The First, Hesitant Steps of Ottoman Protocol and Diplomacy into Modernity (1676–1725)

Abstract

From 1676 to 1725, the Ottoman state drew up seven protocol codes for regulating court rituals, processions or celebrations. Taken together, they reveal a complex evolution. Their overall context and raison d’être was a major crisis in governance. Around the middle of the seventeenth century, a combination of external threats with internal unrest became so grave that the sultan and his family, accompanied by numerous court dignitaries and officials, were forced to leave Istanbul and take refuge in Edirne. For the next fifty years or so, it was a succession of grand viziers from the Köprülü family who ran the Empire in quasi-dynastic fashion, partially restoring a semblance of order which however collapsed yet again in the wake of an over-ambitious Vienna expedition. In the process, the court rules and procedures surrounding and representing sovereignty also disintegrated, depriving royal power of its heart, its pomp-and-circumstance embodiment. This article argues that more than a practical necessity, the protocol codes in question came to manifest a new political, diplomatic and moral agenda. In fact, what was at stake was nothing less than the re-invention, representation and re-conceptualization of the House of Osman.

Notes

1 The first Ottoman Law Code, known as Fatih Kanunnâmesi, was prepared by Mehmed II’s chancellor (Nişancı), Leyszâde Mehmed Efendi: Abdülkadir Özcan (ed.), Kānunnâme-i Âl-i Osman (Tahlil ve Karşılaştırmalı Metin) (Istanbul, 2003). For studies on law codes and protocol registers see: Rhoads Murphey, ‘The Ottomans and the Sustaining of Tradition: Teşrîfâtî-zade Mehmed Efendi’s Defter-i Teşrîfât as a Guide to Understanding the Principles Animating Ottoman Dynastic Ritual at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century’, in Turan Gökçe (ed.), Uluslararası Osmanlı Tarihi Sempozyumu (8–10 Nisan 1999) Bildirileri (Izmir, 2000), pp. 335-40; Hakan Karateke, ‘Introduction’, An Ottoman Protocol Register, Containing Ceremonies from 1736 to 1808: BEO Sadaret Defterleri 350 in the Prime Ministry Ottoman State Archives, Istanbul (London-Istanbul, 2007); pp. 1-43; Linda Darling, ‘Ordering the Ottoman Elite: Ceremonial Lawcodes of the Late Seventeenth Century’, Turcica 50 (2019), pp. 355-82. See also footnotes 13, 32, 33 below. For Ottoman ceremonial practices at the Topkapı Palace in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries see: Gülru Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, and Power: The Topkapı Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge, MA and London, 1991).

2 For ceremonies recorded during the events and archived later see: Tülay Artan, ‘Royal Weddings and the Grand Vezirate: Institutional and Symbolic Change in the Early Eighteenth Century’, in Tülay Artan, Jeroen Duindam and Metin Kunt (eds), Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires. A Global Perspective (Leiden, 2011), pp. 339-99. For the records of the period studied here the following sources are relevant: Üsküdarî Abdullah Efendi, Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre I (Ankara, 2017), pp. 339-47 (celebration of a religious holiday); Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre II, pp. 274-6, 278-82, 306-08 (enthronement and girding); Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre III, pp. 140-44 (Iranian embassy). Keeping a journal of the daily affairs is listed among the duties of the master of the protocol (27 January 1693): Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre IV, p. 220. For Üsküdarî Abdullah Efendi, the author of the rûzmerre, a daily chronicle, the first of this genre in Ottoman historical writing, see Rhoads Murphey, ‘Biographical Notes on “Mevkufatî”, a Lesser Known Ottoman Historian of the Late Seventeenth Century’, Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan (Istanbul 1991), pp. 193-204.

