#this was originally number 1558! | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ap-kinda-lit · 3 years ago

Text

The Ten Most Terrifying Women of Folklore

1) Bloody Mary

Bloody Mary is famous as an alcoholic drink and a game. The game's rules are simple: turn off the lights, look into a mirror, and say her name a number of times. With that, she will appear in the mirror in all her terrifying glory and tell you your future...or kill you. There are a lot of different stories and theories about who Bloody Mary is. Most scholars believe that the legend stems from the original Blood Mary, the English queen from the 1500's. Her name was Mary Tudor, daughter of king Henry VIII and sister to the famous queen of England, Elizabeth I. Mary's story is a far cry from the fantastical tales of queens and princesses most girls grow up fantasizing about. She was originally born and raised like European princesses of her day, but that changed when she was seventeen, when her father made the catastrophic move of breaking with the Catholic Church and forming the Church of England then divorcing Mary's mother, Katherine of Aragon. Mary was exiled from court, stripped of her title as princess, removed from the line of succession, and, worst of all, she was declared a bastard. Henry quickly married Anne Boleyn and the couple had Elizabeth. But then he discarded Anne and had her beheaded then married Jane Seymour, and they had a son, Edward. For years, Mary was ignored and poorly treated as an illegitimate, Catholic daughter. Understandably, Mary turned out quite embittered. Despite the steps taken to keep her out of the line of succession, when Henry and Edward died, Mary ultimately became the next ruler of England in 1553. As queen, Mary worked hard to return England to Catholicism. In order to accomplish this, she had hundreds of Protestants - men, women, and children - arrested and burned at the stake as heretics. It was very brutal. This is why she became known as 'Bloody Mary'. Mary's reign lasted for five years. She died in 1558, childless. She was succeeded by her younger Protestant half-sister, Elizabeth. As destructive as her religious persecution was and as dark as her reputation and story is, Mary was not exactly a crazy, evil tyrant, and she is far from England's worst monarch. Her persecution of Protestants was nothing new to Europe, nor England, as mass executions, like burning, were very common since the dark ages. A number of England's monarchs were involved in the same practices. And even though Mary's reign suffered great losses and damages, like losing Calais to the French, it also had a lot of good, such as a step forward in women's rights as Mary made it law that women could rule in their own right like kings. Ventures to the New World and other foreign countries were launched by Mary's administration and she expanded the arts and academics in England. But, in the end, Mary's sins and failures were and still are the biggest take-away from her life. It's quite plain to see and most plausible that she was more vilified and set apart from the other monarchs before and during her time because she was a woman. Back then, and still to this day, women were not accepted in positions of power. Women, even noble women, were expected to be submissive, delicate, and powerless as daughters, wives, and mothers. So a woman as a reigning monarch was still very foreign in Renaissance Europe. And Mary was the very first reigning queen in England's history. So if she messed up in any way or had any faults, it was used against her. Mary's executions of the Protestants were normal for kings, but totally unaccepted for a woman, queen or not. So it's safe to say that Mary wasn't just reviled for killing Protestants, she was also reviled for being a woman who killed Protestants.

2) La Llorona

Latin culture has many stories and legends to offer. One of them is la Llorona, the Weeping Woman. She is the most famous of ghosts in Latin folklore. She is well-known in all Latin countries, but she is most connected to Mexico, its history, and its culture. La Llorona's origins date back prior to the Spanish Conquest within Aztec mythology and lore. It is said that one of the omens foretelling the indigenous people of Mexico of the coming destruction was a woman crying out for her lost children. She also resembles two Aztec goddesses, Cihuacoatl and Chalchiuhtlicue, and is quite likely also inspired by Malinche, the infamous translator to the conquistador Hernan Cortes, who was said to have produced children with her. La Llorona is a ghostly woman who wanders at night, most of the time near rivers, lakes, ponds, highways, roads, or anything similar to any of these. She is often seen as a woman with long, black hair and wearing a white dress and sometimes a veil. But you can always tell she is near when you hear a woman crying. She is always, always crying, which is why she is called the Weeping Woman. Like most legends, she has many origin stories. But the most popular story goes like this: she was once a woman named Maria, who was a commoner of indigenous descent in New Spain (what Mexico was originally called when it was taken over by Spain). Although she was very poor, she was exceptionally beautiful. She was said to be the most beautiful woman in that part of the land. Her beauty soon caught the eye of a traveling wealthy Spaniard. They had a whirlwind romance and Maria was swept off her feet. When he proposed, she said 'yes'. However, because she was poor and half-indigenous, she was not too welcomed by her new husband's family. The couple set up home in a lovely ranch house and had a number of children, whom they adored. Everything seemed perfect and Maria was happy. Years later, her husband went on a business trip, as he usually did, but this time he didn't come back. Maria soon found out what had happened: her husband had left to marry a Spanish noblewoman. Because she was mixed race, their marriage wasn't regarded as serious. Maria was devastated. So much so that, in the throes of her heartbroken rage, she took her children to the nearby river and drowned them there. When she regained her senses, it didn't last long when she realized what she had just done and she was overcome by grief and remorse. Maria cried out for her children in her misery then threw herself into the river, where she drowned. Maria didn't move on to the afterlife and is trapped in purgatory. Ever since, her spirit has roamed the land of the living, searching and mourning her deceased children. Tragic as she is, she's also feared. It's said that la Llorona will abduct children she comes across and drown them as she did with her own children so that they will take their place. For this reason, adults tell children to beware of la Llorona.

3) Kuchisake-onna

Japan is home to many ghosts and creepy creatures, but one of the more recent and most unnerving is Kuchisake-onna, the Slit Mouthed Woman. She roams the streets and appears as a normal Japanese civilian. She's beautiful and wears a long coat and a surgical mask, which can easily be passed off as it is quite the norm, especially in Japan, for people to wear masks when they're sick and trying to avoid getting sick. However, when she approaches you, she asks you, "Do you think I'm pretty?" When you answer her, she pulls down her mask and reveals a nightmarish Glasgow smile, hence why she is called the Slit Mouthed Woman. Some say she got her scar from a botched operation, but the most popular story is that she was the wife of a samurai centuries ago. When her husband accused her of having affair, he slashed her mouth wide open from ear to ear, tarnishing her beauty and making it so that no one would want her. So, when her spirit encounters someone on the street, she will ask them, "Amy I pretty?" When she pulls down her mask to show her scar, she will repeat the question. If you say 'yes', she will mutilate your mouth in the same fashion as hers. If you say 'no', she will kill you. You cannot avoid her or escape her, so the best option is to give her an ambiguous answer like 'so-so' or throw change or candy at her, or maybe even tell her you have somewhere else to be to which she will leave you alone out of politeness.

4) Lilith

Before Eve, there was Lilith. In the Judaic faith, she was Adam's original wife. Lilith was not content with being a submissive wife and questioned this order. Her rebellion resulted in her leaving Adam and the Garden of Eden and consequently transforming into one of the most feared demons in Abrahamic religions and ancient cultures. Lilith is a seductress and a bogeyman, tempting men and preying on children. She is the mother of the demonic entities known as incubi and succubi. Scholars have noted how her name and characterization are similar to the lilu, demons from Babylonian faith that were seducers and child eaters. As of recent, Lilith's origin as well as her long reputation as an evil she beast has made her a feminist icon.

5) Banshees

Gaelic lore tells of long haired women who roam the night, belting out blood curdling screams. Soon after they appear, someone dies. The banshees are legendary as feminine omens of impending doom, particularly death. It's said that they are the spirits of women who died suddenly and violently and spend their afterlives warning the living that one of them will die next. Banshees are held in such high regard that some Irish families have their own banshee to foretell that one of their relatives will die soon. The banshee shares close resemblance to keeners, women who sing mourning songs at funerals in Irish tradition.

6) The Sirens

These creatures from Greek mythology are synonymous with femme fatales and seductresses. The sirens are the temptresses. In the original Greek mythology, the sirens were not mermaids as they are thought to be now. Instead, they were large predatory birds with the heads of beautiful women. But that is the only difference. In all mythology, ancient to modern and regardless of where in the world, the sirens are renowned and feared for their singing, which is so beautiful that anyone who hears will be hypnotized by it and compelled to them, where they will almost certainly meet their doom. In Greek myths like the Odyssey and the journey for the Golden Fleece, the sirens inhabited an island in the middle of the ocean. They would lure passing ships with their enchanting music so that they would crash into the rocks that surrounded the island. The sailors would then either drown or be devoured by the sirens. The only people known to survive are the Argonauts and Odysseus. The Argonauts resisted the sirens' music by blocking out their music with the music played by Orpheus. However, Odysseus is the only one who actually heard the sirens' song but survived. He accomplished this by having his men stuff their ears with wax to act as earplugs then tie him to the ship's mast. He told them that no matter how much he begged and demanded them to release him, they were to keep him tightly bound to the mast until they were far out of earshot of the sirens' music. Sure enough, as they passed the island, Odysseus went raving mad to the music, but none of his men untied him nor were they victimized by the sirens thanks to not hearing them through the wax in their ears.

7) Screaming Jenny

Screaming Jenny is as disturbing as she is grisly and tragic. She haunts the train tracks of West Virginia. What makes her so special is that she appears suddenly, as a ball of fire, to incoming trains. To top it all off, she lets out a blood curdling scream that alerts the train conductors, who stop their trains to check on her. But when they reach her, she's gone. The story of Jenny is all around a sad tale. She was an impoverished woman living in the 1800's. She was so poor that she resorted to squatting in the abandoned shacks by the train tracks, like a lot of the unfortunate souls back then. In spite of her situation, Jenny was a selfless and kind soul. She would share her food with other hungry folk and spare her blanket to those who needed, even when she herself was starving and freezing. One cold night, Jenny was making soup in her shack. As this was the 1800's, she made her soup in a pot over an open fire. She sat close to the fire, so close that an ember leaped out and landed on her skirt, setting it on fire. Jenny screamed in terror and agony as the fire quickly consumed her dress, burning her alive. She ran out of her shack and through the shanty town, screaming and flailing. She didn't realize she was running towards the train tracks nor did she realize the training charging her way. The train rammed into Jenny's burning body, quickly and almost mercifully killing her. Jenny was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave. Since then, Jenny's spirit reenacts her sudden, brutal death at night, always at train tracks.

8) The Bell Witch

If you ever wonder where they got the idea for "The Blair Witch Project", one of the go-to answers is found in the legend of the Bell Witch. The Bell Witch is a famous paranormal phenomenon in Tennessee dating back to the early 19th century and it is every bit as disturbing as the movie it's said to have inspired. In 1817, Adams farmer John Bell and his family became the targets of nightmarish poltergeist activity. It began with John encountering a strange creature with the body of a dog and the head of a hare and members of the family witnessing a black dog following them and a girl in a green dress swinging from a tree. After that, they began to hear strange noises at night, like scratching, dogs howling, thumping, whispers, and chains, which they could never find the source of. But that was nothing compared to what came next. Sheets were yanked away, John began to grow ill, and, worst of all, the children were being terrorized by an invisible force. Betsy was the primary target in these attacks: she would be pulled out of her bed, slapped, pinched, and have her hair yanked. It got so bad that the family brought others to their home to find the cause of this activity. From there, the haunting worsened. The disembodied but very audible voice of a woman would be heard in the house, cursing and singing and taunting. Although Betsy suffered physical abuse from the entity, it was her father, John Bell who was given the worst fate. He became gravely ill and was bedridden before he suddenly died. It was realized he had been poisoned, but nobody was present in his room when the poison was given to him nor could any of them explain how the poison bottle got there or where it came from. As John Bell was laid to rest, his funeral was disrupted by a woman singing merrily. The Bells endured the haunting for a number of years and they would start up again after a seven year interval. It's not entirely certain who or what the Bell Witch was, but many suspect that it was the doing of a woman named Kate Batts. Batts was rumored to be a witch and she had a dispute with John Bell over the dealings of slaves. Batts did die at some point but it's believed she cursed the Bells and came back to haunt them. Today, it's believed that the Bell Witch now resides in a nearby cave, now called the Bell Witch Cave, where a great deal of paranormal activity and strange happenings have been reported.

9) Madam Koi Koi

In the schools of Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa, you will hear the clicking of heels. Not very threatening...until you see a pair of moving red heels with no body attached to it. This is said to be the ghost of Madam Koi Koi, an entity that haunts school halls, dormitories, and bathrooms. The ghost's name comes from the sound her shoes make. In life, she was a teacher known for her red high heels. She was also known for being very harsh, even abusive. She met her demise in either an accident or a violent uprising from her long suffering students. In death, she continues her cruel reign of terror over Africa's school children. Madam Koi Koi is reported to slap people, attack them in the bathrooms, and go after those who arrive to school early or leave late.

10) Medusa

Greek mythology's most (in)famous monstress. As notable as her mane of living snakes is, it's second only to her cursed power which is turning any mortal who looks at her into stone. Like a lot of Greek mythology's antagonists, Medusa was once a human being cursed by the gods. She was once priestess to the goddess Athena and she was so beautiful that mortal and immortal men alike desired her. However, as a priestess to a virgin goddess like Athena, Medusa was sworn to chastity. Unfortunately, this did not stop Poseidon, god of the seas, from pursuing her. Nor did her pleas against him. The god assaulted the young priestess, inside Athena's temple no less. The goddess herself was outraged. It was said that she was not mad at Poseidon, but at Medusa, and she punished her by turning her into a gorgon. Her hair became a nest of living snakes, she grew scales and fangs, and to top it all off she was cursed to turn any one she looked at into stone. Medusa was exiled on an isolated island and many came to slay her, only to be turned to stone by her gaze. She was finally taken down when the young Perseus came along. Using his shield as a rear view mirror, he saw Medusa but remained flesh and blood and, with one swing of his sword, beheaded her. For centuries, she has been widely accepted as the ultimate monstress. As of recent, however, she has finally been acknowledged as a victim rather than a vile beast.

169 notes · View notes

earhartsease · 3 years ago

Text

Researchers have determined that an obsidian mirror believed to have been owned by the sixteenth-century English polymath John Dee originated in the Aztec world. Dee served as a scientific adviser and astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603). Like many Renaissance scholars, he was deeply immersed in occult practices and regularly attempted to communicate with spirits. One of the tools Dee is believed to have used in his magical pursuits is a circular obsidian mirror now in the British Museum. Notes attached to the mirror in the eighteenth century identify it as “The Devil’s Looking-glass” and “The Black Stone into which Dr Dee used to call his Spirits."

The Aztecs used obsidian mirrors of this sort to divine the future, and a number of these objects were brought to Europe following the conquest of Mexico in the early sixteenth century. To determine whether Dee’s mirror was one of these imports, a team led by archaeologist Stuart Campbell of the University of Manchester measured the proportions of various elements in the obsidian. The researchers found that the mirror’s chemical signature closely matches that of obsidian from Pachuca, Mexico, one of the Aztec Empire’s main sources of the volcanic glass. “This helps us understand the mirror as an Aztec object,” says Campbell. “The fact that it already had Aztec associations of divination and being able to see what’s not immediately apparent was seized on by John Dee and added value to the object from his point of view.”

#archaeology #divination

6 notes · View notes

mia-japanese-korean · 4 years ago

Photo

Wide three-case inro showing plovers in flight above waves, stone basket and water wheel, Koma Kyūhaku, Early 18th century, Minneapolis Institute of Art: Japanese and Korean Art

four sections: rinpa-style with water wheel; white shore protector; plovers flying over waves A number of different motifs are fit onto this compact four case inrō, beginning with a “plover over waves” design in the style of the Rinpa artist, Ogata Kōrin (1658–1716). The plovers are executed in chunky mother-of-pearl inlays and takamaki-e, and fly over mountainous waves that simulates the look of pewter sheeting—an element favored by Kōrin and his predecessor, Hon’ami Kōetsu (1558–1637). Oversized inlays are used for the depiction of the water wheel and rock basket as well, creating an artfully cluttered composition. The imagery of plovers over waves is a common Japanese literary convention, which seems to have first appeared in the Kojiki, an 8th-century compendium of Japanese origin myths. The scene generally connotes the struggle to surmount the difficulties of life. Size: 2 5/16 × 2 1/2 × 7/8 in. (5.87 × 6.35 × 2.22 cm) Medium: Lacquer, kinji, gold, silver takamakie, raden inlays

https://collections.artsmia.org/art/116810/

#minneapolisinstituteofart #museumarchive #artsmia #komakyūhaku

19 notes · View notes

reallifesultanas · 4 years ago

Text

Portrait of Şehzade Bayezid/Bayezid herceg portréja

Origin and upbringing

The exact date of birth of Prince Bayezid is unknown, probably he was born in 1526 or 1527 in Istanbul as the fifth child of Sultan Suleiman and his favorite concubine, Hürrem. Suleiman and Hürrem probably did not plan more children after Bayezid, their family planning at least strongly suggests this. By the time he was born, he already had four older brothers and a half-brother, all of whom could form a right to the throne. But since the throne was not fundamentally the right of the first-born prince, Bayezid did not start at a disadvantage because of the order of birth. However, the older princes had more time and opportunity to gain supporters for themselves, to prove their aptitude. Bayezid waited his whole life to prove his ability, but fate brought it in a different way.

In 1530, Sultan Suleiman ordered the circumcision of his three eldest sons, Mustafa, Mehmed, and Selim. Bayezid was only three years younger than Selim, while Selim was nine years younger than Mustafa. Why Bayezid was omitted is clear, as the prince, up to 3.5-4 years old, was too young for the ceremony, especially considering that the eldest prince, Mustafa, was already 15 years old at the time. However, it raises several questions as to why - given that Hürrem and Suleiman probably did not plan more children- was Selim not left out of the circumcision also so that he could be circumcised later together with Bayezid? Why was Bayezide left alone? My theory for this is that the son born between Selim and Bayezid, Abdullah, was still alive at the time of the organization of the circumcision. Thus, it is possible that Suleiman planned to circumcise Abdullah and Bayezid later in another ceremony, but Abdullah died in the meantime, leaving Bayezid alone.

Bayezid, nevertheless received the same thorough education as his older brothers, but was fundamentally separate from them. In addition, the circumcised princes had already been introduced to the people, to the statesmen, to the soldiers during the ceremony so they were much better known. Meanwhile Bayezid wasn't really known, since he wasn't introduced yet. Then in 1532 Hürrem gave birth to another child, which could fill Bayezid with the hope that he would also have a younger brother with whom he could study and go on a campaign and Selim did with Mehmed. However, the child was born with physical deformities, so Bayezid could not dream of a similar pairing as his older siblings had. We do not know whether Bayezid himself experienced these events so negatively or only posterity explains the situation so negatively. Either way, the fact that Bayezid was paired with Cihangir instead of his older brothers seems to have marked his life forever. The relationship between Bayezid and Cihangir never seems to have been a close one. Cihangir always accompanied his mother when she visited Selim in his province, but there is no indication that he went to Bayezid's province with his mother as well. This, of course, could have been only a coincidence, but it also raises the possibility that Bayezid maybe was mean with Cihangir during their childhood or maybe he made Cihangir to know how unhappy he was with the pairing?

In 1537 Suleiman went on a campaign and took Hürrem's two circumcised sons, Mehmed, 16, and Selim, 13, with himself too. However, Bayezid was only 10-11 years old at the time, so he was not fit to accompany his father at that age, nor was he circumcised. Probably Bayezid had a hard time having to stay home with his mother and younger brother while his older brothers gather the first war-experiences of their lives.

