IKON 15 - 2022 Sadržaj Contents Uvodna riječ / Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Claudia Cieri Via Unveiling the Other: Art, Images, and Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Debra Higgs Strickland Otherness on the Hereford World Map (c. 1300) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Iris Grötecke The Visibility of the Pagans Transformation and Dissemination of an Undervalued Ancient Motif in Northern European Medieval Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Ivana Čapeta Rakić – Giuseppe Capriotti An Inquiry into the Image of Jews in 15th-Century Istria The Iconography of the Jewish-Christian Dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Nataša Kavčić Otherness in Medieval Document Decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Jakov Đorđević Visualising Sexual Otherness in the Late Medieval Eastern Christian Monasteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Dmitriy Antonov Demonizing the Aggressors Russian Icons of The Battle of Novgorodians against Suzdalians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Sergei Zotov Pagan Otherness in the Christian Church Iconography of Ancient Philosophers and Intellectuals in Russia and the Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Nicolás Kwiatkowski Martyrdom and the Visual Production of Otherness in Europe, 1450-1650) . . . . . . . 105 Luis F. Bernabé-Pons Visual (Mis)Representations of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Francesco Sorce Maometto a Roma e crociate in piazza La facciata di Polidoro da Caravaggio e Maturino da Firenze in piazza Capranica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Maria Luisa Ricci Exclude or Convert? The Image of the Muslim Slave in the Iconography of the Vision of St John of Matha in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Laura Stagno – Valentina Borniotto Anachronism at Work Villains and Enemies as Turks in Early Modern Religious Art in Genoa and Liguria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Marta Battisti “Whoever Belongs to God Hears What God Says” (John 8:47) The Other as Deaf in Two Frescoes by Filippo Lippi and Gualtiero Padovano) . . . . 163 Valerija Macan Lukavečki Religious Otherness in Giulio Clovio’s Miniatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Javier Cuevas del Barrio Iberia – Iconosphere of Religious Otherness The “Sodomitic Moor” in 16th-Century Spanish Painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Borja Franco Llopis The Rebellion of the Alpujarras, Virgil, and the Fall of the Giants by Petrus Firens Cover Art for Historia de las Guerras Civiles de Granada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Mauro Salis The Augustinian Way: Religious Otherness through the Images of Augustinian Devotion in 16th- and 17th-century Sardinia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Olaya Sanfuentes Echeverría Otherness Underfoot Enemies of Occidental Christian Culture Defeated by the Apostle St James . . . . . . 215 Özlem Yıldız A Wise Enemy: The Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Portrayal of the Polish Commander Stanisław Żółkiewski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Rita Ladogana Political Power and Religious Otherness in the Fascist Era The Polemic about the Connections between Judaism and Modernist Art and the Instrumental Use of the Nazi Iconography against “Degenerate Art” . . . . 235 Marilena Pateraki Monumental Management, Landscape Iconography and the “Muslim Other” in Interwar Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Veronika Nela Gašpar – Davor Šimunec Dall’alterità religiosa alla fraternità universale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Prilog / Prikaz Contribution / Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Maria Bergamo Tra l’apofatico e l’epifanico Riflessioni sull’iconografo e l’artista, dai madonneri cretesi ai mistici russia . . . . . . . 