Mavi Boncuk |
Cromer, Evelyn Baring (Lord Cromer) (1847-1917)
Colonial administrator from a banking family who had also served as an artillery officer. He was installed as the effective governor of Egypt (the British 'Agent') by British forces in 1883 and remaining until 1907. He consolidated British economic and political control of Egypt and developed it as a strategic military base for operations against Sudan and later Turkey.
July 12, 2004
Terminology | Fundamentalism, A Marxist View
Mavi Boncuk |
Fundamentalism
Although usually used in reference to a system of religious beliefs, fundamentalism refers to a social movement which aggressively and dogmatically asserts any “old fashioned” system of beliefs in defiance of modernism. The term was first used with reference to Christian preachers in the U.S. in the 1920s.
Social Development: Social relations characteristic of a certain stage of development of the labour process are reflected in systems of belief which allow people to “make sense” of the world they live in, and “rationalise” the status quo, i.e., to demonstrate that the world is the way it is for very good reason, be that the ‘Will of God’ or simply ‘what Pa always said’.
When social relations undergo change, and social strata which were privileged in former times find themselves under threat or even facing extinction, several responses are possible. One response is to dogmatically re-assert the time-honoured truths of former days, and in this way, mobilise the social forces to re-establish their former, relatively privileged way of life. Their resort to fundamentalism is an indication that these once privileged people really have no answer to the threat facing them: the marginalisation of their belief system reflects the fact that their underlying way of life has become obsolete.
Historical Development: Significant strands of fundamentalism in recent times are: (1) Christian Fundamentalism in the US over the past hundred years, (2) Islamic fundamentalism beginning with the Iranian Revolution of 1979, (3) dogmatic, “orthodox” socialism, and (4) “market fundamentalism” .
(1) Christian Fundamentalism: The U.S. was the first country to achieve the separation of Church and State, and the US economy is the most free from the ties of tradition, where the cash nexus has penetrated further than anywhere else. These special historical conditions have given Christianity a special place in U.S. society:
“the perfect Christian state is not the so-called Christian state — which acknowledges Christianity as its basis, as the state religion... the perfect Christian state is the atheistic state, the democratic state, the state which relegates religion to a place among the other elements of civil society.” [On the Jewish Question]
Since the days of the US Civil War, formerly privileged layers of society have sought to bring back the “Good Old Days” when things were governed by traditional patriarchal relations, by appeals to Old Fashioned Religion.
(2) Islamic fundamentalism: Iran, though a sovereign nation under the Shah, was totally dominated and exploited by the West, especially Britain and the U.S. Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters realised that their enemy was as much the “Holy Dollar” and the attraction of western values and ways of life, as it was American and British military and financial power and the brutal regime of torture they sponsored. Consequently, the strategy they developed to liberate their country was to carry out a revolutionary overthrow of the Shah’s regime and seize power in the name of an “Islamic Republic”. Women were forced to wear veils and abandon their careers and education (Iranian women had the highest levels of education and participation in the professions outside the Soviet Union, US and Europe), and priests were placed in charge of every institution from banks to schools and hospitals, to administer the country according to religious principles. While Iran has to some extent now recovered from this fundamentalist revolution, Islamic fundamentalism remains an extremely powerful social force from Algeria to Turkey to Indonesia.
The fundamentalist reaction, though disastrous in its consequences, is understandable, because the road forward to modern industry and prosperity at their own pace, with their own culture, is blocked by imperialism: only the most dogmatic assertion of their own traditional values can withstand bourgeois modernism in which:
“All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned ...” [Communist Manifesto].
(3) Socialist fundamentalism is a term used to refer to the dogmatic re-assertion of beliefs which were characteristic of the workers’ movement of an earlier time. Socialist fundamentalism is a common reaction to the continuous erosion of the gains of the past and the ever-present need to turn to new sections of the working class and new tactics and strategies in order to advance the workers’ struggle. “The social revolution ... cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future.” [Eighteenth Brumaire]
(4) Market fundamentalism is the dogmatic re-assertion of long-discredited theories of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, which no capitalist government or central bank would entertain in a fit. This kind of fundamentalism is found especially amongst small businessmen and middle managers of large to medium firms, who feel frustrated by the complexity of modern life, by the constant need to make compromises, take care of legalities, adhere to affirmative action policies, etc., etc..
Fundamentalism
Although usually used in reference to a system of religious beliefs, fundamentalism refers to a social movement which aggressively and dogmatically asserts any “old fashioned” system of beliefs in defiance of modernism. The term was first used with reference to Christian preachers in the U.S. in the 1920s.
Social Development: Social relations characteristic of a certain stage of development of the labour process are reflected in systems of belief which allow people to “make sense” of the world they live in, and “rationalise” the status quo, i.e., to demonstrate that the world is the way it is for very good reason, be that the ‘Will of God’ or simply ‘what Pa always said’.
When social relations undergo change, and social strata which were privileged in former times find themselves under threat or even facing extinction, several responses are possible. One response is to dogmatically re-assert the time-honoured truths of former days, and in this way, mobilise the social forces to re-establish their former, relatively privileged way of life. Their resort to fundamentalism is an indication that these once privileged people really have no answer to the threat facing them: the marginalisation of their belief system reflects the fact that their underlying way of life has become obsolete.
Historical Development: Significant strands of fundamentalism in recent times are: (1) Christian Fundamentalism in the US over the past hundred years, (2) Islamic fundamentalism beginning with the Iranian Revolution of 1979, (3) dogmatic, “orthodox” socialism, and (4) “market fundamentalism” .
(1) Christian Fundamentalism: The U.S. was the first country to achieve the separation of Church and State, and the US economy is the most free from the ties of tradition, where the cash nexus has penetrated further than anywhere else. These special historical conditions have given Christianity a special place in U.S. society:
“the perfect Christian state is not the so-called Christian state — which acknowledges Christianity as its basis, as the state religion... the perfect Christian state is the atheistic state, the democratic state, the state which relegates religion to a place among the other elements of civil society.” [On the Jewish Question]
Since the days of the US Civil War, formerly privileged layers of society have sought to bring back the “Good Old Days” when things were governed by traditional patriarchal relations, by appeals to Old Fashioned Religion.
(2) Islamic fundamentalism: Iran, though a sovereign nation under the Shah, was totally dominated and exploited by the West, especially Britain and the U.S. Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters realised that their enemy was as much the “Holy Dollar” and the attraction of western values and ways of life, as it was American and British military and financial power and the brutal regime of torture they sponsored. Consequently, the strategy they developed to liberate their country was to carry out a revolutionary overthrow of the Shah’s regime and seize power in the name of an “Islamic Republic”. Women were forced to wear veils and abandon their careers and education (Iranian women had the highest levels of education and participation in the professions outside the Soviet Union, US and Europe), and priests were placed in charge of every institution from banks to schools and hospitals, to administer the country according to religious principles. While Iran has to some extent now recovered from this fundamentalist revolution, Islamic fundamentalism remains an extremely powerful social force from Algeria to Turkey to Indonesia.
The fundamentalist reaction, though disastrous in its consequences, is understandable, because the road forward to modern industry and prosperity at their own pace, with their own culture, is blocked by imperialism: only the most dogmatic assertion of their own traditional values can withstand bourgeois modernism in which:
“All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned ...” [Communist Manifesto].
(3) Socialist fundamentalism is a term used to refer to the dogmatic re-assertion of beliefs which were characteristic of the workers’ movement of an earlier time. Socialist fundamentalism is a common reaction to the continuous erosion of the gains of the past and the ever-present need to turn to new sections of the working class and new tactics and strategies in order to advance the workers’ struggle. “The social revolution ... cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future.” [Eighteenth Brumaire]
(4) Market fundamentalism is the dogmatic re-assertion of long-discredited theories of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand, which no capitalist government or central bank would entertain in a fit. This kind of fundamentalism is found especially amongst small businessmen and middle managers of large to medium firms, who feel frustrated by the complexity of modern life, by the constant need to make compromises, take care of legalities, adhere to affirmative action policies, etc., etc..
Portrait | Cayan, Mahir (1945-1972)
Mavi Boncuk |
Cayan, Mahir (1945-1972)
The founder of the People Liberation Party-Front of Turkey (THKP-C).
He entered in 1964 to the Faculty of the Political Sciences of the Ankara University. He joined the Workers Party of Turkey (TIP) and the Federation of the Clubs of Ideas (FKF) (Later, Revolutionary Youth, Dev-Genç). He led a lot of demonstrations against NATO and US imperialism. Under the direct effect of the Cuban Revolution he advocated in the TIP the thesis of "National Democratic Revolution". He found the THKP in 1971 and periodical "Kurtulus" and organised some Urban Guerilla Actions. After the military putsch in March 1971 THKP kidnapped the Consulate General of Israel, Ephrahim Elrom. In 1972 to prevent the execution of Deniz Gezmis and friends, Çayan and the leader cadres of the Party kidnapped three British technicians who worked at a military centre. They were soon killed by Turkish soldiers at 30 March 1972 in Kizildere.
Cayan, Mahir (1945-1972)
The founder of the People Liberation Party-Front of Turkey (THKP-C).
He entered in 1964 to the Faculty of the Political Sciences of the Ankara University. He joined the Workers Party of Turkey (TIP) and the Federation of the Clubs of Ideas (FKF) (Later, Revolutionary Youth, Dev-Genç). He led a lot of demonstrations against NATO and US imperialism. Under the direct effect of the Cuban Revolution he advocated in the TIP the thesis of "National Democratic Revolution". He found the THKP in 1971 and periodical "Kurtulus" and organised some Urban Guerilla Actions. After the military putsch in March 1971 THKP kidnapped the Consulate General of Israel, Ephrahim Elrom. In 1972 to prevent the execution of Deniz Gezmis and friends, Çayan and the leader cadres of the Party kidnapped three British technicians who worked at a military centre. They were soon killed by Turkish soldiers at 30 March 1972 in Kizildere.
Portrait | Gezmis, Deniz (1947-1972)
Mavi Boncuk |
Gezmis, Deniz (1947-1972)
The founder of the People Liberation Army of Turkey (THKO).
As a teenager he entered the Faculty of Law of the University Istanbul. He joined Workers Party of Turkey (TIP) in 1965. He led a lot of student actions against US imperialism. He advocated the thesis "National Democratic Revolution". He founded in 1968 the Revolutionary Students Union. In 1969 he went to Palestine for three months, to join guerilla camps of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In 1970 THKO, the guerilla organisation, was founded. At 1971 Gezmis and his comrades kidnapped four USA soldiers. But they were arrested. The three leaders of THKO Deniz Gezmis, Hüseyin Inan and Yusuf Aslan were executed on 6 May 1972.
Gezmis, Deniz (1947-1972)
The founder of the People Liberation Army of Turkey (THKO).
As a teenager he entered the Faculty of Law of the University Istanbul. He joined Workers Party of Turkey (TIP) in 1965. He led a lot of student actions against US imperialism. He advocated the thesis "National Democratic Revolution". He founded in 1968 the Revolutionary Students Union. In 1969 he went to Palestine for three months, to join guerilla camps of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In 1970 THKO, the guerilla organisation, was founded. At 1971 Gezmis and his comrades kidnapped four USA soldiers. But they were arrested. The three leaders of THKO Deniz Gezmis, Hüseyin Inan and Yusuf Aslan were executed on 6 May 1972.
Portrait | Kivilcimli, Doktor Hikmet (1902-1971)
Mavi Boncuk |
Kivilcimli, Doktor Hikmet (1902-1971)
Turkish communist. The founder of the Homeland Party (Vatan Partisi). He was born in Pristine in 1902. At a very young age, he joined the guerrilla organisations that fought against imperialists in Anatolia during the early period of Turkish independence war. Then he went to Istanbul where he became a student of medicine and joined the Communist Party of Turkey. In 1925 he was elected to the Central Committee of the Party. He was arrested and sentenced to prison for 10 years, but one year later pardoned in the General Amnesty. But at the end of the 1929 he was arrested again. He remained in Elazig prison until 1932. In prison he wrote a lot of theoretical articles and pamphlets. In 1932 he founded a publishing house "Library of Marxism". But in 1938 his books and publications were found in the War School among the students and he was sentenced to prison for 15 years. He was pardoned in 1950 in general amnesty. He joined the re-foundation of the Communist Party. Under the oppression of the Democrat Party he founded the Homeland Party. But in 1958 the party was banned. After the military putsch in 1960 he founded the newspaper "Sosyalist". He attempted to unite the revolutionary forces. In 1971 he dead in Belgrade because of cancer.
Kivilcimli, Doktor Hikmet (1902-1971)
Turkish communist. The founder of the Homeland Party (Vatan Partisi). He was born in Pristine in 1902. At a very young age, he joined the guerrilla organisations that fought against imperialists in Anatolia during the early period of Turkish independence war. Then he went to Istanbul where he became a student of medicine and joined the Communist Party of Turkey. In 1925 he was elected to the Central Committee of the Party. He was arrested and sentenced to prison for 10 years, but one year later pardoned in the General Amnesty. But at the end of the 1929 he was arrested again. He remained in Elazig prison until 1932. In prison he wrote a lot of theoretical articles and pamphlets. In 1932 he founded a publishing house "Library of Marxism". But in 1938 his books and publications were found in the War School among the students and he was sentenced to prison for 15 years. He was pardoned in 1950 in general amnesty. He joined the re-foundation of the Communist Party. Under the oppression of the Democrat Party he founded the Homeland Party. But in 1958 the party was banned. After the military putsch in 1960 he founded the newspaper "Sosyalist". He attempted to unite the revolutionary forces. In 1971 he dead in Belgrade because of cancer.
Portrait | Kaypakkaya, Ibrahim (1949-1973)
Mavi Boncuk |
Kaypakkaya, Ibrahim (1949-1973)
The founder of the Communist Party of Turkey-Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML) and the Worker Peasant Liberation Army of Turkey (TIKKO).
During his university education he joined Federation of the Clubs of Ideas (FKF, later Revolutionary Youth, DEV-GENC). He advocated the thesis of the "National Democratic Revolution" and took up a position with the Maoist wing of DEV-GENC. The Maoist Wing (Proleter Devrimci Aydinlik, PDA) became later the Revolutionary Worker Peasant Party of Turkey (TIIKP), but Kaypakkaya and his comrades split up from the Party and found the TKP-ML and TIKKO. They appropriated the armed struggle and guerilla actions and developed the strategy of a People's War. In January 1973 after combat he was wounded and arrested while another leader of the movement, Ali Haydar Yildiz, was killed. After a long torture period he was killed under arrest on 18 May 1973. Ever since he has become a symbol of heroic resistance under torture.
Kaypakkaya, Ibrahim (1949-1973)
The founder of the Communist Party of Turkey-Marxist Leninist (TKP-ML) and the Worker Peasant Liberation Army of Turkey (TIKKO).
During his university education he joined Federation of the Clubs of Ideas (FKF, later Revolutionary Youth, DEV-GENC). He advocated the thesis of the "National Democratic Revolution" and took up a position with the Maoist wing of DEV-GENC. The Maoist Wing (Proleter Devrimci Aydinlik, PDA) became later the Revolutionary Worker Peasant Party of Turkey (TIIKP), but Kaypakkaya and his comrades split up from the Party and found the TKP-ML and TIKKO. They appropriated the armed struggle and guerilla actions and developed the strategy of a People's War. In January 1973 after combat he was wounded and arrested while another leader of the movement, Ali Haydar Yildiz, was killed. After a long torture period he was killed under arrest on 18 May 1973. Ever since he has become a symbol of heroic resistance under torture.
Portrait | Boran, Behice (1910-1987)
Behice Boran was arrasted a day before I was born. On the day I was born US Navy visited Istanbul and Izmir and the very next day Turkey was became a member of Nato.
Mavi Boncuk |
Boran, Behice (1910-1987)
The Chairwoman of the Worker Party of Turkey (TIP).
She became associate professor of sociology in the Ankara University. She found in 1950 the Turkish Peace Association. A year later she was sentenced to prison for 15 months, because of the attitude of the association against the Korean War. In 1953 she was arrested again connected with the Trial of the Communist Party. A year later she was released. She joined in 1962 Worker Party of Turkey (TIP). In 1970 at the 4th Congress of the Party she was elected as the general chairwoman. After the military putsch in 1971 the Party was banned and she was sentenced again to prison for 15 months. In 1975 she found the Second TIP. After the military putsch in 1980 she went to Europe. She died in 1987 in Brussels.
Mavi Boncuk |
Boran, Behice (1910-1987)
The Chairwoman of the Worker Party of Turkey (TIP).
She became associate professor of sociology in the Ankara University. She found in 1950 the Turkish Peace Association. A year later she was sentenced to prison for 15 months, because of the attitude of the association against the Korean War. In 1953 she was arrested again connected with the Trial of the Communist Party. A year later she was released. She joined in 1962 Worker Party of Turkey (TIP). In 1970 at the 4th Congress of the Party she was elected as the general chairwoman. After the military putsch in 1971 the Party was banned and she was sentenced again to prison for 15 months. In 1975 she found the Second TIP. After the military putsch in 1980 she went to Europe. She died in 1987 in Brussels.
Portrait | Suphi, Mustafa (1883-1921)
Mavi Boncuk |
Suphi, Mustafa (1883-1921)
Founder of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP).
He studied law in Istanbul, and political sciences in Paris. In Paris he worked as a correspondent of a Turkish newspaper (Tanin). He turned back to Turkey in 1910 and began working as a teacher of economy. In 1912 he became the redactor of the newspaper "Ifham". In 1913 after the Mustafa Sevket Pasha assassination he was arrested by the government of Ittihat ve Terakki (Party of Union and Progress). He was exiled in Sinop (Coast of Black Sea) where he writes some articles about western philosophy for the periodicals "Ictihat" and "Hak". In 1914 Suphi escaped from Sinop to Russia. With the beginning of the First World War he was arrested by the Russian government. He was again exiled, first in Caluga, then area of Urals. In exile he became acquainted with the Bolshevism and joined to the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolshevik). In July 1918 he organised a "Congress of the Turkish Left Socialists" in Moscow. In November he joined to Congress of Muslim Communists in Moscow and was elected to the "Central Committee of the All Russia Muslim Workers" that was depended on the "People Commissariat of Nations". He joined to the 1st Congress of the 3rd International as Turkish delegate. In same year he founded a communist newspaper "Yeni Dünya" (New World) and at 14 July 1919 in Moscow, Communist Party of Turkey, with 6 other Turkish communists. At 10 September 1920 in Baku "1st and General Congress of Turkish Communists" was attended by 74 delegates from Anatolia, Istanbul and Soviet Union. The Congress elected Mustafa Suphi as Chairman, Ethem Nejat as General Secretary and a Central Committee with seven members. Four months later in the relationship with Mustafa Kemal and the "Ankara Government" Suphi and his 14 comrades went to the Turkey to join the "Turkish Liberty War". But in Erzurum (in East Anatolia) people was agitated against them. They couldn't go in to the city. General Kazim Karabekir advised them to turn back. To go back to Baku over Batum they were sent to Trabzon (at the coast of Black Sea). Because of the demonstrations they couldn't go in to Trabzon too. They sailed with a small boat, but in the night of 29th January they were killed on the sea, with knifes, by Captain Yahya and his men that caught them.
Suphi, Mustafa (1883-1921)
Founder of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP).
He studied law in Istanbul, and political sciences in Paris. In Paris he worked as a correspondent of a Turkish newspaper (Tanin). He turned back to Turkey in 1910 and began working as a teacher of economy. In 1912 he became the redactor of the newspaper "Ifham". In 1913 after the Mustafa Sevket Pasha assassination he was arrested by the government of Ittihat ve Terakki (Party of Union and Progress). He was exiled in Sinop (Coast of Black Sea) where he writes some articles about western philosophy for the periodicals "Ictihat" and "Hak". In 1914 Suphi escaped from Sinop to Russia. With the beginning of the First World War he was arrested by the Russian government. He was again exiled, first in Caluga, then area of Urals. In exile he became acquainted with the Bolshevism and joined to the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolshevik). In July 1918 he organised a "Congress of the Turkish Left Socialists" in Moscow. In November he joined to Congress of Muslim Communists in Moscow and was elected to the "Central Committee of the All Russia Muslim Workers" that was depended on the "People Commissariat of Nations". He joined to the 1st Congress of the 3rd International as Turkish delegate. In same year he founded a communist newspaper "Yeni Dünya" (New World) and at 14 July 1919 in Moscow, Communist Party of Turkey, with 6 other Turkish communists. At 10 September 1920 in Baku "1st and General Congress of Turkish Communists" was attended by 74 delegates from Anatolia, Istanbul and Soviet Union. The Congress elected Mustafa Suphi as Chairman, Ethem Nejat as General Secretary and a Central Committee with seven members. Four months later in the relationship with Mustafa Kemal and the "Ankara Government" Suphi and his 14 comrades went to the Turkey to join the "Turkish Liberty War". But in Erzurum (in East Anatolia) people was agitated against them. They couldn't go in to the city. General Kazim Karabekir advised them to turn back. To go back to Baku over Batum they were sent to Trabzon (at the coast of Black Sea). Because of the demonstrations they couldn't go in to Trabzon too. They sailed with a small boat, but in the night of 29th January they were killed on the sea, with knifes, by Captain Yahya and his men that caught them.
Portrait | Ran, Nazim Hikmet (1902-1963)
Mavi Boncuk |
Ran, Nazim Hikmet (1902-1963)
Turkish communist poet. Born in Salonica, in 1902. He studied at the Galatasaray Lycée in Istanbul and attended the Naval War School in Heybeliada. While he was a board officer dropped because of ill health. He went to Anatolia to join independence war and worked as a teacher in Bolu. Then over Trabzon and Batum went to Moscow. At the University Kutv he studied political economy and sociology. He joined Communist Party of Turkey. In 1924 he returned to Turkey. Because of his articles and poems in the communist periodical "Aydinlik" he was sentenced to prison for 15 years, but escaped to Moscow. After the Amnesty Law at 1928 he returned again to Turkey. He worked at the periodical "Resimli Ay" In 1932 he was sentenced again to prison for 4 years, but this time pardoned in 1933 in the General Amnesty of 10th Year of Republic. He worked as a journalist and in the film studios. In 1938 his poems and books was found in the War School and he was condemned to prison for 28 years 4 month because of his "agitation in army". He was prison in Cankiri and Bursa. After a international campaign he was released but he lived under the police control. He escaped again to Moscow. At 25 July 1951 he lost his Turkish citizenship but became a Polish citizen. He died at 3 June 1963. His grave is in Moscow.
Ran, Nazim Hikmet (1902-1963)
Turkish communist poet. Born in Salonica, in 1902. He studied at the Galatasaray Lycée in Istanbul and attended the Naval War School in Heybeliada. While he was a board officer dropped because of ill health. He went to Anatolia to join independence war and worked as a teacher in Bolu. Then over Trabzon and Batum went to Moscow. At the University Kutv he studied political economy and sociology. He joined Communist Party of Turkey. In 1924 he returned to Turkey. Because of his articles and poems in the communist periodical "Aydinlik" he was sentenced to prison for 15 years, but escaped to Moscow. After the Amnesty Law at 1928 he returned again to Turkey. He worked at the periodical "Resimli Ay" In 1932 he was sentenced again to prison for 4 years, but this time pardoned in 1933 in the General Amnesty of 10th Year of Republic. He worked as a journalist and in the film studios. In 1938 his poems and books was found in the War School and he was condemned to prison for 28 years 4 month because of his "agitation in army". He was prison in Cankiri and Bursa. After a international campaign he was released but he lived under the police control. He escaped again to Moscow. At 25 July 1951 he lost his Turkish citizenship but became a Polish citizen. He died at 3 June 1963. His grave is in Moscow.
Portrait | Degmer, Sefik Hüsnü (1887-1959)
Mavi Boncuk |
Degmer, Sefik Hüsnü (1887-1959)
General secretary of the Communist Party of Turkey (1925-1927).
He was born in 1887, in Salonica. He studied natural sciences and medicine in Paris. He participated in the nationalist struggles of the Balkan War in 1912 and the first World War. In 1919 he led the periodical "Kurtulus". In the same year found the "Socialist Party of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey ( TIÇSF ). At the first congress of the Communist Party of Turkey (10 September 1920, Baku) he was elected to the Central Committee. After the death of Mustafa Suphi and the other leaders of the Party, he re-organised the Party. In 1921 he found the periodical "Aydinlik".
The Second Congress of the Party was organised under his leadership at 1 January 1925. At this congress he was elected to the Central Committee as General Secretary. A month later the "Aydinlik" and other publications of the Party were banned. He was arrested in 1927 and sentenced to prison for 18 months. Between 1929-1939 he lived in Europe. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Comintern between 1929-1935. He was arrested by the Nazis because of the case of "Reichstag Fire". He turned back to Turkey in 1939. After the second World War in 1946 he found legal Socialist Party of Labourer and Peasant of Turkey ( TSEKP ) 6 months later the party was banned and Degmer was again arrested. He was sentenced to prison this time for 5 years. In 1951 he was arrested again. He dead in exile in 1959.