In 1539 Bayezid's sister Mihrimah married Rüstem Pasha and Suleiman decided to combine the wedding ceremonie and the circumcision ceremony of Bayezid and Cihangir. The ceremony lasted more than two weeks but was far less spectacular than the ceremony 9 years earlier, but there were financial reasons for it.

The young prince

In 1543 Suleiman went on another campaign against the Kingdom of Hungary and took Prince Bayezid with him this time. On their way to home from the campaign, they received the news that Bayezid’s eldest brother, Prince Mehmed, had passed away. Sultan Suleiman was completely shattered, which also affected his health. A long mourning greeted the family. After such years, Bayezid's life changed in 1546, as Suleiman assigned him to his first princely province to Konya. His mother did not accomponied him to his new province, as she had not previously accompanied either Mehmed or Selim. Thus Bayezid was accompanied by his governess and a harem chosen by his mother with great care.

Bayezid did not choose a favorite concubine for himself like his brother Selim or his father did. He had a lot of concubines, all his children were born from different women. Bayezid had an extremely large number of sons, which is unusual since most princes did some kind of family planning. Bayezid, on the other hand, had at least seven sons and at least four daughters. His children:

Orhan, according to some sources, was born in 1543, but this is not possible, given that Bayezid received a province only in 1546. Before that he could not have had a child, thus Orhan was probably born in 1546. He was sent to his own province in December 1558 to Çorumba by his grandfather. The young prince was then said to be "strikingly handsome." According to some sources, as soon as he got his province, he made pregnant one of his concubines, who later gave birth to a son. However, there is no evidence to that.

Osman, who was Mahmdus’s full-brother, was born in an uncertain year, but since he didn’t get his own province with Orhan, he was presumably a little younger than him. He may have died as a child, as most sources do not mention him among his brothers in the records of the 1562's execution.

Mihrimah, was born in 1547. Suleiman arranged the wedding a wedding for her and for the three daughters of Prince Selim and the younger daughter of Prince Mustafa in 1562. Mihrimah's husband was Muzaffer Pasa. No information has survived about their marriage, most probably they didn't have any children. Mihrimah was forced to follow her husband to his posts. Her her husband was first a governor of Baghdad, Şehr-i Zor and then Cyprus. Her husband died in 1593, and it is probable that Mihrimah was no longer alive at that time because no one mentioned her later. There is also a chance that she died long before her husband.

Abdullah, he may have been born after 1548.

Hatice, born around 1550 and most likely deceased as a child.

Mahmud, was born in 1552 as Osman's full-brother.

Ayşe, born around 1553. She married much later than her sister. Her husband was Eretnaoglu Hoca Ali Pasa, with whom she had a son, Sultanzade Mehmed Bey. It is not known when the boy was born. Even the date of her marriage is uncertain, but most probably she was not married off by her grandfather but by his uncle, Selim. We know nothing about the life of Ayşe and the time of her death is unknown as well.

Mehmed was born around 1554.

Murad was born around 1556. He may have died as a child, as most sources do not mention him among his brothers in the records of the execution.

Hanzade was born around 1556 and probably died as a child.

Bayezid’s last child was a boy whose name is unknown and who was born in 1559 or 1560.

We do not have much information about the reign of Bayezid in Konya. However, he lived there when Suleiman asked him to go with him to his campaign in Aleppo to gain experience. Bayezid had been waiting for this opportunity for years, so he must have gladly joined his father. They spent together the winter of 1548 near Aleppo and Prince Cihangir was with them also. In the spring, Suleiman ordered a huge hunt, during which he also had the opportunity to spend time with Bayezid. Bayezid, who wanted the attention and recognition of his father, certainly enjoyed the hunt. Bayezid remained in Aleppo with his father until June 1549, when the army set out on the frontier to continue fighting, and Bayezid returned to Konya.

Fight for the throne

Bayezid is commonly regarded as one of the best examples of the struggle for the throne. At the time of his birth, he had little chance of ascending the throne since he had four older brothers. However, Prince Abdullah soon passed away, and in 1543 he was succeeded by Mehmed and finally in 1553 Suleiman himself executed Prince Mustafa, Bayezid's eldest half-brother, so his chances gradually increased. There are legends - and the series has confirmed this - that Bayezid and Mustafa were close to each other. However, this is not true. Bayezid was still a child when Mustafa left Istanbul, and later they barely met (if they met at all). One of the strongest counter-arguments to their good relationship is that in 1553 Sultan Suleiman left Bayezid as the defender of Istanbul when he went on a campaign. Suleiman already knew by then that Prince Mustafa would be executed during the campaign, which is why he feared that Mustafa, guessing the events, would march to Istanbul and occupy the throne. Suleiman then had three sons beside Mustafa: the sick Cihangir, the calm Selim, and the warrior Bayezid. It was a logical decision to leave Bayezid in the position of protector of the capital, as with his aggressive and sudden nature, he would have been more likely to arrest Mustafa while trying to invade the capital, than Cihangir, Selim, or any of the pashas. If Suleiman would have been insecure about Bayezid’s allegiance he would never have left him near the capital in such perilous times.

The former events also shed light on the fact that Bayezid was not at a disadvantage against Selim in the battle for the throne in the early 1550s. And most likely this was thanks to the existence of Hürrem Sultan, his mother. For Hürrem had always tried to restrain Bayezid so that he would not anger his father with his sudden nature and thoughtless words. Bayezid was the most temperamental and agressive in the family. Many said he resemled Suleiman's father, Sultan Yavuz Selim, with the difference that he lacked Yavuz Selim's prudence and intelligence. Suleiman was famous for his fear of his own father, so he was probably not really happy that Bayezid constantly reminded him of Yavuz Selim. In any case, Hürrem did her best to support Bayezid, as did Mihrimah and Rüstem Pasha. However, there are opinions that Hürrem's support was directed at Bayezid only because she feared that if she did not support him, Bayezid would reach his own death while angering the Sultan. Those who are of this opinion believe that Hürrem wanted to see Prince Selim on the throne, not Bayezid. Why? For Selim was a good-natured, humble person who would never have been able to execute his brothers, so with Selim's reign the law of fratricide could have ended maybe and Bayezid would have survived. Knowing Hürrem’s ingenuity, her commitment to her sons, and Selim’s humbleness and the nature of Bayezid, my personal opinion is the same.

Loosing his father

Many believe that Hürrem’s death in 1558 was the event that separated Bayezid and Suleiman, but this is not true. The two of them never stood really close to each other because of their extremely different personalities. And the execution of Mustafa in 1553 further aggravated the situation. After the execution of Mustafa, huge rebellions broke out throughout the empire, for example, in Rumelia, an imposter claimed to be Prince Mustafa himself, and gathered huge support. Bayezid, as the guardian of the capital, should have reacted immediately to the events, but he probably did not assess the situation correctly because he did not take proper action against the pseudo-Mustafa even after a long delay. Indeed! According to the Austrian ambassador, Bayezid himself supported the pseudo-Mustafa because he was frightened that he could at any time had the same fate as Mustafa. After Bayezid's late act, suspicion awoke in Suleiman, the Sultan was furious, and Hürrem could hardly managed to convince the Sultan that Bayezid was innocent, he just reacted badly to the situation. Eventually, Hürrem's supplication and Bayezid's apology softened the sultan's heart, but he moved him from the province of Konya to Kütahya in 1555. Suleiman finally let his son go after a long educational speech.

After these events, the situation between Suleiman and his son could never be consolidated. Especially given that Bayezid experienced moving to Kütahya as an exile, even though Kütahya was no further from the capital than Selim’s post. He probably voiced this in his letters, at least one of Suleiman's surviving letters suggests this, “[Y]ou may leave all to God, for it is not man’s pleasure, but God’s will, that disposes of kingdoms and their government. If He has decreed that you shall have the kingdom after me, no man living will be able to prevent it.” This makes it clear that Suleiman did not want to deal with succession, even if he himself preferred Selim, he never stated that he would consider Selim as his heir. Even though we know that Selim grew very attached to his father during the campaign of 1553-1555, he supported his father after the loss of Cihangir and perhaps it was there that Suleiman’s heart began to draw more towards Selim. Maybe Bayezid might have felt something from this and maybe that’s why he didn’t really believe that his father wouldn’t interfere in the succession?

In 1558 Hürrem Sultan passed away, with this Bayezid losing his most influential supporter, who had already saved him several times. Of Hürrem's children, Bayezid's life was perhaps most affected by Hürrem's death. Bayezid, however, still had several supporters, including Grand Vizier Rüstem Pasha and Mihrimah Sultan, who sought to keep Hürrem’s will by trying to protect the prince. Unfortunately, however, none of them had a big enough impact on the prince as his mother was, so the prince didn’t even listen to them. It is possible that after Hürrem's death there may have been some dispute between Selim and Bayezid, for in the summer of 1558 the Sultan decided to transfer both his sons to new provinces. He sent Selim to Konya and Bayezid to Amasya. The appointment to Amasya may have concealed a hint that Bayezid will also suffer the fate of Prince Mustafa if he does not behave properly, but it may also be that Suleiman had no such intention. For even then the sultan did not name any of his sons as his successors, and both of his sons were at roughly similar distances from Istanbul. Selim, as always, obeyed immediately, but Bayezid first refused the order and only left for Amasya after a long hesitation. From this period we are left with the correspondence of Suleiman and Bayezid, in which Bayezid writes, “Forgive Bayezid’s offense, spare the life of this slave /I am innocent, God knows, my fortune-favored sultan, my father”; in response, Süleyman wrote, “My Bayezid, I’ll forgive your offense if you mend your ways / But for once do not say ‘I am innocent,’ show repentance, my dear son.” This also shows well that Suleiman, although angry with his son, did not intend to take action against him despite his series of mistakes.

The rebellion

Bayezid feared that his father would execute him like he did with Mustafa. However, Suleiman did not have such an intention either, at that time he had not dealt with succession for years. It was Bayezid's own paranoia which chased him to the wrong path. At that time, the provinces were not stable at all, especially not the Eastern ones like Amasya. Maybe this is why Bayezid came up with the idea and started recruiting an army. It was not clear what the purpose of his was. Some say he only wanted to kill Selim with his son Murad and then retreat to Amasya and wait there for Suleiman's death. Others say he would have got rid of the sultan after Selim and Murad. In my opinion, he hoped that if he succeeded in killing Selim and Murad, the Sultan would accept him as his heir. Bayezid had to see that his small and not that devoted army was not fit to confront with the sultan as well, perhaps enough against a princely army, but not against the sultan. If Bayezid hoped his father would accept him becoming the sultan, he was wrong. Suleyman would do anything to avoid it. During this period, Suleiman made preparations to make succession possible throughout the female line also. Thus, if Selim and Murad had passed away, he would have named his nephew Kara Osmanşah as his heir and he would hunt down Bayezid, as a traitorous and rebellious prince does not deserve the throne. It was only then, that Suleiman clearly decided and chosed a heir, Selim (in case of his death, Murad and in case of his death Kara Osmanşah).

For his rebellion Bayezid also received money from his sister, Mihrimah, to equip the army. When Suleiman realized this, he immediately questioned his daughter, who „confessed that she had done this to execute the will of the mother, who had arranged this in her testament.” Suleiman repeatedly ordered his son to disarm, but Bayezid did not do it. With this, Bayezid was named by the sultan as a rebel. From then on, there was no other way but open rebellion.

So Bayezid set out with his army toward Konya to meet with his brother. Prince Selim asked for his father's help, which, of course, he received with the order not to attack, but wait for what Bayezid would do. Suleiman perhaps hoped that if Bayezid saw Selim's army united with the imperial army he would gave up. But Bayezid did not gave up, but attacked. At the end of May 1559, the two armies fought on the Konyan plain. The battle lasted for two days, at the end of which Selim triumphed, but Bayezid was able to escape the battle-scene, back to Amasya. From there, he wrote a letter asking his father for forgiveness. The sultan responded positively, writing to his son, he would grant it only if Bayezid would execute those who had „led him astray”. Bayezid largely disregarded the order, beheading only three of his suite. This shows that beside his temper he was a fair man, who couldn’t punish „innocent” people just for his sake.

This event only further angered Suleiman, so Bayezid made a final decision and left Amasya with his sons and his remaining army heading east. Only four of his sons were with him, Orhan, Abdullah, Mahmoud, and Mehmed. Murad and Osman presumably passed away earlier. He had another son, who may not have been born at all at that time, perhaps only after his father left. The pregnant concubine may have been one of the few women who had certainly prayed for the birth of a daughter, for by then it was clear what would be the fate of Bayezid and his sons. However, fate was not merciful to the concubine and her son was born.

The refugee

Bayezid and his army were heading east, not stopping to battle with the governor of either province. They got into a minor fight only at the Iranian border when they tried to keep them within the empire. Eventually, however, they successfully crossed the Iranian border in August and sought refuge from the Persian Shah. Suleiman himself had followed his son, and before him Sokollu Mehmed Pasa and Prince Selim were chasing Bayezid.

Bayezid was received as a guest in October 1560 by Tahmasp Shah as part of a magnificent ceremony in the capital, Quazvin. When it became clear that Bayezid and Tahmasp were allied with each other, Suleiman lined up his army along the Iranian border and initiated negotiations with Tahmasp. Finally, in December, he allowed Selim to return home and also reduced the army to less readiness, recalling some of them. Suleiman would not have done this for no reason, Tahmasp probably assured him that he did not intend to fight. This shows well that Tahmasp probably cheated on Bayezid, for if the Shah really wanted to attack, he would not have begun to negotiate with Suleiman. Tahmasp Shah probably wanted to get the best out of the situation for his country, which was not a war but a peaceful solution. It was for this reason that Bayezid's situation changed rapidly and he soon became a prisoner from a guest. Bayezid and his sons were imprisoned, and his followers were sent away by the Shah so that he could negotiate with Suleiman in peace.

Negotiations have dragged on for a long time. By July 1561, Suleiman had already offered 900,000 ducats, supplemented by Prince Selim's 300,000 ducats, as well as the castle of Kars, if the Shah returned Bayezid and his sons. Tahmasp thought at length, but refused despite the very generous offer. He knew that he could ask for almost anything and it would be given to him sooner or later, since Bayezid was a threat to the Ottoman Empire as long as he lived, but he did not dare to overstretch the string either. Foresight, Tahmasp did not seek out Suleiman, but Prince Selim, the future sultan, with his own offer. Tahmasp knew that it was better to make an alliance with the future sultan, so in March 1562 he sent envoys to Kütahya, Selim. Tahmasp also wanted a trade and peace agreement with Selim in addition to the 1,200,000 ducats and the castle of Kars. We do not know whether Selim himself decided to agree with Tahmasp or Suleiman was also asked. Knowing Selim, who never did anything without his father’s permission, he most probably asked the Sultan about it, or Suleiman had previously given him a free decision on the topic. Either way, the offer of the Shah was finally accepted.

His death

Tahmasp Shah finally let the Ottoman delegation to enter to the prison of Bayezid and his sons on July 23, 1562. Legend has it that Tahmasp specifically only let Prince Selim's men to enter to the prison, having previously promised Bayezid that he would never hand him over to Suleiman. In doing so, he was essentially able to keep his word. Thus it was Ali Aga, the head of Selim's delegation, who immediately ordered the execution of the princes having a legal fetwa from the Seyhülislam and Suleiman himself. At the same time, Bayezid's youngest son was executed in Bursa also. They were all denied a fair burial in Bursa and were buried outside the walls of Sivas. Probably the reason for this was - beyond Suleiman’s greate anger - that it would have been risky to travel five coffins through Anatolia, which already was a dangerous place that time.

Bayezid's guilt is not in question, so is the legitimacy of his execution. If Bayezid would patiently waited he would probably survive. Although he would never have been a sultan, since no one but a few Janissary troops supported him, Selim himself probably would not have executed his brothers, but would have kept them isolated. Although it is worth noting that Bayezid would not have accepted this by his nature either, so perhaps Selim would eventually have been forced to execute him.

The case of Bayezid and his family is a good example of where a rebellious prince end up in the end. Bayezid’s rebellion and then execution undoubtedly further aggravated Selim’s depression and exacerbated Mihrimah’s grief, and Suleiman’s pain was also unimaginable. Many blame Suleiman, but it became abundantly clear from the events that Suleiman, especially compare with the case of Mustafa, was extremely forgiving toward Bayezid. In addition to his parents and siblings, the fate of his children was forever marked by Bayezid's rebellion. It is not enough that his sons were executed along him, his concubines were also married without special care, to people who were much less worthy than usual, and Bayezis's daughters were denied marriages worthy of their rank. In addition, no one remembered his daughters for years to come, they lived and died completely in oblivion. All this was thank to Bayezid's rebellion.

Private opinion about Bayezid: I have been suffering with this portrait for a very long time. It was much more difficult to write it than it was to write Mustafa's. Mustafa's life was simply so depressing that I had a hard time getting myself into writing. In the case of Bayezid, however, I simply became more and more angry. I feel it’s especially important to bring these people as close to us as possible with the portraits. I try to personalize the writing separately so that we can feel what was going on in the minds of these historical characters. So far, I feel like I’ve managed to fully feel every historical figure, imagine myself in their place and see why they did what. In the case of Bayezid, this did not happened at all. The more I read about him the more angry I became and wanted to shout at him, "why are you doing this ?!". I can’t help it, but I simply feel sorry for everyone around Bayezid more than I feel sorry him, because I think his death was solely and exclusively caused by the series of his bad decisions.

Used sources: L. Peirce - The imperial harem; L. Peirce - Empress of the East; C. Imber - The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650; Y. Öztuna - Kanuni Sultan Süleyman

* * *

Eredete és neveltetése

Bayezid herceg pontos születési ideje nem ismert, valószínűleg 1526-ban vagy 1527-ben jött világra Isztambulban Szulejmán szultán és kedvenc ágyasa, Hürrem ötödik gyermekeként. Szulejmán és Hürrem valószínűleg Bayezid után nem tervezett több gyermeket, családtervezésük legalábbis erősen erre utal. Születésekor már négy édesbátyja és egy féltestvére volt, akik mind jogot formálhattak a trónra. Mivel a trón alapvetően nem az első szülött herceg joga, Bayezid sem születési sorrendje miatt indult hátrányból. Azonban az idősebb hercegeknek több idejük és lehetőségük volt maguknak támogatókat szerezni, bizonyítani rátermettségüket. Bayezid egész életében arra várt, hogy bizonyíthassa alkalmasságát, ám a sors így hozta.

1530-ban Szulejmán szultán elrendelte három idősebb fiának, Musztafának, Mehmednek és Szelimnek a körülmetélését. Bayezid csupán három évvel volt fiatalabb Szelimnél, míg Szelim kilenc évvel volt ifjabb Musztafánál. Az, hogy Bayezidet miért hagyták ki egyértelmű, hiszen a maximum 3,5-4 éves herceg túl fiatal volt a szertartáshoz, különösen figyelembe véve azt, hogy a legidősebb herceg, Musztafa ekkor már 15 éves volt. Az azonban több kérdést felvet, hogy - tekintettel arra, hogy valószínűleg nem tervezett Hürrem és Szulejmán több gyermeket - Szelimet miért nem hagyták ki a körülmetélésből, hogy később Bayeziddel együtt metélhessék körül? Miért hagyták Bayezidet egyedül? Erre egy lehetséges magyarázat, hogy a Szelim és Bayezid között született fiú, Abdullah még életben volt a körülmetélés szervezése során. Így tehát lehetséges, hogy Szulejmán úgy tervezte, Abdullah és Bayezid hercegeket később fogja körülmetéltetni egy másik ceremónia során, Abdullah azonban időközben elhunyt, így Bayezid egyedül maradt.

