AN EARLIER SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORETICIAN FROM OTTOMAN EMPIRE

AN EARLIER SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORETICIAN FROM OTTOMAN EMPIRE TURSUN BEG

Introduction Tursun Beg was a notable Ottoman bureaucrat and historian who lived in 15th century. He began his bureaucratic career on the survey commissions for the Byzantines’ houses in Istanbul after the conquest.1 During the next few years he took charge in surveys in provinces too. Since he was quite successful and trustworthy person, he was appointed as divan kâtibi under the Grand Vizir Mahmud Pasha. During his service he participated to all campaigns in which Mahmud Pasha was present. Furthermore as a secretary he had the opportunity to participate to the Divan meetings. Thus, he was quite engaged in politics of the state. Also in his work Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth it is possible to immediately came across his solid political philosophical side. And this is precisely what make him peculiar. Although his work is categorised as history, it involves crucial points of political philosophy too. Especially the introduction of Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth comprises of a real social contract theory even before well known theoreticians like Hobbes and Locke.

Throughout his introduction, Tursun Beg constructs legitimacy of Sultan’s rule. He discusses the need for, and vital importance of a ruler in a society, and how much one should be grateful for the existence of a Sultan. He dwells on a theoretical history of human being and he draws a type of the “state of nature” idea which is quite similar to Hobbes’s one, thus one can qualifies him as “Hobbes before Hobbes”. He also mentions sociability as a peculiar characteristic of human being, in that sense he can be accepted as a follower of Aristotle too. Furthermore while giving advices and describing some virtues for the Sultan, he highlights mildness towards people and this emphasis on hilm, evokes the principle of avoiding from using power despotically (especially in an economic 1

Halil İnalcık,”The Policy of Mehmed II”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers vol.23-24 (1969-70), pp. 231-49.

1

sense) from Locke’s natural law concept. As a result, there is growing support for the claim that Tursun Beg was a political scientist according to modern professionalisation. In this paper my aim is to bring into the open his political philosophical side, especially his constituent ideas on social contract theories. While examining his peculiarity I will try to stay connected with historical context and discuss his utilisation/instrumentalisation of history in order to legitimise Bayezid’s reign.

Personal Background of Tursun Beg This chapter is written by largely taking advantage of Halil İnalcık’s article named Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time and Mertol Tulum’s introduction of the book Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth.

Tursun Beg starts his introduction by claiming that although he is known as Tursun his real name is Tûr-i Sîna (Mount Sinai). This claim is not a realistic one because according to kadı records of Bursa his name was given as it is, Tursun.2 In fact this interesting claim reflects his attitude to language. He was a great follower of Persian model in literature, for him Turkish language was not an adequate one for prose, inşâ.3 Therefore his attempt to rename was a reflection of his passion for ornamented language. In his book he does not mention his father directly, but he gives his uncle’s name Cebe Ali Beg who is a famous governor of Bursa and a very close friend of Murad II. He was present during the conquest of Istanbul. And during following years he was encharged with survey commissions in the city. In the meantime Tursun Beg was accompanying his uncle, thus his first bureaucratic service started by then. According to kadı record of Bursa, Tursun Beg’s father was Hamza Beg (son of Firuz Beg) and he was also a notable statesman who was governor (beglerbegi) of Anatolia in 1424. Halil İnalcık cites that during his life time he was qualified as “le plus grand 2

Halil İnalcık, Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time, pp: 417-431. Electronic source: http://www.inalcik.com/images/pdfs/16634347TURSUNBEG.pdf, p.417 3

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed. Mertol Tulum, Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.9

