Journal of International Eastern European Studies
Yazarlar: Yücel ÖZTÜRK
Konular:Tarih
Anahtar Kelimeler:Tulip,Sultan,Grand Vizier,Governor of Sadaret,Shaykhulislam,Valide Sultan,Power,Karlowitz,Edirne Event,Rebellion,Renovation
Özet: At the present article the changes in power that took place in the Ottoman Empire from the killing of Sokullu to the end of the Tulip Era were discussed, and the question of whether the construction of power in that period (1579-1730) had a continuing common dynamism was evaluated. Although the main actors of politics seem to have consisted of legitimate forces such as the sultan and the garand vizier, it was observed that there were powers whose authorities weren’t defined by the law, and that could transcend these official powers and guide them as they should. These political actors who were not legitimate were planning to overcome the limits assigned to them, to overthrow the sultan and the Grand viziers, and to bring the new ones instead. The construction of power in the Ottoman Empire under the grandvisier’s deputy (Sadaret Kaymakamı), the padisah’s mother (valide sultan), the shaykh al-Islam and the institutional forces attached to them was carried out almost without exception by means of coup d’états. The dynamics of the period, which lasted for among the two bloodiest rebellions of Ottoman history, and were described as the Tulip Revolution, are largely the same with the dynamics of the events that took place before and after itself, despite a short period of 12 years. In the Ottoman Empire, attempts to create legitimate political structures by eliminating illegitimate methods of building power that could facilitate the legitimite power, can be found at any time. However, those attempts of innovation were either blocked or totally destroyed, by the deep-rooted intrigues of the deeper forces. Ottoman Empire went into a different period identified with the symbolism of pleasure and art following the treaties of Korlowitz (1699) and Passarowitz (1718). In this way, the Tulip Revolution seems to be disconnected from the context of the process that created it. The fact that the Tulip Age is identical to symbolism, which is associated with luxury and entertainment, is actually superficial. The opening of the printing press, translational activities, artistic and literary elements of pleasure and desire must be perceived as an indication of a new world view. Whether the identification of the Tulip Era with extreme forms of enjoyment and behavior that transcends social norms refers the real social dynamics or to the propaganda of the literature that try to legitimize the bloody Patrona Halil Uprising is a matter to be clarified.