• 1 Public ceremonies which were famous for especially splendid guild parades include Murād III’s 1582 (...)

1Public ceremonies organized by the Ottoman court on such occasions as the weddings of the sultan’s daughters, the circumcisions of his sons, and the beginnings of campaigns, frequently included processions by the various guilds. The most splendid and famous guild parades were held in the 16th and 17th centuries.1 In the 18th century and later, these parades became less frequent and less lavish, because public taste changed and they were not so important a part of public entertainment any more. Of those guild parades which took place in the Ottoman capital Istanbul, the parade of 1638 definitely was the largest and most spectacular in terms of participants. It was held during preparations for Murād IV’s campaign in Persia. All the guilds of the town, divided into groups and sub-groups, processed through the streets of Istanbul. This event is elaborately described in the first volume of Evliyâ Çelebi’s Seyahatnâme, which deals with Evliyâ’s home-town, Istanbul.

• 2 Hammer-Purgstall, J.v., 1822.
• 3 Hammer-Purgstall, J.v., 1850.

2Evliyâ’s portrayal of this guild parade is one of the most famous and frequently discussed parts of the Seyahatnâme and is a valuable source on Ottoman cultural and economic history. As early as 1822 J. von Hammer-Purgstall published a shortened version of it in German.2 Ten years later, in his Narrative of travels in Europe, Asia and Africa in the seventeenth century, he provided an extended translation of it into English.3 No subsequent historian seriously dealing with guild or labor history in Ottoman Turkey has disregarded Evliyâ’s account.

• 4 I must emphasize that this paper is not about guild patrons in general, only about their portrayal (...)

3In this paper I wish to briefly consider one previously neglected aspect of this text: Evliyâ’s more or less detailed discussion of the pīrs, the guild patrons. I will begin with a general overview about how Evliyâ introduces these pīrs: some he discusses in detail; others he mentions only marginally; and many he ignores completely. Next, I will discuss the longer stories or legends about these pīrs which Evliyâ narrates – though there are not many, unfortunately. Then I will highlight the most significant themes of these stories to show why particular individuals were chosen as pīrs for certain guilds.4 Finally, I will briefly summarize the similarities and differences between these pīrs and the patrons of the Christian guilds of Europe.

• 11 Taeschner, 1979 : 406.
• 12 Its actual title is Miftāḥu d-daqā’iq fī bayāni l-futuwwa wa-l-ḥaqā’iq.
• 13 This is the reason that ‛Alī commonly is seen in Islam as the founder of the guilds. Taeschner, 19 (...)
• 14 Various guilds took parts of it and changed it according to their special needs. Taeschner, 1979 : (...)

5The conception and development of the fütüvvet movement and Ottoman guild patrons has been studied by F. Taeschner. Especially important is his monograph on the development of the Aḫi brotherhoods and the fütüvvet movement, one chapter of which concerns the position of the fütüvvet and its role vis-á-vis the Ottoman guilds. Not until Ottoman times, when the fütüvvet movement in the Arab world was already in decay, did it establish an alliance between the Anatolian Aḫis and the Bektaşiya on one hand and the Ottoman guilds on the other. According to Taeschner the fütüvvet began to play an increasingly important role within the Ottoman guilds,11 and only in Ottoman times did guild patrons became “institutionalized”. The so-called fütüvvet-nāmeler were then written, the most important of which was the 1524 Fütüvvetnāme-i kebīr of Seyyid Meḥemmed b. Seyyid ‛Alā’eddīn el-Ḥüseynī el-Riżavī.12 Large parts of this were translated by Taeschner into German. Ibn ‛Alā’eddīn narrates the sequences in which the pīrs were appointed: First there were the four partriarchs, çahār pīr: Ādem, Şīt, İbrāhīm, and Muḥammed. Then Muḥammed, who had been girded by Cibrīl, girds ‛Alī b. Abī Ṭālib at the famous event of Ghadīr Khumm.13 By order of the Prophet, ‛Alī in turn girds 17 Companions, making them pīrs of certain guilds and giving them “license” to gird further persons. The first one girded by ʿAlī was Selmān al-Fārisī, who by order of ‛Alī then girded 55 more Companions. The Fütüvvetnāme-i kebīr was the main source for numerous later and shorter fütüvvetnāmes.14 As we shall see, the well-read Evliyâ knew such books and obviously consulted them to learn the pīrs.

• 15 This number is suggested by Yi, 2004 : 42, n. 2. According to Yücel Dağlı’s index in the Seyahatnâm (...)
• 16 Later on, Evliyâ states that Cemşīd is pīr for 366 guilds; see below. The source for the many narra (...)

