¹ The gradual shrinking of Ottoman western and northern borders is well described in McNeill, William H., Europe's Steppe Frontier, 1500–1800 (Chicago, 1966)Google Scholar. For a description of the war, see Ungermann, Richard, Der russisch-tiirkische Krieg 1768–1774 (Vienna, 1906)Google Scholar. Nothing has superseded the comprehensiveness of Ungermann's study, although there are many Russian studies available; see particularly Klokman, Iv. R., Feldmarshal Rumiantsev ve Period Russko-Turetskoi Voiny 1768–1774 (Moscow, 1951)Google Scholar.

² Howard, Douglas A., “Ottoman Historiography and the Literature of ‘Decline’ of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” Journal of Asian History 22 (1988): 54Google Scholar, refers to such works as “a literary genre of political and social commentary.” On the advice literature in general, there are numerous works. The basis for much later discussion is Lewis's, Bernard “Ottoman Observers of Ottoman Decline,” Islamic Studies 1 (1962): 71–87Google Scholar. Levend, Agah Sirn contributed “Siyaset-nameler,” Turk Dili Arastirmalan Yilligi Belleten (1962): 167–94Google Scholar, which includes a comprehensive list of manuscript cop ies of various types of advice literature; Fleischer, Cornell, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: Mustafa Ali (1541–1600) (Princeton, 1986), 100–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar, presents a useful summary of the genre; see also Rhoads Murphey in “Review Article: Mustafa Ali and the Politics of Cultural Despair,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 21 (1989): 243–55Google Scholar; Fodor, Pal, “State and Society, Crisis and Reform, in 15th-17th Century Ottoman Mirror for Princes,” Ada Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 40 (1986): 217–40Google Scholar; and Uğur, Ahmet, Osmanli Siyâset-nameleri (Istanbul, 1980?)Google Scholar, which is so poorly organized and printed as to make it almost unusable; see Howard's, Douglas review in Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 13 (1989): 124–25Google Scholar.

³ According to Fodor, by 1683 “the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was an irreversible process which numbered among its many causes the inadequate appraisal of crisis and reform, and the incapability of spiritual, or, to put it in modern terms, ‘ideological’ revival,” Fodor, “State and Society,” 240.

⁴ See Lapidus, Ira M., A History of Islamic Societies (Cambridge, 1988), 186–91Google Scholar. Fodor, “State and Society,” 218, discusses early Islamic mirror literature. Howard, “Ottoman Historiography,” 55, notes three political cultures as the Islamic source: “the ancient Persian concept of ruler as embodiment of Justice; the Greek (Platonic) concept of Justice as social harmony; and the Judeo-Christian concept of the sovereign being subject to the law of God.”

⁵ Hajib, Yusuf Khass, Wisdom of Royal Glory, trans. Dankoff, Robert (Chicago, 1983), 4–5Google Scholar, 9.

⁶ Fodor, “State and Society,” 217–18, prefers the term “mirror for princes” for his discussion of this kind of literature, noting that they have been called “political tracts, memoranda, socio-political treatises, reform proposals or advice literature.”

⁷ Hajib, Yusuf Khass, Wisdom, 218Google Scholar. The source is the Qurʾan 3:169. A theme common to all Islamic advice literature was the idea of a victorious army continuously expanding the frontier of Islam. In the Turkish context, the idea of the ever-expanding frontier combined with Central Asian theories of world domination, revived as an ideal by the Ottomans, what Abou El-Haj refers to as “the ideological justification for a mandate over the Muslim people.” Turan, Osman, “Ideal of World Domination among the Medieval Turks,” Studia Islamica 4 (1955): 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; El-Haj, Rifaat Ali Abou, “Ottoman Attitudes Toward Peace Making: The Karlowitz Case,” Der Islam 51 (1974): 135Google Scholar.

