Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul's Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı

Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı* Kaside Şairi Olarak Maḥremī ve İstanbul’un İḥtisāb KetḫudāsıMeḥmed Beg’e Sunduğu Kaside HATİCE AYNUR İstanbul, Türkiye. ([email protected]), ORCID: 0000-0002-1489-379X. Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article Submitted/Başvuru: 01.09.2025. Accepted/Kabul: 18.11.2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 17650186. * This article was first presented as a paper at the 25th CIÉPO Symposium (Comité International des Études Pré-Ottomanes et Ottomanes), held in Tirana, Albania, on 21–25 June 2024, and has been subsequently expanded and revised for publication. This article constitutes the initial part of my comprehensive study on Tatavlalı Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes, a project now in preparation and soon to be published. As this article seeks to address Maḥremī’s entire ḳaṣīde corpus, a detailed linguistic and literary analysis of selected example could not be undertaken here due to limitations of length. I thank Fatma S. Kutlar for her insights into several couplets and Edith Ambros for her thorough review and insightful comments. Abstract: Primary sources, especially sixteenth-century teẕkires (poets’ biographies), offer only limited information on Tatavlalı Maḥremī. Modern scholarship has generally identified him as one of the two leading figures of the Türkī-i Basīṭ (Simple Turkish) movement, although the very existence of this movement has recently been called into question. Alongside the study devoted to his Şehnāme, the discovery of his Dīvān (collected poems) and the ḳaṣīdes (eulogies) preserved in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye (Miscellany of Turkish eulogies) has enriched our understanding of Maḥremī’s life and works. Based on the information currently available, the forty-four ḳaṣīdes identified thus far reveal a different dimension of his literary identity—namely, his authorship in the ḳaṣīde genre. Although absent from contemporary and later literary sources, these poems were composed for some of the most powerful figures of the period, including sultans, grand viziers, and judges. This article, devoted to Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes, is organized into two main sections, following a brief introduction to his life and place in Ottoman literary culture. The first section examines the recipients, timing, and purposes of his ḳaṣīdes, situating them within early sixteenth-century poetic conventions. The second section focuses on a single ḳaṣīde—notable for its literary and thematic features—to illuminate Maḥremī’s skills as a ḳaṣīde poet. Drawing particular attention for what appears to be the earliest use of the redīf (refrain) şehr/şehir (city) in Ottoman poetry, the poem was composed for Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı (market superintendent), a senior figure within the Ottoman administrative hierarchy. To deepen our understanding of Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīde practice, the poem is presented with Turkish and English translations and evaluated in terms of its form, content, and patronage context. Keywords: Türkī-i Basīṭ, panegyric tradition, Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı, patronage of Ottoman literature. Özet: Tatavlalı Maḥremī hakkında başta on altıncı yüzyıl tezkireleri olmak üzere birincil kaynaklarda verilen bilgiler oldukça sınırlıdır. İkincil kaynaklarda ise genellikle varlığı son yıllarda tartışmalı hâle gelen Türkī-i Basīṭ akımının iki öncüsünden biri olarak anılmaktaydı. Şehnāme’si üzerine yapılan çalışmayla birlikte Maḥremī’nin hayatı ve eserleri hakkında zenginleşen bilgilere, son yıllarda ortaya çıkan Dīvān’ı ve Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye’de yer alan kasideleri eklenmiştir. Mevcut bilgiler ışığında tespit edilen 44 kasidesi Maḥremī’nin edebî kimliğinin farklı bir yönünü, yani kaside şairliğini öne çıkarmaktadır. Çağdaşı ve ardından gelen edebî kaynaklarda söz edilmeyen bu şiirler, aslında dönemin en güçlü figürlerine—sultanlara, sadrazamlara ve kadılara—sunulmak üzere kaleme alınmıştır. Maḥremī’nin kasidelerine odaklanan bu yazı, giriş ve iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Maḥremī’nin hayatı ve Osmanlı edebî kültüründeki yerine dair kısa bir girişten sonra ilk bölümde şairin kasidelerini kimlere, ne zaman ve ne amaçla sunduğu ve kasidelerin özellikleri değerlendirilmektedir. İkinci bölümde, edebi açıdan ve içeriği bakımından dikkate değer kasideleri olan Maḥremī’nin kaside şairliği yönüne aydınlatması için bir kasidesine odaklanılmıştır. Şimdilik tespit edebildiğim kadarıyla Osmanlı şiirinde ilk kez “şehir” redifinin kullanılmasıyla dikkatimi çeken bu kaside, Osmanlı bürokrasisinde önemli bir konum olan İstanbul iḥtisāb ketḫudālığı görevinde bulunan Meḥmed Beg için yazılmıştır. Maḥremī’nin kaside şairliğinin anlaşılmasına katkı sunan kasidenin, Türkçe ve İngilizce çevirisi, biçim, içerik ve himaye ilişkileri bağlamında değerlendirilmesi yapılmaktadır. Keywords: Türkī-i Basīṭ, kaside geleneği, iḥtisāb kethüdāsı Meḥmed Beg, Osmanlı himaye ilişkileri. 264 T atavlalı Maḥremī (d. 942/1535), born Aḥmed in Tatavla—today’s Kurtuluş in the Şişli district of Istanbul—was the son of Tatavlalı Meḥmed ‘Alī Bey, a companion of Bāyezīd II (r. 1481–1512).1 Although his early career following his madrasa training is not fully documented, his ḳaṣīdes indicate that he spent periods outside Istanbul, accompanying military campaigns. His identifiable posts include service as deputy judge (nā’ib) in the Galata court and, from 1528 onward, in Thessaloniki, where he worked alongside Beyşehirli Ḥasan Çelebi (d. 960/1552-53), the city’s ḳāḍī.2 A well-known anecdote relates that Maḥremī was dismissed from his post as nā’ib of the Galata court after composing a satirical verse about dignitaries who had attended an Easter service in disguise, though he was later reinstated.3 Some years later, while returning to Istanbul from Thessaloniki in 940 (1533), the ship carrying Maḥremī and his family was seized by pirates, and they were taken