7In his account of the guild parade, Evliyâ mentions some 500 to 550 groups,15 each of which he treats in various degree of detail. Some of the groups are described only in two lines; others receive more attention. Insofar as he knows them, he takes care to mention their pīrs, naming more than 250 individuals, many of them being pīr for more than one guild. The prophets Muḥammed, İbrāhīm, and Nūḥ, for example, are pīr for seven guilds each. The semi-historical Persian king Cemşīd, the central figure in a good many stories and myths, is pīr for eight guilds.16 Dāvūd is by far the most popular pīr, being patron for 18 guilds.

• 17 Q 34 : 10 -11: “And We made pliable for him iron, [Commanding him], ‘Make full coats of mail and ca (...)

8Frequently individual pīrs are the patron for several thematically-related guilds. For example, the Qur’ān says Dāvūd invented forging17 when he produced his chain armor: thus we find him the patron of the many guilds dealing with metal or weapons. But there were also many guilds which, according to Evliyâ, had two or even three pīrs. In most of these cases one pīr is a pre-Islamic figure and the second one a girded Companion of the Prophet. Evliyâ frequently takes care to emphasis that the girded pīr is the “real” one.

• 18 “kadîm‑i evvelde pîrleri Hazret‑i Fisagores‑i Tevhîdî idi. {Ammâ} Hazret‑i Risâlet asrında pîr‑i ha (...)
• 19 “Pîrleri Hazret‑i Nûh'dur. Ammâ Hazret‑i Resûl asrında Mekke deryâsı kim Süveys deryâsıdır, andan b (...)

9The paste producers: “In old times their pīr was Fisagores‑i Tevḥīdī, but in the age of the Prophet their real pīr is Ḥażret‑i ‛Ubeyd‑i ‛Aṭṭār.”18 The ancient patron of the ship-builders was of course Nūḥ, builder of the Ark; but later a certain Ebū l-maḥż‑ı ‛Ummānī became “officially” girded as their pīr.19 These two examples illustrate the fact that the proper names of the pīrs frequently had some concrete association with the profession or trade of which they were patron.

• 21 “fütüvvetnâme‑i kübrâda "Bağdâd Hillesi'nde arslan paralamışdır, kabri nâ-ma‘lûmdur" deyü yazmış. R (...)
• 22 “pîrleri ma‘lûmum olmayup bir siğer ü fütüvvetde ve fütüvvetnâme‑i kebîrde görmeyüp seyâhat etdüğim (...)

11Evliyâ obviously did some research concerning the pīrs of some of the guilds: in about 85 instances we find the phrase “their patron is _ _ _” followed by a gap, which shows that Evliyâ planned to fill in a name later. These gaps become more frequent near the end of the guild description. The above-mentioned Fütüvvetnāme-i kebīr obviously was one of his sources, as he alludes to it several times. For example, concerning the pīr of the producers of suits of armor he says: “In the fütüvvetnāme‑i kübrā is written that he was mauled by lions at Hillah near Baghdad. His grave is unknown.”21 Sometimes Evliyâ admits that he could not determine a guild’s pīr, because there was no mention of it in the literature: “I do not know their pīr: I did not see him in any siyer, fütüvvet, and the fütüvvetnāme‑i kebīr; and I did not visit him (i.e. his grave) during my travels.” Or: “Their pīr is unknown: I have not seen the guild of suitcase-makers in any fütüvvet.”22

• 23 “Selmân‑ı Pâk 'in kemer-beste etdüği üçüncü pîrdir”. SN I: 159a.
• 24 For a comparison of the relevant parts in the Seyāhatnāme and the Fütüvvetnāme-i Kebīr see Eren, 1 (...)

12Frequently Evliyâ also mentions the “number” of a pīr – that is, what his rank was in the pīrs girded by a certain saint. For example, “He is the third pīr girded by Selmān-ı Pāk”23. When comparing these numbers with the Fütüvvetnāme-i Kebīr, as edited by Taeschner, we observe that they always are in accordance with that text.24

• 25 “...bunlar cümle Rûmeli'nde Serfice ve Filorunya ve Liçista ve Gölikesri şehirlerinde sâkin bir al (...)
• 26 “pîrsizân-i Fir‛avniyān” SN I: 169a.
• 27 “bu mel‘ûnlar müselmânın boğazladuğı lahmı yemeyüp başka pîrsiz mel’ûnlardır” SN I: 166b.

13Evliyâ states that there are guilds without a pīr. He calls 23 guilds pīrsiz, and gives several reasons why they are such. Some were pīrsiz because they were non-Muslim or gypsy groups. Two were the fur-traders from Rumeli, whom he calls “a group of Greeks without religion and without patron”,25 and the gypsies with dancing bears from the quarter of Sultān Balaṭ Şāh, whom he vilifies as “pharaonics without patrons”.26 Concerning the Jewish butchers he writes, “These cursed ones do not eat the meat that Muslims slaughter: they are one more of these damned groups without a patron.”27

• 28 “hâşâ mine's-sâmi‘în pîrleri ola” for the pâzvengân, “hâşâ pîrleri ola” for the deyyūsān; both SN (...)
• 29 “zu‘m-ı bâtıllarınca pîrleri Amr‑ı Ayyâr'dır ammâ hâşâ ve kellâ”. SN I: 154b.

