174 chapter 4
“contrary to the rules”, hilaf-i kavanin: T1:66/163),49 upon whose “orderly main-
tenance ... depends the maintenance of good public order” (B72). In fact, the
whole second chapter of Nushatü’s-selâtîn focuses on these departures from
established laws. Ali clearly considers the Ebussu’udic kanun a perfectly
legitimate source of law; indeed, as a complementary equivalent of the Sharia.
When speaking of the highest officials of the divan bureaucracy, the reisülküt-
tâb and the nişancı, he asserts that these officials and, in particular, the “impe-
rial cypher officials” (tuğrakeşân-ı divan) are “the jurisconsults of the imperial
laws” (T1:50/140: müftiyân-i kavanin-i padişahân olub); the daring use of the
sharia term müftî as a simile for the chief chancellor is more than telling. In
this respect, there is a striking slip of tongue in his description of Ottoman
rise and decline that is contained in his final work, Füsûl-i hall ü akd. Ali writes
that, following Mahmud Pasha’s proposal, Mehmed II “promulgated an old
law” (bir kanun-i kadim vaz’ itmişlerdir). Obviously, the law was not old at the
time of its promulgation; its being sanctified thus shows the identification of
“just law” with “established custom”. This emphasis on the “old law” as almost
synonymous with “justice” is not peculiar to political authors of the period:
on the contrary, it seems that it had become a permanent feature of Ottoman
political ideology throughout the sixteenth century.50 A few decades had
passed from the time scholars such as Dede Cöngi were speaking of the adjust-
ment of the law to the needs of the time; once the law was adjusted, it had to
remain unaltered.
3 Ali’s Contemporaries, Facing the Millenium
Next to Mustafa Ali (whom he had met and admired), the other great chroni-
cler of this period was Selaniki Mustafa Efendi (d. after 1600), an official who
served in various government posts, mainly financial.51 His work is character-
ized by frequent and extensive comments on the political situation, in a man-
ner that was to become quite common in Ottoman historiography. Selaniki had
no real reason to be personally bitter due to unfulfilled high expectations, as
49 Tietze (1:41) translates “the old customs”.
50 Cf. Sariyannis 2011a, 141–142; Selaniki – İpşirli 1999, index s.v. “kanun-ı kadîm”; İnalcık 1965.
Tezcan 2000, 658 shows that Ali systematically speaks of Mehmed II’s kanun while he
could not have seen the original text of the kanunname, or at least the text that was circu-
lating as such (see also below, chapter 5).
51 Selaniki – İpşirli 1999, xii-xvii; Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. ‘Selânikî’ (M. İpşirli). On
the relations of Ali with Selaniki see Fleischer 1986a, 130–131. On Selaniki as social critic cf.
also Schaendlinger 1992, 240. The following lines are based on Sariyannis 2008a, 137–140.