338 chapter 8
(I27) as being divided into four parts, according to their trade (hirfet ve senayi’
cihetinden), each of which depends on every other. Without describing the
fourth class (the soldiers), he concludes that none of these classes should have
supremacy over the others.
Defterdar’s essay in particular, the most complete and ambitious of the
group (and probably the model for all the others), is a blend of political and
ethical advice with no apparent logic in its structure, and lacks both the socio-
logical and historical vision of Kâtib Çelebi or even Mustafa Ali and the moral
philosophy of the soul as seen in Kınalızade and Celalzade. Among chapters of
concrete advice on statecraft and warfare, one finds large sections on virtue, on
the need to keep away from law courts and legal disputes (U47, W84), on pride
and greed (U123–131, W133–136), and on the value of true friendship (U133–143,
W137–141).35 However, there is in fact less incoherence than a modern reader
may suppose. For instance, the chapter on friendship follows one concerning
(among others) the dangers of consultation (meşveret), thereby urging caution
when selecting one’s confidantes.
Thus, Defterdar’s essay begins with a long section on the virtues of viziers
(U9–53, W64–86; as does the Anonymous history, Ö37–39 and Nahifi), the abso-
lute proxies of sultans (vekil-i mutlak). For the most part, these virtues are com-
monplace traditional advice (the vizier should not covet subjects’ property,36
must tell the sultan the truth, and so on). However, there are parts where one
can discern Defterdar’s long experience in financial administration, for in-
stance concerning landholding. The timar system is the subject of the final
chapter of the treatise (U145–153, W142–148), although here Defterdar seems
more inclined to copy earlier and outdated advice than to use his own experi-
ence: he stresses, with regard to the distribution of timars, that “the ancient
law must be respected” (U145, W143), complaining that timars are now granted
to people whose name no-one knows and even to un-manumitted slaves, and
remarks that a timar is of no use if it cannot produce able soldiers for cam-
paigns. Significantly, as if he wished to underline that such advice concerns ac-
tualities long gone, he notes that inspections carried out in 1602/3 and in 1613/4
by Yemişçi Hasan Pasha and Nasuh Pasha had, even at that time, demonstrated
35 Defterdar notes that in his days very few high state officials can show genuine friendship
and commitment, as he himself bitterly experienced during his terms as treasurer (U135,
W138). Cf. Abou Hadj 1988, 21–22.
36 Defterdar here has an interesting formulation: the grand vizier should covet neither the
private goods of the sultan nor the “public property” of the peasants and soldiers (U17,
W69: emval-ı hassa-ı padişah ve emval-ı amme-i re’aya ve sipah). In the same vein, he
stresses (copying almost verbatim the mid-seventeenth-century historian Kara Çelebi-
zâde: Kara Çelebi-zâde – Kaya 2003, 218) that the imperial treasury should not be used for
personal purposes (U73, W98–99). Cf. Sariyannis 2013, 103 and 114.