Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and its reception in the Ottoman Empire

Ibn Khaldun was a fourteenth-century North African Muslim scholar, judge and bureaucrat. He is well known for his theory of history and civilization articulated in the Muqaddimah (Prolegomena), a draft of which was completed in 1377.Footnote ⁴ Ibn Khaldun initially conceived of the text as an extended introduction to his world history entitled Kitāb al-ʿIbar (The Book of Lessons). In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun established a discipline – a systematic way of investigating a subject – that would provide readers with the requisite knowledge and critical apparatus to evaluate historical accounts and judge their accuracy. Thus, in the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun treated issues that can be viewed as the principles of human history. As such, he divided the Muqaddimah into six chapters in which he treated aspects of civilization including forms of living together in general, nomadic and rural lifestyles, dynastic and other forms of political rule, settled civilizations, arts and crafts, and sciences.

According to Ibn Khaldun, human beings are, by nature, prone to living in groups. This social life takes various forms and brings with it the authority of a ruler over a group. Initially, humans lived in smaller, more scattered settlements throughout the world, but over time they established villages, towns and cities. As they built larger settlements, the features of collective human life changed and different crafts, arts and sciences emerged in urban civilizations. Thus, knowing the various forms human societies may take will help a person assess what is possible and what is not possible in historical reports of events.

The sixth and last chapter of the Muqaddimah, the one translated by Cevdet, constitutes over a third of the book and is devoted to the sciences. Therein, Ibn Khaldun provides a history of transmitted (naqlī, religious) and rational (ʿaqlī, philosophical) sciences and discusses pedagogical issues, as well as Arabic linguistics and literary sciences. The initial sections of the chapter include preliminary discussions on thinking as a foundational feature of humans that differentiates them from other animals and enables them to produce scientific knowledge (more on this below). Ibn Khaldun also ties the sciences to the subject matter of the book, ʿumrān, stating that the sciences grow in abundance as civilization grows.

Today, Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is acknowledged as a remarkable intellectual achievement. The book is salient in the modern day for several reasons, perhaps the most interesting being its utilization by the French to advance colonial ambitions in North Africa.Footnote ⁵ The work is also controversial for its adoption by nationalists in the Middle East on the basis of a few of its views, one of them being Ibn Khaldun's association of certain nations with advances in certain kinds of science. Both colonialism and nationalism have played a role in its widespread reception in the modern period, and its popularity was intensified by the relevance of Ibn Khaldun's ideas on society, politics, economy and urbanization for modern social scientists.Footnote ⁶ Besides the natural interest of social scientists in the subject matter of Ibn Khaldun's work, the author's analytical and clear writing style contributes to the overall readability and recognition of the book.

However, the Muqaddimah did not always enjoy the popularity that it does today. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for instance, it did not have widespread circulation, a fact confirmed by the gap between its composition in the last quarter of the fourteenth century and its reception in the Ottoman domains during the seventeenth century, when people in the region first began to engage with Ibn Khaldun's ideas.Footnote ⁷ This is after the Ottomans gained control of Egypt in 1517, at which time manuscript copies of the book were available but seem not to have been appropriated by the newly dominant power.Footnote ⁸ By the early seventeenth century, however, the Ottomans began to develop an affinity for some of the ideas in the Muqaddimah. Ibn Khaldun's Ottoman audience mainly consisted of bureaucrats and clerks, as evidenced by their ownership of manuscript copies of the book. Hence we can see a growing interest in Ibn Khaldun in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries among the bureaucratic elite and historians, such as Katip Çelebi (d. 1657), who praised and used the Muqaddimah in his bibliographical work.Footnote ⁹

By the first half of the eighteenth century, the Muqaddimah had acquired enough interest among Ottoman elites to inspire a Turkish translation of the text by Pîrîzâde Mehmed Sahib (d. 1749), a man of the learned class (ilmiye branch) of the Ottoman government. Between 1726 and 1730, Pîrîzâde translated the first five chapters of the Muqaddimah, making that portion of the text available to new readers.Footnote ¹⁰ However, it is noteworthy that nobody attempted a full translation of the remaining sixth chapter concerning the history of sciences until 130 years later. According to its eventual translator, Cevdet, the sixth chapter, though useful and beneficial, was the most difficult chapter of the Muqaddimah since it concerned the sciences and could not readily be translated into rough Turkish. He suggested that the Turkish language of the eighteenth century was still not developed enough to permit translations of scientific works. However, the Egyptian publishers of Pîrîzâde's first five chapters suggested another reason for the lack of interest in translating the sixth, namely that there already were plenty of works on the sciences available in Turkish. Ottoman readers did, indeed, have access to many books on sciences, as well as some important works on the related subject of classification, including Taşköprüzâde's Mevzuâtu'l-Ulûm. However, I would argue that the 130-year gap between Pîrîzâde's (1730) and Cevdet's (1860) translations suggests that it was the nineteenth-century modernization project, and the renewal of interest in the sciences, which motivated the translation of the sixth chapter.

