“Mirrors for Princes”: The Decline Theorists^175
did Ali; however, his attitude is clearly similar despite their different characters
(to use Christine Woodhead’s words, “Ali, elderly, disappointed and cantan-
kerous ... Selaniki, elderly, hardworking and conscientious”).52 For one thing,
he constantly remarks on the moral decay of his times, from the soldiers who
seek “the vanities of this world” to the rulers who “do not practice justice and
equity”. Here it is interesting to note that, contrary to Ali, Selaniki often uses
the concept of “commanding right and forbidding wrong” (emr-i ma ’ruf ve
nehy-i münker), both for soldiers and for ulema and sheikhs. Apart from moral
complaints, however, Selaniki is much more specific on several occasions, for
example when describing the apocalyptic fears raised around the Hijra year
1000 (1591):53 people of the lowest classes had started to farm taxes, while all
the administrative staff (erbab-i kalem ve küttâb) had become devoted and
attached to the mutes, dwarves, and eunuchs of the palace (an accusation
common to all critics of Murad III),54 buying their posts from them. Murad III
is the target of harsh criticism: Selaniki stresses the monetary disorder caused
by continuous wars, as well as the increase of prices. As the state’s expendi-
ture rose, due to the increase of the kapukulu and their wages, bribery became
a common way to acquire posts in the military as well as the administrative
hierarchy. As a result, general disorder arose and discipline waned. The misad-
ministration of the customs, which fell into the hands of Jews, led to further
disorder in the field of trade.55
After a detailed exposition of these matters, no doubt owing much to the
financial training of Selaniki himself, the author proceeds to more general
judgments. He cites from Islamic history in order to show that moral decline
always led to destruction, as happened with Bayezid I’s defeat at the hands of
Timur. Faced with the decline of morals in every area of life, Murad III could
not find any ulema or vizier suitable for state administration; he kept chang-
ing his high officials according to whim, resulting in constant defeat by the
infidels. The military was corrupted as well: foreigners and lower-class people
entered the janissaries, who in turn did not refrain from every kind of mutiny
and sedition.
Selaniki’s criticism continues well into Mehmed III’s reign. He complains,
on various occasions, of: bribery and usury; the corruption of “our leaders”
(hâkimlerimüzün) and of the janissaries through injustice and innovative
52 Woodhead 2006, 159.
53 Ibid., 258. On the Islamic millenial fears cf. also below.
54 Cf. Selaniki – İpşirli 1999, 353, 441; from among later authors see, for example, Koçi Bey –
Aksüt 1939, 23, 54, 60.
55 See also Kafadar 1986, 81–84 and 93–107, on Selaniki’s views on monetary disorder, and
146–150, on his views on price regulation.