2

gouverneur Turcq” by Bertrandon de la Broquiere.4 So Tursun Beg was coming from a prestigious governor family which is quite close to the Ottoman dynasty. Although his birth date is not known exactly, according to İnalcık’s records it must be after 1426. Since he was a son of beglerbegi, he directly had a timar, and as he mentioned in his book he left his timar in Bursa to accompany to his uncle. He received his education in madrasa because in kadı records he qualified as mawlana.5 As a result of his training he was vested with solid language skills as Arabic and Persian. Also he had a theoretical knowledge about Islamic political thought and statecraft. In his book he mentions that he worked in ranks of state service for forty years. Firstly he was a specialist in the financial branch of the secretarial profession as yazıdjı (provincial surveyor). During following years he took charges in different positions as Divan Kâtibi (Secretary in the Imperial Council), Anadolu Defterdârı (Financial Secretary in the province of Anatolia), Anadolu Defter Kethüdâsı (Keeper of the Timar Registers in the province of Anatolia) and Defterdâr.6 For twelve years he worked under the Grand Vizir Mahmud Pasha who was a crucial person for Tursun Beg. He himself deems those years as the happiest period of his life.7 Even after execution of Mahmud Pasha, he remains faithful to him and tried to demonstrate his innocence. After entering Mahmud Pasha’s service Tursun Beg was present in the all campaigns that the pasha attended. Tursun Beg met with Medmed II in one of them, the Morean campaign (1463). To conclude we can say that Tursun Beg’s career was quite bright and prestigious. After his state service during long years, he retired and settled in Bursa. Here he remained with his work Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth which is the most important historical work of Mehmed the Conqueror’s time acccording to Halil İnalcık.8

4

Bertrandon de la Broquiere, Le Voyage d’Oure-mer, E. Leroux, Paris, 1892. p.127

5

Halil İnalcık, Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time, pp: 417-431. Electronic source: http://www.inalcik.com/images/pdfs/16634347TURSUNBEG.pdf, p.419 6ibid, 7

p. 420

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum, Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.23

8

Halil İnalcık, Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time, pp: 417-431. Electronic source: http://www.inalcik.com/images/pdfs/16634347TURSUNBEG.pdf, p.417

3

Main Characteristics of Social Contract Theory Since notable social contract theoreticians will be examined comparatively Tursun Beg in the following chapters, here only the main characteristics of contractual theories will be discussed.

Social contract theory is a political philosophy about genesis and raison d’être of the state. In fact social contract theory is nearly as old as philosophy itself, hence a contractual beginning for society can be found even in Platon’s foundation of an ideal city. However it gains reputation and prevalence within modern political theories during the 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly the peculiarity of this era was the development of Enlightenment for European intellectual milieu, with one of its consequences on political thought being the social contract theory. Because while up to that point in time the sovereign’s legitimacy and supremacy was based on divine law, a new type of legitimacy appears with the philosophies of this new era. Indeed the contractual conception of society and state itself was a product of Enlightenment which in turn identified human being as rational and free. The social contract theory claims that man is capable of calculating his profits according to his interests and he can act rationally in accordance. Doubtlessly this man is the man of the Enlightenment era.

Social contract theory can be summarised under four different issues; state of nature, content of the contract, promising of the state and the understanding of ruling. Firstly this theory describes a preexistent state of all societies. It is not a historical reality but a theoretical framework in order to explain the genesis of society as a political corpus. Although characteristics of the state of nature vary from one theoretician to another, there are major points as; non-existence of a government and law. The theory claims that people have more benefits from living together than living individually. This profit can be protection of life like in Hobbes’s work, or protection of property like in Locke’s 4

one. To obtain these advantages people come together, obey an authority and create enforcement mechanisms over themselves. Thus the state gains its legitimacy and raison d’etre based on this contractual decision which promotes man’s rationality. This theory provides a useful and fertile basis to examine the relationship between society and government, because as Gérard Mairet said, both society and power appear under the same concept through this two sided social contract.9 Also according to Cemal Bâli Akal, the theoretical transition from a type of society (nature) to the opposite type (civil) serves as an intellectual source of European political and legal formation.10

In a Eurocentric intellectual and academic medium, it is not a surprise that all the reknown social contract theoreticians are European. However thanks to Ottoman historiographical works it is possible to encountered Tursun Beg and his contractual conception about the state-society relationship a hundred years before Hobbes. His work may not coincide with an intellectual shift in Ottoman history like the Enlightenment for the European one, but one could still argue that his ideas are as precious and as notable as classical social contract theoreticians’ ideas.