A körülmetélési szertartásból kimaradt Bayezid ettől függetlenül ugyanolyan alapos nevelésben és oktatásban részesült, mint idősebb testvérei, azonban tőlük alapvetően elkülönülve. Emellett pedig a körülmetélt hercegeket már bemutatták a birodalomnak, az államférfiaknak, így ők sokkal ismertebbek voltak, mondhatni már beavatott örökösök. 1532-ben aztán Hürrem újabb gyermeknek adott életet, ez pedig reménnyel tölthette el Bayezidet, hogy neki is lesz egy kisebb testvére, akivel együtt tanulhat, mehet majd hadjáratra. A gyermek azonban fizikai deformitásokkal jött világra, így Bayezid nem álmodhatott olyan párosításról, ami idősebb testvéreinek jutott. Nem tudjuk, hogy Bayezid maga is ilyen negatívan élte e meg ezeket az eseményeket vagy csak az utókor magyarázza bele a helyzetbe. Akárhogyan is, az hogy Bayezidet Cihangirral párosították, idősebb bátyjai helyett úgy tűnik örökre megpecsételte életét. Bayezid és Cihangir között úgy tűnik sosem volt szoros a viszony. Cihangir mindig elkísérte édesanyját, mikor az Szelimet látogatta meg tartományában, azonban nincs arra utaló jel, hogy Bayezidhez is anyjával tartott volna. Ez természetesen lehet véletlen is, de felveti annak a lehetőségét is, hogy Bayezid gyermekkorukban talán éreztette Cihangirral, mennyire nem örül a párosításnak?

1537-ben Szulejmán hadjáratra indult, melyre magával vitte Hürrem két körülmetélt fiát, a 16 éves Mehmedet és a 13 éves Szelimet. Bayezid azonban még csak 10-11 éves volt ekkor, tehát korban sem volt alkalmas arra, hogy elkísérje apját, valamint körül sem volt metélve. Valószínűleg Bayezid nehezen viselte, hogy otthon kell maradnia anyjával és öccsével, míg bátyjai életük első harcászati tapasztalatait gyűjtik be.

1539-ben Bayezid nővére, Mihrimah férjhez ment Rüsztem Pasához. Az esküvői ünnepségekkel összevonva pedig Szulejmán úgy döntött megtartják Bayezid és Cihangir hercegek körülmetélési szertartását is. Az ünnepség több, mint két hétig tartott ám jóval kevésbé volt látványos, mint a 9 évvel korábbi ceremónia, ám ennek gazdasági okai voltak, nem a hercegek ellen irányult.

Az ifjú herceg

1543-ban Szulejmán újabb hadjáratra indult a Magyar Királyság ellen és ezen hadjáratra magával vitte Bayezid herceget is. A hadjáratról hazafelé tartva kapták a hírt, hogy Bayezid legidősebb bátyja, Mehmed herceg elhunyt. Szulejmán szultán teljesen összetört, ami egészségére is kihatással volt. Hosszas gyász köszöntött a családra, mígnem 1546-ban Bayezid élete felpezsdült, ugyanis Szulejmán kivenezte őt Konya tartomány élére. Édesanyja nem tartott vele új tartományába, ahogy korábban sem kísérte el sem Mehmedet sem Szelimet. Így Bayezidet is dajkája és az anyja által nagy gonddal kiválasztott háreme kísérte el Konyába.

Bayezid nem választott magának kedvenc ágyast, mint bátyja Szelim vagy édesapja. Nagyon sok ágyasa volt, minden gyermeke más nőtől született. Bayezidnek extrém sok fia volt, ami szokatlan, hiszen a legtöbb herceg valamiféle családtervezést folytatott. Bayezidnek viszont legalább hét fia született és legalább négy lánya. Gyermekei:

Orhan egyes források szerint 1543-ban született, ám ez nem lehetséges, tekintettel arra, hogy Bayezid 1546-ban kapott tartományt, előtte nem lehetett gyermeke. Így Orhan valószínűleg 1546-ban született. Saját tartományba 1558 decemberében küldte őt nagyapja, Çorumba. A fiatal hercegről ekkor azt mondták, hogy "különösen jóképű". Egyes források szerint, amint tartományába került teherbeejtette egyik ágyasát, aki később fiút szült neki. Erre azonban nem utal semmi féle bizonyíték.

Osman, aki édestestvére volt Mahmdunak, születési ideje bizonyalan, ám mivel ő nem kapott saját tartományt Orhannal együtt, feltehetőleg fiatalabb volt nála valamennyivel. Lehetséges, hogy már gyermekként elhunyt, ugyanis a legtöbb forrás nem említi testvérei között a kivégzésről szóló feljegyzésekben.

Mihrimah, 1547-ben jött világra. Szulejmán 1562 nyarán esküvő szervezésbe fogott és Szelim herceg három lánya, valamint Musztafa herceg kisebbik lánya mellett Mihrimaht is kiházasította. Mihrimah férje Muzaffer Pasa lett. Házasságukról nem maradt fenn semmilyen információ, gyermekeik valószínűleg nem születtek. Mihrimah a házasság révén kénytelen volt elhagyni Isztambult, férje ugyanis előbb Bagdad, Şehr-i Zor majd Ciprus helytartója volt, Mihrimahnak pedig követnie kellett férjét éppen aktuális pozíciójára. Férje 1593-ban hunyt el, és valószínű, hogy Mihrimah ekkor már nem volt életben, mert senki sem említette a későbbiekben. Arra is meg van az esély, hogy jóval férje előtt elhunyt már.

Abdullah, 1548 után születhetett.

Hatice, 1550 körül született és nagy valószínűséggel gyermekkorában elhunyt.

Mahmud, 1552-ben jött világra, Osman édesöccseként.

Ayşe, 1553 körül született. Ő jóval később ment férjhez, mint nővére. Esetében a kiválasztott férj, Eretnaoglu Hoca Ali Pasa volt, akivel született egy fiuk, Sultanzade Mehmed Bég. Nem tudni, hogy fiuk mikor született, azt sem, mikor házasodtak össze. Valószínűleg őt már nem nagyapja, hanem nagybátyja, Szelim házasította ki. Ayşe életéről semmit nem tudunk és halálának ideje is ismeretlen.

Mehmed, 1554 körül született.

Murad, 1556 körül jött világra. Lehetséges, hogy már gyermekként elhunyt, ugyanis a legtöbb forrás nem említi testvérei között a kivégzésről szóló feljegyzésekben.

Hanzade 1556 körül született és valószínűleg gyermekként elhunyt.

Bayezid utolsó gyermeke egy fiú volt, akinek neve nem ismert, és aki 1559-ben vagy 1560-ban jött világra.

Bayezid Konyai uralkodásáról nem sok információnk van. Itt élt azonban, mikor Szulejmán aleppói hadjáratára magához rendelte fiát, hogy tapasztalatokat szerezhessen. Bayezid évek óta várhatott már erre a lehetőségre, így bizonyára nagy örömmel csatlakozott apjához. Az 1548-49-es telet együtt töltötték Aleppo környékén és velük volt Cihangir herceg is. Tavasszal pedig Szulejmán hatalmas vadászatot rendelt el, melynek során alkalma volt Bayeziddel is időt tölteni. Az apja figyelmére és elismerésére vágyó Bayezid minden bizonnyal nagyon élvezte a vadászatot. Bayezid 1549 júniusáig maradt Aleppoban apjával, ekkor ugyanis a hadsereg megindult a frontra, hogy folytassák a harcokat, Bayezid pedig visszatért Konyába.

Harc a trónért

Bayezidet szokás a trónért folyó harc egyik mintapéldájának tekinteni. Születésekor nem sok esélye volt a trónra négy idősebb bátyja mellett. Azonban Abdullah herceg hamarosan elhunyt, 1543-ban őt követte Mehmed majd végül 1553-ban maga Szulejmán végeztette ki Musztafa herceget, Bayezid legidősebb, féltestvérét, így esélyei fokozatosan növekedtek. Vannak olyan legendák - és erre a sorozat is ráerősített - melyek szerint Bayezid és Musztafa közel álltak egymáshoz. Azonban ez a legkevésbé sem igaz. Bayezid gyermek volt még, mikor Musztafa elhagyta Isztambult, később pedig alig találkoztak (ha találkoztak egyáltalán). Jó viszonyuk egyik legerősebb ellenérve az, hogy 1553-ban Szulejmán szultán Bayezidet hagyta hátra, mint Isztambul védelmezőjét, mikor hadjáratra vonult. Szulejmán ekkor már tudta, hogy Musztafa herceget a hadjárat során ki fogja végeztetni, épp ezért félt attól, hogy Musztafa megsejtve az eseményeket Isztambulba vonul és elfoglalja a trónt. Szulejmánnak ekkor három fia volt Musztafán kívül: a beteges Cihangir, a nyugodt Szelim és a harcos Bayezid. Logikus döntés volt, hogy Bayezidet hagyta a főváros védelmezőjének pozíciójában, hiszen agresszív és hirtelen természetével, nagyobb eséllyel tudta volna feltartóztatni az oda betörő Musztafát, mint Cihangir, Szelim vagy bármelyik pasa. Ha Szulejmán bizonytalan lett volna Bayezid hűségében sosem hagyta volna a főváros közelében ilyen vészterhes időkben.

Az előbbi események arra is rávilágítanak, hogy Bayezid az 1550-es évek elején nem volt hátrányban Szelimmel szemben a trónért folyó harcban. Ám ennek nagy valószínűséggel Hürrem szultána létezése volt oka. Hürrem ugyanis mindig is igyekezett Bayezidet féken tartani, hogy az ne dühítse apját hirtelen természetével és meggondolatlan szavaival. Bayezid volt ugyanis a családban a legtemperamentumosabb és legerőszakosabb. Sokak szerint Szulejmán apjára, Yavuz Szelim szultánra emlékeztetett mindenkit, annyi különbséggel, hogy hiányzott belőle Yavuz Szelim megfontoltsága és eszessége. Szulejmán pedíg híresen tartott apjától, így feltehetőleg nem igazán örült annak, hogy Bayezid állandóan őrá emlékezteti. Mindenesetre Hürrem szultána minden erejével Bayaezidet támogatta, akárcsak Mihrimah és Rüsztem pasa. Azonban olyan vélemények is vannak, melyek szerint támogatása csupán azért Bayezid felé irányult, mert félt, hogy ha nem őt támogatja Bayezid eléri a szultánnál a saját halálát. Akik ezen a véleményen vannak úgy gondolják, hogy Hürrem is Szelim herceget szerette volna a trónon látni, nem Bayezidet. Miért? Mert Szelim jólelkű, szerény személy volt, aki sosem lett volna képes kivégeztetni testvéreit, így Szelim uralkodásával a testvérgyilkosság törvénye véget érhetett volna és Bayezid is életben maradt volna. Ismerve Hürrem eszességét, fiai iránti elkötelezettségét, valamint Szelim rátermedtségét és Bayezid természetét személyes véleményem ugyanez.

Eltávolodása apjától

Sokan úgy hiszik, hogy Hürrem 1558-as halála volt az az esemény, mely eltávolította egymástól Bayezidet és Szulejmánt, azonban ez nem igaz. Ők ketten sosem álltak igazán közel egymáshoz, végletekig eltérő személyiségük miatt. Musztafa 1553-as kivégzése pedig tovább súlyosbította a helyzetet. Musztafa kivégzése után ugyanis hatalmas lázadások robbantak ki birodalom szerte, Ruméliában például egy imposztor azt állította, hogy ő maga Musztafa herceg, aki megmenekült a szultán haragja elől és hatalmas támogatótábort gyűjtött maga mellé. Bayezidnek, mint a főváros őrzője, azonnal reagálnia kellett volna az eseményekre, azonban valószínűleg nem mérte fel helyesen a helyzetet, mert hosszas késlekedés után sem lépett fel megfelelően az ál-Musztafa ellen. Sőt! Az osztrák követ szerint Bayezid maga is támogatta az ál-Musztafát, mert megijedt attól, hogy bármikor ő is Musztafa sorsára juthat. Ezzel pedig Szulejmánban felébredt a gyanú, a szultán dühöngött és Hürremnek csak hatalmas erőfeszítések árán sikerült meggyőznie a szultánt arról, hogy Bayezid ártatlan, csupán rosszul reagált a helyzetre. Végül Hürrem könyörgése és Bayezid bocsánatkérése megenyhítették a szultán szívét, azonban Konya tartományából áthelyeztette őt Kütahyába 1555-ben. Szulejmán végül hosszas kioktatás után engedte útjára fiát.

Ezen események után sosem tudott konszolidálódni a helyzet Szulejmán és fia között. Különösen tekintettel arra, hogy Bayezid száműzetésként élte meg a Kütahyába költözést, holott Kütahya sem volt távolabb a fővárostól, mint Szelim posztja. Valószínűleg leveleiben ennek hangot is adott, legalábbis Szulejmán egyik fennmaradt válaszlevele erre utal:"Allahban kell bíznod, hiszen nem az ember feladata,hanem Allahé, hogy ki fog ezen birodalom trónján ülni. Ha ő úgy dönt, hogy neked kell a trónt elfoglalnod utánam, egyetlen élő ember sem akadályozhatja azt meg". Ez egyértelművé teszi, hogy Szulejmán nem akart foglalkozni az örökléssel, még akkor sem, ha ő maga Szelimet jobban kedvelte, sosem nyilatkozott arról, hogy Szelimet tekintené utódjának. Még úgy sem, hogy tudjuk azt, Szelim nagyon hozzánőtt apjához az 1553-1555 közötti hadjáraton, ő támogatta apját Cihangir elvesztése után és talán itt kezdett el Szulejmán szíve is inkább Szelim felé húzni. Bayezid talán ebből sejthetett meg valamit és talán emiatt nem igazán hitte, hogy apja ne avatkozna az öröklésbe?

1558-ban Hürrem szultána elhunyt, ezzel Bayezid elveszítette legbefolyásosabb támogatóját, aki több alkalommal mentette már meg őt. Hürrem gyermekei közül talán Bayezid életét befolyásolta legjobban Hürrem halála. Bayezidnek azonban még így is több támgoatója maradt, így a nagyvezír Rüsztem pasa és Mihrimah szultána, akik Hürrem végakaratát igyekeztek betartani azzal, hogy a herceget próbálták óvni. Azonban sajnos egyikük sem volt elég nagy hatással a hercegre, mint anyjában így nem is hallgatott rájuk. Lehetséges, hogy Hürrem halálát követően valamilyen vita lehetett Szelim és Bayezid között, ugyanis a szultán 1558 nyarán úgy döntött, hogy mindkét fiát új tartományba helyezi át. Szelimet Konyába küldte, Bayezidet pedig Amasyába. Az amasyai kinevezés talán rejtett magában utalást arra, hogy Bayezid is Musztafa herceg sorsára fog jutni, ha nem viselkedik megfelelően, ám az is lehet, hogy Szulejmánnak nem volt ilyen szándéka. A szultán ugyanis még ekkor sem nevezte meg egyik fiát sem utódául és mindkét fia nagyjából hasonló távolságra volt Isztambultól is. Szelim, mint mindig, most is azonnal engedelmeskedett, Bayezid azonban először megtagadta a parancsot és csak hosszas hezitálás után indult el Amasyába. Ebből az időszakból maradt ránk Szulejmán és Bayezid levelezése, melyben Bayezid úgy ír "Bocsásd meg Bayezid sértését, kíméld meg életét szolgádnak. Ártatlan vagyok és ezt Allah is tudja, szultánom, apám." Szulejmán válasza pedig így szólt: "Bayezidem, megbocsátom sértésedet, ha kijavítod hibádat. De ne mondd, hogy ártatlan vagy, mutass megbánást drága fiam." Ez is jól mutatja, hogy Szulejmán bár dühös volt fiára, nem állt szándékában fellépni ellene sorozatos hibái ellenére sem.

A lázadás

Bayezid rettegett attól, hogy apja kivégezteti úgy, mint Musztafát. Szulejmánnak azonban esze ágában sem volt ilyesmi, ekkor már évek óta nem foglalkozott az örökléssel, Bayezidet saját paranoijára kergette a rossz útra. Ekkoriban a tartományok egyáltalán nem voltak stabilak, különösen nem a keletiek, mint Amasya. Bayezidnek talán innen jött az ötlet és hadsereget kezdett toborozni. Az, hogy ezzel mi volt a célja nem tisztázott. Egyesek szerint csak Szelimet akarta megölni fiával, Muraddal együtt, majd visszavonult volna Amasyába kivárni Szulejmán halálát. Mások szerint Bayezid Szelim és Murad után a szultántól is megszabadult volna. Véleményem szerint nem volt pontos terve hosszú távra talán abban reménykedett, hogy ha sikerül Szelimet és Muradot megölni, akkor a szultán elfogadja őt mint örökösét. Baezidnek látnia kellett, hogy szedett vedett hadserege nem alkalmas arra, hogy a szultánnal is szembe szálljon, talán elég egy hercegi hadsereg ellen, de a szultáni ellen nem. Ha Bayezid abban reménykedett, hogy apja majd beletörődik abba, hogy ő lesz a szultán, tévedett. Szulejmán ugyanis ezen időszakban előkészületeket tett arra, hogy a leányági örökösödést is lehetségessé tegye. Így tehát, ha Szelim és Murad elhunyt volna, unokaöccsét Kara Osmanşah-t nevezte volna ki örököséül és Bayezidet levadásztatta volna, hiszen egy áruló és lázadó herceg nem érdemli meg a trónt. Szulejmán tehát egyértelműen csak ekkor döntött és választotta Szelimet, (halála esetében Muradot, annak halála esetén pedig Kara Osmanşaht) örököséül.

Bayezid egyébként a hadsereg felszereléséhez nővérétől, Mihrimahtól is kapott pénzt. Mikor Szulejmán erre rájött azonnal kérdőre vonta lányát, aki viszont közölte apjával büszkén, hogy ő nem hibázott, csak anyja végakaratát teljesítette Bayezid megsegítésével. Szulejmán többször is parancsot küldött fiának, hogy fegyverkezzen le, Bayezid azonban nem hallgatott apjára. Ezzel pedig Bayezidet a szultán lázadóként bélyegezte meg. Innentől kezdve pedig nem marad más út csak a nyílt lázadás.

Bayezid tehát megindult seregével Konya felé, hogy megütközzön bátyjával. Szelim herceg kérte apja segítségét, amit természetesen meg is kapott azzal a paranccsal, hogy ne támadjon, várja meg, hogy mit lép Bayezid. Szulejmán talán azt remélte, hogy ha Bayezid meglátja Szelim seregét egyesülve a birodalmi sereggel megadja magát. De Bayezid nem tette, hanem támadt. 1559 májusának végén ütközött meg a két sereg a konyai síkon. A csata két napig tartott, melynek végén Szelim győzedelmeskedett, azonban Bayezid képes volt elmenekülni a helyszínről, vissza Amasyába. Onnan pedig levélben kérte apja megbocsátását. A szultán pozitívan reagált, azt írta fiának, megbocsát neki, ha kivégezteti azokat, akik erre a tévútra vezették. Bayezid azonban újabb hibát vétett, mert nem akarta olyan emberek vérét ontani, akik az ő szavára csatába mentek. Nem volt ugyanis senki aki tévútra vitte volna, ő maga cselekedett így. Ezért csak néhány, jelentéktelen embert végeztetett ki, ami Szulejmánnak természetesen nem volt elég. Ez a cselekedet jól mutatja, hogy bár Bayezid hirtelen haragú, nem előrelátó személy volt több negatív tulajdonsággal, mégis egyenes ember volt, aki nem akarta, hogy mások bűnhődjenek az ő tetteiért.

