Ottoman Historiography of Decline, 16th-17th Cent

8/9/2019 Ottoman Historiography of Decline, 16th-17th Cent.

1/27

OTTOMAN HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LITERATURE OF "DECLINE" OF THE SIXTEENTH ANDSEVENTEENTH CENTURIESAuthor(s): DOUGLAS A. HOWARDSource: Journal of Asian History, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1988), pp. 52-77Published by: Harrassowitz VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41932017 .

Accessed: 21/02/2015 03:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Harrassowitz Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Asian

History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.118.148.226 on Sat, 21 Feb 2015 03:00:03 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=harrassowitzhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41932017?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41932017?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=harrassowitz


2/27

DOUGLAS

A.

HOWARD

(Calvin

College)

OTTOMAN

HISTORIOGRAPHY

AND

THE

LITERATURE OF "DECLINE"

OF

THE

SIXTEENTH

AND

SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

In

the

1970s

Roger

Owen

published

two

essays

in

whichhe criticized

modern

western

Orientalist

cholarship oncerning ighteenth-century

Islamic

history.1

he view that the

Ottoman

Empire

was

"in

decline"

during

he

eighteenth

entury,

he

wrote,

was based

partly

n the tradi-

tionalOrientalist ssumption hat thehighpointof "Islamic civilization"

was

reached

during

he

early

medieval

period,

and the formation f

the

Ottoman

Empire only

briefly

nterrupted

he

long

centuriesof

decline

which

followed.

According

to

traditional

cholarship,

his

empire,

too,

began

to

"decline",

beginning

n

the late

sixteenth

entury.

Owen attri-

buted

this

dea,

of what

might

be termedthe decline

within he

decline,

to

two

further

ssumptions:

hat

any

alteration

of the

original

Ottoman

system

of

administrationmust

necessarily

have

been

for

he

worse,

and

that

any

diminution f

Ottoman

authority

n

the

provinces

must also

have been harmful.2

Indeed,

the

period

of

the

history

f the

Ottoman

Empire

which

began

with

the

death of

Sultan

Süleymän

the

Magnificent

n

1566

and

ended

with

the

Treaty

of

Karlowitz

n

1699 has

traditionally

een

viewed as an

era of

stagnation

nd decline. A

succession of

poor

sultans,

t is

said,

led

to

a critical

weakening

of the central

power,

resulting

n

the

emergence

1

Roger

Owen,

"The MiddleEast

in

the

eighteenth

entury

an

'Islamic'

society

n

decline?

A

critique

f

Gibb nd

Bowen's slamic

Society

nd the

West",

eview

f

Middle

East

Studies

1975),

p.

101

112;

nd

the

Intro-

duction" o pt. 2 ofStudies n Eighteenthenturyslamic Historyed.

ThomasNaff nd

Roger

Owen

Carbondale

nd

Edwardsville, 11., 977),

pp.

133-151.

2

Owen,

The Middle

ast,"

p.

107.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHYF

"DECLINE"

53

of

oppressive

local

regimes

n

the

provinces.

By

the

end of the seven-

teenth

entury

he nstitutions f

the

Ottoman

tate,

whichhad

achieved

their

classical

expression

by

the

mid-sixteenth

entury,

were

degraded

through

various

disruptions.

ocial

lifewas characterized

by

moral and

culturaldecadence.

This

"decline",

though

rrested

briefly y

the

Köp-

rili

"restoration"

etween

1656

and

1683,

finally

ulminated

n

the

series

of

disastrous

military

defeats

which the

Ottomans

sufferedbetween

1683-1699,

after the

second,

failed

siege

of Vienna.

Thus,

the

eight-

eenthcenturyopened at one of the bleakest moments n Ottomanhis-

tory,

nd few

scholars,

as Owen

noted,

have

questioned

the

aptness

of

the characterization

f "decline".

What

Owen

did not

say,

however,

s

that this

theory

f the decline

of

the

Ottoman

Empire

in the sixteenth

to

eighteenth

centuries

rests

primarily

n the

nterpretations

f

contemporary

ttoman

political

writ-

ers;

the idea

was,

in

other

words,

first n Ottoman

creation. It

found

ready

acceptance among

subsequent generations

of Ottoman

ntellectu-

als and was

repeated

in

Ottoman

political

iterature

of the next

two

centuries.Through ranslation fthis iteraturentowestern anguages,

the

Ottoman

ntellectual

nalysis

of the

Ottoman

decline became

its ac-

cepted

modern

cholarly nterpretation.

In

the

present

study,

the

emergence

of the

decline

theory

will be

treated

n

the context

of

Ottoman

iterary

nd

intellectual

evelopments

between

the

mid-sixteenth

nd

mid-seventeenth

enturies.

Ottoman

political

reatises

of the sixteenth

nd

seventeenth

enturies

have been

seen

variously

s

reflecting opular

political

entiments,

s

courageous

dissents

registered

by

loyal

and devoted

subjects,

as learned but

benign

counsel forthe sultan,or as governmentwhitepapers, guides forthe

eventual

enactment

of reform

measures,

intended

for a

small,

official

audience.3The

present

tudy

views

these

works as

comprising

literary

3 Bernard

ewis,

Ottoman

bservers

fOttoman

ecline,"

slamic

Studies

(1962),71-87;

Rhoads

Murphey,

Functioning

f heOttoman

rmy

nder

Murad V

(1623-1639/1032-1049):

ey

to the

Understanding

fthe

Rela-

tionship

etweenCenter

nd

Periphery

n

Seventeenth-Century

urkey,"

unpublished

h. D. Dissertation

University

f

Chicago,

979),

p.

21;

Mur-

phy,

Kanûn-nâme-i

ultani

i cAzîz

fendi:

Aziz

fendi's

ook

of

ultanic

Laws and Regulations:An Agenda or Reform ya Seventeenth-Century

Ottoman tatesman

Harvard,

985),

.

viii;

Pài

Fodor,

State

nd

Society,

Crisis

nd

Reform,

n

15th

17th

entury

ttoman

irror

or

rinces,"

cta

Orientalia

Academiae

cientiarum

ungaricae

0

(1986),

p.

217-240.




4/27

54

DOUGLAS

. HOWARD

genre,

that of the Decline

treatise,

and views

their formal haracteris-

tics,

both common nd

unique

-

audience,

manner

of

address, format,

terminology

nd content

-

as

literary

material.

By

the middle of the

seventeenth

century

these

political

tracts

formed

literary

genre

of

political

nd

social

commentary,

eculiar

to

the

Ottomans,

o

which ater

writers

consciously

ontributed.4

Clearly,

the value of these works ies

in

their elucidation f the

con-

temporary

ntellectual

ebate,

and is not diminished

y

their

ometimes

faultyfactual material or inaccurate historicalreasoning.These texts

reveal a crucial

dialogue among

Ottoman

ntellectuals f

the

post-Süley-

mānic

age concerning

he bases of

Ottoman

overeignty

nd

legitimacy.

Accordingly, disregarding

these texts and

substituting

archival

documentation oes not resolve the

problems

they

present.

The devel-

opment

of the decline

theory

tself

needs

explanation.

Certain

scholars

have noted the common cribal class

origins

of

many

of these

authors,5

suggesting

that their

personal

investment

n

the maintenance

of the

status

quo spurred

their

literary

output.

This

indeed

appears

to

be

a

fruitfulineofanalysis.But thedevelopment fthe declinetheorynthe

late

sixteenth and

early

seventeenth centuries cannot be

entirely

x-

plained by

the instinctof

self-preservation

which seems

to have run

particularly

trong

n

the scribal

corps

of

the Ottoman

Empire.

