“Mirrors for Princes”: The Decline Theorists^181
property (mal), which comes from custom (te’amül), that is, dealing with other
people (mu’amele ve alış-viriş). To attain this goal, certain rules are needed, so
God divided people into four categories (bölük, sınıf ): the men of the sword,
the men of the pen, the cultivators, and, finally, the artisans and merchants.
Then God ordained kings and rulers (padişahlık ve beğlik itdiler) to possess and
control (tasarruf idüp, zabt eylemeği) these four categories. Kings and viziers,
officials and soldiers belong to the first group; their purpose is to keep all four
classes under control with justice and wise politics (hüsn-i siyaset), always with
the counsel of religious and wise men (unfortunately, Akhisari does not elabo-
rate on this somewhat awkward inclusion of kings within the first class, which
they are supposed to govern). Another aim of this class is to keep the enemies
at bay; kings and beys also have to take care of various other necessary things.
The second class contains the ulema and other men of religion, who cannot
fight. Their duty is to make sure that everyone follows the premises of the faith
(emr-i ma ’ruf ve nehy-i münker) and teach these to the other classes, especially
to the king whose (spiritual) health is necessary for the health of the people.
The third class “is now known as re’aya ve beraya”, the peasants or flock. Their
aim is to produce things, and thereby meet the needs of all the people; their
work is superior to everyone else’s, after knowledge and the holy war. Finally,
the fourth class is composed of artisans and merchants, whose work is to pro-
duce and supply things that the people need.
Everybody has to belong to one of these categories in order not to be a bur-
den to others. Men who are outside these classes must be forced to enter one
of them; some philosophers even claim that people who do not work (işsüz ve
güçsüz kimesne) must be killed. In olden days, sultans made annual surveys of
such people and prohibited unemployed Arabs from passing into the Balkans
(I252). Another point is that people should not cross these borders; everyone
must occupy themselves with the work suitable to their class.
The allusion to Arabs in the Balkans apart, all this theory is a simplified ver-
sion of the ahlak literature. Akhisari does not fail to cite the circle of justice,
placing further emphasis on mildness or, more precisely, “mild government”
(hüsn-i siyaset; I254). As usual with Ottoman “mirrors for princes”, he also
emphasizes generosity, as the ruler must practice his generosity equally to all
classes, because he needs all of them: rulership comes through the support
and collaboration of all social classes (padişahlık cemi’ esnaf ile olur). Besides
justice, mildness, and generosity, Akhisari also praises wisdom in a manner
reminiscent of the Kashifi-influenced bureaucrat-moralists (see chapter 3,
above): he has a whole chapter devoted to consultation, a practice that, as may
be remembered, is deeply embedded in the long fikh and inşa ’ tradition, from
Amasi to Semerkandi and Celalzade. At any rate, wisdom and intelligence is to