3 Louise Marlow, ‘Adab al-mulūk’, in Houari Touati (ed.), Encyclopedia of Mediterranean Humanism (2014): http://www.encyclopedie-humanisme.com/?Gnomologia; Sarah R. bin Tyeer, ‘CODA: The Interpretation and Misinterpretation of adab in Modern Scholarship’, The Qur’an and the Aesthetics of Premodern Arabic Prose (London, 2016), pp. 265-80.

4 Cathérine Mayeur-Jaouen, ‘Introduction’, in Cathérine Mayeur-Jaouen (ed.), Adab and Modernity: A Civilising Process? (Sixteenth–Twenty-First Century) (Leiden and Boston, 2019), pp. 1-45; See also: Sunil Kumar, ‘The Value of the Ādāb Al-Muluk as a Historical Source: An Insight into the Ideals and Expectations of Islamic Society in the Middle Period (A.D. 945–1500)’, The Indian Economic & Social History Review 22-3 (1985), pp. 307-27.

5 In addition to the treatises of Lütfi Paşa (Âsafnâme) and Koçi Bey (Risâle), both manuals on the vizierate, there are a few other treatises from the same period which remain anonymous. Mustafa Âli’s main work in this genre, Mevâ’idü’n-nefâis fi kavâidü’l-mecâlis (1599), is based on his Teşrîfâtnâme (Book of Protocol) and Kavâidü’l-mecâlis (Rules of Social Gatherings). It is understood that the Teşrîfâtnâme is an incomplete version of his Nushatü’s-selâtîn (Counsel for Sultans, also known as Nasîhatü’s-selâtîn, completed in 1581 with minor additions added by 1586). Gelibolulu’s other major work of political advice and etiquette, Mehâsinü’l-edeb (1596), is a version of the renowned Muʿtazila scholar al-Jahiz’s Minhâcü’s-sülûk ilâ Âdâbi sohbetü’l-Mülûk. It is a partial translation from Arabic, with some additions reflecting on the social and political developments of the late sixteenth century. See Douglas Scott Brookes, Tables of Delicacies Concerning the Rules of Social Gatherings: An Annoted Translation of Gelibolulu Mustafa Âli’s Mevâ’id’ün-Nefâ’is fi Kavâ'idi’l-Mecâlis (Cambridge, MA, 2003); Andreas Tietze, Mustafâ ‘Âlî’s Counsel for Sultans of 1581, 2 vols (Vienna, 1979-1982); Hasan Saiyaf, ‘Mehâsinü’l-edeb (İnceleme-Metin)’, MA diss., Uludağ Üniversitesi (Bursa, 2018). It should also be noted that in the first quarter of the eighteenth century a critical summary of Mehasinü’l-edeb was produced by Osmanzade Taib (d. 1724) and dedicated to then grand vizier, Nevşehirli İbrahim Paşa (d. 1730).

6 Murphey, ‘The Ottomans and the Sustaining of Tradition’.

7 To the seven that I mention one could add Mahmud I’s (r. 1730–54) master of ceremonies, Nailî Abdullah Paşa’s treatise on divan protocol: ‘Dîvân-ı Hümâyûn’a Ait Teşrîfât,’ Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuası 16/93 (1926), pp. 250-60; Can Çelik, ‘Naili Abdullah Paşa. Defter-i Teşrîfât (Metin-Değerlendirme)’, MA thesis, Beykent Üniversitesi (Istanbul, 2018).

8 In 1658, the young sultan Mehmed IV was taken from the capital, which had become too unsafe under the double impact of internal and external menaces. Entrusted with extraordinary powers, the grand vizier Köprülü Mehmed Paşa may also have wished to render the Sultan inaccessible to any and all rival factions.

9 Giora Sternberg, Status Interaction during the Reign of Louis XIV (Oxford, 2014).

10 Hereafter AA, after Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa. Tevkî’î (Nişancı) Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa, like Leyszâde, was the chancellor: Abdurrahman Paşa, ‘Osmanlı Kanunnâmeleri’, Milli Tetebbu’lar Mecmu’ası 1-3 (İstanbul, 1331 [1916]), pp. 497-544; Tevkî’î Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Teşrîfât ve Törenler. Tevkî’î Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa Kânûn-nâmesi, S. M. Bilge (ed.) (Istanbul, 2011).

