Papers by Delyan Rusev
Chronica, 2023
In his Oğuznāme ("Book of the Oghuz"), the 15th-century Ottoman historian Yazıcıoğlu ʿAlī wove in... more In his Oğuznāme ("Book of the Oghuz"), the 15th-century Ottoman historian Yazıcıoğlu ʿAlī wove into the narrative of his main source, Ibn Bībī's Persian history of the Rūm Seljuks, a set of interpolations tracing the fate of a large group of Anatolian Turkmens. They reportedly followed the Seljuk Sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāʾūs II (r. 1246-61) after his flight to Byzantium in 1262 and settled in the region of Dobruja in the Northeastern Balkans under the leadership of the famous mystic Sarı Saltuk. This story has become the cornerstone of a longstanding historiographic discussion since the early 20th century, not least because of its supposed relation to processes of greater historical significance such as the formation of the 14th-century Principality of Dobruja and the genesis of the Gagauz, a population of Turkish-speaking Christians, in the area. As a number of questions remain unanswered in the light of the increasing acceptance of the truthfulness of Yazıcıoğlu ʿAlī's account in recent research, the present study aims to reignite the discussion and challenge some unfounded yet widespread conclusions by revisiting the relevant pre-Ottoman evidence, both written and material. It highlights the Tatar (Golden Horde) context of Sarı Saltuk's presence in late 13th-century Northern Dobruja and in the town of Sakçı (Isaccea) in particular, but casts serious doubt on his connection with the alleged Anatolian migrants as well as with Babadag, a town that was (re)established and associated with him in Ottoman times.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
I. A. Biliarsky (ed.), Laudator temporis acti. Studia in memoriam Ioannis A. Bozilov. Vol. I: Religio, Historia. Sofia, 2018, pp. 435-510.
This paper offers an English translation and a broad commentary of a chapter from the second deft... more This paper offers an English translation and a broad commentary of a chapter from the second defter (volume) of Kemālpaşazāde’s Tevāriḫ-i āl-i ʿOs̱mān (Histories of the House of Osman) relating a legendary history of medieval Bulgaria. It is argued that the main source that the Ottoman historian has utilized in composing this part of his Tevāriḫ was an unknown version of the so called Bulgarian Apocryphal Chronicle belonging to a cycle of eleventh-twelfth-century historical-apocalyptic works. An attempt is made to provide a partial reconstruction of this source by means of collating the Ottoman text with the only extant copy of the Apocryphal Chronicle titled Tale of the Prophet Isaiah of How He Was Taken up to the Seventh Heaven by an Angel as well as by taking into consideration other related works of medieval Bulgarian literature. Kemālpaşazāde’s interventions and additions to the narrative of his main source on Bulgarian history are highlighted and, where possible, explained in the light of his historiographic approach and the broader context of his Tevāriḫ. Special attention is paid to the manner in which the Ottoman historian has neatly complemented the information extracted from the Apocryphal Chronicle in order to link it to the main narrative line of the defter, relating the beginnings of Ottoman conquest in the Balkans. Finally, some observations and assumptions as to the place and the process of creation of the text under consideration are proposed, suggesting that Kemālpaşazāde became acquainted with an Ottoman Turkish translation of the Apocryphal Chronicle during his professorship at the Isḥāk Paşa Medrese in Üsküp (present-day Skopje).