275 Marina Vicelja-Matijašić The Relevance of Iconography to Art-historical Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Marina Vicelja-Matijašić The Essentials of Image Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Marina Vicelja-Matijašić Glimpses into Byzantine Philosophy and Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Özlem Yıldız A Wise Enemy: The Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Portrayal of the Polish Commander Stanisław Żółkiewski UDK 94(560):09”16” Özlem Yıldız Temple University, Philadelphia, USA ozlem@temple.edu This paper focuses on the visual and textual portrayal of the Polish commander and hetman (highest military officer), Stanislaw Żółkiewski (d. 1620), in an early 17th-century Ottoman illustrated history book, the Şehname-i Nadiri. Żółkiewski’s legendary memory was cemented in Polish history with his depictions in painting and literature. Yet, his depiction in a wellknown Ottoman book has largely escaped scholarly attention. The text of the Şehname-i Nadiri describes Żółkiewski as a wise and influential nobleman before it narrates his death on the battlefield by both lamenting the demise of a nobleman and celebrating the Ottoman victory. A painting of the Battle of Cecora in the same volume emphasizes his high rank and hints at the aftermath of his death. These textual and visual portrayals in the Şehname-i Nadiri offer an insight into representations of the Other in Ottoman historical narratives. Keywords: Ottoman illustrated histories, Other, Şehname-i Nadiri, Battle of Cecora, Stanislaw Żółkiewski Ottoman illustrated history books such as şehnames often deal with Self and the Other. These accounts narrate the deeds of Ottoman sultans and pashas (governors or commanders) and were written for Ottoman royal or elite audiences.1 Military conflicts cover a considerable space among these deeds, and the accounts relate them in a manner catering to what the Ottoman audience would have liked to read.2 At times, these books served their authors’ goals to be promoted to a higher-rank, to be employed by the court, or to gain more commissions from the ruling elite. Stylistically, they aimed to have exciting plotlines to keep the attention of the reader, and, possibly, listeners in a place where the stories were recited.3 While these textual aspects often remain literary historians’ focus, they provide valuable information also on the paintings that illustrate the text and the political discourse on the identity of Self and the Other.4 Illustrated histories at the Ottoman court were part and parcel of the political toolbox that the elite patrons utilized to achieve personal goals. Some of these goals included securing positions by establishing themselves as ideal characters who were worthy of the sultan’s trust.5 Similarly, sultans commissioned these heroic accounts to valorize their achievements and even to remedy their unpopularity.6 Their valorization was enacted by describing their actions in the face of adversity. Commanding the Ottoman army, facing the enemy on the battleground, or managing a fortress under siege are just a few examples. Portraying the Other served the portrayal of the Ottoman “self” by underscoring differences, and at times, similar idealistic characters serving as antagonists. 227 IKON, 15-2022 This paper focuses on the visual and textual portrayal of the Polish commander and hetman (highest military officer), Stanislaw Żółkiewski (d. 1620), in a 17th-century illustrated history book, the Şehname-i Nadiri. Żółkiewski’s legendary memory was cemented in Polish history with his depictions in painting and literature. Yet, his depiction in a well-known Ottoman book has largely escaped scholarly scrutiny. The Şehname-i Nadiri, composed in 1622, is an illustrated book that recounts the events during the reign of Sultan Osman II (r. 16181622).7 The book records wars fought, and rebellions repressed by the Ottomans during his short reign. It is a vivid narrative, highlighting the preparation and progress of each campaign, as well as the main characters rendered as dramatic heroes and villains. Żółkiewski is one of the most exceptional antagonists in this narrative. The Battle of Cecora (1620), in which he led the Polish army against the Ottomans, constitutes one chapter in the book. This chapter contains a long description of the Polish commander, accompanied by a painting of the battle8 (fig. 1). While the painting is one of the many battle scenes in Ottoman manuscripts that depicts the Ottomans fighting, it is far from a generic scene.9 It depicts specific details that are narrated in the text about the Battle of Cecora. The Ottoman army, led by the governor Iskender Pasha, and the Polish-Lithuanian army, led by Żółkiewski, met near the River Prut.10 Upon suffering losses, the Polish army started to retreat. Squeezed between the Ottomans and the river, the Polish army had to proceed towards the river, which brought more losses and, ultimately, defeat. The text introduces Polish commander Żółkiewski at the beginning of the battle narrative: “He