Abstract:

Historiography in the Ottoman State initiated relatively late, regarding its foundation. Therefore, not only there wasn't any Ottoman chronicle concerning the era of foundation, but also the information provided by the Arab and Byzantine sources was limited for the same period. The first historiography examples were recorded one and a half century after the foundation of the Ottoman State, in the early 15th century. Influenced from the conquests and holy-wars, the works of this period were epical and holy-war-narration type. Significant developments occurred in historiography during the reign of Sultan Murat the 2nd, during which Arabic and Persian history books were translated. Moreover, first types of Anonymous Tevarih-i Al-i Osmans (lit.'The History of the Ottomans'), Historical Calendars, holy-war-narrations and conquest-narrations were written in this period. As per the period of Sultan Mehmed the 2nd, the first experiences of writing monographs and about independent world/Ottoman history took place in this period. Additionally, the most important aspect of historiography in this era was that shehname writing came in sight, which was a semi-official historiography. Under the reign of Bayezid the 2nd, which was called as the golden era of historiography, major developments were gained in historiography concerning the language, format, style, content, and type, after which historiography was built on strong bases. Selimname (the historiography of the periods of Yavuz Sultan Selim) and Suleimannames (the historiography of the Sultan Suleiman period) were written, which can be defined as a continuum of holy-war-narration tradition, in the 16th century. The most conspicuous works concerning historiography in this period were written by Cenabi, Mustafa Ali of Gallipoli, Hoca Saddettin Efendi and Mehmed Zaim. As per the Ottoman historiography in the 17th century, the numbers of works in Arabic and Turkish about world history, special history, and monograph increased. Ultimately, Ottoman historiography gained an official identity by creation of historiographer post under the secretariat in the Imperial Council in the 18th century. One of the historiographers in the second half of the 18th century was Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi. He served as the historiographer for five times once acting as the representative and four times acting as the principal in between 1783-1789. He named his work as Mehâsinü’l-âsâr and Hakāikü’l-ahbâr, which was comprised of the events recorded in this period. One of the writers of specific histories in the 19th century was Ahmed Câvid Efendi. His works attracted the attention of Sultan Selim the 3rd, after which he was named as the Historiographer of the Enderun, which was a special/imperial school. Moreover, he presented his two-volume Müntehabât, which narrated the Ottoman-Russian relations in 1623-1774 and 1774-1791, to Sultan Selim the 3rd. While writing his book Müntehabât, Ahmed Câvid Efendi benefited from the works of historiographers ranging from Kâtip Çelebi to Ahmet Vasıf. The last section of the book included his own observations. In this study, how Ahmed Câvid Efendi benefited from the Mehâsinü’l-âsâr and Hakāikü’l-ahbâr of Ahmet Vâsıf Efendi, which was one of his sources, was examined.  It was attempted to determine the subjects that Ahmed Cavid Efendi quoted from Ahmed Vâsıf Efendi directly or with short-partial changes, or included in his work as summaries. Thus, the method was scrutinized, by which the Ottoman historiographers utilized each other's work.  

Keywords: