364 chapter 8
This perception of “particular events” versus “universal” ones (umur-ı külliye)
was in line with a major philosophical debate which was taking place in the
eighteenth-century Ottoman intellectual world;63 the reader may remember
Hezarfen’s use (copied by Defterdar and Nahifi) of the same terms (cüz’iyyât,
umur-ı külliye) but with completely different meanings, as matters (e.g. the reg-
ulation of prices) that may or may not be the responsibility of the government
(the sultan or his viziers) or of the judge. Far from being fatalistic,64 Vasıf ’s
conception of causality is in fact a call for reform, albeit with traditionalist
overtones: his ideas for reform were influenced by his mentor, Halil Hamid
Pasha, and thus can be said to belong to the same climate as those of Penah
Efendi. In his later works, Vasıf further developed his analysis of “particular
events”, increasingly stressing the need for the Ottomans to secure the logisti-
cal and military strategies that are required for victory, while he continued to
use the concept of the “temporary success [of their enemies]” or istidrac to
explain their defeats at the hands of the Russians. If the secondary (or “particu-
lar”) causes are secured, then God will help and eventually bring victory to the
Muslim armies. However, a disobedient and undisciplined army that ignores
these factors, i.e. careful preparations for war, cannot match the Russian and
Austrian soldiers with their organization and scientific training. In describing
the principles of political society, on the other hand, Vasıf uses the more tradi-
tional model of the felsefe authors, such as Kınalızade.65
A very similar attitude can be found in the early ideas of another personal-
ity closely associated with Selim III and his reforms, namely Ebubekir Ratıb
Efendi (1750–99). Ratıb Efendi’s career bears numerous similarities with
Vasıf ’s: the son of a provincial ulema, he was trained in Istanbul by Âmedci
Edhem Efendi and served in the financial bureaucracy. He became teacher of
calligraphy to Prince Selim (III), in which capacity he assisted the prince in
his correspondence with Louis XVI (see also below, chapter 9). Following the
death of his mentor Edhem Efendi, Ratıb Efendi became affiliated with Halil
63 See the detailed discussion by Ethan L. Menchinger (Menchinger 2014a, 64–110;
Menchinger 2014b; Menchinger 2017, 55–58, 74–75), and cf. Yakubovych 2017, 162–164.
In this analysis, Vasıf sometimes follows Kâtib Çelebi verbatim; see Menchinger 2014b,
149 and 159, fn. 68. In some respects, this discussion shares common ground with the
development of the argumentation theory (ars disputandi) during the eighteenth cen-
tury: Ottoman logicians argued that the aim of argumentation “is to grasp the knowledge
of particulars (juz’) even though the subject-matter of argumentation itself is universal
(kulli)” (Karabela 2010, 208; cf. El-Rouayheb 2015, 217–219). On the use of the same terms
in legal theory (where the distinction is of universal principles vs. particulars) see Hallaq
2002, 166–167.
64 This is how Vasıf ’s views are described in Mardin 1969b, 28–30; cf. Berkes 1964, 65–66.
65 Menchinger 2014a, 173ff.