Law

and

Legitimacy

n

the

Ottoman

Tradition

A

recent

study

nterpreted

he

Ottoman

decline

iterature,

in

spite

of

its idiosyncracies", s a directderivativeofthe traditionalNear Eastern

4

Hezārfenn

üseyin

fendi,

writing

n

1080/1669-1670,

eferred

n

his reat-

ise,

entitled

elkhīsū

l-beyãnī qavānīn-i

l-i

cOsmān to earlierwriters

n

the

genre,

ncluding oçiBeg,

Kātib

Çelebi,

ütfí

a§a

and

Ayn

Alï

Efendi.

See

Robert

Anhegger,

Hezarfenn

üseyin

fendi'nin smanli evlet

e§-

kilâtina air

míilâhazalari,"

ürkiyat

ecmuasi

10

1953),

65-393.

5 A.

S.

Tveritinova,

Socialisti dei

v

tureckikh

idakticheskikh

olitiko-

ekonomicheskikh

raktatakh VI- XVII

vv.,"

25th

nternational

ongress

of

Orientalists

Proceedings

Moscow,

-16

August,

960,

Moscow,

963),

vol.

2,

pp.

402-409;

Cornell

leischer,

ureaucrat nd Intellectualn the

Ottomanmpire:TheHistorianMustafaAli,15JĻ1-1600Princeton,986);

see

also R. A.

Abou-El-Haj,

eview f .

Metin

unt,

he

īiltaris ervants:

The

Transformationf

Ottoman

rovincial

Government

1550-1650,

n

Os-

manli

Ara§tirmalan/

ournal

f

Ottoman tudies

(1986),

21-246.




5/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHYF "DECLINE" 55

"Mirrors for

Princes",

with

regard

to its function as

well as its

philosophical

ubstance.6

t is no doubt true that

knowledge

fthisexist-

ing

literary

form nfluenced

he

development

of the Ottoman

decline

literature.

The

Near Eastern

expression

of this

seemingly

universal

genre

of advice literature

Persian

pandnāme

or

nasīhatnāme)

was

in-

troduced o

the Islamic world

n

the

eighth-century

y

Ibn

al-Muquaffac,

the vezir of the

Caliph

al-Mansūr,

who translated

many

ancient

ndo-

Iranian works

nto Arabic. Strands

ofthree

ancient

political

ultures

re

distinguishablenthese Near Eastern Mirrors: he ancientPersian con-

cept

of the ruler as the embodiment

f

Justice;

the

Greek

(Platonic)

concept

of

Justice

s social

harmony;

nd the Judeo-Christian

oncept

of

the

sovereignbeing subject

to the aw of

God.7

The

best known

xamples

ofthis

iterature rom he medieval

slamic

period,

ncluding

he

Qäbüs-

nãme of

Qā'i Qābūs

ibn

Iskandar,

the

Siyãru

'

l-Mulūk

of

Nizāmu

'l-Mulk,

and the Nasihatu

'l-Mulūk of

al-Ghazālī,

all Persian

works,

were

available to the

Ottomans

n

Turkishtranslation.8

However,

the

mmediacy

nd

urgency pparent

n

the

Ottoman

works

set themapart from arlierexamples. These Ottomanwriters ntended

more than to

give

advice

on how to rule.

They presented

critical

naly-

sis of

Ottoman

ociety,

nd warned that failure

o correct

he evils

they

described

meant

risking

social and

political

cataclysm.

n

the devel-

opment

fthe

Ottoman

decline

genre,

a

second

nfluence

s discernible

n

addition o the Near Eastern

"mirrors",

hat ofthe

centrality

f

qänün

,

6

Fodor,

State nd

Society," .

218.

7 See the ntroductionf RobertDankoffo YüsufKhāssHājib,Wisdom f

Royal Glory KutadguBilig

:

A Turko-lslamic

irror

or

Princes trans.

Dankoff

Chicago,

983),

p.

3-9. On

Ibn

al-Muqaffac,

ee

G.

Richter,

tu-

dienzur

Geschichte

er lteren

rabischen ürsten

piegel

Leipzig,

932).

8

Qãbusnãme

according

o

DankoffWisdo?n

p.

8)

the

first f the Persian

"Mirrors,"

as

completed

n 1082.Eleazar

Birnbaum

ublished

facsimile

edition f he earliest xtantOld

Ottoman

ranslation,

ated

pproximately

the fourth

uarter

f the fourteenth

entury,

ee

Birnbaum,

he Book

of

Advice

yKingKay

Ka-us bn skander

Cambridge,

ass.,

1981).

A manu-

script

f n

Ottoman

ranslation

f he

Siyãru

l-Mulūk f

Nizāmu

l-Mulks

preserved

n

the Istanbul

University

ibrary,

o. T6952

see

Agâh

Sim

Levend, Siyasetnameler,"ürkDili Ara§tirmalai~iilligiBelleten1962),

pp.

167-194,

n. 47.

An

Ottoman

ranslation

f

Ghazālī's

Nasihatu

l-Multük

dating

rom

he

reign

fMehemmed

I

(1451

1481)

s

in

the

Topkapi

arayi

Library,

stanbul,

o.

Hazine368.




6/27

56

DOUGLAS

.

HOWARD

the

regulations

that

comprised

traditionalOttoman

dynastic

aw. The

authors often ouched

theirtreatises

n

the

language

of the

regulations,

often

made

oblique

allusions to

procedural

matters touched on

by

the

regulations,

nd sometimes

ven

employed

ample

sultanicdirectives

s

a

literary

device.

The

joining

in

Ottoman

decline literature

of these

objectives,

personal

advice to the ruler

which tressed

ustice

and

per-

sonal

piety,

nd

emphasis

on the traditional

aw,

reflects he

synthesis

f

traditionswhich characterized

Ottoman

political

heory.

The thesis of the sixteenth- nd seventeenth-centuryolitical ritics

became the

standard Ottoman

view

of

the

empire

n

the seventeenth

century

ecause

it was

firmly rounded

n

traditional ttoman

notions f

legitimacy.

Ottoman

oncepts

of tatecraft

epresented

n

amalgamation

of elementsfrom arious

political-philosophical

raditions,

ncluding

ra-

nian,

Islamic and

perhaps

Inner Asian.

These

elements

had come

to-

gether

n

Near Eastern states since about the ninth

entury.

The

prob-

lems

that arose from heir nteraction

ed to

important evelopments

n

Muslim

politicalphilosophy,

videntalso

in

Ottoman

political

iterature.

The conceptof sovereignty, s it had emerged duringthe medieval

Islamic

period,

was based

first f all on the

recognition

hat the

holy

aw

(

sharlca

was the ultimate

guide

of ife.Practical

reality,

however,

ed

to

the admission

that

kingship

was the

only

alternativeto

anarchy.

The

fundamental

urpose

of

rule,

then,

was to

mplement

he

holy

aw.

If

this

was the

purpose

of

rule,

t was also obvious that the

foundation f

egiti-

mate

rule must be

justice,

for

a

sovereign unjust

toward his

subjects

would

eventually

be forced

hrough

heirrebellion o forfeit is throne.

Justice

for

he

subjects

was

particularly

efined

n the Platonic sense of

an equitable division ofsocietyforthe preservation f social harmony.

The aim

of

ust

rule,

in

turn,

was to foster n environment

n

which

he

subjects

could

prosper,

for

nly hrough rosperity

f he

subjects

would

the

necessary

wealth be amassed

for he

army,

he

support

fthe ruler.

This

ancient

paradigm appeared repeatedly

n

Near Eastern

political

literature.

An

expanded

version,

adopted

from Persian

work

by

the

sixteenth-century

ttoman

thicist

Qinalîzâde,

read as follows:

There can

be

no

royal authority

without he

military

There can

be no

military

withoutwealth

The subjects producethe wealth

Justice

preserves

the

subjects' loyalty

o the

sovereign

Justice

requires

harmony

n

the world




7/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHY

F "DECLINE" 57

The

world s a

garden,

ts walls the state

The

Holy

Law

(

sharīca orders

the state

There is no

support

for

the sharīca

except

through oyal

authority.9

In

medieval Islamic

political

heory,

he most

significant

esult

of this

paradigm

was

a

legitimization

f absolutist

monarchy,

n

the

ancient

Iranian

tradition.