Another forthcoming paper is dealing with the cultural and intellectual background of the emergence of this peculiar text with a focus on the possible venues of interaction between the various strands of historiographic production in 15th and early-16th-century Ottoman Europe.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Исторически преглед / Istoricheski pregled (Historical Review), 2023
This paper offers a reproduction, Bulgarian translation, and analysis of a previously unexplored ... more This paper offers a reproduction, Bulgarian translation, and analysis of a previously unexplored account in the “Annals of the Ottoman Dynasty” by the Ottoman scholar Kemâlpashazâde (ca. 1468–1534). The text of the source concerns the relations between the anonymous Byzantine lord of the town of Bolayır on the Gallipoli Peninsula and the Bulgarian ruler of Nikopol called Shishman in the context of the early Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. The purpose of the research is to reveal the historical figures and events included in the account as well as the possible paths by which the memory of them reached Kemâlpashazâde. The juxtaposition of Kemâlpashazâde’s text with a number of historical sources from the 14th through 18th century has allowed for two major conclusions. Firstly, the lord of Bolayır is probably identical with the Byzantine governor of Gallipoli who appears with the name of Asen tekfûr in Enverî’s Düstûrnâme and can be identified with either Manuel Asen or John Asen, the sons of the Byzantine aristocrat of Bulgarian origin Andronikos Asen. Secondly, the image of Shishman in the “Annals” has likely resulted from a contamination of the memory of several representatives of the Shishmanid dynasty such as the Bulgarian tsars Mihail III Shishman, Ivan Alexander, and Ivan Shishman as well as, possibly, the latter’s namesake uncle. Particular attention is paid to some parallels with the information about Bulgarian-Byzantine relations at the time of Tsar Michael III Shishman as described in the fifteenth-century History of Laonikos Chalkokondyles, whose possible reception among Ottoman literati including Kemâlpashazâde is also discussed in the paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Публикацията представя оригиналния текст, български превод и анализ на едно непроучено досега сведение в "Анали на османската династия" на османския учен Кемалпашазаде (1468-1534). Изворовият текст засяга отношенията между анонимния византийски управник на галиполския град Булаир и българския владетел на Никопол на име Шишман в контекста на първите османски завоевания на Балканите. Целта на изследването е да разкрие историческите личности и събития, които са залегнали в основата на наратива, както и възможните пътища, по които паметта за тях е достигнала до Кемалпашазаде. Извършената съпоставка с редица исторически съчинения от XIV-XVIII в. говори за вероятната контаминация на паметта за няколко личности от династията на Шишмановци в "Аналите". Особено внимание е обърнато на някои паралели със сведенията на Лаоник Халкокондил за българо-византийските отношения при цар Михаил III Шишман.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bulgaria Mediaevalis 12, 2021
Full text: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1194793
roussev.d@gmail.com
The D... more Full text: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1194793
roussev.d@gmail.com
The Düstūrnāme, a rhymed Ottoman Turkish universal history composed by Enverī in 1465, contains one of the most idiosyncratic versions of early Ottoman history, which has received surprisingly little attention in modern scholarship. This paper analyzes Enverī’s narrative of the reign of Murad I (1362–1389) with a focus on his marriage with the Bulgarian princess Kera Tamara as reported by the Ottoman author. While referring to real events and personalities, this account has legendary overtones and seems to be based on fifteenth-century Christian and Muslim oral traditions, which have also found some reflection in Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ Histories. The analysis shows that Enverī has probably reproduced and versified an already circulating semi-legendary story of Kera Tamara’s appearance at the Ottoman court and the Battle of Kosovo Polje (1389), with the latter event depicted as a direct consequence of the former. In order to make sense of this memory, the second part of the study offers a reconsideration of the chronology of Kera Tamara’s marriage with Murad I – and hence of her brother Ivan Shishman’s acceptance of Ottoman suzerainty – which has been traditionally dated in the 1370s. As most of the scholarly opinions on that matter are based on the inaccurate chronology of an Ottoman tradition going back to the work of Idris Bitlisi (d. 1520), his narrative is revisited to show that he (like Chalkokondyles) actually placed the Bulgarian tsar’s vassalage among events that can be securely dated in the 1380s. A hypothesis is thus put forward to the effect that Ivan Shishman became Murad’s vassal and sent Kera Tamara in his harem after the Ottoman conquest of Sofia ca. 1383–1385.