By the mid-nineteenth century, the first print publications of the Muqaddimah appeared in Cairo (1857) and Paris (1858).Footnote ¹¹ It was also during this decade that Pîrîzâde's translation was published by the Bulaq Press in Cairo, in March of 1858.Footnote ¹² A noteworthy feature of the Bulaq edition is that, included along with Pîrîzâde's Turkish translation of the first five chapters, was the sixth chapter in its original Arabic. A year after the Bulaq edition, Pîrîzâde's translation was printed in Istanbul, in early March of 1859.Footnote ¹³ Cevdet's translation of the sixth chapter, though completed soon afterward, was eventually published in November 1860. As we can see, Cevdet was drawn to translating the sixth chapter at a time of transregional interest in the work of Ibn Khaldun, as evidenced by the simultaneous printing of the Muqaddimah in Egypt and France, and its translation into Turkish as well as French. Clearly, interest in the work was related to larger global transformations, such as the emergence of colonial empires and nationalist movements in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. In the following section, I will look at Cevdet's education and early career, as well as the sociopolitical context in which he produced his translation, to show how local and global dynamics interacted in its making.

The dynamics of Cevdet's reformist translation of the sixth chapter of Muqaddimah

Translation of the sixth chapter, as far as we know, was undertaken by Cevdet without any external prompting. However, the larger interest in the work shows that his personal interest and endeavour were shaped by the sociopolitical transformations of the time, amidst which the translator rose to prominence as an Ottoman scholar and bureaucrat. Therefore I situate Cevdet's translation at the intersection of his personal upbringing, his early career and network, the larger sociopolitical changes in the reform period of the Ottoman Empire, the growing authority of the sciences in the nineteenth century, and an international interest in the work of Ibn Khaldun.

To begin with the personal element, considering the wide range of sciences that are discussed in the last chapter of the Muqaddimah – Islamic law and theology, mathematical sciences, logic, natural philosophy, medicine, magic, alchemy, Arabic linguistics and literary sciences – clearly Cevdet could not have undertaken its translation without himself having benefited from comparably wide learning. Born in 1823 in Lofça (currently Lovech, in Bulgaria) to an established family of the town, Ahmed received an extensive education, and was hence well equipped to translate most of the last chapter of the Muqaddimah.Footnote ¹⁴ A pivotal step in Ahmed's education was the decision to seek higher education in Istanbul. There he attended classes of prominent scholars both at the madrasas and at public lectures at the Fatih mosque. Moreover, Ahmed participated in study circles at Sufi centers and exchanged lessons with a professor at the new military school, as well as consulting with the chief astronomer of the Ottoman Empire with regard to difficult problems. Ahmed also frequented literary salons of the time and wrote poetry under the pen name Cevdet.Footnote ¹⁵ All of these reflect his desire to become familiar with a wide range of knowledge and skill, which would prove crucial to rendering the last chapter of the Muqaddimah into Ottoman Turkish.Footnote ¹⁶

Cevdet's career choice was also a significant factor in the making of this translation. As noted previously, the Muqaddimah enjoyed the attention of a very specific audience during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – the administrative bureaucratic branch of the government. Hence it is not a mere coincidence that both Pîrîzâde and Cevdet were either responding to the needs of that segment of the Ottoman state structure or de facto a part of it. Had Cevdet remained a mere scholar and professor in the madrasas, where students – unlike the professional governing class – were familiar with Arabic, it is unlikely he would have been inspired to translate the sixth chapter. His early works, written while he was still mastering the rational and religious sciences, predictably had focused on annotations and glosses for textbooks of the madrasas.Footnote ¹⁷ However, early in his scholarly career, Cevdet attracted the attention of the two most influential figures of the Ottoman state at the time, namely the grand vizier Mustafa Reşid Pasha (d. 1858) and the şeyhülislam (chief of the scholarly judicial branch) Arif Hikmet Beyefendi (d. 1859). By writing laudatory panegyrics for these two figures, Cevdet managed to secure some rise in his salary and further funds. Alongside his scholarly and financial ambitions, Cevdet enmeshed himself in the political-bureaucratic branch through his association with these figures, especially Reşid Pasha, to whose children he became a tutor.Footnote ¹⁸ Cevdet thus joined Reşid Pasha's circle, which included Âli Efendi (d. 1871) and Fuad Efendi (d. 1869), both of whom would later become grand viziers. Cevdet was increasingly assigned certain bureaucratic duties to accompany these leaders, particularly Fuad Efendi. As his professional affiliation with such political figures grew, Cevdet continued to be promoted through the scholarly branch, although without actually working there.