has fifty castles of his own, as well as countless towns and villages. He pays tribute to the king with his bravery, but he does 1 228 Battle of Cecora, in Şehname-i Nadiri, 1622, fols. 35b-36a, Topkapı Palace Museum Library, H.1124 Yıldız, A Wise Enemy not often take refuge in him. He is an independent king on those lands with a high position and his own soldiers. The [Polish] king praised him and presented him the robes of honor of a commander. He designated him as the commander of the soldiers of error”.11 The description of Żółkiewski in the Şehname-i Nadiri oscillates between eulogy and vilification. It first lists his virtues and his high status as the chancellor of the Polish crown. Then, it immediately reminds the audience that he is “the commander of the soldiers of error”, referring to the Christianity of the Polish-Lithuanian army.12 Aspects of ideal leadership such as wealth, bravery, and independence are praised. Confessional differences, meanwhile, emphasize the rivalry between the two states, armies, and commanders. This double approach exemplifies what historian Kaya Şahin calls a “restrained praise” in Ottoman author Mustafa Çelebi Celalzade’s 16th-century account.13 Mustafa Çelebi Celalzade approves being friends with Christian powers, as long as they do not challenge Ottoman dominion. Similarly, in the case of Żółkiewski, it was the Polish commander’s confrontation with the Ottomans that renders him an enemy, more than his religious difference. His religious Otherness is evoked in a negative way only when he is positioned as the military rival. In the double-folio painting in which the Battle of Cecora is depicted, the Ottoman commander, Iskender Pasha, is identified by his prominent position on the rightside page on his brown horse and wearing a large white turban (fig. 1). Recognizing Żółkiewski, however, requires a closer look at both the painting and the text. 2 Looting of Tabriz by the Ottoman army, in Şehname-i Nadiri, 1622, fols. 13b-14a, Topkapı Palace Museum Library, H.1124 229 IKON, 15-2022 3 Gifts sent by Shah Abbas I arriving in Istanbul, in Şehname-i Nadiri, 1622, fols. 24b-25a, Topkapı Palace Museum Library, H.1124 * All images are property of and are published with permission by the Presidency of the Republic of Turkey, Directorate of National Palaces The text concludes the battle with Żółkiewski’s death, who, according to Nadiri, was killed by an Ottoman soldier while he was retreating. One figure at the bottom left side of the double-page is being hit by an Ottoman soldier exactly as described in the text. Several aspects of the iconography support my identification of the figure as Żółkiewski. First, this is the only figure in the scene with a gray beard. Żółkiewski was 73 years old at the time of the battle. In addition, unlike any of the other men from the Polish-Lithuanian army, this figure’s helmet and the sleeves of his armour are golden, suggesting Żółkiewski’s rank. This hitherto unidentified depiction of Żółkiewski in Şehname-i Nadiri is noteworthy in understanding the Ottoman perception of a rival. Żółkiewski’s death is depicted prominently in the front of the page, facing Iskender Pasha on the opposite page. It also bears significance since the other rivals, including the Safavid shah, despite their frequent appearances in the storyline, are not depicted in Şehname-i Nadiri. The book narrates eight campaigns and features eleven paintings – six of which depict battles. None of the other major antagonists are visually represented. 230 Yıldız, A Wise Enemy Elsewhere in the book, Safavid ruler, Shah Abbas I (r. 1588-1629), is described as escaping a potential battle, leaving the former Safavid capital of Tabriz to Ottoman plunder.14 His absence in the city when the Ottoman army arrived is reflected in his absence in the paintings of the Şehname. In the manuscript, there are two paintings related to the Ottoman-Safavid war. The first one depicts the Ottoman army plundering and burning the city of Tabriz (fig. 2). The text accompanies the painting with a long and vivid description of the looting.15 It adds that there “was no news from Shah Abbas, nor was there any sign of his warriors.”16 The second painting that relates to the Safavid war appears in the chapter in which a peace treaty is achieved between the two sides (fig. 3).17 This painting depicts the gifts sent from Shah Abbas to the Ottoman capital Istanbul as tribute.18 The text includes a likely imaginary letter from Shah Abbas to Osman II in which