Capsali as a Source for Ottoman History, 1450-1523

Author(s): Aryeh Shmuelevitz

Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct., 1978), pp. 339-344
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/162769
Accessed: 29-11-2018 03:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Journal of Middle East Studies

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Int. J. Middle East Stud. 9 (1978), 339-344 Printed in Great Britain 339

Aryeh Shmuelevitz

CAPSALI AS A SOURCE FOR

OTTOMAN HISTORY, 1450-1523

The chronicle of Rabbi Elijah Capsali (ca. 1483-I555), which conc

with the history of the Ottoman Empire, turns up as a subject for
from time to time. Capsali, rabbi of the Candia community in Crete,
chronicle entitled Seder Eliyahu Zuta during the plague of the s
summer of 1523. It is divided into four parts and i66 chapters and
an introduction in which he explains the reasons for writing it and
his sources.1 As yet, however, the importance of this chronicle has
sufficiently emphasized. The interpretation presented by Uriel Heyd a
Turkish History Congress held in Ankara in 19612 dealt with a number of
such as the sources of Capsali and the Jewish references in the text, b
their most general form. In this paper I examine the importance and
of the chronicle more thoroughly.
The eminent status of the family of Capsali in the important Vene
mercial port of Candia (now Iraklion) and the family connections in
(Rabbi Moshe Capsali, the chief rabbi of the capital after the Ottoman
was Elijah's great uncle) gave the author of the chronicle the oppor
learn at close hand the problems of what he considered to be the two
states of the period: the Republic of Venice, under whose protectora
and the Ottoman Empire which he admired. He saw its rulers as 'mes
God' to punish sinful nations and to gather together the exiles of Isr
events left a strong impression on him: the opening of the gates of t
Empire at the end of the fifteenth century by Sultan Bayezit II to t
and Portuguese Jewish exiles by decree issued to the governors to fa
AUTHOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this paper was read at the 29th In
Congress of Orientalists, Paris, July I973.
1 Seder Eliyahu Zuta together with Capsali's earlier and less well-known
Divrei ha- Yamim le-Malkhut Venezia, written in 1517, has been prepared for
(in Hebrew) based on four manuscripts: (a) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Opp.
Neubaur Catalogue No. 2411; (b) British Museum, Opp. and MSS Dept.
Add. Or. I9.971; (c) ibid., Gastar Collection, MS Oriental I0713; (d) Milano, B
Ambrosiana, XIio SUP. The last manuscript is the most reliable and was almost
certainly read by Capsali. The text has been published by the Ben Zvi Institute and Tel
Aviv University in two volumes (Jerusalem, 1975, 1977); the third volume, which
includes introductions, glossary and index, is in press.
2 'Osmali Tarihi Icin Ibramice Kaynaklar' in VI Turk Tarih Kongresi (Ankara, 1967),
pp. 295-303.
3 Eliyahu Capsali, Seder Eliyahu Zuta, edited, explained, and annotated by A.
Shmuelevitz, S. Simonson and M. Benayahu, Vol. I (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 10, 367
(hereafter referred to as Seder).

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 Aryeh Shmuelevitz

reception of these exiles,4 and the conquest of Palestine in 1516-15I7 by Sultan

Selim I and its inclusion within the empire. These two successive events seemed
to the author to herald the return of the Jews to their land. Therefore, it appeared
to him that to give due prominence to the history of the Ottoman empire would
be an important contribution toward understanding the historical background
on the eve of the great events that were about to take place in the history of the
Jews.5
Capsali dedicated the main part of the chronicle to the period of the reign of
Sultan Mehmet Fatih (I45I-I481) to the beginning of the reign of Silleyman
Kanuni (1520-1523), with Sultan Selim I (1512-1520), a contemporary of the
author, the central figure. The period prior to Mlehmet II, who came to power
in I45I, is briefly surveyed as the background to later developments. In general,
the chronicle is similar to other chronicles written in the sixteenth century; it
includes accounts of events, described in words of praise or denigration, without
the author displaying any historical objectivity. Sometimes the author gave
several versions and comments in order - so he said - to leave it to the reader
to decide which was the true one.6

