148 chapter 4
term can be applied) to the previous one.11 Recently, Baki Tezcan has proposed
a continuous conflict between what he called the “absolutist” and the “consti-
tutionalist” trends; in the context of this conflict, Murad III’s reign, universally
considered by Ottoman authors (as will be seen in detail) as the actual begin-
ning of decline, is interpreted as an effort by the sultan to take back the reins of
actual power, until then held by his viziers and kuls. 12
1 Ottoman Authors and the “Decline” Paradigm
For our purposes, however, it is important to note that the “decline” paradigm
was first initiated by Ottoman authors.13 Abou-El-Haj’s critique of the modern
adherents of this theory was based precisely on their taking the sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century advice literature at face value, whereas in his view these
works should be seen as expressing the anxieties of an old order that was los-
ing its prerogatives. True, the topos of a declining world had been a leitmotif
in Ottoman literature even before the Ottoman Empire was established: it
will be remembered that even at the beginning of the fifteenth century, for
instance, Şeyhoğlu Mustafa was complaining of a lack of wise ulema, disrespect
for the Sharia, and so on, not to mention Aşıkpaşazade, Yazıcıoğlu, and the
other exponents of the “anti-imperial” opposition. Furthermore, the notion of
decline was also a literary convention, one which can be seen in several works
dating from the first half of the sixteenth century.14 It is true, however, that this
notion takes on completely new dynamics from the middle of that century,
and becomes a central point in almost every treatise dealing with government
towards the end of it.
It is important to note that the Ottoman authors to be examined do not use
terms that imply a full “decline”, i.e. an irreversible process bound to lead to
11 See Kafadar 1993; Darling 1996; Darling 1997; Barkey 1994; Abou-El-Haj 2005; Faroqhi 1994;
Hathaway 1996; Quataert 2003.
12 See Tezcan 2010a, 55ff. and 97–99; on signs of Murad III’s absolutism in contemporary
sources see Fleischer 1986a, 295. Tezcan also connects Murad’s absolutism with the con-
flict between “traditional” and “rational” sciences and the flourishing of the latter during
his reign (Tezcan 2010b). Tezcan’s theory has met with a rather lukewarm and cautious
reception by fellow Ottomanists; similar views were also expressed in Yılmaz 2008 and
Yılmaz 2015a.
13 On the genealogy of the “decline” trope in Ottoman literature, see Howard 1988; Herzog
1999.
14 See, for instance, the poet Latifi’s complaints (Latifi – Pekin 1977; Latifi – Yérasimos 2001),
as well as several anecdotes in Lami’i Çelebi’s (d. 1532) Letâ’ifnâme, compiled by his son
(Lami’i-zade – Çalışkan 1997). For more details, see Sariyannis 2008a, 133–134 and 135–136.