448 conclusion
an indispensable element of order.52 A parallel with the Byzantine notion of
taxiarchia (ταξιαρχία), which combines order and hierarchy with strong conno-
tations of the natural-cum-divine order, has already been drawn;53 and indeed
the similarities are quite striking, since these Byzantine concepts could very
well be describing a vision of the world and the empire such as, for instance,
that expressed by Mustafa Celalzade.
The notion seems to have entered a course of desacralization during the
later part of the seventeenth century, as did many others. First, its meaning be-
came narrower: world order now denoted something more akin to state organi-
zation or arrangement rather than a cosmic hierarchy. Kâtib Çelebi had spoken
of “order” in a more restricted sense, as when he claimed that the only reason
for a ruler to interfere in people’s lives would be “if there is any general danger
for the public affairs or any breach of order” (emr-i din ü dünyaya zarar-ı am ve
nizama muhil ma ’naları göreler). As Hagen again noted, Na’ima “always speaks
of nizam-i devlet or similar terms, but never uses nizam-ı ʿâlem”.54 Furthermore,
in his second preface Na’ima spoke of “the natural order” (nizam-ı tabi’i) of
state affairs. Further into the eighteenth century, Resmi Efendi was one of the
final authors to have used the concept of a “world order”, but with a distinct-
ly different wording: states and dynasties, on whom depend the order of the
world (yeryüzinin nizamını) and the safety of the people. In the anonymous
Mîzân-ı umûr-ı hâriciyye (probably Resmi’s work, too), it is written that “just
like the law provided by Sultan Süleyman to the Exalted State, so other so-
cieties (güruh) are also bound to arrangements (nizam) peculiar and useful
for themselves”. His contemporary, Dürri Efendi, speaks of order, but never of
“world order” (e.g. reordering the army), while Penah mentions the “ordering
of the countries” (nizam-ı ekâlim).
Ultimately, the notion obtained the even narrower meaning of “military ar-
rangements”, while at the same time it acquired the possibility of change, i.e.
the possibility that an “old order” may give up its place legitimately and effi-
ciently to a “new” one. The first to introduce this idea, as well as the term “new
order” itself, was İbrahim Müteferrika: he maintained that the Ottomans had
to learn the methods and innovations used in the new armies, which he names
the “new order” (nizam-ı cedid), and adds that order (of an army) is a science
serve but are not served, and those who serve and are served.
52 An interesting exception is to be found in Sinan Paşa’s work, where (as was seen in chap-
ter 1) the “order and arrangement of the world” is almost completely void of hierarchical
connotations: Sinan Paşa – Tulum 2013, 368ff.
53 Oktay 2001. On the Byzantine term cf. Ahrweiler 1975, 134ff.
54 Hagen 2005, 79, fn. 104. On the use of the term in late eighteenth-century texts see
Menchinger 2014a, 170ff.; Menchinger 2017, 166–168.