296 chapter 7
of cultures and institutions existing not only in the world in his own time but
also throughout history. His translations of universal geographies and of chron-
icles of Byzantium and Rome must have helped him realize the inadequacy of
the prevailing model of a static, timeless “world order” as described in the then
traditional world visions of Kınalızade and Mustafa Ali. This novel view of the
world is evident in the introductory sections of Takvîmü’t-tevârîh, where he
explains his vision of universal history in order to elucidate the different calen-
dar systems used throughout history, which he tries to reconcile.35 Takvîmü’t-
tevârîh has no account of European histories, but the numerous works Kâtib
Çelebi had translated from Latin compensate for that. If Khaldunist stage
theory allowed him to advocate the possibility of change over time, his knowl-
edge of socio-cultural diversity in the world further promoted a new vision
of “world order”, one where different arrangements were thriving with equal
success all around the globe. From there to admitting that such diversity could
also legitimately prevail within a given society there was only one step, and the
tense Kadızadeli conflict, which he followed very closely, pushed Kâtib Çelebi
to theorize in favor of diversity and tolerance in the context of a Muslim soci-
ety as well.
One should note here, somewhat en passant, a short treatise or, rather,
translation that Kâtib Çelebi wrote in 1655, İrşâdü’l-hayârâ ilâ tarîhi’l-Yûnân
ve’r-Rûm ve’n-Nasârâ (“A guide to the history of [Ancient] Greeks, Romans and
Christians for the perplexed”).36 Using European sources once again, he en-
deavors to discuss the history of (Eastern) Christianity and of various European
dynasties. What interests us in this rather neglected book is his discussion of
the types of government, coming straight from Aristotelian political philoso-
phy, although with some minor misunderstandings (in fact, it is a free adapta-
tion and expansion of a much shorter passage in Mercator’s Atlas Minor).37 In
the matter of rulership (emr-i saltanatda), he says, most philosophers follow
the views of three great philosophers of old, namely: (i) Plato. According to
Plato, people must submit to and obey a wise and just king. For a person to be
established in such a position, a noble lineage (neseb) is necessary. Most states
in the world administer their affairs in this way; Greek philosophers named
35 Al-Tikriti 2017, 130–132. However, we must not exaggerate this universal view, as a similar
relativism concerning the Ottoman dynasty can be also found in Mustafa Ali’s work; see
Fleischer 1986a, 277–283.
36 Kâtib Çelebi – Yurtoğlu 2012 (see esp. 46). Cf. Gökyay 1991, 57; Ménage 1971, 421–422;
Yurtoğlu 2009, 76–77.
37 See Mercator 1610, 194 (De politico statu regni Galliae; cf. also later, 198). Mercator’s text
lacks the references to specific philosophers, the examples from contemporaneous
European states and the detailed description of “democracy”.