Khaldunist Philosophy: Innovation Justified 309
in Istanbul alone, some transcribed from the printed edition) and reliable, as
he used multiple sources carefully, with an eye for objectivity and truthfulness.61
Na’ima’s philosophy of history and politics is mainly to be found in his two
prefaces,62 the first written after Amcazade Köprülü Hüseyin Pasha commis-
sioned the writing of his history in 1698, the second intended as the preface
to the second part of the work and mainly concerning the 1703 revolt (Edirne
vak’ası). A fluent speaker of Arabic, Na’ima was a careful reader of Ibn Khaldun
and transferred wholesale not only his theory on the laws of history and the
rise and decline of dynasties but also on matters as diverse as education and
the economy. On the other hand, he extensively used the political framework
of Kâtib Çelebi’s Düstûrü’l-amel (as he also did with his historiographical work
Fezleke). In doing all this, and thereby writing the most extensive and detailed
theoretical introduction an Ottoman historiographer had ever produced, he
had one specific aim: to justify his patron’s actions in negotiating the peace
treaty of Karlowitz. Thus, apart from using specific arguments taken from the
Islamic tradition, which were somewhat reminiscent of those used by Akhisari
a century earlier (see above, chapter 4), Na’ima also emphasized that peace
may allow a state in a Khaldunian stage of decline to restore its power and
glory.63
In the first and most detailed preface, Na’ima starts with a long essay on his-
tory writing,64 where he also speaks, like Kâtib Çelebi, of what may be called
the laws of history. The study of history will show
what are the causes and the bases of action that foretell and bring about
decay and decline to the civilization of mankind and which show that a
state, a society of men (devlet-i ictima ’iye), is on the way to expiration and
death.61 It was first printed by İbrahim Müteferrika in 1733, while two six-volume editions were
published during the nineteenth century (A.H. 1280/1863–64 and 1281/1864–66). A mod-
ern Turkish translation (Zuhuri Danışman, Naima tarihi, 6 vols) was published in 1967.
The definitive edition is now Na ’ima – İpşirli 2007 (based on the edition of A.H. 1280 and
hence noting different pagination compared to the usual one, since most scholars have
used the A.H. 1281 edition). On Na ’ima’s life and work there are fewer studies than one
would wish or may expect: the classic and fullest so far is Thomas 1972 (originally written
in the mid-1940s); cf. also Na ’ima – İpşirli 2007, 1:XIII–XXXV.
62 Na ’ima 1864–1866, 1:2–65 and 6:Appendix, 2–58; Na ’ima – İpşirli 2007, 1:1–48 and 4:1858–
1893; partial translations in Thomas 1972, 65–89.
63 Cf. Thomas 1972, 66ff.; Abou-El-Haj 1974.
64 Cf. Thomas 1972, 110–115.