YENİ BİR BELGEYE GÖRE XVI. YÜZYILIN İLK YARISINDA RUMELİ MEDRESELERİ VE MÜDERRİSLERİ

Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda çok önemli görevleri ifa eden ilmiye sınıfı ve özellikle medrese teşkilatı ve müderrisler hakkındaki arşiv belgeleri daha çok XVI. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren görülmeye başlanmıştır. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'na kendinden önceki Türk-İslam devletlerinden tevarüs eden ve daha kuruluş yıllarından itibaren varlığına rastladığımız medrese kurumu ve müderrislik mesleğine ilişkin ilk bilgiler kroniklere, vakfiyelere, birtakım arşiv belgelerine ve bazı ulema biyografilerine dayanmaktadır. Medreseler ve müderrisleri hakkında temel kaynak olan kadıasker ruznamçeleri ve ruus defterleri XVI. yüzyılın ortalarından itibaren seri halde tutulmaya başlanmıştır. İncelememize konu olan defter ise Kanuni Sultan Süleyman döneminin başlarına ait olup 933 (1527) tarihlidir. Bu defter; dönemin Rumeli kadıaskeri olan Fenarizade Muhyiddin Çelebi zamanında kaleme alınmıştır. İki bölümden oluşan defterin ilk bölümünde; çoğu İstanbul'da olmak üzere Rumeli'deki medreseler ve burada görev yapan müderrislerin kısa biyografileri verilmiş; ikinci bölümde ise Rumeli medreselerinden münfasıl olan müderrislerin kim oldukları kaydedilmiştir. Defterin içerisindeki bilgiler ile başka bazı arşiv kayıtları bu defterin, bir kadıasker ruznamçesi olabileceğini akla getirmektedir. Bu haliyle bu defter; Rumeli kadıaskerliğinin medrese ve müderris kayıtlarını içeren ilk ruznamçesi olma özelliğini taşımaktadır. Sonuçta, defterin türü her ne olursa olsun, içerdiği bilgiler hem ulema biyografileri hem de Osmanlı ilmiye teşkilatı hakkında çok ayrıntılı veriler sunmaktadır. Bu bakımdan bu defter, konuya ilişkin erken dönemlere ait kaynak eksikliğini de telafi etmektedir

MADRASAS AND MUDARRISES OF RUMELIA IN THE FIRST HALF OF 16TH CENTURY IN THE LIGHT OF A NEW DOCUMENT

The archives about the learned group (ilmiye) who carry out very important duties in the Ottoman Empire and especially the madrasa organization and the professors (mudarrises) began to be seen from the second half of 16th century. The first information about the madrasa institution and the profession of the mudarris, which had been inherited from the former Turkish-Islamic states to the Ottoman Empire, and which we have encountered since its establishment, is based on the chronicles, the foundation records, some archive documents and some of the ulema biographies. Kadiasker ruznamce registers and ruus registers that the main sources for madrassas and professors began to be kept in series from the middle of the 16th century. The register that we examine belongs to the beginning of Suleiman the Magnificent and is dated 933 Hijri (1527). This register was recorded during the time of kadiasker of Rumelia, Fenarizade Muhyiddin Celebi. The register is consisting of two parts. In the first part the madrasas in Rumelia that many of them including in Istanbul and short biographies of the professors working in these madrasas were given. In the second part, it was recorded that the professors dismissed from Rumelia madrasas. The information in the register and some other archival records suggest that this register may be a kadiasker ruznamce register. If it is so, this register is the first Rumelia kadiasker register containing the records of madrasa and professor. In conclusion, whatever the type of the register, the information it contains provides very detailed information abouth both the ulama (learned men) biographies and the Ottoman learned organization. In this respect, this register also compensates for the lack of resources of the early period As in the case of the other Turkish-Islamic states, the madrasas were also the main educational institutions in the Ottoman Empire. Those who completed the education of the madrasa were connected with “ilmiye” (learned group) included in the named "askerî" class in the administrative section. In the Ottoman Empire, the learned group carried out many services; for example administrative, religious, educational and so on. Here, our work is to examine the madrasa system and the muderrises (professors) of the time from the register which registered in the first half of the 16th century and in the first years of the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. The register which is subject to our work is Hijri 933 (1527) and it is the oldest documentary which has reached the daily date which gives information only on the madrassas and the muderrises in Rumelia. This register is recorded in the Topkapı Palace Museum Archives (TSMA) number 10053. The register consists of two parts. The first part of the register under Hijri 1-10 Âhirilcumâdeyn 933 (05-14.03.1527) contains the records of the muderrises who actually worked in the madrasas. The number of records here is 50. 25 of these numbers belong to Istanbul, 11 of them belong to Edirne and 14 of them belong to the various cities of Rumelia. There are records of the mudarrises dismissed from the Rumelia madrasas in the second part of the register. In this section, which constitutes the second part of the register, there are 18 records for mudarrises. At the beginning of the second part, there is no date record. Although no name is given in the register, it is understood from the information contained in it and from some other documents that this register was registered by the the Fenarizade Muhyiddin Celebi during the time of kadiasker (chief justice) of Rumelia. Again, the same information and documents suggest that this register may be a kadiasker ruznamce (daybook) register. If this information is correct, then we can say that this register is the first Rumelian kadiasker ruznamce register that contains the madrasa and the mudarris records. In the register are records of high titled mudarrises as well as records of the mudarrises whose appointment responsbility in the hands of the kadiaskers. In this case, it is proved that the authority of appointment of all the mudarrises in this period was authority of the kadiaskers and later the authority of appointment the mudarrises who titled mavlaviyet was taken from them. First of all in the register, the names of the madrasas and the city in which they are located are mentioned. According to this; the city in which the top-ranked madrasas and the largest number of madrasas in Rumelia is Istanbul. The reason for this is that Istanbul was the capital city and thus had enormous opportunities. In terms of number and rank of the madrasas, Istanbul is followed by Edirne, the capital city before the conquest of Istanbul. A large part of the records in the register consist of the madrasas of Istanbul and Edirne and the mudarrises who work there. The records of the madrasas in the other Rumelia cities are rather few and the madrasas in these cities are low or medium ranked. The cities of Rumelia, in which there is a madrasa are Eyüb and Küçük Çekmece which are a parts of Istanbul now, Çorlu, Üsküb, Yenice-i Vardar, Selanik (Thessaloniki), Gelibolu (Gallipoli), Hasköy, Dimetoka, Filibe, Siroz, Karaverye, Manastır, İpek and Pilevne. The information of the madrasas and the mudarrises working here is shown in the form of a table so that the register can be understood better in our work. However, it is worth pointing out that the cities of Rumelia, where the madrasa is located, may not be just such. The cities that are named here are places mentioned in the register. Perhaps it is possible that there are also cities which included madrasa, which are not recorded in the register. This will be possible by finding and evaluating new documents on this subject. Another point mentioned in the register is; who are the mudarrises. The register has very important biographical information in terms of showing the professional career of mudarrises. First of all, the scholars of mudarrises mentioned in the register. Then the process of mulazamat, the introduction of the learned group, was mentioned. The register showned detailed that starting from the process of mulazamat the mudarrises; how they progressed in the profession career. For example, the mudarrises who work at a madrasa or dismissed from madrasa given all of the details. For this reason, it provides important details about the organization of the learned group as well as supporting other sources of the period, especially the biography of ulama (scholars). Thus, detailed information about the careers of those who do not have much information about their biographies is also available. In addition, information on the early stages of the career of those who will come to the higher authorities in the next period reveals how progress in the learned group is. Another important issue in the register is; a detailed knowledge of the incomes of the mudarrises. First of all, it must be said that in the Ottoman madrasa organization the degree of the madrasa and the income of the mudarris is proportional. As the degree of the madrasa rises, the income of the mudarris is also increasing at that rate. High-ranked madrasa have a high salary, while low-ranked madrasa are low salary. The highest-paid madrasas are located in Istanbul. Ayasofya (Hagia Sophia), Bayezid, Semaniye madrasas had the highest incomes. Also in Edirne Bayezid, which was built by Bayezid II, had the same income as the madrasas of Istanbul. The madrasa of the other cities of Rumelia had a smaller income. Another thing about the incomes of the mudarrises in the register is that some of the mudarrises are given not only money but also the food benefits such as barley and wheat. In the register are also some increments in the incomes of some of the mudarrises. However, there is no information about the incomes of the mudarries who have been given their former positions. In the register, there are other things that are not mentioned in spite of details. For example, it is not known how long the mudarrises have served in the same madrasa or when they started to work that madrasa. Also it does not write when the mudarrises dismissed from madrasa. It is possible to compare Rumelia with Anatolian mardasas from the information in this register. Because a register dated 1528 showing the situation of the madrasas in Anatolia has already been published. According to this, in 1528 there were 150 madrasas in Anatolia. This shows that the number of madrasas in Anatolia was more than Rumelia. This is because the Muslim population in Anatolia is more than in Rumelia, and it may be the madrasa inheritance left by the previous Turkish-Islamic states before the Ottoman Empire in Anatolia. However, the madrassas in Rumelia were of higher ranked and the mudarries who work there had higher incomes. Finally, the Ottoman madrasa organization gained its classical character with the establishment of the Suleymaniye Madrasas towards the end of the Suleiman the Magnificent. Shortly before the madrasas gained this character, at the beginning of the 16th century, the madrasa organization in Rumelia is clearly understood from this register.

