224 chapter 5
Some of Hezarfen’s comments are also very similar to advice contained in
early seventeenth-century works, such as Kitâb-i müstetâb or Koçi Bey’s trea-
tise. For instance, he states that the sultan should appoint a wise grand vizier
and give him independence (istiklal vire), so no-one else could interfere in his
business (I73). Similar advice is contained in the section on the sultan’s admin-
istration of power, where we can also see some remnants of “declinist” theo-
ries: the sultan, he says, must have few companions (nedim) and not let them
interfere in state affairs. In the time of the sultans of old (until Süleyman’s
time), the capital was so full of wise and honest people that the rulers could
intermingle with companions freely; these sultans were glorious, valiant, and
just, and their viziers well-meaning and hard-working. However, by the middle
of Süleyman’s reign, when the sultan executed his son Mustafa, general cor-
ruption and unrest in the empire had begun (I182–85). Furthermore, the em-
phasis he places on strict punishment, rather than clemency, brings to mind
the similar passage by Koçi Bey, who had written that people can be controlled
only through subjugation, not clemency (see above). Hezarfen maintains that
capital punishment (siyaset) is essential, since the lowest of the people must
be kept fearful while the better ones must be kept safe (I114: halkın erazili havf
üzere, iyüleri emin üzere olmak gerek).
At some points, however, Hezarfen departs from the “administration manu-
al” genre and inserts lengthy diversions on political advice or even theoretical
discussions. Sometimes, these discussions appear to originate in tropes first
seen in the sixteenth century. For instance, the position he cedes to the sultan
is remarkably high, and there is almost no trace at all of the binding status of
the “old law”. The sultan is simultaneously the supreme preacher, imam, and
governor (I113–14: imamet ve hitabet ve hükûmet cümle padişahındır), and gov-
ernors are his proxies. The somewhat old-fashioned emphasis placed on the
personal responsibility of sultans for the oppression exerted by their proxies
(vekil) is repeated in a similarly old-fashioned way, when Hezarfen copies a
letter allegedly sent by the dying Murad I to Evrenos Bey (I205–7).74 Still, we
could also postulate that Hezarfen’s vision for the sultan represents his own,
original ideas and is more than a simple figure of speech or rather trope of
political tradition. In a chapter dealing with the market and the regulation of
prices,75 Hezarfen argues that the ruler (hâkim) should control in person such
small matters (cüz’iyyât) pertaining to the well-being of the world, such as the
74 This letter comes from Feridun Bey’s collection of sultanly correspondance: see Anhegger
1953, 376–77, fn. 33.
75 As will be seen in chapter 7, Hezarfen had included this part in the conclusions of his
universal history. On the prehistory of the narh debate in Islam see Ermiş 2014, 111–120.