Cevdet received his first significant scholarly promotion by finishing up a commentary on a poetry collection that had been left incomplete at the death of one of his mentors in literature. After presenting this work to Reşid Pasha, Cevdet secured a salary for the family of the deceased, while he himself received a promotion and a monetary gift.Footnote ¹⁹ As a result of this connection, Cevdet was appointed a member of the Council of Public Education (Meclîs-i Maârif-i Umûmiyye) in 1850, which, according to his autobiography, was a turning point in his life. Thereafter, his work served the needs of the new institutions and schools then being established by the administrative bureaucratic branch. For instance, Cevdet wrote Malumât-ı Nafi'a (Useful Knowledge), a treatise containing basic information on religions and sects with a special emphasis on Islam, for the newly established middle schools (rüşdiye mektebi).Footnote ²⁰ Another early work in this line was Kavâid-i Osmâniyye, a grammar of Ottoman Turkish, for which Cevdet received his second noteworthy promotion.Footnote ²¹ Cevdet was also rewarded for the first three volumes of his History (Tarih-i Cevdet), commissioned by the Ottoman Academy of Sciences.

Considering the shift in his intellectual and social circle from the scholarly to the bureaucratic branch, and the benefits he accrued through publication of the above-mentioned works, it seems likely that an important incentive for Cevdet in translating the sixth chapter of the Muqaddimah was the possibility of further career advancement. It is also evident from his memoir that Cevdet expected that professional advancement would result from this project. However, it appears that the şeyhülislam Sâdeddin Efendi (d. 1866) initially resisted such a promotion, insinuating that Cevdet was writing too many works, and that continuing to promote him for each and every publication would violate established scholarly norms. Eventually, this şeyhülislam was forced by a grand vizier to grant the promotion, an honour that Cevdet would have preferred to secure on the basis of his translation's merit, not because of the intervention of higher authorities.Footnote ²²

Cevdet was both pragmatic and responsive to the exigencies of his time and immediate context. Hence the choice of this translation was not happenstance but, I would argue, a calculated decision to enhance his relevance within the administrative bureaucracy and to respond to the needs of his new professional setting. One would expect further details from his autobiography on the immediate network of patrons that stimulated Cevdet; he is, however, conspicuously silent on this, except for one passing clue. In the preface to his translation of the sixth chapter, Cevdet mentions that the Pîrîzâde translation of the Muqaddimah was incomplete. However, he does not explain his particular reason for taking on the remaining chapter, aside from noting that the appreciators of knowledge in that age (maârif-şinâsân-ı asır) recognized the need for a Turkish rendering of the text.Footnote ²³ Although he does not identify the particular people who encouraged him, given his word choice in referring to them (maârif-şinâsân), he must be alluding to a class other than the ulema. There is a long history of contrasting theoretical scientific knowledge (ilim), the purview of the ulema, with particular and practical knowledge or information (marifet). In this context, Cevdet seems to be referring to the practice-oriented reformist bureaucrats of the period who had already utilized maârif as a key word to catalyse reform.Footnote ²⁴ Hence this could imply that one of his two major patrons, Reşid Paşa or Arif Hikmet Bey, had encouraged him to take on the translation of the sixth chapter, but both died before its publication. In any case, Cevdet does seem to have considered the opinions of other figures of the Tanzimat in deciding whether the sixth chapter was worth translating.

Certainly, recent political developments played a major role in setting the discursive context of Cevdet's scholarship.Footnote ²⁵ During the 1840s and 1850s, the Ottoman government was responding to international as well as local challenges with a series of reforms or blueprints for reform, the most noteworthy being the Edict of Gülhane (Tanzimat Fermanı) of 1839, which initiated Tanzimat reforms just as Cevdet was starting his education in Istanbul.Footnote ²⁶ Not only was Cevdet coached by the leading figures of the Tanzimat, but he also became an active agent in reforming the empire himself shortly after completing his education. He played a major role in restructuring various fields such as language, law, historiography and legal and educational institutions in his capacity as a member of newly established institutions, including the Ottoman Academy of Sciences (Encümen-i Dâniş), the High Council of Reforms, and the Council of Education (Meclis-i Maârif). Cevdet's history of the empire, from 1774 until 1826, was commissioned by the Ottoman Academy of Sciences in October 1853.Footnote ²⁷ Although it is not clear exactly when Cevdet began translating the sixth chapter, it appears to have been undertaken while he was researching and writing that history. The two projects were certainly interconnected in that Ibn Khaldun was a well-known historian and his Muqaddimah, as mentioned before, was a work on the principles of history.