captive. After a period of imprisonment, he ransomed himself, his wife, and their four children, but had to leave his family as hostages while he traveled to Istanbul to secure the remaining funds. With the assistance of friends, he began to gather the required sum, but Maḥremī died in Muḥarrem 942 (13 July–12 August 1535) before he could complete the payment. His family was eventually freed through the intervention of his friend, the poet, painter, and shipman Naḳḳāş Ḥaydar (d. 980/1573), although one of his sons is said to have died in captivity. Maḥremī’s embeddedness in the literary networks of his time is evident in the recognition he received from prominent contemporaries. The celebrated poet 1 For biographical details and an overview of Maḥremī’s corpus, see Hatice Aynur’s studies on the poet, beginning with her PhD dissertation on Maḥremī’s Şehnāme (1993) and continuing in subsequent publications, including her most recent works: Hatice Aynur, “Maḥremī,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, ed. Kate Fleet et al. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2021), 80–82, https://doi. org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_36034; and “In the Quest for a Lyrical Persona: Love in Tatavlalı Maḥremī’s Ġazels,” in Challenging Conventions: Love, Lovers, and Beloveds in Early Modern Ottoman Poetry (1453–1600), ed. Christiane Czygan and Hatice Aynur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2025), 157–74. 2 On the appointment of Beyşehirli Ḥasan Çelebi as ḳāḍī of Thessaloniki in 934 (1528), see Ercan Alan, “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Belgeye Göre Rumeli’de Kadılık Müessesi,” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 9, no. 46 (October 2016): 169. 3 Âşık Çelebi, Meşâ‘irü’ş-Şu‘arâ: İnceleme-Metin, ed. Filiz Kılıç, vol. 3 (Istanbul: Istanbul Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, 2010), 784–85. 265 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. Ẕātī (d. 954/1547), for example, composed a ḳaṣīde in his honour and mentioned him in his well-known Leṭāyif (Anecdotes).4 The modern scholarly framing of Maḥremī began with Fuad Köprülü (d. 1966), who identified him—together with Edirneli Naẓmī (d. 993/1585–86?)—as a principal representative of the Türkī-i Basīṭ movement. Although this characterization has since undergone critical reassessment5, subsequent research, particularly by Hatice Aynur, has significantly expanded the poet’s known corpus beyond the two works traditionally attributed to him—the Şehnāme (Book of kings) and the Basīṭnāme (The plain book). Her studies have identified four additional compositions—Şütürnāme (Book of the camel), Mecma‘ü’l-Leṭāyif (A collection of anecdotes), Ṭarabü’l-Mecālis (Joyful gatherings), and his Dīvān —revealing an oeuvre considerably more extensive and diverse than previously recognized.6 More recent discoveries have further deepened our understanding of Maḥremī’s literary world. The recovery of his Dīvān7 and his strong presence in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye 8 (Miscellany of Turkish eulogies)—where he is represented by thirty-eight poems, more than any other poet included in the collection—have highlighted a previously neglected dimension of his authorship: his role as a ḳaṣīde poet deeply engaged in the Ottoman panegyric tradition. In 4 On Ẕātī’s ḳaṣīde in Maḥremī’s honour, and his references to the poet in his Leṭāyif, see Zâtî Dîvânı: Gazeller Dışındaki Şiirler, İnceleme-Tenkitli Metin, ed. Orhan Kurtoğlu (Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Kütüphaneler ve Yayımlar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2017), 190–192/ḳaṣīde 64, e-book (accessed 25 September 2025); Mehmed Çavuşoğlu, “Zâtî’nin Letâyifi,” İÜEF Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi 17 (1970): 50. 5 Hatice Aynur, “Rethinking the Türkî-i Basît Movement in Turkish Literature,” Archivum Ottomanicum 25 (2008): 79–97. 6 For his works, see Aynur, “Mahremi.” 7 A comprehensive edition of Maḥremī’s Dīvān, based on the only known copy and on mecmū‘as, is currently being prepared by the author. 8 I thank Mustafa İsen, who first directed me to the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye (hereafter Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id) in 1992, and the late Mehmet Ali Tanyeri, who did so again in 1999. Tanyeri had prepared an inventory of the manuscript, shared the folios containing Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes. He later brought the same mecmū‘a—together with his notes—to another scholar, facilitating its eventual publication. See Mecm ȗ a-i Kasâ’id-i Türkiyye, ed. Murat A. Karavelioğlu (Istanbul: Titiz Yayınları, 2011). See also the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id, Murat Ali Karavelioğlu, “Mecm ȗ ’a-i Kasâ’id-i Türkiyye (Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Esad Efendi, 3418),” Türk Edebiyatı Eserler Sözlüğü, http://tees.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/ mecmu-a-i-kasa-id-i-turkiyye-suleymaniye-kutuphanesi-esad-efendi-3418 (accessed 15 October 2025). 266 total, forty-four ḳaṣīdes addressed to leading figures of his era, including sultans, viziers, and judges, testify to his active participation in the networks of literary patronage that shaped the cultural life of the early sixteenth century.9 The present study reassesses Maḥremī’s poetic identity through this corpus of ḳaṣīdes, situating his work within the broader dynamics of sixteenthcentury Ottoman panegyric literature. By examining the themes, occasions, and dedicatees of these poems, it seeks to clarify the poet’s position within the networks of patronage and cultural exchange that informed his literary milieu. Particular emphasis is placed on the ḳaṣīde composed for Meḥmed Beg, the iḥtisāb ketḫudāsı (market superintendent) of Istanbul and a senior figure within the Ottoman administrative hierarchy. Distinguished by what appears to be the earliest use of the redīf şehr/şehir (city) in Ottoman poetry, this poem is analyzed in terms of its imagery, diction, and rhetorical construction to explore how Maḥremī engaged with the conventions of the ḳaṣīde while articulating his own