Tursun Beg as A Social Contract Theoretician In Tursun Beg’s work Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, there are many valuable notions that would help to comprehend understanding’s people of administration and morality during the classical age of the Ottoman rule. Especially in the introduction part of the book a definition of politics, an approach to man’s nature, a theoretical history of the beginning of society can be found; and the following chapters descriptions some virtues and an understanding of the enemy of the empire can be also examined. All these findings lend support to the claim that Tursun Beg was also a political scientist

9

Gérard Mairet, Le Dieu Mortel: Essai de non-philosophie de l’Etat, Press Universitaires de France, Paris, 1987. p. 109 10

Cemal Bâli Akal, İktidarın Üç Yüzü, Dost Yayınları, Ankara, 2013. p.46

5

and specifically a social contract theoretician. In order to gains a clearer understanding we should examine Tursun Beg and classical theoreticians comparatively.

Hobbes before Hobbes: Within this paper, the most surprising point in Tursun Beg’s work may be the similarities between his understanding of man’s nature and the Hobbesian one. Since according to Islamic understanding of man’s nature the human being born sinless and innocent, a pessimistic approach on man’s nature (like Hobbes’s one) is inconvenient. Thus Tursun Beg begins his argumentation with the acknowledgement of this Islamic approach by saying “Ve insan eğerçi ünsten müştaktur dimişler”*. After this smooth introduction to the issue he continues:

“ … ammâ deva’i-i ef’âli ve merâtibi ahvâli muhtelif ve mütenevvi’dür. Lâ-cerem bu ihtilaf ü tebâyün ve tefavüt ü temayüzden -ki anâsır-ı beşeriyette mecbûldür- lazım geldi ki metâlib-i tavâyifi ehl-i âlem ve me’ârib-i tabakât-ı evlâd-ı benî-âdem muhtelif ü mütefâvit ola.”11 ** According to Tursun Beg, despite the acknowledgement of human being as etymologically derivative of familiarity and friendship, in fact, individuals’ desires are diversified and antagonistic. These lines are remindful of a passage from Leviathan:

“For every man by natural necessity desires that which is good for him: nor is there any that esteems a war of all against all, which necessarily adheres to such a state, to be good for him.”12 11

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.12

* “And this noble kind, with so much perfection, were created by God in a civic nature; (that is to say) in his creation and living statutes the assembly were given to him.” ** “…and although man derived being sociable, because of variousness and diverseness of their cure of deeds and conditions of ranks (necessarily because of this dispute, inconsistency, difference, and privileges, that they are natural in the origins of mankind, it was necessary that the classes of the world’s men's demands and the wishes of the different ranks of Adam's sons should be various and dissimilar.” 12

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, McMaster University Archieve of the History of Economic Thought. p. 77

6

In one of the most important interpretations on Hobbes, “Violence and Sacred”, René Girard explains the reason of this war of all against all as “mimetic desire”13; since everyone’s desire is the same there is a merciless rivalry and struggle between people. Although the reason of the antagonism that Tursun Beg mentioned is not mimetic but diversified desire, the main point, the one regarding the consequence of desires is still the same as bellum omnium contra omnes.

Tursun Beg continues his ideas about man’s nature by suggesting a theoretical pre-existence state of societies and he describes a state of nature like:

“Pes eğer tabi’atleri muktezâsınca konulurlarsa, aralarında şol kadar tenâzü’ ü temânü ve husûmet ü tedâfü’ vâkı’ ola kim asl-ı ictimâ’dan maksûd olan teâvün ve yardımlaşmak hâsıl olmaz; belki biribirin ifsâd ü ifnâ ider.”14 ***

In their people’s nature, there will be enmity and quarrelling between them in lieu of sociability and cooperation. Obviously in this passage we meet with Hobbes a hundred years ago before the Hobbes that we know. Similar lines from Leviathan describe fearfulness of the situation in detail like:

“Where every man is enemy to every man…. In such condition…. Which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”15

13

René Girard, Violence and The Sacred, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. p. 37

14

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.12

*** “Therefore if they be left to their own nature, so much quarrelling, impediment, enmity, and mutual repulsion can happen among them, so that the aims of society, which are mutual assistance and helping one another, cannot be obtained, rather they corrupt and destroy each other.” 15

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, McMaster University Archieve of the History of Economic Thought. p. 78

7

At this point we must touch upon the historical conditions surrounding these thinkers. Hobbes was born prematurely because of the news that Spanish Armada had arrived, so since birth he felt the formidability of the state of nature. His famous expression “Fear and I were born twins together” summarises his historical background. During his life he saw tremendous disorder and war in Europe, with the English Civil War having crucial impact on his intellectual development. As a consequence Leviathan and his famous description of the state of nature are products of this war. According to Kenan İnan, like Hobbes, Tursun Beg too witnessed a high level of disorder of the Ottoman Empire16, these experiences possibly influenced him deeply and initiated his political thought. To exemplify, he firstly witnessed the chaos caused by the Hungarian expeditions in 1443-4, in the following years he saw a sixteen year old war against the Venetians, and he lastly witnessed the war against Uzun Hasan. Hence it can be argued that these various wars had an impact on his intellectual work, his idea of state of nature and his claim the need for a ruler’s existence. He mentions this need like:

“Zarûri nev’-i tedbîrden gereklü oldı ki her birini müstahıkk olduğı menzilde koya; kendü hakkına kânî’ idüp dest-i tasarrufını hukûk-ı gayrdan kûtâh kıla. Ve benî ven’ arasında umûr-ı te’âvüni mütekeffil şuğl ne ise ana meşgûl eyleye. Ve bunun gibi tedbîre siyâset dirler.”17****

For Tursun Beg, the violent character of the state of nature makes the existence of a ruler an indispensable necessity. This passage not only reflects the civil state of society but also the duties of the ruler. His duties range from making everyone content with the rank that they deserve and 16

Kenan İnan, A Summary and Analysis of The Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth of Tursun Bey, University of Manchester, 1993. p.89 17

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.12

**** “Of course, one requires a kind of administration that each one may be content with the situation which he deserves; to restrain each man's hand from depredation and from contravention of the rights of others, and to concern himself with the task for which he is responsible among the matters pertaining to collaboration. And such a regulation is called government ‘siyasat’."

8

making convince everyone of the new situation’s rightfulness. The ruler must inhibit individuals’ hand from violating the rights of others and he must place each one in a situation and occupation which is adequate for the collaboration among the units of society. This social regulation is quintessential politics, as politics is the whole of these measures of establishing peace in a society formed from conflictual and antagonistic individuals.18

Tursun Beg’s understanding of government and Locke’s conception of natural law: We tried to examine the similarities between Tursun Beg and Hobbes. So far we advance in his definition of politics we meet up with points that evoke another social contract theoretician, John Locke. Although the latter’s state of nature does not coincide with Tursun Beg’s one, their understanding of civil government are similar. In Locke’s theory, property plays a crucial role behind social contract’s rationally. For him “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience.”19. The way to appropriate this common commodity basically depends on your labour on them because “ The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.”20

However this appropriation process has certain limits. As a matter of principle one must not take more than his need and must leave enough potential property for others. The problem is that in a state of nature this principle does not work and a man’s properties are not safe. Thus the main concern of the contract in Locke’s theory is protection of property in lieu of protection of life. 18

Cemil Oktay, “Ve Bunun Gibi Tedbîre Siyaset Dirler.” Tursun Bey’in Siyaset Tanımı Üzerine Notlar , İ.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, March 2009. p.46 19

John Locke, The Two Treatise of Government, McMaster University Archive of the History of EconomicThought. p.115 (Chapter V) 20