he accepts the superior position of the Ottoman ruler, saying: “I [Shah Abbas I] am a slave and he [Osman II] is the shah who owns the throne. I am a mote and he is the luminous sun. I am a drop and he is the world-surrounding ocean. I am a speck of dust and he is the earth of the mainland”.19 The paintings add to this defeated and subservient image by not depicting the shah but rather visualizing the result of his defeats, namely the plunder and the tributes. Like the letter, the victorious result of the battle for the Ottomans was also an exaggeration. The Serav Agreement that was signed at the end of this battle meant that Ottomans accepted conditions they previously rejected. 20 However, the text and paintings of Şehname-i Nadiri reshaped the historical narrative. The Safavids’ attributed characteristics and the absence of their sovereign further highlights the rationale behind Żółkiewski’s appearance. Żółkiewski’s death was a traumatic event not only for his army but equally for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The whole battle including the death of the commander is narrated in several contemporary Polish sources.21 In addition, as late as the 19th century, French politician Narcisse-Achille de Salvandy wrote about the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Cecora in his account of Polish history: “The next day, [Iskander Pasha], a seraskier who commanded the Turks in chief, roamed the battlefield. He recognized Żółkiewski among heaps of the dead, on his forehead still imbued with genius and authority. It is said that, himself a renowned veteran, he only sent the great man’s head to Constantinople after having contemplated it for a long time with emotion”.22 It is not possible to know whether Iskender Pasha really contemplated over the head of Hetman Żółkiewski, but the the Şehname-i Nadiri’s narrative does contemplate the passing of the great man by dwelling on the subject of his head. The text is positioned between lamenting the death of a brave and powerful man and drawing a lesson on the fragility of mortality. After noting that Żółkiewski’s head was severed and sent to the sultan, Nadiri continues: “That head, once crowned with the sun, is now crowned by soil and awash with crimson wine. That head did not even bow to Iskender, now it is beaten from ground to ground by the hand of wrath. That head, once loftier than skies, now is concealed from the eye with blood and soil. This is the work of the lowly world; it renders even Rustams powerless in the end”.23 The author likens Żółkiewski to Rustam, the heroic character from the Şehname-i Firdawsi, an 11th-century Persian epic that was copied, illustrated, and read widely in the Ottoman Empire. Ferdowsi’s shahnama was also the model for Ottoman şehnames, which often used similar literary tools to narrate what they argued to be real events, as opposed to the mythical events of the Persian epic. Rustam is perhaps the noblest, bravest, and strongest hero in the Shahnama-i Firdawsi, whose image is likened to the Ottoman sultans and pashas too. This sympathetic approach to the commander of the enemy forces demonstrates the multi-dimensional image of the Other in the Şehname-i Nadiri. The warning of the text about the ephemerality of life is also represented in the painting. While Żółkiewski is receiving what might be the fatal wound, the severed heads of three Polish soldiers surround his figure. These heads are depicted laying on the ground and covered with blood. Meanwhile, the text with the phrase “crimson wine” alludes to and later openly mentions blood and soil.24 In the scene, Żółkiewski is being hit by the Ottoman soldier’s sword on his neckline, where a small amount of red paint indicates bleeding. Żółkiewski’s head 231 IKON, 15-2022 “crowned by the sun”25 is depicted in the painting with his golden helmet. The heads surrounding him hints at the impeding end of this glorious life. This is hardly the only image in which the severed heads of the enemy were depicted in the Ottoman painting. Likewise, similar images were deployed in other parts of the world in the early modern era. Historian Palmira Brummett writes on the head of the “fallen Turk” in European images: “[…] in the hard-fought struggles for sovereignty over the sprawling frontier zone between Muslim and Christian lords, the taking of enemy heads was a universally understood symbol of dominance and humiliation, a declaration of possession of that which the enemy held most dear, and a customary mode of enacting vengeance. Once heads were taken, they needed to be displayed, in fact, in word, and in image”.26 It is therefore not surprising that Żółkiewski’s decapitation, the fall of a heroic figure who held the highest-ranking position in the army and fought actively in the battleground at the age of seventy-three, was a greatly demoralizing event for the Polish-Lithuanian army. At the same time, the Ottoman narrative of the Battle of Cecora includes this achievement over their Christian neighbors “in word and in image”, as Brummett observes. A final aspect to consider in Żółkiewski’s image is his head’s full profile depiction. The full profile of the hetman’s head contrasts with the frontal orientation of his body. While this awkward position of the head and body draws attention to his incapacity to fight back, it might also emphasize his nobility. Full profile portraits are not encountered often in the Ottoman portrait painting tradition, except for portraits of Mehmed II from the 14th century and some of the portraits painted by the 16th-century painter Nigari.27 An example is Nigari’s portrait of the Ottoman grand admiral Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha, also known as Barbarossa, with his head depicted in full profile and his body in three-quarter view, combining non-Ottoman and Ottoman iconographic elements.28 According to the art historian Julian Raby, the exceptional style of Nigari was due to his sources including European oil paintings and prints of ruler portraits.29 The portrayal of Żółkiewski’s head in full profile, then, raises the question of whether European sources and even a portrait of Żółkiewski himself, were consulted by the painter of the Şehname-i Nadiri. While this question requires further research, the full profile portrayal of Żółkiewski might have underscored his nobility by evoking ruler portraits in the minds of Ottoman audiences. To conclude, the Otherness of Żółkiewski as the leader of the Christian army that faced the Ottomans, or “the soldiers of Islam” as Nadiri calls them, is conveyed in a series of characteristics attributed to him. He is portrayed as a great soldier and a powerful leader, whereas he is also described as being “in error” and ultimately defeated. On the one hand, he is compared to the great heroes of the Shahnama-i Ferdowsi, just as the Ottoman sultan and commanders are likened to similar heroisms. On the other hand, his death on the battlefield is narrated in a way that belittles him and exalts the Ottoman victory. In contrast to the Polish narratives that portray Żółkiewski fighting bravely until his last moment, according to Nadiri, Żółkiewski was killed while he was retreating. The painter of the Şehname-i Nadiri depicts that exact moment in harmony with the text. Ottoman perceptions of the Other resulted from social, cultural, and political distancing. While these distances can be created with the differences in identities, behaviors, battle tactics, they are also collapsed by the familiarity of ideals of heroism. The Şehname-i Nadiri creates the Other through the characteristics that are most familiar to the author’s and the audience’s own culture. It draws parallels between the Other and the well-known historical and fictional figures in the form of vilification and admiration. The textual and visual narratives I have studied in this paper are strongly partial to the point of view in which they were created. However, even among such seemingly one-sided accounts, perceptions of the Other are reflected in multi-dimensional ways. They depended on the varying contexts of both the actual events that are being told and the conditions in which these narratives are created. 232 Yıldız, A Wise Enemy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 S. BAĞCI et al., Ottoman Painting, Ankara, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Yayınları, 2010, pp. 92-111, pp. 166-77; E. FETVACI, Picturing History at the Ottoman Court, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2013, pp. 25-58. C. WOODHEAD, “Reading Ottoman ‘Şehnames’: Official Historiography in the Late Sixteenth Century”, in: Studia Islamica, Chroniques Medievales Islamiques: Temps, Narration, Usages, 104/105, 2007, pp. 67-80; FETVACI, op. cit., 2013, p. 191. On Ottoman social reading practices see T. DEĞİRMENCİ, “Bir Kitabı Kaç Kişi Okur? Osmanlı’da Okurlar ve Okuma Biçimleri Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler”, in: Tarih ve Toplum, 13, 2011, pp. 7-43. For example, Şecaatname, an Ottoman illustrated book narrating the Ottoman-Safavid wars of the late 16th century, is the subject of this article for its literary descriptions; Z. GÖRE, “Âsafî Dal Mehmed Çelebi’nin Şecâ’at-Nâme’sinde Edebi Tasvirler”, in: Journal of Ottoman Legacy Studies, 6, no. 16, 2019, pp. 401-431. FETVACI, op. cit., 2013, chaps. 