Towards an Ottoman Conceptual History 453
consulted concerning its own fields. Şanizade’s discussion of consultation, as
seen at the end of the previous chapter, shows how, even on the eve of the
Tanzimat reforms, the word (meşveret) was used in a quite aristocratic way,
in contrast to rather than in corroboration with the new ideas favored by the
French Revolution.67 On the other hand, representation among the ruled, with
a tradition of unanimous election of notables (albeit by a restricted body, con-
sisting usually of lesser notables), was a common phenomenon in the latter
part of the eighteenth century.68 Furthermore, from 1730 onwards it seems a
new model emerged in Ottoman politics, namely contracts or treaties stating
mutual rights. An early occurence was the agreement imposed by Murad IV on
the rebellious sipahis in 1632;69 such contract documents were regularly signed
throughout the eighteenth century after revolts, both in the provinces and in
the capital.70 This development culminated in 1807 with the Hüccet-i Şer’iyye
(marking Selim III’s fall), and the subsequent year with the famous Sened-i
ittifak.71
4 Some General Remarks
Drawing any general conclusions from the above survey is not an easy task,
nor is it obligatory, as there is no reason one should seek a unilinear interpre-
tation of the development of Ottoman political ideas. The grouping of texts
into ideological trends, often corresponding to distinct literary genres as well,
has perhaps made clear a genealogy of ideas. However, one should not overes-
timate the relationship between ideological currents and literary genres and
sub-genres: such genres co-existed in collections, showing that, even if we
can establish currents of thought through the authors’ points of view, their
audiences were nonetheless more syncretic. This can be seen very clearly in
the mecmuas (manuscripts with mixed contents), most of which, it seems,
belonged to members of the central bureaucracy, and which contain a num-
ber of treatises of a general political character. For instance, we read of such
a mecmua that contained, among histories or lists of officials and fortresses,
the early “declinist” treatise Kitâb-ı müstetâb, a version of Ayn Ali’s much-
circulated mid-seventeenth century treatise describing in detail the timar
67 Cf. Hanioğlu 2008, 113.
68 Yaycıoğlu 2008, 144–184; Yaycıoğlu 2012, 444–445; Yılmaz 2015a, 253–255.
69 Na’ima 1864–1866, 3:119–121; Na’ima – İpşirli 2007, 722–723.
70 For such documents of political contracts signed in Crete, see Sariyannis 2008b, 260–263;
on the 1730 treaty, see Karahasanoğlu 2009, 211.
71 For the rich literature on the Hüccet-i Şer’iyye and the Sened-i ittifak, see above, chapter 9.
Cf. Sariyannis 2013, 85–86; Yılmaz 2015a, 249–250 and 252–253.