Maria Dey(g)mer, sister Dolores (15 May 1916-1 August 1944) . Born in Constantinople, daughter of Sefik Hüsnü who belonged to the Ursulines of the Heart of Jesus perished during the Warsaw uprising.
Degmer, Sefik Hüsnü (1887-1959)
General secretary of the Communist Party of Turkey (1925-1927).
He was born in 1887, in Salonica. He studied natural sciences and medicine in Paris. He participated in the nationalist struggles of the Balkan War in 1912 and the first World War. In 1919 he led the periodical "Kurtulus". In the same year found the "Socialist Party of the Workers and Peasants of Turkey ( TIÇSF ). At the first congress of the Communist Party of Turkey (10 September 1920, Baku) he was elected to the Central Committee. After the death of Mustafa Suphi and the other leaders of the Party, he re-organised the Party. In 1921 he found the periodical "Aydinlik".
The Second Congress of the Party was organised under his leadership at 1 January 1925. At this congress he was elected to the Central Committee as General Secretary. A month later the "Aydinlik" and other publications of the Party were banned. He was arrested in 1927 and sentenced to prison for 18 months. Between 1929-1939 he lived in Europe. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Comintern between 1929-1935. He was arrested by the Nazis because of the case of "Reichstag Fire". He turned back to Turkey in 1939. After the second World War in 1946 he found legal Socialist Party of Labourer and Peasant of Turkey ( TSEKP ) 6 months later the party was banned and Degmer was again arrested. He was sentenced to prison this time for 5 years. In 1951 he was arrested again. He dead in exile in 1959.
Maria Dey(g)mer, sister Dolores (15 May 1916-1 August 1944) . Born in Constantinople, daughter of Sefik Hüsnü who belonged to the Ursulines of the Heart of Jesus perished during the Warsaw uprising.
Portrait | Belli, Mihri (1915-...)
Mavi Boncuk |
Belli, Mihri (1915-...)
The founder of the thesis of "National Democratic Revolution".
He studied economics in the USA. He became there a marxist and joined the African-American and Workers movements. He turned back to Turkey in 1940 and joined the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP). He organised the Union of the Progressive Youth. In 1944 he was arrested and sentenced to prison for two years. In 1946 he went to Greece to join the Greece Civil War as a guerilla. He was wounded and stayed at the hospitals in Bulgaria and Soviet Union. He entered to Turkey in 1950 and arrested, stayed in prison for seven years. After the military putsch in 1960 he wrote some articles at the periodicals "Türk Solu" and "Aydinlik Sosyalist Dergi". He escaped from Turkey after the fascist putsch in 1971 and joined the Palestine Liberation Organisation. After the Amnesty Law in 1974 he returned back to Turkey and founded Labourer Party of Turkey (TEP). After the fascist military putsch in 1980 went to Middle-East again, then to Sweden. Turned back to Turkey in 1992 and joined the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP).
Belli, Mihri (1915-...)
The founder of the thesis of "National Democratic Revolution".
He studied economics in the USA. He became there a marxist and joined the African-American and Workers movements. He turned back to Turkey in 1940 and joined the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP). He organised the Union of the Progressive Youth. In 1944 he was arrested and sentenced to prison for two years. In 1946 he went to Greece to join the Greece Civil War as a guerilla. He was wounded and stayed at the hospitals in Bulgaria and Soviet Union. He entered to Turkey in 1950 and arrested, stayed in prison for seven years. After the military putsch in 1960 he wrote some articles at the periodicals "Türk Solu" and "Aydinlik Sosyalist Dergi". He escaped from Turkey after the fascist putsch in 1971 and joined the Palestine Liberation Organisation. After the Amnesty Law in 1974 he returned back to Turkey and founded Labourer Party of Turkey (TEP). After the fascist military putsch in 1980 went to Middle-East again, then to Sweden. Turned back to Turkey in 1992 and joined the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP).
July 11, 2004
Feudal Structure of the Crimea
Mavi Boncuk |
Feudal Structure of the Crimea and the Tribal Beys
As it can be understood from the firmans and lands of the first Crimean khans named as Hajji Giray, Mengli Giray and Mehmed Giray I, the organisation of the Crimean Khanate was the continuation of the Golden Horde traditions. Since the period of Sahib Giray I, the Ottoman institutions started to gain a powerful influence. In the periods of Ghazi Giray II. Islâm Giray II., Canbek Giray and Hajji Giray, the Ottoman institutions and the civilisation had been established in a strong manner and the procedure of Ottoman divan and the system of feoffs were imitated. However, the main character of the state that was transferred from the Golden Horde State did not ever change.
There is not any significant difference between the description of Bronovius about the organisation of the khanate stated in the century XIV and the description of Baron de Tott Peysssonel in the second half of the century XVIII.
The Crimean khanate was subject to a tribal aristocracy in a feudal character essentially. Principally Şırınlar tribe that was one of the most important tribes that had played an important role in the last periods of the Golden Horde State and respectively the tribes of Arginlar, Barınlar and Kipchak beys constituted the highest class of this aristocracy that were called as "four Karachi beys".
In the middle of the century XVIII and according to the Crimean Abdülgaffar, the four karachi beys were arranged in respective order such as Şırınlar, Mansur-oglu, Şicuvut, Argınlar and Barınlar (According to Peyssonel, the tribe Barınlar came before the tribe of Argınlar). According to Pallas, the tribe of Barinlar is in the second line among these five families. As we know, this classification changed occasionally in accordance with the relations of the tribes with the khans. Bahadir Giray (1737-1741) had exiled the Mansurogulları family from the Crimea since they were rebellious people, and most of them were subjected to slaughter. These people were invited back in the period of Islâm Giray II (1644-1654) and they came to their older regions. Actually, the bey of Sicivut people was exalted among these four Karachi beys by Sahib Giray I. However, the family of Şırınlar had always preserved their first status. The Şırın Bey would bear the title of chief Karachi or chief-bey, and he would be married with the girls from the dynasty of the khan. Several members of this family would bear the title of Giray just like the members of the dynasty of the khan. Şırınlar bey had the highest rank in the state following the khan and the sultans that were the members of the dynasty. We should state that Şırınlar Bey was also called as chief-karachi, or emir-i kebir (great emir) in the period of Golden Horde khan, Toktamis and they were the leaders of the right-branch in these capacities. The large estate of the Şırınlar family in the Crimea was located between Karasu and Kerç.
In principle, the tribes would select the eldest person of the bey family as their bey and this selection would be certified by the khan. The Khan could not dismiss him. The tribes would recognise the authority of the khan by means of their beys and when the bey was rebellious, they would also be rebellious in the same way. This strict tribal tradition that constituted the feudal characteristic of the state threatened the authority of the khans by nature and it facilitated the civil wars. The four karachi beys had established dominion over the most powerful tribes in the Crimea; in other words, most of the Crimean forces were under their control. These four (five in the further periods) Karachi beys would participate in the divan of the khan and any resolution could not be enforced about any important issue without their votes of approval. They also played the leading role in the grand assemblies for the selection of the khans. Karachi beys were the conservative supporters of the "Jenghiz Khan Rule", actually the traditions of the Golden Horde State. Therefore, they severely opposed to any innovation that would violate this organisation and they were so sensitive in relation with their privileges. Generally, the election of the khans were subject to them, actually to Şırın beys rather than the ruler and any khan that was not supported by these beys could not establish dominion in the throne of the Crimea.
The Beys would sent one of the beys to Istanbul together with a round robin and they would notify the person would-be khan. In case that the khan that was supported by them was not sent, they would assume an opponent stance and they would gather in the site of Kayalar-Alti. Then, they would be involved in a struggle around the khan that they supported and they would generally go to the steppe lands in the north of the peninsula and collaborate with Nogay people (These rival khans were Saâdet Giray, Islâm Giray and Mehmed Giray). However, Şırın Beys had generally established cooperation with Istanbul in the capacity of chief-bey since the period of Eminek Mirza. Therefoe, they were able to protect and even to reinforce their influence and authorities without any involvement in a fight. It has been known that these Şırın Beys had played the essential role in the establishment of Ottoman protection over the khanate. However, they obeyed to the intrigues of Moscow in the further periods and they played the leading role in the decline of the khanate within the civil wars and the Russian invasion.
On the other hand, the tribes that constituted the Crimean army had always opposed to any opinion about the military innovations or the organisation of a new army. Therefore, they did not give permission for the development of the country with a further step than the period of Golden Horde State. Meanwhile, we should point out that there arose an interest towards the west in the Crimea as a result of the Russian invasions in the century XVIII. We have known that the Crimean Giray demanded the translation of Moliere from Baron de Tott (Memoires, II, 178) in the year of 1768. Finally, Sahin Giray Khan desired to become Petro of the Crimea. Even the Ottoman centralised system with a powerful influence could not change the feudal structure of the khanate that was based on the tribes. The karachi princes that directly had a right to vote in relation with the state affairs had several tribal beys and princes and these persons were also the members of the hereditary aristocrats. Some of the big families that appeared pursuant to the establishment of Ottoman kapı-kulu system (Janissary guard system) constituted a second class of aristocracy. Most of these people were actually the Circassian slaves.
Feudal Structure of the Crimea and the Tribal Beys
As it can be understood from the firmans and lands of the first Crimean khans named as Hajji Giray, Mengli Giray and Mehmed Giray I, the organisation of the Crimean Khanate was the continuation of the Golden Horde traditions. Since the period of Sahib Giray I, the Ottoman institutions started to gain a powerful influence. In the periods of Ghazi Giray II. Islâm Giray II., Canbek Giray and Hajji Giray, the Ottoman institutions and the civilisation had been established in a strong manner and the procedure of Ottoman divan and the system of feoffs were imitated. However, the main character of the state that was transferred from the Golden Horde State did not ever change.
There is not any significant difference between the description of Bronovius about the organisation of the khanate stated in the century XIV and the description of Baron de Tott Peysssonel in the second half of the century XVIII.
The Crimean khanate was subject to a tribal aristocracy in a feudal character essentially. Principally Şırınlar tribe that was one of the most important tribes that had played an important role in the last periods of the Golden Horde State and respectively the tribes of Arginlar, Barınlar and Kipchak beys constituted the highest class of this aristocracy that were called as "four Karachi beys".
In the middle of the century XVIII and according to the Crimean Abdülgaffar, the four karachi beys were arranged in respective order such as Şırınlar, Mansur-oglu, Şicuvut, Argınlar and Barınlar (According to Peyssonel, the tribe Barınlar came before the tribe of Argınlar). According to Pallas, the tribe of Barinlar is in the second line among these five families. As we know, this classification changed occasionally in accordance with the relations of the tribes with the khans. Bahadir Giray (1737-1741) had exiled the Mansurogulları family from the Crimea since they were rebellious people, and most of them were subjected to slaughter. These people were invited back in the period of Islâm Giray II (1644-1654) and they came to their older regions. Actually, the bey of Sicivut people was exalted among these four Karachi beys by Sahib Giray I. However, the family of Şırınlar had always preserved their first status. The Şırın Bey would bear the title of chief Karachi or chief-bey, and he would be married with the girls from the dynasty of the khan. Several members of this family would bear the title of Giray just like the members of the dynasty of the khan. Şırınlar bey had the highest rank in the state following the khan and the sultans that were the members of the dynasty. We should state that Şırınlar Bey was also called as chief-karachi, or emir-i kebir (great emir) in the period of Golden Horde khan, Toktamis and they were the leaders of the right-branch in these capacities. The large estate of the Şırınlar family in the Crimea was located between Karasu and Kerç.
In principle, the tribes would select the eldest person of the bey family as their bey and this selection would be certified by the khan. The Khan could not dismiss him. The tribes would recognise the authority of the khan by means of their beys and when the bey was rebellious, they would also be rebellious in the same way. This strict tribal tradition that constituted the feudal characteristic of the state threatened the authority of the khans by nature and it facilitated the civil wars. The four karachi beys had established dominion over the most powerful tribes in the Crimea; in other words, most of the Crimean forces were under their control. These four (five in the further periods) Karachi beys would participate in the divan of the khan and any resolution could not be enforced about any important issue without their votes of approval. They also played the leading role in the grand assemblies for the selection of the khans. Karachi beys were the conservative supporters of the "Jenghiz Khan Rule", actually the traditions of the Golden Horde State. Therefore, they severely opposed to any innovation that would violate this organisation and they were so sensitive in relation with their privileges. Generally, the election of the khans were subject to them, actually to Şırın beys rather than the ruler and any khan that was not supported by these beys could not establish dominion in the throne of the Crimea.
The Beys would sent one of the beys to Istanbul together with a round robin and they would notify the person would-be khan. In case that the khan that was supported by them was not sent, they would assume an opponent stance and they would gather in the site of Kayalar-Alti. Then, they would be involved in a struggle around the khan that they supported and they would generally go to the steppe lands in the north of the peninsula and collaborate with Nogay people (These rival khans were Saâdet Giray, Islâm Giray and Mehmed Giray). However, Şırın Beys had generally established cooperation with Istanbul in the capacity of chief-bey since the period of Eminek Mirza. Therefoe, they were able to protect and even to reinforce their influence and authorities without any involvement in a fight. It has been known that these Şırın Beys had played the essential role in the establishment of Ottoman protection over the khanate. However, they obeyed to the intrigues of Moscow in the further periods and they played the leading role in the decline of the khanate within the civil wars and the Russian invasion.
On the other hand, the tribes that constituted the Crimean army had always opposed to any opinion about the military innovations or the organisation of a new army. Therefore, they did not give permission for the development of the country with a further step than the period of Golden Horde State. Meanwhile, we should point out that there arose an interest towards the west in the Crimea as a result of the Russian invasions in the century XVIII. We have known that the Crimean Giray demanded the translation of Moliere from Baron de Tott (Memoires, II, 178) in the year of 1768. Finally, Sahin Giray Khan desired to become Petro of the Crimea. Even the Ottoman centralised system with a powerful influence could not change the feudal structure of the khanate that was based on the tribes. The karachi princes that directly had a right to vote in relation with the state affairs had several tribal beys and princes and these persons were also the members of the hereditary aristocrats. Some of the big families that appeared pursuant to the establishment of Ottoman kapı-kulu system (Janissary guard system) constituted a second class of aristocracy. Most of these people were actually the Circassian slaves.
Ottomanism, Pan-Islamism, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism
Early Ottoman intellectuals, such as Akchura, Tekinalp, Gokalp, and Namik Kemal inspired by the decadence of the Empire and the need to reform, elaborated on several ideologies that paved the way for Kemal’s reforms. Since the Tanzimat (1839) there appeared the ideologies of Ottomanism, Pan-Islamism, Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism.
Despite some references to the Turkish people as a distinctive nation5, until early 20th century the term ‘Turk’ could mean anyone belonging to the Muslim millet (Karpat 1982: 165) and was often used negatively, even by elite Ottomans, to describe crude Anatolian villagers (Poulton 1999: 81,89; Smith 1999: 143)6. A more ethnocentric Turkish consciousness evolved when the Balkan states championed the freedom of their unredeemed kin living under Ottoman rule (Ahmad 1969: 154); a process culminated with the Greek-Turkish war 1919-1923. Hence, although Turkey’s nation-building trail seems to share similar foundations with the Greek paradigm, a clear differentiation is that its appearance and evolution followed with substantial delay.
From: Continuity and change in the minority policies of Greece and Turkey by Georgios Niarchos,Ph.D. candidate at the European Institute, LSE
Mavi Boncuk |
Ottomanism, adopting West-European ideas, advocated a policy of equal rights to all religious communities and ethnic groups in order to integrate them within the Imperial regime. Pan-Turkists rejected it because such provisions to ethnicities would curtail the rights of the Turkish population. Pan-Islamism acquired a religious anti-imperialist character as a reaction to the presence of the Great Powers over the Muslim world and focused on the common faith in order to unite the empire’s subjects, though a large part of them were Christians. It was initiated by Abdulhamit II aiming to prevent the secession of the Arab provinces and control the spread of colonialism, Christianization and Pan-Slavism. His deposition in 1909 and the subsequent Arabic uprisings sealed the movement’s fate. Pan-Turkism was embraced by the Young Turks, when their Ottomanism did not seem to appeal to non-Muslims. It contained extreme and racist principles and its focus included all Turkish and Turkish-speaking diasporas in the Balkans, Central Asia and the Russian Empire. It still survives in the ideology of extreme right-wing political parties like Turkes’s Nationalist Action Party. Pan-Turanism (in close relation with Turanism) was used by Akchura in order to express ‘Turan’, as the common cradle of all Ural-Altaic and Finno-Hungarian people, envisaging their union, while Tekinalp included only Turkish people. Gokalp-probably the most influential Pan-Turkist and later Turkish nationalist-distinguished Pan-Turanism from realistic politics, due to its utopic character. For these movements see, Hostler 1957, Landau 1985, Pesmazoglou 1993: 240-262, Poulton 1999: 72-116, Zarevad 1991.
Tekinalp, Turkish Patriot: 1883-1961.
Mavi Boncuk |
Tekinalp, Turkish Patriot: 1883-1961.
This is a perfect and well detailed book about Munis Tekinalp "Tekinalp" (aka. Moise Cohen), one of the first and most important and influent theorists of the Turkish patriotism and Turkish identity along Ziya Gokalp and others, including large quotes from his works. In the book, his life is very well descripted as a very productive intellectual and writer at all of his long life, his thoughts on the Turkish Resurrection, his promotions and works on the behalf of the Turkish Renaissance. After the Proclamation of the Republic, Tekinalp took part of the reforms who leads to Westernisation of the Turkiye. As a enthusiastic supporter of the Ataturk's principles, he wrote one of most complete and consistent desciptions of these principles and he interpreted firstly by the frame of an ideology "Kemalism". He agreed and demostrated as a believing Jew, how valid the definition of a Turk : " Who feels Turk, is a Turk" whatever his religion, race or nationality. Thinking how different this definition at other "Civilised" countries , who relies it to the blood, race, or to born at a country, he showed well the invalidity of the continuous injustices, unfairnesses, and libelous propagandas against the presence of the Turks on the Worlds. He is a great Turk and patriot.
Tekinalp, Turkish Patriot: 1883-1961.
This is a perfect and well detailed book about Munis Tekinalp "Tekinalp" (aka. Moise Cohen), one of the first and most important and influent theorists of the Turkish patriotism and Turkish identity along Ziya Gokalp and others, including large quotes from his works. In the book, his life is very well descripted as a very productive intellectual and writer at all of his long life, his thoughts on the Turkish Resurrection, his promotions and works on the behalf of the Turkish Renaissance. After the Proclamation of the Republic, Tekinalp took part of the reforms who leads to Westernisation of the Turkiye. As a enthusiastic supporter of the Ataturk's principles, he wrote one of most complete and consistent desciptions of these principles and he interpreted firstly by the frame of an ideology "Kemalism". He agreed and demostrated as a believing Jew, how valid the definition of a Turk : " Who feels Turk, is a Turk" whatever his religion, race or nationality. Thinking how different this definition at other "Civilised" countries , who relies it to the blood, race, or to born at a country, he showed well the invalidity of the continuous injustices, unfairnesses, and libelous propagandas against the presence of the Turks on the Worlds. He is a great Turk and patriot.
July 09, 2004
Call for Papers | Ottoman and Atlantic Empires
Mavi Boncuk |
Call for Papers | Ottoman and Atlantic Empires
Ottoman and Atlantic Empires in the Early Modern World
October 19-21, 2005, Istanbul, Turkey
The Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, the Huntington Library, the United States Consulate in Istanbul, and Bogaziçi University invite proposals for papers and workshops to be presented at a conference on “Ottoman and Atlantic Empires in the Early Modern World” to be held in Istanbul, Turkey, October 19-21, 2005.
In the early modern world two of the principal zones of imperial expansion were in the eastern Mediterranean, fostered under the suzerainty of the Ottomans, and around the North Atlantic rim, driven by the competition among European monarchies. Two events in the fifteenth century signaled the intensification of contact and rivalry. The interconnections between Europeans and Ottomans became more intense with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and Columbus’s voyage to the west in 1492 marked the onset of European penetration into the Western hemisphere and beyond. Although the timing and particularities of empire formation varied, contacts between the Ottomans and Europeans, knowledge of each other, and desires for each other’s territory and goods influenced their respective political agendas, religious views, mental constructs, economic goals, and cultural values. This conference calls for historically grounded cross-cultural comparisons that will explore such intersections between Ottoman and Atlantic (particularly Anglo-American) empires and world views in the early modern era.
The conference will take two forms, one consisting of formal sessions with papers and the second constituting methodological and historiographical workshops focused on primary sources. The program will be structured so as to match or create workshops that coincide with themes in the sessions. The workshops will then serve as critique and commentary on the formal presentations. We expect that Ottoman scholars will read in the histories of early modern European empires in the North Atlantic, and American and British historians will read in the history of the early modern Ottoman empire.
Formal Presentations
Proposals for formal papers might deal with interactions between people residing in the Ottoman and/or Atlantic (and especially Anglo-American) empires. They might include, but are not limited to, discussions of travelers and their accounts, political structures, commercial networks, social relationships, and questions of diversity.
Workshops
Our hope is that the methodologies and historiographies of historians of the Atlantic world will shed new light on the materials of Ottoman historians, and vice versa. Thus, each workshop will focus on analyses of primary sources from both the Ottoman and Atlantic worlds and perspectives. The workshops will be informal, will build off of a series of (probably on-line) discussions between the participants, and will be considered as experiments in cross-cultural and/or comparative conversation. These workshops will make up the more experimental aspect of the conference. We envision a series of sessions that would allow Ottoman and Atlantic empire scholars together to consider the most basic differences and commonalities in their fields, by exploring key texts for what these reveal about the various empires and about the ways in which these have been or can be studied. Proposals for contributions to workshops should propose a specific document or group of documents in your field. These may be newly-discovered or well-known. It is critical, though, that they be accessible to scholars in the other field (most obviously, this means that Ottoman documents must be translated into English).
Both papers and workshops might coalesce around the following topics:
Early stages of empire building. In the Ottoman case, the focus will be upon the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries; in the English case, it will be on the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
Cultural exchanges between empires and indigenous peoples. The English, the French, the Spanish, and the Ottomans all had to contend with a host of peoples in regions of empire building. It is likely that both religion and trade will constitute important sub-themes of this topic.
Law and lawlessness. The creation of legal structures and legal codes in diverse environments is common to the early modern imperial experience. In each case, these vary over place and time, and influence the authority and legitimacy of the state.
Resistance to empire. Not only resistance and rebellion, but also cooptation characterized early modern empires.
Cultural constructs and identities. Both the Ottoman and Atlantic world empires were continuously evolving. They also persistently generated new and evolving identities among their various subject peoples.
The deadline for submission of proposals is August 2, 2004. Please send a proposal of no more than 500 words along with a one-page curriculum vitae to:
Inquiries may be directed to :
Andrew Cayton
caytonar@muohio.edu
Department of History
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
Daniel Goffman
dgoffman@depaul.edu
Department of History
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois 60614
Edhem Eldem
eldem@boun.edu.tr
Department of History
Bogaziçi University
34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
Call for Papers | Ottoman and Atlantic Empires
Ottoman and Atlantic Empires in the Early Modern World
October 19-21, 2005, Istanbul, Turkey
The Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, the Huntington Library, the United States Consulate in Istanbul, and Bogaziçi University invite proposals for papers and workshops to be presented at a conference on “Ottoman and Atlantic Empires in the Early Modern World” to be held in Istanbul, Turkey, October 19-21, 2005.
In the early modern world two of the principal zones of imperial expansion were in the eastern Mediterranean, fostered under the suzerainty of the Ottomans, and around the North Atlantic rim, driven by the competition among European monarchies. Two events in the fifteenth century signaled the intensification of contact and rivalry. The interconnections between Europeans and Ottomans became more intense with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, and Columbus’s voyage to the west in 1492 marked the onset of European penetration into the Western hemisphere and beyond. Although the timing and particularities of empire formation varied, contacts between the Ottomans and Europeans, knowledge of each other, and desires for each other’s territory and goods influenced their respective political agendas, religious views, mental constructs, economic goals, and cultural values. This conference calls for historically grounded cross-cultural comparisons that will explore such intersections between Ottoman and Atlantic (particularly Anglo-American) empires and world views in the early modern era.
The conference will take two forms, one consisting of formal sessions with papers and the second constituting methodological and historiographical workshops focused on primary sources. The program will be structured so as to match or create workshops that coincide with themes in the sessions. The workshops will then serve as critique and commentary on the formal presentations. We expect that Ottoman scholars will read in the histories of early modern European empires in the North Atlantic, and American and British historians will read in the history of the early modern Ottoman empire.
Formal Presentations
Proposals for formal papers might deal with interactions between people residing in the Ottoman and/or Atlantic (and especially Anglo-American) empires. They might include, but are not limited to, discussions of travelers and their accounts, political structures, commercial networks, social relationships, and questions of diversity.