Key words: Ottoman historiography, Ottoman conquest, medieval Bulgaria, Kera Tamara, Murad I, Enverī, Idris Bitlisi, Ivan Shishman, dynastic marriage
Римуваната световна история Дюстурнаме („Писание за правилата“ или „Писание за везира“), съставена от Енвери на османотурски език през 1465 г., съдържа едно от най-самобитните изложения на ранноосманската история, което обаче е получило твърде ограничено внимание в модерната историография. В настоящото изследване е анализиран разказът на Енвери за управлението на Мурад I (1362–1389) с фокус върху сведенията за неговия брак с българската принцеса Кера Тамара – един извор за нейната биография, останал досега неизвестен на медиевистиката. Макар и да се отнася до реални личности и събития, въпросният пасаж от Дюстурнаме, изглежда, се основава на християнски и мюсюлмански устни традиции от XV в., които намират отражение и в „Изложение на историите“ на съвременния на Енвери гръцки автор Лаоник Халкокондил. Извършеният анализ сочи, че османският автор е възпроизвел и преобразувал в мерена реч съществуващо от по-рано полулегендарно предание за попадането на Кера Тамара в османския двор и битката на Косова поле (1389 г.), където второто събитие е представено като пряка последица от първото.
Изхождайки от това схващане, втората част на изследването предлага едно ново тълкувание относно времето на брака на Кера Тамара с Мурад I и съответно на приемането на васален статут от страна на брат ѝ Иван Шишман – събития, които традиционно се датират през 70-те години на XIV в. Тъй като повечето от съществуващите изследователски мнения по въпроса се базират на неточната хронология на една османска традиция, започваща от съчинението на Идрис Битлиси (поч. 1520 г.), неговата версия е преразгледана. Подобно на Халкокондил, Битлиси всъщност поставя сведението си за васалитета на българския цар насред събития, които по други извори могат сигурно да се датират през 80-те години на века. Въз основа на предложения анализ е изградена хипотезата, че Иван Шишман става васал на Мурад I и изпраща Кера Тамара в неговия харем след османското завладяване на София в периода 1383–1385 г.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Градът на Балканите. Пространства, образи, памет. Съст. Румяна Прешленова. София: Българска академия на науките, 2021
The ancient church of Hagia Sophia is one of the oldest and most enigmatic standing monuments in ... more The ancient church of Hagia Sophia is one of the oldest and most enigmatic standing monuments in the city of Sofia (Bulgaria). In contrast to the complete lack of written evidence for its history before the fourteenth century, Western travelers who visited the city after the Ottoman conquest (ca. 1385) often relate, with significant differences in detail, a legend about the church’s foundation by a certain Byzantine princess or empress Sophia who gave her name to the temple and the city. In Ottoman narrative sources like Evliya Çelebi’s "Book of Travels" and the earlier anonymous work "The Hidden Pearl", on the other hand, the princess Sofia (or Asfiyye) appears as the founder of the city of Sofia and a benefactor of the Hagia Sophia church in Constantinople. The article aims to trace the genesis of the legend by comparing its different versions and other related narratives. It argues that the plot derives from the popular Ottoman tale of Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia, which was formed in the fifteenth century and was later partly transplanted to Sofia and its homonymous temple.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
История / Istoriya-History, 2023
The origin and ethnogenesis of the (Proto-)Bulgarian tribes in the Early Middle Ages is a complex... more The origin and ethnogenesis of the (Proto-)Bulgarian tribes in the Early Middle Ages is a complex topic that has captured the imagination of many historians, medieval and modern alike. The present paper analyzes one relevant account from Bahjat al-tavârikh, a universal history in Persian composed in 1458 by the Ottoman scholar and diplomat Shukrullâh. This highly idiosyncratic but hitherto neglected account presents the Balkan Bulgarians (burjân, bulgatân) as descendants of the Sasanian shah Hormozd IV (r. 579–90) who allegedly spent some time in Byzantium (Rûm) while he was a prince. As Hormozd himself is said to have been born from the marriage of Khosrow I Anushirvan (r. 531–79) with the daughter of the khagan of the Turks, this legendary evidence seems to imply the mixed Turco-Iranian origin of the Bulgarians – a view shared by some modern researchers. The genesis of the account remains obscure, but contextual and historical analysis has shown that it was not invented by Shukrullâh, who only reproduced it from an unknown source probably dateable to the 8th-11th centuries.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Българска етнология, 2019
