The “Golden Age” as a Political Agenda 231
in the heterogeneous nature of Telhisü’l-beyân itself: why should the same au-
thor also incorporate the history of coffee and tobacco? As Hezarfen himself
explains, he intended to write a description of the Ottoman Empire as a supple-
ment to his universal history, in which he had produced similar descriptions of
the Central Asian empires.87 In this respect, he may be compared to his great
contemporary, the traveler Evliya Çelebi, whose volume on Istanbul (the first
book of his Seyahatnâme or “Book of travels”) consists of a similar mixture of
history, topography, and institutional description. Compilations such as these
were conceived and executed within a broader culture of authors copying each
other; to a certain degree, it was not originality that mattered but rather an
exhibition of polymathy (similar observations have been made on Ottoman
lyric poetry). On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that such compila-
tions also had entertainment value; as Robert Dankoff has suggested, Evliya
Çelebi had “the traditional twin aims of edeb: to instruct and to entertain”. In
the first case, he may or may not have intended to deceive his audience, while
in the second there was a kind of mutual understanding and agreement.88 It is
tempting to apply this observation to the texts studied above, too.
Moreover, by this time the kanunname genre seems to have lost any norma-
tive value. Indeed, Hezarfen’s real advice can be found in scattered pieces of
inserted commentary. On the other hand, the anachronistic framework of his
description (in contrast with the fact that his lists are quite up-to-date—see,
for instance, the reference to Crete) shows, perhaps, that the real significance
of his work is to be found in these scattered comments, rather than in bringing
the “administration manual” genre to perfection—all the more if the interpre-
tation proposed for his theory regarding the ulema is valid.
At any rate, then, the genre had clearly changed in aim and scope after the
mid-seventeenth century. Eyyubi Efendi and the anonymous copyist were be-
lated specimens of this genre, whereas the anonymous author of Kavânîn-i
osmanî ve râbıta-ı Âsitâne, with his emphasis on both ulema and janissaries,
was, as shall be seen, more attuned to late seventeenth-century realities. As for
Dımışkî, it seems he was more interested in the emerging science of geography
than with giving political advice. It seems that, as will be argued in the next
two chapters, from the 1650s onwards the issue of the “old law” had lost its
urgency and relevance for policy-making. The central bureaucracy still held to
the idea that they were entitled to a share of the power, but the “constitutional”
87 Hezarfen seems to have embarked on an encyclopedic project similar to that of his men-
tor, Kâtib Çelebi; one has the impression, however, that his fame rested more on his
European acquaintances than with his actual work.
88 Dankoff 2006, 153–154.