Workshops
Our hope is that the methodologies and historiographies of historians of the Atlantic world will shed new light on the materials of Ottoman historians, and vice versa. Thus, each workshop will focus on analyses of primary sources from both the Ottoman and Atlantic worlds and perspectives. The workshops will be informal, will build off of a series of (probably on-line) discussions between the participants, and will be considered as experiments in cross-cultural and/or comparative conversation. These workshops will make up the more experimental aspect of the conference. We envision a series of sessions that would allow Ottoman and Atlantic empire scholars together to consider the most basic differences and commonalities in their fields, by exploring key texts for what these reveal about the various empires and about the ways in which these have been or can be studied. Proposals for contributions to workshops should propose a specific document or group of documents in your field. These may be newly-discovered or well-known. It is critical, though, that they be accessible to scholars in the other field (most obviously, this means that Ottoman documents must be translated into English).
Both papers and workshops might coalesce around the following topics:
Early stages of empire building. In the Ottoman case, the focus will be upon the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries; in the English case, it will be on the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
Cultural exchanges between empires and indigenous peoples. The English, the French, the Spanish, and the Ottomans all had to contend with a host of peoples in regions of empire building. It is likely that both religion and trade will constitute important sub-themes of this topic.
Law and lawlessness. The creation of legal structures and legal codes in diverse environments is common to the early modern imperial experience. In each case, these vary over place and time, and influence the authority and legitimacy of the state.
Resistance to empire. Not only resistance and rebellion, but also cooptation characterized early modern empires.
Cultural constructs and identities. Both the Ottoman and Atlantic world empires were continuously evolving. They also persistently generated new and evolving identities among their various subject peoples.
The deadline for submission of proposals is August 2, 2004. Please send a proposal of no more than 500 words along with a one-page curriculum vitae to:
Inquiries may be directed to :
Andrew Cayton
caytonar@muohio.edu
Department of History
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
Daniel Goffman
dgoffman@depaul.edu
Department of History
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois 60614
Edhem Eldem
eldem@boun.edu.tr
Department of History
Bogaziçi University
34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
HOW DID ELIO BECOME EROL?
From Jerusalem to Istanbul, the Search for an Identity / İSTANBUL'DAN KUDÜS'E BİR KİMLİK ARAYIŞI by Erol Haker
Erol Haker, Kitap Publishing, 2004, 270 pages
The Memoirs of Erol Haker should be evaluated as a modest but still worthy contribution to the cultural and social history of Turkish minorities.
Mavi Boncuk |
Article by Rifat N. Bali
“From Jerusalem to Istanbul, the Search for an Identity” is Erol Haker’s second book. Formerly, we made our acquaintance with him through his first book called “Once Upon a time Jews Lived in Kirklareli, the Story of the Adato Family” (Iletisim Publications 2002). In his first book Haker narrated to his readers the story of the Adato Family in its historical perspective. The second book of the author could be considered to be a sort of a continuation of his first book. In his second book Erol Haker exposes the story of his life adventure before us, beginning with his birth in 1930. The original of the book is in English, and through the worthy translation of Natali Medina, has now been made accessible to readers of the Turkish language.
The book should be evaluated as a modest but worthy contribution to the social cultural and political history of Turkish minorities. The reason for the change of name of Elio Adato to Erol Haker in 1938, on the eve of World War Two, is a simple one. It was father Adato’s realization that as a non-Muslim, to lead a comfortable life in Turkey is possible only by changing ones religion to the Muslim religion. The conversion need not be a real one but only as the only available means to be perceived and accepted as a Turk. Father Adato did not have in mind to become a practicing Muslim. When he was eight years old Elio Adato who became a Muslim not by his will embarked in this adventure until he was 21 years old when the adventure ended by his reconversion back to the Jewish faith.
The memories of Erol Haker are laid out before us in the context of a middle class Jewish family of the times. His father believed that to be successful in life, or in other words, to make a lot of money it was necessary not to want to receive a university education and instead, stake out ones place in the world of commerce. His mother thought that it was necessary to do this so that he marries well. To this end father Haker set up for his son an agency for importing drugs towards which Erol did not show any interest; he believed that taking the major decisions of his life was his responsibility. This meant for Erol acquiring a good education (first at Robert College, then at the London School of Economics). In our times even if one does not confine oneself to Jewish families are there not many families of equal rank who have similar expectations from their sons? For this reason, and simply put, Erol Haker is telling us in his simple but flowing style, an outstanding life story which many of us often heard or witnessed.
Discrimination in Daily Life
Another side to Haker’s memoirs consists of his showing us feelings of anti-Semitism among well-educated persons manifested in their lives. These persons were the pick of the pick, which when encountering any thing that in their daily lives related to Jews show their hand by stereotyping and discriminating against them. The observations of this kind that appear in the book contradict opinions formed over the last ten years in the leadership of the Jewish minority, as expressed by newspaper persons, and by members of the minority in general, in populist terms, namely “if the state would not exist we would live with each other like brothers, like a couple of roses in a rose garden.” is patently false.
Contrary to general belief the main source of anti-Semitism the State is not the main source of the phenomenon, but rather it is ordinary man of the street who constitutes its main source. In this sense the many examples in Hakers’ book contains are sprinkled, in systematic fashion, in its 19 chapters. They show the process of discrimination and stereotyping as practiced by the “man in the street”. In the same chapter, Haker maintains that from the present situation view point Jews who live at present in the Turkish Republic have three options. The first one is to reconcile oneself to present conditions namely accepting that they cannot become real Turks. Under such circumstances the thing to do is to speak a native Turkish, adopt Turkish names, and more importantly, limit their social and political ambition. The second option is to fully assimilate into Turkish culture and earn the status of a Turk of the Mosaic faith. The third and most radical solution is to adopt the Muslim religion… According to Son Haker Father Adato had chosen the right way in 1938. For an atheist converting to the Muslim religion the issue of formal conversion was not an important one. What counted was that the family succeeds in getting accepted as Turks. However, according to Haker the fault that his father made was to fail to complete the process of becoming a Turk. In other words, he failed to become part of a Turkish milieu. When he failed to do that, the new Haker family was bound to terminate the adventure by going back.
Born in Istanbul and having lived his life in Istanbul, London, Jerusalem, Stockholm, Nairobi and Washington DC, the economist Haker, who is 74 years old has preferred not to sit idle in his retirement, and has adopted the difficult and troublesome occupation of a professional researcher. We congratulate him for his decision to do so. This way he has succeeded in making important and valuable contributions to the history of his former fatherland.
Erol Haker, Kitap Publishing, 2004, 270 pages
The Memoirs of Erol Haker should be evaluated as a modest but still worthy contribution to the cultural and social history of Turkish minorities.
Mavi Boncuk |
Article by Rifat N. Bali
“From Jerusalem to Istanbul, the Search for an Identity” is Erol Haker’s second book. Formerly, we made our acquaintance with him through his first book called “Once Upon a time Jews Lived in Kirklareli, the Story of the Adato Family” (Iletisim Publications 2002). In his first book Haker narrated to his readers the story of the Adato Family in its historical perspective. The second book of the author could be considered to be a sort of a continuation of his first book. In his second book Erol Haker exposes the story of his life adventure before us, beginning with his birth in 1930. The original of the book is in English, and through the worthy translation of Natali Medina, has now been made accessible to readers of the Turkish language.
The book should be evaluated as a modest but worthy contribution to the social cultural and political history of Turkish minorities. The reason for the change of name of Elio Adato to Erol Haker in 1938, on the eve of World War Two, is a simple one. It was father Adato’s realization that as a non-Muslim, to lead a comfortable life in Turkey is possible only by changing ones religion to the Muslim religion. The conversion need not be a real one but only as the only available means to be perceived and accepted as a Turk. Father Adato did not have in mind to become a practicing Muslim. When he was eight years old Elio Adato who became a Muslim not by his will embarked in this adventure until he was 21 years old when the adventure ended by his reconversion back to the Jewish faith.
The memories of Erol Haker are laid out before us in the context of a middle class Jewish family of the times. His father believed that to be successful in life, or in other words, to make a lot of money it was necessary not to want to receive a university education and instead, stake out ones place in the world of commerce. His mother thought that it was necessary to do this so that he marries well. To this end father Haker set up for his son an agency for importing drugs towards which Erol did not show any interest; he believed that taking the major decisions of his life was his responsibility. This meant for Erol acquiring a good education (first at Robert College, then at the London School of Economics). In our times even if one does not confine oneself to Jewish families are there not many families of equal rank who have similar expectations from their sons? For this reason, and simply put, Erol Haker is telling us in his simple but flowing style, an outstanding life story which many of us often heard or witnessed.
Discrimination in Daily Life
Another side to Haker’s memoirs consists of his showing us feelings of anti-Semitism among well-educated persons manifested in their lives. These persons were the pick of the pick, which when encountering any thing that in their daily lives related to Jews show their hand by stereotyping and discriminating against them. The observations of this kind that appear in the book contradict opinions formed over the last ten years in the leadership of the Jewish minority, as expressed by newspaper persons, and by members of the minority in general, in populist terms, namely “if the state would not exist we would live with each other like brothers, like a couple of roses in a rose garden.” is patently false.
Contrary to general belief the main source of anti-Semitism the State is not the main source of the phenomenon, but rather it is ordinary man of the street who constitutes its main source. In this sense the many examples in Hakers’ book contains are sprinkled, in systematic fashion, in its 19 chapters. They show the process of discrimination and stereotyping as practiced by the “man in the street”. In the same chapter, Haker maintains that from the present situation view point Jews who live at present in the Turkish Republic have three options. The first one is to reconcile oneself to present conditions namely accepting that they cannot become real Turks. Under such circumstances the thing to do is to speak a native Turkish, adopt Turkish names, and more importantly, limit their social and political ambition. The second option is to fully assimilate into Turkish culture and earn the status of a Turk of the Mosaic faith. The third and most radical solution is to adopt the Muslim religion… According to Son Haker Father Adato had chosen the right way in 1938. For an atheist converting to the Muslim religion the issue of formal conversion was not an important one. What counted was that the family succeeds in getting accepted as Turks. However, according to Haker the fault that his father made was to fail to complete the process of becoming a Turk. In other words, he failed to become part of a Turkish milieu. When he failed to do that, the new Haker family was bound to terminate the adventure by going back.
Born in Istanbul and having lived his life in Istanbul, London, Jerusalem, Stockholm, Nairobi and Washington DC, the economist Haker, who is 74 years old has preferred not to sit idle in his retirement, and has adopted the difficult and troublesome occupation of a professional researcher. We congratulate him for his decision to do so. This way he has succeeded in making important and valuable contributions to the history of his former fatherland.
Armenian Allegations and Deportees of Malta
Mavi Boncuk |
Armenian Allegations and Deportees of Malta
In 1919, British officials deported some 140 Turks to Malta to be tried on various charges of war crimes. The following article explains the proceedings until all deportees were returned to their homeland upon lack of evidence.
During the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta. About one hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the British authorities.
Nearly all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors, editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of Malta.
They were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of "offences":
failure to comply with Armistice terms,
ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and
outrages to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus.
The last category of "offence", directly related to the Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode of early 1920’s give us, indeed, a true idea about much controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages" in Turkey during World War I.
The British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord Curzon on September 1919, the following:
"The deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous ... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was impossible to rely on known facts..."
"It is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be sent back to Turkey at present..." (1)
It seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of Armenian massacre were a part of wartime propaganda and were still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the armistice period.
But to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal were indeed quite different things. The responsible British authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the first convenient opportunity". (2)
Upon this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920 that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish deportees of such a crime. (3)
On August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5)
The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied "that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantages." Further he added: "The American government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote:
"No one of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense.
"The whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory...
"There are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by Armenians of differing values...
"The Americans must be in possession of a mass of invaluable material..." (7)
To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word "massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e. Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the assistance of the State Department.
On March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, the following:
"There are in hands of His Majesty’s Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre.
"There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt...
"Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution." (8)
A member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply:
"I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein [in American archives] which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen... made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.
"I have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law.
"Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks... I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." (9)
It was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General’s opinion..."
Some obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M. Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that:
"From political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings should take place against all of these persons... on the other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances, His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an opinion..." (10)
The Attorney-General’s Department returned the following reply;
"...It seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.
"Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration." (11)
Upon the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as long without charges being formulated against them..." (12)
From now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as "offenders" for prosecution, but rather as "hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote:
"Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should be made available for exchange purposes." (13)
And then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum" and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921, arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of Malta thus ended.
In conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey, and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure.
There was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were there easily accessible to the British authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative. Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these Turks. It is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks.
What actually took place in Turkey during World War I was not a "massacre" but a displacement of population. The Armenian minority in eastern Turkey revolted against the Ottoman State at a most critical time in modern Turkish history. In April 1915, the Russian armies launched an offensive against Van, in the east, and the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli peninsula, in the west. At that critical moment, Armenian bands were fighting against the Turks, together with invading Russian armies. The Ottoman Government then decided in May 1915 to remove insurgent Armenian minority from war zone to the Syrian province of the Empire. According to Boghos Noubar, the President of Armenian National Delegation at Paris, some 6 to 700.000 people were deported from Anatolia. (14) Thousands of Armenians perished during those years of war, food shortages, famine and large-scale plague; Turkish casualties in the same period being estimated much more higher.
The Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the following:
"In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation...
"We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (15)
The so-called "Armenian massacre" was, originally, nothing but the creation of that "dense atmosphere of illusion" in vindictive Armenian minds, then, the same Armenians tried to implement it into the minds of others. But, all political attempts to prove that an Armenian massacre actually took place in Turkey, failed completely in the presence of dignified British jurists. From that respect the Malta episode of early 1920’s was indeed illuminating and conclusive.
1 Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919
2 PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on Position of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920
3 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest
M.Pollock.
4 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934: Cabinet Oficer to Lord Curzon of 12.8.1929
5 PRO-FO 371/6499/E.1801: Law Officeres to Foreign Office of 8.2.1921
6 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of 16th March, 1921
7 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier Veli Nedjdet
8 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921
9 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d’ Afaires at Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921
10 PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr. Woods (Procurator-General’s Department), May 31st, 1921
11 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General’s Department to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921
12 Ibidem : Minutes by Mr. Edmonds of 3.8.1921
13 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.10023
14 Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Serie levant 1918-1929, Sous-Serie Armenie, Vol. 2, folio 47: Boghos Noubar a M. Gout, MAE, lettre datee du 11 Decembre 1918.
15 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nathing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7
Armenian Allegations and Deportees of Malta
In 1919, British officials deported some 140 Turks to Malta to be tried on various charges of war crimes. The following article explains the proceedings until all deportees were returned to their homeland upon lack of evidence.
During the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta. About one hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the British authorities.
Nearly all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors, editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of Malta.
They were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of "offences":
failure to comply with Armistice terms,
ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and
outrages to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus.
The last category of "offence", directly related to the Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode of early 1920’s give us, indeed, a true idea about much controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages" in Turkey during World War I.
The British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord Curzon on September 1919, the following:
"The deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous ... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was impossible to rely on known facts..."
"It is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be sent back to Turkey at present..." (1)
It seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of Armenian massacre were a part of wartime propaganda and were still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the armistice period.
But to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal were indeed quite different things. The responsible British authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the first convenient opportunity". (2)
Upon this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920 that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish deportees of such a crime. (3)
On August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5)
The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied "that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantages." Further he added: "The American government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote:
"No one of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense.
"The whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory...
"There are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by Armenians of differing values...
"The Americans must be in possession of a mass of invaluable material..." (7)
To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word "massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e. Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the assistance of the State Department.
On March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, the following:
"There are in hands of His Majesty’s Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre.
"There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt...
"Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution." (8)
A member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply:
"I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein [in American archives] which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen... made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence.
"I have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law.
"Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks... I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." (9)
It was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General’s opinion..."
Some obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M. Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that:
"From political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings should take place against all of these persons... on the other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances, His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an opinion..." (10)
The Attorney-General’s Department returned the following reply;
"...It seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.
"Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration." (11)
Upon the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as long without charges being formulated against them..." (12)
From now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as "offenders" for prosecution, but rather as "hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote:
"Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should be made available for exchange purposes." (13)
And then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum" and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921, arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of Malta thus ended.
In conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey, and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure.
There was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were there easily accessible to the British authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative. Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these Turks. It is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks.
What actually took place in Turkey during World War I was not a "massacre" but a displacement of population. The Armenian minority in eastern Turkey revolted against the Ottoman State at a most critical time in modern Turkish history. In April 1915, the Russian armies launched an offensive against Van, in the east, and the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli peninsula, in the west. At that critical moment, Armenian bands were fighting against the Turks, together with invading Russian armies. The Ottoman Government then decided in May 1915 to remove insurgent Armenian minority from war zone to the Syrian province of the Empire. According to Boghos Noubar, the President of Armenian National Delegation at Paris, some 6 to 700.000 people were deported from Anatolia. (14) Thousands of Armenians perished during those years of war, food shortages, famine and large-scale plague; Turkish casualties in the same period being estimated much more higher.
The Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the following:
"In the fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation...
"We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (15)
The so-called "Armenian massacre" was, originally, nothing but the creation of that "dense atmosphere of illusion" in vindictive Armenian minds, then, the same Armenians tried to implement it into the minds of others. But, all political attempts to prove that an Armenian massacre actually took place in Turkey, failed completely in the presence of dignified British jurists. From that respect the Malta episode of early 1920’s was indeed illuminating and conclusive.
1 Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919
2 PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on Position of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920
3 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest
M.Pollock.
4 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934: Cabinet Oficer to Lord Curzon of 12.8.1929
5 PRO-FO 371/6499/E.1801: Law Officeres to Foreign Office of 8.2.1921
6 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of 16th March, 1921
7 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier Veli Nedjdet
8 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921
9 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d’ Afaires at Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921
10 PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr. Woods (Procurator-General’s Department), May 31st, 1921
11 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General’s Department to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921
12 Ibidem : Minutes by Mr. Edmonds of 3.8.1921
13 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.10023
14 Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Serie levant 1918-1929, Sous-Serie Armenie, Vol. 2, folio 47: Boghos Noubar a M. Gout, MAE, lettre datee du 11 Decembre 1918.
15 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nathing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7
1895 | British Consul R.W. Graves to Sir P. Currie
British Consul to Erzurum, R.W. Graves, talks about the three separate Armenian parties in his letter to Sir P. Currie, dated 28 January 1895. This letter reflects the beginnings of the activities of the Armenian revolutionary parties in Eastern Anatolia.
Mavi Boncuk |
British Consul R.W. Graves to Sir P. Currie
No. 381
Consul Graves to Sir P. Currie
ERZEROUM, January 28, 1895
(Received at the Foreign Office, February 22)
No. 20. Confidential
Sir, I HAVE the honour to inclose copies of a Memorandum which I have prepared on the subject of the effect produced upon Armenian opinion in these provinces by the recent occurrences in Sasun.
I have, &c.
(Signed) R. W. GRAVES
F.O. 424/181, p. 123, No. 180.
Inclosure in No. 381
Memorandum.
AS far as any public opinion can be said to exist among the Armenians of Eastern Turkey in Asia, it must be sought for among the more or less educated inhabitants of the towns. The vast majority of the agricultural population are in a very backward condition, educationally speaking, and seem only conscious of a lively sense of the insecurity and oppression under which they suffer, and of a readiness to accept in relief in whatever form, and from whatever quarter, it may be offered. But the townspeople, hampered though they are by the want of freedom of discussion, and of a local press, cannot be entirely debated from forming and exchanging opinions upon current events and their possible influence upon the future of their nationality. Very strongly marked lines of cleavage have for years past been noted among them on those subjects, and party spirit ran higher between the holders of conflicting views than could augur well for future harmony, if ever the political destinies of the Armenians were to be intrustedto themselves for management.
Broadly speaking, their parties, as they existed previous to the Sasun disturbances, might be classifies as follows: ---
1-A Conservative or Turchophile party, composed of officials in Ottoman employ, and their families; of the hangers on, "Kehayas," stewardsand unofficial agents of various degrees of the leading Mussulmans, who owed their immunity from oppression to the protection of their patrons, at whose expense they frequently enriched themselves; and of a certain number of higher ecclesiastics and wealthy laymen of the old school, whose large material interests depended upon the favour of the Turks. On the latter they were ready to lavish as much lipservice as was required of them, and they looked with disfavour upon anything calculated to alter the old order of things, under which they had individually prospered. To these may be added the Armenian Catholics, who, from their geographical distribution, had little to suffer from Kurdish exactions, while they enjoyed almost entire freedom from Government interference on political and educational grounds. They, too, had every reason to fear any change; a Russian annexation meant the loss of their present religious immunities, and an Armenian autonomy would leave them at the mercy of the Gregorian majority.
2-A Moderate Liberal party, comprising a majority of the business, professional and scholastic, classes, together with the best of the higher clergy, whose views, although too liberal to allow them to be really contented with the present position of Christians under Turkish rule, could not be called actively disloyal. They were generally quite alive to the material impossibility of constituting an independent Armenia, as well as to the danger of ultimate denationalization that perhaps awaited them in case of annexation by Russia; it was therefore their aim to avoid precipitating any violent solution of the Armenian question, and to maintain the Armenian element as such, by strengthening and developing the national Church and schools, which enjoyed greater freedom under Ottoman than under Russian dominion; at the same time, they placed their hopes for the future in the ultimate introduction of those administrative reforms which have been so often promised by the Porte.
3-A small but active revolutionary party, but scantily represented within the Turkish Empire, as it is largely composed of young Armenians who have studied abroad, and have fallen under the influence of Socialist or Nihilist propaganda, to whom may be added a certain sprinkling of political exiles and refugees, but still comprising some of the more restless spirits among the Armenians of Turkey, who are ready to assist their comrades abroad in endeavouring to realize their projects. The most prominent organ of this party for some time past has been the journal "Hindchak," published first at Geneva and subsequently at Athens by a group of agitators, to whom almost all the Armenian disorders of the past few years can be traced, and it may be more convenient to refer to this party in general as the "Hindchak" group.
Their object has plainly been, by creating an appearance of widespread disaffection, quite out of proportion to their numbers and influence to provoke reprisals on the part of the Turkish Government and people, of a nature to draw the attention of the Powers to the manifest grievances of the Armenian nation, and the necessity for their redressal. In this, it must be admitted that they have been ably seconded by the action of the Turkish authorities themselves in the provinces chiefly concerned. Their policy appears to be merely destructive, and so long as they can upset the present regime, they seem indifferent as to what shall replace it; at least I am not aware of their having formulated any alternative scheme of government.
Careful inquiry and observation have driven me to the conclusion that the events of the last six months, coming at the end of a period of ever-increasing misgovernment and persecution, have created a complete revolution in Armenian opinion.
The "Hindchak" group may be first disposed of. It may be taken for granted that they are satisfied with the results of the agitation; its great object, namely, to arrest the attention of Europe, has been attained, whether through their own machinations or by the fault of Turkish officials, and it will be well for all concerned if they cease from further agitation, which has become purposeless, and would only serve to justifies the severities of the Government.
The Turchophile party, or at least all that part of it which is not entirely dead to national sentiment of any kind, has been deeply stirred; many of its members are already in secret sympathy and agreement with their former opponents, and many more will join them if they see that the changes which they formerly combated are inevitable and imminent, being of the class which is always disposed to come over to the winning side.
As for the Moderate Liberals, their views appear to be undergoing a complete change. They declare that it is useless any longer to pin their faith upon the development of the national Church and schools, or to wait for the voluntary introduction of reforms, not only in view of the vexatious manner in which ecclesiastical and educational questions are dealt with, but of what they believe to be the deliberate policy of the Government for the weakening and ultimate extinction of the Armenian element in these provinces. What use, they ask, will there be church or schools, if there is no Armenian population left to fill them? And whereas, not long ago, they were strongly opposed to the idea of Russian annexation, and would have viewed the prospect, even of a temporary occupation, with apprehension, I am inclined to think that their general feeling now on the appearance of the Russian troops would be one of genuin relief, and the security thus afforded for their lives, their property, and the honour of their women would be considered an ample compensation for having certain spiritual and scholastic restrictions imposed upon them.
However, though they might at this moment accept Russian rule with resignation and even joy, there can be little doubt that the solution to which they look forward as most satisfactory is the establishment of some autonomous form of Local Government, resembling that of the Lebanon, under which they could enjoy security of lofe and property, and immunity from oppression, together with equal rights of citizenship with their Mussulman neighbours, and a proportionate share in the management of local affairs.
Turkey, No. 6, pp. 222-4, Nos. 282, 282/1
Boghos Nubar Pasha to The Times of London (1919)
Boghos Nubar Pasha was the leader of the Armenian delegation in attendance at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.
In his letter to The Times of London, dated 30 January 1919, he openly acknowledges that it was the Armenian contributions to the allied war effort which led to their mistreatment by the Ottoman authorities.
Mavi Boncuk |
Boghos Nubar Pasha to The Times of London (1919)
To the Editor of the Times,
Sir, the name of Armenia is not on the list of the nations admitted to the Peace Conference. Our sorrow and our disappointment are deep beyond expression. Armenians naturally expected their demand for admission to the Conference to be conceded, after all they had done for the common cause.
