The Third International Süleymaniye Symposium explored the Köprülü Era (1656-1710) in Ottoman history, emphasizing new sources and approaches. Scholars from Turkey, Europe, and the U.S. convened to examine the Köprülü grand viziers’ careers and times. In the current special focus section, Yasir Yılmaz, Halef Cevrioğlu, Elizabeth Lobenwein, Georg B. Michels, and Christopher Whitehead offer innovative perspectives, drawing on brand new archival material. We advocate for a comparative approach to the Ottoman grand vizierate, highlight the significance of Habsburg archives in Ottomanist scholarship, debunk new short-term and long-term historical dimensions in the making of the family, and ask new questions about how we should interpret the Köprülü expansionism.

At the core of this article lies the argument that the Ottoman grand vizierate and the rise of the Köprülü family to power in the seventeenth century should be studied and analyzed mainly within two analytical and comparative frameworks. First, we should situate the office of the grand vizier in a diachronic view of the Islamic vizierate. Second, the Köprülü grand vizierate, in particular, should be viewed as one part of a synchronic ‘Eurasian age of the chief minister,” in a historical domain stretching from early modern Mughal and Safavid worlds to European empires and kingdoms. This article presents preliminary observations that may form a blueprint for future investigations into this global aspect of the grand vizierate and chief ministry. A broad perspective that merges these diachronic and synchronic approaches will allow us to detect theoretical and practical peculiarities of the Ottoman grand vizierate in comparison to its peers in Islamic history and across early modern Eurasia. Using that Eurasian macro perspective, I argue that the Köprülü grand viziers spearheaded the restoration of an independent vizierial authority that was idealized by generations of pre-Ottoman and Ottoman political writers and had numerous precedents in Islamic history.1

Pál Szepessy (1636–1685), a Calvinist noble, dedicated his life to the goal of turning Habsburg Hungary into an Ottoman vassal state. He spent much time in the Ottoman world, met with Grand Vizier Ahmed Köprülü (r. 1661–76) on at least four occasions, and regularly visited other Ottoman dignitaries. Szepessy outlined the traumatic effects of Habsburg military occupation and Counter-Reformation on Hungarian society. He was driven by the conviction that God had chosen the Ottomans as his avengers to liberate Hungary from the yoke of the Austrian Antichrist. Szepessy won Köprülü's support for armed uprisings and a guerilla war against the Habsburgs. He also influenced the grand vizier's decision to end the Polish-Ottoman war (1672–76) and turn the Ottoman army against the Habsburg Empire. When Köprülü died in November 1676, the blueprints for Habsburg Hungary's defection to the Ottoman Empire were already in place. They were reactivated by Kara Mustafa in 1682–83. Szepessy's initiatives (and similar efforts by other Hungarians) have been ignored by scholarship; their traces remain dispersed in the Austrian and Hungarian archives. My research draws on Szepessy's appeals to Köprülü; his correspondence with fellow Protestant nobles, family, and Transylvanian supporters; reports of Habsburg spies; dispatches of Habsburg residents at the Porte; and deliberations of the Habsburg War Council. Taken together these sources open a window on the life of an important trans-imperial subject whose life throws into question the clash of civilizations narrative that still dominates much of Habsburg and Central European historical studies.

The grand vizier Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (d. 1661) stands out as one of the most celebrated figures of Ottoman history, but despite his prominence, the basic contours of his earlier life remain largely unknown, and most of what is known derives from narrative accounts produced long after his death. This study utilizes archival sources to reconstruct Köprülü's career prior to his 1656 promotion to the grand vizierate. It reveals a major gap in the narrative sources: in 1653, when Köprülü is supposed to have been politically inactive, he was actually serving as a provincial governor in the sensitive region of Karaman in south-central Anatolia. At that time, a rebel faction was active in the area, and evidence indicates that Köprülü aligned with them. Elements of this faction, under Abaza Hasan's leadership, would later go on to rebel against Köprülü himself in 1658. Köprülü's ties to this rebel faction stand in sharp contrast to his later historical image as a paragon of order and central authority. An understanding of this period thus permits a reevaluation not only of Köprülü's political character, but also of how his supporters worked to construct his image in the aftermath of Abaza Hasan's rebellion.

Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's tenure as grand vizier from 1661 to 1676 stands as a seminal period in Ottoman history, and Fazıl Ahmed Pasha was a pivotal figure. This article draws upon the largely-overlooked dispatches written by Giovanni Battista Casanova, the imperial resident at the Sublime Porte. Through an analysis of Casanova's observations, this study offers fresh perspectives on the grand vizirate and of Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's enduring legacy within the Ottoman Empire. Following a brief introduction on Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's rise to power, the article's analysis unfolds across four dimensions: first, interactions between grand vizier Fazıl Ahmed and Sultan Mehmed IV; second, the closest associates of the grand vizier; third, Casanova's communication with the grand vizier; and fourth, Casanova's extensive negotiations for the release of prisoners of war.

At the core of this analysis is the argument that the communications between Casanova and Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha reveal not only the complexities of Ottoman affairs but also the strategic foundation of Ottoman military campaigns and diplomacy during this period. Through an examination of Casanova's dispatches, this article elucidates how the resident's interactions with the Ottoman court offer insights into the Ottoman Empire's strategies vis-à-vis European powers, as well as its reforms. By revisiting Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's legacy through the eyes of a contemporaneous observer, this study contributes a nuanced perspective to the understanding of Ottoman history and governance during the seventeenth century.

Historiographical tradition has tended to view the Köprülü-era foreign policy as one of conscious expansion, fueled by religious fervor. The descriptions of the seventeenth-century Ottoman chroniclers to that effect influenced the researchers of the twenty-first-century, too. However, in the reports of European diplomatic representatives active in Istanbul at the time, we see that the expansionary policy in the Köprülü period was not actually a pre-planned phenomenon with religious motivations; it was more likely that the grand viziers responded to the urgent problems arising from the political conjuncture of the period. To be more precise, this study argues that events such as the Érsekújvár Expedition (1663), the Siege of Candia (1667-69), and the Campaign of Kamieniec (1672), which all took place during the reign of Köprülü Fazıl Ahmet Pasha (r. 1661-76), could not be explained by religious motivations alone. Instead, the present study argues that a better way to understand Fazıl Ahmed Pasha's foreign policy is interpreting it from an international relations perspective through the neoclassical realist parameters of the individual, state structure, and international system.

The Workshop for Armenian/Turkish Scholarship (WATS) convened its first meeting at the University of Chicago in March 2000. Since then, the historical literature on not only the Armenian Genocide, but also Ottoman Armenians more generally, has grown ever more sophisticated. This essay takes stock of the growing visibility of Armenians in Ottoman historiography over the last two decades, and other developments. In particular, it asks why historical scholarship on Armenians has yet to have a transformative effect on the frameworks used to study the Ottoman Empire's history? The essay first identifies a series of obstacles that have prevented Armenian and Ottoman studies scholarship from developing a shared set of questions. It then offers suggestions for more carefully addressing the underlying problematics of empire that can bridge this divide without inadvertently reproducing national or regional paradigms that have long left an imprint on Ottoman historiography.

The following interview with Layale Chaker, conducted on 14 September 2023, delves into her unique journey as a Palestinian-Lebanese composer, highlighting the pivotal role of music in shaping her sense of “home” following the Lebanese Civil War. Drawing from her diverse musical upbringing, spanning community choirs to formal conservatory education, Chaker elucidates the disparity between institutional training and the lived musical experiences of the Arab world, informing her quest for authenticity in composition.

Chaker recounts her involvement with the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, founded by Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said, juxtaposed with her decision to pursue an individual artistic trajectory. Central to the conversation is her composition “En Présence de l'Absence – Homáge à Edward Saïd,” revealing a deeply personal connection to Said's legacy and a nuanced exploration of his ethos through music.

The interview culminates with insights into Chaker's forthcoming opera, “Ruinous Gods,” co-crafted with playwright Lisa Schlesinger. Addressing the profound trauma of refugee children afflicted with uppgivenhetssyndrom (resignation syndrome), the opera promises a poignant musical narrative probing themes of parenthood, displacement, and societal obligation. Set for premiere at the 2024 Spoleto Festival USA, Chaker's work continues to blend artistry with advocacy, offering a resonant reflection on human resilience and responsibility.

For ten years, the Committee for Undergraduate Middle East Studies (CUMES) has organized the Undergraduate Research Workshop and Poster Session, creating a space where undergraduate students can present their work, receive feedback, and learn more about career paths related to Middle East studies. In 2016, I was fortunate enough to participate in the session, an experience that not only marked my entry into MESA but also showed me what generative scholarly engagement can look like. From the care that faculty participants took in their comments to the engagement during the poster presentations, my experience with the workshop has guided my own approach to providing student feedback, and it is an honor to have the space to reflect on this past experience and engage with the work of current undergraduates at the 2023 workshop.