The paper offers an analysis of ethno-demographic data to be found in a corpus of manuscript docu... more The paper offers an analysis of ethno-demographic data to be found in a corpus of manuscript documents related to the Province of Varna in Northeastern Bulgaria, and compiled in 1888 as a result of a statewide initiative for collecting information on the traditional clothing of the population. The relevant data is explored in the context of other contemporary sources in order to trace any tendencies and specifics in the approach of the local administration – which was responsible for carrying out the survey – towards the ethnicity as a concept and a means of population mapping, as well as towards the represented ethnic groups in particular. The paper highlights the meanings of the term ‘ethnicity’ (narodnost) as applied in the sources under consideration, and discusses the (in)visibility of certain communities, including the ethnographic groups that form them. Moreover, an attempt is made to set the discussion against the background of imperial legacy and the social structures and concepts that functioned in the nineteenth-century Ottoman state as opposed to those developing in the newly founded Bulgarian national state.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Talks by Delyan Rusev
Seminar in Ottoman and Turkish Studies, University of Toronto, 26 March 2019 (Poster only)
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Workshops, Conferences & Lecture series by Delyan Rusev
The workshop aims at investigating the evolution of the entangled power networks in the Balkans i... more The workshop aims at investigating the evolution of the entangled power networks in the Balkans in both trans-regional and intra-imperial Ottoman perspectives on the eve of, during, and after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. It seeks to address, discuss, and hopefully overcome deficiencies of scholarship to date that arise from strict disciplinary limitations, dominant historiographical trends, or tradition in national schools of history in the Balkans. The still dominant polarizing approach, which narrates how the “Ottomans” have conquered and subsequently controlled and administered the region, often depicts the main actors in the process in dichotomous opposition of “invaders” and “invaded ones”, thus discarding almost completely the perplex political and religious complexity of Late Medieval and Early Modern Balkans.
The functioning power networks of the medieval Balkan elites confronted a similar system of hierarchical networks of dependencies, initiated and led by the Ottoman dynasty. Following its own strategic agenda the established power networks in the Balkans either bitterly opposed and resisted the advance of the Ottoman polity or intermingled with the power networks presided by the Ottoman rulers. Ironically, not so rarely the conquerors of a given Balkan region, who in the mind frame of dominant historiographic tradition can be portrayed as the “Ottoman invaders”, appear to have originated from the local nobility thus being foreign to the conquered lands no more than those who resisted the “invasion”. In light of this, it seems little surprising that Balkan elites and their dependent power networks intermixed quite successfully with those networks that originated in Late Medieval Bithynia and carried the Ottoman banner into the Balkans. The complex mixture of mighty families of Anatolian or Balkan elites on Ottoman service, who had at their disposal substantial revenues and significant military contingents shaped entirely the history of the early Ottoman Balkans. Until the mid-sixteenth century, when the Ottoman central power gradually managed to replace the power networks of these elite families, they not only held big landed estates as private property, administered large parts of the Balkans, initiated close interaction with neighboring Christian rulers, shaped the Ottoman relationships with foreign powers by channeling the communication, but were also decisively involved in the enthronement of virtually every Ottoman ruler until Suleyman I (1521-1566), which reflected the political bids for power voiced by the noble families in the Ottoman Balkans and their clientelistic networks, manifested by patronage over religiously non-conformist groups’ literary, and architectural traditions.