The unspeakable suffering and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenians by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies are now fully known. But I must emphasize the fact unhappily known to few, that ever since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts. Adding our losses in the field to the greater losses through massacres and deportations, we find that over a million out of a total Armenian population of four million and a half have lost their lives in and through the war. Armenia's tribute to death is thus undoubtedly heavier in proportion than that of any other belligerent nation. For the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey.
Our volunteers fought in the French "Legion Entrangere" and covered themselves with glory. In the Legion d'Orient they numbered over 5,000, and made up more than half the French contingent in Syria and Palestine, which took part in the decisive victory of General Allenby.
In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks, whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia by hindering the Germano-Turks from sending their troops elsewhere.
These services have been acknowledged by the Allied Governments, as Lord Robert Cecil recognized in the House of Commons.
In virtue of all these considerations the Armenian National Delegation asked that the Armenian nation should be recognized as a belligerent. Had the recognition been granted, we should now have been admitted, ipso facto, to the Conference, to which even transatlantic States have found access, though having merely broken off diplomatic relations with Germany, without the least sacrifice on their part.
At the moment when the fate of Armenia is being decided at the Peace Conference, it is my duty, as the head of the National Delegation which has no tribute from which its voice can resound, to state once again, in the columns of The Times, the important part played by the Armenians in this frightful war. I wish strongly to urge that the Armenians, having of their own free will cast their lot with the champions of right and justice, the victory of the Allies over their common enemies has secured to them a right to independence.
Believe me, sir, yours very truthfully,
Boghos Nubar
Paris, January 27, 1919
In his letter to The Times of London, dated 30 January 1919, he openly acknowledges that it was the Armenian contributions to the allied war effort which led to their mistreatment by the Ottoman authorities.
Mavi Boncuk |
Boghos Nubar Pasha to The Times of London (1919)
To the Editor of the Times,
Sir, the name of Armenia is not on the list of the nations admitted to the Peace Conference. Our sorrow and our disappointment are deep beyond expression. Armenians naturally expected their demand for admission to the Conference to be conceded, after all they had done for the common cause.
The unspeakable suffering and the dreadful losses that have befallen the Armenians by reason of their faithfulness to the Allies are now fully known. But I must emphasize the fact unhappily known to few, that ever since the beginning of the war the Armenians fought by the side of the Allies on all fronts. Adding our losses in the field to the greater losses through massacres and deportations, we find that over a million out of a total Armenian population of four million and a half have lost their lives in and through the war. Armenia's tribute to death is thus undoubtedly heavier in proportion than that of any other belligerent nation. For the Armenians have been belligerents de facto, since they indignantly refused to side with Turkey.
Our volunteers fought in the French "Legion Entrangere" and covered themselves with glory. In the Legion d'Orient they numbered over 5,000, and made up more than half the French contingent in Syria and Palestine, which took part in the decisive victory of General Allenby.
In the Caucasus, without mentioning the 150,000 Armenians in the Russian armies, about 50,000 Armenian volunteers under Andranik, Nazarbekoff, and others not only fought for four years for the cause of the Entente, but after the breakdown of Russia they were the only forces in the Caucasus to resist the advance of the Turks, whom they held in check until the armistice was signed. Thus they helped the British forces in Mesopotamia by hindering the Germano-Turks from sending their troops elsewhere.
These services have been acknowledged by the Allied Governments, as Lord Robert Cecil recognized in the House of Commons.
In virtue of all these considerations the Armenian National Delegation asked that the Armenian nation should be recognized as a belligerent. Had the recognition been granted, we should now have been admitted, ipso facto, to the Conference, to which even transatlantic States have found access, though having merely broken off diplomatic relations with Germany, without the least sacrifice on their part.
At the moment when the fate of Armenia is being decided at the Peace Conference, it is my duty, as the head of the National Delegation which has no tribute from which its voice can resound, to state once again, in the columns of The Times, the important part played by the Armenians in this frightful war. I wish strongly to urge that the Armenians, having of their own free will cast their lot with the champions of right and justice, the victory of the Allies over their common enemies has secured to them a right to independence.
Believe me, sir, yours very truthfully,
Boghos Nubar
Paris, January 27, 1919
The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question
Mavi Boncuk |
The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question
By Bilal N. Simsir
Immediately following the First World War, when the Allied armies occupied
Istanbul and other key parts of the Ottoman Empire, several hundred
prominent Turks were arrested. Then, one night in May 1919 a group of
selected prisoners were seized by the British army, embarked on board HMS
Princes Ena, and at once deported to Malta. Arrests and deportations
continued up to November 1920. About one hundred forty Turks were deported
to Malta by the British authorities during the years of 1919 and 1920.
Among the deportees were Ottoman Grand Vizier, Speaker of Parliament,
Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Army Commanders, Sheik-ul-Islam,
Deputies, Generals, Colonels, Governors, University Professors, Editors,
well-known Journalists, etc. All these prominent members of Turkish
society were accused roughly of three categories of alleged offences: (i)
failure to comply with Armistice terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British
prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages to Armenians in Tukey and
Transcaucasia.
The last category of offence, being related to much-talked Armenian
deportation and so-called "massacre" during World War I, was particularly
interesting. This is a short resume of the Malta episode with an emphasis
on Armenian question. The paper is based on British official documents
kept in Public Record Office, London. British sources on the subject are
very illuminationg.
(i)
On January 2nd 1919, Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner at
Istanbul, suggested to London to be authorised "to demand immediate arrest
and delivery" to the Biritish military authorities of such Turks against
whom there appeared to be a "prima facie good case". "No action, he said,
would be better calculated to impress upon the Turks in interior that they
are beaten and the Armenians must be respected." (1)
A special section of the British High Commission was created under the
responsibility of Andrew Ryan to deal with Armenian and Greek "victims of
persecution". Ryan, who had served as Dragoman or interpreter in the
British Embassy at Istanbul for fifteen years before the War, was known as
anti-Turk intriguer and described as "best hated man in Turkey."(2) As
soon as he arrived again at Istanbul in November 1918, he renewed many old
contacts with native Armenians and Greeks, engaged several Armenian
informers and induced them to collaborate with Armenian and Greek Section.
With their instrumentality and in cooperation with Armenian PAtriarchate,
a number of "Black Lists" of alleged "Turkish War Criminals" were drawn
up. Between January and April 1919 four of these "informal" lists were
presented to the Sultan's Government. Vahdettin was villing to revenge
those members of the Committee of Union and Progress (C.U.P.) who were
"their political enemies". Admiral Calthorpe wrote that it was "absolutely
necessary to act through Turkish authorities".(3) Ryan minuted:"Our
procedure continued to be that of suggesting names for arrest thus
disclaiming all responsibility of guaranteeeing the evidence."(4)
Under the British pressure, between 160 and 200 persons had been arrested
in January 1919, by the Government of Tevfik Pasha (5). On January 30,
Calthorpe telegraphed to the Governor of Malta, Lord Plumer, asking him if
he can make arrangements to receive about 50 or 60 Turkish prisoners at
Malta for safe custody out of Turkey.(6)
On February 5, Admiral Calthorpe was instructed by the Foreign Office, to
ask the Turkish Government to hand over to him or nearest Allied commander
such Turkish officials and officers accused of offences such as: failure
to comply with Armistice terms, ill-treatment of British prisoners,
outrages to Armenians and other subject races, etc. (7) Upon this, a clash
of opinion took place between Admiral Calthorpe and General Franchet
d'Esperay, Commander of French forces at Istanbul. French general wrote
that it was up to the Turkish authorities to proceed arresting the accused
persons, formulating charges against them, and securing their punishment.
(8) According to the French Government mere facts of Allies demanding
arrests of Turks presumed guilty created "distinction to disadvantage of
Muslim-Turks" while Bulgarian, Austrian and German offenders were as yet
neither arrested nor molested.(9)
Meanwhile the Tevfik Pasha's Government took an important decision. On
February 1919, it addressed a note to five neutral Governments of Europe,
(Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland) informed them that
the Turkish Government constituted a Commission for the investigation of
alleged abuses committed in connection with Armenian deportation, and
invited these neutral Governments to attach each of them two legal
superintendents to the Turkish Commission.(9)
The British Foreign Office, rather alarmed upon this unexpected Turkish
demarche, decided at once to obstruct it at the very beginning. The
Foreign Office addressed a note to the Spanish Ambassador in London who
liked to know how the Turkish proposal was regarded by His Britannic
Majesty's Government, and informed him that "The acceptance of the Turkish
invitation might, and probably would, run counter to the arrangements
eventually made at the Peace Conference, and cause serious
complications."(11). Thus, a neutral investigation of alleged offences
against the Armenians during the Great War was discouraged and prevented.
The British Government obviously reserved to themselves the right and
privilege to investigate such offences and to prosecute the offenders.
Tevfik Pasha, initiator of the idea of neutral investigations of the
Armenian question, was forced to submit his resignation on March 3rd,
1919, and was subsequently replaced by Ferid Pasha.
The new Grand Vizir was extremely pro-British and is recorded to have said
that "hopes of himself and his Master the Sultan were centred after God in
British". He immediately ordered a kind of men-hunting operation in
Istanbul in accordance with the wishes of the British High Commission.
Nearly all ministers of the war-time Cabinets, including the Grand Vizir
Said Halim Pasha, and most of leading members of C.U.P. were summarily
arrested in March 1919.
Admiral Richard Webb, Assistant High Commissioner at Istanbul, reported
that arrests were progressing "very satisfactorily", that he was "anxious
lest overdirive a willing horse and make him jib at the same time pressing
for surrender to the British the arrested persons." The British High
Commission did not, for the time being, demand their surrender and
continued instead to obtain more arrests. Furthermore, Admiral Webb
continued:"It must be born in mind that degrees of guilt of accused vary
greatly and that in regard to massacres question of evidence will be
extremely difficult."(12)
Despite the lack of evidence as to alleged "massacres", the British High
Commission continued to ask for more and more arrests in March and April
1919, though without any serious investigations. Nearly all prisoners were
detained in the notorious Seraskeriat or "Bekir Aga" Prison in Istanbul.
On May 15th, the same day when the Greek troops first landed at Izmir,
Admiral Webb informed General Milne that in view of the new circumstances,
it was "inadvisable" any more that the detainees should remain in Turkish
custody and that these persons should be taken over with a view to deport
them to Malta. He added that he would not inform the Turkish Government of
this step until it has been carried out. (13)
On May 22nd an allied guard composed of British and French soldiers under
the British Command was placed at Bekir Aga Prison in order to ensure that
the prisoners are not released or liberated.(14) Then in the night of May
28, British Military authorities have taken over from Turkish prison
sixty-seven selected detainees, placed them on board HMS Princess Ena, and
the ship sailed that night for Malta.(15).
The British High Commissioner reported that the deportees were "very
prominent members of the C.U.P.", so that stringent action to prevent
their escape was of the "very utmost importance". If the accused were to
escape, he went on, they would form the nucleus of all the inveterate
supporters of the C.U.P." (16)
On hearing the event from the local press on May 29, the French High
Commissioner at Istanbul M. Defrance, expressed his discontent to his
British colleague at not having been told the matter earlier. He wrote to
Admiral Calthorpe on June 2nd that the deportation of Turkish prisoners
have been a surprise to him and he reiterated the French point of view
that it was to the Turkish authorities themselves to deal with the accused
persons. (17)
on his part French Commander General Franchet d'Esperay wrote a letter of
protest, without using the word, to the British Military Mission at
Istanbul that he was surprised that the British Commander "did not think
fit to keep him informed of an event of such importance", that "no
agreement was made before-hand between the Allied Governments concerning
this removal, which was a "political measure" carried out by the British
for their own purposes. Furthermore, he said that the use of French troops
for such a purpose cannot be countenanced (18). "I am apologizing to
Franchet d'Esperay" said General Milne.
On June 4, the French Ambassadors at London communicated to the Foreign
Office the regrets of his Government for deportation of Turkish prisoners
out of Turkey. French Government was of opinion that it was to the Turkish
authorities themselves to prosecute the alleged offenders, that the
deportation of the latters could be presented as an act of "arbitrary
revenge"(19). Despite French opposition, British authorities in Turkey
continued deporting Turkish prisoners throughout the summer of 1919.
The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, were
soon to revise the position of Turkish prisoners. On September 21st, 1919,
he reported to Lord Curzon that the deportees of Malta were "hurriedly"
selected from a list of prisoners, that "it was impossible to rely on
known facts", and that "it might be very difficult to sustain definite
charges against many of these persons before an allied tribunal". He
suggested therefore that His Majesty's Government "should form some clear
idea as to the best means of disposing of them eventually." On his part
Admiral de Robeck abandoned, for the time being, any idea of recommending
further arrests and deportations. (20)
There was now a great deal of hesitation among the British authorities
regarding the alleged Turkish offenders. When Admiral de Robeck reported
again in November 1919 that he did not consider it politically advisable
to deport any more prisoners, W.S. Edmonds at the Foreign Office minuted
that: "there seems to be a good deal of doubt between the Foreign Office,
Constantinople, Solicitor General and Prisoners Department as to what is
being done about offenders in general."(21)
By January 1920 the British attitude towards Turkey changed again. The
last Ottoman Parliament was inaugurated on January 12. Less than a month
later, Admiral de Robeck reported that "opening of Parliament was followed
by arrival in Istanbul of prominent nationalist leaders and language of
open menace to Allies was used at more than one public meeting"(22).
Moreover, he wrote that if the Allies desired to impose a drastic peace on
Turkey, they would have to impose it by the use of armed forces against
Turkish National movement. (23)
On March 6, Lord Curzon informed Admiral de Robeck that the terms of Peace
Treaty to be imposed upon Ottoman Government were indeed "sufficiently
drastic", that Allies were contemplating the occupation of Istanbul, and
that the occupation "will continue until the Peace Treaty has been
accepted and put into execution" by the Turkish Government (24).
Furthermore, Lord Curzon stated that the "arrest of dangerous nationalist
leaders would be in accord with policy previously pursued."(25)
In the morning of March 16, 1920, all the official buildings in Istanbul,
including the Chamber of Deputies, were formally and forcibly occupied by
the troops of the Entente Powers, and a number of prominent Turkish
nationalist leaders and deputies were arrested. On March 18, Admiral de
Robeck telegraphed to Lord Plumer, the Governor of Malta, the following:"I
am embarking in HMS BenBow on March 18th about 30 important Turkish
political prisoners whose arrest has been effected pursuant to
instructions of His Majesty's Government. I would be grateful if you would
be so good as to give orders for their reception and safe custody at
Malta. "Benbow" due Malta March 21st" (26). New deportations were to
continue from March to November 1920. Overall 144 Turkish prisoners were
deported to Malta in the years of 1919 and 1920.
Following the deportation of his close collaborators as "politically
undesirables", Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the Leader of the Turkish National
Movement, ordered, as a reprisal, the arrest of soem 20 British officers
in Anatolia, including Colonel Rawlinson, who was the younger brother of
Lord Rawlinson and a relative of Lord Curzon.
In August 1920 the Peace Treaty of Sevres was imposed upon Ottoman
Government. The Treaty which was described by Mustafa Kemal Pasha as "a
death sentence for the Turkish nation" and never ratified, contained some
penalty clauses. By the terms of article 230 the Ottoman Government
undertook to hand over to the Allied Powers those persons accused of
"massacres", and to recognise the competence of Allied tribunals to try
alleged Turkish offenders. Furthermore, the Sultan's Government undertook
to furnish to the Allies "all documents and information of every kind"
which would be considered necessary to ensure the full knowledge of the
incriminating acts.
With the signature of the Treaty of Sevres, nearly everything was
completed for prosecution of the Turkish deportees accused of "Armenian
massacres". The alleged offenders in question were already in British
custody. The British forces were in occupation of Turkish capital and some
other points in Turkey. Therefore, all Turkish Central State Archives and
some of those kept in the provinces were at the disposal of the British
authorities. Furthermore, the Ottoman Government undertook to assist the
Allied authorities in prosecution of alleged offenders.
It seemed that the British Government doubted whether these Turkish
deportees at Malta, whose arrests and deportations were caused by some
zealots, were in fact guilty or not. The responsible British authorities
were hesitating to accuse formally these deportees. On the contrary, they
were contemplating their release. On July 19th, 1920, W.S. Churchill, the
Secretary of State of War, circulated to the British Cabinet the list of
Turkish deportees at Malta and suggested that it should be carefully
revised by the Attorney General. Churchill added:"those men against whom
it is not proposed to take definite proceedings should at the first
convenient opportunity be released." (27)
The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted and presented to the Cabinet
a memorandum dated August 4. It was understood that the Law Officers were
dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of
British prisoners of War. No material or evidence existed about alleged
Armenian persecution. Therefore, the Law Officers abstained to formulate
against the deportees such a crime. (28)
At their meeting held on August 4, 1920, the British Cabinet had under
consideration both this memorandum and that of circulated by Churchill,
and agreed that the list of Turkish deportees should be carefully revised
by the Attorney General and that those deportees against whom no
proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient
opportunity. (29)
On February 8th, 1921, the Attorney General informed the Foreign Office
that he was concerned only with eight Turkish deportees accused of
ill-treatment of British prisoners of war and not with others. He
suggested that His Majesty's High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked
to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he (High
Commissioner) recommended for persecution (30). Meanwhile, Lord Plumer,
the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Malta, submitted to the Colonial
Office a detailed report on Turkish detainees. He suggested that some of
them should be released and the charges on which the others were to be
tried be communicated to them together with a summary of evidence (31).
Thus, the crucial question of evidence to produced against the deportees
was now raised both by the Governor of Malta and the Attorney General. But
no such an evidence ever existed in the files of British Department in
London, and Lord Curzon was expecting a full report and all incriminating
documents from the British High Commissioner at Istanbul.
In the meantime, Curzon informed Sir H. Rumbold that an agreement with
Turkey for the exchange of prisoners was contemplated and asked his
opinion about a number of Turkish detainees at Malta (32). Rumbold
replied: "Broadly speaking my view is that all persons against whom there
are no charges justifying eventual prosecution might now be released
provided that we can secure in exchange release of all British prisoners
in the hands of Kemalists." The High Commissioner further suggested
prosecution of some of deportees and selected the remainder for an
exchange (33).
An agreement for the "Immediate Release of Prisoners" was signed between
Bekir Sami Bey, Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Robert Vansitart,
a member of British Foreign Office. on March 16, 1921, in London. It
stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners in Turkey and
repatriation of 64 Turkish deportees at Malta (34).
The British Government, thus, accepted the release of one half of the
Turkish deportees, but continued keeping the other half for trial. Such an
agreement was unacceptable to the Turkish Government. In fact, the
instructions of Bekir Sami Bey precluded him from accepting any
arrangement but one based on "all for all" exchange, and he was forced to
resign from his post for having neglected the instructions.
Out of originally 144 deportees at Malta 56 persons were selected by H.M.
High Commissioner at Istanbul for prosecution. On March 16, 1921, Sir H.
Rumbold forwarded to the Foreign Office long expected "evidence" or
"details of charges" against each of these persons (35). These documents
consisted a few typewritten pages for each one of 56 deportees. The first
pages of each "dossier" were reserved to the biographical information of
the accused person and the last pages or paragraphs to the "accusation"
itself. Andrew Ryan, explained how these "accusations" were drawn up:
"In practice we have gone on the principle that a sufficient presumption
of guilt to justify detention and ultimate prosecution existed against all
members of the responsible Governments of Turkey at the time when the
massacres and deportations took place and all persons so high in the
councils of C.U.P. as to be credited with share in directing its policy.
If this is the principle, then it seems to me that all these people should
stand their trial...This appears to me the only logical course."(36)
This means that most of the deportees considered a priori guilty. Such a
logic and such a principle, were obviously quite the contrary of the
well-established basic principle of law and justice, according to which
each person is considered innocent until he is actually found guilty.
Sir H. Rumbold in forwarding to London the "evidence" against the
deportees, wrote that very few witnesses were available, that Armenian
Patriarchate at Istanbul had been the principal channel through which
information had been obtained, and that none of allied, associated and
neutral Governments had been asked to supply evidence. He admitted that
"under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave
disadvantage", but he hoped that American Government could supply "a large
amount of documentary information."(37)
Sir Harry Lamb, one of Rumbold's collaborators, wrote frankly the
following:
"No one of the deportees {at Malta} was arrested on any evidence in legal
sense... The wholse case of these deportees is not satisfactory.... There
are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by
Armenians of differing values, in some cases, we have nothing but what is
common report and an extract from a printed pamphlet. It is safe to say
that very few 'dossiers' as they now stand would be marked 'no case' by a
practical lawyer..."(38)
For the officials of the British Foreign Office such a result was
obviously disappointing. They still maintained their efforts in order to
secure prosecution of some of the deportees and for that purpose addressed
for assisstance to the United States of America and to the British
Attorney General. On April 1st, 1921, all available "evidence were
transmitted to the Department of Law Officers for the information of the
Attorney General.
In reply, the Law Officers stated again that they were concerned only with
the eight detainees accused of cruelty to the British prisoners of war. As
to the others, the Attorney General was of the opinion that, their
detention or release involved "a question of high policy" and was not
dependent on legal proceedings (39). Thus, the Attorney General refused to
involve himself with the alleged case of Armenian "massacres" and he
carefully refrained from pronouncing the word "massacre", so freely used
by the allied war-time propaganda machine and by some politicians.
The top officials of the Foreign Office recorded their views on the Law
Officers' Commentary as follows:
"The Attorney General is only concerned with eight Turks whose prosecution
he desires for cruelty to British prisoners of war. The Foreign Office,
however, is concerned with 45 Turks (of whom two have escaped from Malta)
who ought to be prosecuted for massacre under the article 230 of Treaty of
Sevres. The letter give no guidance as to those 45. Our difficulty is that
we have practically no legal evidence and we do not want to prepare for
proceeding which will be abortive...We asked Washington if the Americans
could produce any evidence of massacre against the internees.
1. Remind Washington,
2. Reply that we wish to retain for prosecution all the internees against
whom there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction...(40)
{Another member of the Foreign Office added}
"I think we should explain this, adding (if this is, as I presume it is,
our view) that from the political point of view it is very desirable that
these people should be brought to trial... and we should be very grateful
if the Attorney General would let us have his views on this point"(41)
On the other hand, Lord Curzon informed Sir A. Geddes, the British
Ambassador at Washington, that there was a "considerable difficulty" in
establishing proof of guilty against the Turkish detainees at Malta and
requested him "to ascertain if United States Government are in possession
of any evidence that would be of value for purpose of prosecution (42). A
list of names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees who were
detained at Malta for prosecution was forwarded to Washington in order to
ascertain whether Americans can furnish any evidence against these persons
(43).
On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington returned the following
reply:
"I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a member of my staff
visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the
Turks who are at present being detained at Malta with a view to a trial...
He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls
on the subject of the atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent
war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for
the purposes of His Majesty's Government being chosen from among several
hundreds. I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein
which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained
for trial at Malta. The reports seems.. made mention of only two names of
the Turkish officials in question... and in these cases were confined to
personal opinions of those officials on the part of the writer, no
concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory
incriminating evidence. I have the honour to add that officials of the
Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation,
that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed
in the court of law. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that
the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in
any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful
even for the purpose of corraborating information already in possession of
His Majesty's Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from
addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this
matter." (44)
The Foreign Office was once more disappointed and one of them, W.S.
Edmonds minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to
obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney
General's opinion as to whether there is reasonable prospect of convicting
any of the prisoners charged with massacres, etc."(45) The Foreign Office
was still persisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees. In
view of lack of legal evidence, they decided to use political argument and
wrote accordingly to H.M. Procurator General's Department:
"From Political point of view, the letter said, it is highly desirable
that proceedings should take place against all of these persons against
whom there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. On the
other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings
which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances His
Lordship (Curzon) would be so good as to favour him with an opinion as to
which of the forty-five Turks mentioned above could be prosecuted, when
the occasion presents itself, with a reasonable prospect of success."(46).
In its report dated July 29, 1921, H.M. Procurator General's Department
pointed out that the charges made against the Turkish detainees named in
the Foreign Office list were of "a quasi-political character" and that
there existed great difficulty of securing proofs in these cases. To the
Attorney General, "it seems improbable that the charges made against some
of the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law".
Therefore, the Attorney General was "not in a position to express any
opinion" as to the prospect of success in any cases submitted for his
consideration.(47)
This was the conclusive opinion of H.M. Attorney General. There was no
evidence against the Turkish deportees and therefore no prospect of
success of prosecuting them before a Court of Law. All political attempts
of the Foreign Office to secure the conviction of innocent detainees thus
failed in presence of dignified English Jurists. Upon the receipt of the
letter of the Procurator General's Department, an official of the Foreign
Office wrote:
"From this letter it appears that the chances of obtaining convictions are
almost nil...
The American Government, we ascertained, cannot help with any evidence...
In addition to the absence of legal evidence there is the extreme
unlikelihood that the French and Italians would agree to participate in
constituting the course provided for in article 230 of the Treaty {of
Sevres}.