3, 4. S. BAĞCI, “Visualizing Power: Portrayals of the Sultans in Illustrated Histories of the Ottoman Dynasty”, in: Islamic Art, 6, 2009, pp. 113-127; T. DEĞİRMENCİ, İktidar Oyunları ve Resimli Kitaplar: II. Osman Devrinde Değişen Güç Sİmgeleri, İstanbul, Kitap Yayınevi, 2012, pp. 245-263; G. PİTERBERG, An Ottoman Tragedy: History and Historiography at Play, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2003, pp. 16-18. BAĞCI et al., op. cit., 2010, pp. 171-271. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, Topkapı Palace Museum Library, H.1124, İstanbul, 1622, fols. 35b-36a. Examples are published especially in BAĞCI et al., op. cit., 2010, and FETVACI, op. cit., 2013. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 33a-38a; N. KÜLEKÇİ, Gani-Zade Nadiri: Hayatı, Edebi Kişiliği, Eserleri, Divanı ve Şeh-Name’sinin Tenkidli Metni, Ph.D. Dissertation, Erzurum, Atatürk University, 1985, pp. 364-370. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fol. 32b; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 363. Ibid. K. ŞAHİN, Empire and Power in the Reign of Süleyman: Narrating the Sixteenth-Century Ottoman World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 205. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 11a-15a; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 363-339. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 10b-15a; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 334-339; DEĞİRMENCİ, op. cit., 2012, 239. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fol. 11b; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 336. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 20b-25b; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 346-353. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 24b-25a. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fols. 22a-22b; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 349. Ö. KÜPELİ, Osmanlı-Safevi Münasebetleri (1612-1639), İstanbul, Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2014, pp. 106-121. One of them is published in M. PASZKOWSKİ, Utwory Okolicznosciowe, M. KURAN (ed.), Warsaw, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Sub Lupa, 2017, pp. 115-150. Marcin Paszkowski wrote on other Ottoman-Polish wars and on Ottoman religion and culture, and some of his writings were cited in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 8, Northern and Eastern Europe (1600-1700), D. THOMAS-J.A. CHESWORTH (eds.), Leiden, Brill, 2016, 726-733. N.A. DE SALVANDY, Histoire Du Roi Jean Sobieski et Du Royaume de Pologne, Paris, Didier, 1863, p. 143. G.M. NADİRİ, Şehname-i Nadiri, fol. 37b; KÜLEKÇİ, op. cit., 1985, p. 369. Ibid., note 23. Ibid. P. BRUMMETT, Mapping the Ottomans: Sovereignty, Territory, and Identity in the Early Modern Mediterranean, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 188. J. RABY, “Opening Gambits,” in: The Sultan’s Portrait: Picturing the House of Osman, İstanbul, İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2000, pp. 64-95; IDEM, “From Europe to Istanbul,” in: The Sultan’s Portrait, op. cit., 2000b, pp. 136-163. RABY, op. cit., 2000b, fig. 29b. Ibid., p. 148. 233 IKON, 15-2022 Özlem Yıldız Mudri neprijatelj: osmanski prikaz poljskog zapovjednika Stanisława Żółkiewskog iz sedamnaestog stoljeća Ovaj rad raspravlja o tekstualnom i vizualnom prikazu poljskoga zapovjednika i hetmana (atamana), Stanislawa Żółkiewskog (u. 1620.), u osmanskoj ilustriranoj povijesnoj knjizi iz ranog 17. stoljeća, Şehname-i Nadiri. Sjećanje na Żółkiewskog učvrstilo se u poljskoj povijesti njegovim prikazima u slikarstvu i književnosti. Ipak, njegov lik u poznatoj osmanskoj knjizi uvelike je izbjegao pozornosti znanstvenika. Tekst Şehname-i Nadiri opisuje Żółkiewskog kao mudrog i utjecajnog plemića prije smrti, zatim pripovijeda o njegovoj slavnoj smrti na bojnom polju žaleći zbog smrti plemića i slaveći osmansku pobjedu. Prikaz Bitke kod Cecore u istom djelu naglašava njegov visoki čin i nagovještava posljedice njegove smrti. Ovi tekstualni i vizualni prikazi nude uvid u način prikaza Drugoga u osmanskim povijesnim narativima. Primljeno/Received: 15.11.2021. Izvorni znanstveni rad 234