The chronicle is based on hearsay owing to the fact that the author lived
beyond the borders of the empire, and that, clearly, was a serious disadvantage.
Stories were related to the author by various people (Muslims, Christians, and
Jews) who arrived in Candia either as merchants or as travelers.
At times, however, the source of the information was the report of an actual
eyewitness, and in those sections, the importance and reliability of the chronicle
is enhanced. For example, Capsali met the Venetian ambassador Antonio
Guistiniani, who had been in Istanbul in order to renew the agreements between
Venice and the Ottoman empire after Selim I came to power. The ambassador
returned to Venice via Candia, where he met the notables of that city, including
the rabbi, and related his impressions of the new sultan to them.7 It is interesting
to compare the ambassador's official report with what he said in Candia. A
further example is that of Yitzhaq al-Hakim (either a doctor or a merchant), who
accompanied the army of Sultan Selim I on its march to conquer Syria, Palestine,
and Egypt. Later, he came to Candia and related these events to Capsali, who
clearly states that he is quoting the firsthand account of this same Yitzhaq.8 The
question arises whether Capsali was familiar with chronicles of the period. It is
impossible to formulate a decisive answer to this question. He definitely did not
read the Turkish chronicles because he did not know Turkish; it is, however,
impossible to prove that he read the Greek chronicles !9
The question of the reliability of the text reasserts itself - the dependence on
reports of merchants and travelers is not the only factor that casts doubt on the
4 See ibid., pp. 141-142, 239-240, for the text of the decree, the only one extant today.
5 Ibid., pp. o0, 367.
6 See ibid., pp. 344-345, for the several differing comments of Sultan Selim on the
death of his Grand Vezir Sinan Pasa during the battle of Raydaniyyah.
7 Ibid., p. 283. 8 Ibid., p. ii.
9 M. A. Halevy, 'Les Guerres d'Etienne le Grande et de Uzun-Hassan contre Mahomet

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Capsali as a Source for Ottoman History, 1450-1523 341

accuracy of the chronicle. The language of the Old Testament attracted the
author. If there was even the slightest similarity between an event in the Old
Testament and one that the author wished to recount, he would express himself
in almost identical terms. For example, his description of the reaction of Uzun
Hasan to his son's death in battle against Mehmet II in I473 is written in the
same language as King David's mourning for the death of his son Abshalom.10
That is not all - many imaginary vivid descriptions were added to the retelling
of events, most of them in rhyme, which hinders more than a little the extraction
of historical facts and a historical appraisal of the complicated and difficult text.
This is striking, for example, in the three chapters (31-33) that contain an
imaginary description of the death of Mehmet II. But this example is an extreme
one because there is almost no historical fact to be found within the descriptive
text. The author admits to this form of writing in the preface of his essay and
explains that it afforded him tremendous enjoyment in the six months of 1523
during which he was confined to his dwelling owing to the plague."
All this leads us to an additional element of unreliability, namely, the attitude
of the author toward persons and nations connected with Ottoman history. There
are only two sides to his viewpoint: the evil and the virtuous. Apart from
the Venetians, under whose government the author lived, all enemies of the
Ottomans were sinners, scoundrels, and cheats. The author's attitude is further
complicated by his judgment of how people, groups, and nations acted toward
the Jews. For example, he himself had little esteem for the Yeni;eris (Janissaries)
despite the high regard in which they were held as soldiers during that period.
The reason is obvious - they planned to assassinate his great-uncle who had
imposed heavy punishments in order to prevent any association between Jewish
youths and the Yeni;eris. More than once, the Yeni9eris exploited the inter-
regnum in order to carry out acts of plunder in the city streets, acts that were
directed against Jewish shops among others.12 The reader cannot treat the
information on the Yeni;eris as particularly accurate because of the author's bias
against them.
Here one may note other factors, no less important, which detract from the
reliability of the chronicle: incorrect geographical orientation,13 and inaccurate
dating.14
In spite of all this, one can say that, in comparing the chronicle of Capsali

II d'apres la chronique de la Turquie de Candiot Elia Capsali (1523),' Studia et Acta

Orientalia, I, 1957 (Bucharest, 1958), 191-192. Halevy claims that Capsali had read
and used the Greek chronicles written in the second half of the fifteenth century. This
assumption is based on the similarity between the distortions of the names in those
chronicles and in Capsali. This does not permit a definitive conclusion because he may
have heard the same distortions as the Greek authors - after all, he lived in Crete.
Moreover, Capsali cited his sources in all his writings.
o1 Seder, I, 107. 11 Ibid., p. I09. 12 Ibid., pp. 128-130.
13 E.g., Sultan Qansuh al-Ghawri on his way from Egypt to Syria reached Safed, then
Jerusalem, and then Damascus (ibid., pp. 322-333).
14 Capsali is wrong even in the Jewish calendar: 'on Thursday before Saturday of 9th
of Ab 5276' whereas 9 Ab fell on a Tuesday in that year (ibid., p. 321).