14Another reason a guild might lack a patron is its low social status or its reputation for dubious dealings. Among such were the thieves, the pimps, and the panderers. More than once Evliyâ contemptuously writes of a guild “Heaven forfend that they have a patron”, or “Heaven forfend the audience that they have a patron.”28 Sometimes Evliyâ simply does not accept a guild’s claim that it has a certain patron. For instance, of the asesān, the night-watch, he writes, “According to their superstitious belief, their patron is Amr-i ‛Ayyār, but this is certainly not the case. Beware!”29 Evliyâ states that the actual patron of the silk mercers is ʿAbdullāh, son of Ca‛fer-i Ṭayyār, despite their claim that their patron is Imām Ġazzālī. Also the claim of the boza-makers that their pīr is Ṣarı Ṣaltıq, is commented on by Evliyâ only with hāşā (SN I : 212b).

• 30 “Pîrleri Cemşîd'dir. Hazret asrında zurna çalınmayup pîr-i hakîkîleri yokdur.” SN I: 202b.

15But Evliyâ sometimes offers a very pragmatic explanation for a pīrsiz guild. He states, for example, that the horse-millers and the gun-makers have no patrons because their handicrafts were unknown in the Prophet’s time. However, he then contradicts himself by saying that Dāvūd is the patron of the gun-makers because he battled Goliath with a metal blowtube and small clay balls (SN I : 182a). Similarly, according to Evliyâ the bandmasters (mehterān) have only the pre-Islamic Cemşīd as a patron because no bands existed at the time of the Prophet.30

• 31 The Fütüvvetnāme of Yaḥyā b. Ḫalīl al-Burġāzī also is translated into German in Taeschner, 1979: 3 (...)
• 32 The Fütüvvetnāme-i Kebīr also gives the reasons why these guilds are not worthy of the fütüvvet.
• 33 Evliyâ says the Jewish tavern-keepers are pīrsiz, though they have Çemşīd SN I: 215a.

16According to Taeschner (1979 : 455f.), who compared concerning this point Ibn ‛Alāeddīn’s Fütüvvetnāme-i Kebīr with al-Burġāzī,31 there are twelve groups which do not deserve the fütüvvet: 32 the unbelievers (kāfir), the wine drinkers (ḫamr içenler),33 the hypocrets (münāfiq), and nine professional groups – specifically the fortune-tellers (remmāl and müneccim), the servers in the ḥammāms (dellāk), the agents (dellāl), the weavers (cullāḥ), the butchers (qaṣṣāb), the surgeons (cerrāḥ), the hunters (ṣayyād), the tax-tenants (ʿameldār), and the crop speculators (maṭrabāz). However, Evliyâ does not list any of these groups as pīrsiz: he does not mention the ʿameldār and maṭrabāz at all, and for each of the other ten professional groups he gives the name of a pīr. Only the Jewish butchers mentioned above have no pīr – not because they are butchers, but because they are non-Muslims.

• 34 She cured Moses of an eye illness by rubbing some dust into his eyes which she had taken from bene (...)
• 35 “kettân ekenlere ve eğirüp iplik edenlere Hadîce‑i Kübrâ pîre oldu.” SN I: 166a.
• 36 “Ammâ sünnet edicilerin pîri Ebü'l-havâkîn Muhammed'in hâtûnu Râbi‘a binti Abdullâh ibn Mes‘ûd'{dur (...)

17Among the patrons are five women, one of them even designated by the feminine form pīre: The patron for the female Qur’ān recitators was Sitti Ḥafẓa, the daughter of ‛Umar bin Ḫattāb (SN I : 156a). The patron of the kehhālān was an un-named pre-islamic Jewish lady.34 The patron of the kettāncıyān, which included the farmers who grew linen as well as the producers of linen thread, was Ḫadīce‑i Kübrā, wife of Muḥammad and girded by the Prophet himself. As patron of those involved with linen production, she was the Islamic successor of the early Iranian hero-king Hūşeng Şāh.35 The patron of the napkin-embroiderers, yağlıkçı, was Belqīs, wife of Salomon, because she herself had embroidered a napkin (SN I : 192b). Particularly interesting is Evliyâ’s mention of a female pīr among the circumcisers (“esnâf‑ı berberân‑ı sünnetciyân”): After explaining that the Prophet was born circumcised, he introduces Rābi‘a bint ‛Abdullāh ibn Mes’ūd, wife of Ebū l-ḫavāqīn Muhammed, as the pīr for circumcising girls, as it was she who cut “the peace of redundant meat called little red tongue which is situated in the middle of the girls’ maṣdar (lit. ‘place of origin’)“. He claims this circumcision is very useful, as it facilitates delivery.36

• 37 “Pîr oldur kim her muharremât [u] memnû‘âtden müberrâ ve ma‘sûm [u] pâk ola. Anın îmânı dürüstdür.” (...)

