by Nilab Saeedi
Mehmet Şakir Yılmaz is an associate professor in History and Politics at Istanbul Medeniyet University. His book “Koca Nişancı” of Kanuni: Bureaucracy and “Kanun” In The Reign of Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-1566) sheds new light on the complexity of Ottoman bureaucracy in the sixteenth century. In the book, Yılmaz focuses on the life and work of Celālzāde Mustafa Çelebi, a high-ranking official (nişancı) in the Ottoman administration. His research interests include Ottoman political culture, administration, and their broader implications for Ottoman political thought.
Nilab Saeedi: For readers unfamiliar with Ottoman history, can you start by explaining the role of nişancı in the Ottoman bureaucracy, where they stood in its hierarchical structure? To draw a comparison with modern administration, what contemporary position would best reflect the responsibilities and influence of nişancı?
Mehmet Şakir Yılmaz: If we roughly divide the Ottoman central administration into three branches—civil administration, financial administration, and military administration—then the nişancı would be the official who supervised the civil administration units. However, his responsibilities also included military and financial matters, as an important part of the state revenue and military units was based on the Ottoman feudal system (timar); the office responsible for administering that feudal system (defterhāne) was headed by the chief of land registers (defter emini), who in turn was supervised by the nişancı. Etymologically, the term nişancı means the one who draws the sultan’s nişan, which was another synonym for tughra—the sultan’s signature or seal included in all official documents and correspondence. The nişancı was involved in the final stage of producing official documents; with his approval, a document produced by a divan scribe became valid by bearing the sultan’s signature. He oversaw the production of official Ottoman documents for both internal administration and external relations of the Empire. Since the sultan’s orders or edicts were also the source of Ottoman administrative law (Ḳānūn), the nişancı was supposed to be the chief expert on Ottoman law—which is why he was also referred to as the “mufti of the Ḳānūn.” He was responsible for drafting imperial letters to foreign dignitaries and supervising diplomatic correspondence. Importantly, this also meant that the nişancı was supposed to know the relative power of foreign rulers and maintain the international position of the Ottoman Empire.
NS: Your book highlights the central role of Ottoman bureaucracy in the consolidation of the Ottoman dynasty, especially during the reign of Sultan Süleyman. How did the policies of the sultan, particularly the autonomy he granted to the bureaucracy, contribute to the development of the Ottoman Empire’s administrative system and political culture?
MŞY: Sultan Süleyman was known to appoint senior bureaucrats himself—most Ottoman sultans of the classical period did so. During his reign, the grand viziers appointed the chief of the chancery (reisülküttab) and the chief of land registers (defter emini) from among their associates, yet had no power over the appointment of the nişancı.A nişancı subordinate to the grand vizier would not allow the sultan to supervise the proceedings of the Ottoman administration. Therefore, because the nişancı was an office above both the chief of the chancellery and the chief of land registers, it was pivotal for controlling the Ottoman bureaucracy. Likewise, during Süleyman’s reign, the posts of a military judge (kazasker) and the chief mufti (şeyhülislam) were subordinate only to the sultan, and people who stood out with their competence and independence were appointed to these positions. For instance, when Ebussuud Efendi was still serving as a military judge in Rumelia, he was already working on the standardization of the Ottoman judicial system, for which he was rewarded with the position of the chief mufti. After the death of Süleyman, starting with Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, the grand viziers became more influential and began to appoint people close to themselves as nişancı.
NS: Your book examines the role of the Ottoman bureaucracy during the reign of Süleyman, focusing on Celālzade Mustafa Çelebi and his contributions as a nişancı, writer, and historian. How did his career reflect the interplay between different branches of the Ottoman administration? How did his emphasis on administrative law (Ḳānūn) contribute to the legitimization of Ottoman rule in the sixteenth century?
MŞY: Sultan Süleyman was a charismatic political and military leader who actively participated in the administration of his state. In this sense, he was the last example of the first generation of Ottoman sultans. After his reign, the Ottoman military and civilian bureaucracy used the Sharia and Ḳānūn to expand their privileges and gained wide autonomy. Hence, the successive sultans lost their power to intervene in the day-to-day administration of the Empire. It is worth noting that just as Süleyman became an exemplary sultan for subsequent generations, several other prominent figures from this period were later idealized as the pinnacle of Ottoman history: such as Celālzade Mustafa Çelebi as the ideal nişancı, Ebussuud Efendi as the chief mufti, Mimar Sinan as the chief architect, Baki as the poet, and so on. Probably the most important aspect of this era was political stability and long tenures, particularly for civil offices. Süleyman personally appointed the heads of the civil, financial, and judicial administrations. They enjoyed relatively long tenures during this period—at least longer than the grand viziers. Celālzade, for example, served as the nişancı for 23 years after nine years as chief of the chancellery (reisülküttab). On the other hand, Ebussuud Efendi served 29 years as the chief mufti after serving eight years as chief military judge (kazasker). Similarly, Mimar Sinan served as chief architect for 49 years. We do not see the same long tenures for military and administrative posts. To summarize, Süleyman maintained a balance between the military and civil-religious-judicial bureaucrats of his Empire, and he oversaw the day-to-day administration thanks to the efforts of his loyal servants in the Ottoman bureaucracy.
