The Eighteenth Century: the Westernizers 389
democratic government in quite a positive light, while his grim description of
Sparta is strongly reminiscent of concurrent criticisms of Ottoman society and
the army:24
The strange things introduced to Athens (Atina ’ya ihdas olunan umur-ı
acibe) at that time had never been seen in another country. Because
nobody was in conflict or struggled anyone else and all affairs were car-
ried out by consultation of the commonwealth (cumhur müşaveresiyle).
Every day a new order was introduced with the vote of everyone (cümle
re’yle) ... No class could imitate their superiors in clothing and food; ev-
erybody was happy with the quantity given to them and could not sur-
pass it by any means ... Nobody could have priority over or oppose the
police officers in the assembly places, no matter how powerful one was or
what their family was. If they did, they were killed at once. Moreover, the
commoners (pespaye) and poor could not oppose their superiors or the
wealthy ... While the inhabitants of Athens were following these customs
and rules, Athens became such a well-ordered city that its like was not
seen anywhere in the world .... [On the contrary, in Sparta (Mizistre)] the
military class dominated their officers ... the rich could not oppose the
poor, [and] most merchants and decent people left the city since their
word was not obeyed ... Gradually their income, which previously was
increasing, became insufficient and their vain expenses increased.However, it should be noted that this Aristotelian perception of political theory
had no continuators for the rest of the century. On the contrary, Müteferrika’s
views on army reform, which will be examined in the following section,
were widely read and heavily influenced both political thought and practice
throughout the century.
1.1 Westernization: the Early Proposals
Müteferrika was not the only supporter of the superiority of European army
organization. The first such instance might have been a text known as Su’âl-i
Osmânî ve cevâb-ı Nasrânî, or a “Dialogue between an Ottoman and a Christian
Officer”. This was allegedly a record of a conversation between an Ottoman
24 Mahmud Efendi – Tunalı 2013, 279–281; cf. also 244, with the inhabitants of Athens de-
ciding to have no king after Codrus’ death and ti be governed by judges with communal
participation (bi’l-cümle re’y ve tedbiri ve ma ’rifetiyle olup yalnız kendü re’yleriyle iş görmüş
değiller idi). Democratic government is described in more detail in pp. 287–289, while
later the author stresses that low and base people, as well as women, did not take part in
the assemblies (298–299).