⁸ Kinahzade himself incorporated the ethics of Dawani (d. 1502) and Nasir al-Din Tusi (d. 1274); see Fleischer, , Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 100, n. 73Google Scholar; Kinahzade, Ahlak-i Ala'i (Bulaq, 1832)Google Scholar; Adnan Adivar, “Kinahzade,” Islam Ansiklopedisi 6:709–12. The literature of ethics is discussed by Fleischer, Cornell in “Royal Authority, Dynastic Cyclism and ibn Khaldunism’ in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Letters,” in Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, ed. Lawrence, Bruce (Leiden, 1984), 49Google Scholar.

⁹ See Fleischer, , “Royal Authority,” 49, for the complete circle; see also Rhoads Murphey, “The Veliyyuddin Telhis: Notes on the Sources and Interrelations Between Koci Bey and Contemporary Writers of Advice to Kings,” Belleten 43 (1979): 556Google Scholar. See also Mardin, Şerif, “The Mind of the Turkish Reformer,” in Arab Socialism, ed. Hanna, S. A. (Salt Lake City, 1969), 31Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Khaldun, Ibn, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Rosenthal, Franz (Princeton, 1967), 136–38Google Scholar, 141–42; Fleischer, “Royal Authority,” 48–49; Murphey, “The Veliyyuddin Telhis,” 556. Howard, “Ottoman Historiography,” 72, wonders if Ibn Khaldun didn't have a “stilling influence on Ottoman intellectual life.”

¹¹ Howard, “Ottoman Historiography,” 55–57.

¹² This is a simplified explanation for a highly complex pair of terms, the expression in Ottoman political theory, perhaps, of the explicit manifestation of the shariʿa and kanun. For further definitions, see L. Gardet, “Din,” EI2, 2:293–96; in the framework of the historian Mustafa Ali (d. 1600), “the strength of the soldiers produces the power of [their] leader and the army-leader's victory appears [in cooperation] with the victory-oriented army,” Tietze, Andreas, Mustafā ʿAlī's Counsel of Sultans of 1581, 2 pts. (Vienna, 1979–1982), pt. 2, 42Google Scholar.

¹³ While the Asafname is a fairly straightforward “mirror for princes,” the Counsel of Sultans may have signaled a new stage of development in the literature of advice as argued by Fleischer, insofar as it turned a literary exercise into an administrative handbook; Fleischer, , Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 101–2Google Scholar; see also Lewis, , “Ottoman Observers,” 71–73. Lutfi Pasha's Asafname was written in 1541Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Tietze, “Mustafa ʿĀli's Counsel,” pt. 2, 21.

¹⁵ Fodor, “State and Society,” 226–27; Tassy, M. Garcin de, “Principes de sagesse, touchant l'art de gouverner,” Journal Asiatique 4 (1824): 213–27Google Scholar, 283–90, for a French translation; published in Arabic as Usūl al-Hikamfi Nizam al-ʿĀlam: Risālafi al-Fikr al-Siyasi al-Islām (Kuwait, 1987); see also Mehmed, Mustafa A., “La Crise ottoman dans la vision de Hasan Kiafi Akhisari (1544–1616),” Revue des itudes Sud-Est europiennes 13 (1975): 385–402Google Scholar, whose conclusions are to be used with caution; see Fodor's comments, “State and Society,” 226, n. 20; a manuscript copy dated 1284 (1867), (Düğümlü Baba 438 in the Süleymaniye Library collections) alternates Arabic and Turkish texts.

¹⁶ Mehmed, “La Crise ottomane,” 400–401; Düğümlü Baba 438, fols. 33–35 on the army and fols. 48–50 on peace. Akhisari's work was presented to Mehmed III (r. 1595–1603) in 1596, Fodor, “State and Society,” 225.

¹⁷ Murphey, “Review Article,” 250.

¹⁸ Lewis, “Ottoman Observers,” 73, calls him the “Ottoman Montesquieu”; Kuray, Gulbende, “Turkiye'de bir Machiavelli,” Belleten 52 (1988): 1655–62Google Scholar, likens Koçi Bey to Machiavelli.

