16. Yüzyıl Sonlarında Osmanlı Uleması Arasındaki Tarafgirlik ve Rekabete Dair Bir Örnek: Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi ve Ganîzâde Nâdirî’nin Mektupları.

This article examines three interconnected letters written by Niksârîzâde Mahmud Efendi and Ganîzâde Nâdirî as examples of bias, competition, and political connections among Ottoman scholar-bureaucrats in the late 16th century. The mentioned letters were penned in response to the events surrounding the appointment of Tursunzâde Abdullah to the professorship at Gazanfer Agha Madrasa, following an examination held in the presence of the Chief Judge of Rumeli of the time, Sunullah Efendi, in May 1597. Niksârîzâde, who embarked on his academic career as a mulāzim, alternately held positions as a judge and a professor. Aspiring to be appointed as a professor at Gazanfer Agha Madrasa, Niksârîzâde wrote a critical letter protesting the assignment of Tursunzâde to this position after the examination, targeting both Tursunzâde and Sunullah Efendi. Ganîzâde Nâdirî responded to this strongly-worded letter by dissecting its sentences and engaging in a kind of verbal sparring, employing similar harsh expressions. Niksârîzâde, in turn, replied to Nâdirî's letter with sarcastic and witty remarks. These three letters shed light on the existence of significant factions both on a personal level and within the Ottoman scholarly community of that era. The letters, previously unused in studies on early modern Ottoman ulema, provide valuable insights into the nature of bias, competition, animosities, and networks of Ottoman scholars in the late 16th century. Additionally, they reveal how a determined scholar sought justice through unconventional means. The unique characteristics of these letters position them as rare examples outside the literary compilations and as texts written in a distinct style. This study first provides background information on the lives of Niksârîzâde, Tursunzâde, and Ganîzâde, and then presents the contents of the three mentioned letters. Subsequently, Niksârîzâde's initial letter and Ganîzâde’s responsive letter are presented in Latinized form. Niksârîzâde's second letter in reply was only included in the review because it was quite missing in the copy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]