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 Aryeh Shmuelevitz

with other chronicles and sources,15 one discovers an essential grain of truth in
his, particularly as one approaches the time of the author himself. Information
flowed to Capsali from different parts of the empire, and he was therefore, as
far as his own period is concerned, in a position to give a more all-embracing
picture of the empire than generally found. In the campaigns of Selim I against
the Persians and Mamluks, for example, his description includes matters that
one can find in chronicles written in Egypt and in Istanbul. At least during the
period of Selim I and the three initial years of Siileyman, the information Capsali
offers is more far-reaching than other chronicles and, more than once, he
presents the opinion of all sides. To give one more example, the chronicle
records information on the war to conquer Rhodes from both the Ottoman
camp and the camp of the Knights of Rhodes during the reign of Sultan
Siileyman.16
In this particular sphere, the chronicle has a specific advantage over others.
More important though, are the spheres in which the Hebrew chronicle contri-
buted to the understanding of developments in the Ottoman empire during the
second half of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the sixteenth centuries. Three
important issues fall into this category.
(a) The effort to describe and to evaluate the sultans, from the viewpoint of a man
living outside the borders of the empire, through a description of their traits and
actions. While the scribes of the empire were obliged to glorify and praise their
masters, Capsali was not afraid to criticize. Capsali admired the Ottoman sultans
but did not hesitate to present their negative aspects. As Capsali saw him, Sultan
Selim was indeed a wise and understanding man, righteous judge, and peisonal
inspector of city security. On the other hand, the sultan was extremely scornful
of his Vezirs (with the exception of Sinan Pasa) and Capsali gives this as the
explanation for discharging them and having them executed in large numbers; he
was extremely miserly and Capsali gives us many examples of this characteristic. 17
These aspects of his character hardly appear in other chronicles.

(b) The subject of firearms in the Ottoman army and methods of use. Capsali
displayed considerable familiarity with firearms. It can be assumed that he
learned from Jewish firearms experts who passed through Candia on their way
to the empire after their exile from Spain. We know from Capsali himself and
from other sources that these Jewish exiles from Spain had contributed to
15 It was compared, among others, with (a) Sa'd al-Din, Tdj u Tevdrikh (Istanbul,
I279-I28o/1862-I863); (b) Solaqzadeh, Ta'rikh Solaqzadeh (Istanbul, I271/I854-1855)
(c) Feridfin, Mensha'dt-i Selatin (Istanbul, 1274/I857-1858); (d) Ibn Iyas, Ta'rikh Misr:
Badd'i' al-Zuhfr fi Waqd'i' al-Duhur (Bflaq, I312/I894-i895); (e) Ibn Zunbul, Kitdb
Ta'rikh al-Sultdn Salim Khan Ibn Sultdn Bdyazid Khan ma'a Qdnsah al-Ghawri Sultan
Misr wa-A'mdlihd (Cairo, 1278/186i-I862); (f) Giovanni Sagredo, Aussfiihrliche Histori
(Aussfiihrliche Beschreibung dess Ottomanischen Kdyserthums) (Augsburg, I694); (g) R.
Knolles, The Turkish History from the Original of that Nation to the Growth of the Ottoman
Empire (London, I687); (h) Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman,
trans. J. J. Hallert (Paris, I835-I84I); (i) Joseph ha-Cohen, Sefer Divrei ha-Yamim le-
Malkhei Zarfat u-Malkhei Beyt Otoman ha-Togar (Amsterdam, 1733).
16 Seder, Vol. II (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 35-45. 17 Ibid., I, 265-272, 308-312, 366-367.

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Capsali as a Source for Ottoman History, 1450-1523 343

the development of firearms in the empire.18 As a result of these contacts,

the author's involvement with this subject grew until he became familiar with the
different armies operating in the area, their particular characteristics, and their
capacity in the battlefield. Capsali's comparison of the various armies is not only
interesting in itself; it is also a valuable source of information as to how the
Venetians and others evaluated the comparative efficiency of the armies of the
period. For example, Capsali compared the Persian and the Ottoman armies, or
more precisely the Persian heavy cavalry which moved in close formation on the
battlefield and the Ottoman light cavalry which possessed maximum mobility
in the battlefield and a capacity for maneuvering and outflanking.19
But the descriptions of methods of firearms use - descriptions which are
almost totally absent in other sources and which clarify a number of factors
regarding the efficiency of these weapons on the battlefield - are a more import-
ant contribution to this field. For instance, the author describes the sighting of
the heavy cannons during the siege on Constantinople in I453: on either side
of every heavy cannon was placed one light cannon. The lighter cannons were
fired first to locate the correct target, then the heavy cannons were brought into
action.20 The firing method of the Yeniceris, in which one section loaded the
rifles while the other section fired (so that the rain of bullets did not cease)21
and the great diversity to which gunpowder was put to use during the Ottoman
siege of Rhodes in 1522 (employed by both the besiegers and the besieged)22
are also described. The importance of this information exists not only in the
particulars set forth but also in the confirmation of other versions recording the
warfare. The description of the battle of Khan-Yfinis between the Mamluk army
and the advance of the Ottoman army under the command of the Grand Vezir
Sinan Pasa confirms versions that appeared in a number of European and
Egyptian sources. Sinan Pasa employed a tactic combining cavalry and infantry,
the one aiding the other in war against the Mamluks. According to Capsali,
Knolles, Sagredo, and Ibn lyas, the efficient exploitation of the infantry was
intended to assist the cavalry who were inferior to the Mamluk horsemen.23