¹⁹ See Imber, Colin, “Koçi Bey,” EI2, 5:248–50Google Scholar; also M. Cagatay Ulucay, “Koçi Bey,” Islam Ansiklopedisi, 6:832–35. Bey's, KoçiRisale has been published many times: in Ottoman Turkish as Koçi Bey Risalesi (Istanbul, 1885); modernized as Koçi Bey Risalesi, ed. Aksüt, Kemal (Istanbul, 1939)Google Scholar, and others. See also Fodor, “State and Society,” 231–33. The quotation is from the 1885 edition, 63–64 (Aksiit, Koçi Bey, 46).

²⁰ Koçi Bey (1885), 8; Aksüt, Koçi Bey, 19.

²¹ Lewis, “Ottoman Observers,” 77–80; see also Orhan Şaik Gökyay, “Kâtib Çelebi,” Islam Ansiklopedisi 6:432–38; Fodor, “State and Society,” 233–34. Katib Çelebi's text is available in Ottoman and modern Turkish versions: the 1863 Istanbul edition published with ʿAyn ʾAli's Kavanin Āl-i Osman, 119–40, is used here. The modernized version is available as: Bozukluklarin Duzeltilmesinde Tutulacak Yollar, ed. Can, Ali (Ankara, 1982)Google Scholar. For the text used here, see ʿAyn ʿAli, Kavanin, 124–26, 129- 33, esp. 133.

²² Pasha, Sari Mehmed, Ottoman Statecraft, ed. and trans. Wright, W. L. (Princeton, 1935), 64Google Scholar.

²³ Ibid., 63.

²⁴ Ibid., 119–20.

²⁵ Ibid., 5–9, on San Mehmed's background.

²⁶ Ibid., 126–28.

²⁷ Ibid., 126–27.

²⁸ Ibid., 127–31.

²⁹ Ibid., 130–31.

³⁰ Ibid., 131.

³¹ Ibid., 114.

³² Ibid., 130. These were many of the same concerns of European military reformists of the period.

³³ Berkes, Niyazi, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal, 1964), 36–45Google Scholar.

³⁴ Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 42; Berkes translates the title as Rational Bases for the Polities of Nations.

³⁵ See n. 74.

³⁶ See particularly Berkes, , The Development of Secularism, 42–43Google Scholar. Müteferrika's French translator of 1769 was impressed that Müteferrika, had been allowed to publish it: Traité de tactique, trans. Revicsky, Károly Imre Sándor (Vienna, 1769), vGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Especially Akhisari. See Mehmed, “La Crise ottoman,” 395–96. The resemblance of the titles of the two works must be more than just coincidental; see Müteferrika, Ibrahim, Usul ül-Hikem fi Nizam ül-Ümem (Istanbul, 1731), fols. 22b-23 for the full textGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Müteferrika, Usul ül-Hikem, fols., 4b-12; pp. 35–39 of Revicsky's translation.

³⁹ From Müteferrika, Traité, 146; see Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 43–44, for fuller translation.

⁴⁰ Müteferrika, Traité, 127, summarized in Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 43–44 as well.

⁴¹ Müteferrika, Usul-ül-Hikem, fols. 33b–34; Müteferrika, Traité, 150 ff.; Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 44–45.

⁴² Müteferrika, Traité, 154 ff.; Müteferrika, Usul ül-Hikem, fol. 34 ff.; Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 45.

⁴³ Abou El-Haj, “Ottoman Attitudes,” 136. This line of inquiry could fruitfully be applied to the KUcük Kaynarca Treaty and might contribute to an explanation as to why an intense and lengthy debate ensued in Ottoman circles (1774–83) over many of the terms of that treaty; see Lewis, Bernard, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago, 1988), 111–12Google Scholar, on the significance of the choice of the word “freedom” in that treaty.

⁴⁴ Abou El-Haj, “Ottoman Attitudes,” 136.