Ibid, p.115

9

Because for Locke the state of nature is not menacing for human life but for one’s property. At this point one should remind Tursun Beg’s “dest-i tasarrufını hukûk-ı gayrdan kûtâh kıla” expression. This emphasis on protection of property is quintessentially similar to the main matter in Locke’s social contract: “And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another.”21

A second common point between Tursun Beg and Locke is about the notion of justice. Before discussing justice in administration affairs, Tursun Beg mentions justice as a virtue. He cites Hâce Nasîru’ddîn et-Tûsî’s suggestion of 3 faculties of human nature which are kuvvet-i nâtıka (rational faculty), kuvvet-i gazabî (irascible faculty) and kuvve-i şehevânî (appetitive faculty). These faculties have three states like excess, deficiency and average. Tursun Beg defines the virtue of justice as the achievement of the balance by obeying to the average. Throughout his work Tursun Beg mentions Bayezîd II as an example of justice and balance. Whereas he mentions Mehmed II as a sultan who holds anger superior to his mildness. This portraying of two sultans can be accepted as a strategy of legitimisation for Bayezid II’s rule because as his being not as active as his father, caused the period to be seen as a kind of stagnation period. Contrary to this claim it is a period of stability, and one could argue that this inactiveness of Bayezid II’s reign paved the way for new type of legitimisation process which based on historical works.

After defining justice as a virtue, Tursun Beg touches upon justice in administrative terms by describing works of Bayezid II:

21

John Locke, The Two Treatise of Government, from McMaster University Archive of the History of EconomicThought. p. 147

10

“Ammâ fazîlet-i adâlet ki adl ü insâf andan ibârettür -ki hâfız-ı silsile-i mevcûdât ve râdi’-i mevadd-ı fesâ- mahlûkâttur- pâdişâh-ı muzafferün garîze-i şerîfinde merkûzdür; nitekim âsârı mahsûstur. Bi-hamdi’illah ki ahd-i saltanatında tiğ-ı şer’-i hak meslûl ce rakabe-i zulm ü bâtıl mağlûldür. Ve emn ü emân ve inkıtâ’-ı mevâdd-ı fetret ü fesâd ve inhidâm-ı ekser-i bünyân-ı bida’ bunun şâhid-i adlidür.”22*****

This description of precluding injustice and malfeasance; and ways of stonewalling disorder and confusion are quite similar to what Locke prescribes for civil society and government. Another common point between the two thinkers is their approach to legitimacy. As mentioned before, for Locke, the purpose of government is protection of property, life and liberty of people. This is linchpin and main point of the contract. If the government cannot protect and secure justice or if its implication itself is injustice and unlawfulness, the government loses its legitimacy.23 Conformably Tursun Beg mentions that an unjust king will not be long-lived in these lines:

“Ve kelim-i hikem-âmûz-ı hukemâdan menkûldür ki, biş nesne biş nesne vücûdınsız hilye-i kemâlden âtıl olur. Terâzûy-ı bî-zebâne-i şâhîn müstakim göstermez, ve şemşir-i âbdâr-ı bî-zenende nîk kârger olmaz, ve kelâm-ı bî-zîver-i sıdk-ârâyiş revayiş bulmaz, ve ilm-i bî-hüsn-i amel netice vermez, ve melik-i bî-adl pâydâr olmaz.”24 ******

22

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.17

***** The meaning and explanation of the passage can be found in the following sentences. 23

John Locke, The Two Treatise of Government, from McMaster University Archive of the History of EconomicThought. p. 160 ****** The meaning and explanation of the passage can be found in the following sentences. 24

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.18

11

Before discussing a last point and argument in order to characterise Tursun Beg as a social contract theoretician, it could be helpful to recall the effect of contractual theories in intellectual history. During mediaeval ages, legitimacy of the sovereign used to derive from religious sources and the concept of divine law. With the emergence of social contract theories a new type of legitimisation appears in European political thought. This legitimisation arises from contractual acts between rational individuals aiming at providing common wealth. Thus one can argue that social contract theories reflect the secularisation of the sources of political legitimacy. As a last point we argue that this linchpin of contractual theories can be found in following lines of Tursun Beg:

“ Ve eğer şöyle ki bu tedbîr bervefk-ı vücûb ve kâ’ide-i hikmet olursa -ki mü’eddî ola bir kemâle ki bi’l-kuvve benî-nev’ün eşhâsında konulmıştur ki ol kuvvet iktisâb-ı sa’âdeteyndür- ana ehl-i hikmet siyâset-i İlâhî dirler, ve vâzı’na nâmûs dirler. Ve ehl-i şer’ ana şerî’at dirler ve vâzı’na şâri’ ıtlâk iderler ki, peygamberdür. Ve illâ, ya’nî bu tedbîr ol mertebede olmazsa belki mücerred tavr-ı akl üzre nizâm-ı âlem-i zâhir içün, meselâ tavr-ı Cengiz Han gibi olursa, sebebine izâfet iderler, siyâset-i sultânî ve yasağ-ı pâdişâhî dirler ki, örfümüzce ana örf dirler. Keyfe mâ-kân, her kankısı olursa, anun ikâmeti elbette bir pâdişâh vücûdına mevkûf.” 25 *******

In the previous passage by Tursun Beg a distinction between siyâset-i İlâhî and siyâset-i sultânî has been established. He argues that siyâset-i İlâhî cannot be enforced by ordinary sovereign, which

25

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.30

******* “And if it so happens that this regulation is in accord with necessity and a principle of wisdom and leads to a perfection which potentially is implanted in individuals of mankind, then this potential is called the acquisition of two happinesses ['iktisab-l saadeteyn’). The philosophers call it Divine Government 'Siyasat-i Ilahi' and they call the legislation of it (law 'namus', and the religious scholars call it the religious law and the person who lays down the religious law is called legislator, being a prophet. Unless that is to say, if this measure is not at that high level but simply a rational measure for the good ordering of the external world, for instance like the manner of Chingiz Khan then they refer to its reason, and they call it Sultanic Siyasat and Imperial Law 'Siyasat-i Sultani ve Yasag-i Padişahi which, in our common usage, is called ‘örf’. In whatever manner, no matter how its existence is dependent upon the existence of a Sultan.”

12

would translate into the idea that the siyâset/politics that sultans make is not a divine one. Furthermore there is another common point between these social contract theories. According to Tursun Beg the main characteristic of siyâset-i sultânî is rationality, just like the rationality of contractual legitimacy. The distinction that Tursun Beg established cannot be accepted as a total secularization, nevertheless it can be characterised as a genuine laïcisation. These two notions are usually conflated, however, there is a crucial difference between them. As Jean-Claude Monod discussed in his book “Sécularisation et Laïcité”, secularization is the process of de-theologization of forms of political legitimisation or purification of the ways of political legitimisation from theological sources.26 On the other hand laïcité is the principle of seperation of civil society -who composes the State- from religious society. Laïcisation means purification of civil society and State from clergymen. In short while secularization is a mentality change about the sources of political legitimisation from religious to the secular, laïcisation prescribes a practical distinction between religious people and civil society. As we can see Tursun Beg does not go through a mentality change, thus we continuously meet panegyrics derived from religious notions as Zıllu’llâhi Fi’lArz27, Pâdişâh-ı lutf-ı İlâh28, Pâdişâh-ı İslâm29, and Pâdişâh-ı dindâr30. However, the distinction he draws can be identified as a version of laïcisation, because he majorly differentiate between leaders (so personnel) of siyâset-i İlâhî and siyâset-i sultânî. By differentiating them Tursun Beg does not change the source of political legitimisation, but he attaches this new type of legitimisation derives from social contractual acts right next to the ancient theological one.