Royal authority

meant

the

prerogative

f the ruler

to

rule

through personal

decree.

The

legal

validity

of this

concept

was

founded

upon

a

philosophical

ccomodationbetween

"ruler's

aw"

(

curf

in OttomanTurkishcörf, and Muslimholylaw, the sharia. "Ruler's

law"

was

recognized

s

necessary

for he

upholding

f the

holy

aw,

and

was intendedforthe

regulation

f matters of

state concern

outside the

realm of

the

holy

law,

includingespecially

matters

of tax

collection,

criminal aw and administration

f the affairs

of state.10

The devel-

opment

fthis

body

of aw

was influenced

y political

vents,

notably

he

weakness of the

caliphate

and the

appearance

ofthe

sultanates,

nd was

defended

by

urists

since al-Māwardī.

Al-Mawardťs formulation

as

repeated

in later

sultanates,

ncluding

the Ottoman.11n Ottomanpoliticaltheory,however,there is seen a

unique emphasis,

as

regards

royal

authority,

n the

egitimacy

f a

body

law

(

qänün

,

pl.

qavânîn).

cÖrf

ntails

not

simply

ule

by

decree,

but

rule

according

to a codified

ollection

f

decrees,

promulgated

by

the

ruler

and ratified

y

his successors.

This law

code,

known

s the

Qãnunnãme-

i Àl-i

cOsmãn

(.

aw

Code

of

the

Ottoman

Dynasty

,

as modified

nd

expanded

by subsequent

sultans,

served

as the basis

of

Ottoman

public

law until at least

the middle of

the seventeenth

century.

The

circular

paradigm quoted

above

was often

referred

o

by

Ottoman

writers

nd

9

Quoted

n

Cornell

leischer,

Royal

Authority,ynastic

yclism

nd Ibn

Khaldûnism'

n

Sixteenth-Century

ttoman

etters,"

nBruceB.

Lawrence,

ed.,

bn

Khaldun

nd slamic

deology

Leiden, 984),

.

49.

See

Journal

f

Asian

and

African

tudies

18

Jerusalem,983],

p.

198-220).

10

See

H. A.

R.

Gibb,

Mawardi's

heory

fthe

Caliphate,"

slamic

Culture

11,

291-302;

H.

Laoust,

"La

pensée

et l'action

olitiques

Al-Mawardi,"

Revue

des études

slamiques

6

(1968),

11-92.

11 For a concise

ummary

f the

problem

f the

respectiveurisdictions

f

Sultanic

ecree

nd

holy

aw

see Halil

nalcik,

Osmanli

ukukuna

iri§:

rfi-

sultanî ukuk e Fatih'in anunlari,"iyasal Bilgiler akültesiDergisi13

(1958),

102-126;

nalcik,

Süleyman

he

Lawgiver

nd Ottoman

aw,"

Ar-

chivům

Ottomanicum

(1969), 107-111;

and

Inalcik,

Kanun,"

Encyc-

lopaedia

of

slam,

New

Edition,

ol.

5

(1985),

58-562.




8/27

58

DOUGLAS . HOWARD

intellectuals,

who

found

n t

a convenient

ink

between

ustice,

a societal

dichotomy

f rulers and

ruled,

and

established

dynastic

aw.

The

Otto-

man

historianTursun

Beg

defended he law code

of

Sultan

Mehemmed

II

(ruled

1451-1481)

along

lines

similar

to

those of the medieval

philosophers,

s

necessary

forthe

preservation

f the "world

order".12

These

Ottoman

nnovations

may

represent

a

distinctly

nner Asian

influence

n

Ottoman,

nd

Islamic,

politicalphilosophy.13 ttempts

have

been made

to

link

the

Ottoman

concept

of law to a

supposedly

nner

Asian reliance on the law of the ancestors,evident n the legitimizing

role

ofthe

Chingissid

yāsā

,

and

present

even

in

the firstmonuments

n

a

Turkic

anguage,

the

Orkhon

nscriptions.

However,

the nature

of

the

yāsā

as a

feature of a

distinctly

nner

Asian

politicalphilosophy

s not

settled,14

nd even

if

t

were,

the route

of

ts

transmission o the

Otto-

mans is

not

clear.

It

is knownthat

educated men of etters

fleeing

he

Mongol

conquest

and the

disintegrating

Anatolian

Seljuk

state influ-

enced

the

political

and social life of

the western

AnatolianTurkic

prin-

cipalities,

that of the

Ottomans ncluded.

Many

Ottoman dministrative

forms ppear to have Seljuk, Persian and Ilkhanidmodels. The early

Ottoman

tate

attracted

many

ntellectuals,

writers,

poets

and

religious

figures

from

Central Asia as well.

15

There can be little

doubt that

these

12

Halil

Inalcik nd

Rhoads

Murphey,

ds. The

History f

Mehmed he

Con-

queror y

Tursun

Beg

Minneapolis,

978),

ext,

. a.

13

This s

the view of

Halil Inalcik.

ee

his

"Osmanlilar'da

altanat erâseti

usûlii,"

pp.

69-77;

"KutadguBilig'de

Türk

ve Iran

siyasetinazariye

e

gelenekleri,"

n

Re§id

Rahmeti

Arat

için

(Ankara,

1966),

pp.

259-271;

"Siileyman

he

Lawgiver,"

p.

107-109;

The

Ottoman

mpire:

The

Classi-

cal Age 1300-1600 London nd NewYork,1973), p. 65-69.14 On this

debate,

see David

Ayalon,

TheGreatYasa of

Chingiz

Khan,

A

Reexamination,"

tudia Islamica 33

(1971),

pp.

97-140;

34

(1971),

pp.

151-180;

36

1972),

p.

113-158;

38

1973),

p.

107-156;

Peter

Golden,

"Imperial

deology

nd the

Sources

of Political

UnityAmongst

he Pre-

Chinggisid

omads fWestern

urasia,"

Archivům urasiae MediiAevi2

(1982),

p.

37-76;

Mansura

aider,

The

Mongol

raditionsnd heir

urvi-

val

in

CentralAsia

(XIV-

XV

Centuries),"

entralAsiatic

Journal28

(1984),

pp.

57-79; Haider,

"The

Sovereign

in

the Timurid

State,

(XlVth

XVth

Centuries),"

urcica8/2

1976),

pp.

61-82;

and D.

O.

Mor-

gan,

"The GreatYasa of

Chingiz

hân'

nd

Mongol

aw

in

the

lkhanate,"

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and AfincanStudies 49 (1986),

pp.

163-176.

15

Eleazar

Birnbaum,

The

Ottomansnd

Chagatay

iterature:

n

Early

16th

Century

Manuscript

f Nava'i's Divan

in

Ottoman

rthography,"

entral

Asiatic

Journal 0

(1976),

pp.

157-190.




9/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHYF "DECLINE"

59

factors

ignificantly

nfluenced

he

development

f

Ottoman

political

dis-

course. But the role of the

concept

of

yãsã

in a medieval

Central

Asian

political heory,

which

might

have

been

bequeathed

to the

Ottomans,

s

not clear.

By

the middle of the fifteenth

entury

the

equation

of

ustice

with

application

of the

qänün

was

accomplished

n

Ottoman

politicalphiloso-

phy.

In

the

Ottoman

Empire,

the

military-governmental

pparatus

was

foundedon two

basic

institutions,

he slave

(qui)

and

the fief

tīmār

systems. Both of these institutions ested almost entirelyon qänün.

Accordingly,

he

political

and administrative tructure

f the Ottoman

state relied

heavily

on the theoretical

oncept

of

cörf.

he

problem

f he

transformationf nstitutions uch

as the tīmār

system

n

the late

six-

teenth and

early

seventeenth enturieswas

one of

great

importance

o

Ottoman hinkers ecause

they nterpreted

he

changes

as indicative

f

disregard

for

Ottoman

qänün

,

the traditional

regulations

which

em-

bodied the

legal

and

philosophical

nderpinnings

f the

Ottoman

tate.

This

had

significant

amifications

or their view

of the

legitimacy

of

Ottoman rule. Thus, the social transformationhese writers observed

became forthem an intellectual

malaise.

Ottoman

Decline Treatises

and the

Tīmār

System

The

highly harged

ntellectual

tmosphere

f the

Ottoman

Empire

of

the late sixteenth nd

early

seventeenth enturies

was

characterized

y

what has been called

"qänün

consciousness".16

his was an

age

ofconsid-

erable literary nd intellectual ctivity,ofseemingobsessionwith the

consepts

of

law and

legitimacy.

This was

a time

when,

n

the words

of

Mustafā

cĀlī,

he

Chancellor

ni§ānci

,

who sat on the

Imperial

Council

and who was the

Ottoman

officialmost nvolved

n

the

daily nterpreta-

tion

of

qänün

y

ould be called

the

"mufti

f

qänün"

and his role

ikened

to that

of the

§eykhü

l-islām

regarding

the

holy

law.

The

concept

of

qänün

in

Ottoman

ociety

had achieved

such

prominence

hat t could

be

compared

o the

holy

aw,

and its chief

nterpreter

o the

supreme

religi-

ous

authority

n

the

empire.17

Writers even

cited

foreign xamples

to

16

Fleischer,

ureaucrat

nd

Intellectual191

197.

17 This

point

was

made

by

Fleischer,

ureaucrat

nd Intellectual

p.

93.




10/27

60

DOUGLAS

. HOWARD

support

their view of the

importance

f awfulrule.

An

early

sixteenth-

century

escription

f

China,

written

n

Persian for

presentation

o

Sul-

tan

Süleymän,

the Tãrlkh-i

Khitãy

va Khūtān

18

was translated nto

OttomanTurkish

during

his

period

underthe

title

Qãnunnãme-yi

Çln

ü

Khitãy.19

The

sipãhis

of that

country's

mperor",

the author

wrote,

"never

have the

power

to alter and

modify,

he

apex

of

evil,

n

opposition

to the

law

(

qänün

."20

It

is difficult

o

fully

ppreciate

the

argumentspresented

n

the De-

cline iteraturewithout thorough amiliarity ith änün. This s partic-

ularly

true with

regard

to their

nalysis

of the timar

system.

Under

the

timar

system,

he

Ottoman

tate

bestowed

on certain tate servants he

right

to

collect,

for their material

support,

tax

revenues

from he

sub-

jects

living

on

the land of a certain area. These

revenue

grants,

called

timar

could

be revoked for

neglect

of

duty.

The timar- older

par

ex-

cellence

was the

common

avalry

soldier

sipãhi

,

who

in

returnforhis

tlmãr

owed the state the

obligation

f

serving

on

campaigns.

The

tlmār

was

not,

strictly

peaking, hereditary,

ut

the

status of

sipãhi

was

pas-

18

On

this

work ee

C.

A.

Storey,

ersian Literature.

Biobibliographical

Guide 3

vols.

London,

927),

vol.

1,

pp.

431-432.

The

autograph

manu-

script

f

he

uthor,

eyyid

AlīAkbar

Khitāi,

s n

he

üleymaniyeibrary,

Istanbul,

o.

A§ir

Efendi 09. Extractswere

published y

Charles

chefer,

"Trois

chapitres

u

Khitay

namèh,"

Mélanges

Orientaux

Paris, 1883),

pp.

29-84.

See also Paul Ernst

Kahle,

"Eine

islamische

uelle

über

China

um

1500.

Das

Khitâynâme

es

Ali

Ekber.),"

Acta

Orientalia

2

Leiden,

1934),

p.

91

110;Kahle,

China s

described

y

Turkish

eographers

rom

Iranian

ources,"

extofa lecture elivered n

January

5,

1940

London,

The IranSociety, roceedings).

19 In

addition o the

manuscripts

ocated

n

Paris and

Dresden,

isted

by

E.

Blochet,

atalogue

des manuscrits

urcs 2

vols.

Paris, 1932-1933),

ive

manuscripts

f

the Ottoman urkish ranslationre extant

n

Istanbul: ee

Istanbul

kütüphaneleriarih-cografyaazmalari ataloglan

vol.

1,

fase.

0

(Istanbul,

951),

p.

810-812. The Ottoman

ranslation,

edicated

o

Sultan

Murād

II,

was

wrongly

ttributedo

Hüseyin

Hezarfenn

on

which ee

Robert

Anhegger,

Hezarfenn

üseyin").

t was

published

n

Istanbul

n

1270/1853-1854.havenothad accessto themodern urkish ranslation

y

Yih-Min

iu,

Hitayname Taipei,

1967).

The

same writer

sing

Chinese

sources,

uestions

he

uthenticity

f he uthor's bservations:ee

Liu,

"A

ComparativendCritical tudy fAliAkbar'sKhitay-namaithReference

to

Chinese

ources,"

English ummary)

entral

Asiatic

Journal

7

1983),

pp.

58-78.

20

Quoted

n

Anhegger,

Hezarfenn

üseyin," .

366.




11/27

OTTOMANISTORIOGRAPHYF

"DECLINE"

61

sed

from

fatherto

son;

thus,

the

tímãr-holámg ipãhi cavalry

consti-

tuted a

provincially

ased

army

of warriors

nd their sons.21

The

existence of

numerous

manuscript

versions of collections

of

qā-

nūns

concerning

he timar

system

s

explained

by

the nature

of

qänün

all

qänün

originated

s directivesof the

sultan,

written

riginally

o a

particular

ndividual,

usually

the

governor beglerbegi

of a

province,

n

response

to a

petition

r

a

complaint.

n

adition

to

the

specific roblem

raised

in

the

petition, hey

often

dressed

generally pplicable

principles

of administration. he directives were copied into the records of the

chief

magistrate

qãdi

of the

province,22

nd

kept

in

a chest

by

the

beglerbegi

23

Copies

were authorized nd must have received consider-

able

circulation t the time.24 irectives

concerning

particular

ubject,

such as the

tīmār

system, may

have been collected and

copied

into a

single

manuscript

orconvenience.25

uch

a

compilationmay

have been

made,

for

xample,

for he

ni§ānci

whose

responsibility

t was to

verify

that

outgoing

decrees accorded

with

existing änün.

A

qänünnäme

was

any

such collection

of directives. There are indications

hat adminis-

tratorsmaintained qänünnäme addingclauses inaccordancewithnew

directives as

they

were received.26

n

addition,

various individuals

p-

21

On

the timar

ystem

ee Halil

nalcik,

he

Ottoman

mpire

The

Classical

Age

1300-1600

New

York,1973),

104

118;

Nicoara

Beldiceanu,

e timar

dans VÉ at

ottoman

débutXWe-

débutXVI

siècle

(Wiesbaden,

980);

Douglas

Howard,

"The Ottoman

imar

System

nd its

Transformation,

1563-1656"

npublished

h. D. dissertation

Indiana

University,

987).

22

The

§ercl

icilleri. or

examples

rom he

reign

fMehemmed

I,

see

Halil

Inalcik,

Bursa

eriyye

icillerinde

atih ultan

Mehmed'in

ermanlari,"

el-

leten 1

1947),

93-708.

23 Notethetypicaldmonitiononcludingachdirective,preservehishonor-

able directive

n

thechest f

registers

hükm-i

erīfūmi

efter

andughinda

hifz

desiz

,"

see the

manuscript

n

the

Süleymaniye

ibrary,

stanbul,

tif

Efendi

734,

. 16b.