(c) The network of relations in the eastern Mediterranean basin and the surround-
ing countries. This is probably the most important field to which Capsali could
and did contribute. He himself was in this region as a witness to the events.
Primarily, we are informed of the attitude of the people of Crete toward the
empire and of their appreciation of its strength and indispensability in contrast
18 Ibid., pp. 272-273, 303. According to Capsali, Sultan Selim very much appreciated
the assistance these exiles rendered him in the development of firearms. His attitude
toward the Jewish community became especially favorable and he even permitted a
group of Jews converted to Islam to return to their faith - an act that, according to Islamic
law, leads to cardinal punishment. See also Nicolas de Micolay, Les Navigations pere-
grinations et voyages faits en Turquie (Paris, 1576), p. 293.
19 Seder, I, 288. 20 Ibid., pp. 66-67. 21 Ibid., p. 290. 22 Ibid., II, 35-40.
23 Ibid., I, 333; Knolles, Turkish History, I, 363; Sagredo, Aussfiihrliche Histori
Ibn Iyas, Ottoman Conquest of Egypt, a.h. 922, trans. W. H. Salmon (London, I921
The Yeniceris were hidden among the Sipahis and when the Mamluks attacked in force,
the Sipahis opened ranks and the Yeni;eris killed the Mamluks as they broke through.

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
344 Aryeh Shmuelevitz

with the other states; of the manner in which the people of Candia viewed the
lengthy war between the Venetians and the Ottomans during the time of Bayezit
II, a war that came to an end with the conquest of Modon and Koron by the
Ottomans;24 and of the immense esteem in Candia accorded to the Mamluks
and the total change that took place in this attitude after the Ottoman conquest
of Egypt. This switch in attitude becomes clear in his account of the personal
relations between the Ottomans and the Mamluks when a group of survivors,
comprising both parties, managed to escape and reach Candia following the
sinking of a ship by the Knights of Rhodes while en route to Istanbul.25
In addition, there is in the chronicle extensive information on events concern-
ing Crete, Rhodes, and Cyprus. Capsali recorded the fears in Candia of an
Ottoman conquest, when these fears first emerged, and reports how the inhabi-
tants were prepared for a possible invasion. On the eve of the death of Selim I,
a sufficiently large navy had been prepared for war against Rhodes. Even though
no state of war existed at that time between the Ottomans and Venice, the
Venetians feared that these preparations were aimed against them, and began
defense preparations of their own, particularly in Cyprus.26 Also included are a
great many details on the operations of the navy of the Knights of Rhodes
against the Anatolian coasts, where many raids took place.
Importance must also be given to Capsali's commercial and economic
information on this region of the eastern Mediterranean. I deal here with one
issue only, perhaps the most important of all - the spice trade from India via
the Ottoman empire to Venice. In chapter I42,27 Capsali recounts that after the
conquest of Egypt, the Ottoman navy sent by Selim I struck at the Portuguese
navy near Calicut. After the Ottoman victory, the spices and perfumes were
again transferred in Venetian boats from the empire to Europe. No such Otto-
man maritime victory is known, but one cannot ignore the clear evidence of a
man who lived in the important commercial port of Candia and who wrote in
1523 that after an interruption because of the appearance of the Portuguese, the
spice trade across the Mediterranean Sea was again resumed. According to this
evidence, trade was renewed at the end of the reign of Selim I and continued
through the initial stages of the reign of Suleyman.
There is still need for further examination of this issue, but it does inform us
that the Portuguese gradually came to control the spice trade, transferring the
spices via the Cape of Good Hope to Western Europe. One can also assume that
following the first shock of the Portuguese appearance, spice merchants found
new ways of continuing trade via the Mediterranean, perhaps on a smaller scale
than before, while the Portuguese trade went via the Cape.
There is much to learn from the chronicle of Elijah Capsali, despite its lack
of objective historical criteria. As this examination of the chronicle reveals, the
most valuable information concerns the period in which the author lived and
the events he witnessed.

TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY

24 Seder, I, 241-254. 25 Ibid., p. 399. 26 Ibid.,

This content downloaded from 34.192.2.131 on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:33:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms