Mehmed Paşa (Defterdar, Sarı, Baqqalzade)

Although some manuscripts and library catalogues record the title of the work as Zübdetü’l-Veqayi, it is clear that the original title of the work is Zübde-i Veqayiat. Hanifzade (d. 1217/1802) and Babinger make the grave mistake of attributing the work to Damad Mehmed Paşa (d. 1129/1716), who held the office of the defterdar several times before and after M.P. M.P. states that he composed Zübde-i Veqayiat in order to receive recompense from God and to secure a good posthumous reputation for himself. Although there is no concrete information on the date of composition, various clues suggest that some parts of the work were written during the reign of Mehmed IV (1058-99/1648-87) and that its final version was completed probably between 1126-28/1714-16.

In terms of content, Zübde-i Veqayiat can be divided into three parts. The introductory part of the work includes supplications and the statement of the reason for its composition. In the introductory second part of the Cairo manuscript, important events that transpired from the foundation of the Ottoman state up to the succession of Mehmed IV are related briefly. The fact that this section is not included in other manuscript copies suggests that it may have been omitted by the author at some later point. After summarizing significant events that occurred between 1058-66/1648-56, M.P. relates political events of the grand vizierates of Köprülü Mehmed Paşa (d. 1072/1661) and his son Fazıl Ahmed Paşa (d. 1087/1676). From 1082/1671 onwards, M.P. provides a chronological account of events and, at the end of each year, mentions prominent figures who died that year.

The topics included in the work are as follows: Campaigns, especially the second Vienna expedition, and peace treaties concluded with several countries; the articles of the Treaty of Qarlofça (Karlowitz) and the determination of borders; ceremonies of succession, and the reception of envoys; the births of princes, circumcisions, wedding festivities, ceremonies of exchange of greetings on the occasion of religious holidays, rewards of robes of honor, and celebrations of the birth of the Prophet (mevlid); the distribution of salaries and provisions; various appointments, assignments, imprisonments, executions, deaths and confiscations; the depositions of Mehmed IV and Musṭafa II and the consequent upheavals; the reasons and phases of the Edirne incident, which M.P. personally witnessed, and the demise of Şeyhülislam Feyzullah Efendi (d. 1155/1703) and his relatives; upheavals, desertions, and the pursuit of deserters in the provinces; the Yegen Osman Paşa (d. 1099/1688) incident and the complete abolition of the institutions of saruca and sekban for the abrogation of the title of “serçeşme”; the asylum of Thököly Imre (d. 1116/1705), the prince of Erdel (Transylvania), in Ottoman lands; earthquakes, storms, fires, rainstorms, floods and activities of construction and repair; a discussion concerning the collection of taxes from tobacco and wine; fiscal and economic conditions; the grant of fiefs; incidents which reflect the social conditions of the time such as the necessity of fixing prices officially (narh) and the demolition of bozahanes; the desolate state of Ottoman subjects due to extended wars and the improvement of the condition of the Rumelian subjects thanks to the activities of Köprülüzade Musṭafa Paşa (d. 1102/1691); and curious incidents M.P. personally witnessed. Zübde-i Veqayiat concludes with the death of Musṭafa II in 1114/1703.

In the introductory section of his work, which is included only in the Cairo manuscript, M.P. states that he used Hoca Sadeddin Efendi (d. 1008/1599) and Qaraçelebizade Abdülaziz Efendi (d. 1068/1658) as his sources. Although he does not acknowledge any other historian by name, M.P. may have utilized the works of chroniclers like Ramazanzade Mehmed Çelebi (d. 979/1571) and Peçuylu İbrahim (d. 1059/1649?) as well. The main part of Zübde-i Veqayiat, which covers the period after 1082/1671, is based on Vecihi Hasan’s (d. 1071/1661) Ta’rih, Qandiye Fethnamesi, Abdi Paşa’s (d. 1103/1692) Veqayiname, and probably İsazade Ta’rihi or its source. In this part of his work, M.P. related contemporary events based on what he personally witnessed or heard. Due to the fact that Zübde and Uşşaqizade Ta’rihi were composed between 1126-28/1714-16 and 1124-25/1712-13, respectively, a recent study argues that M.P. borrowed heavily from the chronicle of Uşşaqizade. According to Zübde’s publisher A. Özcan, however, M.P. began composing drafts of his work as early as the reign of Mehmed IV, but gave Zübde its final form shortly before his death. The similarities between the two works can be attributed to a common source used by both authors.

Due to factors such as M.P.’s misfortune, the fact that he failed to present his work to a prominent statesman, and most importantly that Raşid’s work was published at an earlier date, Zübde did not attract the attention of historians except Raşid, who was the first historian to use it as his source. Appointed to the office of the official chronicler in 1127/1715, Raşid Mehmed began his narrative with Ahmed III’s succession. On Nevşehirli İbrahim Paşa’s orders, however, he picked up where Naima left off and covered the period from 1071/1660 until 1115/1703, borrowing extensively from Zübde. Hammer was the first to point out that Raşid, who refrains from citing his sources, utilized Zübde. Indeed, with the exception of the Edirne episode, Ta’rih-i Raşid’s narrative of events shows significant parallels with Zübde. Raşid’s account of that incident is based to a large extent on Silahdar’s Nusretname. In most cases, Raşid’s use of Zübde amounts to plagiarism, leading to the confusion of Ta’rih-i Raşid with Zübde. Raşid, however, fails to equal Zübde’s content because his narrative includes abbreviations and errors concerning dates of death, epithets, dismissals, appointments, as well as military, political and domestic events. Yet, Ta’rih-i Raşid provides some official records not included in Zübde. This aspect of his work makes sense when one considers that Raşid had access to government documents as the official chronicler of the Empire.