⁴⁵ Of the forty-four ambassadors who wrote reports listed by Unat, F. R. in Osmanli Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri (Ankara, 1968)Google Scholar, thirty-four are from the 18th century and of those, only eight do not deal with Europe. Maştakova, Elena, “Türk Aydinlaşma Ön-Tarihi XVIII. Yüzyil Edebiyati Üzerine,” in Sovyet Türkologlannin Türk Edebiyati Incelemeleri (Istanbul, 1980), 20Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ In this regard, see Hurewitz, J. C., “The Europeanization of Ottoman Diplomacy: The Conversion from Unilateralism to Reciprocity in the Nineteenth Century,” Belleten 25 (1961): 455–66Google Scholar; see also Aksan, Virginia, “Ottoman-French Relations, 1739–1768,” in Studies on Ottoman Diplomatic History, ed. Kuneralp, Sinan (Istanbul, 1987), 41–58Google Scholar; Virginia Aksan, “Ottoman Sources of Information on Europe in the Eighteenth Century,” Archivum Ottomanicum 11 (1986 [1988]): 5–16. Mardin, Şerif, “Some Notes on an Early Phase in the Modernization of Communications in Turkey,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3 (1960/1961): 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar, comments on the introduction of European concepts such as “status quo” into Ottoman official documents during the reign of Selim III.

⁴⁷ An interesting comparison could be made with Eastern Europe, especially Austria and Russia, which underwent similar kinds of centralization processes in this period: see, in that regard, Raeff, Marc, “The Russian Autocracy and Its Officials,” Harvard Slavic Studies 4 (1957): 77–91Google Scholar. On the interelite struggle as related to the production of advice literature, see El-Haj, Rifaat Ali Abou, “Fitnah, Huruc ala al-Sultan and Nasihat: Political Struggle and Social Conflict in Ottoman Society, 1560's–1700's,” in Comité international d'études pré-ottomanes et ottomanes VIth Symposium, Cambridge, lst–4th July 1984 proceedings, ed. Bacqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis and Donzel, Emeri van (Istanbul, 1987), 185–91Google Scholar. For a discussion of what Mardin styles “a communications crisis of some importance,” see Mardin, “Some Notes,” 252–55.

⁴⁸ Faroqhi, Suraiya succinctly reviews current research on the trend in “Civilian Society and Political Power in the Ottoman Empire: A Report on Research in Collective Biography (1480–1830),” International Journal of Middle East Studies 17 (1985): 115Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ On the official historians, see Bekir Kütükoglu, “Vekayinüvis,” Islam Ansiklopedisi, 13:271–87.

⁵⁰ See Mardin, “The Mind,” 27–30, for a further discussion.

⁵¹ Probably composed between 1774 and 1781, from textual evidence: Resmi, Ahmed, Hulasat ül-lʾtibar (Istanbul, 1869)Google Scholar.

⁵² Resmi, Ahmed, Sefaretname-yi Ahmed Resmi (Istanbul, 1886), 54–55Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Uzunçarşjh, I. H., Osmanli Tarihi (Ankara, 1982), vol. 4, pt. 2, 616–19Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ This work exists in manuscript only: Istanbul University (I.U.) Ms. TY419, 11 fols., submitted to Halil Pasha on 17 Şaban 1183 (16 December 1769), according to a textual note. The copy itself is undated but a marginal note by Ahmed Resmi's son states that his father had composed it and hoped eventually to turn it into a complete essay with seventeen articles—it consists of only thirteen. The passage on the neglect of the army is on fol. lb; that on the Janissaries is on fol. 6 of the manuscript. Discipline and training were two of the 18th-century developments that gained currency in the European military context, especially in Prussia. Interestingly enough, Ahmed Resmi's list of abuses reproduces a few of those of Mustafa Ali's, obviously not new problems: standardization of prices (Tietze, Mustafa ʿAll's Counsel, pt. 2, 25–27); army provisions (nüzül: Tietze, Mustafā ʿAli's Counsel, pt. 2, 35), by far the most significant problem according to Ahmed Resmi (I.U. Ms. TY419, fols. 7–10).