In addition to his personal education and early career, and the contemporary reformist environment, I would argue that Cevdet's interest in the Muqaddimah was also encouraged by a transregional interest in Ibn Khaldun's work. I have already noted that its original Arabic and translations were published in Cairo, Paris and Istanbul in about this period. The rise of Mehmed Ali Pasha (d. 1849) in Egypt seems to have exerted a more direct influence on interest in Ibn Khaldun's works. Mehmed Ali was captivated by the Muqaddimah and ordered that its manuscript be copied and taught to students. It is through his orders that the Muqaddimah was eventually published in Egypt. Mehmed Ali also commissioned Abdullatif Subhi (d. 1886) to translate the proper history sections of Ibn Khaldun's ʿIbar into Turkish. Apparently, Mehmed Ali and his son Ibrahim (d. 1848) died while Subhi was still at work translating the second book of the ʿIbar. After the death of his patrons, Subhi and his family moved to Istanbul, where he restarted the translation, this time having in mind the Ottoman Sultan as the dedicatee. Subhi completed a volume of translation, entitled Miftâhu'l-İber (The Key of Lessons), in October 1853.Footnote ²⁸ We know that Subhi, like Cevdet, was a member of the Ottoman Academy of Sciences, which commissioned Cevdet to write his History. So Cevdet's interest in Ibn Khaldun might also have been inspired by conversations with Subhi. While there was a long-standing interest in Ibn Khaldun in Istanbul, as evidenced by the copies of the Muqaddimah in translation held by Turkish libraries, Cevdet also may have encountered Egyptian interest in Ibn Khaldun when he travelled to Cairo in 1852 as an assistant to Fuad Efendi, in order to resolve some inheritance issues of the khedival family. Even if Cevdet was prompted by reasons altogether different from the ones suggested here, the fact that his translation coincided with the publication of Pîrîzâde's translation in two rival cultural centres, Cairo and Istanbul, confirms a strong transregional interest in Ibn Khaldun's works at the time.

Cevdet's translation was also a response to the increase in demand for Turkish-language books among the emerging literate audience and prospective university students. Cevdet himself considered vernacularization to have been an important step on the path to modernization in Europe. The fact that the contemporary Ottoman demand for vernacular texts was created by a state-sponsored modernization effort is reflected in his reformist translation.Footnote ²⁹ Thus Cevdet adopted the style of Ibn Khaldun to expand the original narrative where it was too short and to explain what were only brief allusions in the original text, as well as to provide information on scholars and bibliographic resources that were not mentioned by Ibn Khaldun at all. Cevdet also extended the history of certain sciences beyond the fourteenth century, thereby enlarging the scope of the sixth chapter.Footnote ³⁰ Such interventions show that the Muqaddimah was translated not as a relic of Islamic intellectual history, but rather as a still-relevant source of knowledge on its subject matter. Below, I will analyse representative sections that indicate the philosophical basis for the globalization of science and demonstrate Cevdet's reformation of his source text.

Essentialism and the appropriation of modern science

As a representative of premodern Islamic philosophy, Ibn Khaldun adhered to an essentialist view of human nature. In fact, the sixth chapter of the Muqaddimah, which includes descriptions of various disciplines, begins with a discussion of human thinking as a distinct feature of humanity.Footnote ³¹ According to Ibn Khaldun, there are two kinds of perception, direct perception in which animals perceive external objects with the five senses, and an indirect or rational perception which is particular to human beings. This latter kind of perception occurs through powers that are contained in the brain, which act on former perceptions in order to abstract different forms. Thinking (fikr) is the mind's movement and operation over the latter forms. This is basically an Aristotelian view that distinguishes human beings from other animals by their ability to think.

According to Ibn Khaldun, there are three levels of human thinking: (1) differentiating reason (al-ʿaql al-tamyīzī), (2) practical reason (al-ʿaql al-tajrībī) and (3) theoretical reason (al-ʿaql al-naẓarī). The first, differentiating reason, is the level of comprehending external order, be it natural or conventional. It enables human beings to acquire what is useful for them and their livelihood, and to defend themselves against dangers. The second level, practical reason, provides humans with views and manners to interact with their kind and arrange their politics. Most of this level is related to assertions (apperceptions) acquired through accumulated experience.Footnote ³² The third level of thinking, theoretical reason, is that which is useful in bringing about knowledge and assumptions by seeking what is beyond the senses and what does not relate to practice. It consists of both concepts and assertions organized by specific conditions, which produce other knowledge of its kind, either conceptual or assertoric. These concepts and assertions are further organized together with some other material, which in turn produce new knowledge in the same manner. Ibn Khaldun alludes to syllogisms and other forms of reasoning here.Footnote ³³ According to him, the purpose of theoretical reason is to perceive existence as it really is with all its categories. Thinking is therefore perfected in its reality and becomes pure intellect and perceptive soul. This, Ibn Khaldun asserts, is the meaning of ‘the essence of humanity’ (al-ḥaqīqa al-insāniya).Footnote ³⁴

Cevdet concurred with Ibn Khaldun's depiction of thinking as a distinguishing feature of human beings. A lengthy comment of Cevdet's not only indicates that he shared this essentialist view of human nature, but also previews his upcoming engagement with the text: rectifying and updating Ibn Khaldun's narrative. To begin, Cevdet provides some further details on psychology which are lacking in Ibn Khaldun's narrative. Though Ibn Khaldun mentions that human beings share only ‘perception’ with other animals, the perception of the five senses in particular, Cevdet adds that humans and animals share internal senses as well, which include common sense (hiss-i müşterek), imagination (hayal), the power of composition (kuvve-i mütesarrife), the power of estimation (vehm) and the power of memory (hafıza). Humankind's distinguishing trait, Cevdet notes, is intellect, or reason (akıl). Through this intellect, human beings apply the power of composition (kuvve-i mütesarrife) to the knowledge of particulars stored in memory and imagination to derive knowledge of universals.Footnote ³⁵ Cevdet thus adds further details to the account while agreeing with Ibn Khaldun on an essential difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom: ‘rational thought’.