Evolving around these considerations the workshop seeks to move away from the state- and religion-centered approach to the early Ottoman Balkans and invites for a more thorough examination of the complex web of political and personal relationships that extend beyond the local Balkan or imperial Ottoman boundaries tangled in a complex interplay of different relations between states, empires, elites and individuals with varying interests and agendas. In light of that, it suggests a thematic focus on the following intertwined themes:
Dynamics of power relations in a trans-imperial and regional context
- motives for joining a power network
- alliance building and collaboration within and outside the Ottoman domains
- alienation and factional politics within and outside the Ottoman domains
- political coalitions of Balkan elite families in Christian and Muslim context
- dynastic factionalism and the formation of networks
- power networks in times of dynastic struggles and political instability
- servants, agents and elite slaves as part of the power networks
Notables and their elite households
- royal and non-royal courts within and outside the palace
- extended households, kinship ties and clients
- military-administrative households and their clientelistic networks
- military contingents and manpower
- social groups manning the retinues
- exchange and mobility of soldiery
- trans-imperial and regional household relations
Regional lordships, large domains, and land tenure
- power bases and regional lordships: motives for reuse of seats of power and/or for establishing new ones
- spatial patterns of regional Balkan lordships
- hereditary rule over territories before and after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans
- military fiefs, hereditary and tenancy rights
- pious foundations and landed estates
Patronage of the Balkan Christian and Muslim elites
- architectural patronage legitimizing local power and political authority
- literary patronage
- patronage over religious groups
- patronage over spiritual leaders
- patronage over shrines and other places of worship
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Delyan Rusev
Another forthcoming paper is dealing with the cultural and intellectual background of the emergence of this peculiar text with a focus on the possible venues of interaction between the various strands of historiographic production in 15th and early-16th-century Ottoman Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Публикацията представя оригиналния текст, български превод и анализ на едно непроучено досега сведение в "Анали на османската династия" на османския учен Кемалпашазаде (1468-1534). Изворовият текст засяга отношенията между анонимния византийски управник на галиполския град Булаир и българския владетел на Никопол на име Шишман в контекста на първите османски завоевания на Балканите. Целта на изследването е да разкрие историческите личности и събития, които са залегнали в основата на наратива, както и възможните пътища, по които паметта за тях е достигнала до Кемалпашазаде. Извършената съпоставка с редица исторически съчинения от XIV-XVIII в. говори за вероятната контаминация на паметта за няколко личности от династията на Шишмановци в "Аналите". Особено внимание е обърнато на някои паралели със сведенията на Лаоник Халкокондил за българо-византийските отношения при цар Михаил III Шишман.
roussev.d@gmail.com
The Düstūrnāme, a rhymed Ottoman Turkish universal history composed by Enverī in 1465, contains one of the most idiosyncratic versions of early Ottoman history, which has received surprisingly little attention in modern scholarship. This paper analyzes Enverī’s narrative of the reign of Murad I (1362–1389) with a focus on his marriage with the Bulgarian princess Kera Tamara as reported by the Ottoman author. While referring to real events and personalities, this account has legendary overtones and seems to be based on fifteenth-century Christian and Muslim oral traditions, which have also found some reflection in Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ Histories. The analysis shows that Enverī has probably reproduced and versified an already circulating semi-legendary story of Kera Tamara’s appearance at the Ottoman court and the Battle of Kosovo Polje (1389), with the latter event depicted as a direct consequence of the former. In order to make sense of this memory, the second part of the study offers a reconsideration of the chronology of Kera Tamara’s marriage with Murad I – and hence of her brother Ivan Shishman’s acceptance of Ottoman suzerainty – which has been traditionally dated in the 1370s. As most of the scholarly opinions on that matter are based on the inaccurate chronology of an Ottoman tradition going back to the work of Idris Bitlisi (d. 1520), his narrative is revisited to show that he (like Chalkokondyles) actually placed the Bulgarian tsar’s vassalage among events that can be securely dated in the 1380s. A hypothesis is thus put forward to the effect that Ivan Shishman became Murad’s vassal and sent Kera Tamara in his harem after the Ottoman conquest of Sofia ca. 1383–1385.
Key words: Ottoman historiography, Ottoman conquest, medieval Bulgaria, Kera Tamara, Murad I, Enverī, Idris Bitlisi, Ivan Shishman, dynastic marriage
Римуваната световна история Дюстурнаме („Писание за правилата“ или „Писание за везира“), съставена от Енвери на османотурски език през 1465 г., съдържа едно от най-самобитните изложения на ранноосманската история, което обаче е получило твърде ограничено внимание в модерната историография. В настоящото изследване е анализиран разказът на Енвери за управлението на Мурад I (1362–1389) с фокус върху сведенията за неговия брак с българската принцеса Кера Тамара – един извор за нейната биография, останал досега неизвестен на медиевистиката. Макар и да се отнася до реални личности и събития, въпросният пасаж от Дюстурнаме, изглежда, се основава на християнски и мюсюлмански устни традиции от XV в., които намират отражение и в „Изложение на историите“ на съвременния на Енвери гръцки автор Лаоник Халкокондил. Извършеният анализ сочи, че османският автор е възпроизвел и преобразувал в мерена реч съществуващо от по-рано полулегендарно предание за попадането на Кера Тамара в османския двор и битката на Косова поле (1389 г.), където второто събитие е представено като пряка последица от първото.