On the other hand we certainly cannot release any Turks until our own
prisoners are returned..."(48)
It was impossible to detain any longer the Turkish prisoners in malta as
actual offenders. From now on, the British authorities were keeping them
as "hostages" against British prisoners in Anatolia. Before a final
decision regarding these hostages, the High Commissioner at Istanbul was
asked if he had any observation. Sir H. Rumbold was informed that "His
Majesty's Government must contemplate...the release of the 43 Turks who
remain at Malta" and he was requested to furnish his views upon this
subject (49).
In Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold asked the opinion of the English Judge Sir
Lindsay-Smith and that of General Harrington's legal adviser. Sir
Lindsay-Smith stated that he accepted the Attorney-General's opinion as
conclusive and that "an abortive trial would do more harm than good". In
conclusion, he said that the only alternative was "to retain Turkish
deportees at Malta as hostages"(50). General Sir Charles Harrington added
that there was no longer any good purpose served by maintaining these
persons at Malta at public expense, and that the whole of them might be
used to obtain the release of British prisoners (51).
In this context, Sir Horace Rumbold wrote to Lord Curzon that "Failing the
possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would
satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of
technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order,
therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I
consider that all the Turks except the eight.... should be made available
for exchange purposes."(52)
Eight detainees were those charged with cruelty to British prisoners. Both
the Foreign Office and War Office were now in favour of an exchange all
Turkish detainees, other than the eight, against the British prisoners in
Turkey and the Law Officers of the Crown concurred in this view (53).
Then, Lord Curzon informed Sir H. Rumbold on September 27, that the
British Government was ready to repatriate all Turkish deportees at Malta,
including the eight, in exchange of all British prisoners in Turkey (54).
On October 1st, 1921, all Turkish deportees at Malta, to the number of 59,
were embarked on board HMS Crysanthemum and FRA Montenol, and the ships
sailed for Turkey. The Governor of Malta reportedthat everything possible
was done to ensure "the reasonable comfort" of the deportees on board.
When they were released, the deportees refused to sign clearence
certificates and stated that they intended to make indemnity claims
against the British authorities in respect of their internment at Malta
(56). Chrysanthemum and Montenol arrived at Inebolu, on the south coast of
the Black Sea, on October 31st, 1921, and all deportees of Malta landed
safely on Turkish soil. At the same time, all British prisoners in
Anatolia were handed over to their authorities (57). The episode of Malta
thus ended.
(ii)
To sum up, these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were
arrested and deported without any serious investigation. The principal
sources of information of the British High Commission at Istanbul were
some local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate itself. There was, from
the very beginning, a great deal of doubt whether the accused persons were
in fact guilty or not. Admiral Webb wrote in March 1919 that "in regard to
massacres, question of evidence will be extremely difficult". French
authorities were against these arrests and deportations which they
considered as "political measures". Admiral de Robeck wrote in September
1919 that "it was impossible to rely on known facts" and that "it might be
very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an
allied tribunal". Indeed "no one of the deportees was arrested on any
evidence" and "there was no dossier in legal sense."
From the political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the
British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought
to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order
to prove that an Armenian "massacre" actually took place in Turkey and
consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts of the
Foreign Office in this connection ended with a complete failure. There was
no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian
Patriarchate furnished nothing incriminatory. The Turkish capital was
under Allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were easily
accessible to the British authorities in Istanbul. Yet, the British High
Commissioner was unable to forward to London any evidence in the legal
sense. There was nothing in the British archives which could be used as
evidence against the Turkish detainees at Malta. The State Department was
also unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these
Turks.
It appears that what actually took place in Turkey during World War I was
not a "massacre" but a deportation. The Armenian minority in eastern
Turkey revolted against the Ottoman State at a most critical time in
recent Turkish history when Russian armies launched an offensive against
Van, in the East, and when the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli
peninsula, in the West, in April 1915. The Ottoman Government then decided
in May 1915 to remove the insurgent Armenian minority from the war zone to
the Syrian province of the Empire. Some 700,000 Armenians out of a total
1,200,000 were transported from Anatolia to Syria in very difficult
conditions, i.e. at a time when the Empire was suffering from severe
shortage of vehicles, food, fuel, clothing, and other supplies as well as
large-scale plague and famine. Turks as well as Armenians suffered much
from the ravages of foreign invasions, activities of robber bands, as well
as general insecurity and blood feuds. Under these conditions, too many
lives were unfortunately lost, but Armenian casualties were no greater in
percentage than that of the Turks.
These facts were firstly interpreted and distorded by Armenian
nationalists and propagandists. Then the British and French Intelligence
Services on their part spread throughout the world the stories of
imaginary "massacres" for the sake of their own political purposes. Since
the Ottoman Government did not hesitate to declare a Cihad or Sacred War
against them, the Allied Governments obviously excused themselves for
having so much propagandized these stories and sufferings of Christian
brethren under the Muslim-Turkish "yoke". This propaganda was still
exploited at conference tables by some British politicians. But to make
propaganda and to prosecute innocent people before a serious Court of Law
were indeed quite different things. Sir Gordon Howard, the British
Attorney-General, was not probably unaware that, in fact, no massacre was
planned or ordered by the Ottoman officials and no planned massacre was
carried out. He thought that all charges made against the Turkish
officials and officers at Malta were of "quasi-political character" and
consequently it was improbable that these charges will be capable of legal
proof in a Court of Law. As a result, all detainees at Malta were released
and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.
From PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIUM ON ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND
TURKEY (1912-1926), Bogazici University Publications, Istanbul, 1984, pp.
26-41
(1) Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), Foreign Office (hereafter FO)
371/4172/2391
(2) Sir Andrew Ryan, The Last of the Dragomans, (London 1951), preface
(3) FO 371/4172/1437
(4) FO 371/4174/11837
(5) FO 371/4172/13694
(6) FO 371/4172/16731
(7) FO 371/4172 FO to Calthorpe, tel.no. 233 of 5.2.1919
(8) FO 371/4172/2408
(9) FO 371/4172/28138
(10) FO 371/4172/29498
(11) FO 371/. Greham to Spanish Ambassador, 4.3.1919
(12) FO 371/4172/41634 Webb to FO, tel.no. 532 of 11.3.1919
(13) FO 371/4174 Webb to G.O.C. No. R.1315 of 15.5.1919
(14) FO 271/41741 Webb to Milne 22.5.1919. Duncan to Webb, 1302, 22.5.1919
(15) FO 371/4173/81368 Calthorpe to FO tel.No. 1150 of 29.5.1919
(16) FO 371/4174/88761
(17) FO 371/4174 Defrance to Calthorpe, 2.6.1919
(18) FO 371/4174 British Military Mission to G.O.C. 30.5.1919
(19) FO 371/4173/84188
(2) FO 371/4174/136069
(21) FO 371/4174/156721
(22) Bilal N. Simsir (ed.by) British Documents on Ataturk (1919-1938),
Vol.I, Ankara, pp. 367-368
(23) Ibid., pp 372'375
(24) Ibid., p.441
(25) Ibid., p 443
(26) FO 371/5089/Plummer to S. of S. for the Colonies, tel no. 66,
18.3.1920
(27) FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649. Memorandum by the S. of S. For War,
19.7.1920
(28) FO 371/5090/E. 9934 (C.P.1770)
(29) FO 371/5090/E.9934 and C.P. 1770
(30) FO 371/64990/E. 1801
(31) FO 371/6499/E. 2653
(32) FO. 371/6499/E. 3215
(33) FO 371/6499/E. 3277
(34) Text in FO 371/6500/E. 3375
(35) FO 371/6500/E. 3557
(36) FO 371/6500/E.3557
(37) FO 371/6500/E.3557
(38)FO 371/6500/E. 3554 Minutes by Lamb to the file of Veli Nejdet
(39) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(40) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(41) Ibid.
(42) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(43) FO 371/6503/E. 6311
(44) FO 371/6504/E. 8519. R.C. Cragie (British Embassy in Washington) to
Lord Curzon, No. 722 of July 13, 1921
(45) FO 371/6504/E. 8519 FO minutes
(46) FO 371/6502/E. 5845. Oliphant to Woods (Procurator General's Dept),
E. 5845/132/44 of May 31, 1921
(47) FO 371/6504/E. 8745 Woods (Procurator General's Dept) to FO,
29.7.1921
(48) Ibid.
(49) FO 371/6504/E. 8745 FO to Rumbold, No.851, 10.8.1921
(50) FO 371/6504/E. 10023
(51) Ibid.
(52) Ibid.
(53) FO 371/6504/E. 10561
(54) FO 371/6504/E. 10662
(55) FO 371/6505/E. 11011 and E. 1112
(56) FO 371/6505. Plumer to War Office, No. 4133 (A), 29.10.1921
(57) FO 371/6505/E. 12068 and E. 12891
The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question
By Bilal N. Simsir
Immediately following the First World War, when the Allied armies occupied
Istanbul and other key parts of the Ottoman Empire, several hundred
prominent Turks were arrested. Then, one night in May 1919 a group of
selected prisoners were seized by the British army, embarked on board HMS
Princes Ena, and at once deported to Malta. Arrests and deportations
continued up to November 1920. About one hundred forty Turks were deported
to Malta by the British authorities during the years of 1919 and 1920.
Among the deportees were Ottoman Grand Vizier, Speaker of Parliament,
Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Army Commanders, Sheik-ul-Islam,
Deputies, Generals, Colonels, Governors, University Professors, Editors,
well-known Journalists, etc. All these prominent members of Turkish
society were accused roughly of three categories of alleged offences: (i)
failure to comply with Armistice terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British
prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages to Armenians in Tukey and
Transcaucasia.
The last category of offence, being related to much-talked Armenian
deportation and so-called "massacre" during World War I, was particularly
interesting. This is a short resume of the Malta episode with an emphasis
on Armenian question. The paper is based on British official documents
kept in Public Record Office, London. British sources on the subject are
very illuminationg.
(i)
On January 2nd 1919, Admiral Calthorpe, the British High Commissioner at
Istanbul, suggested to London to be authorised "to demand immediate arrest
and delivery" to the Biritish military authorities of such Turks against
whom there appeared to be a "prima facie good case". "No action, he said,
would be better calculated to impress upon the Turks in interior that they
are beaten and the Armenians must be respected." (1)
A special section of the British High Commission was created under the
responsibility of Andrew Ryan to deal with Armenian and Greek "victims of
persecution". Ryan, who had served as Dragoman or interpreter in the
British Embassy at Istanbul for fifteen years before the War, was known as
anti-Turk intriguer and described as "best hated man in Turkey."(2) As
soon as he arrived again at Istanbul in November 1918, he renewed many old
contacts with native Armenians and Greeks, engaged several Armenian
informers and induced them to collaborate with Armenian and Greek Section.
With their instrumentality and in cooperation with Armenian PAtriarchate,
a number of "Black Lists" of alleged "Turkish War Criminals" were drawn
up. Between January and April 1919 four of these "informal" lists were
presented to the Sultan's Government. Vahdettin was villing to revenge
those members of the Committee of Union and Progress (C.U.P.) who were
"their political enemies". Admiral Calthorpe wrote that it was "absolutely
necessary to act through Turkish authorities".(3) Ryan minuted:"Our
procedure continued to be that of suggesting names for arrest thus
disclaiming all responsibility of guaranteeeing the evidence."(4)
Under the British pressure, between 160 and 200 persons had been arrested
in January 1919, by the Government of Tevfik Pasha (5). On January 30,
Calthorpe telegraphed to the Governor of Malta, Lord Plumer, asking him if
he can make arrangements to receive about 50 or 60 Turkish prisoners at
Malta for safe custody out of Turkey.(6)
On February 5, Admiral Calthorpe was instructed by the Foreign Office, to
ask the Turkish Government to hand over to him or nearest Allied commander
such Turkish officials and officers accused of offences such as: failure
to comply with Armistice terms, ill-treatment of British prisoners,
outrages to Armenians and other subject races, etc. (7) Upon this, a clash
of opinion took place between Admiral Calthorpe and General Franchet
d'Esperay, Commander of French forces at Istanbul. French general wrote
that it was up to the Turkish authorities to proceed arresting the accused
persons, formulating charges against them, and securing their punishment.
(8) According to the French Government mere facts of Allies demanding
arrests of Turks presumed guilty created "distinction to disadvantage of
Muslim-Turks" while Bulgarian, Austrian and German offenders were as yet
neither arrested nor molested.(9)
Meanwhile the Tevfik Pasha's Government took an important decision. On
February 1919, it addressed a note to five neutral Governments of Europe,
(Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland) informed them that
the Turkish Government constituted a Commission for the investigation of
alleged abuses committed in connection with Armenian deportation, and
invited these neutral Governments to attach each of them two legal
superintendents to the Turkish Commission.(9)
The British Foreign Office, rather alarmed upon this unexpected Turkish
demarche, decided at once to obstruct it at the very beginning. The
Foreign Office addressed a note to the Spanish Ambassador in London who
liked to know how the Turkish proposal was regarded by His Britannic
Majesty's Government, and informed him that "The acceptance of the Turkish
invitation might, and probably would, run counter to the arrangements
eventually made at the Peace Conference, and cause serious
complications."(11). Thus, a neutral investigation of alleged offences
against the Armenians during the Great War was discouraged and prevented.
The British Government obviously reserved to themselves the right and
privilege to investigate such offences and to prosecute the offenders.
Tevfik Pasha, initiator of the idea of neutral investigations of the
Armenian question, was forced to submit his resignation on March 3rd,
1919, and was subsequently replaced by Ferid Pasha.
The new Grand Vizir was extremely pro-British and is recorded to have said
that "hopes of himself and his Master the Sultan were centred after God in
British". He immediately ordered a kind of men-hunting operation in
Istanbul in accordance with the wishes of the British High Commission.
Nearly all ministers of the war-time Cabinets, including the Grand Vizir
Said Halim Pasha, and most of leading members of C.U.P. were summarily
arrested in March 1919.
Admiral Richard Webb, Assistant High Commissioner at Istanbul, reported
that arrests were progressing "very satisfactorily", that he was "anxious
lest overdirive a willing horse and make him jib at the same time pressing
for surrender to the British the arrested persons." The British High
Commission did not, for the time being, demand their surrender and
continued instead to obtain more arrests. Furthermore, Admiral Webb
continued:"It must be born in mind that degrees of guilt of accused vary
greatly and that in regard to massacres question of evidence will be
extremely difficult."(12)
Despite the lack of evidence as to alleged "massacres", the British High
Commission continued to ask for more and more arrests in March and April
1919, though without any serious investigations. Nearly all prisoners were
detained in the notorious Seraskeriat or "Bekir Aga" Prison in Istanbul.
On May 15th, the same day when the Greek troops first landed at Izmir,
Admiral Webb informed General Milne that in view of the new circumstances,
it was "inadvisable" any more that the detainees should remain in Turkish
custody and that these persons should be taken over with a view to deport
them to Malta. He added that he would not inform the Turkish Government of
this step until it has been carried out. (13)
On May 22nd an allied guard composed of British and French soldiers under
the British Command was placed at Bekir Aga Prison in order to ensure that
the prisoners are not released or liberated.(14) Then in the night of May
28, British Military authorities have taken over from Turkish prison
sixty-seven selected detainees, placed them on board HMS Princess Ena, and
the ship sailed that night for Malta.(15).
The British High Commissioner reported that the deportees were "very
prominent members of the C.U.P.", so that stringent action to prevent
their escape was of the "very utmost importance". If the accused were to
escape, he went on, they would form the nucleus of all the inveterate
supporters of the C.U.P." (16)
On hearing the event from the local press on May 29, the French High
Commissioner at Istanbul M. Defrance, expressed his discontent to his
British colleague at not having been told the matter earlier. He wrote to
Admiral Calthorpe on June 2nd that the deportation of Turkish prisoners
have been a surprise to him and he reiterated the French point of view
that it was to the Turkish authorities themselves to deal with the accused
persons. (17)
on his part French Commander General Franchet d'Esperay wrote a letter of
protest, without using the word, to the British Military Mission at
Istanbul that he was surprised that the British Commander "did not think
fit to keep him informed of an event of such importance", that "no
agreement was made before-hand between the Allied Governments concerning
this removal, which was a "political measure" carried out by the British
for their own purposes. Furthermore, he said that the use of French troops
for such a purpose cannot be countenanced (18). "I am apologizing to
Franchet d'Esperay" said General Milne.
On June 4, the French Ambassadors at London communicated to the Foreign
Office the regrets of his Government for deportation of Turkish prisoners
out of Turkey. French Government was of opinion that it was to the Turkish
authorities themselves to prosecute the alleged offenders, that the
deportation of the latters could be presented as an act of "arbitrary
revenge"(19). Despite French opposition, British authorities in Turkey
continued deporting Turkish prisoners throughout the summer of 1919.
The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, were
soon to revise the position of Turkish prisoners. On September 21st, 1919,
he reported to Lord Curzon that the deportees of Malta were "hurriedly"
selected from a list of prisoners, that "it was impossible to rely on
known facts", and that "it might be very difficult to sustain definite
charges against many of these persons before an allied tribunal". He
suggested therefore that His Majesty's Government "should form some clear
idea as to the best means of disposing of them eventually." On his part
Admiral de Robeck abandoned, for the time being, any idea of recommending
further arrests and deportations. (20)
There was now a great deal of hesitation among the British authorities
regarding the alleged Turkish offenders. When Admiral de Robeck reported
again in November 1919 that he did not consider it politically advisable
to deport any more prisoners, W.S. Edmonds at the Foreign Office minuted
that: "there seems to be a good deal of doubt between the Foreign Office,
Constantinople, Solicitor General and Prisoners Department as to what is
being done about offenders in general."(21)
By January 1920 the British attitude towards Turkey changed again. The
last Ottoman Parliament was inaugurated on January 12. Less than a month
later, Admiral de Robeck reported that "opening of Parliament was followed
by arrival in Istanbul of prominent nationalist leaders and language of
open menace to Allies was used at more than one public meeting"(22).
Moreover, he wrote that if the Allies desired to impose a drastic peace on
Turkey, they would have to impose it by the use of armed forces against
Turkish National movement. (23)
On March 6, Lord Curzon informed Admiral de Robeck that the terms of Peace
Treaty to be imposed upon Ottoman Government were indeed "sufficiently
drastic", that Allies were contemplating the occupation of Istanbul, and
that the occupation "will continue until the Peace Treaty has been
accepted and put into execution" by the Turkish Government (24).
Furthermore, Lord Curzon stated that the "arrest of dangerous nationalist
leaders would be in accord with policy previously pursued."(25)
In the morning of March 16, 1920, all the official buildings in Istanbul,
including the Chamber of Deputies, were formally and forcibly occupied by
the troops of the Entente Powers, and a number of prominent Turkish
nationalist leaders and deputies were arrested. On March 18, Admiral de
Robeck telegraphed to Lord Plumer, the Governor of Malta, the following:"I
am embarking in HMS BenBow on March 18th about 30 important Turkish
political prisoners whose arrest has been effected pursuant to
instructions of His Majesty's Government. I would be grateful if you would
be so good as to give orders for their reception and safe custody at
Malta. "Benbow" due Malta March 21st" (26). New deportations were to
continue from March to November 1920. Overall 144 Turkish prisoners were
deported to Malta in the years of 1919 and 1920.
Following the deportation of his close collaborators as "politically
undesirables", Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the Leader of the Turkish National
Movement, ordered, as a reprisal, the arrest of soem 20 British officers
in Anatolia, including Colonel Rawlinson, who was the younger brother of
Lord Rawlinson and a relative of Lord Curzon.
In August 1920 the Peace Treaty of Sevres was imposed upon Ottoman
Government. The Treaty which was described by Mustafa Kemal Pasha as "a
death sentence for the Turkish nation" and never ratified, contained some
penalty clauses. By the terms of article 230 the Ottoman Government
undertook to hand over to the Allied Powers those persons accused of
"massacres", and to recognise the competence of Allied tribunals to try
alleged Turkish offenders. Furthermore, the Sultan's Government undertook
to furnish to the Allies "all documents and information of every kind"
which would be considered necessary to ensure the full knowledge of the
incriminating acts.
With the signature of the Treaty of Sevres, nearly everything was
completed for prosecution of the Turkish deportees accused of "Armenian
massacres". The alleged offenders in question were already in British
custody. The British forces were in occupation of Turkish capital and some
other points in Turkey. Therefore, all Turkish Central State Archives and
some of those kept in the provinces were at the disposal of the British
authorities. Furthermore, the Ottoman Government undertook to assist the
Allied authorities in prosecution of alleged offenders.
It seemed that the British Government doubted whether these Turkish
deportees at Malta, whose arrests and deportations were caused by some
zealots, were in fact guilty or not. The responsible British authorities
were hesitating to accuse formally these deportees. On the contrary, they
were contemplating their release. On July 19th, 1920, W.S. Churchill, the
Secretary of State of War, circulated to the British Cabinet the list of
Turkish deportees at Malta and suggested that it should be carefully
revised by the Attorney General. Churchill added:"those men against whom
it is not proposed to take definite proceedings should at the first
convenient opportunity be released." (27)
The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted and presented to the Cabinet
a memorandum dated August 4. It was understood that the Law Officers were
dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of
British prisoners of War. No material or evidence existed about alleged
Armenian persecution. Therefore, the Law Officers abstained to formulate
against the deportees such a crime. (28)
At their meeting held on August 4, 1920, the British Cabinet had under
consideration both this memorandum and that of circulated by Churchill,
and agreed that the list of Turkish deportees should be carefully revised
by the Attorney General and that those deportees against whom no
proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient
opportunity. (29)
On February 8th, 1921, the Attorney General informed the Foreign Office
that he was concerned only with eight Turkish deportees accused of
ill-treatment of British prisoners of war and not with others. He
suggested that His Majesty's High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked
to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he (High
Commissioner) recommended for persecution (30). Meanwhile, Lord Plumer,
the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Malta, submitted to the Colonial
Office a detailed report on Turkish detainees. He suggested that some of
them should be released and the charges on which the others were to be
tried be communicated to them together with a summary of evidence (31).
Thus, the crucial question of evidence to produced against the deportees
was now raised both by the Governor of Malta and the Attorney General. But
no such an evidence ever existed in the files of British Department in
London, and Lord Curzon was expecting a full report and all incriminating
documents from the British High Commissioner at Istanbul.
In the meantime, Curzon informed Sir H. Rumbold that an agreement with
Turkey for the exchange of prisoners was contemplated and asked his
opinion about a number of Turkish detainees at Malta (32). Rumbold
replied: "Broadly speaking my view is that all persons against whom there
are no charges justifying eventual prosecution might now be released
provided that we can secure in exchange release of all British prisoners
in the hands of Kemalists." The High Commissioner further suggested
prosecution of some of deportees and selected the remainder for an
exchange (33).
An agreement for the "Immediate Release of Prisoners" was signed between
Bekir Sami Bey, Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Robert Vansitart,
a member of British Foreign Office. on March 16, 1921, in London. It
stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners in Turkey and
repatriation of 64 Turkish deportees at Malta (34).
The British Government, thus, accepted the release of one half of the
Turkish deportees, but continued keeping the other half for trial. Such an
agreement was unacceptable to the Turkish Government. In fact, the
instructions of Bekir Sami Bey precluded him from accepting any
arrangement but one based on "all for all" exchange, and he was forced to
resign from his post for having neglected the instructions.
Out of originally 144 deportees at Malta 56 persons were selected by H.M.
High Commissioner at Istanbul for prosecution. On March 16, 1921, Sir H.
Rumbold forwarded to the Foreign Office long expected "evidence" or
"details of charges" against each of these persons (35). These documents
consisted a few typewritten pages for each one of 56 deportees. The first
pages of each "dossier" were reserved to the biographical information of
the accused person and the last pages or paragraphs to the "accusation"
itself. Andrew Ryan, explained how these "accusations" were drawn up:
"In practice we have gone on the principle that a sufficient presumption
of guilt to justify detention and ultimate prosecution existed against all
members of the responsible Governments of Turkey at the time when the
massacres and deportations took place and all persons so high in the
councils of C.U.P. as to be credited with share in directing its policy.
If this is the principle, then it seems to me that all these people should
stand their trial...This appears to me the only logical course."(36)
This means that most of the deportees considered a priori guilty. Such a
logic and such a principle, were obviously quite the contrary of the
well-established basic principle of law and justice, according to which
each person is considered innocent until he is actually found guilty.
Sir H. Rumbold in forwarding to London the "evidence" against the
deportees, wrote that very few witnesses were available, that Armenian
Patriarchate at Istanbul had been the principal channel through which
information had been obtained, and that none of allied, associated and
neutral Governments had been asked to supply evidence. He admitted that
"under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave
disadvantage", but he hoped that American Government could supply "a large
amount of documentary information."(37)
Sir Harry Lamb, one of Rumbold's collaborators, wrote frankly the
following:
"No one of the deportees {at Malta} was arrested on any evidence in legal
sense... The wholse case of these deportees is not satisfactory.... There
are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by
Armenians of differing values, in some cases, we have nothing but what is
common report and an extract from a printed pamphlet. It is safe to say
that very few 'dossiers' as they now stand would be marked 'no case' by a
practical lawyer..."(38)
For the officials of the British Foreign Office such a result was
obviously disappointing. They still maintained their efforts in order to
secure prosecution of some of the deportees and for that purpose addressed
for assisstance to the United States of America and to the British
Attorney General. On April 1st, 1921, all available "evidence were
transmitted to the Department of Law Officers for the information of the
Attorney General.