When we look at Celālzade Mustafa Çelebi’s writings, the first thing we notice is that he is very concerned with a hierarchical order; there is a hierarchy in spiritual life, in society, in politics, and in administration. Justice is about maintaining a balance between different social and administrative groups, and the sultan—like God—is above that hierarchy. So, for Celālzade, the role of the civil bureaucracy, or ḳalemiyye, was to serve the sultan in maintaining this balance and preserving justice in the administration. Celālzade contributed to this in three ways: first, by recruiting scribes for the Ottoman bureaucracy who shared the same ideal, solidarity and loyalty as Celālzade; second, by establishing a unique technique for official correspondence (Insha) that reflected the Ottoman right to rule and the supremacy of the Ottoman state over other states; and third, by spreading the use of that Insha style in different genres such as chronicles, religious and literary works.
Celālzade tried to popularize this writing style through his works in various fields and encouraged his circle to produce works in the same way. Yet his Insha did not actually represent a radical departure from earlier models. Numerous later seventeenth-century writers point out that Celālzāde’s style is “still” prevalent in the official language of the Ottoman Chancery. To illustrate this, we can compare his works with Mimar Sinan’s mosques; they did not represent a radical break with tradition, but they were superior to them in every way and were regarded by later generations as the pinnacle of Ottoman architecture. Celālzāde’s Insha works were not so different from earlier models such as Kemālpashazāde’s; both emphasized the same ideological and aesthetic ideals, but Celālzāde’s style represented a more balanced combination of prose and poetry with a relatively plain vocabulary consisting of Turkish, Arabic, and Persian words.
NS: You mentioned that the Ottoman central administration reached its “classical” form during the reign of Süleyman, consolidating its power through the expansion of bureaucracy and the codification of law. How did this change in the selection of grand viziers affect the development and effectiveness of the Ottoman legal system? What long-term effects did it have on the administration of the Empire?
MŞY: At the end of Süleyman’s reign, the Ottomans began to believe in the supremacy of their system and started seeing themselves as the center of the Islamic world. This had not been the case during the reigns of Mehmed II or his grandson Selim I. In the following decades, this self-confidence increased the conservatism of the Ottoman elite. It worsened their attitude towards outsiders and, as a result, discouraged them from implementing new, innovative policies when faced with changing technological and commercial conditions. Of course, there were some innovations, such as Sokollu Mehmed Pasha’s attempts to expand Ottoman influence through diplomatic means, by building canals, establishing new routes to the Indian Ocean, and so on. However, during this period, the Ottoman political elite lost interest in attracting new faces to the capital of the Empire. As the Ottomans became proud of their culture, way of life, educational institutions, scholars, poets, etc., they began to compete for higher positions among themselves and stopped accepting outsiders into their institutions.
Celālzade was a member of the ʿilmiyye class—the upper echelon of Ottoman society. After completing his studies in the Fatih madrasas, he became a divan scribe. In the first half of the sixteenth century, many similar young madrasa graduates followed that same career path. However, in the second half of the sixteenth century, we see a change in this trend; central offices began to recruit young apprentices, most of whom were relatives of current staff. For instance, at the end of the sixteenth century, Gelibolulu Mustafa Ali, a bureaucrat and literary figure a generation younger than Celālzade, complained that he was not getting the opportunities he deserved. He claimed that his skills and knowledge entitled him to be appointed as the nişancı, but he failed to mention that he did not have enough experience in this profession. Being a nişancı was not only about having literary skills and knowledge of laws and regulations; it also required loyalty, reliability, and consistency; qualities he hardly had.
Thus, the consolidation of bureaucratic culture in the Ottoman capital had its advantages—such as stability, efficiency, and secrecy—but it also brought about factionalism, inbreeding, conservatism, and so on. That is why we cannot talk about only one side of the story; we cannot talk about a widespread, uniform effect of bureaucratic culture over Ottoman administration. When we read the reform (ıṣlāhāt) literature of the period, we see that there are different perceptions of the Ḳānūn. Some authors interpret it in a conservative way; others defend a reformist attitude and change of laws by the sultan’s decree. Therefore, it is difficult to claim that the Ottoman Empire had a uniform bureaucratic or political culture. However, because the Ottomans had a strong central administration and a hierarchical society for a very long time, Ottoman writers, most of whom were somehow connected to the Ottoman administration, often put undue emphasis on political reasons when explaining social or cultural changes. This pre-eminence of politics can be seen as a result of the consolidation of the bureaucratic structure.
NS: In your book, you write that the works of scholar-bureaucrats (ʿulemā) during Süleyman’s reign played a crucial role in legitimizing Ottoman rule, particularly through the standardization and codification of law. Can you elaborate on how the contributions of these intellectuals to political literature and historiography helped establish the image of the Ottoman Sultan as the embodiment of justice and stability?