11 Hereafter HH, after Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi. Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi, Telhisu’l-Beyan fi Kavanin-i Al-i Osman, ed. S. İlgurel (Ankara, 1998). It is mistakenly dated to 1675 or earlier. The latest date recorded in the Telhisu’l-Beyan is 1686. Hezarfen correctly records the dismissal of Şeyhu’l-islâm Çatalcalı Ali Efendi on 27 September 1686 and names his successor, Ankaravi Mehmed Emin Efendi, as the final note on the section on the şeyhu’l-islâms. Mehmed Emin Efendi died in office on 2 November 1687.

12 Hereafter EE, after Eyyûbî Efendi. Eyyûbî Efendi, Eyyûbî Efendi Kanûnnâmesi, ed. A. Özcan (Istanbul, 1994). For the anonymous protocol (hereafter ANON): Mehmet İpşirli, ‘Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilâtına Dâir Bir Eser: Kavânîn-i Osmânî ve Râbıta-i Âsitâne’, Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi 14 (1994), pp. 9-35.

13 Filiz Çalışkan, ‘Defter-i Teşrifât’, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi IX, p. 94; Halil Mercan, ‘Teşrifâtîzâde Mehmed Efendi’nin Defter-i Teşrifâtı (Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirmesi)’, MA Thesis, Erciyes Üniversitesi (Kayseri, 1996). Duindam remarked that the Ottomans anticipated the French in establishing a master of ceremonies while Vienna lagged behind both the French and the Ottomans in this respect: Jeroen Duindam, ‘Ceremonial Staffs and Paperwork at Two Courts: France and the Habsburg Monarchy ca. 1550–1720’, in K. Malette (ed.), Hofgesellschaft und Höflinge an europäischen Fürstenhöfen in der Frühen Neuzeit (15.–18. Jahrhundert) (Münster, 2001), pp. 369-88.

14 Istanbul University Manuscript Library [hereafter IUML] T.Y. 9810, 31b-32a. See footnote 15 below.

15 Hereafter TME, after Teşrifâtî Mehmed Efendi. It survives in three copies: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek [hereafter ÖNB], Ms. 283 (16 chapters, 58 folios); IUML T.Y. 9810 (36 chapters; 128 folios; 2b-124b; 124b-128a includes a treatise on hadith) and Süleymaniye Manuscript Library [hereafter SML], Esad Efendi 2150 (31 chapters, 80 folios). Mercan claimed that the latter two were penned by the same author. He added that the SML copy was disorganised, and the IUML copy also had some irregularities but was arranged better, as well as having some additional information. Murphey, who studied the ÖNB copy, remarked that it did not include all the sections of the IUML copy, but was more informative especially with respect to ceremonies involving Mustafa II and his son, prince Mahmud (the future Mahmud I) in the years 1696–1702. For Mercan and Murphey see footnotes 13 and 1 above.

16 He was ordered to compile the rules and customs at the court by the grand vizier at the time, Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa, Abdurrahman Abdi Paşa Kanunnâmesi (2011), p. 3.

17 Mustafa II was enthroned on 6 February 1695. For his role in the compilation of the customs and rules at court: IUML T.Y. 9810, 2a-2b. (The folio numbers are inconsistent in the secondary literature; here I followed Mercan’s references). Along with other grand viziers, (Sürmeli) Ali Paşa (March 1694–April 1695) is referred to in the section on the enthronement ceremonies. Elmas Mehmed Paşa was appointed as the grand vizier on 2 May 1695 by Mustafa II.

