454 conclusion
system, and a political essay of the more “traditional” type (Nesâ’ihü’l-mülûk)
which stressed the need for the sultan to be just and compassionate.72 Further
study of the coexistence of political works in such collections would be very
welcome in order to elaborate the ideological conflict and interdependenc-
es from the perspectives of not only the authors but also of their readers.
Furthermore, political views based on the Persian tradition, religious precepts
and dicta, moralist commonplaces, and empirical advice together formed a
large inventory of themes and ideas from which authors regularly drew in order
to express different agendas for the specific problems of their times. Derin
Terzioğlu insightfully remarked that seventeenth-century Kadızadeli preach-
ers had no problem using Ebussu’ud or Dede Cöngi, although one would think
the latter would belong to their enemies rather than their precursors.73
It may be asked whether this book has offered any new findings, apart from
amassing information otherwise scattered. It will be useful to note, therefore,
three or four points that earlier surveys either overlooked or did not see and
which have become apparent through the method explained in the introduc-
tion. For one thing, Tursun Beg and Kınalızade Ali Çelebi were long known
as political theorists, but their heavy dependence on earlier models (namely
Tusi’s and Davvani’s reformulation of Aristotelian ethico-political theory) has
often been overlooked. On the one hand, this created a sense of originality
and Ottoman particularity that was somewhat misleading; on the other, a close
comparison of the Iranian sources and their Ottoman imitators highlights
some peculiarities in the latter, such as Kınalızade’s misunderstood Khaldunist
points and his opposition to the Süleymanic legal policies. For subsequent
centuries, serial inspection of various authors showed, for instance, that some
(such as Hezarfen or Nahifi) merely summarized or copied their friends or pre-
decessors (Ottomanist scholarship tended to see them as original thinkers),
while others (like Hemdemi or Penah Efendi) seem to deserve more attention
than they have had so far. On the other hand, the same systematic inspection
shed light on what constituted Hezarfen’s departure from his models, as well
as on the context of this departure (in a similar way, Kınalızade’s political con-
notations were hidden in his departures from Devvani’s model). Furthermore,
in chapter 6, Ekin Tuşalp Atiyas incorporated the “Sunna-minded” authors
into the history of Ottoman political thought for the first time and showed
what may have been suspected for some time but never seen in detail: namely,
that the seventeenth-century Kadızadeli preachers shared a common ground
with their Halveti opponents. It also showed that it is possible to discern
72 Ali Çavuş – Şahin 1979, 906–907. On mecmuas in general see Aynur – Çakır – Koncu 2012.
73 Terzioğlu 2007, 270–271.