by Nilab Saeedi
In this interview, Nilab Saeedi speaks with M. Fatih Çalışır about the intellectual life of the seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire, where knowledge was not only preserved or encouraged but deliberately used to shape governance. Their interview centers on Dr. Çalışır’s research on Fazıl Ahmed Pasha, a grand vizier whose patronage reveals a state deeply invested in ideas. Dr. Çalışır is an Associate Professor at the Institute for Islamic Studies at Istanbul University and a visiting scholar at Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. He researches the cultural and environmental history of the early modern Ottoman Empire.
Nilab Saeedi: In the historiography of the Ottoman Empire, political and military developments have traditionally received the most attention, while intellectual and scholarly pursuits receive comparatively less attention. Could you provide us with an overview of the role of knowledge production, the structure of scholarly institutions, and the dynamics of intellectual patronage in the seventeenth century? To what extent was intellectual life integrated into the mechanisms of governance and statecraft during this period?
M. Fatih Çalışır: You are right to highlight the imbalance in scholarly attention. While the political and military dimensions have received considerable research, the rich and complex landscape of early modern Ottoman intellectual life—particularly during the seventeenth century—warrants deeper exploration. Contrary to earlier scholarly claims of stagnation, this period was marked by dynamic intellectual activity across diverse fields such as fiqh, philosophy, logic, astronomy, medicine, and historical writing. Arabic continued to dominate the religious sciences in the seventeenth century, and Persian maintained its influence in literary circles. However, Ottoman Turkish increasingly emerged as a central medium in many fields, propelled by translation efforts from both Arabic and European sources and the deliberate choices of Turkish scholars who preferred to compose their works in their native tongue. Much of the intellectual production of the period revolved around the traditions of commentary (şerḥ) and gloss (ḥāşiye), which were far from rote exercises—they served as dynamic spaces for interpretive debate and innovation. While madrasas remained the institutional backbone of formal scholarly education, majlises or social and scholarly gatherings offered alternative arenas for intellectual exchange and debate. The proliferation of madrasas and libraries in Istanbul, Edirne, and various provincial centers reflected a growing emphasis on literacy and the development of scholarly infrastructure. As recent studies have shown, manuscript culture flourished; the copying, collecting, and cataloging of texts were treated with great seriousness by both scholars and statesmen. Intellectual patronage was also robust. Sultans—particularly Murad IV (1623-40) and Mehmed IV (1648-87)—and grand viziers, notably from the Köprülü family, played significant roles in supporting scholarly activity. Leading members of prominent ulema families, such as Vişnezāde İzzetī Mehmed Efendi and Minkārīzāde Yahya Efendi, likewise contributed to the cultivation of knowledge. Figures like Koçi Bey and Katip Çelebi authored influential works diagnosing the empire’s structural challenges and proposing reforms, thus enabling imperial governance to draw upon the insights of the learned elite.
NS: Fazıl Ahmed Pasha, a key figure of this era, is often remembered primarily for his statesmanship. However, your research sheds light on his considerable contributions to intellectual and cultural domains. What factors shaped his patronage of scholars, translators, and artists? Did his approach reflect traditional Ottoman patterns or forge a distinct path in his engagement with the scholarly world?
MFÇ: Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s tenure as Grand Vizier (1661-1676)—remarkable both for its longevity and, in my view, its success—has recently begun to attract renewed scholarly attention, particularly regarding his patronage of intellectual activity. I believe that his engagement with the world of learning reveals a deeper dimension of his vision for Ottoman statecraft. Several key factors appear to have influenced his support for scholars, translators, and artists. First, his upbringing and education set him apart from many of his contemporaries. As the son of Köprülü Mehmed Pasha, he inherited a legacy of disciplined governance. Yet unlike his father, Fazıl Ahmed received a formal scholarly education, studying with the leading ulema and artists of his time and later serving in prestigious madrasas. This personal immersion in scholarly and artistic circles, it seems, shaped his intellectual sensibilities, and bolstered his credibility among the ulema establishment. Second, Fazıl Ahmed operated within a long-standing tradition of Ottoman intellectual patronage, in which sultans and viziers supported the production of knowledge as a marker of legitimacy and imperial prestige. What set his approach apart, however, was the scale and intentionality of his investments. His support for scholarly, literary, and artistic works; historical writing; and translation efforts—alongside his patronage of diverse figures such as Evliya Çelebi, Ebubekir b. Behram ed-Dımaşḳī, Hattat Hafız Osman, and Giovanni Mascellini, to name but a few—reflects a conscious effort to cultivate a new group of scholars and to expand the epistemic tools available to the Ottoman state.
NS: Building on that, Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s support extended beyond traditional Islamic scholarship to include European scientific texts and translations. How should we interpret this aspect of his patronage? Was it indicative of a genuine openness to new epistemologies or more of a strategic effort to reinforce and modernize established Ottoman knowledge systems?