18 Tülay Artan, ‘Royal Weddings and the Grand Vezirate’.

19 Studying seventeenth-century law codes, and comparing these with that of Mehmed II (r. 1444–46, 1451–81), Darling remarked that ‘their vocabulary is traditional, but their organization and the ways they seek to regulate the elite appear to be new’. She argued that AA, HH and EE were aimed ‘at regulation rather than advice and are addressed not to the rulers but to the ruled, with the purpose of elucidating the organization of the Ottoman elite and prescribing its proper conditions and behavior’: Darling, ‘Ordering the Ottoman Elite’.

20 The report concerning the strategic move of Mustafa’s supporters, forwarded by Cantemir, is not affirmed by other period historians: Demetrius Cantemir, The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire III, transl. N. Tindal (London, 1734), pp. 395-6; Silahdar Fındıklılı Mehmed Ağa, Nusretnâme: İnceleme — metin (1106–1133 / 1695–1721), ed. Mehmet Topal (Ankara, 2018), pp. 66-8.

21 IUML T.Y. 9810, 7b, 8b.

22 For symbolism at the girding ceremony and swords from the Topkapı Palace Treasury see: Douglas S. Brookes, ‘Of Swords and Tombs: Symbolism in the Ottoman Accession Ritual’, Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 17-2 (1993), pp. 1-22; David Alexander, ‘Dhu’l-Faqar and the Legacy of the Prophet, Mîrâth Rasûl Allâh’, Gladius XIX (1999), pp. 157-87; idem, ‘Swords and Sabers during the Early Islamic Period’, Gladius XXI (2001), pp. 193-220; idem, ‘Swords from Ottoman and Mamluk Treasuries’, Artibus Asiae 66-2 (Pearls from Water. Rubies from Stone. Studies in Islamic Art in Honor of Priscilla Soucek Part I) (2006), pp. 13-34. For the procession: Gülru Necipoğlu, ‘Dynastic Imprints on the Cityscape: The Collective Message of Funerary Imperial Mosque Complexes in Istanbul’, in Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont (ed.), Colloque international: cimetières et traditions funéraires dans le monde islamique (Paris, 1996), pp. 23-36.

23 Tülay Artan, ‘The Departure Procession of 1672: Ottoman Antiquarianism or a Puritan Statement’, Ayşen Anadol et al. (eds), Distant Neighbour Close Memories. 600 Years of Turkish-Polish Relations (Istanbul, 2014), pp. 60-77.

24 IUML T.Y. 9810, 26b-27a.

25 Nişancı Elmas Mehmed Paşa was the chancellor of Mehmed IV, Mustafa II’s father. In April 1695, soon after Mustafa was enthroned, he was appointed to the grand vizierate. Teşrîfâtîzâde dated Mustafa II’s new design(s) to 1695–6. In June 1695, Mustafa II left Edirne for his first military campaign against the Habsburgs.

26 Sultan Huseyn (r. 1694–1722), the last Safavid shah, was overthrown by a rebellious marauder, Mahmud Hotaki, an Afghan of Pashtun background. His son Tahmasb II fled from Isfahan to Tabriz, where he established a government. For reception of the Iranian ambassadors in this period see: İzzet Sak, ‘1136–1141 Yılları Arasında İstanbul’a Gelen İran Elçilerinin Bazı Masrafları’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Edebiyat Dergisi 16 (2006), pp. 117-61; Selim Güngörürler, ‘Fundamentals of Ottoman-Safavid Peacetime Relations, 1639–1722’, Turkish Historical Review 9-2 (2018), pp. 151-97; idem, ‘Fraternity, Perpetual Peace, and Alliance in Ottoman-Safavid Relations, 1688–1698: A Diplomatic Revolution in the Middle East’, Turcica 50 (2019), pp. 145-207.

27 In general, there is more detailed information on the Iranian envoys in the chronicles regarding their accommodation, provisioning and gift exchange: Mübahat Kütükoğlu, ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde Olağanüstü Elçilerin Ağırlanması’, Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları Prof. Dr. İsmail Ercüment Kuran’a Armağan, vol. XXVII, nos 1-2 (1989), pp. 199-231.