⁵⁵ The reference to esame, for example, which by this time was a very serious problem of the salaried corps. Each soldier registered in a muster roll was entitled to an esame, proof of his right to salary and benefits. The esame of long-dead or retired soldiers were routinely kept by regimental commanders to enrich their own pockets, a problem common to all the armies of Europe. The reformers who advised Selim III were preoccupied with the problem: see Karal, Enver Z., “Nizam-I Cedide Dâir Layihalar,” Tarih vesikalan 1 (1942): 414–25Google Scholar; idem, Tarih vesikalan 2 (1942/43): 104–11, 342–52, 424–32.

⁵⁶ See Tott, Baron François De, Memoirs of Baron De Ton, 2 vols. (London, 1785 [New York, 1973]), 2:139 ffGoogle Scholar., for a somewhat biased view of the state of Janissary discipline in this period.

⁵⁷ Of equal interest is Ahmed Resmi's simplicity of style; for example, on the esame: “Sipah ve Silahdar Ocaklannda mestur olan yirmi bin esameden vaktiyla bin adam tedariki mümkün olmadiği görülmüştür” (Ahmed Resmi, I.U. Ms. TY419, fol. 6). The advice pieces examined here exhibit for the most part a return to simplified Turkish and a preference of their authors for drawing examples from their own era and dynasty.

⁵⁸ That is, the Ukraine, Wallachia, and Moldavia. A facsimile of a manuscript in the National Library in Ankara (unidentified) was published by Parmaksizoğlu, Ismet, “Bir Türk Diplomatinin Onsekizinci Yüzyil Sonunda Devletler Arasi Ilişkilere Dair Görüşleri,” Belleten 47 (1983): 527–45Google Scholar, and includes a modernized version.

⁵⁹ Parmaksizoğlu, 529–31; Ahmed Resmi refers to the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War during the period 1740–63.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 532–34. Ahmed Resmi discusses at some length the period from 1223–1336.

⁶¹ Ibid., 534–35.

⁶² Two manuscripts have so far been examined: Topkapi H375, n.d., fols. 1–14 and Istanbul University MS TY6065, n.d., fols. 277b–90. The two texts differ very little. References are to the foliation of the Topkapi copy.

⁶³ Avrupa, fols. lb–3b; güruh also has the sense of “gang, class, flock, horde,” sometimes “nation.” Elsewhere, the author uses devlel and memleket in referring to the nations of Europe.

⁶⁴ Ibid., fols. 6–8.

⁶⁵ Ibid., fols. 8–9. Concerning the technical expert, although he refers only to a French “army officer” who had helped the Ottomans refortify the Dardanelles (1770–71), he obviously means Baron de Tott. De Tott's rapid-fire artillerymen (sürʾat topçulan) were tested for the first time in the 1774 campaign.

⁶⁶ Ibid., fols. 9b–10.

⁶⁷ Ibid., fols. lOb-lla; especially the late Sultan Mustafa III (r. 1757–74).

⁶⁸ Ibid., fols. 10b–13a.

⁶⁹ Ibid., fols. 13b–14. Perhaps the author was a member of the ulema?

⁷⁰ Published as Koca Sekbanbaşi Risalesi, ed., Uç, Abdullah, (Istanbul, 1975Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as Risale). Wilkinson, William translated it as an appendix to An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia (London, 1820 [New York, 1971]Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as Wilkinson). A Cairo University manuscript (C.U. MS) copy of the original text, 6548T, n.d., fols. 53–92 (hereafter referred to as C.U. MS 6548T) was used for verification. Another copy can be found in Istanbul: Haci Mahmud 4890, n.d., fols. 1–20. Koca Sekbanbaşi is said to have presented his text to Mustafa IV (r. 1807–1808); Risale, 27. Sekbanbaşi in this period was the name for one of the commanding officers of the palace troops, second only to the commander of the Janissaries.

