Introduction 9
culminated in the first half of the nineteenth century, when a huge program
of reforms was implemented, the well-known Tanzimat. The traditional view
of this change places emphasis on its Westernizing aspects and attributes it to
the influence of Western Europe. However, recent studies have emphasized
the internal dynamics of early-modern Ottoman society and administration
rather than external factors, treating the developments of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries as a path towards modernity; these views have also,
in turn, been described as biased since they should be studied in the context of
the long discussion on relations between the Ottoman Empire and the West.33
This book will seek to give some answers to, or at least to set the framework for
answering, questions such as: Did Ottoman political thinkers precede admin-
istrators in proposing reform, or did political writers feel overtaken by devel-
opments with which they did not agree? What was the relationship between
religiously-based ideological currents, such as the Kadızadeli movement in
the mid-seventeenth century, and like-minded reforms in the tax and land-
holding systems, and how did traditionalist political thinkers react to those?
Was there an observable belief in an urgent need for change within Ottoman
political thinking in the eighteenth century, or were reforms such as the “New
Army” (Nizam-i cedid) of Selim III in the 1790s or the massacre of janissaries
by Mahmud II in 1826 initiatives of strong rulers and a small circle of advisors?
What was the relationship between European (and/or Iranian) thought and
Ottoman political developments, through immigrants and renegades? Were
there internal dynamics, such as innovative political thinking in the second
half of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century, which led (or at least
contributed, since one cannot deny the European influence) to the radical
reforms of the Tanzimat period?
A few words on theory would not be out of place here. The approach this
book tries to follow owes a lot to the so-called Cambridge school in the history
of political thought. Scholars of this school, which famously includes Quentin
Skinner, J. G. A. Pocock, John Dunn, and Richard Tuck, stressed that works of
political theory must be seen as forms of political action; at the same time,
they never lost sight of textual interrelation, tracing their interdependencies
and their use of selected political vocabulary. In this context, the study of
the social and intellectual climate (or “matrix”) out of which major authors
emerged is considered a prerequisite for understanding innovative ideas and
ideological debates. The essence of this approach may be described as finding
33 See, for instance, the overview by Quataert 2000, 64ff. and 141–46; cf. the early thoughts
by Berkes 1964, 26ff. and the more recent views of Abou-El-Haj 2005, 81ff.; Yılmaz 2008;
Tezcan 2010a; Yılmaz 2015a.