28 Güngörürler argued that from 1642 to 1686, ‘friendly harmony’ defined the status quo. From 1686 until 1694, the parties enjoyed the higher level of ‘lasting brotherhood’. The years 1694–1705 constituted the climax of the rapprochement as the result of the elevation of relations to the level of ‘perpetual peace in alliance’ between ‘two eternal states’. This trend reversed gradually from 1705 to 1711 though, and after 1711 until the end, ‘the status quo returned back again to form a consolidated peace’: Güngörürler, ‘Fundamentals’; idem, ‘Fraternity’.

29 Güngörürler noted fifty-five identifable missions of all sizes headed by ambassadors, envoys, diplomatic agents and emissaries: Selim Güngörürler, ‘Chapter 5’, in ‘Diplomacy and Political Relations between the Ottoman Empire and Safavid Iran, 1639–1722’, PhD dissertation, Georgetown University (Washington D.C., 2016), pp. 237-370.

30 For the daily accounts of the ambassador’s arrival and departure, his receptions and gift exchanges over the course of more than four months: Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre III, pp. 115, 122-5, 128, 130-31, 140-44, 234, 255-6, 266, 273-4; see also: Güngörürler, ‘Fraternity’.

31 Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-Merre III, pp. 130-31.

32 In 1698, Shah Suleyman’s son Huseyn sent Rüstem Zengene as his extraordinary ambassador to convince Mustafa II that Safavid Iran had no intention of annexing Basra, which, after a series of disturbances in the region, fell under the control of his vassal. In addition to his official mission Rüstem Zengene brought letters and gifts from the former envoy Ebu’l-Ma’sûm Khan. In response, (Ebu Kavuk) Yeğen Hacı Mehmed Bey (Paşa) (d. 1745), the former head of the chancery, was dispatched as the Ottoman ambassador to consolidate the Ottoman-Safavid alliance.

33 El-Hac Ahmed Efendi was the Master of Protocol from 16 December 1715 to 15 February 1718. For his Book of Protocol, see Fahd Alhamad, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı (A.D. 346: 1716–1718)’, MA Thesis, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi (Istanbul, 2019).

34 Teşrîfâtî Selmân Efendi was appointed as the Master of Protocol from 15 February 1718 to 1725. For his Book of Protocol, see Hayriye Büşra Uslu, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı (A.D. 347: 1718–1725)’, MA diss., Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi (Istanbul, 2017). That he also authored a Book of Festivities, dated 1724, shows that the masters of protocol were routinely recording the ceremonies as they happened, and then archived their observations as the new protocol. For the anonymous sûrnâme of 1724 see: Artan, ‘Royal Weddings and the Grand Vezirate: Institutional and Symbolic Change in the Early Eighteenth Century’; Mehmet Arslan, Osmanlı Saray Düğünleri ve Şenlikleri 6–7. Haşmet Sûrnâmesi. Melek İbrahim Sûrnâmesi. Nâfî Sûrnâmesi. Müellifi Bilinmeyen Sûrnâmeler (İstanbul, 2011), pp. 405-28. Arslan also noted that Selmân Efendi helped Hazîn Mehmed Efendi during the recording of the 1720 festivities: Mehmet Arslan, Osmanlı Saray Düğünleri ve Şenlikleri 4–5. Lebib Sûrnâmesi. Hafız Mehmed Efendi (Hazîn) Sûrnâmesi. Abdi Sûrnâmesi. Telhîsü’l-Beyân’ın Sûrnâme Kısmı (İstanbul, 2012), pp. 295, 363. Records from 1718 to 1720 were kept in chronological order; after which there is disarray in the 1718–25 register. Furthermore, while daily records pertaining to 1724 and 1725 are very few, there are some scattered records dated to 1728–67 (fol. 180a ff). Selmân Efendi was reappointed in 1738 while he simultaneously served in the Finance Office. Of tens of surviving protocol books, a few others from the period, catalogued as Sadaret Teşrîfât Defteri nr. 349 (1752–4); 350 (1757–1808); 351 (1693–1806), 353 (1793–1814) have been available as unpublished MA theses. There is also a wealth of scattered documentation relating to various dynastic and imperial events.

