© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004385245_009
chapter 7Khaldunist Philosophy: Innovation Justified
The repercussions following Murad IV’s death in 1640 did nothing to reinforce
the optimism that his activity had undoubtedly aroused in the circles lament-
ing Ottoman decline.1 His younger brother and successor, Ibrahim, was consid-
ered mad, or at least feeble-minded (as Colin Imber notes, it is no coincidence
that Koçi Bey’s second treatise, composed for him, was “written in appropri-
ately uncomplicated language”2): he suffered from continuous headaches and
soon fell under the influence of an exorcist, Cinci Hoca. After a few calm years
at the beginning of his reign, trouble began: in 1645, the Ottomans launched
the Cretan War, which, although quickly resulting in the conquest of almost
all Crete, nevertheless stalled before the largest city, Candia (Kandiye), as the
Venetians captured Tenedos and effected an intermittent blockade of the
Dardanelles. In addition, the extravagance of Ibrahim pushed state expenditure
to incalculable heights, while his anxiety about not having a male descendant
led (or contributed) to an obsession with his harem, which was subsequent-
ly invested with more and more power. A revolt by the janissaries and high
ulema led to his deposition and eventual execution (by şeyhülislam’s fetva) in
1648; his son Mehmed IV being still a minor, actual power passed to the valide
sultan, Kösem Mahpeyker (Murad IV’s and Ibrahim’s mother).3 The power of
Kösem lay mostly in her networking activity: her protégés were promoted and
she arranged marriages of princesses to pashas who were thus connected to
the dynasty. The early years of Mehmed’s reign were equally turbulent: a sipahi
rebellion just after his accession was suppressed by the janissaries, while the
Celali rebel Gürcü Nebî marched on Istanbul demanding the removal of the
“regicide” şeyhülislam. The role of the janissaries in dealing with both revolts
resulted in a “janissary junta” led by a triumvirate composed of Bektaş Ağa,
Kara Çavuş, and kul kethüdası Mustafa Ağa (Çelebi Kethüda Beğ), which domi-
nated both economic and political life in the capital. Economic and social
problems intensified; a massive protest of the “people of the market” against
the grand vizier Melek Ahmed Pasha in 1651 led only to his dismissal,4 but
1 On the political and military events of the period see Imber 2009, 71–74; Mantran 1989, 236–
264; Emecen 2001b, 49–55.
2 Imber 2009, 72.
3 On Kösem’s formidable career, see Peirce 1993, 105ff., 236ff., 248–252 and passim.
4 See Yi 2004, 213–233; Sariyannis 2012, esp. 268–282, for an alternative interpretation of the
1651 revolt.