"Soylu şahsı, temsil ettiği; burjuvayı ise ürettiği belirler" Goethe "Klasik" ya da geleneksel dönemi itibariyle Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda şehir ve hükümdar arasında en azından zihinlerde oldukça sıkı bir ilişki vardır. Bu durum şer'iye sicillerinde Amasya'nın "mahrûse" kavramı ile tavsif edilmesinde de kendisini belli etmektedir. Hükümdarın ilâhî kaynaklı iktidarının görünür olduğu yer anlamına gelen "mahrûse"de ise bilhassa 17. yüzyılda yaşanan değişimler ile hükümdar ve şehir arasındaki ilişki değişmeye başlar. Şehirlerde bir takım yerel iktidar odakları ortaya çıkar ve bu odaklar, iltizam sistemi ve para ekonomisinin yaygınlaşması ile kendisine sosyo-ekonomik bir temel de edinir. İşte iltizâm "sektör"ünü Amasya'da hemen hemen tekellerine almış olan kapıkulu sipahileri, sosyo-politik ayrıcalıkları üzerinden söz konusu sosyo-ekonomik dinamiklere basarak sosyopolitik anlamda daha bir güç elde etmeye başlamışlardır. Hükümdar kapısından taşraya doğru yayılan sipahiler, mütesellimlik ve bilhassa vakıf mütevelliliği gibi vazifeler üzerinden muharip bir zümre olmanın ötesinde bürokratik bir sınıfa dönüşmüşlerdir. Şehirde birçok mülk edindikleri de görülen kapıkulu sipahileri, timâr elde etmişler, bunun yanında çiftliklerinde ticarî tarım da yapmaya başlamışlardır. Bu faaliyetlerini ise gayr-ı hukukî bazı tasarruflarla şehrin tamamına yaymaya çalıştıkları görülen sipahiler, mahrûsede, ayrı bir iktidar odağı haline gelerek şehir ve hükümdar arasındaki bağlantı da gedikler açılmasına sebep olmuşlardır. Elbette homojen bir zümre olmanın ötesinde bireysel ya da hizipsel çıkarları üzerinden hareket eden sipahiler, yerelleşmenin getirdiği saiklerle muhtemelen Amasya'yı sahiplenmişlerdir. İşte 17. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından sonra Amasya, artık "mahrûse" kavramından ziyade "medine" kavramı ile tavsif edilmeye başlanmış ve "ayânlar çağı" olan 18. yüzyılda ise artık "mahrûse" kavramı unutulmuş ve Amasya sadece "medine" kavramı ile anılır olmuştur. Kavramsal anlamda yaşanan bu değişim ise zihinlerde ve pratikte nasıl bir karşılığa sahiptir? Makalede kısmen cevaplanmaya çalışılan bu sorunun cevabını tam verebilmek için daha çok araştırmaya ihtiyaç vardır east in the minds, in the “Classic” or the traditional period of the Ottoman Empire. This relationship is evidenced within the court records, which are defined as the concept of “mahrûse” of Amasya during that period. The relationship between the sultan and the city has begun to change along with the changes in the “mahrûse”, which refers to the place where the divine origin power of sultan is visible, especially in the 17th Century. Some small groups of come to power in the cities and they acquire a socio-economic basis with tenure system and the expansion of the money economy. In Amasya, household cavalry have the control of this tenure system; thus, they start to gain socioeconomic power by using these socio-economic dynamics over their socio-political privileges. The household cavalry that spread across the provinces from Sultan’s house have turned into a bureaucratic class from a group that has responsibilities such as being deputies or administrators of the foundations. They have acquired many properties and become mesne lords in the city, and also they have begun to make commercial agriculture in their farms. These troops have tried to spread their activities to the entire city by some non-judicial transactions, and they are responsible for the gaps occurred in the connection between the Sultan and city by becoming a new power in “mahrûse”. The household cavalry have probably appropriated Amasya due to the motives resulted by being settled, and acted by considering their individual or factional interests rather than being a homogeneous group for sure. Therefore, after the second half of 17th Century, Amasya has been defined with the concept of “medine” rather than with the concept of “mahrûse”. In the 18th Century which is the century of landed proprietors in Ottoman Empire, the concept of “mahrûse” has been forgotten and Amasya has been referred to the concept of “medine” only. What is the response of this change, experienced in the concepts, in the minds and practice? Trabzon was started to be described with the concept of “mahruse” rather than “medine” just around the same dates. It is necessary to understand this conceptual changes taking place in court records regarding Trabzon and Amasya. It is also possible to relate these changes with individual disposal of clerks. However, since concepts of “mahrûse” and “mahmiye” were completely disappeared from documents produced in cities, we may be faced with a more sophisticated manner. In fact, the concepts of “mahrûse” and “Medine-i Amasya Sâkinlerinden Kapıkulu Sipahileri”: 17. Yüzyılın İlk Yarısında… 3 Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/1 Winter 2015 “mahmiye”, which constitute the conceptual dimension of ruler and ruling power over cities, lost power in favor of “medine” in the second half of the 17th century in Amasya in addition to Trabzon and they almost didn’t show up at the end of 17th century and in the 18th century; therefore, it is possible to point out that the perception of power and may be the ruling power itself have been changed. As a matter of fact, the city of Amasya in the second half of 17th century and in the 18th century should be analysed from the concept of historical perspective in order to discuss this issue in a more clear and concrete way. In addition, the possible connections that can be established between other cities in the Ottoman geography are quite important in terms of understanding the “victory” of “medine”, which is considered