24

Inalcik,

Siileyman

he

Lawgiver," .

117,

n. 39.

25

Fleischer,

ureaucrat nd Intellectual

pp.

92-95;

see

also

nalcik,

Süley-

man he

Lawgiver," p.

116-117.

26

This

contrary

o the view of

Omar

Lütfí

Barkan,

XV

ve XVIinci

sirlarda

Osmanli

mparatorluģunda

iraî ekonominin

ukukî

e malí

esaslan vol.

1, Kanunlar,

pp.

XX- XXXIV.

Note,

for

xample,

he

comment

t theend

of directiveopiednto qänüncollectionthems. s intheBayezit tate

Library,

stanbul,

o.

Veliyüddin

970,

.

6a),

"itwasenterednthe

qänün-

näme"

qãnunnãmeye

ayd

olundi

;

see also

ibid.,

f.

10a,

"It was ordered

that incehencefortht willbe done

n

the

preceding

anner,

t be recorded

in

the

qänünnäme

"




12/27

62 DOUGLAS

.

HOWARD

pear

to have collected

copies

of such

regulations, diting

hem

ccording

to

criteria ometimesdifficulto define.

Moreover,

there seems to have

existed a

body

of

regulations

of

general validity

for the timar

system,

although

he

extant

manuscripts

ontainnumerousvariants.27

While the

Ottoman

declinewritersmade a

number

f

mportant

bser-

vations

regarding

he timar

system

n

this

period,

their

arguments

s-

sentially

can

be summarized

by

two

assertions,

both cast

in

terms of

qānūn

first,

hat the numberof tlmārs

n

the

empire

had

declined,

nd

that as a result,fewerfightingmen were available for ombatduty nthe

Ottoman

military.

Second,

they charged

that there had occurred a

dramatic

lteration

n

the

composition

f the

¿īmār-holding

lass. It had

been

invaded

by

alien

elements,

both

from

bove,

by

government

ffi-

cials

and

palace

favorites,

nd from

below,

by

the common

peasantry.

Thus,

what

few tlmārs remainedwere held

by

ndividuals nfit

or

tate

service.

In

the view

of hese

writers,

orruption

nd

nepotism

mong

he

provincialmilitary

eadership

accounted forthe

changes

they

observed

in

the timar

system.

If

the

qãnun

were adhered

to,

the tlmār

army

would again flourish nd become an effectivemilitary orce.

In

certain

respects

Lütfi

Pa§a,

the former

Grand Vezir

of

Sultan

Süleymän

the

Magnificent,

an be

regarded

as the creatorof

this

genre

with his

Àsafnãme

written

n

retirement

n

1542.

8

A

broad

literary

27

Two such

ollections

ave

been

published.

ee M.

Tayyib ökbilgin,

Kanûnî

Sultan

üleyman'in

imar e zeamet evcihile

lgili

ermanlari,"

arih

Der-

gisi

22

1968),

p.

35-48. This s a

summary

f he ontentsf collectionf

six

decrees

f ultan

üleyman

. For a

similar ollection

n

Ottoman

urkish

with

ranslationnto

French,

ee Irène

Beldiceanu-Steinherr,

Loi sur la

transmissionu timar1536),"Turcica11 1979), p. 78-102. Unfortunate-

ly,

neither f

hese

ublications

ucceeds

n

placing

hese ourceswithinheir

proper

ontext,

nd

as a result

hey resent

confusingicture

f he

īmār

system

n

the ixteenth

entury.

more

omplete

ersion

f his

änünnäme

is

found

n

two

other

manuscripts,

tif

E

fendi

734,

n

the

Siileymaniye

Library,

stanbul,

noted

bove

in

note

23),

and also

in

the

Süleymaniye

Library,

o.

§ehid

Ali

Pa§a

2832

the

manuscript

n

the

Topkapi arayi

Library,

stanbul,

o. Yeni

Yazma

1392,

s a

copy

f his

manuscript,

ade

n

1941,

nd

neednotbe

considered).

he atter ersion arries he

itle

Qänün-

nāme-i

Osmānl

berãy-i

lmār

āden nd

the date 983/1575-1576.

28

The

Àsafnãme

was

published

n

Istanbul

n

1326/1908.

he Swiss scholar

Rudolf schudi repared critical dition f hework,with ranslationnto

German,

ased on

manuscripts

n

Vienna,Dresden,

nd

Munich,

s

well

s

the

ibrary

f he

Bayezid

Mosque

n

stanbul,

s his

doctoral issertationor

the

Friedrich

lexanders

niversity

n

Erlangen

Das

Asaf

amedes

Lutfì




13/27

OTTOMANISTORIOGRAPHY

F "DECLINE"

63

motivation orthe work can

be

inferred rom he

title,

which lludes to

the

legendary

vezir of the biblical

King

Solomon.

The

subject

of

Āsaf-

nāme concerns

advice

to future

Grand

Vezirs. Its words are

carefully

phrased,

n

an

impersonal assive

voice,

counseling

ttention o

personal

ethics,

n

the mold of the

traditional

Near Eastern nasīhatnāme litera-

ture,

and action

n

terms of what is

permissible

under the law

(

qänün

.

The work

can,

of

course,

be viewed as intended

ndirectly

or the

sultan. But

later

writers,

n

tones

considerably

more strident

hanthose

of LütfiPa§a, wrote of thenecessityof actionbythe sultan,frequently

addressing

the

ruler

himself

n a

highly ersonal

manner. Later writers

viewed Lütfí

Pa§a

as a

pioneer

n

the Decline

genre,

but

in

this

sense

Āsafnāme

is

still

very

much traditional

Mirror orPrinces". There can

be little

argument

that Mustafa

cĀlī of

Gallipoli's

Nüshätü

'

s-Selātīn

completed

in

1581,

should be considered

the

exemplary

work

in

the

emerginggenre

of the Decline treatise.29

cĀlI,

an

embittered cribe and

bureaucrat,

served

in

various

posts,

eventually

rising

to the

position

of Governor

of the

province

ofJidda.30

NeverthelesscĀlīfeltthat his talents had been overlooked, nd that he

had not

received sufficient

pportunity

o

accomplish

n

his career what

should have

been

possible

for

man of his

training

nd

experience.

t is

impossible

to

ignore

the obvious

literary

merit of his work: few wrote

with

such

impassioned

vision or such satirical force.

The

Nüshät

far

from

eing

an

inter-Governmental

emorandum,

arries

the tone of an

intensely

personal

memoir. t

might

eem somewhat easier to dismiss

'All's

complaints

bout his failure o advance

in

his career as the

petulant

rantings

of

a

spiteful

ureaucrat,

were it not forhis method.

From

the

standpoint fOttoman egal and intellectualhistory,t is significanthat

cĀlī

grounded

much of his

reasoning

n

a rather

rigid

view of

qânûn

as

normative

aw,

and as that which stablishesthe boundaries

f he

possi-

ble

under the

Ottoman

ystem.

Later writerswere

to

amplify

his con-

cept.

Pascha

Leipzig,

910).

His edition

as then

epublished

nder he

ame itle

(Berlin,

910).

29 TheNüshäthas been

published

n

an edition

ith ranslation

nto

nglish y

AndreasTietze,MustafaCÁi's Counselfor ultans 1581 2 pts. (Vienna,

1979

nd

1982).

30 On

Mustafa

ll

see

Cornell

.

Fleischer,

ureaucrat

nd

ntellectual

n the

Ottoman

mpire:

TheHistorian

Mustafa

Ali,

15Ķ1

1600

Princeton,

986).