Conclusions 26

Jean-Claude Monod, Sécularisation et Laïcité, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris, 2007, p:5

27

Tursun Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed: Mertol Tulum,Baha Matbaası, 1977, İstanbul. p.23

28

Ibid, p.45

29

Ibid, p.52

30

Ibid, p.55

13

To conclude, it must be said that Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth is not an ordinary historical work. In fact it has more grand importance in political science than historiographical peculiarity. Tursun Beg’s book contains main issues of political philosophy such as definition of politics, must-have virtues of the ruler, legacy of the sovereign, sources of legitimisation of governance and the genesis of the society as a political corpus. Throughout this paper we tried to focus on his contractual theoretician side by highlighting certain common points between Tursun Beg’s and classical European social contract thinkers’ ideas such as Hobbes’ state of nature, the vitalism of the existence of a sovereign; Locke’s ideas on justice and the cancelation of social contract in case of unjust implementation of a government. Lastly we tried to illustrate laïcité in Tursun Beg’s political conception. Although this laïc character cannot be interpreted as a common point between Tursun Beg and classical social contract theoreticians -considering them being secularists- it can be identified as a similarity.

While examining Tursun Beg’s political philosophy, we tried to not miss the historical context which surrounds him. At this point, we argue that the main reason underlying the increase of in historiographical works in Bayezid II’s period -as Tursun Beg wrote his work during his reign-, was in fact the legitimisation of his rule. That his reign was considered as an age of stagnation after his father Mehmed II, he tried to make by pen what he did not do by sword.

As a last point we would like to add that in following chapters of Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth there are rich descriptions of campaigns during the reign of Mehmed II. Another similarity between Tursun Beg and Carl Schmitt’s enemy and friend conception in “The Concept of Politics” can be examined in another study which will not concern at this paper, through this verbal illustrations and expressions

14

about rival communities (as Üngürūs-ı La’în31, Kefere-i Merede32, Müdbir-i Bed-fi’âl33 or Mursâr-ı Bed-Kirdâr34).

31

Ibid, p.38

32

Ibid, p.50

33

Ibid, p.122

34

Ibid, p.172

15

Bibliography * AKAL, Cemal Bâli, İktidarın Üç Yüzü, Dost Yayınları, Ankara, 2013. * GIRARD, René, Violence and The Sacred, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. * GÜRSU, Uğur, Osmanlı’daki Hükümdarlık Anlayışının Tarih-i Ebu’l-Feth’teki Yansımaları, Available: https://www.academia.edu/3093962/ OSMANLIDAKİ_HÜKÜMDARLIK_ANLAYIŞININ_TARİH-İ_EBULFETHTEKİ_YANSIMALARI * HOBBES, Thomas, Leviathan, McMaster University Archieve of the History of Economic Thought. * İNALCIK, Halil, ”The Policy of Mehmed II”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers vol.23-24 (1969-70), pp. 231-49. * İNALCIK, Halil, Tursun Beg, Historian of Mehmed the Conqueror’s Time, pp: 417-431.Available: http://www.inalcik.com/images/pdfs/16634347TURSUNBEG.pdf, * İNAN, Kenan, A Summary and Analysis of The Târîh-i Ebü’l-Feth of Tursun Bey, University of Manchester, 1993 * LOCKE, John, The Two Treatise of Government, McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic Thought. * MAIRET, Gérard, Le Dieu Mortel: Essai de non-philosophie de l’Etat, Press Universitaires de France, Paris, 1987. * MONOD, Jean-Claude, Sécularisation et Laïcité, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris, 2007. * OKTAY, Cemil, “Ve Bunun Gibi Tedbîre Siyaset Dirler.” Tursun Bey’in Siyaset Tanımı Üzerine Notlar , İ.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, pp: 43-51. March 2009. * TURSUN Beg, Târîh-i Ebü’l Feth, Ed. Mertol Tulum, Baha Matbaası, İstanbul, 1977. * TURSUN Beg, Fetih Babası Fatih’in Tarihi, Ed. Mertol Tulum, Kapı Yayınları, 2013.

16