enjoining good and forbidding wrong 79Köprülü “gave to the Ottoman Empire a further, though brief interval of glit-
tering, but illusive splendour.”^82 Most modern histories of the second half of
the seventeenth century, which mention Mehmed IV only in passing, wax elo-
quently on the “Köprülü Era.”^83 It is claimed that “Ottoman history of the sec-ond half of the seventeenth century is dominated by the name of Köprülü.”^84
What is meant is that modern history writing is dominated by attention to the
Köprülü viziers, since contemporary history writers did not pay them as much
attention as the moderns. This bears some explaining. Some accounts of his vi-
zierate cause the reader to wonder why, in light of the knowledge of the horrors
of authoritarianism and militarism, scholars are so enthusiastic about praising
“a régime of terror” by a man Silahdar labeled “an opinionated, selfi sh, merci-
less, cruel tyrant who unjustly killed people and shed blood.”^85 He was also ac-
cused of ultimately weakening the empire over the long term because he broke
the back of the administration and military, placing in offi ce unknown people
and giving them no power. It is curious that modern scholars seem so des-
perate for a strong man to appear on the seventeenth-century Ottoman scene.
Perhaps it is a desire to see the Ottomans stave off their post-Vienna territorial
decline and ultimate ruin in the ashes of war and the humiliation of colonial
occupation in the early twentieth century. An undertone of “if onlys” can be
read into such accounts, such as “If only there had been more grand viziers like
Köprülü the empire could have rebounded and taken Vienna.”
What is confused in such accounts is the question of what the vizier was
trying to restore: Was it the empire, or the dynasty? Or was he trying to estab-
lish his own Köprülü household at the expense of the Ottoman household,
seizing the opportunity afforded by Hatice Turhan Sultan, who had tried to
use his elite household to control all others?^86 At least one opposition fi gure, a
sheikhulislam who was dismissed from offi ce and exiled, claimed that Köprülü
Mehmed Pasha was not serving the dynasty and religion, but his offi ce.^87 Sul-
tans such as Mehmed IV then had to reassert their own household in politics.
Scholars often do not distinguish between the empire and the dynasty, which
were intricately related, each acquiring legitimacy from the other, but the grand
vizier was more concerned with the empire than the royal household, whose
effective power had been slipping for at least half a century. By demanding
almost absolute powers that even the sultan could not oppose, he aimed to im-
prove imperial fi nances, strengthen the military, and end religious and military
threats to the empire’s authority and even survival. By working to strengthen
the offi ce of the grand vizier at the expense of the sultanate, the grand vizier
hastened the process that decreased the relevance of the sultan. During his
short reign in offi ce it was clear that the grand vizier was the effective head of
state. And in fact, the empire received some respite from its troubles after he