MŞY: Celālzade Mustafa Çelebi’s principal work about the reign of Sultan Süleyman, Tabakātu’l-Memālik ve Derecātu’l-Mesālik, is a good example of this process. The title and structure of the book reflect Celālzade’s view of the hierarchical order of the world. The Tabakāt covers the period between 1520 and 1557 and was composed in three stages. At first, Celālzade’s official duty was to write short treaties or long imperial letters called fathnāmes, which were sent to the provinces to inform the people about the sultan’s triumphs over the infidels. These fathnāmes then were developed into treaties about these victories. Eventually, with some editorial changes, these short treaties became chapters of the Tabakāt. The book is meant to contain 30 layers (ṭabaḳa) and 375 degrees (derece), but, in fact, it contains only the last layer. The thirtieth layer of the work describes the reign of Sultan Süleyman in all its magnificence. Importantly, Celālzade included a long table of contents at the beginning of the work to present a picture of the Ottoman world with all the important actors. In that table of contents, military organization, posts, and units take precedence over other topics and are listed in hierarchical order. The palace men and palace regiments are described first, followed by the janissaries, other regiments, and then provincial units. The Ottoman navy and castles are also described in separate chapters, and a chapter is devoted to the Ottoman capital, Istanbul, and its ancient buildings.
Celālzade tirelessly uses epithets (elḳāb) to praise the sultan, high-ranking officials, members of the ulema, or various military units, just as he used these phrases in official documents. The central aim of the book is to prove that the rule of Sultan Süleyman represents a unique period of glory and magnificence not only for his contemporaries but also for the entire Islamic history. The legitimacy of the Ottoman system is based on justice, and justice is ensured by Ottoman laws and the sultan’s ability to enforce these laws over a vast territory. While Celālzade acknowledges the service of military units and leaders in extending Ottoman rule, he emphasizes the role of “men of the prayer” (duʿā ehli) and “men of the pen” (ḳalemiyye and ʿilmiyye) in achieving justice. In his view, men of the pen serve the state better because their service leads to production, prosperity, social harmony, stability, and justice. On the other hand, military victories accompany destruction, expenditure, and turmoil. To summarize, Celālzade attempted to disseminate the same arguments expressed in the fathnāmes in his masterpiece, using the same insha style, but in a more detailed and refined manner. And his writing style was imitated by Ottoman historians for generations to come.
NS: In the conclusion, you discuss the conflict between these “men of the pen” and “men of the sword,” where the bureaucrats frequently portrayed military leaders as ignorant and oppressive. How did this antagonism influence the political discourse of the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire? What consequences did it have on the distribution of power within the Ottoman administration?
MŞY: Celālzade tried to justify the dismissal of Ottoman grand viziers or other high-ranking officials during Suleyman’s reign, usually by referring to the unjust policies they had pursued. In his view, Sultan Süleyman’s punishment of these wrongdoers was yet another proof of his justice. I think that Celālzade formulates one of the most interesting explanations for the dismissal of Kara Ahmed Pasha, who served as the Grand Vizier between 1553 and 1555. According to Celālzade, Ahmed Pasha consulted his decisions with ignorant and lowly people and did not even know the meaning of justice. He even adds that “what he (Ahmed Pasha) considers justice is actually cruelty itself.” Ahmed Pasha was brought up and trained in the Ottoman palace as a devshirme boy and served the Ottoman throne for the whole of his life, the last ten years as a vizier. So, it is clear that he was a well-educated and experienced member of the Ottoman ruling class. Probably no one but Celālzāde could formulate such an accusation because bureaucratic intellectuals like him had created a refined and elevated culture for the Ottoman ruling elite in the sixteenth century, and they demanded everyone’s loyalty to this hierarchical order, rights, and privileges prescribed by the Islamic law, Sultan’s decrees, and administrative practices. In other words, the administrative and political culture developed by bureaucratic intellectuals such as Celālzade, Ebussuud, Hoca Sadeddin, and Mustafa Ali in the sixteenth century profoundly influenced the Ottoman world. As a result, military and administrative leaders tried to gain the support of these circles to rise to higher positions. Lutfi Pasha, who served as Grand Vizier between 1539 and 1541, is a good example of a military leader who tried to prove his competence in Islamic sciences by writing Turkish and Arabic works on politics and religious sciences during his retirement. And yet, his works and knowledge were despised by Gelibolu Mustafa Ali, who claimed that Celālzade and Ebussuud had the same opinion on the matter.
Therefore, the development of bureaucratic culture profoundly affected the balance of power among the Ottoman political elite. It ceded the legislative power of the sultans to legal experts and cemented the Ottoman administrative system, resulting in a long-lasting conservatism in Ottoman politics. Although we cannot say that all intellectual bureaucrats shared the same view of law and politics— there also existed other, more innovative approaches among Ottoman thinkers—most of the elite began believing in the supremacy of the Ottoman way of life and its hierarchical political order.
Nilab Saeedi is a researcher at the Institute for Habsburg and Balkan Studies at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, Austria. She is also pursuing her doctoral studies in history at İbn Haldun University in Istanbul, Turkey.
Edited by Artur Banaszewski
Featured Image: Ottoman miniature showing the enthronement ceremony of Suleiman I, Nakkaş Osman, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
