Kurucusu Osman Beg”, Belleten 261 (2007), pp. 479–537.———, “Osmanlı Sultanlarının Unvanları (Titülatür) ve Egemenlik Kavramı”, in Halil

İnalcık, ed., Osmanlılar: Fütuhat, İmparatorluk, Avrupa ile İlişkiler (Istanbul: Timaş, 2010), pp. 115–123.

———, “Ottoman Galata, 1453–1553”, in Halil İnalcık, ed., Essays in Ottoman History (Istanbul: Eren, 1998), pp. 271–375.

———, “Power relationships between Russia, the Crimea and the Ottoman Empire as reflected in titulature”, in Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, Gilles Veinstein, S. Enders Wimbush (eds.), Passé turco-tatar, présent soviétique: études offertes à Alexandre Bennigsen (Louvain: Editions Peeters; Paris: Éditions de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1986), pp. 369–411.

İnalcık, Halil, and Oğuz, Mevlud, eds., Gazavat-ı Sultan Murad b. Mehmed Han: İzladi ve Varna Savaşları (1443–1444) üzerinde anonim Gazavatname (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1978).

İnalcık, Halil, Fatih Devri Üzerinde Tetkikler ve Vesikalar I (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1995).

Kafadar, Cemal, “A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum”, Muqarnas 24 (2007), pp. 7–25.

———, “Osmanlı Siyasal Düşüncesinin Kaynakları Üzerine Gözlemler”, Mehmet Ö. Alkan, ed., Modern Türkiyeʾde Siyasi Düşünce, vol. I., Cumhuriyet eʾ Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyetʾin Birikimi (Istanbul: İletişim, 2001), pp. 23–29.

26 çolak

Karadeniz, Hasan Basri, Osmanlılar ile Anadolu Beylikleri arasında Psikolojik Mücadele (Istanbul: Yeditepe, 2011).

Karateke, Hakan K., and Reinkowski, Maurus, eds. Legitimizing the Order: the Ottoman Rhetoric of State Power (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005).

Kazhdan, Alexander, “Caesar”, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. I (1991). p. 363.Kemalpaşazade, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, vii. Defter, ed. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk

Tarih Kurumu, 1957).———, Tevarih-i Al-i Osman, viii. Defter, ed. Ahmet Uğur (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu,

1997).Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz, “Khan, caliph, tsar and imperator: the multiple identities of

the Ottoman sultan”, Peter Fibiger Bang and Dariusz Kołodziejczyk, eds., Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 175–193.

Korobeinikov, Dimitri, “Diplomatic Correspondence between Byzantium and the Mamluk Sultanate in the Fourteenth century”, al-Masaq 16/1 (2004), pp. 53–74.

———, “How ‘Byzantine’ were the early Ottomans? Bithynia in ca. 1290–1450”, Osman-skii mir i osmanistika. Sbornik statei k 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia A.S. Tveritinovoi (1910–1973) (Moscow: Institut vostokovedeniia ran, 2010), pp. 215–239.

Levend, Agah S., Gazavât-nâmeler ve Mihaloğlu Ali Beyʾin Gazavât-nâmesi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000).

Mehmed Neşri, Kitab-ı Cihan-nüma, Neşri Tarihi, eds. Faik Reşit Unat and Mehmed A. Köymen (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1987).

Mélikoff-Sayar, Irène, Le Destan d’Umur Pacha (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1954).

Ménage, Victor L., “On the Recensions of Uruj’s History of the Ottomans”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 30/2 (1967), pp. 314–322.

———, “The Menâqıb of Yakhshi Faqîh”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26 (1963), pp. 50–54.

———, Neshrî’s History of the Ottomans: Sources and Development of the Text (London: Oxford University Press, 1964).

Miklosich, Franz, and Müller, Joseph, eds., Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, Volume 3. Acta et Diplomata Graeca Res Graecas Italasque Illustrantia (Vindobonae: Carolus Gerold, 1865).

Murphey, Rhoads, Exploring Ottoman Sovereignty: Tradition, Image and Practice in the Ottoman Imperial Household, 1400–1800 (London: Continuum, 2008).

Necipoğlu, Gülru, “Süleyman the Magnificent and the representation of power in the context of Ottoman-Habsburg-Papal rivalry,” The Art Bulletin 71 (1989), pp. 401–27.