Изхождайки от това схващане, втората част на изследването предлага едно ново тълкувание относно времето на брака на Кера Тамара с Мурад I и съответно на приемането на васален статут от страна на брат ѝ Иван Шишман – събития, които традиционно се датират през 70-те години на XIV в. Тъй като повечето от съществуващите изследователски мнения по въпроса се базират на неточната хронология на една османска традиция, започваща от съчинението на Идрис Битлиси (поч. 1520 г.), неговата версия е преразгледана. Подобно на Халкокондил, Битлиси всъщност поставя сведението си за васалитета на българския цар насред събития, които по други извори могат сигурно да се датират през 80-те години на века. Въз основа на предложения анализ е изградена хипотезата, че Иван Шишман става васал на Мурад I и изпраща Кера Тамара в неговия харем след османското завладяване на София в периода 1383–1385 г.
Talks by Delyan Rusev
Workshops, Conferences & Lecture series by Delyan Rusev
The functioning power networks of the medieval Balkan elites confronted a similar system of hierarchical networks of dependencies, initiated and led by the Ottoman dynasty. Following its own strategic agenda the established power networks in the Balkans either bitterly opposed and resisted the advance of the Ottoman polity or intermingled with the power networks presided by the Ottoman rulers. Ironically, not so rarely the conquerors of a given Balkan region, who in the mind frame of dominant historiographic tradition can be portrayed as the “Ottoman invaders”, appear to have originated from the local nobility thus being foreign to the conquered lands no more than those who resisted the “invasion”. In light of this, it seems little surprising that Balkan elites and their dependent power networks intermixed quite successfully with those networks that originated in Late Medieval Bithynia and carried the Ottoman banner into the Balkans. The complex mixture of mighty families of Anatolian or Balkan elites on Ottoman service, who had at their disposal substantial revenues and significant military contingents shaped entirely the history of the early Ottoman Balkans. Until the mid-sixteenth century, when the Ottoman central power gradually managed to replace the power networks of these elite families, they not only held big landed estates as private property, administered large parts of the Balkans, initiated close interaction with neighboring Christian rulers, shaped the Ottoman relationships with foreign powers by channeling the communication, but were also decisively involved in the enthronement of virtually every Ottoman ruler until Suleyman I (1521-1566), which reflected the political bids for power voiced by the noble families in the Ottoman Balkans and their clientelistic networks, manifested by patronage over religiously non-conformist groups’ literary, and architectural traditions.
