How would you define the concept of 'instrumentalising knowledge' in the context of the 17th century Ottoman Empire?
Knowledge can never be approached as accumulated for its own sake or out of pure intellectual curiosity, rather, it is and was often harnessed and mobilised to fulfill certain functions: to navigate diplomatic relations, to reinforce imperial authority and legitimacy, to advance military strategy and logistical operations, or to regulate social and economic life. What is especially interesting in the 17th century Ottoman world is how this process intersects with a period of imperial adjustment and crisis: fiscal strains, military pressures, and diplomatic challenges that demanded not only military might but also intellectual dexterity and practical expertise. Figures like Phanariote dragomans occupied crucial roles in this system, where the value of knowledge lay in its capacity to be deployed strategically, translated across cultural and linguistic boundaries, and adapted to rapidly changing circumstances. So, in sum: ‘Instrumentalising knowledge’ in this context means turning intellectual, scientific, or cultural capital into a tool for action — a resource deliberately shaped to serve the political, diplomatic, or administrative needs of the Ottoman state and its elite networks.
What role did scholars, bureaucrats, or other knowledge producers play in shaping or reinforcing political authority in the Ottoman Empire during this period?
In my case, dragomans (Phanariot interpreters and diplomats), like Alexandros Mavrocordatos, acted as cultural and linguistic mediators between the Ottoman court and European states. They were not just translators — they gathered intelligence, advised on foreign customs, and framed diplomatic discourse to the sultan's advantage. In response to possible unrest within the army and the court, as well as the public, scholars produced discourses that supported the value of peace, and diplomatic solutions in a time when the army faced big defeats and the empire's borders were retreating. We can speak of 'scientific' knowledge as well — astronomy, medicine, or geography — and their political applications. Court physicians forecast the health of sultans; astrologers predicted the outcomes of battles or celestial signs affecting imperial policy. Natural philosophers who produced treatises on climate, earthquakes, or plagues often did so to explain or justify imperial actions or natural disasters as divine approval or warnings.
Nowadays, the political function of knowledge is constantly questioned, with polarised discussions often oscillating from a total rebuttal of knowledge/expertise as elitism or as a mask for vested interests on the one hand, to a quasi-sacralisation of expertise (sometimes presented as a source of undebatable truth) on the other. Do you see any connection with the political use of knowledge in the period and regional context you are studying?
Indeed, there is a connection between the 17th century Ottoman world, or the early modern Mediterranean more broadly, and our contemporary debates about expertise, authority, and the politicisation of knowledge. The 17th century Ottoman Empire reminds us that expertise is never apolitical, and that debates over who controls knowledge, and how it should serve society or the state, are nothing new. Over centuries, “mirror for princes” (a literary genre of didactic political writings) were written to critique the misuse of appointments, the decline of meritocracy, therefore questioning the legitimacy of the existing elite who controlled the use of knowledge. The categories of “knowledge producer,” “state authority,” and “public” may have shifted in form, but the struggles over authority, legitimacy, and epistemic trust remain profoundly resonant.
Müberra Kapusuz is a PhD researcher in the Department of History of the European University Institute (EUI), specialising in early-modern history, intellectual history, and the Ottoman Empire. Her PhD thesis, ‘The Works and Networks of The Grand Dragoman of the Ottoman Porte, Alexandros Mavrokordatos (1641-1709)', is supervised by History Professor Giancarlo Casale, and Lauren Kassell.
Photo credits: Elector Max Emanuel receives a Turkish legation. Jacopo Amigoni (Napoli, 1682 – Madrid, 1752), Schleißheim Palace, via Wikimedia Commons.