poetic voice within the formal economy of praise. The Ḳaṣīde Tradition and Maḥremī’s Ḳaṣīdes In Ottoman poetic culture, the ḳaṣīde functioned not only as a literary form and genre but also as a social instrument—an art of praise that intertwined aesthetic mastery with systems of hierarchy and patronage.10 Beyond the sphere of devotional poetry, poets composed ḳaṣīdes to extol, and at times to censure, figures of authority. When addressed to rulers, viziers, or high-ranking officials, the ḳaṣīde served as a vehicle through which poets sought favour, protection, or material reward, while simultaneously displaying their rhetorical skill and erudition. Therefore, the forty-four ḳaṣīdes by Maḥremī identified to date constitute an invaluable record of his literary activity and social milieu. Identifying their dedicatees and the circumstances of their composition illuminates not only their themes and diction but also the networks of patronage and affiliation that shaped 9 On the patronage in Ottoman literary culture, see Halil İnalcık, Şair ve Patron: Patrimonyal Devlet ve Sanat Üzerine Sosyolojik Bir İnceleme (Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları, 2003); Tuba Işınsu Durmuş, Tutsan Elini Ben Fakirin: Osmanlı Edebiyatında Hamilik Geleneği (İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2009). 10 On the Ottoman ḳaṣīde see, Kasîdeye Medhiye: Biçime, İşleve ve Muhtevaya Dair Tespitler, eds. Hatice Aynur et al. (Istanbul: Klasik, 2013); Walter Andrews, “Speaking of Power: The ‘Ottoman Kaside,” in Qasida Poetry in Islamic Asia and Africa: Classical Traditions and Modern Meanings, eds. Stefan Sperl and Christopher Shackle (Leiden-New York-Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996), 1:281–300. 267 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. his poetic career. Such analysis also allows us to recover biographical details not preserved in the teẕkires or other contemporary accounts. Reconstructing these contexts, however, presents considerable challenges. With the exception of tārīḫ manẓūmes (chronogrammatic poems) or ḳaṣīdetārīḫs (ḳaṣīdes containing chronograms), Ottoman poets rarely specified the exact time or place of composition and seldom assigned titles to their works. In this respect, Maḥremī is unusual: of the twenty ḳaṣīdes in his Dīvān, eighteen bear headings naming their dedicatees. 11 For some of the remaining twenty-three, preserved only in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id, the addressees can be inferred from internal allusions corroborated by historical evidence, while approximate dates of composition may be deduced from references to offices and their documented holders. Apart from a single ḳaṣīde for Bāyezīd II (r. 1481–1512) —of which only four couplets survive in the first volume of the Şehnāme (fol. 18b) — Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes are preserved in two principal manuscript sources. The first is the sole extant copy of his Dīvān, which contains only a portion of his collected poems, as the section containing the religious ḳaṣīdes and several folios in other parts of the manuscript are now missing. Twenty ḳaṣīdes survive, two of them incomplete. Their irregular sequence —for instance, a fragmentary tevḥīd (praise of God’s unity) followed by an elegy for Kürkçübaşı Aḥmed Beg, a chronogram, a poem on Süleymān I’s (r. 1520–66) conquest of Hungary in 1526, and then panegyrics for Selīm I (r. 1512–20) and other dignitaries —suggests that the manuscript may represent either a working copy prepared by the poet himself or an early compilation produced by another hand.12 The second source is the above-mentioned anonymous Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye, compiled no later than the 1540s.13 Among its 273 ḳaṣīdes, thirty-eight 11 Two ḳaṣīdes have no known dedicatee, while the dedicatee of one remains unidentified. 12 The only extant copy of Maḥremī’s Dīvān is preserved in the Library of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (Zagreb)-OZJA 411. As the characteristics of this manuscript are discussed in detail in my forthcoming book on Maḥremī’s Dīvān, that information is not repeated here. 13 The sole extant copy of the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye is held in the Süleymaniye Library, Esad Efendi Collection, MS 3418. The mecmua contains 273 poems—three anonymous and 270 ḳaṣīdes, by forty-three poets—and includes neither a colophon nor any indication of its compiler or date of compilation. Based on the death dates of the poets and their dedicatees, it may be inferred that the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id was compiled no later than the 1540s. This point is not addressed in the published edition of Mecmȗa-i Kasâ’id-i Türkiyye by Murat A. Karavelioğlu. 268 are by Maḥremī, making him one of the most prominently represented poets in the collection. 14 Twenty-three of these poems are absent from the Dīvān, while five poems preserved in the Dīvān do not appear in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id. Barring the discovery of additional manuscripts, the extant corpus of Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes thus comprises forty-four poems. It is remarkable that neither sixteenth-century teẕkire writers nor other contemporary sources mention this substantial output, despite his prominence within a major ḳaṣīde mecmū‘ası. Archival in‘āmāt defterleri (registers of royal gifts) record him twice among the poets rewarded for presenting poems at the court of Süleymān I: in Muḥarrem 937 (August/September 1530) and Ṣafer 937 (September/October 1530), when he received stipends of 300 kuruş on each occasion. These records are particularly valuable, as they confirm Maḥremī’s presence in Istanbul during 1530 and attest to his direct participation in courtly literary culture.15 The discussion that follows adopts the hierarchical arrangement typical of the ḳaṣīde section in a classical dīvān: beginning with religious poems and proceeding through panegyrics to sultans, princes, viziers, and other dignitaries, before concluding with satirical and reflective compositions.16 Religious Ḳaṣīdes: Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes on religious themes—two tevḥīds (poems affirming divine unity) (MK/1b; MK 2011/215–16 and MK/6a; MK 2011/228– 30, three na‘ts (poems in praise of the Prophet Muḥammed) (MK/11b; MK 2011/243–46; MK/17a; MK 2011/262–63 and MK/18a; MK 2011/264), and two münācāts (supplicatory prayers to God) (MK/16a; MK 2011/258–59 and DM 1a–2a; MK/18a; MK 2011/264)—reflect both his mastery of devotional rhetoric and his sensitivity to formal convention. His twenty-seven-couplet tevḥīd 14 In the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id, Maḥremī is represented by thirty-eight ḳaṣīdes, whereas the published edition records only thirty-seven. The discrepancy arises from the misattribution of Maḥremī’s mersiye (elegy) for Kürkçübaşı Şemseddīn Aḥmed Beg to the poet Revānī—an error that is also repeated in the editor’s subsequent writings. See Mecmȗa-i Kasâ’id-i Türkiyye, ed. Murat A. Karavelioğlu, 82–90, and especially 83. 15 İsmail E. Erünsal, “Türk Edebiyatı Tarihinin Arşiv Kaynakları II: Kânûnî Sultan Süleymân Devrine Ait Bir İn‘âmat Defteri,” in Edebiyat Tarihi Yazıları: Arşiv Kayıtları, Yazma Eserler ve Kayıp Metinler, ed. Hatice Aynur, 2nd rev. ed. (İstanbul: Timaş, 2024), 269–70. 16 The folio and page numbers of the ḳaṣīdes are cited in parentheses in the text, according to the following abbreviations: DM (Dīvān-ı Maḥremī); MK (Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye, Süleymaniye Library-Esad Efendi 3418); MK 2011 (Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id-i Türkiyye, ed. Murat A. Karavelioğlu). 269 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. built upon the redīf lā ilāha illallāh (There is no god but Allah) is the first poem in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id, suggesting that contemporaries held it in high esteem. The tevḥīds of Şāhidī17 and Revānī18 (d. 930/1523–24) employing the same redīf follow immediately after, while two further examples by Ḥafī19 occupy the twelfth and thirteenth positions (MK/13a; MK 2011/247–49 and MK/14a; MK 2011/250– 51). Whether this ordering reflects Maḥremī’s priority in adopting the refrain, the superior literary quality of his poem, or simply the compiler’s personal taste—or even a possible acquaintance between compiler and poet—cannot be determined. In any case, these religious ḳaṣīdes may be regarded as evidence of Maḥremī’s intention to arrange his poetry into a properly ordered dīvān, insofar as the conventional structure of a dīvān required it to open with devotional compositions before advancing to panegyrics addressed to the sultan and high-ranking officials, and subsequently to other genres and forms. Ḳaṣīde for Bāyezīd I (r. 1481-151): Although it is possible that Maḥremī composed more than one ḳaṣīde for Bāyezīd II, only a single example—of which merely the first four couplets have survived—has come down to us.20 This poem appears at the beginning of the first volume of the Şehnāme, composed for presentation to Bāyezīd II, and is constructed upon the rhyme -ār in the metre Fā‘ilātün Fā‘ilātün Fā‘ilātün Fā‘ilün. Ḳaṣīdes for Selīm I (r. 1512–1520): Maḥremī composed five ḳaṣīdes for Selīm I. In these, he celebrates the ruler’s courage, martial prowess, justice, and liberality—virtues that reflect both the ideological ideals of Ottoman rulership and Selīm’s historical image. According to the chronological sequence that can be reconstructed, the earliest of these poems, rhyming in -end, praises Selīm’s bravery and valour at the Battle of Çaldıran, fought between the Ottomans and the Safavids on 23 August 1514 (MK/299a–b; MK 2011/959–61). As Maḥremī himself notes in 17 It remains unclear which of the four poets named Şāhidī who lived until the mid-sixteenth century is meant here. 18 On Revānī, see Erünsal, “Revânî,” in Edebiyat Tarihi Yazıları: Arşiv Kayıtları, Yazma Eserler ve Kayıp Metinler, 35–42. 19 For Ḥafī, see Mehmet Fatih Köksal, “Hafî (Huffî/Haffî/Hufî ?),” Türk Edebiyatı İsimler Sözlüğü (Teis), https://teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/hafi-huffi-haffi-hufi (accessed 15 October 2025). 20 Tatavlalı Maḥremī, Şehnāme-i Maḥremī, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi, MS no. Y.I/0001, 18b. 270 the twenty-seventh couplet, the poem was presented directly to the sultan. The second ḳaṣīde, rhyming in -ād and comprising fifty-three couplets, appears to have been written in 1516, on the eve of Selīm’s Mameluke Campaign (DM/16b–18a; MK/294b–295a; MK 2011/946–47). The poet’s references to the hardships of travel suggest that he was, at least for a time, away from Istanbul; within the poem he petitions for an appointment to an unspecified post. The third ḳaṣīde, constructed upon the rhyme -ār and the redīf ṭonandı (adorned), commemorates the conquest of Aleppo and Egypt (1516–17) (DM/18b–20a; MK/57a–58a; MK 2011/358–60). It vividly conveys the joy and festivities that erupted in Istanbul upon the arrival of the news, describing the official celebrations and noting in couplet 44 that numerous other poems and books were produced to commemorate the event. Since the poet refrains from making a personal request and reports the celebrations in the manner of an eyewitness, it seems likely that he was in the capital at the time. The fourth ḳaṣīde, organized around the rhyme -er and the redīf ḳılıç (sword), again extols Selīm’s martial prowess and was likely composed during the Egyptian campaign (1516–17) or in its immediate aftermath (DM/15b–16b; MK/323a– 324a; MK 2011/1018–19). In both of these final ḳaṣīdes, which function as martial odes, the poet forgoes explicit petitions, aligning himself instead with the collective rejoicing of the empire. The fifth ḳaṣīde, of uncertain date and rhyming in -em, is listed as the last of those addressed to Selīm I (DM/13b–15b; MK/218b–220a; MK 2011/761–64). While, like the others, it extols the sultan’s heroism, justice, and munificence, it departs from the preceding examples by offering a more general expression of praise rather than one anchored in a specific historical occasion. Rather than articulating an explicit petition, Maḥremī alludes to his financial need, implicitly appealing to the very generosity for which the sultan is extolled. Ḳaṣīdes