Evolving around these considerations the workshop seeks to move away from the state- and religion-centered approach to the early Ottoman Balkans and invites for a more thorough examination of the complex web of political and personal relationships that extend beyond the local Balkan or imperial Ottoman boundaries tangled in a complex interplay of different relations between states, empires, elites and individuals with varying interests and agendas. In light of that, it suggests a thematic focus on the following intertwined themes:
Dynamics of power relations in a trans-imperial and regional context
- motives for joining a power network
- alliance building and collaboration within and outside the Ottoman domains
- alienation and factional politics within and outside the Ottoman domains
- political coalitions of Balkan elite families in Christian and Muslim context
- dynastic factionalism and the formation of networks
- power networks in times of dynastic struggles and political instability
- servants, agents and elite slaves as part of the power networks
Notables and their elite households
- royal and non-royal courts within and outside the palace
- extended households, kinship ties and clients
- military-administrative households and their clientelistic networks
- military contingents and manpower
- social groups manning the retinues
- exchange and mobility of soldiery
- trans-imperial and regional household relations
Regional lordships, large domains, and land tenure
- power bases and regional lordships: motives for reuse of seats of power and/or for establishing new ones
- spatial patterns of regional Balkan lordships
- hereditary rule over territories before and after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans
- military fiefs, hereditary and tenancy rights
- pious foundations and landed estates
Patronage of the Balkan Christian and Muslim elites
- architectural patronage legitimizing local power and political authority
- literary patronage
- patronage over religious groups
- patronage over spiritual leaders
- patronage over shrines and other places of worship
Another forthcoming paper is dealing with the cultural and intellectual background of the emergence of this peculiar text with a focus on the possible venues of interaction between the various strands of historiographic production in 15th and early-16th-century Ottoman Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Публикацията представя оригиналния текст, български превод и анализ на едно непроучено досега сведение в "Анали на османската династия" на османския учен Кемалпашазаде (1468-1534). Изворовият текст засяга отношенията между анонимния византийски управник на галиполския град Булаир и българския владетел на Никопол на име Шишман в контекста на първите османски завоевания на Балканите. Целта на изследването е да разкрие историческите личности и събития, които са залегнали в основата на наратива, както и възможните пътища, по които паметта за тях е достигнала до Кемалпашазаде. Извършената съпоставка с редица исторически съчинения от XIV-XVIII в. говори за вероятната контаминация на паметта за няколко личности от династията на Шишмановци в "Аналите". Особено внимание е обърнато на някои паралели със сведенията на Лаоник Халкокондил за българо-византийските отношения при цар Михаил III Шишман.
roussev.d@gmail.com
The Düstūrnāme, a rhymed Ottoman Turkish universal history composed by Enverī in 1465, contains one of the most idiosyncratic versions of early Ottoman history, which has received surprisingly little attention in modern scholarship. This paper analyzes Enverī’s narrative of the reign of Murad I (1362–1389) with a focus on his marriage with the Bulgarian princess Kera Tamara as reported by the Ottoman author. While referring to real events and personalities, this account has legendary overtones and seems to be based on fifteenth-century Christian and Muslim oral traditions, which have also found some reflection in Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ Histories. The analysis shows that Enverī has probably reproduced and versified an already circulating semi-legendary story of Kera Tamara’s appearance at the Ottoman court and the Battle of Kosovo Polje (1389), with the latter event depicted as a direct consequence of the former. In order to make sense of this memory, the second part of the study offers a reconsideration of the chronology of Kera Tamara’s marriage with Murad I – and hence of her brother Ivan Shishman’s acceptance of Ottoman suzerainty – which has been traditionally dated in the 1370s. As most of the scholarly opinions on that matter are based on the inaccurate chronology of an Ottoman tradition going back to the work of Idris Bitlisi (d. 1520), his narrative is revisited to show that he (like Chalkokondyles) actually placed the Bulgarian tsar’s vassalage among events that can be securely dated in the 1380s. A hypothesis is thus put forward to the effect that Ivan Shishman became Murad’s vassal and sent Kera Tamara in his harem after the Ottoman conquest of Sofia ca. 1383–1385.
Key words: Ottoman historiography, Ottoman conquest, medieval Bulgaria, Kera Tamara, Murad I, Enverī, Idris Bitlisi, Ivan Shishman, dynastic marriage
Римуваната световна история Дюстурнаме („Писание за правилата“ или „Писание за везира“), съставена от Енвери на османотурски език през 1465 г., съдържа едно от най-самобитните изложения на ранноосманската история, което обаче е получило твърде ограничено внимание в модерната историография. В настоящото изследване е анализиран разказът на Енвери за управлението на Мурад I (1362–1389) с фокус върху сведенията за неговия брак с българската принцеса Кера Тамара – един извор за нейната биография, останал досега неизвестен на медиевистиката. Макар и да се отнася до реални личности и събития, въпросният пасаж от Дюстурнаме, изглежда, се основава на християнски и мюсюлмански устни традиции от XV в., които намират отражение и в „Изложение на историите“ на съвременния на Енвери гръцки автор Лаоник Халкокондил. Извършеният анализ сочи, че османският автор е възпроизвел и преобразувал в мерена реч съществуващо от по-рано полулегендарно предание за попадането на Кера Тамара в османския двор и битката на Косова поле (1389 г.), където второто събитие е представено като пряка последица от първото.