Miután a kivégzések Szulejmánt csak tovább bőszítették Bayezid végleges döntést hozva fiaival és megmaradt seregével keletre indult. Fiai közül csupán négyen tartottak vele, Orhan, Abdullah, Mahmud és Mehmed. Murad és Osman feltehetőleg már korábban elhunytak. Volt még egy fia Bayezidnek, aki nem biztos, hogy egyáltalán megszületett már ekkor, lehet, hogy csak apja távozása után jött világra. Az ágyas egyike lehetett azon kevés nőnek, aki egészen biztosan azért imádkozott, hogy lánya szülessen, hiszen ekkor már egyértelmű volt, mi lesz Bayezid és fiai sorsa. Azonban a sors nem volt kegyes az ágyashoz és fia született.

A menekült

Bayezid és serege célirányosan tartottak kelet felé, ugyanis nem álltak le csatázni egyik tartomány helytartójával sem. Egyedül az iráni határnál kerültek kisebb harcba, mikor megpróbálták őket a birodalmon belül tartani. Végül azonban sikerrel átlépték az iráni határt augusztusban és a perzsa şahtól kértek menedéket. Szulejmán eddigre maga is fia nyomában volt, előtte pedig Sokollu Mehmed Pasa és Szelim herceg vágtázott.

Bayezidet 1560 októberében fogadta Tahmasp şah egy csodálatos ceremónia keretein belül a fővárosban, Quazvinban. Mikor egyértelművé vált, hogy Bayezid és Tahmasp szövetkeznek egymással Szulejmán seregét az iráni határ mentén sorakoztatta fel és tárgyalásokat kezdeményezett Tahmasppal. Végül decemberben engedélyezte Szelim hazatérését Konyába és a sereget is kisebb készültségre kapcsolta, egy részét visszahívta. Szulejmán ezt nem tette volna meg ok nélkül, Tahmasp valószínűleg biztosította róla, hogy nem áll szándékában harcolni. Ez jól mutatja, hogy Tahmasp valószínűleg átverte Bayezidet, ugyanis ha a şah valóban támadni akart volna, nem kezdett volna egyezkedni Szulejmánnal. Tahmasp şah valószínűleg a legjobbat akarta kihozni a helyzetből országának, ami nem a háború volt, hanem a békés megoldás. Bayezid helyzete épp emiatt gyorsan megváltozott és a vendégből hamarosan fogollyá vált. Bayezid fiaival együtt börtönbe került, követőit pedig feloszlatta a şah, hogy nyugodtan tárgyalhassan Szulejmánnal.

A tárgyalások hosszasan elhúzódtak. 1561 júliusában Szulejmán már 900 000 dukátot ajánlott, kiegészítve Szelim herceg 300 000 dukátjával, valamint Kars várával, ha a şah visszaadja Bayezidet és fiait. Tahmasp az igen nagylelkű ajánlat ellenére is hosszasan gondolkozott. Tudta, hogy szinte akármit kérhet, előbb utóbb megadják neki, hiszen Bayezid amíg él fenyegetést jelent az Oszmán Birodalomra, ám nem merte túlfeszíteni sem a húrt. Tahmasp előrelátóan nem Szulejmánt, hanem Szelim herceget, a leendő szultánt kereste meg saját ajánlatával. Tahmasp tudta, hogy jobban jár, ha a leendő szultánnal köt szövetséget, ezért 1562 márciusában követeket küldött Kütahyába, Szelimhez. Tahmasp a 1 200 000 dukát és Kars vára mellé kereskedelmi és békeegyezményt is akart Szelimmel. Nem tudjuk, hogy Szelim maga döntött arról, hogy megegyezik Tahmasppal vagy Szulejmánnal egyeztetett e róla. Ismerve Szelimet, aki nem tett soha semmit apja engedélye nélkül, vagy erről is megkérdezte a szultánt vagy Szulejmán előzőleg szabad kezet adott neki. Akárhogyan is a şah ajánlatát végül elfogadták.

Halála

Tahmasp şah végül 1562 július 23-án beengedte az oszmán küldöttséget Bayezid és fiai börtönébe. A legendák szerint Tahmasp külön kikötötte, hogy Szelim herceg emberei léphetnek be csak a börtönbe, hiszen korábban megígérte Bayezidnek, hogy sosem adja őt át Szulejmánnak. Ezzel pedig lényegében megtarthatta szavát. Így Ali Aga, Szelim küldöttségének vezetője, volt az, aki azonnal elrendelte szultáni parancsra a hercegek kivégzését. Ugyanekkor Bayezid legkisebb fiát is kivégezték Bursában. Mindőjüktől megtagadták a tisztességes bursai temetést, és Sivas mellett temették el őket. Ennek oka valószínűleg az volt - Szulejmán mérhetetlen dühén túl -, hogy kockázatos lett volna öt koporsót végigutaztatni Anatólián, mely már így is puskaporos hordóra hasonlított ezekben az években.

Bayezid bűnössége nem kérdéses, így kivégzésének jogossága sem. Bayezid ha türelmesen várt volna valószínűleg életben marad. Bár szultán sosem lett volna, hiszen néhány janicsár csapaton kívül senki sem támogatta, Szelim maga valószínűleg nem végeztette volna ki testvéreit, hanem csak elzárva tartotta volna őket. Bár érdemes megjegyezni, hogy Bayezid ezt sem fogadta volna el természetéből kifolyólag, így talán végül Szelim kénytelen lett volna kivégeztetni őt.

Bayezid és családja esete jól példázza, hová jutott egy meggondolatlan herceg. Bayezid lázadása majd kivégzése kétségkívül tovább súlyosbították Szelim depresszióját és tetézték Mihrimah gyászát, Szulejmán fájdalma pedig szintén elképzelhetetlen. Sokan Szulejmánt hibáztatják, azonban az eseményekből teljesen egyértelművé vált, hogy Szulejmán - különösen Musztafa esetéhez képest - a végletekig megbocsátó volt Bayeziddel szemben. Szülei és testvérei mellett pedig gyermekei sorsát is örökre megpecsételte Bayezid lázadása. Nem elég, hogy fiait vele együtt kivégeztették, ágyasait is különösebb körültekintés nélkül házasították ki, a szokottnál sokkal kevésbé befolyásos emberekhez, lányaitól pedig megtagadták a rangjukhoz méltó házasságot. Emellett lányairól senki sem emlékezett meg az elkövetkezendő években, teljesen elfeledetten éltek és haltak meg.

Magán vélemény Bayeziddel kapcsolatosan: Bayezid herceg portréjával nagyon régóta szenvedek. Nem azért volt nehéz megírni, mint Musztafáét. Musztafáé egyszerűen annyira lehangoló volt, hogy nehezen vettem rá magam az írásra. Bayezid esetében azonban egyszerűen csak egyre dühösebb és dühösebb lettem. Különösen fontosnak érzem, hogy a portrékkal minél közelebb hozzam hozzánk ezeket az embereket. Külön igyekszem személyessé tenni az írást, hogy átérezhessük, mi játszódott le ezeknek a történelmi szereplőknek a fejében, mit miért tehettek. Eddig minden történelmi alakot úgy érzem sikerült teljes mértékben átéreznem, a helyükbe képzelni magam és látni mit miért tettek. Bayezid esetében ez egyáltalán nem ment. Minél többet olvastam róla annál dühösebb lettem és kiáltani szerettem volna neki, hogy "miért teszed ezt?!". Nem tehetek róla, de egyszerűen Bayezid körül mindenkit jobban sajnálok, mint őt magát, mert véleményem szerint csak és kizárólag rossz döntéseinek sorozata okozta halálát.

Felhasznált források: L. Peirce - The imperial harem; L. Peirce - Empress of the East; C. Imber - The Ottoman Empire 1300-1650; Y. Öztuna - Kanuni Sultan Süleyman

#Suleiman the Magnificent #KanuniSultanSüleyman #Suleiman I #Haseki Hürrem Sultan #yavuz selim #Selim II #Sehzade Cihangir #Sehzade mehmed #sehzade mustafa #sehzade bayezid #bayezid #fratricide #tahmasp

39 notes · View notes

weavingthetapestry · 5 years ago

Text

Plague Projects, 1568: George Bannatyne and His Books

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley” seems like a phrase which really sums up this past month, and also says something about my altered plans for this blog this year. After all, with the 700th anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath coming up, I had hoped that the next time I’d be posting, it would be about nation-defining fourteenth century documents, not sixteenth century cultural treasures. Indeed, I should probably apologise to those of you particularly interested in earlier periods for publishing what I believe is my fourth or fifth lengthy sixteenth century post in a row- and it IS horrendously lengthy. But as many of us will be keeping to our homes for the foreseeable future, it seemed apt instead to consider taking a leaf out of George Bannatyne’s book.

In autumn and winter 1568, plague once again raged in Edinburgh. Confined to the family home “in tyme of pest, / Quhen we fra labor was compeld to rest”, 22-year old George Bannatyne whiled away the hours compiling a massive collection of Old Scots poetry. His book, containing works from such famous names as Chaucer, Dunbar, Henryson, Lindsay and others, is now known as the Bannatyne MS (or, to give it its less snappy title, Adv. MS. 1.1.6). It is widely acknowledged as one of the most significant books in the history of Old Scots literature, preserving some of the very best works of the age for later generations. So, since I have the time and the ink (metaphorically at least), I thought it might be a good opportunity to explore the history of this vital manuscript, the life of its author, and the circumstances in which it was created.

George Bannatyne was neither the son of a great noble nor some powerful churchman, but he did come from a reasonably well-off family with an important network of acquaintances. Thanks to the survival of a ‘Memoriall Buik’ which he began compiling around 1582, we are able to trace some of his background with more ease than might otherwise be the case. In it, we find that George was the son of James Bannatyne of the Kirktoun of Newtyle (born 1512) and Katherine Taillefeir (or Telfer or any number of variant spellings; she seems to have been born c.1523). James Bannatyne belonged to the legal profession and played a not insignificant role in public life, acting as a Writer to the Signet and Deputy Justice Clerk among other things. He also had mercantile interests and, despite originally hailing from Angus (a region he would maintain links with for the rest of his life), he was admitted as a burgess and guild brother of Edinburgh in 1538. It may have been around the same time that he married Katherine, who appears to have hailed from a prominent Edinburgh merchant family herself, and their first child, Laurence, was born in September 1539. The couple would go onto have twenty-three children between 1539 and 1565, of whom eleven were still alive at the time of their mother’s death in 1570, and eight were still living in their father’s house, “unput to proffeit”.

George was the seventh child, born on 22nd December 1545, and his memorial book notes that his uncles, George Taillefeir and William Fisher* acted as his godfathers, and Mavis Fisher as his godmother. Not much is known about his early life, but he does appear to have attended the University of St Andrews for a time, being incorporated at St Mary’s College in 1558 (aged about twelve) and listed as ‘baccalaurei’ in 1561. Unlike some of his brothers, however, there isn’t much evidence that he followed his father into the legal profession and we can ascertain little about his early career (beyond the basic details) before the age of forty.

(Bannatyne house near Newtyle, Angus. This property was purchased by George’s father James Bannatyne and the house built by Thomas Bannatyne in the late sixteenth century. Despite their Angus roots however, the family’s main business was in Edinburgh. Not my picture.)

The year 1568, when he was 22 years of age, would later serve as a major landmark in the young George Bannatyne’s life. Indeed, it was to be an eventful year for the kingdom of Scotland as a whole. In May, the deposed queen Mary I had escaped from captivity in the Kinross-shire castle of Lochleven, and soon raised an army to challenge the men who governed Scotland in the name of her infant son James VI. Defeated by the forces of her half-brother, the Earl of Moray, at the Battle of Langside, she then fled across the border to England, seeking the help of their cousin Elizabeth I. With the plight of the ex-Queen of Scots now an international incident, the affair would rumble on throughout the autumn and winter of 1568 and the publication of the notorious Casket Letters did nothing to diminish the scandal. Back in Scotland, meanwhile, the events of 1568 precipitated a major civil war between the supporters of the exiled Mary and the ‘King’s Men’ who fought in the name of her son. Even in August, Edinburgh had a scare when it was rumoured that the lords of ”the south and north and west countries” might attack before the next parliament, and as a result the burgh’s defences were reinforced.

And then, just to make things worse, that same autumn a vicious bout of plague broke out in the merry town. The Diurnal of Occurrents claims that ‘the pest’ was initially brought to Edinburgh by a merchant named James Dalgleish on 8th September 1568. Whether or not this very precise account can be taken at face value, by the end of the month the situation was so concerning that, on 26th September, the Regent Moray wrote to the burgh council from Tantallon, requesting that the election of new magistrates be delayed. This was due to concern for “the publict ordour to be observit anent the plaige”, and in case the new officials, “throw laik of experience may omyt the maist necessar thingis that in sa strait ane tyme ar requisit to be done”. On 13th October the burgh council made further proclamations that nobody was to pass to the Burgh Muir (where the sick were quarantined in huts) without an official escort, and, a couple of days later, officers were appointed to clean the victims’ houses and take charge of burying the dead. Meanwhile it was ordained:

“that how sone any maner of persoun fallis seik within this burgh, in quhatsumeuir kynde of seiknes that ever it be, the awneris of the hous inclose thame selffis and cum nocht furth of thair houssis, nowther suffer ony to resort to thame unto the tyme thai aduertice the baillie of the quarter and ordour be taiken be him, under the pane of deid.”

[“that as soon as any manner of person falls sick within this burgh, whatever kind of sickness it may be, the owners of the house should enclose themselves and not come forth of their houses, nor suffer anyone to resort to them, until such time as they inform the baillie of the quarter and order is taken by him, under pain of death.”]

Plague was hardly unknown in the capital and a particularly serious outbreak had ravaged much of Britain, including Edinburgh, as recently as 1563. The burgh was therefore used to the strict measures which had to be taken (even though this didn’t stop the unfortunate William Smith and his wife Black Meg from breaking the rules, an offence for which they paid dearly). Nevertheless the periodic recurrence of the the disease struck terror into the hearts of the people, and with good reason, since the 1568 outbreak alone is estimated to have decimated a fifth of Edinburgh’s population. There were major economic consequences too, not least because of the stoppage of trade, and the Diurnal of Occurrents claims that, due to the outbreak in the burghs of Edinburgh, Leith, and Canongate, there were severe shortages in the country over the course of the following year. Little wonder then that the earliest known medical treatise to be printed in Scotland- “Ane Breve Descriptioun of the Pest” by the Aberdonian physician Gilbert Skene- rolled off the press in this year.

[read more under cut]

(Edinburgh in the late 16th and early 17th century, according to the ‘Civitates Orbis Terrarum’. Not my picture.)

This was the wider context in which George Bannatyne compiled his famous manuscript, in the last three months of the year (according to his own explicit). But the entire MS runs to almost 800 pages and shows signs of careful organisation and so some modern commentators have naturally raised doubts about the claim that such a large project was completed in only three months, no matter how much Bannatyne may have been climbing the walls during a time of isolation. We also have to account for the 54 pages which make up the so-called Draft or Duplicate MS- draft pages which do not form part of the main Bannatyne MS but have been tacked onto the front of the surviving copy. This draft MS, currently made up of at least two gatherings, may have been larger at some point, as leaves which seem to have been part of the Draft are to be found slotted in at various points of the Bannatyne MS proper (the two MS use different styles of page number, and it may be possible to identify some of the Draft MS leaves from their Roman foliation).

Meanwhile it was observed by J.T.T. Brown back in 1903 that one of the dates written into the manuscript as ‘1568′, on folio 290v., had originally been 1565, the last number having been altered at a later stage. Subsequently it was noticed that the year written as ‘1568′ on folio 298r. had initially been 1566, and it has been argued that the altered dates, as well as the obvious effort involved in organising and transcribing such a tome, suggest that the Bannatyne MS was the result of a much longer period of compilation than its author claimed. Not every commentator has been convinced by this- William, A. Ringler, for one, argued in 1980 that it was not impossible for George Bannatyne to have completed the work in three months, pointing out that he would only have had to spend about three hours a day on his project, and characterising the altered dates as mere slips of the pen. However most of the recent writers I’ve consulted seem to acknowledge that the MS was probably compiled in several stage, with the book only taking its final form in December 1568 after some months- possibly years- of intermittent work. The exact process of compilation is a matter of great interest to those attempting to establish a political and social context for the work. For example, Alastair A. MacDonald, asking the pertinent question of why Bannatyne might have wished to conceal an earlier start date (and assuming that the 1565 date was not a mistake), has argued that the Bannatyne MS could be seen as a Marian anthology. He has characterised it as a book which grew out of a collection of love poems associated with the poets of Mary I’s court (especially Alexander Scott), the nature of which had to be discreetly altered when the political winds changed. Whatever the case, the precise dating of the Bannatyne MS. and the manner in which it was compiled raises some fascinating possibilities and will probably continue to stimulate debate in the future.**

(A reproduction of a page from George Bannatyne’s ‘Memoriall Buik’. Not my picture, digitisation by internet archive)

The Bannatyne manuscript itself is an impressive piece of work and Evelyn S. Newlyn is certainly justified in describing its author as, “neither a mere collector nor a passive scribe”. On top of copying out around 400 poems and other literary works (some of them quite lengthy), it is clear that George Bannatyne put thought into the organisation of the MS and its overarching purpose and literary nature. The results of his endeavours hugely impressed some later readers, not least Sir Walter Scott, but modern scholars have rightly cautioned against viewing the MS as the product solely of one young man’s ‘genius’. Bannatyne’s broad social and family networks were likely crucial to the success of his project. Several other members of his immediate family had literary and scholarly interests- his father James and possibly also his brother Thomas owned (and in the latter case compiled) notable legal collections, while a copy of the “Regiam Majestatam” owned by George’s grandfather John Bannatyne has poems copied into its pages. George’s father James was probably also the figure of that name who was referred to in Robert Sempill’s “Defence of Crissel Sandelandis” in the line, “Auld James Bannatyne wes anis a man of skill”, and another lawyer Bannatyne, Patrick, appears elsewhere in the poem. On his mother’s side, George seems to have been related to Laurence Taillefeir, treasurer of Dunkeld, and proud owner of printed copies of Pleny and Seneca, who was also godfather to George’s eldest brother Laurence Bannatyne in 1539. Serving as the other godfather on that occasion was Henry Balnaves of Halhill, then a senator of the College of Justice, and perhaps already holding the strong Protestant views which would shape much of his career; he may be the ‘Balnevis’ listed as the author of a poem in the Bannatyne MS (“O Gallandis all, I cry and call”).

These details regarding the godparents of the numerous Bannatyne siblings may be found in George’s “Memoriall Buik” and among the other family acquaintances listed there we also find John Bellenden of Auchnoule and his father Master Thomas Bellenden. Bellenden of Auchnoule was justice clerk (and James Bannatyne served under him for a time as deputy) but even more interest are their connections as nephew and brother respectively to John Bellenden, archdeacon of Moray. That John Bellenden was a poet at the court of James V and translator of the prose Scots version of Hector Boece’s ‘Historia Gentis Scotorum’, and the close social (and perhaps family) relationship between the Bellendens and Bannatynes may explain the prominent position given to his work in the Bannatyne MS. Meanwhile, if Balnaves of Halhill and others provided the Bannatynes with Protestant connections, there were also members of the Catholic clergy to match them, such as George Clapperton, provost of Trinity Collegiate Church, and a member of the Chapel Royal at the same time as the poet Alexander Scott (who features prominently among the love poets featured in the MS). The court connections of the above men may have proved a major asset to George Bannatyne during the compilation of his MS, although it may be going too far to describe the book, as some writers have, as a direct record of Stewart court culture. The Bannatynes also had connections to Henry Foulis of Colinton and his father James, the notable neo-Latin poet, as well as to the poet William Stewart through the Foulis family (it is also worth noting that George Bannatyne’s daughter would later marry Henry Foulis’ grandson).

