Khaldunist Philosophy: Innovation Justified 297
this kind of state (bu makule saltanat) a “monarchy” (munarhıyâ); (ii) Aristotle.
He said rulership must be in the hands of the magnates of the state (saltanat
tedbiri a ’yan-ı devlet elinde olmak gerek), who choose a head (re’is ihtiyar olu-
nub) from among themselves. In this way, nobody is raised above the others by
dint of lineage, and the head of this government cannot neglect justice by act-
ing independently. This form of state is called an “aristocracy” (aristokrâsiyâ—
from Aristotle’s name, claims Kâtib Çelebi, since krâsiyâ means “government”,
hükûmet) or “rule of the magnates” (amme-i tedbir-i ayan); one such example
is the state of Venice; (iii) Demokratis.38 His view was that the administra-
tion should be in the hands of the people (saltanat tedbiri re’ayanın olmak
gerek) so that they themselves may avoid oppression (kendülerden zulmi def ’e
kâdir olalar). In this form, government is conducted by election (tarik-i tedbir
ihtiyardır): people from every village elect one or two whom they deem wise
and experienced, and send them as representatives (muhtar) to the centre of
the government (mahall-ı hükûmet olub divan kurulan yerde). In turn, these
representatives elect one from among themselves, and in the end a council of
ten elected people administers state affairs. These ten sit on the council for one
year, after which another ten people are elected in the same way. They inspect
the accounts of the previous year’s government and punish anyone who has
oppressed people. This form of state, called a “democracy” (dîmukrâsiya) or
“rule of the elected” (amme-i tedbir-i muhtarîn), is used in England and the
Netherlands. All nations and religions are, in general, governed according to
one of these three forms of state. No matter how radical it might seem, this
theoretical piece seems not to have influenced Kâtib Çelebi himself (although
a little later on in the same work, he describes the Venetian system in the same
terms, as a development from democracy to aristocracy, one which led to bet-
ter order);39 it left no trace in either his later works or those of his late seven-
teenth-century followers. What is more interesting is that it had a second life
after İbrahim Müteferrika incorporated it into his own political treatise of 1732,
though without naming his source, with the result that he is often credited
with the introduction of political Aristotelianism stricto sensu into Ottoman
writings (see below, chapter 9).
Finally, in his last work, Mîzânü’l-hak fi ihtiyâri’l-âhak (“The balance of truth
for the selection of the truest [way]”, 1656), Kâtib Çelebi participated in the
38 Of course, such a philosopher never existed, and it is not easy to say whether the author
just made up an etymology for democracy or was confused with Democritus.
39 Kâtib Çelebi – Yurtoğlu 2012, 97–98 (ol zamandan beru şehrin intizâmı eyû olub ‘azîm
kudrete vâsıl oldular). On images of democratic constitutions in eighteenth-century
Ottoman texts see below, chapter 9, and Sariyannis 2016, 45–50, for a more detailed
discussion.