152 chapter 4
ulema, as well as the sheikhs and the descendants of the Prophet. The author
mentions al-Ghazali’s İhyâ’-i ‘ulûm (Y176, A36) and various unspecified Persian
and Arabic books (Y183, A43), while he also cites numerous anecdotes from
Selim I’s and Süleyman’s reigns. In general, however, the treatise bears the dis-
tinctively Ottoman late sixteenth-century feature of specific criticisms of and
detailed proposals for contemporaneous politics. One might remark, as Baki
Tezcan did, that the emphasis of Hırzü’l-mülûk on the need for the sultan to
yield actual power and to take back responsibilities that had been delegated to
the grand vizier fits well with a treatise dedicated to Murad III, as this is exactly
what that sultan tried to do.21
Although Kitâbu mesâlih lacks both the structural coherence and the sense
of a past “Golden Age” that are apparent in Hırzü’l-mülûk, the two works share
a common inventory of ideas, most of which were to have a long lifespan in
the years to come, well into the seventeenth century. As noted, Kitâbu mesâlih
has a strong “bottom-up” or “street-level” approach. Thus, it is only in Hırzü’l-
mülûk that we can find advice on the qualities required of sultans and viziers:
although it delves into the importance of the latter post, comparing the four
viziers of the imperial council to the first four caliphs, the author favors strong
sultanly power. He admits that it is difficult for the ruler to watch over the
affairs of the world in person; however, if he willingly tries to deal with every
issue in his realm, God will help him, and for that reason this work was written
for and presented to the sultan (Y173–76, A33–36). Then the author describes
the sultanly virtues (emphasizing the preparations a sultan should make just
after, or even shortly before, his accession to the throne), like most traditional
treatises. However, he departs sharply from the usual commonplaces to offer
counsel directly from the Ottoman experience. For instance, he remarks that
the sultan should not marry his daughters and sisters to viziers or beylerbeyis,
but rather to sancakbeyis whose life-long fief (hass) ought to be in the terra
firma (not in the borderlands) and reach 4–500,000 aspers (Y176–83, A36–43).
The same is seen in the chapter on viziers: after drawing some moral and prac-
tical advice from the inventory of older “mirrors for princes”, the author again
proceeds to give advice specially adjusted for an Ottoman vizier. In this, he
writes that a vizier must not grant fiefs to people who have never fought or
to former bandits (harami) who escaped punishment, and he must not suc-
cumb to the infidel states’ bribes in order to prevent conquests (the author
cites here two examples from Süleyman’s reign, namely Ayas Pasha on Corfu
and Ali Pasha on Malta); as well as his kethüda, the vizier’s men should be sala-
ried from his own income (Y183–185, A43–46).
21 Tezcan 2010a, 55–56.