From documentary sources other than the memorial book, scholars have further traced the Bannatynes’ links to notable figures in Edinburgh’s printing trade, including King’s printer Thomas Davidson (who undertook work for the government in James Bannatyne’s company), and one of the city’s first printers Walter Chepman (both Walter and James were public notaries who witnessed some of the same transactions, and it might have been Chepman’s widow who stood godmother to George’s brother Thomas). The Bannatyne family’s connections to these notable individuals- and indeed many others whose histories we unfortunately don’t have space to trace- formed a hugely important social network of prominent lawyers, clergy, lairds, merchants, and courtiers, which must have proved immensely useful to George Bannatyne when he was gathering pieces for his MS.

(The arms of the Bannatynes of Corehouse in the Bannatyne MS, set beneath part of the story of Cokelbie’s Sow. Not my picture, property of N.L.S.)

The manuscript itself reflects this background and, although Bannatyne complained that he had to draw on sources preserved in “copeis awld, mankit, and mutillait”, he also seems to have used printed sources. Equally the high number of poems that Bannatyne was able to pull together does seem to indicate that the situation wasn’t always so dire and, as Sebestian Verweij points out:

“Bannatyne’s access to enormous numbers of manuscript and print exemplars is the best available testament to the extremely rich literary and scribal cultures in the Scottish capital.”

The list of authors whose works appear in the MS is a long one, but the most important should be singled out, if only to further demonstrate the scale of the work. The works of some of Scotland’s greatest writers before Burns are included, including pieces by William Dunbar (including the “The Thistle and Rose”, “The Golden Targe”, “The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedy, “The Lament for the Makars”, and many more); Robert Henryson (especially worth noting are his “Morall Fabillis” and the apposite “Ane Prayer for the Pest”); Gavin Douglas (including several prologues from his “Eneados”), and Sir David Lindsay (of particular interest is an abbreviated early copy of his play “Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis”). As already mentioned the works of John Bellenden, Alexander Scott and William Stewart are well represented, while other authors include Richard Holland, John Rowll, Robert Sempill, and Richard Maitland of Lethington (who also compiled major literary collections contemporary to the Bannatyne MS). “The noble Chaucer, of makaris flour”, is also named ias the author of eight poems in the MS, though seven of these are inaccurately attributed (the other is the ‘Song of Troilus’ from “Troilus and Criseyde”). George Bannatyne seems to have included several poems of his own composition in his MS, although Theo van Heijnsbergen has suggested that two of the poems attributed to a Bannatyne which appear “more competent” than the others, might have been written by one of George’s family members instead. Numerous anonymous poems feature in the MS (and some have been given authors in annotations made by later hands), including some well-known titles such as “The Friars of Berwick, “Christ’s Kirk on the Green”, “Kynd Kittock”, and “Cokelbie’s Sow”. Bannatyne’s collection thus opens a window onto an impressive body of late mediaeval and sixteenth century Scots literature- and his achievement is all the more impressive in that around half of the 400 poems included in the MS are not known from any other source and would otherwise have been lost to us.

Bannatyne also put a good deal of thought into the construction of the MS, beyond simply copying out as many poems as he could find. The main part of the book is divided into five parts: firstly, poems about “Godis gloir and ouir saluation” and other Christian religious subjects; secondly, poems with serious moral or philosophical content; thirdly, ‘mirry’ and comic works (some verging on bawdy), including political and social satire; fourth supposedly poems about love, but also including works criticising love and poems against the evils of both men and women (but mostly women); and lastly tales that have some kind of allegorical significance, from Robert Henryson’s animal fables to dream allegories like “The Golden Targe”. This level of editorial awareness has been said to demonstrate Bannatyne’s care and attention in compiling the MS. But some of his editing choices have been less popular with modern scholars, not least his discreet censorship of some the more obviously Catholic aspects of the pre-Reformation poetry, to suit contemporary political circumstances. His decision to include a hefty number of overtly misogynistic poems at a late stage in the compilation of the MS has also been seen as indicative of both the wider political context and also his own personal views. Most interesting though is the evidence that Bannatyne modernised- or perhaps a more exact term would be ‘anglicised- much of the spelling in the poems he transcribed, giving them a more ‘neutral’ language that might have been meant to render the work more accessible to readers of his own day in both Scotland and England. Despite these (sometimes quite major) alterations to the texts of some of the most famous works of Old Scots literature, Bannatyne’s versions of the poems of Dunbar, Henryson, and others have often been used as the basis of modern scholarly editions even sometimes when better alternatives might have been available. Regardless of accuracy, a lot of energy was clearly spent on the organisation and editing of the MS, and many authors have argued that Bannatyne intended that the book should be printed and published. As Alastair A. MacDonald wrote:

“It nonetheless remains that the only credible explanation for the care lavished on the MS and in particular for the concern with the formal appearance of the collection, is that Bannatyne had indeed entertained the hope of seeing the volume in print. It was doubtless with this purpose in mind that he made all the subtle accommodations to Protestant feelings which have been detected in manuscript.”

There is some debate over this however and others have suggested that the work could instead have been intended for circulation in manuscript form among Bannatyne’s social network. Whatever the case the result of George Bannatyne’s labours is a very impressive collection of great significance for the history of Scottish literature- and certainly worth the three months or more he is supposed to have spent working on it.

On 22nd December 1568- George Bannatyne’s 23rd birthday- the burgh council of Edinburgh noted with some relief that it finally seemed as if “God of his mercye and gudnes hes metigait the raige of the pest within this toun”. So the officers who had been appointed to keep the regulations enacted during the time of the plaque were discharged. Unfortunately, their relief was somewhat premature: the disease would return by late spring 1569 and continued to menace the city for much of the year. We have little further indication of how the Bannatyne family coped during this difficult time, but we do know that our protagonist survived and would live to a good age. Strangely though, other than his memorial book (which he began compiling around 1582), we have no evidence of any further literary activity on George Bannatyne’s part. Instead we must follow the rest of his career in his role as a prominent merchant active in family life.

(The grave of George Foulis of Ravelston and Janet Bannatyne in Greyfriars Kirkyard. Picture from wikimedia commons.)

Until the death of James Bannatyne in 1583, aged 71, George was closely associated with his father’s activities. He was granted his first piece of property- a tenement in Leith- in 1572, and acquired others over the years. He also developed his career as a merchant (though we do not know what he dealt in) and was admitted to the merchants guild of Edinburgh in 1587, being described as a “merchand burgess of Edinburgh” the following year. Some time before this he had married Isobel Mawchan, the widow of an Edinburgh baillie, and the couple would go on to have three children- Janet, who was born on 3rd May 1587 (sharing her birthday with her late grandfather James), James who died aged eight in 1597, and a stillborn daughter. George was also stepfather to two children from his wife’s first marriage, Edward (b.1571) and Isobel Nisbet. George’s only surviving child Janet Bannatyne later married George Foulis, laird of Ravelston near Colinton (both now suburbs of Edinburgh) and later Master of the King’s Mint in Scotland- their gravestone can still be seen in Greyfriars kirkyard. Isobel Mawchan died in 1603, and her husband wrote of her that she “levit ane godly, honorable, and vertewis lyf all hir dayis. Scho wes ane wyis, honest, and trew matrone.” In his twilight years, George Bannatyne appears to have spent some time residing with his daughter and son-in-law at Dreghorn. We do not know the exact date of his death, although it has been determined that he must have died before December 1608. The last entry in his memorial book is for 24th August 1606, when he recorded another visitation of the plague:

“George Foulis, Jonet Bannatyne, his spous, my dochter, and I, George Bannatyne, thair fader, being dwelland in Dreghorne, besyde Colingtoun, the nureise infectit in the pest, being upoun ane Sounday and the secound day of the change of the mone, and Sanct Bartilmo his day; and scho deceissit upoun the Tysday nixt thaireftir, the 26 day of the same moneth. And efter ane clenging na forder truble come to our houshold, blissit be the Almichty God, off his Majesteis miracouluse and mercifull deliuerance.”

[“George Fowlis, Janet Bannatyne, his spouse [and] my daughter, and I, George Bannatyne, their father, being then resident in Dreghorn, beside Colinton, the nurse [was] infected of the plague, being upon a Sunday and the second day of the change of the moon, and St Bartholomew’s Day; and she died upon the Tuesday next thereafter, the 26th day of the same month. And after one cleansing no further trouble came to our household, blessed be the Almighty God, of his Majesty’s miraculous and merciful deliverance.”]

George Bannatyne’s two books survived their author, and both passed into the hands of his Foulis descendants. The Bannatyne MS remained in the hands of that family until 1712 (and several members of the family signed their names on the spare leaves of the book) and was donated to the Advocates Library in 1772. Over the centuries several notable figures have come into contact with the MS, not least Thomas Percy, Bishop of Dromore (author of ‘Reliques of Ancient English Poetry’) and Allan Ramsay (who used some of the contents in his ‘Evergreen’ anthology of 1724). Both men (Ramsay certainly) appear to have left their own marks on the MS, as have several anonymous hands, some of them adding extra poems on spare leaves. By the early nineteenth century, the fame of George Bannatyne’s compilation had secured for its author an eminent place in the eyes of Scotland’s literati, and the Bannatyne Club, which was founded in 1823 by Walter Scott and others to print works of Scottish historical and literary interest, was named for George. Strangely, though, at the time of the Club’s foundation, not much was known about George Bannatyne himself. It wasn’t until a few years later, when his “Memoriall Buik” was rediscovered among the papers of his descendant Sir James Foulis of Woodhall and published under the auspices of the Bannatyne Club in 1829, that historians were able to trace the story of Bannatyne and his manuscripts in any depth. The first printing of the Bannatyne MS in its entirety came quite late, with the Hunterian Club’s edition of 1896, but there have been other printings since, and the MS has lost none of its fascination for historians and literary scholars. For all its idiosyncrasies, the Bannatyne MS remains, along with the contemporary Maitland MSS, one of the most valuable literary compilations in Scotland’s history. Without the efforts of George Bannatyne and his circle of friends and family during those uncertain plague-ridden months in 1568, our knowledge of the state of literature in Britain during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries would be much darker.

“Heir endis this buik, writtin in tyme of pest,

Quhen we fra labor was compeld to rest

Into the thre last monethis of the year,

Frome oure Redimaris birth, to knaw it heir,

Ane thowsand is, fyve hundreth, threscoir awcht;

Off this purpoiss namair it neiddis be tawcht,

Swa till conclude, God grant ws all gude end,

And eftir deth eternall lyfe ws send.”

National Library of Scotland Digitisation

Hunterian Club Edition (x) (x) (x) (x)

Scottish Texts Society Edition

‘Memorials of George Bannatyne’ (includes extracts from the Memorial Book)

Notes and References:

* The actual word used for William Fisher is ‘eme’, in contrast to the word ‘uncle’ which is used for George Taillefeir. I may have to do some more digging to establish the exact relationship, but as ‘eme’ usually (though not always) meant uncle I had to go with that for now.

** Without wanting to bore the reader TOO much (and I am aware of how long the above post is) I also wanted to raise a question of my own about where the MS. might have been written in the hopes that someone might be able to help. This question may be the result of a gap in my reading but try as I might I can find no textual reference to the MS. having been compiled in a ‘country retreat’, as the N.L.S., Evelyn S. Newlyn, and others state. All I can find is William Tod Ritchie’s comment that a ‘local tradition’ in Angus claims that the book was written in the north-eastern turret of Bannatyne House, Newtyle. This property was obtained by George’s father James in 1562, but it’s not clear that the tower in question was actually in existence in 1568. Otherwise I’ve not been able to find a source for the statement that Bannatyne left Edinburgh for the country during the plague of 1568, though certainly this was something which those inhabitants of medieval and early modern towns who had the means did do (as in Boccacio’s ‘Decameron’). This did occur in Edinburgh in 1568/9 as well, as evidenced by a letter which the Bishop of Orkney sent to his brother-in-law Sir Archibald Napier of Merchiston (father of the famous mathematician John Napier) in the same year. In it he recommends that due to Merchiston’s proximity to the Burgh Muir where plague victims were then quarantined, Napier should send his children north or west of the city into the southern Highlands:

“for, be the nummer of seik folk that gais out of the toun, the muir is abill to be ouirspred, and it can not be bot throw the nearness of your place, and the indigence of thame that ar put out, thai sall continewallie repair aboutte your roume, and throu thair conversatioun, infect sum of your servandis, quhairby thai sall precipitat yourself and your children in maist extreme danger; and as I se ye hef foirsene the same for the young folk, quhais bluid is in maist perrell to be infectit first, and therefoir purpois to send thame away to Menteith quhair I wald wiss at God that ye war yourself, without offence of authoritie, or of your band, sua that your housss gat na skaith. Bot yit, Schir, thair is ane midway quhilk ye suld not omit, quhilk is to withdraw you fra that syid of the toun to sum houss upon the north syid of the samin, quairof ye may hef in borrowing quhen ye sall hef to do, to wit, the Gray-cruik, Innerlethis self, Weirdle, or sic uther placis as ye culd chose within ane myle; quhairinto I wald suppois ye wald be in les danger than in Merchanstoun; and close up your houssis, your grangeis, your barnis and all, and suffer na man cum therin, quhll it plesit God to put ane stay to this grete plage, and in the mean tyme, maid you to live upoun your penny, or on sic thing as comis to you out of the Lennos or Menteith; quhilk, gif ye do not, I se ye will ruine yourself”

In the absence of any evidence of the Bannatynes taking such measures, I would argue that it might still be possible that the MS was written in Edinburgh (in which case one has to wonder if Bannatyne ever witnessed a tenement’s inhabitants singing that popular hit ‘Ane Ballat Maid off the Tyme the Chefe put the Sunne schyne on Leith”). In any case, whether it was written in Angus or Edinburgh or somewhere else entirely, Bannatyne himself testifies that they were unable to go about their business as usual and so he may have found himself stuck in the house with parents, servants, and at least seven siblings- it is unclear whether this was conducive to his work on the manuscript!

Selected References:

- Obviously I consulted all three versions of the MS linked to above, as well as “Memorials of George Bannatyne”, printed by the Bannatyne Club (for the Memorial Book) and also linked above.

- “Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 1528-1557″, edited by J.D. Marwick

- “Memoirs of John Napier of Merchistoun”, by Mark Napier

- “An Urban History of the Plague: Socio-Economic, Political and Medical Impacts in a Scottish Community, 1500-1650″, by Karen Jillings

- “The Bannatyne Manuscript: A Sixteenth Century Poetical Miscellany”, J.T.T. Brown, in the Scottish Historical Review (link)

- “The Bannatyne Manuscript: A Marian Anthology”, A.A. MacDonald in the Innes Review

- “The Literary Culture of Early Modern Scotland”, Sebastian Verweij

- “The Interaction Between Literature and History in Queen Mary’s Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Manuscript and its Prosopographical Context”, by Theo van Heijnsbergen in “The Renaissance in Scotland: Studies in Literature, Religion, History, and Culture Offered to John Durkan”, edited by A.A. MacDonald, Michael Lynch, and Ian B. Cowan.

“The Wryttar to the Reidaris: Editing Practices and Politics in the Bannatyne Manuscript”, by Evelyn S. Newlyn

28 notes · View notes

hieromonkcharbel · 5 years ago

Text

OF PHILIP’S SPIRITUAL EXERCISES AT S. GIROLAMO DELLA CARITA.

Philip being now established in Rome, as we have already seen, and the number of his spiritual children always increasing, their former place of meeting was unable to hold them, so much had their numbers augmented by the year 1558. He Obtained, therefore, from the deputies of S. Girolamo della Carità one side of the church above the nave, on the right hand, and there he constructed an Oratory, transferring to it the spiritual exercises which used to take place in his room, and meeting likewise for an hour of prayer before daybreak on all great feasts. This Oratory still exists, although it is better furnished and more diligently kept than it was; and those fathers at S. Girolamo meet there every day for prayer, with much fruit, besides the discourses which they make on feast days.

Here, then, every day after dinner Philip and some others came together to discourse on spiritual matters, in the fashion of a conference, and sometimes, out of a charitable desire to instruct others, they had conferences on theological studies. When the exercises were finished they used to go to some open place for recreation; or if it was a feast day he led them, now to one church and now to another, to hear vespers, or compline, or a sermon, and in particular to hear Friar Vincenzo Erculano, afterwards Bishop of Perugia, a most learned man, who was expounding the Miserere in the church of the Minerva to a great multitude of people. Very often, indeed on almost all feast days, he went to the cloister of the Minerva, to hold spiritual conferences, at which there were sometimes more than three hundred people present. In the Oratory, after a little time, Philip began those familiar or conversational discourses, which are still given every day in our church, at night prayers; and indeed he was the first who introduced into Rome the daily Word of God.

But that men may know more particularly in what manner and order they used to discourse, I will insert here what Baronius writes in the first volume of his Annals, when he is speaking of the re-unions of the primitive Christians, according to the form given by the apostle in his Epistles to the Corinthians. He says as follows: “Certainly it is by the Divine disposition that there has been renewed in our age, in a great part of the city of Rome, the ancient and profitable custom of the Church in the method of discoursing of the things of God to the edification of the hearers. This has been the work of the Reverend Father Philip Neri, a Florentine, who, like a skilful architect, laid the foundation of it, and of the Reverend Father Francesco Maria Tarugi, of Montepulciano, his scholar, who, for his power in preaching, may be called the captain of the Word of God. By the pains and industry of these two it was first arranged, that every day those who were most desirous of Christian perfection should come to the Oratory of S. Girolamo (hence the name of the Congregation of the Oratory), where they should make a pious and devout union after the following manner: First, there was some length of time spent in mental prayer; then one of the brothers read a spiritual book, and during the reading the Father, who superintended the whole, discoursed upon what was read, explaining it with greater accuracy, enlarging upon it, and insinuating it into the hearts of the hearers. Some times he desired one of the brothers to give his opinion on some subject, and then the discourse proceeded in the form of a dialogue; and this exercise lasted an hour, to the great consolation of the audience. After this he used to command one of his own people to mount to a seat raised some few steps above the rest, and there, in a familiar and unornamented style, to discourse upon the lives of such saints as are approved and received by the Church, adorning what he said with some passages of Scripture, or sentences of the Fathers. To him another succeeded, in the same style, but on a different theme; and lastly, came a third, who discoursed upon ecclesiastical history. Each of them was allowed only half an hour. When all this was finished, to the wonderful contentment, and no less profit, of the hearers, they sang some spiritual praises, prayed again for a short time, and so the exercise finished. Things being disposed in this manner, and approved by the Pope’s authority, it seemed as if the old and beautiful apostolical method of Christian congregations was renewed. Good people applauded the practice, and did their best to propagate these pious exercises in different places.” So far Baronius, who gives this account of the origin of the Oratory.

Besides these exercises which the Saint introduced for working days, he originated others for the feast days. In the morning, after confession, they made their prayer till the time for mass. After mass they communicated, and he then sent them to different hospitals, whither they went in marvellous silence. He generally divided them into three companies, one of which he sent to St. John Lateran, the other to the Madonna della Consolazione, and the third to Santo Spirito. Here they assisted the poor patients with deeds as well as words, both spiritually and bodily, taking them different things to refresh themselves with. He sent there from thirty to forty of the most fervent every day, to the great edification of the spectators. He used to say to those who went to serve the sick in the hospitals, or to do any other similar work of mercy, that it was not enough simply to do the service to the suffering person, but that to do it with greater charity they ought to imagine that that person was Christ, and to hold it for certain, that what they did to the sufferer they did to Christ himself; and thus they would do it with love, and with greater profit to their souls.