In reply, the Law Officers stated again that they were concerned only with
the eight detainees accused of cruelty to the British prisoners of war. As
to the others, the Attorney General was of the opinion that, their
detention or release involved "a question of high policy" and was not
dependent on legal proceedings (39). Thus, the Attorney General refused to
involve himself with the alleged case of Armenian "massacres" and he
carefully refrained from pronouncing the word "massacre", so freely used
by the allied war-time propaganda machine and by some politicians.
The top officials of the Foreign Office recorded their views on the Law
Officers' Commentary as follows:
"The Attorney General is only concerned with eight Turks whose prosecution
he desires for cruelty to British prisoners of war. The Foreign Office,
however, is concerned with 45 Turks (of whom two have escaped from Malta)
who ought to be prosecuted for massacre under the article 230 of Treaty of
Sevres. The letter give no guidance as to those 45. Our difficulty is that
we have practically no legal evidence and we do not want to prepare for
proceeding which will be abortive...We asked Washington if the Americans
could produce any evidence of massacre against the internees.
1. Remind Washington,
2. Reply that we wish to retain for prosecution all the internees against
whom there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction...(40)
{Another member of the Foreign Office added}
"I think we should explain this, adding (if this is, as I presume it is,
our view) that from the political point of view it is very desirable that
these people should be brought to trial... and we should be very grateful
if the Attorney General would let us have his views on this point"(41)
On the other hand, Lord Curzon informed Sir A. Geddes, the British
Ambassador at Washington, that there was a "considerable difficulty" in
establishing proof of guilty against the Turkish detainees at Malta and
requested him "to ascertain if United States Government are in possession
of any evidence that would be of value for purpose of prosecution (42). A
list of names and brief particulars of 45 Turkish deportees who were
detained at Malta for prosecution was forwarded to Washington in order to
ascertain whether Americans can furnish any evidence against these persons
(43).
On July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington returned the following
reply:
"I have the honour to inform Your Lordship that a member of my staff
visited the State Department yesterday, the 12th instant, in regard to the
Turks who are at present being detained at Malta with a view to a trial...
He was permitted to see a selection of reports from United States Consuls
on the subject of the atrocities committed in Armenia during the recent
war, the reports judged by the State Department to be the most useful for
the purposes of His Majesty's Government being chosen from among several
hundreds. I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein
which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained
for trial at Malta. The reports seems.. made mention of only two names of
the Turkish officials in question... and in these cases were confined to
personal opinions of those officials on the part of the writer, no
concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory
incriminating evidence. I have the honour to add that officials of the
Department of State expressed the wish, in the course of conversation,
that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed
in the court of law. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that
the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in
any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful
even for the purpose of corraborating information already in possession of
His Majesty's Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from
addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this
matter." (44)
The Foreign Office was once more disappointed and one of them, W.S.
Edmonds minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to
obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney
General's opinion as to whether there is reasonable prospect of convicting
any of the prisoners charged with massacres, etc."(45) The Foreign Office
was still persisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees. In
view of lack of legal evidence, they decided to use political argument and
wrote accordingly to H.M. Procurator General's Department:
"From Political point of view, the letter said, it is highly desirable
that proceedings should take place against all of these persons against
whom there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. On the
other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings
which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances His
Lordship (Curzon) would be so good as to favour him with an opinion as to
which of the forty-five Turks mentioned above could be prosecuted, when
the occasion presents itself, with a reasonable prospect of success."(46).
In its report dated July 29, 1921, H.M. Procurator General's Department
pointed out that the charges made against the Turkish detainees named in
the Foreign Office list were of "a quasi-political character" and that
there existed great difficulty of securing proofs in these cases. To the
Attorney General, "it seems improbable that the charges made against some
of the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law".
Therefore, the Attorney General was "not in a position to express any
opinion" as to the prospect of success in any cases submitted for his
consideration.(47)
This was the conclusive opinion of H.M. Attorney General. There was no
evidence against the Turkish deportees and therefore no prospect of
success of prosecuting them before a Court of Law. All political attempts
of the Foreign Office to secure the conviction of innocent detainees thus
failed in presence of dignified English Jurists. Upon the receipt of the
letter of the Procurator General's Department, an official of the Foreign
Office wrote:
"From this letter it appears that the chances of obtaining convictions are
almost nil...
The American Government, we ascertained, cannot help with any evidence...
In addition to the absence of legal evidence there is the extreme
unlikelihood that the French and Italians would agree to participate in
constituting the course provided for in article 230 of the Treaty {of
Sevres}.
On the other hand we certainly cannot release any Turks until our own
prisoners are returned..."(48)
It was impossible to detain any longer the Turkish prisoners in malta as
actual offenders. From now on, the British authorities were keeping them
as "hostages" against British prisoners in Anatolia. Before a final
decision regarding these hostages, the High Commissioner at Istanbul was
asked if he had any observation. Sir H. Rumbold was informed that "His
Majesty's Government must contemplate...the release of the 43 Turks who
remain at Malta" and he was requested to furnish his views upon this
subject (49).
In Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold asked the opinion of the English Judge Sir
Lindsay-Smith and that of General Harrington's legal adviser. Sir
Lindsay-Smith stated that he accepted the Attorney-General's opinion as
conclusive and that "an abortive trial would do more harm than good". In
conclusion, he said that the only alternative was "to retain Turkish
deportees at Malta as hostages"(50). General Sir Charles Harrington added
that there was no longer any good purpose served by maintaining these
persons at Malta at public expense, and that the whole of them might be
used to obtain the release of British prisoners (51).
In this context, Sir Horace Rumbold wrote to Lord Curzon that "Failing the
possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would
satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of
technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order,
therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I
consider that all the Turks except the eight.... should be made available
for exchange purposes."(52)
Eight detainees were those charged with cruelty to British prisoners. Both
the Foreign Office and War Office were now in favour of an exchange all
Turkish detainees, other than the eight, against the British prisoners in
Turkey and the Law Officers of the Crown concurred in this view (53).
Then, Lord Curzon informed Sir H. Rumbold on September 27, that the
British Government was ready to repatriate all Turkish deportees at Malta,
including the eight, in exchange of all British prisoners in Turkey (54).
On October 1st, 1921, all Turkish deportees at Malta, to the number of 59,
were embarked on board HMS Crysanthemum and FRA Montenol, and the ships
sailed for Turkey. The Governor of Malta reportedthat everything possible
was done to ensure "the reasonable comfort" of the deportees on board.
When they were released, the deportees refused to sign clearence
certificates and stated that they intended to make indemnity claims
against the British authorities in respect of their internment at Malta
(56). Chrysanthemum and Montenol arrived at Inebolu, on the south coast of
the Black Sea, on October 31st, 1921, and all deportees of Malta landed
safely on Turkish soil. At the same time, all British prisoners in
Anatolia were handed over to their authorities (57). The episode of Malta
thus ended.
(ii)
To sum up, these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were
arrested and deported without any serious investigation. The principal
sources of information of the British High Commission at Istanbul were
some local Armenians and the Armenian Patriarchate itself. There was, from
the very beginning, a great deal of doubt whether the accused persons were
in fact guilty or not. Admiral Webb wrote in March 1919 that "in regard to
massacres, question of evidence will be extremely difficult". French
authorities were against these arrests and deportations which they
considered as "political measures". Admiral de Robeck wrote in September
1919 that "it was impossible to rely on known facts" and that "it might be
very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an
allied tribunal". Indeed "no one of the deportees was arrested on any
evidence" and "there was no dossier in legal sense."
From the political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the
British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought
to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order
to prove that an Armenian "massacre" actually took place in Turkey and
consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts of the
Foreign Office in this connection ended with a complete failure. There was
no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian
Patriarchate furnished nothing incriminatory. The Turkish capital was
under Allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were easily
accessible to the British authorities in Istanbul. Yet, the British High
Commissioner was unable to forward to London any evidence in the legal
sense. There was nothing in the British archives which could be used as
evidence against the Turkish detainees at Malta. The State Department was
also unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these
Turks.
It appears that what actually took place in Turkey during World War I was
not a "massacre" but a deportation. The Armenian minority in eastern
Turkey revolted against the Ottoman State at a most critical time in
recent Turkish history when Russian armies launched an offensive against
Van, in the East, and when the Allied troops landed on Gallipoli
peninsula, in the West, in April 1915. The Ottoman Government then decided
in May 1915 to remove the insurgent Armenian minority from the war zone to
the Syrian province of the Empire. Some 700,000 Armenians out of a total
1,200,000 were transported from Anatolia to Syria in very difficult
conditions, i.e. at a time when the Empire was suffering from severe
shortage of vehicles, food, fuel, clothing, and other supplies as well as
large-scale plague and famine. Turks as well as Armenians suffered much
from the ravages of foreign invasions, activities of robber bands, as well
as general insecurity and blood feuds. Under these conditions, too many
lives were unfortunately lost, but Armenian casualties were no greater in
percentage than that of the Turks.
These facts were firstly interpreted and distorded by Armenian
nationalists and propagandists. Then the British and French Intelligence
Services on their part spread throughout the world the stories of
imaginary "massacres" for the sake of their own political purposes. Since
the Ottoman Government did not hesitate to declare a Cihad or Sacred War
against them, the Allied Governments obviously excused themselves for
having so much propagandized these stories and sufferings of Christian
brethren under the Muslim-Turkish "yoke". This propaganda was still
exploited at conference tables by some British politicians. But to make
propaganda and to prosecute innocent people before a serious Court of Law
were indeed quite different things. Sir Gordon Howard, the British
Attorney-General, was not probably unaware that, in fact, no massacre was
planned or ordered by the Ottoman officials and no planned massacre was
carried out. He thought that all charges made against the Turkish
officials and officers at Malta were of "quasi-political character" and
consequently it was improbable that these charges will be capable of legal
proof in a Court of Law. As a result, all detainees at Malta were released
and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.
From PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIUM ON ARMENIANS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND
TURKEY (1912-1926), Bogazici University Publications, Istanbul, 1984, pp.
26-41
(1) Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), Foreign Office (hereafter FO)
371/4172/2391
(2) Sir Andrew Ryan, The Last of the Dragomans, (London 1951), preface
(3) FO 371/4172/1437
(4) FO 371/4174/11837
(5) FO 371/4172/13694
(6) FO 371/4172/16731
(7) FO 371/4172 FO to Calthorpe, tel.no. 233 of 5.2.1919
(8) FO 371/4172/2408
(9) FO 371/4172/28138
(10) FO 371/4172/29498
(11) FO 371/. Greham to Spanish Ambassador, 4.3.1919
(12) FO 371/4172/41634 Webb to FO, tel.no. 532 of 11.3.1919
(13) FO 371/4174 Webb to G.O.C. No. R.1315 of 15.5.1919
(14) FO 271/41741 Webb to Milne 22.5.1919. Duncan to Webb, 1302, 22.5.1919
(15) FO 371/4173/81368 Calthorpe to FO tel.No. 1150 of 29.5.1919
(16) FO 371/4174/88761
(17) FO 371/4174 Defrance to Calthorpe, 2.6.1919
(18) FO 371/4174 British Military Mission to G.O.C. 30.5.1919
(19) FO 371/4173/84188
(2) FO 371/4174/136069
(21) FO 371/4174/156721
(22) Bilal N. Simsir (ed.by) British Documents on Ataturk (1919-1938),
Vol.I, Ankara, pp. 367-368
(23) Ibid., pp 372'375
(24) Ibid., p.441
(25) Ibid., p 443
(26) FO 371/5089/Plummer to S. of S. for the Colonies, tel no. 66,
18.3.1920
(27) FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649. Memorandum by the S. of S. For War,
19.7.1920
(28) FO 371/5090/E. 9934 (C.P.1770)
(29) FO 371/5090/E.9934 and C.P. 1770
(30) FO 371/64990/E. 1801
(31) FO 371/6499/E. 2653
(32) FO. 371/6499/E. 3215
(33) FO 371/6499/E. 3277
(34) Text in FO 371/6500/E. 3375
(35) FO 371/6500/E. 3557
(36) FO 371/6500/E.3557
(37) FO 371/6500/E.3557
(38)FO 371/6500/E. 3554 Minutes by Lamb to the file of Veli Nejdet
(39) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(40) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(41) Ibid.
(42) FO 371/6502/E. 5845
(43) FO 371/6503/E. 6311
(44) FO 371/6504/E. 8519. R.C. Cragie (British Embassy in Washington) to
Lord Curzon, No. 722 of July 13, 1921
(45) FO 371/6504/E. 8519 FO minutes
(46) FO 371/6502/E. 5845. Oliphant to Woods (Procurator General's Dept),
E. 5845/132/44 of May 31, 1921
(47) FO 371/6504/E. 8745 Woods (Procurator General's Dept) to FO,
29.7.1921
(48) Ibid.
(49) FO 371/6504/E. 8745 FO to Rumbold, No.851, 10.8.1921
(50) FO 371/6504/E. 10023
(51) Ibid.
(52) Ibid.
(53) FO 371/6504/E. 10561
(54) FO 371/6504/E. 10662
(55) FO 371/6505/E. 11011 and E. 1112
(56) FO 371/6505. Plumer to War Office, No. 4133 (A), 29.10.1921
(57) FO 371/6505/E. 12068 and E. 12891
Birds Without Wings by Louis de Bernières
A decade after Captain Corelli, Louis de Bernières revisits the Med with an epic, and tragic, panorama of peace and war, with Mustafa Kemal and life in south-western coast of Turkey until the early 1920s
Mavi Boncuk |
At the close of his sixth novel, Birds Without Wings (Secker & Warburg, £17.99), the Muslim potter Iskander reflects on the tragic expulsion of his Christian neighbours from the home that they shared on the south-western coast of Turkey until the early 1920s. He decides that "everything that happened was made to do so by the great world".
De Bernières, you feel, partakes of that suspicion of the "great world". Take next week, which contains a momentous day for him. He's due to take a Grade Five flute exam. He already plays the clarinet and oboe, as well as the classical guitar and (yes, of course) the mandolin, and gigs with an Oxford-based ensemble: "I only have one track on which I star, which is five minutes of variations on 'Greensleeves'." In his living room, looking out on secluded lawns, a piano stands ready for musical visitors to accompany him. "To play with proper musicians, you've got be be good enough," he says.
Something else of note happens next week. This is, of course, the release of the most eagerly-awaited novel of the year, a full decade after Captain Corelli's Mandolin started to pluck the heartstrings of millions. And so the "great world" beats a path to his tucked-away door in Norfolk, while its stocky, laid-back target improves his flute technique and frets about "the publicity machine". He laments that, "The funny thing about being a writer is that people find hundreds of ways of interrupting you, continuously."
Such as - turning up for interviews and asking questions that focus on notions of well-planned structure, rather than the serendipity de Bernières prefers. Set between 1900 and 1923, Birds Without Wings traces through its small-town microcosm the dismemberment of the decadent but tolerant Ottoman Empire, after "the hell's broth of religious and nationalist hatred had been stirred up by a multitude of village Hitlers". In contrast, says the author, "the thing about the Ottomans is that they weren't prodigiously effective oppressors. As long as you paid your taxes, you were really quite all right." The novel celebrates the day-to-day deals of a mongrel Mediterranean backwater, in which Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Armenians all rub along.
To trace the demise of this lazy, multi-cultural idyll, it switches between voices and tones that embody the ramshackle, easy-going world that new divisions will destroy. We follow the growing-up of too-beautiful Philothei and the tragic outcome of her betrothal to the goatherd Ibrahim; the curious ménage of the proud landowner, Rustem Bey, and his concubine, Leyla; the fate of the saintly imam, Abdulhamid Hodja; and the friends Abdul and Nicos, aka "Blackbird" and "Robin", whose answering bird-whistles lend the book an auditory sign of the ties that bind these vulnerable "birds without wings". In Turkey, children still blow these uncannily convincing whistles.
In his fiction, as in his craft-filled leisure-time of antique motor-parts and broken instruments, de Bernières loves what the French call bricolage: running repairs, on-the-spot fixes, DIY make-do-and-mend. The hubris of the grand plan repels him, in politics and art. Suitably enough, the Greek ethnic expansionism of the early 20th century went by the name of the "Big Idea" - just the kind of thing that de Bernières loathes. "I really hate and despise nationalism," he affirms. "What other people regard as liberation movements I regard as really stupid and unnecessary interruptions of a peaceful life." Those thuggish interruptors, again.
It was alien nationalism that cursed the Turkish "ghost town" de Bernières discovered on holiday in the mid-1990s: a "beautiful, melancholy place", whose desolation planted the seed of his novel. Birds Without Wings paints this remote paradise of mingled blood and mutual respect, and shows how the nationalist serpent slid into it. And, in the background, the career of the greatest nationalist of all unfolds in snappy, newsreel-like scenes: Mustafa Kemal, victor at Gallipoli, supplanter of the Sultan and, as "Atatürk", the father of modern Turkey. "He has a quality of myth about him I didn't want to disrupt," says de Bernières.
Before the calamity, make-do-and-mend suits the people of the town down to their harsh but herb-rich ground. That goes for passion as well as politics. If the doomed devotion of Ibrahim and Philothei punctuates the book, its unexpected emotional - and erotic - heart emerges in the blooming tenderness between the stiff squire Rustem Bey and Leyla: his Greek mistress, bought from a house of ill repute in Istanbul. De Bernières has been thinking "about the variety of human love - the enormous number of ways one can love, or learn to love. It struck me as possible that a woman who was bought could learn to love and respect her buyer, and vice versa."
In counterpoint to the varieties of love, Birds Without Wings delivers the hideous violence of mechanised warfare. Its 100-page centrepiece, in which Karatavuk ("Blackbird") recounts the terror, squalor and fitful heroism of the Gallipoli campaign, will have critics reaching for their War and Peace. In truth, de Bernières (who learned his craft from the works of Márquez) is too centrifugal and carnivalesque a novelist for the Tolstoy comparison. However, he makes of the carnage a mesmerising patchwork of horror, humour and humanity. "If I can tell it in someone else's voice," says the army officer's son, and Sandhurst drop-out, of the savagery that haunts both this novel and Captain Corelli, "it somehow makes it less like me being obsessed by it."
Visiting the battle sites, he found their past darkness made all too visible. "The bones of the corpses come to the surface," he recalls. "I found quantities of bones when I was there. You look on the war memorials and it says, 'Their name liveth for evermore.' And you have this totally anonymous bone in your hand."
None of the peoples of that fractured region has ever quite buried the bones of this grim era. So he did "from time to time have the sense of playing with fire", even though the novel depicts harmony as a social norm. "I'm sure there will be Armenians, Greeks and Turks who are upset by this book," he says, merrily. "The aim is to upset them all equally... I think it's quite possible I'll be assassinated at a reading one day. I don't think it'll be by a fanatic, but by a lunatic."
Biography: Louis De Bernieres
Louis de Bernières was born in 1954 to a family of Huguenot descent. He went to Bradfield School on an army scholarship. Briefly a Sandhurst cadet, he dropped out to work in Colombia before studying philosophy at Manchester University. He later became a teacher. The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts (1990) was followed by Señor Vivo and the Coca Lord and The Troublesome Offspring of Cardinal Guzman. In 1993, he was named as one of Granta's Best of Young British novelists. Captain Corelli's Mandolin (1994) won the Commonwealth Writers Prize. In the UK , it has sold more than 2.5 million copies. In 2002, he published Red Dog, a novel for children set in Australia. Next week, Birds Without Wings appears from Secker & Warburg. He lives in south Norfolk with his partner.
Treaty of 1955 | Baghdat Pact
Mavi Boncuk |
Baghdad Pact; February 4, 1955
Pact of Mutual Cooperation Between the Kingdom of Iraq, the Republic of Turkey, the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Iran (Baghdad Pact), February 24, 1955(1)
Whereas the friendly and brotherly relations existing between Iraq and Turkey are in constant progress, and in order to complement the contents of the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourhood concluded between His Majesty the King of Iraq and his Excellency the President of the Turkish Republic signed in Ankara on March 29, 1946,(2) which recognised the fact that peace and security between the two countries is an integral part of the peace and security of all the nations of the world and in particular the nations of the Middle East, and that it is the basis for their foreign policies;
Whereas article 11 of the Treaty of Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation between the Arab League States provides that no provision of that treaty shall in any way affect, or is designed to affect, any of the rights and obligations accruing to the Contracting Parties from the United Nations Charter;
And having realised the great responsibilities borne by them in their capacity as members of the United Nations concerned with the maintenance of peace and security in the Middle East region which necessitate taking the required measures in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter;
They have been fully convinced of the necessity of concluding a pact fulfilling these aims, and for that purpose have appointed as their plenipotentiaries . . . who having communicated their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows:-
ARTICLE 1
Consistent with article 51 of the United Nations Charter the High Contracting Parties will co-operate for their security and defence. Such measures as they agree to take to give effect to this co-operation may form the subject of special agreements with each other.
ARTICLE 2
In order to ensure the realization and effect application of the co-operation provided for in article 1 above, the competent authorities of the High Contracting Parties will determine the measures to be taken as soon as the present pact enters into force. These measures will become operative as soon as they have been approved by the Governments of the High Contracting Parties.
ARTICLE 3
The High Contracting Parties undertake to refrain from any interference whatsoever in each other's internal affairs. They will settle any dispute between themselves in a peaceful way in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
ARTICLE 4
The High Contracting Parties declare that the dispositions of the present pact are not in contradiction with any of the international obligations contracted by either of them with any third State or States. They do not derogate from and cannot be interpreted as derogating from, the said international obligations. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to enter into any international obligation incompatible with the present pact.
ARTICLE 5
This pact shall be open for accession to any member of the Arab League or any other State actively concerned with the security and peace in this region and which is fully recognized by both of the High Contracting Parties. Accession shall come into force from the date of which the instrument of accession of the State concerned is deposited with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iraq.
Any acceding State party to the present pact may conclude special agreements, in accordance with article 1, with one or more States parties to the present pact. The competent authority of any acceding State may determine measures in accordance with article 2. These a measures will become operative as soon as they have been approved by the Governments of the parties concerned.
ARTICLE 6
A Permanent Council at ministerial level will be set up to function within the framework of the purposes of this pact when at least four Powers become parties to the pact.
The Council will draw up its own rules of procedure.
ARTICLE 7
This pact remains in force for a period of five years renewable for other five-year periods. Any Contracting Party may withdraw from the pact by notifying the other parties in writing of its desire to do so six months before the expiration of any of the above-mentioned periods, in which case the pact remains valid for the other parties.
ARTICLE 8
This pact shall be ratified by the contracting parties and ratifications shall be exchanged at Ankara as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into force from the date of the exchange of ratifications.
In witness whereof, the said plenipotentiaries have signed the present pact in Arabic, Turkish and English, all three texts being equally authentic except in the case of doubt when the English text shall prevail.
Done in duplicate at Bagdad this second day of Rajab 1374 Hijri corresponding to the twenty-fourth day of February 1955.
(1) British Misc. No. 5 (1955), Cmd. 9429. Signed by Iraq and Turkey at Baghdad, Feb. 24, 1955; ratifications exchanged, Apr. 15, 1955; adhered to by U.K. (Apr. 5, 1955), by Pakistan (Sept. 23, 1955); by Iran (Oct. 23, 1955). For statements on United States attitude toward the Baghdad Pact, see Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 1, 1954, pp. 327-328, Oct. 3, 1955, p. 534; Get. 24, 1955, p. 653; Nov. 28, 1955, p. 895. On invitation, the United States sent observers (Ambassador Waldemar Gallman and Admiral John H. Cassady) to the first meeting of the Baghdad Pact Council, Baghdad, Nov. 21-22, 1955 (ibid., Dec. 5, 1955, p. 926, and Jan. 2, 1956, p. 16). For communique on the first meeting, see Ibid., pp. 16-18. Back
(2) United Nations Treaty Series, vol. XXXVII, pp. 226 ff. Back
Source:
American Foreign Policy
1950-1955
Basic Documents
Volume 1
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1957
Baghdad Pact; February 4, 1955
Pact of Mutual Cooperation Between the Kingdom of Iraq, the Republic of Turkey, the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Iran (Baghdad Pact), February 24, 1955(1)
Whereas the friendly and brotherly relations existing between Iraq and Turkey are in constant progress, and in order to complement the contents of the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourhood concluded between His Majesty the King of Iraq and his Excellency the President of the Turkish Republic signed in Ankara on March 29, 1946,(2) which recognised the fact that peace and security between the two countries is an integral part of the peace and security of all the nations of the world and in particular the nations of the Middle East, and that it is the basis for their foreign policies;
Whereas article 11 of the Treaty of Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation between the Arab League States provides that no provision of that treaty shall in any way affect, or is designed to affect, any of the rights and obligations accruing to the Contracting Parties from the United Nations Charter;
And having realised the great responsibilities borne by them in their capacity as members of the United Nations concerned with the maintenance of peace and security in the Middle East region which necessitate taking the required measures in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations Charter;
They have been fully convinced of the necessity of concluding a pact fulfilling these aims, and for that purpose have appointed as their plenipotentiaries . . . who having communicated their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows:-
ARTICLE 1
Consistent with article 51 of the United Nations Charter the High Contracting Parties will co-operate for their security and defence. Such measures as they agree to take to give effect to this co-operation may form the subject of special agreements with each other.