for Süleymān I (r. 1520–1566): Süleymān I inspired the largest group of Maḥremī’s panegyrics—seven in total. Much like his odes to Selīm I, these ḳaṣīdes praise the sultan’s heroism, prowess in battle, magnanimity, and justice —qualities that embodied the Ottoman ideal of rulership. The first two belong to the fetḥnāme (victory ode) type. The first commemorates Süleymān’s capture of Belgrade in 1521 —his inaugural campaign after ascending the throne in 1520 (DM/20b–22a; MK/206b–207b; MK 277 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390) and al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816/1413), whose works underpinned Ottoman madrasa education. In the bahāriyye rhyming in -ān, Maḥremī praises Sa‘dī Çelebi’s learning and wisdom, noting that even the famed judge of Kufa, Ḳāḍī Shurayḥ (d. 80/699)—a symbol of justice in the Islamic world—could only have served as his assistant (MK/77b–78b; MK 2011/408–10). He finishes the ode by describing his own hardship and seeking the scholar’s protection. In the ‘īdiyye rhyming in -īd, Maḥremī exalts Sa‘dī Çelebi’s erudition and compares his generosity to that of the ‘Abbāsid vizier Yaḥyā al-Barmakī (d. 190/805), again appealing for patronage (MK/300a–302a; MK 2011/962–64). A second ‘īdiyye, rhyming in -ān idesin (that you may do), takes a more personal tone: in its forty-second couplet, Maḥremī laments that if denied office, he will retreat like an ascetic to Mount Lebanon—a rare note of disillusionment within the decorum of panegyric verse (MK/107a–108a; MK 2011/485–87). Ḳaṣīde for Mevlānā Ḫayreddīn Ḫalīfe: Among the poems preserved only in Maḥremī’s Dīvān is a ḳaṣīde rhyming in -ı‘, addressed to Mevlānā Ḫayreddīn Ḫalīfe, about whom no biographical information has yet been identified (DM/31b–32b). The poem stands out within Maḥremī’s corpus for its tone of intimacy and its departure from the conventional framework of patronage. Unlike his panegyrics to officials and dignitaries, this ḳaṣīde is rooted in the language of companionship rather than hierarchy. Maḥremī addresses Ḫayreddīn Ḫalīfe as a friend and confidant, declaring that despite his travels he has never encountered a companion so worthy. The praise is horizontal rather than vertical—framed by affection, loyalty, and shared intellectual affinity rather than courtly expectation. The diction conveys warmth and sincerity, revealing Maḥremī’s ability to adapt the ḳaṣīde form to express genuine friendship beyond the conventions of power and reward. Ḳaṣīde for İhtisab Kethüdası Meḥmed Beg: This ḳaṣīde is examined in detail in the following section (MK/168b; MK 2011/643-44). Ḳaṣīde for Yeniçeri Ağası Muṣṭafā Aġa (d. 931/1525): Among Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes, one of particular historical interest is dedicated to Yeniçeri Ağası (commander of the Janissary corps) Muṣṭafā Aġa (DM/32b, some coup-lets missing; MK/55a–b; MK 2011/352–54). The poem is structured in two contrasting parts—criticism and praise—offering a rare glimpse into the poet’s responsiveness to the volatile political climate of the 1520s. 278 In the opening section, Maḥremī censures Aḥmed Paşa—later known as Ḫā’in Aḥmed Paşa (Traitor Aḥmed Paşa)—who, after his appointment as beylerbeyi (a governer of general) of Egypt in 929 (1523), rebelled and declared himself sultan. The poem condemns the treachery and ambition that disrupted the moral and political order, situating the poet’s voice within the imperial rhetoric of loyalty and justice. The tone then shifts to praise as Maḥremī extols Muṣṭafā Aġa’s courage and loyalty in suppressing the rebellion. His steadfast service to Süleymān I exemplifies the Janissary ideals of discipline and devotion, contrasting rebellion with obedience and casting him as the restorer of order. Since the revolt was suppressed in 930 (1524), the ḳaṣīde was probably composed soon afterward. Yet the fate of its addressee proved ironic: Muṣṭafā Ağa was executed on 30 Cemāẕiye’l-evvel 931 (25 March 1525) for his involvement in the Janissary uprising of that same year.37 Ḳaṣīde for Kürkçübaşı Aḥmed Beg38 (d. 922/1516–17)): Maḥremī composed an elegy (mersiye) in the tercī‘-bend form for Şemseddīn Aḥmed Beg, chief keeper of the sultan’s pelisses (kürkçübaşı) under Süleymān I (DM/2a-4b; MK/30b–31b; MK 2011/297–300). Distinguished by its intimacy and warmth, the poem departs from the formal tone of official elegies. Maḥremī mourns his patron with restrained pathos, blending personal sorrow with reflections on transience and divine will. He praises Aḥmed Beg’s generosity and virtue, portraying him 37 İsmail Hami Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Yayınevi, 1971), 2:107. 38 No biographical record of Aḥmed Beg is found in the available sources. Ayvānsarāyī, who provides information on the mosques attributed to him, states that he was buried in Damascus. See The Garden of the Mosques: Hafiz Hüseyin al-Ayvansarayi’s Guide to the Muslim Monuments of Ottoman Istanbul, translated and annotated by Howard Crane (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 207. In the Dīvān, the elegy is followed by a Persian tārīḫ poem composed by Maḥremī on the death of Aḥmed Beg. Although the year 922 (1516–17) is written beneath the poem, the chronogrammatic value of the tārīḫ verse likewise corresponds to 922. The discrepancy between this date and that of the vakfiye of the Kürkçübaşı—dated Muḥarrem 928 (December 1521)—remains unresolved. For the vakfiye, see İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) Târîhli, ed. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi (Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti İstanbul Enstitüsü, 1970), 392–93, see İstanbul Vakıfları Tahrîr Defteri: 953 (1546) Târîhli, ed. Ömer Lütfi Barkan, Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi (Istanbul: İstanbul Fetih Cemiyeti İstanbul Enstitüsü, 1970), 392–93. 