35 Alhamad, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı (A.D. 346: 1716–1718)’.

36 Râşid Mehmed Efendi ve Çelebizâde İsmâil Efendi, Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II (1115–1134/1703–1722), eds A. Özcan, Y. Uğur and B. Çakır (Istanbul, 2013), pp. 755-6. He stayed at the palace of Şah Huban Sultan (daughter of Selim I) in Kasımpaşa as usual (mu’tâd-ı kadîm). Twenty-seven houses, eight stables, one soup kitchen and a farrier shop were rented, repaired and refurnished: Kütükoğlu, ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde’, pp. 201, 204-05, 206, 208-10. In 1721, he visited İstanbul once again and stayed at the Nakkaş Paşa Palace at Yenibahçe on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, 1284-1285. For accommodation of the Iranian envoys in the outskirts of the city: Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı Tarihi IV/I (Ankara, 1956), pp. 300-01.

37 Nusretnâme, p. 1063. See: Naimur Rahman Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations: A Study of the Political and Diplomatic Relations between Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, 1556–1748 (Delhi, 1989); H. Hilal Şahin, ‘Osmanlı Hint İlişkilerine Genel Bir Bakış (XV–XVIII. Yüzyıl)’, Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi 2-6 (2015), pp. 59-77.

38 As mentioned above, he had already sought the help of Shah Suleyman of Iran, who had responded by lavishly entertaining the Ottoman envoy and by himself appointing an ambassador in return; meanwhile the Iranians had continued to reject all approaches from the European Powers.

39 Hikmet Bayur, ‘Osmanlı Pâdişahı II. Süleyman’ın Gurkanlı Pâdişahı I. Âlemgîr’e Mektubu’, Belleten XIV, no. 54 (1950), pp. 269-85. He was received by the Mughal emperor in early June 1690, along with the envoys from Bukhara and Kashgar. Meâsir-i Âlemgîrî, a unique source on this embassy, mentions that of the twenty ambassadors or envoys received or sent by Aurangzeb, it was the Ottoman ambassador who was not complimented. The same source reveals that the Safavid ambassador and the governors of Mecca and Basra (Ottoman tributary states) were given more prominence, as their arrivals and departures, the gifts they brought and received were carefully recorded.

40 In order to realize the Sunni alliance planned by his predecessor, Shah Jahan wrote a letter to Murad IV and sent an envoy named Mir Zarif Isfahanî. In return, the Ottomans sent Arslan Ağa to India with rich gifts, but this contact was not continued as the Mughal emperor disliked the style of the letter from the Ottoman sultan.

41 Jahandar Shah (r. 1712–13) and Farrukhsiyar are said to have sent gifts to Ahmed III: Farooqi, Mughal-Ottoman Relations. For the seventeenth-century diplomacy and gift exchange between the two states see: Fatma Ünyay Açıkgöz, ‘Osmanlılar ile Hindistan Sultanlıkları Arasındaki Diplomatik İlişkiler ve Hediyeleşme (XV.–XVII. Yüzyıllar)’, Ulakbilge 6, no 31 (2018), pp. 1681-6.

42 Philip J. Stern, The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (Oxford and New York, 2011).

43 Uslu, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı’, p. 138.

44 Uslu, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı’, p. 139. A Qur’an, an exegesis of Kadı, and altogether nine horses (two horses, four [çapkun] workhorses and three geldings).