14/27


15/27


"DECLINE"

65

To

Qoçi Beg

a thirdworkhas

been

recently

ttributed,

which s actual-

ly

not a finishedbook but a collection of ten memoranda found

n

a

Istanbul

manuscript

n

the

Veliyüddin

collection.33 he work can be

dated

in

the

following

manner. The author notes the

assembling

of the

extraordinary,

xtended session of the

Imperial

Council,

summoned n

June

8,

1632

by

Sultan

Murād

IV for the

purposes

of

dealing

with a

military

ebellion nd

addressing

certain ssues of state administration.

Subsequently

the decisionwas taken

to

inspect

all

tīmārs

n

the

empire.

The VeliyüddinmemorandamentionHüseyinPa§a, who was appointed

to

begin

the

inspection

fthe

province

f Rumelia.

A

copy

ofthe

diploma

of office f

Hüseyin

Pa§a,

dated

July

19, 1632,

has

been

discovered

n

another

manuscript.34

ther

documents

verify

he

accuracy

of this

ap-

18

1864],

p.

699-740).

Ali

Kemali

Aksüt

dentified

he uthor s

Qoçi

Beg

onthebasisof

marginal

ote

n

the

manuscript

e usedfor

is

transcription

(Millet

Kütüphanesi,

stanbul,

o.

474;

see

Aksüt,

d.,

Koçi

Bey

Risalesi

p. 77).AhmedVefik adnoted arlier hatQoçiBegpresented treatise o

Sultan

brāhlm,

ithout, owever,

nowing

f

ny

xtant

manuscripts

f

he

work

see

the ntroduction

o his

publication

f

Qoçi

Beg's

Risale

p.

1).

In

his

publication,

n

transcription,

f another

versionof the work

based

on

Nuruosmaniyeibrary,

stanbul,

o.

4950),

Faik

Re§it

Unat

disputed

his

authorship,ttributing

his work

nstead o Ibrāhim'sGrand

Vezir

Qara

Mustafā

a§a

(see

"Kara Mustafa

a§a'nm

ultan

brahim'e

azdigi

anun-

dur,"

Tarih

Vesikalan 1/6

April,

942],

p.

447-480).

M.

ÇagatayUluçay

argued onvincingly

or

QoçiBeg's

authorship

nd

published

transcription

ofwhat s

probably

he

original

et of

reports

telkhisātdrawn

p

for ultan

Ibrāhimwhich

omprise

he work

Koçi

Bey'in,

ultan

brahim'e akdim

ettiģiRisale ve arzlari," n Zeķi Velidi Togan Armagani (Istanbul,

1950-1955),

p.

177-199.

Uluçay peculated

hat he Revan

1323

Müker-

rer)

manuscript,

n

the

Topkapi arayi

Library,

stanbul,

may

be an

early

copy

made

by

the author

himself. nother

manuscript

s

in

Leningrad,

no.

361

(see

W. D.

Smirnow,

Manuscrits

urcsde Vinstitut

es

langues

orientales

St.

Petersburg,

897;

reprinted

msterdam,

971),

pp.

50-54.

For

further

eference,

onsult

luçay,

Koçi

Bey,"

slam

Ansiklopedisi,

ol.

6

(1974),832-835,

and Colin

mber, Koçi

Bey,"Encyclopaedia

f

slam

New

Edition,

ol.

5

(1986),

48-250.

33

Bayezit

tate

Library,

stanbul,

o.

Veliyüddin

205.

34

In

the

Süleymaniyeibrary,

stanbul,

o.

Reisülküttab,

004,

. 154b.The

berätthedefinitiveiploma f ppointment,s a separate ocument,ated

Evākhir-iMuharrem 042/First

art

of

August

1632.On

these

events,

ee

the

Ottoman

hronicle

fMustafa

acīma,

ārīkh

Third

d., Istanbul,

283/

1866-1867),

ol.

3,

pp.

112-122.




16/27

66

DOUGLAS

. HOWARD

pointment

ate,35

which

stablishes

the

terminus nte

quem

non for he

Veliyüddin

memoranda. The author of

the memoranda

rgues

that

in-

spection

of Anatolia should be

delayed

until that of Rumelia had been

completed,

o that the

presence

of the

full

Ottoman

rmymight

nsure

an

orderly

process.36

Archival documents show that the

inspection

of

Anatolia commenced

n

early August,

1632;37 herefore,

t

seems

likely

that the

Veliyüddin

memorandawere

composed

before his

date,

in

late

July

or

early August,

1632. It

is

possible

to

argue

that the author

might

have pleaded for a delay in the Anatolian nspection ightup untilthe

day

it was

completed,

n

February

1633,

8

and that this date should be

regarded

as the

terminus

ost quern

non

for he

Veliyüddin

memoranda.

This,

however,

seems less

likely.

The attribution f the work

to

Qoçi

Beg

rests

on

faultymethodology.

Rhoads

Murphey

noted the

presence

n

this collection

fthreememoran-

da which

appear

in

eight

of the

eighteen manuscripts

of

Qoçi Beg's

Risale

he examined

n

Istanbul.39On this

evidence

Murphey

oncluded

that

Qoçi

Beg

had

prepared

two

versions

of the Risale : to the first

version he later added the three extramemoranda.The secondversion,

attested

by

the

unique manuscript

n

the

Veliyüddin

ollection,

ncluded

the three extra memoranda from the first version and

seven new

memoranda.40 o critical extual evidence s

employed

n

support

ofthis

theory.

The

attribution

o

Qoçi Beg,

then,

must

be

regarded

as no more

than

speculative.

35 Records f

orrespondence

urvive

etween

Hüseyin

a§a,

in

Sofia,

ndthe

central

dministration,

egarding

rocedural

matters

orthe

inspection,

whichhad notyet begun.See Reiülküttab 004,ff. 56a-157a.The re-

sponses

re dated

Evā'il-iMuharrem

042/Last

art

of

July

632.

36 Rhoads

Murphey,

The

Veliyüddin

elhis:

Notes nthe

Sources

nd nterre-

lations etween

Koçi

Bey

and

Contemporary

riters f

Advice o

Kings,"

Belleten

3

(1979),

47-571; text,

elhis o.

VII,

p.

568.

37 The

rûznâmçe

the record

f

tīmārbestowalsmaintained

t the

Imperial

Registry

n

stanbul,

orAnatolia

or hat

year,

breaks ff

fter 6 Rebřti

1-

evvel

1042/1

ugust

1632.

n the

Baçbakanlik

rçivi

BBA),

Istanbul,

ee

Ruz.

519,

p.

74.

38 The earliestdate

recorded

n

the

new

rûznâmçe

or

Anatolia s

16 Receb

1042/10

ebruary

633.See

BBA Ruz.

512,

p.

506.

39 Memoranda os. 2, 3 and 10among heVeliyüddinollection,os. 17-19

among

hose

published

y

Aksüt. ee

Murphey,

Dördüncü ultan

Murad'a

sunulan

edi

elhis,"

III.

TürkTarih

Kongresi

vol.

2,

1095-1099.

40

Ibid.,

pp.

1096-1097 nd

n. 4.




17/27


"DECLINE"

67

The author

prepared samples

of official

orrespondence,

which

pre-

sumably

demonstrate the

readiness with which

the ideas

in his

memoranda can be

put

into effect.These

"imperial

decrees" resemble

more

closely

the admonitions f other

Decline writers41han

the actual

copies

ofthe

directives ent to

Hiiseyin

Pa§a

in

1632

regarding

he timar

reorganization.42

he

memoranda

tyle

s a familiar evice of

Qoçi

Beg;

an innovative lement

ppears

here

n

the use of

ample

mperial

decrees

as a

literary

device.

Moreover,

the writer of these memoranda

some-

times uses expressionswhichdiffermarkedly rom hoseofQoçi Beg, as

seen in

the Risale . He

repeatedly

insists,

for

example,

that

tīmārs

should

only

be bestowed

on the sons

of

sipãhis

whose families

have

served the

Ottoman

tate

for

generations.43

This

was

the

traditional

iew

of the

tīmār

system,

the

view

enforced

by sixteenth-centuryãnun

and

referred

o

by

most

Decline

writers.

