238 chapter 6
sympathetic to the Kadızadelis, described the policies implemented by the
aghas as an “evil innovation” (bidat-i seyyi’e)” that “obstructed the movement of
merchants”.20 It is not clear to what extent the Kadızadelis steered the course
of the tradesmen’s revolt. Neither do we know whether the market forces that
took up the Kadızadeli cause belonged to the richer and more rooted mer-
cantile elite or to the lower strata of new entrants into the mercantile class
who were striving to make the most of the economic opportunities around
them, and which included the janissaries.21 However, there is no doubt that the
Kadızadeli discourse manipulated the mundane woes of those who had been
negatively impacted by the economic conditions of the period.
The infamous “plane tree incident” (when janissaries and sipahis put an end
to the power of the harem aghas) of 4 March 1656 was a temporary setback for
the Kadızadelis. As a result of this event, it appears that the Kadızadelis lost
most of their protectors and close friends in the palace. Despite their much-
weakened status in the palace and among government officials, they still had
some influence over the designation of posts and offices. The defeat of the
Ottoman navy in the Dardanelles by the Venetians provided the occasion for
a stronger show of force by the Kadızadelis.22 The mob that was whipped up
by the Kadızadeli leaders included medrese students as well as traders and
craftsmen. The escalation of events alarmed the newly-appointed grand vi-
zier Köprülü Mehmed Pasha and he banished the three Kadızadeli leaders
Üstüvani, Türk Ahmed, and Divane Mustafa from the capital.23
The movement maintained a low profile until the end of Köprülü Mehmed’s
grand vizierate. Yet this was not to last forever, since, immediately after he
succeeded his father in 1661, Köprülü Mehmed’s Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha
(d. 1676, in office 1661–76), who already had a reputation within ulema circles
for his scholarly bent, invited the preacher Vani Mehmed Efendi, whom he had
first met in Erzurum, to the capital. The influence that Vani had over the grand
vizier is documented by the collection of his letters that reflected the signifi-
cant level of correspondence between them, especially when the grand vizier
was away on military campaign.24 Within a year of Fazıl Ahmed’s assumption
20 Sariyannis 2012, 276.
21 Cemal Kafadar has described the Kadizadeli movement as a reaction to “the new urban
reality”, a reality which promoted the sociability of the “Janissary-affiliated social class”
(Kafadar 2007). Sariyannis agrees with this conclusion and points to support from middle
or even upper mercantile strata, rather than the lower echalons who were used as a fight-
ing force by former, being their servants and apprentices (Sariyannis 2012, 277).
22 Öztürk 1981, 255–257; Terzioğlu 1999, 205.
23 Öztürk 1981, 263; Terzioğlu 1999, 205.
24 Vânî Efendi, Münşe’ât, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Ktp. Ayasofya MS 4308.