The Eighteenth Century: the Westernizers 387
Then, Müteferrika proceeds on what is usually deemed his most original
and impressive contribution to Ottoman political theory; however, it is but an
almost verbatim copying of part of Kâtib Çelebi’s İrşâdü’l-hayârâ, which was
seen in chapter 7 above (Ş130–131). As everyone knows, he says, the religion
and disposition of rulers varies; the same applies for the forms that the admin-
istration of human affairs may take, and that is why the structures of states
and societies (bünyan-ı devlet ve bina ’-ı cumhur-ı cem’iyyetleri) differ from each
other. In this matter, most philosophers follow the views of three great phi-
losophers of old, namely (and from here on Müteferrika follows Kâtib Çelebi
word for word) Plato’s view, i.e. “monarchy” (munârhıyâ); Aristotle’s view,
i.e. that rulership must belong to the magnates of the state (“aristocracy” or
aristokrâsiyâ, or “rule of the magnates”, amme-i tedbir-i ayan), as in Venice; and
finally Demokratis’ view, i.e. that administration should be in the hands of the
people (saltanat tedbir-i re’ayanın olmak gerekdir) by election (tarik-i tedbir
ihtiyardır), a form called “democracy” (dîmukrâsiya) or “the rule of the elected”
(amme-i tedbir-i muhtarîn), as in England and the Netherlands.
It should be noted that, since Müteferrika never quotes his source and
Kâtib Çelebi’s İrşâdü’l-hayârâ remained virtually unknown until its edition
in 2012, in general Ottomanist scholarship still attributes the introduction of
the Aristotelian theory on government and the first mention of democracy to
Müteferrika himself, usually alluding to his Transylvanian education.17 On the
other hand, Müteferrika’s European influences were integrated into a more tra-
ditional Islamicate framework with remarkable efficiency. If we were to look
at Müteferrika’s private library, we would encounter (among a multitude of
other works on logic, history, science, and so on) Ottoman political works from
earlier centuries, including Mustafa Ali’s Füsûl-i hall ü akd, Kınalızade’s Ahlâk-ı
Alâî, and Kâtib Çelebi’s Mîzânü’l-hakk and İrşâdü’l-hayârâ (but not Düstûrü’l-
amel, his main political work).18 From these treatises he took most of the ideas
expressed in the first part of his work, such as the division of governments
(itself quite marginal in Ottoman political thought before then) and the four-
fold division of society (each of which play a minor role in Müteferrika’s argu-
ment). On the other hand, the same library contained another three dozen
books in “Latin” (which could mean any European language), some of which
dealt with philosophy and military tactics.
17 See, for example, Berkes 1964, 42–43; Yılmaz 2000a, 307, or Sariyannis 2013, 94. On the use
of Kâtib Çelebi’s works by Müteferrika see the detailed analysis in Yurtoğlu 2009, 37ff. and
esp. 72–78 on the copying of İrşâdü’l-hayârâ.
18 Sabev 2006, 110–127 and 345–364.