“Political Philosophy” and the Moralist Tradition^83
in different ways (cash, estate etc.) in order to be better protected against
adversity (K340). The same goes for spending one’s wealth: the priority should
be the expenditure ordered by God, e.g. canonical alms, and then should
come the expenses showing generosity, such as various kinds of presents
and gifts; the necessary expenses for food, clothing, and so forth should have
only a low priority related to the other two categories. Expenditure is subdi-
vided into those asked for, such as expenses for one’s family or canonical alms,
those showing generosity, such as gifts to friends or presents to poets and sto-
rytellers, and those one spends for himself.
One may note that this highly-sophisticated theory is again based on the
essential unity of the human condition, as professions are classified according
to the faculties of the soul. We should be cautious as to the degree to which
such assumptions, mostly formulaic and moralistic, actually shaped Ottoman
economic attitudes and policies. True, the high place peasants and agriculture
occupy in the realm of Ottoman economy and taxation, as well as a general dis-
trust of large-scale commerce,43 seems to corroborate Halil İnalcık’s assertion
that Kınalızade’s ideas “cannot be altogether dismissed as purely theoretical
and ethical advice, since they actually influenced the mind and behavior of the
Ottoman elite and populace”.44 Yet, for the most part these ideas (the primor-
diality of agriculture over trade included) are not Amasi’s or Kınalızade’s but
originate in Persian political thought of the preceding centuries, and they may
have remained common for a long time even after actual attitudes and poli-
cies had changed. Let us note here that Bitlisi (A35–36) shows a slightly more
favorable attitude toward commerce: although he has the usual eulogy for
agriculture, which he considers the greatest treasury of the world, he also
stresses that merchants should not be taxed excessively with dues and cus-
toms; the rich and important ones, especially, must be looked upon with favor,
since they yield more profit for the state than they received in benefits be-
stowed on them.
Nonetheless, Kınalızade’s addition to Davvani’s text concerning leadership
(emaret) as a source for revenue must be noted. As seen, this addition may
have come from Ibn Khaldun’s work; however, whereas the Tunisian scholar
understands this revenue as the ruler’s income, Kınalızade clearly meant pen-
sions and salaries coming from the ruler. We might see here a sense of ‘state’
closer to its modern notion, i.e., as a self-reproductive mechanism which is
clearly distinct from the person of the ruler: for Ibn Khaldun, the revenue from
taxes belongs to the ruler, while for Kınalızade the state produces revenue for
43 Cf. İnalcık 1969b, 103–107; Faroqhi 2002 (= Faroqhi 2008, 119–148).
44 İnalcık 1994a, 45.