___

  • Mecmû'a-i eş'ar ve fevâid, Millet Kütüphanesi, AEMnz, 726/1
  • Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (TSMA) Defter No: 699, 5604, 5605/1, 10053.
  • Ahmed Cevdet Paşa (1309), Tarih-i Cevdet, İstanbul.
  • Akgündüz, Ahmet, (1994), Osmanlı Kanûnnâmeleri ve Hukukî Tahlilleri, IV, VII ve VIII, Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Fatih Sultan Mehmed (2003), Kânûnnâme-i Âl-i Osman (Tahlil ve Karşılaştırmalı Metin), Haz. Abdülkadir Özcan, Kitabevi Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Fatih Sultan Mehmed (2013), Atam Dedem Kanunu Kanunâme-i Âl-i Osman, haz. Abdülkadir Özcan, Yitik Hazine Yayınları, İstanbul.
  • Gök, İlhan, (2014), İstanbul Büyükşehir Kütüphanesi MC. O. 71 Numaralı 909-933/1503-1527 Tarihli İn‘âmât Defteri (Transkripsiyon, Değerlendirme), Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Gökçe, Turan, (1994) “934 (1528) Tarihli Bir Deftere Göre Anadolu Vilâyeti Medreseleri ve Müderrisleri”, Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, S. XI, s. 163-175.
  • Hezârfen Hüseyin Efendi, (1998), Telhîsü’l-Beyân fî Kavânîn-i Âl-i Osmân, Haz. Sevim İlgürel, TTK, Ankara.
  • I. Selim Kanûnnâmesi (1512-1520) ve XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısının Bazı Kanunları, (1995), Haz. Selami Pulaha-Yaşar Yücel, TTK, Ankara.
  • Kâtib Çelebi, (1632), Kitâb-ı Cihânnümâ, İbrahim Müteferrika Baskısı, Boyut Yayınları.
  • Kâtib Çelebi, (2007), Haz. Zeynep Aycibin, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Koçi Bey Risaleleri, (2008), Haz. Seda Çakmakçıoğlu, Kabalcı Yayınevi, İstanbul.
  • Naîmâ Mustafa Efendi, (2007), Târih-i Na‘îmâ, I, Haz. Mehmet İpşirli, TTK, Ankara.
  • Ünver, A. Süheyl, (1969), ‘‘XVII inci Yüzyıl Sonunda Padişaha Bir Lâyiha’’, Belleten, C. XXXIII, S. 129, Ankara, s. 23-34.
  • Yıldırım, Alper, (2014), Müstakimzade Süleyman Saadeddin’in Devhatü’l-Meşâyih Osmanlı Şeyhü’l-islamlarının Biyografileri Adlı Eserinin Transkripsiyon ve Değerlendirilmesi, Kemal Üniveristesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hatay.
  • Alan, Ercan (2015), Kadıasker Ruznamçelerine Göre XVII. Yüzyılda Rumeli’de Kadılık Müessesesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.
  • Alan, Ercan (2016), “Yeni Bir Belgeye Göre XVI. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında Rumeli Sancakları, Kazaları ve Kadılar”, Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, S. 33, s. 337-377.
  • Develioğlu, Ferit, (2002), Osmanlıca-Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lûgat, Aydın Kitabevi, Ankara.
  • Gök, İlhan(2014), “İn'âmât Defteri Çerçevesinde II. Bayezid Dönemi İstanbul Medreselerine Bakış”, Mavi Atlas, Sayı: 3, s. 66-78.
  • Hızlı, Mefail (1999), “Osmanlı Eğitim-Öğretim Tarihi Konusunda Önemli Bir Kaynak: “Müderrisîn Vezâifi””, Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, S. 8, C. 8, s. 97-133.
  • İpşirli, Mehmet (2003), “Medrese”, DİA, XXVIII, Ankara, s. 327-333.
  • İpşirli, Mehmet (2006), “Müderris”, DİA, XXXI, İstanbul, s. 468.470.
  • Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı (1988), Osmanlı Devleti’nin İlmiye Teşkilatı, Ankara, TTK.