⁷¹ C.U. MS 6548T, fols. 63b and 92; Wilkinson, 239, 286; Risale, 44–45, 87. He died in 1808; Bursali, Mehmed Tahir, Osmanli Müeltifleri, 3 vols. (Istanbul, 1914–1923)Google Scholar, 2:236.

⁷² The troops were sent to Syria and Egypt in 1799.

⁷³ For the comment on Ibrahim Müteferrika, see C.U. MS 6548T, fol. 67; Wilkinson, 245; Risale, 49–50; on Mustafa Ali, see C.U. MS 6548T, fols. 53a, 60b; Risale 30, 40, both of which sources specifically mention Mustafa Ali's Fusul-i Hall ve Akdfi Usul-i Hare ve Nakd (The Seasons of Sovereignty on the Principles of Critical Expenditure), written in 1598–99; Wilkinson, 217, 232, does not specify the author. The introduction to Fusul is a “mirror for princes” piece of writing (see Fleischer, , Bureaucrat and Intellectual, 177, 302)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ C.U. MS 6548T, fol. 67; Wilkinson, 245; Risale, 49–50.

⁷⁵ C.U. MS 6548T, fols. 55b–56a; Wilkinson, 224–25; Risale, 34.

⁷⁶ C.U. MS 6548T, fol. 60; Wilkinson, 232; Risale, 39–40.

⁷⁷ C.U. MS 6548T, fol. 63; Wilkinson, 238; Risale, 44.

⁷⁸ C.U. MS 6548T, fols. 64–68a; Wilkinson, 246–48; Risale, 50–51.

⁷⁹ C.U. MS 6548T, fol. 80; Wilkinson, 270; Risale, 69.

⁸⁰ Mardin, Şerif, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton, 1962), 105–6Google Scholar; see also Mardin, “The Mind,” 28–30.

⁸¹ Shaw, Stanford, Between Old and New: The Ottoman Empire Under Selim III, 1789–1808 (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸² Shaw, , Between Old and New, 73–75Google Scholar.

⁸³ Ibid., 91–92. It is not the intention here to discuss these reports in detail. Shaw's work discusses the reports and their authors, 86–111; some of the reports survive in the Topkapi Archives as document number E447 and in summary as transliterated in Karal, “Nizam-i Cedide,” from a manuscript copy, Ali Emiri 71. Karal's text has been used here. For further bibliographical information, see Shaw, , Between Old and New, 93, 249Google Scholar. Shaw presents the contents of these reports in summary form only, so a great deal of analysis remains to be done on the full text of these works.

⁸⁴ Shaw, , Between Old and New, 91–93Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Lewis, Bernard, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1965), 58Google Scholar. The reisülküttab was both chief scribe and foreign affairs minister.

⁸⁶ Karal, “Nizam-i Cedide,” 2:424–25.

⁸⁷ Shaw, , Between Old and New, 95–98Google Scholar; on Ratib Efendi, see Berkes, The Development of Secularism, 77–78, and more recently, Stein, J. M., “An Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Ambassador Observes the West: Ebu Bekir Râtip Efendi Reports on the Habsburg System of Roads and Posts,” Archivum Ottomanicum 10 (1985 [1987]): 219–312Google Scholar, who provides evidence of the direct link between the report and reform program of Selim III (223), and, Bilim, Cahit, “Ebubekir Ratib Efendi, Nemçe Sefaretnamesi,” Belleten 54 (1990): 261–96Google Scholar, which discusses only the social and economic ideas of Ratib Efendi. By nizam-i cedid, Ebubekir Ratib Efendi apparently meant the new military order—new cannons, rifles, and ships—of the European states.

⁸⁸ Efendi, Ahmed Vasif, Mehâsinü'l-Âsâr ve Hakâiku'l-Ahbdr, ed. Ilgürel, Mücteba (Istanbul, 1978), 90–99Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ See Heyd, Uriel, “The Ottoman ʿUlemā and Westernization in the Time of Selim üI and Maḥmūd II,” in Studies in Islamic History and Civilization, Scripta Hierosolymitana 9 (1961): 63–96Google Scholar.