“Political Philosophy” and the Moralist Tradition^81
the wealth of advice on domestic matters both authors have to offer), these can
be viewed in three ways, from the point of view of: revenue; keeping hold of the
former; and its expenditure. Concerning the first, the sources of revenue, there
are several categories: one is bipartite, i.e. revenue that comes by gain and by
choice (e.g. trade or craft) vs. revenue that comes incidentally, such as gifts
or inheritance. Amasi’s treatment of the subject stops here, but Kınalızade
then describes another, more “economic” theory, namely revenue from com-
merce, craftsmanship, and agriculture. A third view sees four methods of rev-
enue, adding leadership (emaret), by which is meant the pensions and salaries
(vezayif ü ulufat) that come from the ruler (K335–36):
Some have divided the ways to acquire property into three categories:
commerce, craftsmanship, agriculture. And some have increased these
modes of revenue to four, adding leadership. Because pensions and sala-
ries come from the ruler’s rank (mertebe-i emaret kısmından add olun-
makla), this is a true categorization.This addition seems to be Kınalızade’s own (although it can also be found in
Ibn Khaldun’s work)40 and is quite apt for an empire such as the Ottoman.
Speaking of the ancient controversy on which is the best way, the author notes
that (K336)41
later authorities argued that so many illegal practices invaded commer-
cial transactions that distrust on the origin of the fortunes arose; thus,
agriculture should have precedence over commerce. In the acquisition of
wealth, one should refrain first from oppression and injustice; secondly
from shameful activities, and thirdly from disgraceful or dirty occupa-
tions (K336).40 See Kunt 1977, 208; Tezcan 1996, 83–84; and cf. Davvani’s text in Dawwani – Thompson
1839, 252; Dawwani – Deen 1939, 129. Ibn Khaldun’s text (Ibn Khaldun – Rosenthal 1958,
2:316; cf. Ermiş 2014, 92) reads: “Certain thorough men of letters and philosophers, such
as al-Hariri and others ... said: ‘A living is made by (exercising) political power (imarah),
through commerce, agriculture, or the crafts.’ (The exercise of ) political power is not a
natural way of making a living. We do not have to mention it here. Something was said
before ... about governmental tax collection and the people in charge of it. Agriculture,
the crafts, and commerce, on the other hand, are natural ways of making a living.”
However, as Rosenthal notes (l.c., note 16) this is not found in the famous al-Hariri’s works.
I deal with this issue in more detail in Sariyannis (forthcoming).
41 Here in Halil İnalcık’s slightly shortened translation: İnalcık 1994a, 44 (see also Davvani’s
text in Dawwani – Thompson 1839, 252–3; Dawwani – Deen 1939, 129). Cf. İnalcık 1969b,
98–99. On the prehistory of this theory, cf. Laoust 1970, 313–314.