As

early

as

the

reign

of

Süleymän,

Lütfi

Pa§a

had

written,

we

must

nsist

that none

from the

peasantry

be

made

sipāhis

that

none be

made

sipãhis

except

those

who are

sons

of

sipāhis

whose

fathers

nd

ances-

tors weresipāhis "44Mustafā'Ālīwrotethat nhistime, īmārswere "all

reserved for

the mercenaries

evend

and

for the

slaves

of the

great

(ekâbir

qullari)

..."45

The

anonymous

uthor

of

Kitāb-i

müstetab

on

which ee

below)

wrote

that

tīmārs had become

"the

prerogative

f

the

vezirs,"

that

by

approaching

a t

n-aqçe

scribe,

they

name

the

slave

girls

in

their

households,

heirbeardless

youths

nd

slave

boys,

even

their

ats and

dogs,

every

one of them

being

designated

by

a

name,

are

awarded

a

diploma

fora

zicāmet or

tīmār "46

Qoçi

Beg

wrote

in his Risāle

that,

whereas

in

previous

times

the

tīmārs had been

in the hands

of

military

personnel,

the

members

of

41 Note

especially

he

definitions

f

epet

īmān

given

ycAyn

Alï,

ms. Fatih

3497,

ff.

1b-

32a,

regarding

Veliyüddin

o.

6,

Murphey,

Veliyüddin

Telhis,"

pp.

566-567;

and the

suspicions

f

Hiiseyin

a§a

voiced

by

cAzīz

Efendi,

änünnäme

ed

Murphey,

rans,

.

20.

42 Reisülküttab

004,

f.

54a-

159a.

43 QoçiBeg,Risāle ed. Vefik, . 5.

44

Tschudi,

d.,

Das

Asafnâme

text,

p.

24.

45

Tietze, d.,

Counsel

or

Sultans

vol.

1,

p.

85.

46

Ya§ar

Yücel,

ed.,

Kitab-i

Müstetab

Ankara,

974),

ext,

p.

26.




18/27

68 DOUGLAS . HOWARD

military

units

and their

sons,

and "outsiders and

persons

of

ignoble

origin

did not enter their

ranks",

recently hey

had become filledwith

those who were

johnny-come-latelys,

hose

who

said

"there

s

profit

here",

who could not

distinguishgood

and

evil,

those who had no

legitimate

onnection,

hose who

by origin

or stock were

not

posses-

sors of dirliks

some of them

cityboys

and some

of them

peasants,

a

bunch of

commoners,

not useful for

nything.47

The result ofthesedevelopments, ddedQoçi Beg, was that"if he world

were

ruined,

they

took

no

notice,

nd

-

God

protect

us

-

if

the

enemy

overran

the

world,

they

would not even know what the war was . . .

concernforthe

faithhas never

entered their

thoughts".48

Ottoman

statesmen, however,

adopted

a differenttance

during

the

reorganization

f

1632-1633,

ordering

hat tlmãrs

be

given

to former

membersof elite

palace military

ivisionswho had

been stationed

n

the

provinces,

and to

local

peasant youths

who

demonstrated

prowess

in

battle.

This realistic

policy,

which

recognized

nd

accepted

the

changes

whichhad occurred n the tīmār systemduringthe previoushalf cen-

tury,

was

intendedto revitalize

t,

to harness its

present strengths

or

contemporarymilitary

xigencies.

It

clearly

differed rom he

attitude

expressed

in

the

Decline literature

of the

day.49

The

Veliyiiddin

memoranda,

while

cautioning gainst

abuses

in

tīmār

bestowals

in

the

usual

manner,

ppear

to

embrace

this

new

policy, bandoning

he tradi-

tional

language

of

the

qānūn

forthe

terminology

f the decrees of the

reorganization

ffort.

ither the author of the

Veliyüddin

memoranda

was not

Qoçi

Beg,

or

Qoçi Beg's

views had

undergone

a

remarkable

transformationn twoyears.

With

regard

to

the view held

by

these

writers

f he

state of

the tīmār

system,

particular

attentionmust

be

paid

cAyn

Alī

Efendi,

a

writer

whose

work

heavily

influenced

the

subsequent

development

of

the

genre.

In

1609,

cAyn

Alī,

a

scribe of

the

Imperial

Councilwho

served

as

Intendant

of the

Imperial

Registry,

the

office

which

maintained

the

records

ofthe

tīmār

system

hroughout

he

empire,

presented

o

Sultan

Ahmed

I

a

treatise

devoted

entirely

o

the tīmār

system.

The

book,

entitled

Qavānīn-i

Āl-i

cOsmān

der

khüläsa-i

mezāmīn-i

defter-i

īvān

47

Qoçi

Beg,

Risàie ed.

Vefik,

.

12.

48

Ibid

49

On the tīmār

eorganization,

ee

Howard,

The Ottoman

imar

System,"

pp.

193-235.




19/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHYF

"DECLINE"

69

(

The Laws

of

the

Ottoman

Dynasty

Comprising

a

Summary

of

the

Contents

of

the

Council

Registers

,50

contains a

digest

of

regulations

concerning

arious

aspects

of the administration f the tīmār

system.

Later writers

copied many

of

cAyn

Alī'snumerous

tables,

which isted

the

numbers of

tīmār

in

the

provinces

of the

Ottoman

Empire,

the

numbers of

troops expected

for battle from

each

province,

and the

salaries

of

provincial

officials.These

figures,

which were drawn from

fiscal

survey

records of the

sixteenth

century, hey

incorporated

nto

theirown works,as representativeof the state of affairs n their own

day.51

cAyn

Alī

E

fendi

lso authored a second

treatise,

devoted to financial

matters.

It

appears

that

the

two

works were considered

by

contem-

poraries

to be

closely

related.

They

were often

opied sequentially

nto

the

same

manuscript,

nd were

published ogether

rom ne such manu-

script.52

The

work of

Ayn

Alī

fendi has

usually

been treated as a more or ess

politically

eutral

piece

of

scholarship

written

y

a

retired ivil

ervant.

However, an earlier recensionofthe Qavãnln, which survivesin only

one known

manuscript,

ontains

chapter

not ncluded

n

the version he

author

presented

to

Sultan

Ahmed I.53

From the initial entence of this

chapter,

which

begins

with

the formulaic

khãfi

olmaya

ki . .

(let

it not

be

concealed

[i.e.,

from he

sultan]

...),"

it is

obvious that

the work

belongs

to the

Decline treatise

genre.

The writer oncludeshis

strongly

worded

essay

with

the

advice,

"as the established aws

(qānūn-i muqar-

rer)

concerning

he

army

are

executed,

order and

organization

will

be

facilitated nd

ascertained,

by

the

will

of

God,

may

he

be

exalted".

The problemsofthe originality f the ideas expressed in each of the

works

n

this

genre

of

Ottoman

political

iterature,

he

nterrelationships

between the

works,

and the influence

f

the authors on

one

another,

have not

been

sufficientlynvestigated.54

50

Published

n

Istanbul, 280/1864;

hisedition as

been

reprinted,

ith n

introduction

y

M.

Tayyib

Gökbilgin

Istanbul,

979).

51

Including

oçi

Beg.

The relevant ection

s foundn

Revan

1323

Mükerrer),

ff.

1b- 52b.

See

also the

transcription

f

Aksüt,

p.

99-103.

52 Entitled

isāle-i

vazīfe-i

horãn emerātib-i

endegān-i

l-i

cOsmān

Istan-

bul, 1280/1864;eprinted979).

53

The

manuscript

s in the

Süleymaniyeibrary,

stanbul,

o. Fatih3497.

ee

ff. 0-41.