Ibn Khaldun's and Cevdet's metaphysical and universal conception of human beings assigns them the ability to arrive at knowledge of things as they are, although with limitations. Since this capacity is shared by all human beings regardless of their race or religion, it provides a basis for the production and circulation of knowledge among various nations. In fact, based on this aspect of human nature, Muslim scholars, including Ibn Khaldun and Cevdet, divided the sciences into rational sciences, which are not particular to any nation, and transmitted (traditional or religious) sciences, which are particular to some nations and religions. This metaphysical understanding of human beings and their capacity to arrive at knowledge untainted by culture underlies the late Ottoman acceptance of science from Europe. Ibn Khaldun and Cevdet's essentialist view of both science and human nature paved the way for the appropriation of modern science in Ottoman lands; their metaphysical approach thereby advanced the globalization of science.

Modernizing criticism of Peripatetic metaphysics

While an essentialist understanding of human beings played a key role in the globalization of science, a critical stance against metaphysics with regard to scientific inquiries also played a role in its acceptance. Modern European philosophers such as Kant, Comte, Marx, Heidegger and the logical positivists had increasingly shunned metaphysics, preferring instead to regard modern science as more of an empirical and phenomenal investigation of the world. In this way, previous historical conflicts over metaphysics between theologians and philosophers could be sidestepped. Modern positivist science, ostensibly limited to experimental and empirical facts, could be more appealing to a Muslim audience when it was not seen as propagating contentious metaphysical claims. Ibn Khaldun's critical stance against Peripatetic metaphysics and cosmology and Cevdet's engagement on the topic corroborate this view.

In the post-classical period of Islamic thought (c.1200–1600), four metaphysical approaches consolidated. These, as noted by Cevdet, were the paths of (1) Peripatetic philosophers, (2) rationalist theologians, (3) illuminationist philosophers and (4) sufis.Footnote ³⁶ In terms of metaphysics, both Ibn Khaldun and Cevdet adhered to the world view of rationalist theologians and were critical of some of the Peripatetic philosophers’ views. Their concerns regarding Peripatetic metaphysics, which can be dated to earlier Muslim theological objections to Neoplatonized Peripatetic views of the world and of God, were not a wholesale rejection of metaphysics, but rather a criticism of those ideas that ran counter to Islamic theological principles. Ghazali (d. 1111), in his famous critique, for instance, pointed out three Peripatetic views that contradicted Islamic beliefs: the eternity of the world, the rejection of bodily resurrection and the denial of God's knowledge of particulars. Ibn Khaldun, on the other hand, drew attention to the epistemic limits of metaphysics; that is, the difficulty of arriving at certainty on abstract matters by reasoning, thus casting doubt on the metaphysical doctrines of the Peripatetics. Cevdet concurred on this point, but unlike Ibn Khaldun he gave more weight to reason as a judge of proper religious beliefs, and noted that modern physics and chemistry had become more empirical and useful and thus were not to be avoided, as had been suggested by Ibn Khaldun.Footnote ³⁷

Paralleling the three levels of thinking noted above, Ibn Khaldun identified three planes of existence: the world of sensory perception, the world of the human soul or intellect and the world of the angels.Footnote ³⁸ He confirmed the existence of the soul by pointing to the acquisition of scientific knowledge that goes beyond sensory perception. The angelic world, according to him, is best evidenced by dreams that come true. Since in sleeping one is deprived of sense knowledge, the source of accurate knowledge in dreams that come true must be the world of Truth. Ibn Khaldun then went on to note that the philosopher–metaphysicians (the Peripatetics) were wrong about the details and order of the essences which they called intellects (the angels), since they did not have demonstrative knowledge about them based on the rules of logic.Footnote ³⁹ This comment, made in passing on the philosophers’ inadequate understanding of the angelic world, exemplifies the divergent metaphysical claims of theologians and Peripatetic philosophers.

In another rather long comment on this section, Cevdet discussed some of these contentious metaphysical issues. Included are the ancient philosophers’ conception of the soul and their related cosmology, which entailed ten intellects and nine heavenly spheres. They considered the human soul to be a spiritual substance which, if properly nourished by theoretical and practical virtues, would survive death and unite with the intellects. Souls of corrupt people, by contrast, were thought to suffer from a lack of theoretical knowledge. These doctrines do not overlap with Islamic theological beliefs concerning angels and life after death. Hence Cevdet criticized the views of the Peripatetic philosophers (meşşâî), despite conceding that they were generally right in their proof of the existence of the soul and the angelic world.Footnote ⁴⁰ In line with Ibn Khaldun, he asserted that the philosophers’ mistakes were in the details (tafsilât). Their limitation of the intellects to ten, for example, is rejected by the noble shari'a (şer'-i şerîf), as the number of angels in Islamic belief is not limited.