45 Uslu, ‘III. Ahmed Devri Teşrîfâtı’, p. 139. For the Uzbek diplomacy see: Audrey Burton, The Bukharans: A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History, 1550–1702 (Richmond, 1997); eadem, ‘Relations between the Khanate of Bukhara and Ottoman Turkey, 1558–1702’, International Journal of Turkish Studies 5-1/2 (1990–1991), pp. 83-103.

46 Just before Ahmed II’s enthronement, another Uzbek envoy (Küçük Ali Bey?) visited the Ottoman court: Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-merre II, pp. 226-7.

47 Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli I (1071–1114/1660–1703), p. 342; Başbakanlık Ottoman State Archives [hereafter BOA], Nâme-i Hümâyûn Defteri 5, pp. 61-5; BOA, Nâme-i Hümâyûn Defteri 5, pp. 66-9; Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-merre II, pp. 226-7; Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-merre II, pp. 226-7; Güngörürler, ‘Fraternity’; BOA, Nâme-i Hümâyûn Defteri 5, pp. 119-24.

48 In May 1693, the Uzbek ambassador Muhammed Bahadur arrived and was accommodated at Timurtaş (Edirne): Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli I, p. 438; Vâkı’ât-ı Rûz-merre IV, pp. 354-5. In May 1696 another Uzbek ambassador arrived. It is understood from the epistle he submitted that the Uzbek khan was intending to go on pilgrimage and was asking for the Ottoman sultan’s permission: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli I, p. 497.

49 Ubeydullah Khan came to the Uzbek throne around the same time as Ahmed III (September 1703). In late 1703, Uzbek (Mehmed) Khan’s ambassador, Küçük Ali Bey, arrived with five people in his retinue: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, p. 705. A year later, in October 1704 (C 1116), there was another Uzbek envoy (Abdülmümin): Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, p. 734; Nusretnâme, p. 819. These two envoys must have left before the news of Ahmed III’s enthronement reached Bukhara. Therefore, it is not surprising that in early June 1706, an envoy finally arrived with gifts to congratulate Ahmed III on his enthronement: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, p. 767; Nusretnâme, pp. 838, 845. 

50 In 1673, Râşid remarks that a (despicable) man, who claimed to be the Uzbek ambassador, arrived with a few others: the envoy was accommodated and provisioned. Some time later he declared that his epistle and one of the gift coffers were lost. The grand vizier ordered an inspection and when the coffer was found at the house, they were allowed to depart. Then, Musahib Mustafa Paşa declared that the Sultan would not receive the ambassador without an epistle: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli I, 178. Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, p. 1254.