Öz, Tahsin, “Bizans İmparatorunun Bir Namesi”, Belleten 15 (1951), pp. 219–222.Özbaran, Salih, Bir Osmanlı Kimliği: 14.-17. Yüzyıllarda Rum/Rumi Aidiyet ve İmgeleri

(Istanbul: Kitap, 2004).


Özcan, Abdülkadir, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Kanunname-i Al-i Osman (Tahlil ve Karşılaştırmalı Metin) (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2003).

Öztürk, Necdet, “Anonim Tevarih-i Al-i Osmanʾların Kaynak Değerleri Hakkında”, xii. Türk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara 12–16 Eylül 1994) Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler vol. iii (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1999), pp. 755–762.

———, ed., Fatih Devri Kaynaklarından Düsturname-i Enveri, Osmanlı Tarihi Kısmı (1299–1466) (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2003).

Pehlivan, Gürol, “Varna Savaşı ve Bir Tarih Kaynağı Olarak Gazâvatnâmeler (Varna Savaşı ile İlgili Yeni Bir Yayın Münasebetiyle)”, Turkish Studies 3/4 (2008), pp. 598–617.

Raby, Julian, “Cyriacus of Ancona and the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed ii”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 43 (1980), pp. 242–246.

Reinert, Stephen W., “Fragmentation (1204–1453)”, in Jonathan Shepard, ed., The Expansion of Orthodox Europe: Byzantium, the Balkans and Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2007), pp. 307–327.

Reychman, Jan, and Zajaczkowski, Ananiasz, Osmanlı-Türk Diplomatikası El Kitabı, trans. Mehmet Fethi Atay (Istanbul: Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 1993).

Savvides, Alexios G., “On the Origins and Connotation of the Term ‘Tekfur’ in Byzantine-Turkish Relations”, Byzantion 71/2 (2001), pp. 451–461.

———, “Tekfur”, Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. x (2000), p. 413.———, “Τεκφούρ: οι χριστιανοί ηγεμόνες και στρατιωτικοί αρχηγοί του βυζαντινο-

τουρκικού μετώπου (13ος–15ος αιώνες)” [Tekfour, Christian rulers and military leaders of Byzantine-Turkish frontier (13th-15th centuries)], Vyzantiaka 17 (1997), pp. 365–368.

Shahid, Irfan, “Heraclius ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 34/35 (1980–1981), pp. 225–237.

Spandounes, Theodore, On the Origin of the Ottoman Emperors, trans. Donald M. Nicol (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Şahin, İbrahim Kaya, Aşıkpaşa-zade as Historian: A Study on the Tevarih-i Al-i Osman (Unpublished M.A. Thesis: Sabancı University, 2000).

Taeschner, Franz, ed., Gihannuma: die altosmanische Chronik des Mevlana Mehemmed Neschri (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1951–55).

Tekindağ, M.C. Şehabeddin, “Karamanlıʾların Gorigos Seferi (1367)”, Tarih Dergisi 6 (1954), pp. 161–174.

Tulum, Mertol, ed., Tursun Bey, Tarih-i Ebüʾl-Feth (Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları, 1974).

Unat, Faik R. and Köymen, Mehmet A. eds., Mehmed Neşrî, Kitab-ı Cihan-Nüma, Neşrî Tarihi (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1987).

Veinstein, Gilles, “Charles Quint et Soliman le Magnifique: le Grand défi”, in Gilles Veinstein, ed., Autoportrait du Sultan Ottoman en Conquérant (Istanbul: isis Press, 2010), pp. 239–253.

28 çolak

———, “La question du califat ottoman”, Gilles Veinstein, ed., Autoportrait du Sultan Ottoman en Conquérant (Istanbul: isis Press, 2010), pp. 253–269.

Verpeaux, Jean, ed., Traité des Offices: Introduction, texte et traduction (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1966).

Woodhead, Christine, “Neshrî”, Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. viii (1995), pp. 7–8.

———, “Urudj”, Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. X (2000), p. 908.Yazıcıoğlu Ali, Tevarih-i Al-i Selçuk, Oğuznâme, Selçuklu tarihi: giriş, metin, dizin, ed.

Abdullah Bakır (Istanbul: Çamlıca, 2009).

Documents

Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser: Disdain, Negligence and ... Halil İnalcık, “Power Relationships”, pp. 369–411. 7 Needless to say, the term Byzantine was coined by Renaissance