Rather than resort to religious discourse, however, Cevdet utilized new developments in the sciences to disprove some of the Peripatetic philosophers’ beliefs. For instance, in his refutation of philosophical cosmology, which is intertwined with metaphysical and ontological views of God and the soul, Cevdet maintained that there must be more than the ten intellects assumed by ancient philosophers (hükemâ-yı mütekaddimîn), since modern philosophers (hükemâ-yı müteahhirîn) had discovered many more planets. Therefore the new philosophy (hikmet-i cedîde) disproved the ancient philosophers’ statements on the ten intellects.Footnote ⁴¹ The point being made here is that the ancients determined the number of intellects based on the number of planets known at that time. However, new astronomy points out many more planets, as well as other findings which challenge philosophers’ ontology because the latter was based on an outdated astronomy.

Cevdet also mentioned some natural philosophers’ denial of the existence of an immaterial soul and life after death. His rejection of the materialist critique of the soul is noteworthy because in it he appealed to new medical knowledge. In his proof of the existence of the soul, Cevdet referenced extraordinary people (clairvoyants) who have knowledge of external events without having observed them. He claimed that, although modern surgery had identified the locations of particular thought processes in the brain (e.g. storage of memories), the brains of people who could foresee events did not exhibit any physical anomalies that could account for their ability, proving for him that the soul exists.Footnote ⁴² He also mentioned what the French called somnambule (actually transliterating rather than translating the word), explaining that it referred to sleepwalkers (seyrülnevm) who go to places they would not dare to tread while awake, as well as eating and drinking what they find while asleep. If, the next morning, they are asked about such activities, they remember nothing. Considering that such activities could occur while their senses were not in use, and that medical operations could not identify any anomalies in sleepwalkers’ brains, Cevdet claimed that their actions while asleep must have been prompted by spiritual conditions, hence proving the existence of the human soul.Footnote ⁴³ Cevdet, as we can see, invoked modern medical science in his proof of the soul, and his use of the word somnambule in this context indicates that he was reading or following contemporary French discussions.

However, despite his utilization of new knowledge, Cevdet concluded this ontological discussion of the soul with a conservative view, shared by Ibn Khaldun, that our reason cannot grasp or understand the soul's essential reality, and thus reason was discharged (ma'zul) from this inquiry. He suggested instead that the details of the world of spirits (âlem-i ervâh) and the next world (dâr-ı ukbâ) be left to religious proofs, to ensure that the path to salvation and peace is retained. Furthermore, Cevdet asserted that appealing to the way of reason and philosophy in dealing with this issue would result in devastation and regret.Footnote ⁴⁴ This rather pessimistic note on the inquiry into the soul and the afterlife stemmed from Cevdet's observation that previous inquiries into metaphysics by the Peripatetics had been proven false by modern science. Thus, joining a long history of critiques of Peripatetic philosophy in Islamic intellectual history, Cevdet sought peace of mind by refraining from such inquiries.Footnote ⁴⁵ This also seems like a strategy to avoid contentious metaphysical issues, since judgements on such issues could be falsified by future science. Therefore both a traditional attitude and the impact of a progressive history of science led Cevdet to shun the Peripatetics’ philosophical metaphysics and to continue to hold to traditional religious beliefs.

Cevdet's remarks on the topic of the soul show that he found rationalist and scientific inquiries regarding metaphysical issues to be limited, and also imply that science packaged as positivist knowledge would have been appealing to him. Elsewhere, his comments on the relationship between practical and theoretical philosophy demonstrate that, in fact, modern science did appeal to him because it was more empirically grounded than metaphysical. Engaging Ibn Khaldun's ideas on theoretical and practical reason, Cevdet stated that the purpose of theoretical philosophy was to know things as they exist (in themselves), and since the ancient philosophers assumed that human happiness was possible through theoretical philosophy, they put their efforts into knowing things in themselves. According to Cevdet, much of this effort was in vain, as they only gained doubtful and uncertain knowledge (vehm u şekk) as a result. However, Cevdet claimed, European philosophers followed the path laid out by Ibn Khaldun – that is, the path of experience – even as they entered somewhat into theoretical philosophy. Cevdet believed that Europeans perfected the mathematical and natural sciences beyond imagination and developed arts (sanâyi) to a surprising level by focusing on primary intelligibles (makulât-ı ûlâ) by way of experience, while theorizing to a lesser extent on secondary intelligibles.Footnote ⁴⁶ For Cevdet, what really distinguished contemporary European philosophers was their interest in things that seemed closer to empirical reality, such as the mathematical and natural sciences, and their immersion in experimental sciences. The point made by Ibn Khaldun, which Cevdet also embraced, was that the more remote the abstraction, the more likely it was that one would lose sight of reality and fall into falsehood. Therefore, in place of occupying oneself too much with logic and metaphysics, they both called for intense study of the natural and mathematical sciences and practical philosophy.