Besides this some of them, on Saturday nights and the vigils of the principal feasts, used to return to the holy father at San Girolamo, and then go with him either to the church of the Minerva, belonging to the Dominican friars, or to St. Bonaventura of the Capechins, where they assisted at matins in choir with the friars, spending those nights in preparation for the holy communion of the morning, so that the choir of the friars was often full of seculars, his spiritual children. He often took there Animuccia, master of the chapel at St. Peters, with other singers, and when they came to lauds, they began singing. Philip for a long time went there every night, so that the sacristan of the Minerva knew Philip’s knock at the Church door, and used to go immediately to let him in. So great was the love which those servants of God bore to the Saint, that they gave him keys of the convent, so that he could enter when he pleased; and besides this confidence and familiarity, both the Dominicans and Capuchins affiliated him to their orders.

Philip was not, however, contented with all this; but the more effectually to keep his penitents far from those dangers into which the greater part of men, and especially young men, are wont to fall, he was wont several times in the year, and especially at certain more dangerous seasons, to go with them to the Seven Churches. This he did particularly during the Carnival, and the days after Easter; but in the Saint’s latter years he only went during the Carnival. At first he had but few companions, five-and-twenty, or thirty at most; but very soon the number increased so much that even during his lifetime there were upwards of two thousand persons. All sorts of people were admitted except women; a great number of religious joined, and very often twenty or five-and-twenty Capuchins at a time; particularly Dominicans, who sent all their novices.

The order they observed in going, and which with some trifling variations is still in force, was this: the day being fixed, they went early in the morning to S. Peter’s, and then to S. Paul’s, in which latter place they united themselves all together, and went in orderly ranks to the other churches. Along the road one part of the time was spent in meditating upon some spiritual consideration assigned them by the father who led them; for they were divided into many classes, and to each class was assigned a leader to guide and instruct them; another part of the time was occupied in singing some psalm, or hymn, or spiritual praise, and sometimes the litanies, and they had music with them throughout the journey. If any time was left after this, they conversed one with another upon the things of God, doing their best to avoid all vain and useless talking.

In each church, except S. Peter’s and S. Paul’s, there was a short sermon either by Philip, or some religious. When they came to S. Sebastian’s, or S. Stefano Rotondo, mass was sung, after which the greater part of them communicated, which is at present done in the church of Saints Nereus and Achilleus. They next went to the vineyard of the Massimi or the Crescenzi, or to the garden of the Mattei on the Celian, to which last place they have always gone from the death of the Saint to this day, the proprietors of it having with exceeding courtesy permitted them to do so. Here then they sat down in order, and to each was given bread, and wine and water, in abundance, with an egg, some cheese, and some fruit. While they were eating, there was either singing or instrumental music, partly for recreation, and partly to keep the mind occupied in the divine praises. When dinner was finished, they pursued their journey to the other churches, and then returned home with great joy, and spiritual fruit to their souls. Many, who came at first out of curiosity, afterwards pursued the exercises in good earnest; and experienced such compunction in them that they gave themselves up to the frequentation of the Sacraments, and to lead spiritual lives, taking for their guide the holy father, whom they obeyed in everything.

At first the Saint always joined in this devotion, and with such an anxious desire that all should turn out well and edifying, that the excessive fatigue he went through to gain that end sometimes brought on a fever. In the latter years of his life, as well because of his age as because the exercise was well understood and established, he remained at home, leaving the conduct of it to others. God was pleased to show, if not by miracles, at least by graces and particular favours, how acceptable this devotion was to him. One year Philip went with the usual crowd to this exercise; while they were between St. Paul’s and St. Sebastian’s there arose a tremendous storm, and those who were in the Saint’s company, fearing lest they should get wet, wished to fly; but he told them not to fear, for that they would not get wet. Some believed the Saint’s words, and those who did not took to flight; and so it was, that they who followed him, although they were not very far from the others, did not catch one drop of rain, while they who fled were wet through.

Philip instituted these holy and pious exercises both to maintain the fervour of his spiritual children, and also to excite devotion in those who saw the frequentation of the Sacraments, the visits of the hospitals, the abundance of the word of God, the concourse of the Seven Churches, and other edifying things, which these exercises caused. This sort of institute now began to give such pleasure, that many persons, both of learning and influence, as well by word of mouth as by writing, greatly applauded it; so that Giovanni Derossi, in a book which he wrote at that time, and dedicated to the Saint, addressed him in the following words: “Among all the wonderful things which I saw in Rome during the past year (1568), I took the chief pleasure in beholding such a great multitude of devout and spiritual persons frequenting the church and oratory of S. Girolamo della Carità. Amidst the monuments of antiquity, the superb palaces and courts of so many illustrious lords, it appeared to me that the glory of this exemplary exercise shone forth with superior light, far surpassing the honour and the fame of all the remarkable things which were presented to my view. And I was the more astonished,- and at the same time how much consoled! to see continually the great concourse of nobles and of foreigners, who came with such relish to hear sermons, and the word of the Lord God, expounded to them there with a pure zeal for the Christian faith by you, for the salvation of their souls. Hence arises so often the desire of many of your spiritual children to abandon the world, and to serve our Lord Jesus Christ, as we have seen in the conversion of numbers who are at this very time in cloistered monasteries, or in other religious congregations.”

3 notes · View notes

autodidact-adventures · 5 years ago

Text

Siberian History (Part 5): Khanate of Sibir

By the end of the 1500s, a large part of the world had been mapped well, but not Siberia – its ice-laden seas along the northern coast had hindered mariners who were searching for China or “Cathay”. Map-makers labelled Northern Asia as Tartary or Great Tartary, but gave it no geographic detail. The Ob River (thought to have its source in the Aral Sea) was as far east as people had got from the west.

When shown on maps, Tartary was filled in according to the stories and legends the mapmakers had heard – Asiatic nomads among camels and tents, or worshipping idols and pillars of stone. Sometimes there were accompanying inscriptions identifying them as cannimals, or claiming that they “doe eate serpentes, wormes and other filth”. Other customs ascribed to them were copied from Central Asian tribes that the mapmakers knew about.

Siberia was also seen as an other-worldly, mythological land that extended even as far as the sunrise. From one contemporary source, “to the east of the sun, to the most-high mountain Karkaraur, where dwell the one-armed, one-footed folk.”

However, a little was known about Siberia. The Russian Chronicles (chronological records kept by monasteries since the beginning of Russian history) mentioned the territory. Russian merchants who traded in furs with tribes along the Ob River had long been familiar withYugra (meaning “the land of the Ostyaks”, a local tribe now known as the Khanty). This was a collective name for the lands & peoples between the Pechora River (west) and the Ural Mountains (east).

In 1236, an itinerant Brother Julian mentioned a “land of Sibur, surrounded by the Northern Sea”. In 1376, St. Stephen of Perm established a church in the Kama River Valley (west of the Urals), where a former missionary had earlier been skinned alive.

Russia began to give the missionaries military backing in 1455, and soldiers swept along the frontier in 1484. They captured some tribal chieftains, who were then forced into a treaty that acknowledged Moscow's suzerainty and made them pay tribute.

Khanate of Sibir

The Khanate of Sibir had been established in 1420 when the Mongol Empire was breakking up. It was a semi-feudal state just east of the Ural Mountains. It was dominated by the Siberian Tatars, who descended from one of the Mongol fighting groups, or “hordes”. The khanate included Siberian Tatars (Turkic & Muslim), Bashkirs, and various Uralic peoples (including the Khanty, Mansi and Selkup peoples). Its ruling class was Turco-Mongol. The khanate's territory stretched east of the Urals to the Irtysh River, and south to the Ishim steppes.

Approximate extent of the Khanate of Sibir in the 1400s - 1500s.

Now it came within the orbit of Muscovite political & military relations. Moscow had become familiar with the northern sea route from Archangel, although only as far as the northern end of the Ural Mountains. But there wasn't a southern route into Sibir until Kazan (another Mongol succession state on the Volga River) was captured in 1552. In 1555, the Taibugid Khan Yadigar acknowledged Ivan the Terrible's suzerainty; Ivan immediately began calling himself the “Tsar of Sibir”.

But Russia still didn't known that beyond the Ob River, Siberia stretched as far as Northern Asia, from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

Sibir was a coherent, loosely-confederated state, with trade along ancient caravan routes to western China. However, it was beset by internal problems as was basically living on borrowed time. The Siberian Tatars (who had converted to Islam in 1272) clashed with other ethnic groups. There were inter-tribal hostilities, particularly between the Khanty and Mansi (or Ostyaks and Voguls, as they were called at the time). From the founding of Sibir, there had been a dynastic struggle between the Shaybanids (descendants of Genghis Khan) and the Taibugids (heirs of a local prince). Until 1552, the Kazakh Khanate (also Tatar) stood between Sibir and Russia, but now that was not the case anymore.

Along with acknowledging Russia's suzerainty, Yadigar also agreed to pay annual tribute (in the form of furs) to Ivan. This was an unpopular decision. It may well have been the reason that in 1563, he was desposed and killed in on the banks of the Irtysh River, in his capital of Qashliq (also called Isker), by Khan Kuchum, who claimed descent from Genghis Khan.

Kuchum then surrounded himself with a palace guard composed of Uzbeks, purged the local leadership of opponents, and tried to impose Islam on the pagan tribes (with the help of mullahs from Bukhara, now in Uzbekistans.

By 1571, Russia was struggling and appeared to be in the process of falling apart. Kuchum took the opportunity to renounce the tribute to Moscow. In 1573, he sent a punitive expedition against the Khanty people in Perm (west of the Urals), who had recognized Russian suzerainty. Moscow gave no response, so in 1579 he also intercepted and killed a Muscovite envoy that was en route to Central Asia.

The Stroganovs

During the Livonian War (1557 – 1581), in which Ivan the Terrible tried to force his way to the Baltic, Moscow's government had handed the defence of their eastern frontier and Urals dominions to the Stroganov family. They were a powerful family of industrial magnates and financiers. According to legend, they were descended from a Christianized Tartar called Spiridon, who had introduced the abacus to Russia. Their wealth was founded on furs, ore, salt and grain (the mainstays of the economy). They had accumulated a great deal of assets & properties over the past 200yrs, extending from Kaluga and Ryazan eastwards to the current Vologda Oblast. They traded with the English & Dutch on the Kola Peninsula, established commercial links with Central Asia, and had foreign agents who travelled as far abroad as Antwerp and Paris for them.

They were originally centered on their saltworks at Solvyechegodsk (Russia's “Salt Lake City”), but a rapid series of land grants secured their absolute commercial domination of the Russian north-east. In 1558, Ivan the Terrible authorized a charter giving Anikey Stroganov and his successors large estates along the eastern edge of Russian settlement, along the Kama and Chusovaya Rivers – this gave them access to much of Perm, on the Upper Kama River almost to the Urals.

Map of the Kama River Basin. A black diamond shows the location of Perm; grey rectangles show the Kama and Chusovaya Rivers.

The 1558 charter served as a model for future dealings with the Stroganovs. In each case, the Stroganovs pledged to fund and develop industres; break the soil for agriculture; train and equip a frontier guard; prospect for ore and mineral deposits, and mine whatever was found. In return, they were given long-term tax-exempt status for themselves and their colonists.

The Stroganovs had jurisdiction over the local population, and had the right to protect their holdings with garrisoned stockades and forts equipped with artillery. A chain of military outposts and watchtowers was soon growing along the river route to the east.

Colonization was advancing to the foot of the Ural Mountains, and the Stroganovs tried to subject a number of native tribes to their authority, including the Khanty and Mansi peoples, who lived on both sides of the Urals. The native peoples fought back – they destroyed crops; attacked villages, saltworks and flour mills; and massacred settlers on the western slopes of the Urals. Soldiers were sent to deal with uprisings, but they couldn't be spared for very long from the tsar's western fronts.

Meanwhile, prospectors had found silver and iron ore deposits on the Tura River, east of the Urals. It was assumed (correctly) that the districts it was found in also had sulphur, lead and tin. Also, scouts had seen the rich pastures by the Tobol River where the Tatars' cattle grazed.

In 1574, the Stroganovs petitioned for a new charter “to drive a wedge between the Siberian Tartars and the Nogays” (a tribe to the south), by means of fortified settlements. In return, they would be given a licence to exploit the region's resources. Moscow (in response to Kuchum's aggression) agred.

Because the Livonian War meant that soldiers couldn't be spared for long, the Stroganovs were also given permission to enlist runaways or outlaws in their militia; and to finance a campaign against Kuchum “to make him pay the tribute”. The campaign would be spearheaded by “hired Cossacks and artillery”. The government promised that those who volunteered would be rewarded with the wives & children of natives as their concubines & slaves.

Cossacks

“Cossacks” were independent frontiermen who lived along the empire's fringes. Some were solitary wanderers, or mixed-race peoples. There was also a turbulent border population of itinerant workers, tramps, runaways, bandits, adventurers and religious dissenters, who had been forced to move to this no-man's-land of forest & steppe by taxation, debt, repression, famine, or refuge from Muscovite law. Here they mingled and clashed with the Tatars, adopted Tatar terminology, and created a new independent life for themselves. The term “Cossack” comes from the Turkish kazak, meaning “rebel/freeman”.

Some Cossacks had banded together under elected atamans (chieftains) into semi-military groups along the Volga, Dnieper and Don Rivers, in order to protect their homesteading communities. They raided Tatar settlements, poached on Tatar land, preyed on Moscow river convoys, and ambushed government army patrols who had been sent to catch and hang them.

Vasily “Yermak” Timofeyevich was the leader of a Cossack band. He was a third-generation bandit, and the most notorious pirate on the Volga River of the time. He was powerfully-built, medium height, and had a flat face, black beard and curly hair. According to the Siberian Chronicles, “his associates called him 'Yermak,' after a millstone. And in his military achievements he was great.”

Regular army patrols (with gallows built on rafts) attempted to enforce the tsar's authority along the Volga trade route. There was a series of expeditions intended to crush or subdue outlaw bands, culminating in 1577 in a great sweep along both sides of the Volga. Many Cossacks were forced to flee, with the tsar's cavalry after them – some fled downstream to the Caspian Sea; some scattered across the steppes. According to legend, a third group under Yermak raced up the Kama River into the wilds of Perm, where they joined the Stroganovs' frontier guard and were enthusiastically welcomed into it.

The Expedition

A few years later, the Stroganovs organized an expedition to secure the Kama frontier, bring part of the Siberia within their mining monopoly, and gain access to Siberian furs. This did not fall under the tsar's commission.

The expedition began on September 1st, 1581. A Cossack army of 840 men (including 300 Livonian POWs, two priests, and a runaway monk impressed into service as a cook) assembled under Yermak's leadership on the banks of the Kama River near Orel-Gorodok, south of Solikamsk. According to the Chronicles, they set off “singing hymns to the Trinity, to God in his Glory, and to the most immaculate Mother of God,” but this probably didn't happen.

The military force had a rough code of martial law. Insubordination was punished by being bundled head-first into a sack, with a bag of sand tied to your chest, and being tipped into the river. About twenty people were tipped in at the start.

It is not certain whether the Stroganovs voluntarily provided full assistance to this expedition, or were coerced into it. However, they always drove a hard bargain, and intended their aid to be a loan “secured by indentures”. The Cossacks rejected this, and agreed to compensate them from their plunder; or if they failed to return, to redeem their obligations “by prayer in the next world”. The Siberian Chronicles portrayed this military expedition as a holy crusade against the infidel, so this sarcastic promise was reinterpreted as genuine and as religious fervour. One passage in the Siberian Chronicles states, “Kuchum led a sinful life. He had 100 wives, and youths as well as maidens, worshipped idols, and ate unclean foods.”

The army was organized into disciplined companies, each with its own leader and flag. Although they were vastly outnumbered by the khanate's troops, it wasn't as bad as it seemed. They were well-led, well-armed, and well-provisioned (with rye flour, buckwheat, roasted oats, butter, biscuit and salt pig). It was their military superiority through firearms that would prove decisive.

They moved along a network of rivers in doshchaniks (flat-bottomed boats that could be rowed with oars, mounted with a sail, or towed from the shore) to the foothills of the Urals (from the headwaters of the Serebryanka River to the banks of the Tagil River, at a site known today as Bear Rock). This was a distance of about 29km. Yermak then stopped and pitched his winter camp.

In spring, Yermak dammed the water with sails so that he could float the boats over the river's shallows. He boarded his boat downstream, swung into the Tura River, and for a some distance advanced without resistance into the heart of Kuchum's domain.

There was a costly skirmish at the mouth of the Tobol River. Then downstream, where the river surged through a ravine, the Tatars had laid a trap. There was a barrier made of logs and ropes, and hundreds of warriors hiding in the trees on either side of it. The first of Yermak's boats hit the barrier at night. The Tatars attacked, but in the darkness most of the boats managed to escape upstream. The Cossacks disembarked at a bend in the river, made mannequins out of twigs and fallen branches, and propped them up in the boats, with only skeleton crews at the oars. The others (half-naked) crept around to surprise the Tatars from behind. At dawn, they opened fire just as the flotilla floated into view. It was a complete rout, a great success for Yermak's men.

Kuchum resolved to destroy the Cossacks before they could even reach the capital of Qashliq. Yermak knew that he had to capture the town before winter, or his men would die from the cold. Their provisions were low, and ambush & disease had reduced their force by half. But they kept going towards Qashliq.

The decisive confrontation was in late October, at the confluence of the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers. Here, the Tatars had erected a palisade at the base of a hill. The Cossacks charged, firing their muskets into the densely-massed defenders, killing many. Many of the Tatars, conscripted by force, immediately deserted. More fled as the palisade was stormed. The battle continued until evening with hand-to-hand fighting. 107 Cossacks died, but they won the battle.

Kuchum is said to have had a vision on that day: “The skies burst open and terrifying warriors with shining wings appeared from the four cardinal points. Descending to the earth they encircled Kuchum's army and cried to him: 'Depart from this land, you infidel son of the dark demon, Mahomet, because now it belongs to the Almighty.'”

The Cossacks arrived at Qashliq a few days later. It was deserted, with few of its fabled riches left behind. However, they found stocks of flour, barley and dried fish.

Soon afterwards, Yermak began accepting tribute from former subjects of the khan, and there were scattered defections to the Cossacks' side. Yermak needed reinforcements & artillery to consolidate his position, so he sent his second-in-command Ivan Koltso (also a renowned bandit) to Moscow with 50 others. They took the fabled “wolf-path” shortcut over the Urals (up the Tavda River to Cherdyn), travelling on skis and reindeer-drawn sleds. This path was shown to them by a Tatar chieftain who acted as their guide.

But the tsar was not pleased with the expedition (he didn't yet know of Yermak's success). In response to the invasion, the Mansi had been burning Russian settlements to the ground in the Upper Kama Valley. Apparently on the day Yermak set out, they'd attacked Cherdyn and burned neighbouring villages. The military governor of Perm then accused the Stroganovs of leaving the frontier undefended, as they'd stripped the frontier guard for their expedition.

In a letter from November 16th, 1582, the tsar reproved the Stroganovs for “disobedience amounting to treason”. And the Livonian War, as it drew to a close, was being lost by the Russians. Narva had fallen to the Swedes, and the Poles were tightening their blockade on Pskov.