51 In May 1707 yet another envoy arrived: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, 777. While Kütükoğlu identifies him as Abdülbaki Khan, in the Nâme-i Hümâyûn Register 6 (pp. 116-19) the name of the envoy is given as Hoca Muhammed Emin: Kütükoğlu, ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde’, p. 211; Tuğba Bozkır, ‘Nâme-i Hümâyûn Defterlerine Göre XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı-Özbek Münasebetleri’, MA diss., Kahramanmaraş Üniversitesi (Maraş, 2009), p. 39. In the autumn of 1709 the epistle that the Uzbek ambassador (Mîr Mehmed Nasîr) submitted along with the gifts revealed that the Uzbek khan had triumphed over his brother: Târîh-i Râşid ve Zeyli II, p. 825; Nusretnâme, p. 885. The same envoy, Mîr Mehmed Nasîr, made another visit in 1711: Nâme-i Hümâyûn register 6, pp. 187-9. The envoys of 1711 (Seyyid Abdurrahman Sultan-ı Uzbekî and Seyyid Abdürrezzak Sultan), 1713 (Abdülsemi Yasavul Khan), 1714 (?), 1719 (Korucubaşı Allahverdi), 1720 (Nimetullah Efendi), 1721 (?), 1722 (Abdülsemi Yasavul Khan) and 1723 (Nimetullah Efendi) are found in scattered documentation and especially in the Nâme-i Hümâyûn Register 6. It should be noted here that there is considerable confusion in the secondary literature (and in the primary literature as well) regarding the dates and names of envoys: Mustafa Can, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nde Özbek (Buhara) Elçilerinin Ağırlanışı ve Huzura Kabulleri’, Yitik Hafızanın Peşinde Buhara Konuşmaları (Ankara, 2019), pp. 219-45; Mustafa Budak, ‘Osmanlı-Özbek Siyasî Münasebetleri (1510–1740)’, MA diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi (Istanbul, 1987); Kütükoğlu, ‘XVIII. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Devletinde’, pp. 206-07; M. Akif Erdoğru, ‘Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivinden Osmanlı Devleti ile Orta Asya Devletleri Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Osmanlı Arşiv Belgeleri I’, in M. Akif Erdoğru (ed.), Tarihin İçinden, Doğumunun 65. Yılında Prof. Dr. Ahmet Özgiray’a Armağan (Istanbul, 2006), pp. 250-71; idem, ‘Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivinden Osmanlı Devleti ile Orta Asya Devletleri Arasındaki İlişkiler Üzerine Osmanlı Arşiv Belgeleri II’, in S. Sertçelik, H. Eroğlu, M. Sarı Güven (eds), Prof. Dr. Yavuz Ercan’a Armağan, (Ankara, 2008), pp. 375-89. See also Osmanlı Devleti ile Kafkasya, Türkistan ve Kırım Hanlıkları Arasındaki Münasebetlere Dair Arşiv Belgeleri (1687–1908 Yılları Arası) (Ankara, 1992); Belgelerle Osmanlı Türkistan İlişkileri (XVI–XX Yüzyıllar) (Ankara, 2005).

52 For the envoys of Abu al-Fayz Khan: Halil Ülker, ‘Osmanlı Özbekistan Siyasi İlişkileri (1514–1873)’, MANAS Journal of Social Studies 8-4 (2019), pp. 3977-4006. Balkh was ruled by the Uzbeks and the Mughals, and also for short periods of time by the Safavids.

53 See footnote 7 above. Note that in the 1750s it was the diplomatic protocol between the Ottomans and the Eastern European vassal statelets, namely Crimean Khanate, Moldavian and Wallachian principalities, that was highlighted in the protocol books.

54 See also: Rudi Mathee, ‘Iran's Relations with Europe in the Safavid Perid. Diplomats, Missionaries, Merchants and Travel', in: The Fascination of Persia. Persian-European Dialogue in Seventeenth-Century Art and Contemporary Art of Tehran, Axel Langer (ed.), (Zurich, 2013), pp. 6-37; Diego Pirillo, ‘Venetian Merchants as Diplomatic Agents: Family Networks and Cross-Confessional Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe’ in: Nathalie Rivère de Carles, Early Modern Diplomacy, Theatre and Soft Power: The Making of Peace (London, 2016), pp. 183-204.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tülay Artan

Tülay Artan

Tülay Artan is a Professor in the History Program, Sabancı University, Istanbul. She works on prosopographical networks of the Ottoman elite and their households; material culture, consumption history and standards of living; seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Ottoman arts, architecture and literature in comparative perspective. She is the director of a three-year TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) project on the manuscript collection of an early eighteenth-century grand vizier (2017–20). Recent publications include: ‘Horse Racing at the Ottoman Court, 1524–1728’, International Journal of the History of Sport 37 (2020); ‘Contemplation or Amusement? The Light Shed by Ruznames on an Ottoman Spectacle of 1740–1750’, in K. Fleet and E. Boyar (eds), The Ottomans and Entertainment (Leiden & Boston, 2019); and ‘Patrons, Painters, Women In Distress: The Changing Fortunes of Nevʿizade Atayi and Üskübi Mehmed Efendi in Early-Eighteenth-Century Istanbul’, Muqarnas 38 (forthcoming, 2021).