18What were the characteristic features of a guild patron? What must he or she have done? What virtues did they possess? In his chapter on girding – which is not part of the guild account – Evliyâ describes a typical pīr as “one who is innocent and clean and free of any sin and blemish: his belief is wholehearted”. He later adds that a pīr is “one who is girded in the presence of the Prophet by the belt of one of the Four, who are girded by Him”.37

• 39 The question of the sources for these stories definitely deserves further research and a much more (...)

21As was said before, no elaborate texts should be expected. In fact, only about 30 stories concerning the pīrs are longer than two or three sentences.

• 40 For a Koranic story of Dāvūd see note 17. For a story in the Koran concerning Cain, see below.

22What is really striking and interesting about this material is that two-thirds of the stories deal with pre-Islamic figures. This implies that the stories of the “old ones”, and therefore the sources which included these stories, were widely known. Stories from various books on the miracles of the prophets (qıṣaṣü l-enbiyā’) obviously belonged to the common popular knowledge of the time, which – of course – was also true of the stories in the Koran.40 By contrast, stories concerning the Companions of the Prophet are significantly fewer and shorter. Often the pre-Islamic patron and his special relationship with a guild is described in detail whereas the name alone of the “real” pīr is provided by Evliyâ without further comment.

• 42 This legend is still well-known in Aleppo; for its origins see Tomkins 1897: 80.

24İbrāhīm, patron of several guilds involved with milk production (milk, ḥallūm cheese, cream/kaymak, yoghurt), had a miraculous cow in Aleppo which never dried up. He milked her every day and distributed the milk to the city’s poor. And the trough in which the cow’s milk had been kept provided milk to the people for hundreds of years afterwards, always remaining full (SN I : 167b).42

• 43 “...ilâ hâze'l-ân cemî‘i mahlûk‑ı Hudâ, İbrâhîm Halîl tuzundan tenâvül ederler aceb hikmetdir.” SN(...)

25İbrāhīm was also the patron of the salt traders because of another miracle he had performed: After he had finished building the Kaaba, a small bowl of dust remained. When Ibrāhīm asked God for wages for his labour, God told him to cast the dust in the bowl in all directions. Ibrāhīm obeyed, and the dust was distributed across the whole world as salt: “And to this day all the creatures of God eat of the salt of Ibrāhīm”.43

• 44 Q 5 : 31: “Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of (...)

27For example, after Cain, patron of the gravediggers, killed his brother Abel, he did not know what to do with the body. But then he observed a raven digging up a coconut and got the idea of hiding the corpse in the earth (SN I : 154a). This – less the coconut – basically is how the story is told in the Quran.44

• 45 Hūşeng is mentioned in the Şāhnāme as the inventor of various crafts: he “dug canals for irrigatio (...)

29The creation of flax was the result of another happy accident: Hūşeng, the mythical Iranian king, grew cotton and watered it with urine. God then turned Hūşeng’s cotton into flax. Evliyâ says that this is why flax has the aroma of urine. However he does not enlighten his readers about what had inspired Hūşeng to water his cotton with urine in the first place (SN I : 166a).45

• 46 “kaz göğsü kemigine göre” SN I : 162b.

30There are stories relating how God ordered certain arts and crafts to be taught to human beings. The agent of God’s will in these stories is Cibrīl. Thus Cibrīl showed Adam how to grow wheat and then how to grind the wheat and bake bread: Adam therefore became the patron of the bakers. Cibrīl also showed Noah, patron of the ship-wrights, how to build a ship “in the design of a goose’s breast-bone”.46

• 47 Especially Roman Catholic.
• 48 De Voragine 1912 and Schäfer, www.heiligenlexikon.de accessed 14-03-2012.

31Finally, I will briefly compare Christian47 traditions about guild patrons with those of Evliyâ. As sources I used the Legenda Aurea, a 13^th century collection of legends by Jacobus de Voragine, and the Ecumenical Online Lexicon of Saints by Joachim Schäfer.48 One striking parallel is that among the many legends about Christian saints there are disappointingly few concerning their role as guild patrons: I had in fact expected the works I consulted to be much more detailed on this subject than the Seyahatnâme. First the differences between Christian and Muslim guild patrons: In contrast to the Muslim pīrs, we find few biblical prophets as Christian guild patrons. The Apostles, like the prophet’s Companions, were guild patrons, but the overwhelming majority of Christian guild patrons were saints who lived in late Antiquity and during the Middle Ages. And – of course – we find many more female Christian than female Muslim guild patrons.