Kızılkaya / Fıkıh Usulünde Sahabe Fetvasının Kaynaklık Değeri Cilt / Volume: • Sayı /Issue: • 2012

54
Human and Society
raphy over the Ottoman tradition can be easily seen in the case of the institution of 
vakanuvis, However, this style was generally criticized by vakanuvises.
2
 Şanizade also 
criticized the rhetorical manner. He asserted that using ornaments in expression and 
rhetorical style in writing damages the reality, and inevitably changes the meaning of 
events. However, almost all vakanuvises narrated events oratorically and wrote their 
histories rhetorically. 
Şanizade, in his history book, preferred two kinds of language: firstly, he preferred to 
write down incidents rhetorically, applying that style in words of praise, especially 
when he was talking about the Sultan or important figures around him. He also criti-
cized some people in this rhetorical fashion. In this kind of writing style, the content 
of events was pushed into the background and literary expression was emphasized. 
Secondly, Şanizade chose to use spoken language in some parts of his history book. 
These passages are made up of ordinary people’s witnesses of some events. The dia-
logues cited by Şanizade have local dialects and accents. For example, there are some 
semi- Armenian- Turkish expressions in the passage where Şanizade writes about the 
Catholic Church (Şanizade, 2008, p. 939).    
Table 2.   
The Range of Literary and Religious Elements in Tarih-i Şanizade
Religious and Literary 
Quotations/Volumes
Volume 
 1
Volume 
2
Volume 
3
Volume 
4
Total
Arabic Maxims and Expressions
46
55
46
38
185
Arabic Proverbs
25
133
54
54
266
Arabic Poems
7
56
25
21
109
Arabic Idioms
4
6
5
0
15
Arabic Prayers
13
28
25
9
75
Persian Maxims and Expressions
3
5
1
0
9
Persian Proverbs
2
2
0
1
5
Persian Poems
32
122
76
37
267
Persian Idioms
2
2
0
0
4
Persian Prayers
1
0
0
0
1
Turkish Maxims and Expressions
2
0
0
0
2
Turkish Poems
20
47
38
10
115
2   Ahmet Cevdet criticized the rhetorical manner in this book too. See Cevdet Paşa (1312, p. 84).

---

55
Erol / Şanizade Mehmet Ataullah: An example of Ottoman History Writing and Thought of History
Quran Verses
46
70
42
31
189
Valid Hadiths
9
42
6
7
64
Fake Hadiths
4
8
2
0
14
Armenian Expressions
0
1
1
0
2
Final Total
                                                                              1322
The table above shows us the literary aspects of Tarih-i  Şanizade and exhibits the 
density of literary quotations applied throughout the four volumes. In fact, these 
quotations were not used randomly; on the contrary, they were used to provide the 
opportunity to evaluate and criticize indirectly the persons or events told within the 
text. To put it in a nutshell, using quotations such as poems as a medium of evaluation 
could give the authors an opportunity to express themselves safely through the words 
of other people (Humphreys, 2004, p, 122).
The writing tradition instituted by vakanuvises was also maintained by Şanizade. In 
this fashion of history writing, the Sultan was put tacitly into the center of narrative, 
the events were picked up as the state-centered, and the density of events shaped by 
the court and its circles and countryside was partially told. On the other hand, to cite 
the Sultan’s period and his reign completely, historians added to their books some 
people’s biographies who are culturally and politically very important persons in that 
time. Giving a space such detailed biographical material in Ottoman history-writing 
tradition became a significant innovation (Fleischer, 2009, p. 254). Thus, writing his-
tory and curricula vitae were brought close together (Farooqhi, 2009, p. 243-244). 
Şanizade’s history is also an example of this kind of history-writing. Especially, he 
wrote down some prominent people’s biographies from Ulama class in his book. 
During the reign of Mahmud II, this history-writing tradition was represented by 
Şanizade as a vakanuvis. Şanizade deals with history from a different point of view, dis-
tinguished from today’s modern and secular considerations. It is important to say that 
Şanizade addresses history ontologically, grounding it with the Creation. In terms of 
epistemology, he supported his views and evaluations by religious citations like Quran 
verses and hadiths. The explanations based on predestination, destiny and fate can be 
given as some examples related to his historical understanding. In conclusion, history 
is composed of different conditions of possibilities. However it contains ontological 
hierarchy which can only be undestood within its own limits.

---

56
Human and Society
Kaynakça / References
Akbulut, U. (2006). Osmanlı tarih yazıcılarına göre tarih ve tarihçi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Atatürk 
Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
Beyhan, M. A. (1995). Şânizâde tarihi’nin kaynaklarından Câbî tarihi. The Journal of Ottoman Studies, XV, 
239-283.
Cevdet Paşa, A. (1312). Tarih-i Cevdet (c. I). Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Osmaniye.
Cevdet Paşa, A. (1986). Tezâkir (haz. C. Baysun, c. I). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Faroqhi, S. (2009). Osmanlı tarihi nasıl incelenir? (çev. Z. Altok). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
Fleischer, C. H. (2009).Tarihçi Mustafa Ali bir Osmanlı aydın ve bürokratı 1541-1600 (çev. A. Ortaç). İstanbul: 
Tarih Vakfı Yayınları.
Humphreys, R., s. (2004). İslam tarih metodolojisi: Bir sosyal tarih uygulaması (çev. M. Bedir ve F. Aydın). 
İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
İnal, M. K. (1988). Son asır Türk şairleri (c. I). İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları.
Karslızâde, C. M. (1314). Ayine-i zürefâ. Dersaâdet: İkdam.
Kütükoğlu, B. (1994). Vekayi’nüvis makaleler. İstanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti Yayınları.
Şanizade, M. A. (1290). Tarih-i Şanizade (c. 1-4). Dersaadet: Ceride-i Havadis Matbaası.
Şanizade, M. A. (2008). Şânî-zâde Târîhi (yay. haz. Z. Yılmazer, c. 1-2). İstanbul: Çamlıca Yayınları.
Nakıp, T. (2006). Osmanlı Devleti’nde geç dönem tarih-i umûmîler. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, 
Marmara Üniversitesi, Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Ömer Efendi, C. (2003). Cabi Tarihi: Tarih-i Sultan Selim-i Salis ve Mahmud-ı Sani (haz. M.  A. Beyhan). 
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Özbilgen, E. (2004). Bütün yönleriyle Osmanlı: Âdâb-ı Osmâniyye. İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık.
Pakalın, M. (1983). Osmanlı tarih deyimleri ve terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara: MEB.
Traverso, E. (2009). Geçmişi kullanma kılavuzu: Tarih, bellek, politika (çev. I. Ergüden). İstanbul: Versus 
Kitap.
Unan,  F. (2003). Osmanlı medrese uleması: İlim anlayışı ve ilmî verim. Koomduk İlimder Jurnalı Sosyal 
Bilimler Dergisi, 5, 14-34.
Woodhead, C. (1983). An experiment in official historiography: The post of Şehnâmeci in the Ottoman 
Empire. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Mongenlandes, 75, 157-182.
Yılmazer, Z. (2008). Önsöz. (yay. haz. Z. Yılmazer), Şânî-zâde Târîhi içinde (XXVII-CXII). İstanbul: Çamlıca 
Yayınları.
Zülfikar, B. (1991). Şanizade, hayatı ve eserleri. İstanbul: Özel Yayınları.

---