54 The

scholarship

fRhoads

Murphey

as donemuch o

begin

o address hese

problems.

ee

Murphey,

The

Veliyiiddin

elhis,"

p.

547-571.




20/27

70

DOUGLAS

. HOWARD

In

additionto the fourworks

already

mentioned,

everal

other trea-

tises must

be included

n

a discussion of

the

genre.

These include

the

following.

In

1596,

after he Ottoman

ampaign

gainst

the

Hungarian

fortress f

Eger,

Hasan

Qâfî,

from he

village

of

Aqhisär

in

Bosnia,

a

jurist

and

theologian

and author of

a number of

works,

wrote Usui

al-hikam

fi

nizãm al-cãlam

(Principles of

Wisdom

Regarding

the

Order

of

the

World),

The work was written

n

Arabic

and translated nto Ottoman

Turkishby the author.55Hasan Qâfîset about to elucidatethe basis of

the worldorder and the

reasons,

n

his

opinion,

or he disordermanifest

at the

present

ime. He concluded hat

primary

ault

ay

with

neglect

of

justice,

seen

in

the

appointment

of

incompetent

men to

posts

of

authority.56

Qavānīn-i

Yefiiçeriyân

a

lengthy,

nonymous

work of nine

chapters

on

the

Janissaries,

dated to the

reign

of

Sultan

Ahmed

I

(1603-1617),

has never been

published.

Several

manuscripts

re

known.57 he

style

s

factual nd the

presentation

enters

round

a

compilation

f

regulations,

55

Theworkwas

published

n stanbul nthree

ccasions,

n

1278/1861

1862,

n

1285/1868-1869,

nd

in

1287/1870-1871.

ull or

partial

ranslations

ave

appeared

n

French,

y

Garcin

e

Tassy,

Principes

e

sagesse

ouchant'art

de

gouverner ar

Rizwan-ben-abd-oul-mennan

c-hissari,"

ournal

Asiati-

que

4

(1824),

pp.

213-226;

n

Hungarian,

y

E. J.

Karácson,

z

egri

örök

emlékirat

kormányzásmódjáról Eger

vár

elfoglalása

lkalmával

az

1596 évben

rja

Molla Haszan

Elkjáfi Budapest,

909);

nd

German,

y

Lajos Thallóczy

nd E. J.

Karácson,

"Eine Denkschrift

es bosnischen

Mohammedaners olla Hassan

elkjafi

über die Art und Weise

des Re-

gierens,"Archiv ürslavische hilologie 2 (1911),pp. 139-158. See also

MustafaA.

Mehmed,

La crise ottomane

ans la visionde Hasan Kiafi

Akhisari

1544-1616),"

Revue

des études ud-est

uropéennes

3

(1975),

pp.

385-402.

56

Mehmed,

La

crise,"

p.

392-394.

57

Extant

manuscripts

re:

in

Istanbul,

opkapi arayi

Library,

os. Revan

1319

and

1320;

stanbul

University

ibrary,

o.

T3293;

Süleymaniye

i-

brary,

o. Esad Efendi

068

nd

Nuruosmaniyeibrary,

o.

4095;

n

Gotha,

see Wilhelm

ertsch,

Die

orientalischen

andschriften

er

herzoglichen

Bibliothek u

Gotha

2

vol.,

(Vienna, 1859-1864;

reprinted

Wiesbaden,

1971),

no.

133/2;

n

Bratislava,

niversityibrary

o. TE47

(see

Josef las-

kovic, d., Arabische türkische ndpersische andschriftenerUniver-

sitätsbilbiothekn Bratislava

Bratislava, 961),

.

318;

n

Sarajevo,

ee Saf-

vet

beg Bašagič, "Popis

orijentalnihukopisa

moje

biblioteke,"

lasnik

zemaljskogmuzeja

u Bosni

Hercegovini

8

(1916),

p.

207-290,

no. 66.




21/27

OTTOMAN

ISTORIOGRAPHY

F

"DECLINE"

71

in

a

manner reminiscent

f the

Qavãnin

of

cAyn

A'l. Its

purpose,

to

describe the traditional

egulations

by

which

the Janissaries

were

gov-

erned,

and to contrast heir

orderly

ast

with heir

present

tate,

places

the

work

quarely

within he

genre

ofthe Decline

treatisesof

he

period.

An

anonymous

treatise entitled

Kitāb-i

Müstetäb can be

dated to

about

1620,

during

he tumultuous

eign

of Sultan cOsmān

I.58

Nothing

can be detected ofthe author

ofthe

work,

ave that he

apparently

was a

product

of the

dev§irme

evy.59

The author

emphasizes

that from

he

time of Sultan cOsmān, the founder f the dynasty,until the reignof

Murād

III

(1574-1595),

Ottoman

rule had been

characterized

y

adher-

ence to boththe

holy

aw and the

qänün,

and

by ust

administration,

nd

that it was for this reason the

empire

had

expanded

to

conquer

many

lands. This the author contrasts

with the

present

state

of affairs.

Another

anonymous

treatise,

called

Hirzu

'

l-Mulūk

(

Amulet

of

Kings),

written about

1632,

appears

to have been

unfinished.60

he

work,

whichremains

unpublished,

ontains

chapter

on

problems

n

the

provincial

dministration

f the

tīmār

system.

cAzīzEfendi,a scribeprobably ttachedto theImperialCouncil,wrote

Qānūnnāme-i

Sultāni

in

late

1632.

1


22/27

72

DOUGLAS

. HOWARD

that

year.

cAzīz

Efendi

employs

ample

Imperial

directives s a

literary

device.

Two later

treatises on the

subject

of the

organization

f the timar

system,

which

ppear

to

be

related,

are the

Qānūn-i

cOsmānl

mefhūm-i

defter-i

hâqânî

ofcAvni

ömer

Efendi62 nd

the Risale of

cAlī

Çavu§

of

Sofía.63

These works

describe various

categories

of timar in

a format

quite

distinctfrom

hat of earlier

registers

and

documents. The text

appears

to

be

largely

a

recitation f

traditional

imar

regulations,

lbeit

moredetailedthan otherdescriptions f the system,withtheexception

of

cAyn

All's

Qavãnln.

Finally,

the

treatise of the well known

Ottoman

ntellectual,

Kātib

Çelebi,

entitledDüsturu

'

l-camel

li

islāhi

Vl-halel

Guiding Principles

for

the

Rectification

f

Defects),6*

ears

mention,

hough

t treats ofthe

tlmār

system

only

n

a

generalized

sense. Here a

subtle

change

in

at-

titude can

be

detected,

when

compared

with earlier

works

n

the

genre.

The

sense of

urgency

which animated

earlier

writers,

and the

lively,

even

racing, prose

which

made earlier

works such

arresting eading,

s

nowreplacedwith morereflective, etached tone. The influence fthe

historical

yclism

f

bn Khaldūn

s

apparent

n

Kātib

Çelebi's

work.

bn

Khaldūn

may

have

had a

stilling

nfluence n

Ottoman ntellectual

ife,

t

least

as

regards

political

nd

historical

hought:

Ottomanwritersof the

later

seventeenth

century

recognized

that within

bn Khaldūn's

body

analogy,

the

Ottoman

Empire

had

reached a

period

of

stasis.

Stasis

might

be

prolonged,

but was

seldom

reversed.65

62

This

workwas

published

n

a

transcription

dition

y

I. H.

Uzunçarçili

n

Belleten15 (1951),381-399. Halil Inalcik see "Kanunname,"I 2 vol. 4

[1975],

64)

considers hiswork o be a shorter ersion f he

Risàie

of

All

Çavu§.

63 An

edition

n

Ottoman

cript,

with

Croatian

ranslation,

as

published y

Hamid

Hadžibegič, Rasprava

Ali

Čauša

iz

Sofije timarskojrganizaci

Documents

Ottoman Historiography of Decline, 16th-17th Cent