Koltso arrived in the capital, where the tsar was planning to hang him. He prostrated himself before Ivan, announced Yermak's capture of Qashliq, and proclaimed Ivan lord of the khanate. Then he displayed his spoils before the stunned court – these included three captured Tatar nobles and a sledload of pelts (2,400 sables, 2,000 beaver and 800 black foxes). This was equal to five times the annual tribue the khan had paid.

Ivan immediately pardoned Koltso, and Yermak in absentia. He promised reinforcements, and sent a suit of armour embossed with the imperial coat of arms to Yermak. Koltso kissed the cross in obedience to the tsar.

Failure

Back in Siberia, Yermak was struggling to extend his authority up the Irtysh River. He forced the native peoples to swear allegiance by kissing a bloody sword. The penalty for resisting was to be hanged upside-down by one foot, an agonizing death.

Yermak also tried to Christianize the tribes. In one contest of power, the local wizard ripped open his stomach with a knife, then miraculously healed the wound by smearing it with grass. In response, Yermak simply tossed the local wooden totems onto the fire.

By the end of summer 1584, Yermak had managed to extend his jurisdiction almost as far east as the Ob River. One sortie had surprised and captured Mametkul (Kuchum's nephew and minister of war). Things appeared to be going well.

Meanwhile, however, the Tatar raiders who had been attacking the Russian settlements returned. Yermak's strength declined by attrition. 500 Russian reinforcements tramped into Qashliq on snowshoes in November, but they'd brought no provisions of their own, and rapidly used up Yermak's resources. During the long winter, part of the garrison starved; some were forced to resort to cannibalizing their dead companions.

Kuchum's followers were aware of all this, and in the spring they increased their attacks on foraging parties. There were two major blows to the Russians: 1) 20 Cossacks were killed as they dozed by a lake, and 2) Koltso and 40 others were lured to a friendship banquet and killed.

Then in early August 1585, the Tatars laid a trap for Yermak himself. Yermak was told that an unescorted caravan from Bukhara was nearing the Irtysh River, so he hurried to meet it with a company of Cossacks. He found that the report was false, and the men had to bivouac on an island in midstream for the night. There was a wild storm during the night, which drove the watchmen back into their tents.

A party of Tatars disembarked without being seen, and managed to kill nearly all of the Cossacks. Yermak struggled into his armour and fought his way to the embankment, but the boat floated out of his reach. He plunged into the water after it, but sunk beneath the waves due to the weight of his armour.

1,340 Cossacks had started out on the expedition to Siberia, and now only 90 remained. They retreated to the Urals, and as they made their way through a mountain pass, they met 100 Russian streltsy (musketeers) with cannon moving east.

Reconquest

Whatever the Stroganovs intended, Yermak hadn't intended to conquer Siberia, merely to carry out a typical Cossack raid for spoils. He'd probably not intended to hold Isker, just to sack it and withdraw before deep snow & ice prevented him from escaping upstream. But despite this, the way had been shown. The Khanate of Sibir had been dealt an irreversible blow, and it would never be able to pull itself back together. Within two decades of Yermak's death, the “colourless hordes” of Russia (as the natives called them) would have taken much of Western Siberia.

The Livonian War ended with an armistice with Poland and Sweden, which allowed Russia to plan an organized reconquest of the territory Yermak had taken. They used river highways to make their advance easier, and immediately retook Isker and destroyed it.

In 1586, they founded Tyumen to consolidate Russia's position on the Tura River. In 1587, Tobolsk was established where the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers met, about 19km from where Isker had been. Now no tribe could doubt that the Russians were there to stay.

By 1591, they'd extended southwards down to the Barabinsk Steppes. There, they founded Ufa (between Tobolsk and Kazan), to secure a new trans-Urals route for the movement of troops and supplies. For the next decade, Russian outposts continued to be built further and further eastwards.

In 1593, Pelym and Beryozov were founded, in order to control and Khanty and Samoyed population in the north.

The historical town of Pelym is in the modern-day Garinsky District. Beryozov is now Beryozovo.

In 1594, the fort of Tara was founded between the Ishim and Barabinsk steppes. The largest expedition ever sent to found a new Siberian fort was sent – 1,200 cavalry soldiers and 350 foot soldiers, including Tatar auxiliaries, and Polish & Lithuanian POWs.

In 1596, Surgut, Obdorsk and Narym were founded, in order to strengthen Russia's hold.

Obdorsk is now called Salekhard.

Verkhoturye was established in 1598 on the Tura River as a gateway to Siberia.

Verkhoturye is in the middle Ural Mountains.

In 1600, Turinsk was established as an ostrog (a small fort usually made of wood), in place of Yepanchin, which Yermak had razed to the ground.

Verkhoturye, Turinsk and Tyumen are marked with grey rectangles.

Also in 1600, 100 Cossacks sailed down the Ob River in four ships, from Tobolsk to the Arctic Coast. From there, they went north-east towards Taz Bay. They had a shipwreck, and then an ambush by Samoyeds, reducing their party by half. However, they still found a spot near the Taz estuary that was suitable for building the fort of Mangazeya.

By 1600, Russia had a fortified route into Siberia, with Verkhoturye, Turinsk and Tyumen standing guard over it. They had secured the Lower Ob basin (in the north) with Berezov, Obdorsk and Mangazeya. Its middle and upper courses were secured with Surgut, Narym and Ketsk (a fort built a few miles above the Ob in 1602).

The forts were headquarters for the army of occupation, and bases for further expansion. Giles Fletcher, the English ambassador to Russia at the time, wrote: “In Siberia, [the tsar] hath divers castles and garisons...and sendeth many new supplies thither, to plant and to inhabite as he winneth ground.”

In 1604, the major outpost of Tomsk was established, in order to guard the Ob River basin from Central Asian nomads raiding across the borders from the south. Now “the cornerstone of the Russian Asiatic empire had been laid.”

Results of the Conquest

The Stroganovs received more trading privileges, and new grants of land west of the Urals, where their empire of trading posts, mines and mills could grow. But they weren't given any of the lands Yermak had advanced into, and got less out of his conquest than they'd hoped. The government realized what a great opportunity Sibir was, and its reoccupation became a state venture. Blockhouses and forts were built to dominate the rivers and portages (paths where craft or cargo are regularly carried between bodies of water).

Russia chose sites for their outposts that had previously been used by Tatar princelings to wield their own authority, thus helping them with native recognition of their legitimacy. They also exploited local enmities – for example, the local Khanty helped the Russians to subdue the Mansi in the neighbourhood of Pelym. For the most part, the Khanty were consistent allies of the Russians (apart from a considerable uprising of their own in 1595).

However, for the most part the natives were not happy with Russian rule, and the Tatars least of all. Khan Kuchum had escaped south to the steppes before the capture of Qashliq, and continued to harass them for the next 14yrs. The Russians undertook campaigns against him in 1591, 1595 and 1598. Most of Kuchum's followers and family were eventually captured or killed, but he refused to be defeated. He continued to fight a futile rear-guard action, attacking isolated Russian companies and posts.

Kuchum offered to negotiate a just peace at one point, one that would allow his followers to live according to their ancient ways in the Irtysh Valley. Instead, Russia tried to tempt him with money, property, and recognition of his royal rank. In response, Kuchum burned a Russian settlement.

Kuchum died in 1598. He was almost blind by then, and he was kiled by the Nogai assassins whom he had turned to for help.

After Kuchum had died, Moscow took steps to prevent his heirs from trying to take the khanate's throne. His heirs had settled in Russia, where they were indulged as royal exiles, and adopted by the Muscovite elite as their own. Kuchum's daughters were married to young nobles, and the sons were given noble rank. One grandson was given the town of Kasimov on the Oka River (this had long been a showcase for puppet Tatars). Kuchum's nephew Mametkul was recognized as a prince, and became a general in the Russian Army.

Yermak became an important figure in both Russian and Tatar folklore. The Cossacks who fell in the battle for Sibir had their names engraved on a memorial tablet in the cathedral of Tobolsk.

There is a legend that sometime after Yermak's death, a Tatar fisherman dredged his body up from the Irtysh, recognizing him by the double-headed eagle emblazoned on the chainmail hauberk. Upon removing the armour, it was found that Yermak's flesh was uncorrupted, and that blood gushed from his mouth and nose. His body and clothing could work miracles, and mothers & babies were preserved from disease. The natives buried him at the foot of a pine tree by the river, and for many years afterwards the spot was marked by a column of fire.

6 notes · View notes

italianartsociety · 6 years ago

Text

Livio Agresti and Forlivese Mannerism

Livio Agresti (1508 - 1580) of Forli was a painter and draughtsman, active during the Italian High Renaissance. Livio’s earliest works can be found at the Pinacoteca Civica di Forli, including a rendering of King David (above) that was originally part of a larger commission for the decoration of the Chapel of the Sacrament in Forli Cathedral.

By the 1545, Livio had re-located to Rome and was described as a member of Pierino del Vaga’s workshop. Consequently, Livio assisted his new master with the decoration of the Sala Paolina, Castel Sant’ Angelo, Rome between 1545 and 1547, although there is no reference to him in the published documents dealing with Perino's activity in the castle between these two dates.

According to the biographer and polymath, Giorgio Vasari, Livio’s move to Rome was motivated by a need to perfect himself in design and if Vasari is to be believed, the opportunities afforded in the Eternal City must not have disappointed Livio. Following on from his work at Santo Spirito in Sassia, Livio was required to carry out a rendering of Pedro of Aragon in the Sala Regia of the Vatican (below). The artist was also patronised by the Cardinal of Augsburg, for whom he painted seven stories in silver sheets, using a method which he is said (by Baglione) to have invented. After presenting these unique renderings to the King of Spain, the cardinal retained Livio, travelled with him to Augsburg and had him execute several paintings. Livio also benefitted from the patronage of Pope Gregory XIII, for whom he completed a number of altarpieces.

Despite generous artistic sponsorships from two popes and a prince of the church, Livio appeared to continue fulfilling projects destined for his native Forli. For example, sometime between 1550 and 1560, he completed a painting of the crucified Christ, flanked by two angels, for the church of San Francesco Grande (below).

As Livio’s life drew to a close, he apparently retired to the Hospital of Santo Spirito and died there in around 1580. His drawings, like his painted works became dispersed across the globe, and can be found in print and drawing collections in Florence, Rome, Windsor, Vienna and Forli.

Images: Livio Agresti, detail of King David from Stories of the Eucharist and Persons of the Old Testament, 1535, fresco, Pinacoteca Civica di Forli. Wikimedia Commons.

Communion of the Apostles, c.1540, fresco, Pinacoteca Civica di Forli. Wikimedia Commons.

Photograph of the Sala Paolina, Castel Sant’ Angelo, Rome. Wikimedia Commons.

Detail from Pedro of Aragon Offers his Kingdom to Pope Innocent III, 1461-1563, fresco, Sala Regia, Vatican Palace, Rome. Wikimedia Commons.

Circumcision of the Baby Jesus, 1558, oil on canvas, Museo Diocesano e Capitolare di Terni. Wikimedia Commons.

Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist and a Musician Angel, 16th century, oil on walnut panel, private collection. Web Gallery of Art.

Detail of Christ from Crucifixion with Two Angels, 1550-1560, oil on panel, Pinacoteca Civica di Forli. Wikimedia Commons.

Detail of an angel from Crucifixion with Two Angels, 1550-1560, oil on panel, Pinacoteca Civica di Forli. Wikimedia Commons.

References: G. Baglione., Le vite de' pittori scultori et architetti. Dal pontificato di Gregorio 13. del 1572. In fino a' tempi di Papa Urbano Ottavo nel 1642. Scritte da Gio. Baglione Romano e dedicate all'Eminentissimo, e Reverendissimo principe Girolamo Card. Colonna, 1642.

D. E. Colnaghi, A Dictionary of Florentine Painters from the 13th o the 17th Centuries by Sir Dominic Ellis Colnaghi, k. B., Late H. M. Consul-General at Florence, eds. P. G. Monody and Selwyn Brinton, London, John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd., 1928.

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/agresti-livio-detto-il-ricciutello_(Dizionario-Biografico)/

Posted by Samantha Hughes-Johnson.

#high renaissance #mannerism #forli #renaissance painting

13 notes · View notes

steellegacy · 6 years ago

Photo

⚜️ Armour of sir Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst, c. 1587 - 1589

Creator: Jacob Halder, Royal Workshop, Greenwich Medium: Steel, leather, gold and copper alloy Weight: 32.03 kg - In 1514 King Henry VIII (r. 1509- 47) founded a royal armourers’ workshop at his palace at Greenwich, across the River Thames and just downstream of the City of London. Some of the best armourers in Europe were brought there to make armour for the King’s own use. They made a number of great armours for him, but after Henry’s death in 1547, the short reign of his son, the boy King Edward VI (r. 1547-53) was followed by those of two Queens, Mary I (r.1553-8) and Elizabeth I (r.1558- 1603), neither of whom as women had any need for personal armour. The Greenwich workshop therefore began instead to produce armours for the Queens’ close friends and supporters, who bought special licences from the Crown granting them this special privilege. One such licensee was the diplomat and writer Sir Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, later Earl of Dorset (1536-1608), who is named as the person who commissioned this armour in the ‘Almain Album’, a series of watercolour illustrations which record many of the finest creations of the Greenwich workshop under the Elizabethan master Jacob Halder (Victoria and Albert Museum, Inv. D.586-614-1894). Sir Thomas served as a cavalry commander during the defence against invasion by the Spanish Armada in 1588, and it is possible that this armour was made for him to wear in this role. However the fact that the Greenwich licence was granted to Sir Thomas does not necessarily mean that the armour was intended for his personal use. It is possible that he instead commissioned it as a gift for his son Sir William, who went to fight (and was killed) on the Continent in the 1590s.

The garniture ‘for the field’ includes interchangeable parts which were used to configure the armour for several different forms of ‘field’ combat; armour for war, rather than for jousts or tournaments. For infantry use, only the helmet (without the face-guard), cuirass (breast- and backplates) and gauntlets were worn. For light or medium cavalry combat, when the wearer fought on horseback with his firearms, sword, and light spear, the pauldrons (shoulder defences) and tassets (hip plates) might be added, along with in some cases the vambraces (arm defences) and cuisses (thigh guards). For heavy cavalry charges with the lance, the armour would be worn in its most complete form, with the addition of the plackart (bullet-proof reinforcing breastplate), lance-rest (the bracket on the right side of the breast which supported the lance and braced it against the shock of impact), buffe (face-guard) and greaves and sabatons (lower leg and foot armour). The Buckhurst armour is also the only Greenwich garniture to retain its original set of matching stirrups. In fact, the only parts of this armour to have been lost are the saddle steels.

Like most Greenwich armour of the late sixteenth century, this flamboyant garniture is richly decorated with etched and gilt strapwork and borders. The main bands contain a dynamic ‘zigzag and guilloche’ pattern against a blackened and granulated background. The clothing fashions of the time are also reflected in the design of the armour, which for example displays the drawn-out, pigeon-breasted torso form, called the ‘peascod’, the standard shape of men’s doublets in the late 1500s. It also has wide, rounded hip-plates mirroring the shape of Elizabethan ‘trunk-hose’.

A number of other armours and works of art survive which relate closely to the Buckhurst armour. At least four other Greenwich armours employing the same decorative scheme were made; parts of three of these survive. The most complete is that made for Sir James Scudamore, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and which Scudamore is seen wearing in a portrait in an English private collection. This painting is especially important since it shows the armour as it was intended to be worn, complete with richly embroidered skirt or ‘base’, elaborate sword, sword-belt and military sash. Costly ostrich plumes also adorn the helmet. Another important portrait which relates to the group is that of Peregrine Bertie, 13th Baron Willoughby d’Eresby (1555-1601). The famous Elizabethan soldier is depicted reclining with a romantic landscape behind him, dressed in an armour very similar to that of Lord Buckhurst. His armour is blued as well as gilt, just as the Buckhurst armour once was; the Scudamore armour, in contrast, was always white and gilt, as his portrait shows. Of the ‘Willoughby’ armour only the armet is known to survive, in the Royal Armouries (Inv. IV.577). Parts of another armour belonging to the series, in the Art Institute of Chicago (Inv. 1982.2241a-h ), also seem always to have been white, with no traces of blueing such as those found on the Buckhurst armour. The Chicago armour comes from the Ratibor Collection at Schloss Grafenegg in Austria, dispersed in 1933 and 1934. It is possible that it was made as a diplomatic gift and given by Elizabeth I to an unknown German nobleman. Finally a gauntlet from the series, perhaps belonging to the Chicago armour, is now in the Grand Curtius Museum, Liège.

Apart from the Buckhurst armour only one other ‘zigzag and guilloche’ armour, and parts of a third, are illustrated in the Almain Album. The disassociated parts, a set of ‘zigzag and guilloche’ exchange pieces, may once have formed part of the armourer’s record of the Willoughby armour- the facing field armour page, which would have carried the identifying inscription, is now lost. The other identified armour illustrated is accompanied by an inscription stating that it was made for ‘Lorde Compton’. Like the Buckhurst and Willoughby armours, the Compton garniture, now apparently lost, was blued and gilt (blueing being represented throughout the Album by means of a rust-coloured wash). The final part of this fascinating group of armours and representations of armour is a charming portrait miniature in the Royal Collection (Inv. 420895) depicting a young seventeenth-century nobleman wearing one of the blued armours; based on the clearly recognisable design of the armour, of which the gorget, cuirass, pauldrons and helmet are visible, the sitter has in the past been identified as both Compton and Buckhurst, but the date of the miniature and the sitter’s youthful features would seem to exclude both as candidates. It is possible that this is indeed one of the documented armours, but worn at a later date by someone other than the original owner; old armours were frequently employed in seventeenth-century portraits. Alternatively it could be yet another undocumented and now lost armour belonging to the same series. - - The Wallace Collection #TheWallaceCollection

#thewallacecollection #armor #armour

20 notes · View notes

chanoyu-to-wa · 6 years ago

Text

Nampō Roku, Book 2 (49): (1587) Ninth Month, Second Day, Midday.

49) Ninth Month, Second Day; Midday¹.

◦ Two-mat room².

◦ [Guests:] Konishi Setsu [小西攝]³, Sōmu [宗無]⁴.

Sho [初]⁵.

﹆ Yoku-ryō-an [欲了庵]⁶.

◦ Kama arare [釜アラレ]⁷.

◦ On the tana: kōgō ・ habōki [香合・羽帚]⁸.

▵ Shiru ko-kabura [汁小カフラ]⁹.

▵ Kushi-awabi ・ kuro-me [串アハヒ・黒メ]¹⁰.

▵ Yu-miso [with] sanshō [柚ミソ山升]¹¹.

▵ Senbei ・ kawa-take [センヘイ・川茸]¹².

Go [後]¹³.

◦ The [scroll] remained hanging in the toko¹⁴; and in front of [it was displayed] the hanaire, a hoso-guchi [細口], [containing] a single chrysanthemum blossom¹⁵.

◦ Chaire kuro [茶入黒]¹⁶, hankiri [半切]¹⁷.

◦ Chawan Soto-no-hama [茶碗外濱]¹⁸.

◦ Mizusashi Shigaraki [水指シカラキ]¹⁹, mimi-guchi [耳口]²⁰.

_________________________

¹Ku-gatsu futsu-ka, hiru [九月二日、晝].

The Gregorian date was October 3, 1587.