279 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. as a model of worldly excellence and spiritual grace. Gentle imagery of light, fragrance, and seasonal change lends the poem a quiet tenderness, transforming grief into a meditation on impermanence. Satirical Ḳaṣīde against Yazıcı Ḥaydar39: Among the more striking works in Maḥremī’s corpus is a ḳaṣīde of the hicviyye (satirical) type directed against Yazıcı Ḥaydar, chief scribe (başyazıcı; re’īsü’l-küttāb) of the Dīvān-ı Hümāyūn (The Ottoman Imperial Council), and several other court officials (MK/56a–b; MK 2011/355–357). Departing from the conventions of panegyric, Maḥremī adopts the voice of moral invective, accusing his targets of corruption, greed, and abuse of power. The tone combines sharp wit with measured indignation, revealing his mastery in adapting the ḳaṣīde form to the rhetoric of censure. His critique extends beyond personal grievance to a broader reflection on bureaucratic decay. Choosing Yazıcı Ḥaydar—a powerful yet ill-fated figure—as his target lends the poem both daring and immediacy. By inverting the language of praise, Maḥremī transforms courtly eloquence into an instrument of moral protest. Historical irony heightens the poem’s impact: Yazıcı Ḥaydar, like Yeniçeri Ağası Muṣṭafā Aġa, was executed on 30 Cemāẕiye’l-evvel 931 (25 March 1525) for his role in the Janissary revolt.40 Other and Final Ḳaṣīdes Of Maḥremī’s final three eulogies, one—composed in the tercī‘-bend form and belonging to the bahāriyye (spring ode) genre—has no identifiable dedicatee (MK/39b–40a; MK 2011/319–20). The remaining two, preserved solely in the Dīvān, are distinguished by their social and moral critique, marking a clear departure from the courtly panegyric that dominates much of his ḳaṣīde oeuvre (DM/33b–34a; 35b–36b). Situated in the Dīvān after the poems addressed to the ruling elite, these compositions cast Maḥremī in the role of a moral commentator who laments the deterioration of justice, the corruption of patronage, and the instability of worldly fortune. 39 It is highly probable that Yazıcı Ḥaydar was the author of the Rūznāme describing the events that took place between Selīm I’s Çaldıran Campaign and his death. See Ali Seslikaya, “Yavuz Sultan Selim’in Sefer Menzilnameleri (Çaldıran, Kemah, Dulkadiroğlu ve Mısır Seferi Menzilnameleri) ve Haydar Çelebi Ruznamesi: Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirme” (MA thesis, Gaziosmanpaşa University, 2014), 23–8; Meḥmed Ṩüreyyā, Sicill-i ‘Oṩmānī, 2:260. 40 Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi, 2:107. 280 The survey of Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīdes underscores both the extent of his engagement with Ottoman patronage networks and the diversity of his poetic craft. His panegyrics, addressed to a broad array of patrons, attest to his command of the ḳaṣīde form and to his sensitivity to the moral and political dimensions embedded within the genre. Among these compositions, the ḳaṣīde for Meḥmed Beg is particularly noteworthy for what appears to be the earliest attested use of the redīf şehr/şehir (city) in Ottoman poetry and for its implicit yet vivid evocation of Istanbul—the imperial capital—as a symbol of just and virtuous governance. The following section provides a detailed analysis of this poem—accompanied by its Ottoman Turkish text and English translation—focusing on its structural design, imagery, and rhetorical inflections within the broader cultural milieu of Ottoman panegyric and urban representation. The Ḳaṣīde in Praise of Meḥmed Beg and the “City” Motif Among Maḥremī’s forty-four identified ḳaṣīdes, one of particular historical and literary significance is dedicated to Meḥmed Beg, the iḥtisāb ketḫudāsı41 (superintendent of markets) of Istanbul. The poem survives only in the Mecmū‘a-i Ḳaṣā’id and bears no explicit title; Meḥmed Beg’s name appears only once, in the ninth couplet. From internal evidence, it is clear that the addressee held a prominent administrative post in the city, though his exact title remains unstated. The mention of the drum (ṭabl) and banner (‘alem) in that couplet suggests vizierial rank. Couplet fifteen identifies the reigning sultan as Süleymān I, thus situating the composition within his reign. Maḥremī also uses the term vālī in couplets 8 and 27—while in modern Turkish this denotes a provincial governor, here it more plausibly signifies “administrator” or “director.”42 Archival evidence supports this contextualization. An imperial decree dated 26 Rebī‘ü’l-evvel 927 (6 March 1521) records a Meḥmed Beg serving as iḥtisāb 41 According to Bayerle, the office of the iḥtisāb aġası—already attested during the reign of Bāyezīd II (1481–1512)—was responsible for levying dues and taxes on merchants and artisans, inspecting prices to ensure conformity with official rate lists (narḫ defterleri) recorded by the local ḳāḍī. The iḥtisāb aġası also exercised moral supervision over Muslims in public spaces, with oversight of the marketplace constituting an extension of this duty. Gustav Bayerle, Pashas, Begs, and Effendis: A Historical Dictionary of Titles and Terms in the Ottoman Empire (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1997), s.v. “İhtisab Ağası.” 42 In this article, I occasionally refer to Meḥmed Beg as “governor” in the sense of “administrator” or “director.” 281 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. kethudası in Istanbul, whose berāt (appointment patent) was renewed by order of the Sultan.43 This aligns closely with the poem’s tone and content, suggesting that the Meḥmed Beg praised by Maḥremī occupied this post in the early 1520s. Beyond this reference, however, the historical record remains silent: several contemporaries share the same name, making further identification uncertain. The ḳaṣīde reflects its historical context through a series of direct and indirect references to events in sixteenth-century Istanbul. Among these, the references in couplets 14 and 21 are particularly significant. Couplet 14—“Through your generosity you have revived its ruins; no desolation shall remain within the city ever again”—appears to allude to the Great Istanbul Earthquake of 915 (1509), remembered by contemporaries as the Küçük Kıyamet (Lesser Judgment Day).44 Maḥremī’s praise of the governor’s efforts to “revive the city’s ruins” can thus be read as a poetic reflection of post-disaster reconstruction, portraying Meḥmed Beg as a key figure in the city’s renewal. Couplet 21 shifts attention from physical rebuilding to social regulation: Geşt-i deşt eylemeden zenleri men‘ ėtdügüŋe Cümle meşġūl-i du‘ādur saŋa merdān-ı şehir The men of the city bless your name without cease for forbidding their women to wander in the gardens. Though the earliest known decree restricting women’s presence in public gardens dates to 981 (1573), Maḥremī’s verse suggests that such measures were envisioned—or even practiced—earlier.45 The couplet thus offers an early poetic glimpse of ḥisbe (moral supervision) in Istanbul’s urban life, linking civic order with public morality and gendered spatial control. 