Cevdet's position shows that European interest in the natural sciences was well received by nineteenth-century Muslim scholars because it overlapped with a history of Islamic critiques of philosophical metaphysics, as provided by Ibn Khaldun and others. It is also with regard to such developments in Europe that we find Cevdet's rejection of Ibn Khaldun's criticism of natural philosophy and alchemy as transformed into the discipline of chemistry; here the translator points out that developments in Europe had proven the soundness of these branches of learning, as is evident in their reliance on observation and experiments and in their effect on industry and progress, as opposed to the period in which Ibn Khaldun was living.Footnote ⁴⁷

Ottomanizing and updating Ibn Khaldun's history of sciences

Cevdet's translation of the sixth chapter is also notable for other edits in which he both updated and Ottomanized the original work. While the simple fact that he translated the text from Arabic into Ottoman Turkish might make a sufficient case for the Ottomanization of Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, Cevdet also inserted information about Ottoman history and expanded accounts of topics that he found underdeveloped by Ibn Khaldun. For example, in his account of the rational sciences, Ibn Khaldun provided an overarching description of each, together with a brief history. The distinguishing feature of these sciences was that they did not belong to any specific nation or religion; as such his account included developments under Greek and Persian political powers as well as under the Muslim dynasties. In his interspersed comments, Cevdet supplemented Ibn Khaldun's account with biographical notes on figures mentioned in the text or expanded the account by informing the reader on matters unknown to the fourteenth-century author.

In his history of sciences during the Islamic period, for instance, Ibn Khaldun briefly described the emergence of interest in the philosophical disciplines during the reign of the Abbasid caliphs Abu Ja'far al-Mansūr (r. 754–75) and al-Ma'mūn (r. 813–33), pointing out that Muslim philosophers at the time had surpassed their predecessors, including Aristotle. The four most prominent of these philosophers were al-Fārābī (d. 950) and Ibn Sina (Avicenna, d. 1037) in the eastern Islamic domains, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes, d. 1198) and Abu Bakr ibn Sā’igh (Ibn Bāja or Avempace, d. 1138) in the western Islamic domains. Elaborating on Ibn Khaldun's brief history, Cevdet further discussed the emergence of the philosophical sciences during the second century of Islam (from 718 to 815).Footnote ⁴⁸ Moreover, Cevdet added more information about philosophy in the subsequent century and provided brief biographical accounts of al-Kindī (d. c.870), Qustā ibn Luqā (d. 912), Hunayn ibn Ishāq (d. 873), Thābit ibn Qurrā (d. 901) and other prominent philosophers who were translators as well.

Remarkably, Cevdet not only amended Ibn Khaldun's account but also added a brief history of the rational sciences after Ibn Khaldun's time, noting that the sciences and knowledge (ulûm and maârif) continued to shine for a while after the author's day.Footnote ⁴⁹ However, the effects and products of civilization decreased in Persia and Transoxiana due to political corruption and disturbances.Footnote ⁵⁰ Nevertheless, he proclaimed that Ibn Khaldun was writing at a time when the Ottoman star was rising. He suggested that, by conquering the Balkans, the Ottomans made up for losses in Andalus that the fourteenth-century author had mentioned. This appended history may be viewed as an Ottomanization of the text, an updating that connected its Ottoman audience to previous Islamic and world history, quenching the curiosity of modern Ottoman readers about later developments.

Cevdet's foray into the post-Ibn Khaldun history of the rational sciences included a brief recognition of developments in Europe as well. These notes are particularly striking as they reveal that Cevdet's Ottomanization of the text was not a random occurrence; rather he was consciously working to advance the Turkish language (note his pioneering work on Ottoman Turkish grammar) and the empire by considering the process of modernization in Europe. Cevdet stated that Europe progressed in the philosophical sciences to an extent that had not previously been imaginable, an achievement made possible by first translating Greek and Arabic books into Latin, and then into vernacular languages.Footnote ⁵¹ Cevdet then noted the surprising accomplishments in the mathematical and natural sciences in Europe, and consequent industrial innovations. All these developments were viewed as a product of vernacularization, which was also a priority for Ottoman reformers.