It seems that, with this gathering, Rikyū opened the ro for the season -- though apparently without fanfare (nothing indicates that he performed the kuchi-kiri [口切], for example). Perhaps he decided to open it as early as possible because the beginning of the Tenth month would be extremely busy -- staging Hideyoshi's Kitano ō-cha-no-e [北野大茶の會] (which was originally planned to last at least 10 days*) -- making private chakai to observe the change of the season a near impossibility†.

It is important to note that, according to their commentaries, both Tanaka Senshō, and Shibayama Fugen, assume that Rikyū continued to use the furo until the end of Book Two of the Nampō Roku -- though from this date onward no mention of a furo is found in any of the remaining kaiki (as it had always been on every occasion when a furo was used previously)‡. Furthermore, the fact that Rikyū served yu-miso [柚味噌] during this chakai meant that the yuzu [柚子] had already begun to ripen -- and the ripening of the yuzu was held to be the harbinger of the changing of the season, the sign that it was time to open the ro, since the days of Jōō.

As was mentioned previously, this chakai was not included in Kumakura Isao's modern Japanese Nampō Roku wo Yomu [南方録を読む] -- and perhaps the reason might already be obvious**.

The manuscripts of this kaiki contain several formatting errors/misreadings that have caused confusion to scholars -- possibly these were the result of deterioration in the original document. __________ *The gathering was closed after just one day because of an uprising in Higo Province (Higo no kuni [肥後國] -- essentially the modern day Kumamoto Prefecture [熊本県], in western Kyūshū).

Some scholars also claim that Hideyoshi may have been jealous of the attention given to Rikyū on the first day of the Kitano ō-cha-no-e; but since Hideyoshi also seems to have used the occasion to coerce donations to his collection of famous tea utensils, it is just as possible that a number of the participants decided to leave early, rather than risk the loss of their treasures (or, potentially, if they refused to gift their utensils to Hideyoshi, their heads or livelihoods), and the exodus made news of the revolt a face-saving expedient.

†It seems that most, if not all, of the practitioners who took part in the Kitano ō-cha-no-e used the ro in their tea huts. Perhaps it was informally agreed among the tea communities of Sakai, Kyōto, and Nara, that the opening of the ro should be effected as early as possible that year, so that everyone would already be habituated to its use (there is often a period of time at the beginning of the ro season, when people with less experience confuse the ro-temae with that intended for use with the furo) when it came time to (potentially) perform in front of Hideyoshi.

‡This is another example of personal prejudices interfering with ones interpretation of documents dating from before the Edo period -- when the dates for ro-biraki [爐開き] and sho-buro [初風爐] were as fixed and inflexible as the official dates for changing from winter to summer dress, and back again. In Rikyū's day, the host opened or closed the ro based on his personal feelings, as well as in response to the changing seasons (rather than the calendar, as now). As Rikyū notes in his densho, while old people (who are inclined to feel the chill more easily than younger practitioners) might want to open the ro earlier, and then close it later, young people had better delay the opening until its warmth is really needed, and close it again as soon as the weather begins to warm in the spring.

**That it deviates in many ways from modern expectations (especially the teachings of the school with which Kumakura sensei is affiliated -- namely, Urasenke).

²Nijō shiki [二疊敷].

The two-mat room in Rikyū's official residence.

³Konishi Setsu [小西攝].

This was Konishi Yukinaga [小西行長; 1558 ~ 1600], the second son of Konishi Ryūsa [小西隆佐; ? ~ 1592]. He, like his father, was a baptized Christian (taking the name Agostinho [= アウグスティヌス]); his wife was also baptized.

Yukinaga was appointed Governor of Settsu (Settsu no kami [攝津守]) in 1586, receiving at that time the junior grade of the Fifth Rank.

He lead the initial expeditionary force that invaded Korea in 1592, and he was also involved in the resolution of the conflict (whereby Hideyoshi was informed that the Ming army had surrendered to the Japanese; while, at the same time, the claim made to the Ming Court was that it was the Japanese who had surrendered). Hideyoshi only came to understand the deception when a Chinese envoy arrived to offer him the title of King of Japan. His anger precipitated the second invasion of Korea in 1597: yet, while he blamed Konishi Yukinaga for the deception, he still appointed Yukinaga co-commander of the expeditionary force for the second time, and during his time in Korea Yukinaga took a Korean Christian woman as his wife.

Following Hideyoshi's death, Yukinaga gave his allegiance to the faction lead by Mōri Terumoto [毛利輝元; 1553 ~ 1625], who supported Hideyori. He participated in the battle of Sekigahara on the side of the heir; and after the defeat of the Western Army he was eventually captured. As a Christian, Yukinaga refused to commit seppuku, and so was executed.

⁴Sōmu [宗無].

This was the machi-shū Sumiyoshi-ya Sōmu [住吉屋宗無; 1534 ~ 1603*], who is also known as Yamaoka Hisanaga [山岡久永]. He was a wealthy townsman from Sakai, and also a highly respected chajin†, and served as one of Hideyoshi’s “Eight Masters of Tea” (sadō hachi-nin-shū [茶頭八人衆]). At other gatherings described in Rikyu's several kaiki that were attended by Konishi Yukinaga, Sōmu is also present, suggesting that he may have been one of Yukinaga's retainers, or perhaps a tea friend.

Sōmu was present at Hideyoshi’s large tea gathering at the Hakozaki Shrine near Hakata (in modern-day Fukuoka City) earlier that year‡, and (along with Tsuda Sōkyū [津田宗及]) also took part in the fusube-no-chanoyu [フスベ茶ノ湯] held in the pine barrens at Hakozaki, also during the Kyūshū campaign**. ___________ *Certain accounts suggest that Sōmu may have died in 1595, at the time when Sakai was razed on Hideyoshi’s orders (as a punishment for the city-state’s opposition to his invasion of Korea).

†Sōmu is said to have first studied chanoyu under Jōō, and then later with Rikyū (though, given his high standing with both Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, this latter assertion might be a revisionist opinion popularized by the Sen family during the Edo period; more likely, he was simply a member of the faction that eventually coalesced around Rikyū some years after Jōō's death).

Sumiyoshi-ya Hisanaga studied Zen under Shunoku Sōen [春屋宗園; ? ~ 1611], from whom he received the name Sōmu [宗無] -- which he used as his professional name later in life.

‡This gathering seems to have been the inspiration for the upcoming Kitano ō-cha-no-e.

**Fusube-no-chanoyu [燻べの茶の湯] means a “smoky” chanoyu. As the gathering was held in the pine barrens between the Hakozaki-gu [筥崎宮] (Hakozaki Shrine) and the shore, Rikyū and the others used the abundance of pine-needles that had carpeted the ground for centuries to heat their kama, rather than charcoal. The effect was charming -- and fragrant (the resin in the dried needles making incense unnecessary) -- but also rather smokey, hence the name. The black pines near the coast were ancient, growing in wonderful and contorted shapes (many having horizontal trunks that made suspending a kama from them both easy and seemingly natural -- portions of the pine barren are still preserved intact to this day), and the fusube-no-chanoyu was a celebration of the setting.

⁵Sho [初].

The shoza.

With reference to the kane-wari:

- the toko held the kakemono, and so was han [半];

- the room had the kama in the ro, and so was also han [半];

- and the tana supported the kōgō and habōki, arranged side by side (with each contacting a different kane), and so was chō [調].

Han + han + chō is chō, which is correct for a chakai held during the daytime.

⁶Yoku-ryō-an [欲了庵].

Yoku-ryō-an [欲了庵] is the name by which Rikyū referred to this scroll -- which was perhaps one of Rikyū’s most prized possessions*. It was written by the Yuan period Chán monk Liǎo-ān Qīng-yù [了庵清欲; 1288 ~ 1363].

This entry is marked with a red spot, indicating that the bokuseki was the featured utensil at this chakai. (Its continuing to occupy the toko during the goza confirming its importance.)

⁷Kama arare [釜アラレ].

This was the ko-arare uba-guchi kama [小霰姥口釜] often referred to as the “Hyakkai-kama” [百會釜] -- since its association with Rikyū was known, in the Edo period, from that source.

⁸Tana ni kōgō ・ habōki [棚ニ香合・羽帚].

These would have been Rikyū's ruri-suzume kōgō [瑠璃雀香合] and a go-sun-hane [五寸羽] made of left feathers* -- since this chakai was being conducted with the ro.

__________ *Feathers widest on the left side of the rachis.

These feathers, which were 5-sun long, were obtained from the left wing of a bird.

⁹Shiru ko-kabura [汁小カフラ].

This was miso-shiru, containing chopped young kabura [蕪] (turnip) -- including the leaves, petioles, and washed root. The turnips would have been planted just after the end of the rainy season, thus they were still immature and tender.

¹⁰Kushi-awabi ・ kuro-me [串アハヒ・黒メ].

These two foods were served to accompany sake -- rather as the hassun [八寸] is today*.

Kushi-awabi [串鮑] is abalone that has been dried on a pair of skewers (to preserve it), and then rehydrated by boiling in broth. The awabi was sliced into bite-sized pieces before serving.

Kurome [黒布] is a kind of edible seaweed (which was available both dried and fresh): dried kurome would have been reconstituted by soaking it in water. After thoroughly removing the water, the seaweed was cut into bite-sized pieces and dressed with a mixture of rice vinegar, sesame oil, soy sauce, sugar, salt, and ginger juice. ___________ *Though both of the foods originated in the ocean -- which contradicts modern practices.

Rather than a “sea food” and a “mountain food,” Rikyū has chosen to serve a shellfish and a vegetable (seaweed), to give the desired contrast.

¹¹Yu-miso sanshō [柚ミソ山升].

Yu-miso [柚味噌] is actually the name of a dipping sauce, that seems to have been one of Rikyū’s personal favorites -- especially during the early winter when the yuzu had just ripened*.

A small yuzu† is taken and the top end (where the stem was attached) is cut off like a cap. Then the flesh is carefully removed, leaving the skin intact like a bowl. This is filled with miso, and then placed beside or below a charcoal fire (the heat should come from the side, or above, rather than from below) until the outside of the yuzu begins to char lightly. The heat causes the flavor and aroma of the yuzu to permeate the miso.

This miso, then, was served with various raw vegetables (usually “crunchy things” like cucumbers and carrots, and other vegetables that could be cut into small “spears”). The guest selected his vegetable and dipped the end into the miso before eating it‡.

Rikyū either flavored the miso with sanshō [山椒] (“Japanese pepper”) -- perhaps after it had already been heated in the yuzu -- or else offered each guest a small dish of crushed sanshō so that they could spice the miso as they liked. ___________ *Even today, flavored miso is a popular dipping sauce for raw vegetable spears in Korea -- though usually the miso contains crushed garlic, sesame oil, and crushed Korean red pepper paste today, since something like yu-miso is too troublesome to prepare (because it can only be made in small quantities).

†The size is probably not too important, so long as it is not overly large (a large yuzu will begin to char on the outside before the middle of the miso is even hot; and the farther away from the skin the miso is, the less yuzu taste and smell will be imparted).

In Edo period Japan, the preference was to give each guest his own little yuzu filled with miso, into which he dipped his vegetables. But there is nothing to indicate that Rikyū served it this way: the yu-miso could just as easily have been scooped out onto several small dishes from one larger yuzu, with one dish offered to each guest, since it was the flavored miso that was important.

‡It is also possible that a selection of vegetable spears was arranged on a small plate, and the yu-miso was drizzled over them. A separate dish of crushed sanshō (”Japanese pepper”) would then have been offered together with the vegetables, so that each guest could spice the food to his taste.

¹²Senbei ・ kawa-take [センヘイ・川茸].

These were the kashi.

Senbei [煎餅] are rice crackers. Since they were usually procured from a professional confectioner, these may have been given to Rikyū as a gift of thanks from the guests (Sōmu, as a trained chajin, would have been very sensitive to the correct observation of the proprieties), and he decided to share them with the guests.

Kawa-take [川茸] is a kind of freshwater seaweed that grows in flowing water. It can be eaten raw (sometimes with vinegar), or it can be cooked. It seems Rikyū preferred to serve it raw, since he only served kawa-take during those times of the year when the rivers would be flowing with clean water (during the rainy season; and after the weather had turned cold) -- so as to avoid the danger of enteric diseases that might result from using kawa-take collected from contaminated water.

¹³Go [後].

The goza.

With respect to the kane-wari:

- the bokuseki remained hanging in the toko, but with the chabana arranged on the floor of the toko in front of it, and so was chō [調];

- the room had the kama in the ro, the mizusashi (with the chaire and chawan arranged in front of it, and so counted together with it), and the futaoki* (associated with the central kane, as shown in the sketch, above), making the room han [半].

- the tana was apparently empty, and so would be counted as chō [調].

Chō + han + chō is han, which is appropriate for the goza of a chakai that is held during the daytime. __________ *Perhaps it was arranged with the hishaku resting on it, as shown below.

¹⁴Toko kake-nagara [床カケナカラ].

This means that the kakemono remained hanging in the toko during the goza. The scroll was the featured utensil -- perhaps the shōkyaku, Konishi Ryūsa, had asked Rikyu to allow him to inspect it (this scroll was one of Rikyū's personal treasures), and so Rikyū left it hanging for the duration of the chakai.

¹⁵Mae ni hanaire, hoso-guchi ni kiku ichi-rin [前ニ花入、細口ニ菊一輪].

The chabana was arranged in a narrow-mouthed bronze hanaire, displayed on an usu-ita, in the middle of the floor of the tokonoma.

The hanaire was most likely the one known originally as Tsuru-no-hashi [鶴ノ波子], shown above*.

Kiku ichi-rin [菊一輪] means that the flower consisted of a single chrysanthemum -- one flower (and its leaves) at the end of a single stem. Indeed, the hoso-guchi hanaire would not be able to hold anything larger.

The type or color of the flower is not known, but since this chakai took place during the daytime, and at the beginning of the ro season, a white chrysanthemum blushed pink by the cold nights would have been both pleasing and appropriate†. ___________ *It was later renamed as Tsuru-no-hito-koe [鶴ノ一聲] -- in commemoration of the circumstances of a night gathering on one occasion when Rikyū used it: Rikyū arranged a white giboshi [擬宝珠] (a white, night-blooming species of hosta lily, Hosta plantaginea) in this hanaire, and as the guests approached the toko, one of the buds suddenly open with a faint pop; and just at that moment, a crane, flying overhead, let out a cry (as if answering the call of its chick). When Rikyū entered to begin his temae, the guests reported this auspicious happenstance to him, and the revision of the name was suggested.

Tsuru-no-hashi [鶴ノ波子] is a literal description of the hanaire -- the vase is shaped like the body and neck of a crane, with a pattern of waves decorating the foot (suggesting the ripples flowing around the crane’s feet as it wades in the shallows); Tsuru-no-hito-koe [鶴ノ一聲] means “one cry of the crane,” in reference to the episode narrated above.

†Chajin of Rikyu’s day appear to have favored light pink flowers above all others. And the white chrysanthemum turned pink by the frosts, like the yellowing of the yuzu, was another indicator that the time had come for the ro to be opened.

¹⁶Chaire kuro [茶入黒].

This was probably the hiki-dashi-kuro chaire [引き出し黒茶入] that Furuta Sōshitsu had made for Rikyū, and which Rikyū has used before at several chakai (occasionally together with the same chawan that he used here).

That said, Shibayama Fugen takes this entry together with the next to read chaire kuro hankiri [茶入　黒　半切], which he says refers to a specific type of classical chaire*. While there is a meibutsu han-kiri chaire [ 半切茶入], it is a light orange-brown color, and so could never be described as being “black.” Fugen avoids this trap by arguing that this referred to a copy of the karamono chaire that was fired at the Seto kiln, with a black glaze. The problem here, however, is that these copies seem to all date from the Edo period (as does the “kuro Seto” [黒瀬戸] glaze -- which should not be confused with Oribe's hiki-dashi-kuro pieces, though the two usually are).

Furthermore, if the word “han-kiri” describes the chaire, then the kane-wari is thrown totally out of balance -- as Tanaka Senshō laments (after exploring a number of different possibilities, he throws up his hands in exasperation since, if this is all taken to refer to the chaire, there is no way to make the arrangement han [半], as it should be for the goza of a gathering held in the daytime). __________ *This han-kiri chaire is shaped like a katatsuki, but is half as tall. A sketch is shown below.

¹⁷Han-kiri [半切].

While the Enkaku-ji manuscript seems to associate this word with the chaire, the others have it clearly separated from the words chaire kuro [茶入黒]: it seems that the word should be hikkiri [引切], and so would refer to the futaoki being displayed on the utensil mat together with the other things. The confused reading may have been a result of deterioration of the original manuscript before it came into Tachibana Jitsuzan’s hands, and “han-kiri” may have been his best guess at its meaning.

As explained above, the futaoki would have been displayed on the central kane -- perhaps deeply, with the hishaku resting on it. The idea would seem to be to suggest something like a daisu temae, albeit in the small room setting with a mukō-ro, in deference to the shōkyaku’s nobility (as Governor of Settsu Province, Konishi Yukinaga held the junior grade of the Fifth Rank).

¹⁸Chawan Soto-no-hama [茶碗外濱].

This was Rikyū's personal ido-chawan; and the bowl is usually referred to as Soto-ga-hama [外ヵ濱] -- the name of the place (at the northern tip of Honshū) where the chawan was recovered from the site of an old shipwreck -- today.

Though nothing is said, Rikyū would also have used an ori-tame [折撓] of his own making as the chashaku.

¹⁹Mizusashi Shigaraki [水指シカラキ].

This was Rikyū's Shigaraki mizusashi.

²⁰Mimi-guchi [耳口].

While the formatting of the Enkaku-ji version of the manuscript once again seems to suggest that this word is connected with the entry describing the mizusashi, mimi-guchi [耳口] is separated from it in the other manuscript copies, and actually seems to refer to a type of mizu-koboshi*.

Mimi-guchi refers to a vessel where the upper attachment of the “ears” (handles or kan-tsuki), rather than being attached to the sides of the body or neck, is attached to the side of the mouth. The shape was used for drinking cups of various sizes, incense burners, and larger bowls (some of which could have been used as koboshi -- or even mizusashi). Objects of this type were traditionally made of jade, ceramic, and bronze. It is primarily an ancient Chinese shape, though pieces of this sort were also made in Edo period Japan.

A Chinese bronze example of this type of container is shown below†.

One of the earliest known examples of a mimi-guchi mizu-koboshi is said to have belonged to the great dōbō Nōami [能阿彌; 1397 ~ 1471].

In the case of the present gathering, Rikyū seems to have been intent on treating Konishi Ryūsa with a sort of formal deference (even though the chakai was hosted in the small room), so the use of a koboshi of a sort more commonly seen displayed on the daisu would have fit into this concept nicely‡.

The problems with the manuscript may have obscured the notation indicating that the koboshi was brought out from the katte later, at the beginning of the koicha-temae. Displaying this piece on the utensil mat along with everything else when the guests returned from the naka-dachi would have seemed grossly overdone. __________ *The parallel issues -- chaire kuro han-kiri [茶入黒半切] and mizusashi Shigaraki mimi-guchi [水指シカラキ耳口] -- suggests that the paper was damaged in a line across this part of the entry, causing Tachibana Jitsuzan to misread both of the lines. The word su [ス], indicating that the koboshi was brought out later, may have also been lost to the ravages of time.

†No mimi-guchi mizu-koboshi known to have been associated with Rikyū has ever been discovered.

‡Since the ears might have interfered with the hishaku being rested on the koboshi, this could account for Rikyū displaying these things on the utensil mat -- and in association with the central kane (as they would have been on the daisu).

2 notes · View notes