43 Māliye Aḥkām Defteri, Başbakanlık Ottoman Archives–Kâmil Kepeci Collection, no. 61. I am deeply grateful to my colleague Bilgin Aydın, whose assistance made it possible to locate the only extant document presently available concerning Meḥmed Beg. 44 For a detailed discussion of the 1509 Istanbul earthquake and its aftermath, see Kazuaki Sawai, “The 1509 Istanbul Earthquake and Subsequent Recovery,” Mediterranean World = Mediterranean Studies 22 (2015): 29-42. 45 For a recent study of women’s visibility in the public sphere of the Ottoman Empire, see Ottoman Women in Public Space, ed. Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2016); for discussions based on literary sources, see particularly Edith Ambros, “Frivolity and Flirtation,” in the same volume, 63–88. 282 Within its poetic framework, the ḳaṣīde employs the remel metre— (Fā‘ilātün) Fe‘ilātün Fe‘ilātün Fe‘ilātün Fe‘ilün (Fa‘lün)—a rhythm frequently favoured in Ottoman panegyrics. Its twenty-seven couplets revolve around the rhyme -ān-ı and the recurrent redīf şehir (city), whose repetition produces a resonant structural and thematic unity. Among Maḥremī’s extant works, this ḳaṣīde is distinguished by its sophisticated integration of the şehir motif: the city emerges not as a static backdrop but as a living organism animated by just governance. Through a calibrated interplay of praise and moral reflection, Maḥremī transforms the conventional medḥiyye (panegyric) into a meditation on civic harmony and ethical order. Meḥmed Beg’s discernment and integrity appear as sources of urban renewal: gardens bloom like jewels, markets remain tranquil, and the inhabitants bless his rule. In the closing verses, Maḥremī imagines himself as one of the city’s “songbirds,” weaving his own voice into the harmony he describes. The poem thus articulates a triadic relationship between poet, patron, and city—each mirroring and reinforcing the other through beauty, virtue, and eloquence. The nesīb (lyric exordium) begins in the idiom of love poetry and, as the medḥiyye unfolds, acquires civic and didactic overtones: ‘adl (justice) becomes a source of illumination, and niẓām (order) emerges as the axis of prosperity. Thematic and Rhetorical Structure What begins as lyrical celebration gradually transforms into a meditation on civic virtue and just governance. Maḥremī recasts the classical ḳaṣīde within a moral framework, in which the architecture of the poem mirrors the order it extols. Opening with the rose and moon—emblems of harmony and grace—he praises the beloved before turning to the ethical dimensions of beauty and authority. The central medḥiyye (9–20) envisions Meḥmed Beg as the embodiment of discernment and justice, his governance mirrored in the daily life of the city’s inhabitants and in the tranquillity of its markets. In the faḫr (self-praise, 21–25), the poet adopts the stance of a moral witness, linking civic virtue to his own poetic legacy. The concluding du‘ā (prayer, 26–27) brings divine, political, and aesthetic order into alignment through the recurring motif of the şehir (city). Through this layered structure, Maḥremī elevates the panegyric beyond praise, transforming it into a meditation on justice, harmony, and the poet’s place within the moral fabric of the city. 283 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. Poem and Commentary The following section presents the full text of Maḥremī’s ḳaṣīde ((MK/168b; MK 2011/643-44) in praise of Meḥmed Beg, accompanied by detailed commentary on each couplet. The commentary proceeds couplet by couplet, tracing shifts in tone, imagery, and moral emphasis, and situating Maḥremī’s metaphors within the Ottoman discourse of justice (‘adl), order (niẓām), and civic harmony. Transitional notes between thematic clusters clarify the poem’s structural development—from lyric imagery to ethical counsel and, finally, to political benediction. 1. Sen ki ḫandān olasın iy gül-i ḫandān-ı şehir Bir degül biŋ biŋ olur bülbül-i nālān-ı şehir O blooming rose of the city! To make you smile, not one but thousands weeping nightingales arise.46 The poem opens in an idiom commonly associated with the ġazel form: the addressee is figured as a “rose,” the emblem of beauty, while the nightingale embodies longing and praise. 2. Ketḫudāyān-ı maḥallāt-ı melāḥat çoḳdur Sensin iy māh bugün ḥüsn ile sulṭān-ı şehir There are many stewards in beauty’s quarters, but O moon-faced one, you with your beauty reign today as the city’s sultan. Here the poet elevates the beloved from the position of one among many figures of beauty to that of sovereign of the urban realm. The “moon-faced” beloved, a conventional epithet of radiant perfection, now governs ‘beauty’s quarter’ as the ‘city’s sultan,’ marking the fusion of aesthetic and political dominion. 3. Ne leṭāfet ḳodı Ḥaḳ sende ki cism ile seni Cān-ı ḫalḳ eyledi vü ḥüsn ile cānān-ı şehir What beauty has the Almighty granted you, that with this form you have become the spirit of the people, and with grace, the beloved of the city. Divine causality is invoked—beauty is not merely physical but an emanation of divine grace. 46 In translating the poem into English, I have prioritized contextual and rhetorical coherence over the literal rendering of individual words, with the aim of preserving both clarity and tone for the reader. 284 4. Ger çıḳup ‘arż-ı cemāl eyleyesin ḳaṣruŋdan İrişür göklere tā ṣayḥa-i sükkān-ı şehir If you were to leave your palace and unveil your radiant face, the residents’ joyful cries would rise to the skyies. Maḥremī transforms the beloved’s unveiling into a civic spectacle. The beloved’s appearance from the palace evokes not private longing but collective admiration: the residents’ cries rising “to the skyies” signal both wonder and allegiance. 