ARTICLE 2
In order to ensure the realization and effect application of the co-operation provided for in article 1 above, the competent authorities of the High Contracting Parties will determine the measures to be taken as soon as the present pact enters into force. These measures will become operative as soon as they have been approved by the Governments of the High Contracting Parties.
ARTICLE 3
The High Contracting Parties undertake to refrain from any interference whatsoever in each other's internal affairs. They will settle any dispute between themselves in a peaceful way in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
ARTICLE 4
The High Contracting Parties declare that the dispositions of the present pact are not in contradiction with any of the international obligations contracted by either of them with any third State or States. They do not derogate from and cannot be interpreted as derogating from, the said international obligations. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to enter into any international obligation incompatible with the present pact.
ARTICLE 5
This pact shall be open for accession to any member of the Arab League or any other State actively concerned with the security and peace in this region and which is fully recognized by both of the High Contracting Parties. Accession shall come into force from the date of which the instrument of accession of the State concerned is deposited with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iraq.
Any acceding State party to the present pact may conclude special agreements, in accordance with article 1, with one or more States parties to the present pact. The competent authority of any acceding State may determine measures in accordance with article 2. These a measures will become operative as soon as they have been approved by the Governments of the parties concerned.
ARTICLE 6
A Permanent Council at ministerial level will be set up to function within the framework of the purposes of this pact when at least four Powers become parties to the pact.
The Council will draw up its own rules of procedure.
ARTICLE 7
This pact remains in force for a period of five years renewable for other five-year periods. Any Contracting Party may withdraw from the pact by notifying the other parties in writing of its desire to do so six months before the expiration of any of the above-mentioned periods, in which case the pact remains valid for the other parties.
ARTICLE 8
This pact shall be ratified by the contracting parties and ratifications shall be exchanged at Ankara as soon as possible. Thereafter it shall come into force from the date of the exchange of ratifications.
In witness whereof, the said plenipotentiaries have signed the present pact in Arabic, Turkish and English, all three texts being equally authentic except in the case of doubt when the English text shall prevail.
Done in duplicate at Bagdad this second day of Rajab 1374 Hijri corresponding to the twenty-fourth day of February 1955.
(1) British Misc. No. 5 (1955), Cmd. 9429. Signed by Iraq and Turkey at Baghdad, Feb. 24, 1955; ratifications exchanged, Apr. 15, 1955; adhered to by U.K. (Apr. 5, 1955), by Pakistan (Sept. 23, 1955); by Iran (Oct. 23, 1955). For statements on United States attitude toward the Baghdad Pact, see Department of State Bulletin, Mar. 1, 1954, pp. 327-328, Oct. 3, 1955, p. 534; Get. 24, 1955, p. 653; Nov. 28, 1955, p. 895. On invitation, the United States sent observers (Ambassador Waldemar Gallman and Admiral John H. Cassady) to the first meeting of the Baghdad Pact Council, Baghdad, Nov. 21-22, 1955 (ibid., Dec. 5, 1955, p. 926, and Jan. 2, 1956, p. 16). For communique on the first meeting, see Ibid., pp. 16-18. Back
(2) United Nations Treaty Series, vol. XXXVII, pp. 226 ff. Back
Source:
American Foreign Policy
1950-1955
Basic Documents
Volume 1
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1957
1921 | Treaty of Ankara
Also called Franklin-Bouillon Agreement
Mavi Boncuk |
Treaty of Ankara |Oct. 20, 1921
Pact between the government of France and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey at Ankara, signed by the French diplomat Henri Franklin-Bouillon and Yusuf Kemal Bey, the Turkish nationalist foreign minister. It formalized the de facto recognition by France of the Grand National Assembly, rather than the government of the Ottoman sultan Mehmed VI, as the sovereign.
France evacuated not only its own troops, but also the Armenian guerillas and volunteers who had cooperated with them, and most of the Armenians who had gathered at Adana in the hope of establishing an Armenian state there. Many of these Armenians were settled in Lebanon. This agreement made possible the subsequent return of Hatay to Turkey, thus fulfilling the provisions of the Turkish national pact, which had been drawn up by Mustafa Kemal, and the leaders of the Turkish War for Independence. This is another international settlement which effectively nullified Armenian ambitions for a state in Anatolia. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 in place of the Treaty of Sévres, did not even mention the Armenians.
Mavi Boncuk |
Treaty of Ankara |Oct. 20, 1921
Pact between the government of France and the Grand National Assembly of Turkey at Ankara, signed by the French diplomat Henri Franklin-Bouillon and Yusuf Kemal Bey, the Turkish nationalist foreign minister. It formalized the de facto recognition by France of the Grand National Assembly, rather than the government of the Ottoman sultan Mehmed VI, as the sovereign.
France evacuated not only its own troops, but also the Armenian guerillas and volunteers who had cooperated with them, and most of the Armenians who had gathered at Adana in the hope of establishing an Armenian state there. Many of these Armenians were settled in Lebanon. This agreement made possible the subsequent return of Hatay to Turkey, thus fulfilling the provisions of the Turkish national pact, which had been drawn up by Mustafa Kemal, and the leaders of the Turkish War for Independence. This is another international settlement which effectively nullified Armenian ambitions for a state in Anatolia. The Treaty of Lausanne, signed on 24 July 1923 in place of the Treaty of Sévres, did not even mention the Armenians.
Treaty of 1954 | Balkan Pact
Mavi Boncuk |
Treaty of Alliance, Political Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance Between the Turkish Republic, the Kingdom of Greece, and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (Balkan Pact), August 9, 1954(1)
The Contracting Parties,
Reaffirming their faith in the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to contribute, by co-ordinating their efforts, to the safeguarding of peace, the strengthening of security and the development of international cooperation;
Resolved to ensure in the most effective manner the territorial integrity as well as the political independence of their countries in accordance with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter;
Animated by the desire to widen and reinforce the bases of friendship and cooperation established in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between their countries, signed at Ankara on February 28, 1953, which proved to be an extremely effective instrument;
Having in view that the said Treaty has always been considered an initial step toward an alliance;
Considering that the conclusion of such an alliance is necessary;
Convinced, furthermore, that the institution of a system of collective security among them through a treaty of alliance would not only constitute a decisive factor for their own security and independence, but would also benefit all the other countries adhering to the cause of a just and equitable peace, especially those situated in their area;
Have decided to conclude the present Treaty and, for this purpose, have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries:
who, having exhibited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:
Article I
The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article II
The Contracting Parties agree that any armed aggression against one or more of them in any part of their territories shall be considered an aggression against all the Contracting Parties, who, consequently, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall jointly and severally go to the assistance of the Party or Parties attacked by taking immediately and by common accord any measures, including the use of armed force, which they deem necessary for effective defense.
The Contracting Parties undertake, without prejudice to Article VII of the present Treaty, not to conclude peace or any other arrangement with the aggressor in the absence of a prior mutual agreement between the Parties.
Article III
To ensure in a continuous and effective manner the attainment of the objectives of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties undertake to assist each other to maintain and strengthen their defensive capacity.
Article IV
With a view to ensuring the effective application of the present Treaty, it is agreed as follows:
1. There is hereby established a Permanent Council to be composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and any other members of the Governments of the Contracting Parties whose presence might be required by the needs of the situation and the nature of the subjects to be treated.
The Permanent Council shall meet regularly twice a year. It may hold additional meetings whenever the Governments of all the Contracting Parties deem this necessary
When the Permanent Council is not in session, it shall perform its functions through the Permanent Secretariat of the Treaty of Ankara according to a procedure to be determined.
The Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs provided for in Article I of the Treaty of Ankara shall be replaced by the Permanent Council.
Decisions of the Permanent Council on substantive matters shall be taken by unanimous agreement.
2. The General Staffs of the Contracting Parties shall continue their common task begun in application of Articles II and III of the Treaty of Ankara, with due regard to the provisions of the present Treaty.
Article V
As soon as the situation envisaged in Article II of the present Treaty occurs, the Contracting Parties will consult immediately and the Permanent Council shall meet at once in order to determine the measures which should be taken in addition to those already adopted pursuant to the aforesaid Article II, referred to above and which it would be necessary to take jointly in order to meet the situation.
Article VI
In the event of serious deterioration of the international situation, and more particularly in the areas where such deterioration might have a negative effect, whether direct or indirect, on the security of their area, the Contracting Parties will consult each other with a view to examining the situation and to determining their attitude.
The Contracting Parties, recognizing that an armed aggression against a country other than one of them may, by spreading, threaten directly or indirectly the security and the integrity of one or more of them, agree as follows:
In the event of an armed aggression against a country toward which one or more Contracting Parties has or have, at the time of signature of the present Treaty, obligations of mutual assistance, the Contracting Parties will consult each other regarding the measures which should be taken in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations and in order to meet the situation thus created in their area.
It is understood that the consultations referred to in this article might include an emergency meeting of the Permanent Council.
Article VII
The Contracting Parties will immediately inform the United Nations Security Council of any armed aggression against them, and of the measures of self-defense which have been taken; they will discontinue the said measures when the Security Council has effectively applied those mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Likewise, the Governments of the Contracting Parties will immediately make the public statement provided for in United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 378 (V) A of November 17, 1950 (2) relating to the duties of States in the event of an outbreak of hostilities, and they will act in accordance with the said Resolution.
Article VIII
The Contracting Parties reaffirm their decision not to participate in any coalition directed against any one of them and not to make any commitment incompatible with the provisions of the present Treaty.
Article IX
The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article X
The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of Greece and Turkey resulting from the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949.
Article XI
The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation concluded between the Contracting Parties at Ankara on February 28, 1953 shall remain in force in so far as it is not modified by the provisions of the present Treaty.
The Contracting Parties agree to apply the provisions of Article XIII of the present Treaty in respect of the duration of the Treaty of Ankara.
Article XII
The provisions of Article IX of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of February 28 shall apply to the present Treaty under the same conditions.
Article XIII
The present Treaty is concluded for a period of twenty years.
If none of the Contracting Parties denounces this Treaty one year before its expiration, it shall automatically be extended for one more year, and so on until it is denounced by one of the Contracting Parties.
Article XIV
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. It shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification.
The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Greece.
The Treaty shall be registered with the United Nations.
It has been drawn up in the French language three identical copies, one of which is to be delivered to each of the Contracting Parties.
In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties have affixed their signatures hereto.
Done at Bled, August 9, 1954.
(1) From Belgrade, despatch 88, Aug. 12, 1954, file no. 760.5/8-1254/enc. 1. Instruments of ratification deposited by Yugoslavia, Feb. 25, 1955 by Greece. Apr. 30, 1955; and by Turkey, May 21,1955; entered into force May 21, 1955. Back
(2) U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/1775), pp. 12-13. Back
Source:
American Foreign Policy 1950-1955
Basic Documents Volumes I and II
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : U.S. Governemnt Printing Office, 1957
Treaty of Alliance, Political Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance Between the Turkish Republic, the Kingdom of Greece, and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (Balkan Pact), August 9, 1954(1)
The Contracting Parties,
Reaffirming their faith in the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to contribute, by co-ordinating their efforts, to the safeguarding of peace, the strengthening of security and the development of international cooperation;
Resolved to ensure in the most effective manner the territorial integrity as well as the political independence of their countries in accordance with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter;
Animated by the desire to widen and reinforce the bases of friendship and cooperation established in the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between their countries, signed at Ankara on February 28, 1953, which proved to be an extremely effective instrument;
Having in view that the said Treaty has always been considered an initial step toward an alliance;
Considering that the conclusion of such an alliance is necessary;
Convinced, furthermore, that the institution of a system of collective security among them through a treaty of alliance would not only constitute a decisive factor for their own security and independence, but would also benefit all the other countries adhering to the cause of a just and equitable peace, especially those situated in their area;
Have decided to conclude the present Treaty and, for this purpose, have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries:
who, having exhibited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:
Article I
The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means any international dispute in which they may be involved, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article II
The Contracting Parties agree that any armed aggression against one or more of them in any part of their territories shall be considered an aggression against all the Contracting Parties, who, consequently, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, shall jointly and severally go to the assistance of the Party or Parties attacked by taking immediately and by common accord any measures, including the use of armed force, which they deem necessary for effective defense.
The Contracting Parties undertake, without prejudice to Article VII of the present Treaty, not to conclude peace or any other arrangement with the aggressor in the absence of a prior mutual agreement between the Parties.
Article III
To ensure in a continuous and effective manner the attainment of the objectives of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties undertake to assist each other to maintain and strengthen their defensive capacity.
Article IV
With a view to ensuring the effective application of the present Treaty, it is agreed as follows:
1. There is hereby established a Permanent Council to be composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and any other members of the Governments of the Contracting Parties whose presence might be required by the needs of the situation and the nature of the subjects to be treated.
The Permanent Council shall meet regularly twice a year. It may hold additional meetings whenever the Governments of all the Contracting Parties deem this necessary
When the Permanent Council is not in session, it shall perform its functions through the Permanent Secretariat of the Treaty of Ankara according to a procedure to be determined.
The Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs provided for in Article I of the Treaty of Ankara shall be replaced by the Permanent Council.
Decisions of the Permanent Council on substantive matters shall be taken by unanimous agreement.
2. The General Staffs of the Contracting Parties shall continue their common task begun in application of Articles II and III of the Treaty of Ankara, with due regard to the provisions of the present Treaty.
Article V
As soon as the situation envisaged in Article II of the present Treaty occurs, the Contracting Parties will consult immediately and the Permanent Council shall meet at once in order to determine the measures which should be taken in addition to those already adopted pursuant to the aforesaid Article II, referred to above and which it would be necessary to take jointly in order to meet the situation.
Article VI
In the event of serious deterioration of the international situation, and more particularly in the areas where such deterioration might have a negative effect, whether direct or indirect, on the security of their area, the Contracting Parties will consult each other with a view to examining the situation and to determining their attitude.
The Contracting Parties, recognizing that an armed aggression against a country other than one of them may, by spreading, threaten directly or indirectly the security and the integrity of one or more of them, agree as follows:
In the event of an armed aggression against a country toward which one or more Contracting Parties has or have, at the time of signature of the present Treaty, obligations of mutual assistance, the Contracting Parties will consult each other regarding the measures which should be taken in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations and in order to meet the situation thus created in their area.
It is understood that the consultations referred to in this article might include an emergency meeting of the Permanent Council.
Article VII
The Contracting Parties will immediately inform the United Nations Security Council of any armed aggression against them, and of the measures of self-defense which have been taken; they will discontinue the said measures when the Security Council has effectively applied those mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Likewise, the Governments of the Contracting Parties will immediately make the public statement provided for in United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 378 (V) A of November 17, 1950 (2) relating to the duties of States in the event of an outbreak of hostilities, and they will act in accordance with the said Resolution.
Article VIII
The Contracting Parties reaffirm their decision not to participate in any coalition directed against any one of them and not to make any commitment incompatible with the provisions of the present Treaty.
Article IX
The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations.
Article X
The provisions of the present Treaty do not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of Greece and Turkey resulting from the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949.
Article XI
The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation concluded between the Contracting Parties at Ankara on February 28, 1953 shall remain in force in so far as it is not modified by the provisions of the present Treaty.
The Contracting Parties agree to apply the provisions of Article XIII of the present Treaty in respect of the duration of the Treaty of Ankara.
Article XII
The provisions of Article IX of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of February 28 shall apply to the present Treaty under the same conditions.
Article XIII
The present Treaty is concluded for a period of twenty years.
If none of the Contracting Parties denounces this Treaty one year before its expiration, it shall automatically be extended for one more year, and so on until it is denounced by one of the Contracting Parties.
Article XIV
The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. It shall enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification.
The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Greece.
The Treaty shall be registered with the United Nations.
It has been drawn up in the French language three identical copies, one of which is to be delivered to each of the Contracting Parties.
In witness whereof, the Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties have affixed their signatures hereto.
Done at Bled, August 9, 1954.
(1) From Belgrade, despatch 88, Aug. 12, 1954, file no. 760.5/8-1254/enc. 1. Instruments of ratification deposited by Yugoslavia, Feb. 25, 1955 by Greece. Apr. 30, 1955; and by Turkey, May 21,1955; entered into force May 21, 1955. Back
(2) U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/1775), pp. 12-13. Back
Source:
American Foreign Policy 1950-1955
Basic Documents Volumes I and II
Department of State Publication 6446
General Foreign Policy Series 117
Washington, DC : U.S. Governemnt Printing Office, 1957
July 08, 2004
Thank the Turks, not Drake
Mavi Boncuk |
Why we must thank the Turks, not Drake, for defeating the Armada
John Ezard, arts correspondent
Tuesday June 1, 2004 |The Guardian
For four centuries, Sir Francis Drake has symbolised English nonchalance and cunning in the face of danger. First, according to the legend drummed into every pupil, he insisted on finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish Armada approached in July 1588. Then he despatched the enemy ships with little more than a few burning rowing boats and a favourable breeze.
But yesterday, it was claimed that Elizabeth's protestant throne was saved by a less celebrated ally: the Turkish navy.
Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College, London, told the Guardian Hay literary festival that a hitherto unnoticed letter from Elizabeth's security chief and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, to her ambassador in Istanbul showed that it was Turkish naval manoeuvres rather than Drake's swashbuckling which delivered the fatal blow to the Spanish invasion plans.
The letter, which ordered the ambassador, William Harborne, to incite the Turks to harry the Spanish navy, was written in the mid-1580s and has been buried in archives ever since because it did not apparently relate to any major historical event.
But Mr Brotton told the fes tival: "Walsingham's plan was ultimately successful. Ottoman fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip II's armada _ So alongside all the stories we're told at school about why the Spanish Armada failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add another reason: the Anglo-Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth, Walsingham [and others]."
In his letter to Harborne, Walsingham wrote: "Her Majesty being, upon the success of the said King of Spain's affairs in the Low Countries, now fully resolved to oppose herself against his proceedings in defence of that distressed nation, whereof it is not otherwise likely but hot wars between him and us, wills me again to require you effectually to use all your endeavour and industry in that behalf."
Walsingham hoped that Islamic forces might keep the Spanish forces "thoroughly occupied" by "some incursions from the coast of Africa", or by attacking his Italian territories from the sea.
The Spanish fleet was eventually defeated on July 30 1588 as it awaited the rest of the invasion force off Calais. At the battle of Gravelines, the English navy used fireships before closing in on the confused Spanish.
Why we must thank the Turks, not Drake, for defeating the Armada
John Ezard, arts correspondent
Tuesday June 1, 2004 |The Guardian
For four centuries, Sir Francis Drake has symbolised English nonchalance and cunning in the face of danger. First, according to the legend drummed into every pupil, he insisted on finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish Armada approached in July 1588. Then he despatched the enemy ships with little more than a few burning rowing boats and a favourable breeze.
But yesterday, it was claimed that Elizabeth's protestant throne was saved by a less celebrated ally: the Turkish navy.
Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College, London, told the Guardian Hay literary festival that a hitherto unnoticed letter from Elizabeth's security chief and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham, to her ambassador in Istanbul showed that it was Turkish naval manoeuvres rather than Drake's swashbuckling which delivered the fatal blow to the Spanish invasion plans.
The letter, which ordered the ambassador, William Harborne, to incite the Turks to harry the Spanish navy, was written in the mid-1580s and has been buried in archives ever since because it did not apparently relate to any major historical event.
But Mr Brotton told the fes tival: "Walsingham's plan was ultimately successful. Ottoman fleet movements in the eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip II's armada _ So alongside all the stories we're told at school about why the Spanish Armada failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add another reason: the Anglo-Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth, Walsingham [and others]."
In his letter to Harborne, Walsingham wrote: "Her Majesty being, upon the success of the said King of Spain's affairs in the Low Countries, now fully resolved to oppose herself against his proceedings in defence of that distressed nation, whereof it is not otherwise likely but hot wars between him and us, wills me again to require you effectually to use all your endeavour and industry in that behalf."
Walsingham hoped that Islamic forces might keep the Spanish forces "thoroughly occupied" by "some incursions from the coast of Africa", or by attacking his Italian territories from the sea.
The Spanish fleet was eventually defeated on July 30 1588 as it awaited the rest of the invasion force off Calais. At the battle of Gravelines, the English navy used fireships before closing in on the confused Spanish.
July 07, 2004
Turkish Incunabula | Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ
Mavi Boncuk |
Kâtip Çelebi, Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ li-Kâtib Çelebi
Kâtip Çelebi (pseudonym of Mustafa Abdullah), Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ li-Kâtib Çelebi. Constantinople, Ibrahim Müteferrika, 1732 (1145).
Binding Modern half-leather binding of coated linen over pasteboard.
Utrecht University Library / Purchased in 1973.
From the beginning of the sixteenth century works in Arabic were printed by Christian and Jewish printers in various European cities as well as in Constantinople. The first works printed in Arabic by an Islamic printer were published in Constantinople in the beginning of the eighteenth century (the twelfth century according to the Islamic calendar). These are known as 'Turkish incunabula'. The printer/publisher, who was of Hungarian origin, has passed into history under his assumed Arabic name of Ibrahim Müteferrika. He was born between 1672 and 1675 in Kolozsvár in Transylvania (the present-day city of Cluj in Romania). His Hungarian name has remained unknown. As a young man he settled in Constantinople, where he became a convert to Islam. He must have been a man of many talents because he worked as a courtier and a diplomat, writer/translator, geographer/cartographer, publisher/printer, letter designer and type founder. Probably between 1705 and 1711, he was appointed to the post of müteferrika, the head of the household, at the court of Sultan Ahmed III. In 1726 he wrote a treatise on the use and efficacy of the printing press, which he submitted to the Grand Vizier, the Grand Mufti and the clergy. He subsequently submitted an official request to the Sultan for permission to print classical and scientific works, including dictionaries and treatises on logic, philosophy, geography and astronomy. Despite initial opposition by the influential clergy and professional calligraphers, he received permission in 1727 to print non-religious works. Between 1729 and 1743 the printing workshop established in Constantinople by Müteferrika produced seventeen printed works in 23 volumes, with impressions ranging from 500 to 1,000 copies. The majority of these Turkish incunabula are works on history, but they also contain three linguistic and three scientific works concerning modernisation, magnetism and the workings of the compass, and the Cihan-nüma or Mirror of the World. The latter is the work displayed here. Until far into the nineteenth century this world atlas was regarded in the Ottoman empire as the standard work of geography on account of its combination, unique for that time, of geographic knowledge already available to the Arabic world and European ideas about this branch of learning that were current at the time.
The author of this work is the historian and geographer Kâtip Çelebi (1609-1657), who was born and died in Constantinople and whose real name was Mustafa ibn Abd Allah. As an army administrator during campaigns in the East he collected a great deal of material for his treatises on the history of the Ottoman empire. An inheritance made it possible for him to settle in Constantinople as a retired citizen, devoting himself entirely to his work as a historian. He also began a collection of books, which, judged by the standards of that time, grew to a considerable size. His most important work was the Kashf al-zunûn'an asâmî al-kutub wa-al-funûn, a bibliographical encyclopaedia with information about 15,000 Arabic, Persian and Turkish books published up to circa 1650. It was Çelebi's intention to dedicate the Cihan-nüma, on which he had started in 1648, to Sultan Mehmed IV, who had just acceded to the throne. Although he was not able to complete the work himself, it has always been attributed to him. The completed work is an atlas with a Turkish text, which for the first time makes use of recently published European atlases and other source material, including Abraham Ortelius's Theatrum orbis terrarum (1570), Gerard Mercator's Atlas minor (1607) and works by the geographer and archaeologist Philippus Cluverius (1580-1622).
A first version and an extended second version by Çelebi have been handed down in a number of manuscripts. The most important of these are kept in Vienna (Mxt. 389) and Istanbul (Erivan Kiosk 1624). After Çelebi's death, Abû Bakr ibn Bahrâm ad-Dimashqî (?-1691) completed the work. The latter's contribution to the third version is apparent from a manuscript kept in London (British Museum, Or. 1030). The definitive (fourth) version, produced by Ibrahim Müteferrika, was published in 1732. Of the two volumes intended for publication by the latter (Part I: Asia; Part II: Europe), only the first was published. Çelebi's text covers approximately two-thirds of the book, followed seamlessly by Abû Bakr's addition. Of the forty plates and maps in the printed version the maps of Azerbaijan (opposite p. 390) and Anatolia (opposite p. 629) go back to the original maps by Abû Bakr. The map of the Bosporus (opposite p. 681) was probably made by Ibrahim Müteferrika himself. The other maps are based on the work of Jodocus Hondius (1563-1612), the well-known Flemish cartographer. He produced the maps for the Mercator and Ortelius atlases (also see no. 36), whose unprecedented popularity was established practically as soon as they were published.
