The “Golden Age” as a Political Agenda 229
El-fethü’r-rahmânî f î tarz-i devletü’l-Osmanî (“The divine gift on the form of the
Ottoman state”), completed in 1689.86 Dımışki (d. 1691) was born in Damascus,
where he was educated. He seems to have been attached to Köprülüzade Fâzıl
Ahmed Pasha while the latter was governor of Damascus and to have followed
him to Istanbul in 1661. Being well versed in mathematics and geography, he
completed his medrese curriculum in Istanbul and was a teacher (müderris)
there for twenty years, beginning in 1669. In 1685 he played a pivotal role in
completing the translation of Willem Janszoon Blaeuw’s Atlas Maior, com-
misisioned in 1675 (he did not know Latin but he made several additions and
improvements). He also completed Kâtib Çelebi’s Cihânnümâ, providing addi-
tions as well as the maps that were later used in İbrahim Müteferrika’s edition
(1732).
El-fethü’r-rahmânî, on the other hand, is partly a reiteration or imitation of
Hezarfen’s description and partly a geographical compendium. Dımışki be-
gins by stating that he designed his work in order for the sultan to be able to
have full understanding of the Ottoman Empire (devlet-i alîye) quickly. He first
describes, using numbers, the expansion of Ottoman territories, noting that
because of some oppressive pashas and governors (2.B) some of them have
been lost to the infidel. In the first part (3.A–4.A), Dımışki explains that God
ordained kings who use either reason or the Sharia; the latter is the best but
states fall because of injustice, not infidelity. He also stresses the importance
of punishment (siyaset), as realms have order when their people oscillate be-
tween fear and hope (halk beynü’l-havf ve’r-recâ olmağla saltanat nizam bulur);
this dismissal of clemency, also seen in Koçi Bey and Hezarfen, is typical of the
genre. Then, Dımışki lays down some of the usual advice, such as the need to
select a wise vizier whose independence should be secure. Another section
(4.A–5B) speaks of the qualities needed by a vizier: among others, he should
not grant zeamets to his retinue; must not take bribes nor covet the public
treasury; should appoint and consult with the right people; and should look
after the price regulations (which are “the affairs of the poor”). Dımışkî also
repeats Lütfi Pasha’s warning against peasants turned soldiers. In the next sec-
tion (5.B–11.A), Dımışki speaks of the army (asker), which he divides into two
categories: the first, the state notables (a ’yân-ı devlet), includes four elements
or pillars (the viziers and pashas, the şeyhülislam and the judges, the governors,
and the high-ranking scribes). The second category is the army proper (asâkir-i
osmaniye), those salaried and the timariot who “have ordained shares in the
lands of the empire” (6.A: memalik-i mahrusa arazisinde hisse-i mu’ayeneleri
86 Dımışkî – Dorogi – Hazai 2011–2014; cf. Hagen 2006, 232–233. Because of the different
paginations, we use here the folios as indicated in the Dorogi – Hazai edition.