SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 48

TRANSLATIONS AS EGO-DOCUMENTS: NOTES OF TWO OTTOMAN PHYSICIANS IN THE TURKISH TRANSLATION OF IBN BAYTAR’S KİTAB AL-MUGHNİ

M. Fatih ÇALIŞIR
Pages
71–91
Publication Date
2020-10-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ultimately, these notes remind us of the need in Ottoman studies to scrutinize translations under a new light.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the lives and ideas of two seventeenth-century Ottoman physicians, Muhammed b.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Hüseyin Çavuş appears as a religiously moderate Ottoman officer who had a passion for medicine.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ultimately, these notes remind us of the need in Ottoman studies to scrutinize translations under a new light.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ibn Baytar · Kitab al-mughni · Muhammed bin Ahmed of Edirne

Abstract

This article examines the lives and ideas of two seventeenth-century Ottoman physicians, Muhammed b. Ahmed of Edirne and his disciple İbrahim b. Hüseyin Çavuş, as reflected in their notes in the Turkish translation of Ibn Baytar’s Kitab al-Mughni. In these notes, Muhammed b. Ahmed emerges as a Kadızadeli-minded Turkish physician, translator, and a “world traveler” who claimed to have traveled the world for “forty to fifty years.” In contrast, his disciple İbrahim b. Hüseyin Çavuş appears as a religiously moderate Ottoman officer who had a passion for medicine. These notes disclose new interpretive possibilities for early modern Ottoman cultural and medical history and help researchers explore untold stories of several individuals and groups. They reveal details that are often difficult to find in conventional sources and constitute hitherto neglected personal narratives or ego-documents. They also contain new insights into some of the critical events in the period, including the Kadızadeli movement and the 1672 Kamaniçe campaign. Ultimately, these notes remind us of the need in Ottoman studies to scrutinize translations under a new light.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇALIŞIR, M. F. (2020). TRANSLATIONS AS EGO-DOCUMENTS: NOTES OF TWO OTTOMAN PHYSICIANS IN THE TURKISH TRANSLATION OF IBN BAYTAR’S KİTAB AL-MUGHNİ. Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 48, 71–91. https://ajindex.com/articles/657146

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Adıvar, A. Adnan. Osmanlı Türklerinde İlim, eds. Aykut Kazancıgil and Sevim Tekeli. 4th ed. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 1982.
  2. Bilkan, Ali Fuat. Fakihler ve Sofuların Kavgası: 17. Yüzyılda Kadızâdeliler ve Sivâsîler. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2016.
  3. Blake, Stephen P., Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
  4. Cabo Gonzalez, Ana María and Claude Lanly. “Ibn al-Baytar et ses apports à la botanique et à la pharmacologie dans le Kitab al-Ğamï.” Médiévales 33 (1997): 23-39.
  5. Doğru, Halime. Lehistan’da Bir Osmanlı Sultanı: IV. Mehmed’in Kamaniçe-Hotin Seferleri ve Bir Masraf Defteri. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2006.
  6. Elger, Ralf, and Yavuz Köse, eds. Many Ways of Speaking about the Self: Middle Eastern Ego-Documents in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish (14th-20th Century). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010.
  7. El-Rouayheb, Khaled. Islamic Intellectual History in the Seventeenth Century: Scholarly Currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
  8. Ivanyi, Katharina Anna. “Virtue, Piety, and the Law: A Study of Birgivi Mehmed Efendi’s al-Tariqa al-Muhammadiyya.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 2012.
  9. İhsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin, and Ramazan Şeşen et al., eds. Osmanlı Tıbbi Bilimler Literatürü Tarihi / History of the Literature of Medical Sciences during the Ottoman Period. İstanbul: IRCICA, 2008.
  10. İnalcık, Halil with Donald Quataert, eds. An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
  11. İnbaşı, Mehmet. Ukrayna’da Osmanlılar: Kamaniçe Seferi ve Organizasyonu (1672). İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları, 2004. İsmail Paşa al-Bağdadi. Hadiyyat al-‘Arifin Asma’ al-Muallifin wa-Athar al-Musannifin, ed. Kilisli Rifat Bilge et al. 2 vols. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1955.
  12. İzgi, Cevat. Osmanlı Medreselerinde İlim. 2 vols. İstanbul: İz Yayınları, 1997.Kafadar, Cemal. “Self and Others: The Diary of a Dervish in Seventeenth Century Istanbul as First-Person Narratives in Ottoman Literature.” Studia Islamica 69 (1989): 121-50.
  13. Kara, İsmail. İlim Bilmez Tarih Hatırlamaz: Şerh ve Haşiye Meselesine Dair Birkaç Not. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2011.
  14. Kara, M. Alpertunga, and Ali Haydar Bayat. “İbnü’l-Baytâr Çevirileri ve Tire Nüshası.” VIII. Türk Tıp Tarihi Kongresi – Kongreye Sunulan Bildiriler, 16-18 Haziran 2004, Sivas-Divriği, eds. Nil Sarı and Ayşegül D. Erdemir, 271-77. İstanbul: Türk Tıp Tarih Kurumu, 2006.
  15. Karateke, Hakan T., et a