The belief that the vernacularization of the sciences was for the betterment of society seems to have run deep in Cevdet, as he brought up this issue again in a later comment on Ibn Khaldun's assertion that non-Arabic speakers were disadvantaged compared to native Arabic speakers in learning about science. Of course, that was because Arabic was the lingua franca of educated Muslims in the premodern period. Cevdet concurred with this assertion of Ibn Khaldun's as he reminded the reader of the previously mentioned vernacularization of science in Europe, which he believed European rulers had encouraged in order to promote the acquisition of knowledge within their borders, and to make their languages more powerful and prestigious. Cevdet mentioned French as an example. This comment on the role of vernacular translations shows that Cevdet viewed his own engagement in translation as a means of increasing the power and prestige of the Ottoman Turkish language and empire. This proto-nationalist perspective on scientific language is itself a modern development and shows that leading Ottoman reformers such as Cevdet saw a connection between scientific language and political power, hence the official attempt by the state to commission translations of scientific texts and to stimulate the production of new texts through institutions such as the Academy of Sciences (Encümen-i Dâniş) and later the Ottoman Scientific Society (Cemiyet-i İlmiye-i Osmaniye).Footnote ⁵² Cevdet was at the forefront of these developments and contributed to the production of knowledge that would enhance the power of the state by authoring several textbooks, such as Kavaid-i Türkiyye (a simplified version of Kavâid-i Osmâniyye) on Turkish grammar, Belâgât-ı Osmâniyye on rhetoric, Mi'yâr-ı Sedâd on logic and Âdâb-ı Sedâd on dialectic, all of which were to be used in the new schools. He also wrote a work on calendars (Takvimü’l-Edvâr) which he believed demonstrated that Turkish could be a language of sciences.Footnote ⁵³

Cevdet's interventions in Ibn Khaldun's account of the religious sciences further manifest his Ottomanization of the text, particularly in light of the religio-cultural differences between the author of the Muqaddimah, a North African who followed the Maliki school of law and Ash'ari theology, and its translator, an Ottoman who followed the Hanafi school of law and Maturidi theology. As an example, in discussing Islamic legal theory, Ibn Khaldun mentioned significant works on this subject, just as he did with other disciplines. Cevdet supplemented Ibn Khaldun's brief bibliography by noting the contributions of Taftazani (d. 1390), Molla Hüsrev (d. 1480) and Molla Fenari (d. 1431) to the field, adding that they were prominent scholars in the Ottoman Empire.Footnote ⁵⁴ The latter two scholars were, in fact, Ottomans whose works in legal theory were studied by later generations.

One of the translator's longest glosses comes in the section dealing with speculative theology, which again provides an alternative and more familiar account than that found in the main text. In his overview of various theological schools, Cevdet particularly emphasized Ash'aris and Maturidis as the most righteous, adding that Ibn Khaldun lacked information about Maturidis, and thus neglected them in his account. He noted that this did not, however, mean that they were not Sunnis.Footnote ⁵⁵ This intervention in Ibn Khaldun's narrative clearly shows Cevdet's tendency to rewrite the history of the religious sciences in a way that gave due weight to his own community. Overall, Cevdet's interventions in the history of the religious sciences reflect the sensitivities of an Ottoman scholar amending a text according to the demands of his own context. In addition to the linguistic idiom of Ottoman Turkish, it was such religio-cultural proclivities that inspired Cevdet and show his resulting translation and interventions to be an Ottomanization of the Muqaddimah.

As we have seen so far, in general, Cevdet intervened in Ibn Khaldun's narrative to update the text, to fill in the gaps, to object to some assertions, or to foreground the history of his own community. However, in at least one case, I would suggest that Cevdet's intervention was self-serving, designed to advance his own career and standing among the ruling bureaucratic elite. At issue was Ibn Khaldun's conception of expertise, based on his above-mentioned three levels of thinking that employed differentiating, theoretical and practical reason. In line with his view that mastery of one kind of craft or knowledge created a disadvantage in mastering another, Ibn Khaldun believed that immersion in one level of thinking would be disadvantageous to others. In his discussion of practical reason, he stated that theoreticians do not have a deep knowledge of practical matters, a point that is rephrased in another section of the sixth chapter where it is asserted that ‘of all human beings, scholars are the furthest from politics’. Ibn Khaldun argued that scholars could not grasp politics because they were busy generalizing and analogizing. Their universalist thinking was seen as not particularly apt in the practical realm of politics which concerned particular issues. Accordingly, average humans were more reliable in matters political, since their thinking was not tainted by the abstractions that preoccupied smart people and scholars.Footnote ⁵⁶

In his comment on this section, Cevdet concurred that scholars were not reliable in politics, in general. However, he added that it was possible for one to become an expert in both theoretical and practical philosophy, pointing out the examples of Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun himself among the pre-Ottoman Islamic scholars, and Kemalpaşazâde (d. 1534), İdris Bitlisi (d. 1520) and Ebüssuud Efendi (d. 1574) among the Ottoman scholars who aided rulers.Footnote ⁵⁷ Nevertheless, Cevdet acknowledged that these were rather exceptional figures, and confirmed the accuracy of Ibn Khaldun's assertion in general. Cevdet probably would have wished to discourage political elites from taking this point of Ibn Khaldun's as a universal truth and applying it to prevent someone like himself from being consulted on political matters or promoted to higher political offices. Therefore, even though Cevdet shared Ibn Khaldun's tripartite view of human thinking and professionalization, he intervened in the text to elide any implications that might be hazardous to his own career.