Khaldunist Philosophy: Innovation Justified 319
condemned man to flee “is in itself laudable” (nefsinde bir memduh iştir: N VI:
276; Ip IV: 1738). His esteem of Murad IV’s policies might be attributed to the
target of the sultan’s harshness, namely the janissaries (rather than specific
pashas and other officials). Another possible explanation is that Na’ima saw
Murad’s reign as a different stage of the course of the Ottoman empire, one
closer to its heyday, compared with his own times. Such a conclusion (which
reminds us of Kâtib Çelebi’s motto that different times require different mea-
sures) can be extracted from part of Na’ima’s first preface (N I:46–49; Ip I: 34–
37), in which he sets out to show how tyrannical and harsh ministers (ümera)
weaken the state’s power to conquer and its ability to wage war successfully.
For reproductive needs, men have a natural tendency to dominate others (re’is
bi’t-tab olup), whereas whenever they are overwhelmed by the power and do-
minion of others and are obliged to submit and obey, their sensual ardor wanes
and they become sluggish.76 Thus, the use of intimidatory and violent methods
in politics is not deemed right, especially toward the end of the period of stag-
nation; when rulers and judges investigate people’s lives too thoroughly and
impose severe punishments for minor misdemeanors, people feel humiliated,
become avaricious, start to lie and deceive, and so on. Instead, ministers (vülat)
should persuade rather than impose in order to enhance solidarity among the
people.77 Na’ima maintains that in public affairs and social intercourse it is not
proper to exhaust and weaken the people by investigating their slightest move-
ments (it is tempting to see here a reflection of Kâtib Çelebi’s Mîzânü’l-hak).
Finally, among this scattered advice, one may find interesting glimpses
of Na’ima’s economic thought, a subject which was generally neglected by
Ottoman authors (with the notable exception of Kınalızade and Dede Cöngi,
who mainly repeat earlier categorizations). An important passage is one where
Na’ima again speaks of the proper way to reduce expenses (N VI:310–15; Ip
IV:1762–65). As he observes, history has shown that whenever there was an
effort to cut excessive salaries or stipends by striking names from the payrolls
(kat’-ı erzak), this only led to the destruction of the one attempting the reforms.
The only way to cut such stipends is to do so gradually, by making no new ap-
pointments (and thus waiting for their total number to fall through the deaths
of assignees) and by strictly prohibiting their trade. In such a way, Na’ima de-
scribes the traditional pattern of correlating income to expenses, i.e. according
to the authorities of old: income from charity (sadaka), which is now formed of
76 Here Na ’ima copies Ibn Khaldun’s views on education: Ibn Khaldun – Rosenthal 1958,
3:304; Ibn Khaldun – Rosenthal – Dawood 1969, 424.
77 A discussion of mildness and shrewdness here also comes from Ibn Khaldun: Ibn
Khaldun – Rosenthal 1958, 1:383–384; Ibn Khaldun – Rosenthal – Dawood 1969, 153–154.