MFÇ: Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s engagement with both traditional Islamic learning and European scientific works indeed reflects a broader Ottoman attitude toward cultural and scientific exchange in the seventeenth century—one that was neither conservative nor uncritically open to change but rather characterized by selective appropriation grounded in pragmatism and imperial utility. On the one hand, the inclusion of European astronomical and geographical texts—such as Nouvelle théorie des planets and Atlas Maior—in the intellectual projects he supported reveals a notable awareness of the shifting landscape of global knowledge. This was not an isolated phenomenon. Ottoman interest in European works had already taken root by the late sixteenth century and expanded in the seventeenth, especially in fields with direct administrative or practical relevance, such as cartography, navigation, military engineering, and medicine. Fazıl Ahmed’s patronage of translations and cosmographical works should therefore be viewed as part of a broader imperial trend toward epistemological expansion and adaptation. The goal, in many cases, was to augment it in service of the state—whether through more accurate maps, more effective administrative tools, or better-informed policy. Thus, Fazıl Ahmed’s intellectual vision—and that of his contemporaries—can be seen as emblematic of a confident and strategic Ottoman worldview that saw no contradiction in engaging with foreign knowledge while reaffirming the centrality of Islamic scholarly traditions.
NS: His extensive manuscript collection offers another valuable perspective on his intellectual inclinations. What can the themes and contents of this collection tell us about his priorities? Do they suggest a focus on innovation, the preservation of classical knowledge, or perhaps a deliberate synthesis of both?
MFÇ: The richness and diversity of Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s manuscript collection stand as a living testimony to this inclusive and carefully calibrated intellectual vision. It offers a valuable window into his intellectual priorities, and a closer look at its contents reveals a deliberate and balanced synthesis of tradition and innovation. The collection includes more than 1,600 volumes classified under a wide range of subjects such as the Qur’anic recitation, exegesis, ḥadīth and its methodology, principles and branches of Islamic jurisprudence, Sufism, ethics, theology, philosophy, logic, astrology, astronomy, mathematics, geometry, medicine, zoology, history, biography of the Prophet Muhammed, literature, etiquette and courtly discourse, rhetoric, dialectics, metaphorical language, grammar and morphology, dictionaries, and anthologies. This thematic breadth is striking and reflects his position a scholar-statesman who saw intellectual engagement as integral to effective governance. The presence of classical texts—especially authoritative works in jurisprudence, theology, and logic—demonstrates a sustained commitment to the preservation and transmission of established Islamic knowledge. These works underpinned the legitimacy of the ulema and formed the epistemological backbone of the Ottoman bureaucratic and educational systems. Yet the inclusion of translated or adapted European works and his patronage for these activities suggests that Fazıl Ahmed’s intellectual vision was not limited to preservation. He was actively engaged in scholarly endeavors aimed at strengthening imperial administration, promoting scientific literacy, broadening knowledge of the wider world, and making it accessible to all interested parties. I should also say that while some researchers have accused Fazıl Ahmed Pasha of having fallen under the influence of the puritanical Kadızādeli movement, the presence in his library of autograph manuscripts by İbrahim al-Kūrānī—widely regarded as the last great interpreter of the Ibn al-ʿArabī tradition—and the fact that these manuscripts were personally sent to him by al-Kūrānī himself, point to a more complex and ecumenical intellectual posture. The inclusion of hundreds of works on Sufism, philosophy, logic, astronomy, medicine, mathematics, geometry, and zoology also challenges the notion that the second half of the seventeenth century marked an intellectually insular period. It invites a reassessment of why such an expansive and publicly accessible library was assembled at a time often portrayed as hostile to intellectual diversity.
NS: Finally, looking beyond his tenure, what lasting impact did Fazıl Ahmed Pasha have on Ottoman scholarly institutions and intellectual life? Were his contributions largely confined to his time in office, or did they set in motion broader transformations? How should we place his legacy within the wider evolution of Ottoman knowledge production?
MFÇ: That is an especially important question. Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s influence on Ottoman intellectual life was indeed substantial during his tenure, but the extent and durability of that influence require careful contextualization. While some of his specific initiatives—such as the patronage of translators like Ebubekir b. Behram ed-Dımaşḳī and Mehmed b. Ahmed el-Edirnevī, or the commissioning of works—may not have led to permanent institutionalization, his intellectual vision helped shape the contours of a broader transformation already underway in Ottoman knowledge production—a process that, in my view, had already intensified by Katip Çelebi and his supporters. Rather than introducing immediate or sweeping reforms within scholarly institutions, Fazıl Ahmed’s impact is best understood as catalytic: he contributed to a redefinition of the relationship between knowledge and governance and raised the intellectual expectations of Ottoman statesmen. One of the more enduring aspects of his patronage lies in the types of knowledge he championed. The inclusion of geography, historiography, and translated European sciences within elite scholarly and bureaucratic circles fostered a growing sense of epistemological pluralism in the Ottoman intellectual landscape. Grand vizier in the subsequent decades—such as Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, Fazıl Mustafa Pasha, Amcazāde Hüseyin Pasha, and, most notably, Nevşehirli Damad İbrahim Pasha—continued to cultivate interest in global geography, historiography, translation projects, and administrative critique among the Ottoman intelligentsia. This hybrid model, a synthesis of classical Islamic scholarship and practical expertise, would continue to shape Ottoman intellectual life well into the eighteenth century, particularly during the so-called “Tulip Era.” To properly situate Fazıl Ahmed Pasha’s contributions within the broader arc of Ottoman intellectual history, it is useful to view him as a transitional figure, one who stood at a critical juncture between the classical synthesis of the sixteenth century and the epistemological diversification of the eighteenth.
Nilab Saeedi is a Research Associate at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. She holds a PhD in History, specializing in Ottoman history and Islamic intellectual history. Her first book, Three Empires and Persian Historiography: The Thought of Muṣliḥ al-Dīn Lārī, will be published with Routledge by January 2026.
Edited by Zac Endter.
Featured Image: Köprülü Ahmed kőrajz, via Wikimedia Commons.