5. Ger ‘araḳ-rīz olup gül gibi geşt eyleyesin Pür olur lü’lü-yi lālāyile dāmān-ı şehir If, rose-like, you wandered shedding perspiration, the city’s skirts would fill with gleaming pearls. The imagery of the rose recasts beauty as benevolent action. 6. Kākülüŋ oldı perīşānī-yi ḫalḳa bā‘īṩ Gözlerüŋ fitneyile olalı fettān-ı şehir Since your mischief-making eyes led the city into strife, your curls have cast its people into confusion. The language of seduction (fitne) becomes moral allegory. Beauty’s power is double-edged: captivating yet destabilizing. 7. Türk-i çeşmüŋ olalı vālī-yi ḫūn-ḫvār dile Eksük olmadı şehā fitne vü tālān-ı şehir O ruler! Since those Turk-like eyes of yours became the cruel governors of hearts, the city has known neither peace nor freedom from strife. Maḥremī’s use of the phrase Türk-i çeşmüŋ (Turkish eyes) draws on both its ethnographic resonance—connoting sharpness and martial vigor—and its poetic associations with a “blood-shedding” gaze. In Ottoman dīvān poetry, the conventional expression “Turk-like eyes” typically evokes narrow, keen, and metaphorically lethal eyes, blending martial grace with the stylized cruelty of the beloved’s glance.47 47 “Turk-like eyes” is a well-established conventional expression in the Dīvān of Ḥāfeẓ (d. 792?/1390?); see https://ganjoor.net/hafez/ghazal/sh3 (accessed 20 October 2025). For the Turkish translation, see Şirazî, Hâfız Dîvânı, trans. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı (İstanbul: MEB, 1992), 8–10. 285 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. 8. Eyleme ẓulm ü sitem gey saḳın āgāh olur Kār-fermā-yı ümem vālī [vü] a‘yān-ı şehir Beware of injustice and oppression—for the city’s notables, its governor, and the ruler of rulers know of every deed. This couplet marks the poem’s moral turning point. With measured brevity, Maḥremī warns against injustice, drawing a vertical chain of accountability that ascends from ruler to sultan and finally to God—a movement from passion to principle. With this moral tone established, the poem transitions into its central medḥiyye, where the praise of Meḥmed Beg’s governance becomes an image of harmony between justice and imperial authority. 9. Ṣāḥib-i ṭabl ü ‘alem ya‘nī Meḥemmed Beg kim Luṭf u ḳahrıyla odur şimdi nigehbān-ı şehir Mehmed Beg, who holds the drum and banner— it is he who now guards the city with his grace and his punishments. This first explicit naming of the patron situates the poem within Ottoman bureaucratic discourse. The drum and banner (ṭabl u ‘alem) signify legitimate authority conferred by the Sultan. The balance between ‘grace’ and ‘punishment’ encapsulates the Ottoman understanding of ‘adl (justice) as equilibrium. 10. Görmedi ancılayın vālī-yi ‘ādil hergiz Ṭarḥ olup resmi olaldan berü bünyān-ı şehir Since the city’s foundations were first laid and its structures set in order, it has never seen a governor as just as he. The poet employs mübālaġa (hyperbole) to create historical breadth, asserting that from the city’s very creation no governor has matched his justice. In doing so, Maḥremī elevates the patron above all predecessors in the city’s imagined history. 11. Görüben ‘adlini her gün ėder olanca du‘ā Ḳanḳı reh-rev ki ola bir gice mihmān-ı şehir Any traveler who spends a single night in this town, blesses his justice with so many prayers each day. Here justice becomes experiential, visible even to outsiders. The rhythmic symmetry suggests daily renewal of gratitude, turning governance into a living rhythm of moral life. 12. İy ki ḥıfẓuŋla ṭolu emn ü emān mülk-i ḳulūb V’ey ki yümnüŋle firāvān ni‘am u nān-ı şehir 286 O you who fill the country of hearts with peace and trust, and through your bounty make the city overflow with bread and blessings— This couplet synthesizes inner and outer order. ‘The country of hearts’ evokes spiritual tranquility, while ‘bread and blessings’ denote material welfare. Maḥremī links prosperity inseparably to moral virtue. 13. Mīve yėrine bitürmese ‘acebdür gevher Ḳandı ‘adlüŋ ṣuyına bāġ ile bostān-ı şehir The city’s gardens drink deeply from the waters of your justice; it would be no wonder if they yielded jewels instead of fruit. Here, Maḥremī employs a subtle teşbīh-i belīġ (eloquent simile): justice irrigates the city, rendering fertility and virtue inseparable. As fruit turns to jewels, the material world reflects the perfection of moral order. 14. Luṭf ile şöyle ḫarābını ‘imāret ėtdüŋ Ebedī ḳalmaya gibi daḫi vīrān-ı şehir Through your generosity you have revived its ruins; no devastation shall remain within the city ever again. As noted above, this couplet alludes to the Great Istanbul Earthquake of 915 (1509), remembered by contemporaries as the Küçük Kıyamet (Lesser Judgment Day). 15. Fitne dīvini zebūn eyleseŋ olmaya ‘aceb Seni tesḫīrine naṣb ėtdi Süleymān-ı şehir It is no wonder you subdue the giant of rebellion—for the Solomon of the city appointed you to conquer the demon. At the poem’s climax, mythic and political imagery converge: the “Solomon of the city,” Sultan Süleymān I, empowers Meḥmed Beg to subdue rebellion personified as a demon—an allegory uniting divine sanction with imperial order. 16. Ḳanda ser-fitne var ise ḳamusın bend ėtdüŋ Ṭoludur ehl-i fesādāt ile zindān-ı şehir Wherever the heads of disorder arose, you struck them all down; the city’s prisons now are brimful with the agents of sedition. Violence and discipline are reimagined as instruments of balance. The imagery unites administrative rigor with ethical containment, portraying justice as the harmonizing of force and virtue. 293 Aynur, Hatice. “Maḥremī (d. 1535) as a Poet of Ḳaṣīdes (Eulogies) and his Praise of Meḥmed Beg, Istanbul’s Iḥtisāb Ketḫudāsı.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 262-293. . “The Marriage of Ibrahim Pasha (ca. 1495-1536).” Turcica 41 (2009): 3-36. https:// doi.org/10.2143/TURC.41.0.2049287 Zâtî Dîvânı: Gazeller Dışındaki Şiirler, İnceleme-Tenkitli Metin. Edited by Orhan Kurtoğlu. Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı Kütüphaneler ve Yayımlar Genel Müdürlüğü, 2017.