50 chapter 1
kind, Marzuban b. Rustam’s Marzuban-name (late tenth century).50 The last-
ing popularity of such texts is shown by the fact that Şeyhoğlu’s translation
was adapted more than a century later under the title Düstûrü’l-mülk vezîrü’l-
melik bera-yı Sultan Süleyman Han (“Rules of sovereignty, i.e. the vizier of the
king, for Sultan Süleyman”), by a certain Fadlullah, a judge in Tabriz.51 The
only available information about the author is found in the title of the work,
where he is described as Fadlullah el-kadî bi’t-Tebriz fi’l-Madî, i.e. Fadlullah, a
judge in Tabriz. Since Tabriz was briefly taken by the Ottomans twice in this
period, for less than ten days in 1514 and for a number of months in 1534–35,52
it is likely that he was some kind of temporary judge in the second period.
However, we cannot exclude the possibility he was a Safavid judge who
deserted to the Ottomans. Less structured and clear-cut than Şeyhoğlu’s
Kenzü’l-küberâ, this work consists mainly of stories and anecdotes: in the intro-
duction, Kadı Fadlullah claims that he wanted to compile stories, advice, and
words of wisdom that would help in the maintenance of the country and in
praising a sultan’s dominion (vilayet ... baki ve ömrü devlet öğüş olmağa), from
various history books, so that the sultan may benefit and act accordingly. If he
does so, his name and rule will last forever (A138). And indeed, the rest of his
essay, which consists of ten chapters, is a collection of stories (each containing
several sub-stories), mostly involving ancient kings (such as Ardashir), mythi-
cal creatures (such as Div Gâv-pây, “the demon with cow legs”, from the time
when demons lived among men), and animals, which were mainly of Iranian
origin, illustrating the various topoi of good rulership.
Finally, we could end this survey with Sinaneddîn or Sinan Yusuf Pasha (also
known as Hoca Pasha), an interesting and important personality who played
an significant role in Ottoman intellectual life toward the end of the fifteenth
century. In the trend we are describing, Sinan Pasha is clearly a follower of the
moralistic, rather commonplace “mirror for princes”-style Persian tradition.
His inclusion of political advice into an ethical system brings him near Tusian
thinkers (with whom we will deal in the next chapter); his peculiar position
in the Mehmed II vs. Bayezid II “conflict” (as well as his Sufi connections)
created a link with the military and dervish-based opposition to the former,
as seen in Aşıkpaşazade or Yazıcıoğlu’s works, but overall he seems closer
to the imperial model than to the “military democracy” dreamt of by these
50 Kadı Fadlullah – Altay 2008, 108–110. The edition of Şeyhoğlu’s translation by Zeynep
Korkmaz (Şeyhoğlu – Korkmaz 1973) was not accessible to me.
51 Kadı Fadlullah – Altay 2008.
52 Mid-July to spring: Uzunçarşılı 1949, 2:338–340. The MS is dated in 23 Muharem 946
( June 10, 1539); however, the author states that it was composed during the vizierate of
Lütfi Pasha, which started in Safer 946 (beg. in June 18; see Uzunçarşılı, op.cit., 537).