as a city in these days, in the 18th century. It would be also quite useful to understand the relationship between “medine” and notables in Ottoman Empire, who played important roles in the administration of cities, increased their influence and wealth by being civil servants until the 18th century. Because it is logical to think that positions and titles gained by notables had a contribution to the transformation of “mahrûse” into “medine”. It can lead us to important conclusions to follow whether their public institutions are established even with some differences in cities, where landed proprietors, who established their own publicities, say that Hamerbas’s bourgeois public institutions are substituted. Before 1730, “bölükbaşı” household cavalry, the people titled “beşe” and “çavuş” were involved in the city administration and collection of taxes in general in Trabzon; however, after 1730s, the people titled “zâde” were involved more in these duties. These families had voice in the administration of the city, and their testimony or opinions were taken in almost every case in the courts. In addition, these families obtained the best farmland and countryside fields in the city. In the 17th century, the situation was not that much different for Amasya. The activities of landed proprietor families in Amasya in the 18th century should be investigated within the scope of changes experienced from “mahruse” into “medine”. In fact, a member of an important landed proprietor family Canikli Hacı Ali has taken Amasya under his responsibility as a mansion in 1772. In addition, one of the important similarities with “era of notables” was dating substitution of bourgeois publicity in the 18th century by Habermas. Kemal Karpat considers notables of the 18th century as an aspect of modernization. According to him, the welfare of notables appears to be related to “land ownership, buying and selling of agricultural products and tax collection concession goes hand in hand with land ownership”. In this regard, “the main factors behind the rise of this group are Europe's growing demand for agricultural products, relatively free trade and government policy that allows accumulation of agricultural capital”. This period should be considered as “rich people” rather than people taking up positions as part of determination of notables. After all, notables of the 18th century were not only government officials, but also individuals gained their social positions by financial achievements. According to Karen Barkey, “notables gave modernity to their regions by improving the relationship between the private sector and different ethnicities in addition to investing in their 4 Turan AÇIK Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/1 Winter 2015 communities, labor force and low-income families depending on them.” As indicated by Karpat, the powerful position of notables in community caused them to be considered as authority-defying “rebels” against central government. In the period of Abdulhamid I, the authority of central government was within the borders of a few cities. The main issue was not disobedience to the central government, but acceptance of a new social order in which notables representing the upper classes. We think that it is possible to establish a connection between this new social order and “medine”. Thus, since the concept of “medine” comes to the forefront among other concepts like “mahmiye”, “mahrûse” representing the authority of Sultan’s power, it is possible to claim that there is another space of publicity other than the publicity of Sultan. Even power approaches occurring in “medine” may result in corporation of state perception. Thus, the concept of “medine” can be considered as a modern or perhaps modernizer concept compared to its counterparts, which are derivatives of the concepts of “mahmiye” and “mahrûse” used in the 16th and 17th centuries. At this point, even it may be quite speculative; we do have a question in mind: Is there any connection between the new meaning of “medine” and other concepts of derivatives of “medeniyet”, which is an Arabic word and used instead of another word “temeddun” takes place in the Ottoman literature that fully correspond to the concept of “civilization” in the 19th century? According to Tuncer Baykara, the concept of “medeniyet”, which was used by Sadık Rıfat Paşa for the first time in 1838, became popular suddenly due to its relation with the city. It reminds the relationship between civilization and being urbanized. At this point, we just want to remind you that: “Temeddun” is also a concept refers to city. In addition, the emphasis on process in the word of civilization is addressed better by “temeddun” compared to “medeniyet”. Then, why “temeddun” was not preferred? Because, the Sultan’s power is very apparent and legitimate in the city addressed by the word; “temeddun”. Thus, if the city is considered only based on being urbanized, then “temeddün” has the capacity of addressing the required meaning. However, the cities addressed by “medeniyet” and “temeddün” are quite different from each other and the concept of “medeniyet” is probably related to “medine”, which has gained a new meaning. In this new meaning, Sultan’s power seems to be quite small. In addition, we don’t really know if the opposition between secular nature of civilization and divine aspect of Sultan’s power has any effect on popularization of the concept of “medeniyet”; however, it is clear that more researches needed to give the answers of these questions. Therefore, researchers studying the concept of “medeniyet”, which has a great importance, should consider cities and their histories within the scope of being urbanized.