The Eighteenth Century: the Traditionalists 377
in 1825, covers the period from Mahmud II’s ascension (1808) up to August 1821;
his notes for subsequent years were used by his successor, Es’ad Efendi.86
The introduction of Şanizade’s work is a long essay on historiography (Y14–
24), which in fact copies (with slight alterations) an essay by Voltaire.87 As
well as in the introduction, Şanizade uses European newspapers and reports
elsewhere as well, and not only when narrating contemporaneous events.88
Indeed, Şanizade makes a serious effort to understand and describe European
developments; however, his sources of terminology and theory continue to be
distinctively and exclusively Ottoman. When narrating the Liberal Triennium
in Spain (1820–23) he presents it as a demand for “Demokratis’ law” (Y1155:
kanun-ı Dimukrâtî üzere), obviously having in mind İbrahim Müteferrika’s de-
scription of democratic government (see chapter 9; copied in turn from Kâtib
Çelebi). In another part, Şanizade tries to explain the French victories under
Napoleon (Y208–211), attributing the “perfection of the military arts” to the
“national unity” (ittifak-ı milliyye) exhibited by the French: a tribe that had fall-
en into lethargy was made strong, enhanced by “patriotism, fraternity, equality,
and liberty” (Y208: mahabbet-i memleket ve uhuvvet ü müsavât ve serbestiyyet
da ’valariyle), and under the motto “freedom or death”. Elsewhere, he speaks
once more of the French Revolution (Y624–627): because of the words of some
philosophers (feylesof),89 the inhabitants of Europe started to seek equality and
parity (tesavi vü i’tidal) and thus threatened the safety of their old notables; ev-
erybody aimed to seize the life and property of everyone else. Drawn into the
same imbroglio, the Ottoman state tried to imitate these developments, but
the results were devastating: apart from the loss of more and more territory,
the appointment of inappropriate persons led not only to a weakening of the
Empire’s military potential but also to an increase in its expenses.
It is to be noted that in the passage above, talking of the Ottoman imitation
of French ways, the author uses the well-known concept of “reciprocity” (mu-
kabele bi’l-misl). Here, however, the notion has acquired a negative meaning. In
other places, too, Şanizade proves rather hostile to Selim’s reforms (Y33–42):
86 Şânizâde – Yılmazer 2008. See also Lewis 1961, 84–85; Arıkan 1990, 93–94; Eldem 2014.
87 The discovery of this copying belongs to Eldem 2014, who examines in detail the differ-
ences and omissions between the two works. Cf. the very different prefaces by previous
historiographers: Menchinger 2010.
88 Şânizâde – Yılmazer 2008, LXXII–LXXIII. See, for instance, a long note on the relationship
of the Pope with the (Austrian) Emperor and on the various branches of Lutheranism, or
his essay on fire prevention with examples from the London experience (ibid., 819–824
and 852–854).
89 He describes their works as “natural philosophy” (makal-i tabi’i-mealleri), as he would
later do with Ibn Khaldun (Şânizâde – Yılmazer 2008, 1028).