Изхождайки от това схващане, втората част на изследването предлага едно ново тълкувание относно времето на брака на Кера Тамара с Мурад I и съответно на приемането на васален статут от страна на брат ѝ Иван Шишман – събития, които традиционно се датират през 70-те години на XIV в. Тъй като повечето от съществуващите изследователски мнения по въпроса се базират на неточната хронология на една османска традиция, започваща от съчинението на Идрис Битлиси (поч. 1520 г.), неговата версия е преразгледана. Подобно на Халкокондил, Битлиси всъщност поставя сведението си за васалитета на българския цар насред събития, които по други извори могат сигурно да се датират през 80-те години на века. Въз основа на предложения анализ е изградена хипотезата, че Иван Шишман става васал на Мурад I и изпраща Кера Тамара в неговия харем след османското завладяване на София в периода 1383–1385 г.
The functioning power networks of the medieval Balkan elites confronted a similar system of hierarchical networks of dependencies, initiated and led by the Ottoman dynasty. Following its own strategic agenda the established power networks in the Balkans either bitterly opposed and resisted the advance of the Ottoman polity or intermingled with the power networks presided by the Ottoman rulers. Ironically, not so rarely the conquerors of a given Balkan region, who in the mind frame of dominant historiographic tradition can be portrayed as the “Ottoman invaders”, appear to have originated from the local nobility thus being foreign to the conquered lands no more than those who resisted the “invasion”. In light of this, it seems little surprising that Balkan elites and their dependent power networks intermixed quite successfully with those networks that originated in Late Medieval Bithynia and carried the Ottoman banner into the Balkans. The complex mixture of mighty families of Anatolian or Balkan elites on Ottoman service, who had at their disposal substantial revenues and significant military contingents shaped entirely the history of the early Ottoman Balkans. Until the mid-sixteenth century, when the Ottoman central power gradually managed to replace the power networks of these elite families, they not only held big landed estates as private property, administered large parts of the Balkans, initiated close interaction with neighboring Christian rulers, shaped the Ottoman relationships with foreign powers by channeling the communication, but were also decisively involved in the enthronement of virtually every Ottoman ruler until Suleyman I (1521-1566), which reflected the political bids for power voiced by the noble families in the Ottoman Balkans and their clientelistic networks, manifested by patronage over religiously non-conformist groups’ literary, and architectural traditions.
Evolving around these considerations the workshop seeks to move away from the state- and religion-centered approach to the early Ottoman Balkans and invites for a more thorough examination of the complex web of political and personal relationships that extend beyond the local Balkan or imperial Ottoman boundaries tangled in a complex interplay of different relations between states, empires, elites and individuals with varying interests and agendas. In light of that, it suggests a thematic focus on the following intertwined themes:
Dynamics of power relations in a trans-imperial and regional context
- motives for joining a power network
- alliance building and collaboration within and outside the Ottoman domains
- alienation and factional politics within and outside the Ottoman domains
- political coalitions of Balkan elite families in Christian and Muslim context
- dynastic factionalism and the formation of networks
- power networks in times of dynastic struggles and political instability
- servants, agents and elite slaves as part of the power networks
Notables and their elite households
- royal and non-royal courts within and outside the palace
- extended households, kinship ties and clients
- military-administrative households and their clientelistic networks
- military contingents and manpower
- social groups manning the retinues
- exchange and mobility of soldiery
- trans-imperial and regional household relations
Regional lordships, large domains, and land tenure
- power bases and regional lordships: motives for reuse of seats of power and/or for establishing new ones
- spatial patterns of regional Balkan lordships
- hereditary rule over territories before and after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans
- military fiefs, hereditary and tenancy rights
- pious foundations and landed estates
Patronage of the Balkan Christian and Muslim elites
- architectural patronage legitimizing local power and political authority
- literary patronage
- patronage over religious groups
- patronage over spiritual leaders
- patronage over shrines and other places of worship