The printed version begins with an illustrated introduction on cosmography and astronomy by Müteferrika. The introduction is based on the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), but the author makes it clear that these ideas had not yet been accepted by the clergy, by which he means both the Christian and the Islamic clergy (also see no. 41). The main text of the atlas contains descriptions of the various regions and accompanying maps, with the emphasis on the Ottoman empire. Apart from geographic and climatological details, the atlas contains socio-historical notes as well as descriptions of cities, buildings, ruins and famous persons.
Literature
G.B. Toderini, De la littérature des Turcs. Traduit de l'Italien en François par M. l'Abbé de Cournand. Tome 3. Paris 1789, pp. 118-135.
F. Taeschner, 'Das Hauptwerk der geographischen Literatur der Osmanen, Katib Çelebi's Gihânnumâ', in: Imago mundi 1 (1935), pp. 44-47.
W.J. Watson, 'Ibrahim Müteferrika and Turkish incunabula', in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968), pp. 435-441.
Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition. Vol. III. Leiden, London 1971, pp. 996-999.
H.A. Avakian, 'Islam and the art of printing', in: Uit bibliotheektuin en informatieveld. Opstellen aangeboden aan dr. D. Grosheide. Utrecht 1978, p. 269.
Kâtip Çelebi, Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ li-Kâtib Çelebi
Kâtip Çelebi (pseudonym of Mustafa Abdullah), Kitâb-i Cihân-nümâ li-Kâtib Çelebi. Constantinople, Ibrahim Müteferrika, 1732 (1145).
Binding Modern half-leather binding of coated linen over pasteboard.
Utrecht University Library / Purchased in 1973.
From the beginning of the sixteenth century works in Arabic were printed by Christian and Jewish printers in various European cities as well as in Constantinople. The first works printed in Arabic by an Islamic printer were published in Constantinople in the beginning of the eighteenth century (the twelfth century according to the Islamic calendar). These are known as 'Turkish incunabula'. The printer/publisher, who was of Hungarian origin, has passed into history under his assumed Arabic name of Ibrahim Müteferrika. He was born between 1672 and 1675 in Kolozsvár in Transylvania (the present-day city of Cluj in Romania). His Hungarian name has remained unknown. As a young man he settled in Constantinople, where he became a convert to Islam. He must have been a man of many talents because he worked as a courtier and a diplomat, writer/translator, geographer/cartographer, publisher/printer, letter designer and type founder. Probably between 1705 and 1711, he was appointed to the post of müteferrika, the head of the household, at the court of Sultan Ahmed III. In 1726 he wrote a treatise on the use and efficacy of the printing press, which he submitted to the Grand Vizier, the Grand Mufti and the clergy. He subsequently submitted an official request to the Sultan for permission to print classical and scientific works, including dictionaries and treatises on logic, philosophy, geography and astronomy. Despite initial opposition by the influential clergy and professional calligraphers, he received permission in 1727 to print non-religious works. Between 1729 and 1743 the printing workshop established in Constantinople by Müteferrika produced seventeen printed works in 23 volumes, with impressions ranging from 500 to 1,000 copies. The majority of these Turkish incunabula are works on history, but they also contain three linguistic and three scientific works concerning modernisation, magnetism and the workings of the compass, and the Cihan-nüma or Mirror of the World. The latter is the work displayed here. Until far into the nineteenth century this world atlas was regarded in the Ottoman empire as the standard work of geography on account of its combination, unique for that time, of geographic knowledge already available to the Arabic world and European ideas about this branch of learning that were current at the time.
The author of this work is the historian and geographer Kâtip Çelebi (1609-1657), who was born and died in Constantinople and whose real name was Mustafa ibn Abd Allah. As an army administrator during campaigns in the East he collected a great deal of material for his treatises on the history of the Ottoman empire. An inheritance made it possible for him to settle in Constantinople as a retired citizen, devoting himself entirely to his work as a historian. He also began a collection of books, which, judged by the standards of that time, grew to a considerable size. His most important work was the Kashf al-zunûn'an asâmî al-kutub wa-al-funûn, a bibliographical encyclopaedia with information about 15,000 Arabic, Persian and Turkish books published up to circa 1650. It was Çelebi's intention to dedicate the Cihan-nüma, on which he had started in 1648, to Sultan Mehmed IV, who had just acceded to the throne. Although he was not able to complete the work himself, it has always been attributed to him. The completed work is an atlas with a Turkish text, which for the first time makes use of recently published European atlases and other source material, including Abraham Ortelius's Theatrum orbis terrarum (1570), Gerard Mercator's Atlas minor (1607) and works by the geographer and archaeologist Philippus Cluverius (1580-1622).
A first version and an extended second version by Çelebi have been handed down in a number of manuscripts. The most important of these are kept in Vienna (Mxt. 389) and Istanbul (Erivan Kiosk 1624). After Çelebi's death, Abû Bakr ibn Bahrâm ad-Dimashqî (?-1691) completed the work. The latter's contribution to the third version is apparent from a manuscript kept in London (British Museum, Or. 1030). The definitive (fourth) version, produced by Ibrahim Müteferrika, was published in 1732. Of the two volumes intended for publication by the latter (Part I: Asia; Part II: Europe), only the first was published. Çelebi's text covers approximately two-thirds of the book, followed seamlessly by Abû Bakr's addition. Of the forty plates and maps in the printed version the maps of Azerbaijan (opposite p. 390) and Anatolia (opposite p. 629) go back to the original maps by Abû Bakr. The map of the Bosporus (opposite p. 681) was probably made by Ibrahim Müteferrika himself. The other maps are based on the work of Jodocus Hondius (1563-1612), the well-known Flemish cartographer. He produced the maps for the Mercator and Ortelius atlases (also see no. 36), whose unprecedented popularity was established practically as soon as they were published.
The printed version begins with an illustrated introduction on cosmography and astronomy by Müteferrika. The introduction is based on the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), but the author makes it clear that these ideas had not yet been accepted by the clergy, by which he means both the Christian and the Islamic clergy (also see no. 41). The main text of the atlas contains descriptions of the various regions and accompanying maps, with the emphasis on the Ottoman empire. Apart from geographic and climatological details, the atlas contains socio-historical notes as well as descriptions of cities, buildings, ruins and famous persons.
Literature
G.B. Toderini, De la littérature des Turcs. Traduit de l'Italien en François par M. l'Abbé de Cournand. Tome 3. Paris 1789, pp. 118-135.
F. Taeschner, 'Das Hauptwerk der geographischen Literatur der Osmanen, Katib Çelebi's Gihânnumâ', in: Imago mundi 1 (1935), pp. 44-47.
W.J. Watson, 'Ibrahim Müteferrika and Turkish incunabula', in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968), pp. 435-441.
Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition. Vol. III. Leiden, London 1971, pp. 996-999.
H.A. Avakian, 'Islam and the art of printing', in: Uit bibliotheektuin en informatieveld. Opstellen aangeboden aan dr. D. Grosheide. Utrecht 1978, p. 269.
Terminology | Incunabula
Incunabulum / cocoon / swaddling clothes / cradle /in-cunae, in the cradle / koiman, put to sleep / winding-
sheet / koimetarium (cemetery)/ printed books before 1501, hence by extension any rare & hermetic book
Mavi Boncuk |
Incunabula
The word incunabulum (pl. incunabula) derives from the Latin cuna (cradle), and is used to refer to books printed during the infancy of printing, that is, before 1501. The invention of printing from moveable type, traditionally attributed to Johann Gutenberg, who printed his famous Vulgate Bible at Mainz in 1455, spread quickly from Germany to Italy. In 1464 Sweynheym and Pannartz, two Germans, set up a press at Subiaco, near Rome. In 1469, the German brothers Johann and Windelin of Speyer established their press in Venice. The typical early printer in Italy was in fact an artisan who had learned his trade in Germany like Johann Neumeister, who printed the first edition of the Comedy at Foligno in 1472.
The earliest printers were trained in the manuscript tradition and competed directly with the producers of costly manuscripts. Consequently, the first generation of printed books (until 1480) sought to imitate these, as evidenced by the incunabula of the Comedy displayed in this exhibit. This dependence of the early printers upon manuscript tradition is exemplified by the absence of title pages and pagination, as well as by the use of abbreviation signs even when they were technically inefficient (they increased the number of characters in a font and made the typesetters job more difficult). Moreover, early printers often satisfied their customers wish to have their books illuminated by providing spaces in which initials could later be painted. It was not until near the turn of the century that printers began to develop their own standards.
The size of an edition was an important consideration for early printers since a successful publisher had to gauge correctly how many copies the market could bear. Thus it is not surprising that publishers adhered primarily to the "bestsellers," namely religious books, textbooks, legal works and the classics. The number of copies printed during the incunable period was usually small, rarely exceeding 300 copies. Around 1500, when the size of the normal book was reduced from folio to quarto 500 copies became standard. It is thought that only 200 copies of Neumeister's editio princeps of the Comedy were printed, of which only about twenty are still extant.
sheet / koimetarium (cemetery)/ printed books before 1501, hence by extension any rare & hermetic book
Mavi Boncuk |
Incunabula
The word incunabulum (pl. incunabula) derives from the Latin cuna (cradle), and is used to refer to books printed during the infancy of printing, that is, before 1501. The invention of printing from moveable type, traditionally attributed to Johann Gutenberg, who printed his famous Vulgate Bible at Mainz in 1455, spread quickly from Germany to Italy. In 1464 Sweynheym and Pannartz, two Germans, set up a press at Subiaco, near Rome. In 1469, the German brothers Johann and Windelin of Speyer established their press in Venice. The typical early printer in Italy was in fact an artisan who had learned his trade in Germany like Johann Neumeister, who printed the first edition of the Comedy at Foligno in 1472.
The earliest printers were trained in the manuscript tradition and competed directly with the producers of costly manuscripts. Consequently, the first generation of printed books (until 1480) sought to imitate these, as evidenced by the incunabula of the Comedy displayed in this exhibit. This dependence of the early printers upon manuscript tradition is exemplified by the absence of title pages and pagination, as well as by the use of abbreviation signs even when they were technically inefficient (they increased the number of characters in a font and made the typesetters job more difficult). Moreover, early printers often satisfied their customers wish to have their books illuminated by providing spaces in which initials could later be painted. It was not until near the turn of the century that printers began to develop their own standards.
The size of an edition was an important consideration for early printers since a successful publisher had to gauge correctly how many copies the market could bear. Thus it is not surprising that publishers adhered primarily to the "bestsellers," namely religious books, textbooks, legal works and the classics. The number of copies printed during the incunable period was usually small, rarely exceeding 300 copies. Around 1500, when the size of the normal book was reduced from folio to quarto 500 copies became standard. It is thought that only 200 copies of Neumeister's editio princeps of the Comedy were printed, of which only about twenty are still extant.
July 06, 2004
Turkish incunabula in Sweden
Mavi Boncuk |
Turkish incunabula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "Turkish incunabula" refers to the first books printed in Turkey with Arabic/Turkish movable types. They were issued from the printing-office of Ibrahim Efendi, called Ibrahim "Müteferriqa" in Constantinople from 1728 to 1742, during which time 17 works were printed.
Hebrew, Greek and Syrian printing presses existed already for the Jews and Christians, but within the Islamic sector, opposition from the religious authorities and the guilds of copyists and calligraphers had been too strong. But at the early 18th century, Turkish society was much influenced by European, especially French science and culture. The first Turkish ambassador to France, Mehmed Efendi and his son Said Efendi, took an interest in the printing technique, and back in Turkey secured the approval of the Grand Vizier, the Mufti's decree and the Sultan's command with permission to set up a press provided no religious (including legal) works were printed. Printing presses were imported from France, typefaces from Holland, workmen from Vienna, and printing started in 1728 with a large Arabic dictionary in Turkish translation.
The man in charge was Ibrahim Efendi, who was born in Transylvania but had been taken prisoner, entered the civil service and advanced to müteferriqa, i.e. "steward" attached to the Sultan's personal staff. The printing-office was in operation until 1742 when Ibrahim went over to diplomatic service until his death in 1745. In 1758 his son printed a second edition of the dictionary, and that was the end of this printing-office. 12 works had been shipped to Sweden in 1736 through ambassadors Carleson and von Höpken and arrived to the Royal Library the same year. In 1739 similar dispatches arrived to the university libraries at Uppsala and Lund. In 1807 the Royal Library acquired another set of the incunabula collection through Ulric Celsing.
Printing wasn't restarted in Turkey until 1783, but then it continued. One of the products of that second period was the Cedid Atlas Tercümesi 1803, after British cartographer William Faden, which was acquired by Hedenborg and arrived to the Royal Library in 1832.
The Turkish booktitles below are given in Arabic transliteration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Krusinski: Chronicle of the Afghan revolt.
Targumat-i Tarîh-saijâh dar bajân-i zuhûr-i Agwânîjân "Translation of A traveller's chronicle explaining the Afghan revolt ...", generally known under the title Tarîh-saijâh (or Tarîh-i) Agwânîjân. 1729 [Inc.Turc.3B].
The author, Judasz Tadeusz Krusinski (1675-1756) was a Jesuit from Poland, secretary and interpreter to bishop Bernabita of Isfahan. This is probably the author's translation of his own Latin text, which was later published in Leipzig 1731, being an account of the war events in Persia in the 1720's, the Afghan invasion and the fall of the Safavid dynasty.
Covers with hatip-ebrûsu marble, named after Mehmet Efendi (d. 1773), who was preacher (hatip) in the Aya Sofia mosque and one of Turkey's greatest marbled paper artists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Tales of the West Indies.
Tarîh al-Hind al-garbî, al-musammâ bi-Hadît-i nau. "The History of the West Indies, called New Tale". Engraved maps and tables, 13 woodcut illustrations. Unknown author. 1730 [Inc.Turc.4].
A general geography, a report on the discovery of the New World and a collection of fables, wrongly attributed to Haggi Halifa (Katib Çelebi). The woodcut illustrates the 1001 Night story of the Wak-wak island with trees carrying women fruits falling down when ripe, screaming wak-wak! Toderini's History of Turkish literature 1787 says that this story was so popular in Turkey that official festivals included trees with cardboard figures of women which were made to fall down likewise screaming wak-wak!
Lit.: Goodrich, T.D., The Ottoman Turks and the New World : a study of Tarih-i Hind-i garbi and sixteenth-century Ottoman Americana. Wiesbaden 1990.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Suhailî: History of Egypt.
Tarîh-i Misr al-gadîd … - Tarîh-i Misr al-qadîm li-Suhailî afandî "Recent... ancient history of Egypt by Suhaili Efendi". 1730 [Inc.Turc.6].
The author Suhailî was secretary at the Cairo Divan (Supreme Court) ca 1630. - The 'ancient' histstory goes from the Creation until 1516, the 'recent' is on the Turkish conquest of Egypt 1517. To this work belongs a map of Egypt copied from Janssonius 1658. - Marbled cover: tulip flowers in red and green with black edge on grey background.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ibrahim Müteferriqa: Basic Principles of Leadership.
Usûl al-hikam fî nizâm al-umam. "Basic principles in the science of leadership of people", sometimes called Nizâmîe. 1732 [Inc.Turc.9].
Pleading for the improvement of the unsatisfactory tactics and discipline of the Turkish army. - Lâle-ebrûsu marble, 'tulip-paper', was created within the school of Mehmet Efendi and is considered the most difficult within the art of marbling. The pattern is created with a needle or horsehair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. On magnetism.
Fujûdât-i miqnâtîsîja "On magnetic fluxes" (or possibly: "On the blessings of magnetism"). Unknown author. 1732. [Inc.Turc.10].
Covers with calico paper, floral pattern stamped with paste colours in red, green, yellow and black.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kâtib Çelebî: World Mirror. A sumptuous work of geography.
Kitab Gihân-numâ li-Kâtib Calabî. – "Mirror of the world by Kâtib Çelebî". 1732. [Inc.Turc.11].
Author: Mustafâ Ibn 'Abdallâh, called Hâggî Halîfa or Kâtib Çelebî (1609-1657) and Abû Bakr Ibn Bahrâm, called Ibn Behrâm (d. 1691).
This was for long the Ottoman standard work of geography and incorporated the contemporary European geographical knowledge. It was the most esteemed of the works from the presses of Constantinople and indeed attractive because of its fine engravings.
Contemporary Turkish goat-skin binding, gold- and blind-tooled. Marble flyleaves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 'Umar from Novi: The war in Bosnia 1736-1739.
Ahwâli gazawât dar dijâr-i Bûsna "Circumstances concerning the fighting in the province of Bosnia". 1741. [Inc.Turc.15].
On inside cover Ulric Celsing's signature and label with title in Turkish and French. Boards covered with marbled paper: floral pattern in orange, dark blue, light blue and yellow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literature: Rohnström, J., "The turkish incunabula in the Royal Library, Stockholm. A catalogue". In: Turcica et orientalia : studies in honour of Gunnar Jarring. Stockholm 1988.
Turkish incunabula
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "Turkish incunabula" refers to the first books printed in Turkey with Arabic/Turkish movable types. They were issued from the printing-office of Ibrahim Efendi, called Ibrahim "Müteferriqa" in Constantinople from 1728 to 1742, during which time 17 works were printed.
Hebrew, Greek and Syrian printing presses existed already for the Jews and Christians, but within the Islamic sector, opposition from the religious authorities and the guilds of copyists and calligraphers had been too strong. But at the early 18th century, Turkish society was much influenced by European, especially French science and culture. The first Turkish ambassador to France, Mehmed Efendi and his son Said Efendi, took an interest in the printing technique, and back in Turkey secured the approval of the Grand Vizier, the Mufti's decree and the Sultan's command with permission to set up a press provided no religious (including legal) works were printed. Printing presses were imported from France, typefaces from Holland, workmen from Vienna, and printing started in 1728 with a large Arabic dictionary in Turkish translation.
The man in charge was Ibrahim Efendi, who was born in Transylvania but had been taken prisoner, entered the civil service and advanced to müteferriqa, i.e. "steward" attached to the Sultan's personal staff. The printing-office was in operation until 1742 when Ibrahim went over to diplomatic service until his death in 1745. In 1758 his son printed a second edition of the dictionary, and that was the end of this printing-office. 12 works had been shipped to Sweden in 1736 through ambassadors Carleson and von Höpken and arrived to the Royal Library the same year. In 1739 similar dispatches arrived to the university libraries at Uppsala and Lund. In 1807 the Royal Library acquired another set of the incunabula collection through Ulric Celsing.
Printing wasn't restarted in Turkey until 1783, but then it continued. One of the products of that second period was the Cedid Atlas Tercümesi 1803, after British cartographer William Faden, which was acquired by Hedenborg and arrived to the Royal Library in 1832.
The Turkish booktitles below are given in Arabic transliteration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Krusinski: Chronicle of the Afghan revolt.
Targumat-i Tarîh-saijâh dar bajân-i zuhûr-i Agwânîjân "Translation of A traveller's chronicle explaining the Afghan revolt ...", generally known under the title Tarîh-saijâh (or Tarîh-i) Agwânîjân. 1729 [Inc.Turc.3B].
The author, Judasz Tadeusz Krusinski (1675-1756) was a Jesuit from Poland, secretary and interpreter to bishop Bernabita of Isfahan. This is probably the author's translation of his own Latin text, which was later published in Leipzig 1731, being an account of the war events in Persia in the 1720's, the Afghan invasion and the fall of the Safavid dynasty.
Covers with hatip-ebrûsu marble, named after Mehmet Efendi (d. 1773), who was preacher (hatip) in the Aya Sofia mosque and one of Turkey's greatest marbled paper artists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Tales of the West Indies.
Tarîh al-Hind al-garbî, al-musammâ bi-Hadît-i nau. "The History of the West Indies, called New Tale". Engraved maps and tables, 13 woodcut illustrations. Unknown author. 1730 [Inc.Turc.4].
A general geography, a report on the discovery of the New World and a collection of fables, wrongly attributed to Haggi Halifa (Katib Çelebi). The woodcut illustrates the 1001 Night story of the Wak-wak island with trees carrying women fruits falling down when ripe, screaming wak-wak! Toderini's History of Turkish literature 1787 says that this story was so popular in Turkey that official festivals included trees with cardboard figures of women which were made to fall down likewise screaming wak-wak!
Lit.: Goodrich, T.D., The Ottoman Turks and the New World : a study of Tarih-i Hind-i garbi and sixteenth-century Ottoman Americana. Wiesbaden 1990.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Suhailî: History of Egypt.
Tarîh-i Misr al-gadîd … - Tarîh-i Misr al-qadîm li-Suhailî afandî "Recent... ancient history of Egypt by Suhaili Efendi". 1730 [Inc.Turc.6].
The author Suhailî was secretary at the Cairo Divan (Supreme Court) ca 1630. - The 'ancient' histstory goes from the Creation until 1516, the 'recent' is on the Turkish conquest of Egypt 1517. To this work belongs a map of Egypt copied from Janssonius 1658. - Marbled cover: tulip flowers in red and green with black edge on grey background.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ibrahim Müteferriqa: Basic Principles of Leadership.
Usûl al-hikam fî nizâm al-umam. "Basic principles in the science of leadership of people", sometimes called Nizâmîe. 1732 [Inc.Turc.9].
Pleading for the improvement of the unsatisfactory tactics and discipline of the Turkish army. - Lâle-ebrûsu marble, 'tulip-paper', was created within the school of Mehmet Efendi and is considered the most difficult within the art of marbling. The pattern is created with a needle or horsehair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. On magnetism.
Fujûdât-i miqnâtîsîja "On magnetic fluxes" (or possibly: "On the blessings of magnetism"). Unknown author. 1732. [Inc.Turc.10].
Covers with calico paper, floral pattern stamped with paste colours in red, green, yellow and black.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kâtib Çelebî: World Mirror. A sumptuous work of geography.
Kitab Gihân-numâ li-Kâtib Calabî. – "Mirror of the world by Kâtib Çelebî". 1732. [Inc.Turc.11].
Author: Mustafâ Ibn 'Abdallâh, called Hâggî Halîfa or Kâtib Çelebî (1609-1657) and Abû Bakr Ibn Bahrâm, called Ibn Behrâm (d. 1691).
This was for long the Ottoman standard work of geography and incorporated the contemporary European geographical knowledge. It was the most esteemed of the works from the presses of Constantinople and indeed attractive because of its fine engravings.
Contemporary Turkish goat-skin binding, gold- and blind-tooled. Marble flyleaves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 'Umar from Novi: The war in Bosnia 1736-1739.
Ahwâli gazawât dar dijâr-i Bûsna "Circumstances concerning the fighting in the province of Bosnia". 1741. [Inc.Turc.15].
On inside cover Ulric Celsing's signature and label with title in Turkish and French. Boards covered with marbled paper: floral pattern in orange, dark blue, light blue and yellow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literature: Rohnström, J., "The turkish incunabula in the Royal Library, Stockholm. A catalogue". In: Turcica et orientalia : studies in honour of Gunnar Jarring. Stockholm 1988.
1356 Gallipoli
Mavi Boncuk |
Gelibolu ancient Callipolis
Seaport and town (pop., 2000 est.: 23,100), European Turkey.
It lies on a narrow peninsula at the entrance to the Sea of Marmara, southwest of Istanbul. First colonized by the Greeks, it was the site of an important Byzantine fortress. It became the first Ottoman conquest in Europe (c. 1356) and was used as a naval base because of its strategic importance for the defense of Constantinople (Istanbul). Much of the town was destroyed in World War I (1914–18) during the Dardanelles Campaign. Historic sites include a 14th-century Ottoman castle and the tombs of Thracian kings.
1356 Gallipoli, First Phase of European Conquests: from 1356 to 1453.
The occupation of Gallipoli in 1356 was a decisive event in the history of the Ottomans: they acquired a safe crossover point to Europe. In the following years, the Turks occupied the Byzantine possessions in Eastern Rumelia, Thrace, and Eastern Macedonia, took the passes across the Balkan mountains, and, in 1383, set foot in Bulgaria with the occupation of Sofia. The occupied territories,designated as Rumelia, were attached to the Empire, and, as a resultof the most thorough work of organization, they soon became, in Sead-Eddin's words, "safety itself, and the permanent abode of peaceof mind in harmony", where the sultan "was most mindful of maintaining religious peace and organizing a Muslim state, as well as ofpreparing the fight to spread the faith."[73]
In the 1390s the Ottoman forces reached the line of the Danube, and, with the capture of Vidin, Nicopolis, Sistov, and Silistra, established important bridge heads for their advance into Wallachia. In this period they also took Uskub in Serbia; the city became the seat of the sanjak. The Mongolian attack of 1402 put a temporary halt to the expansion, but it soon started up again with the capture of Giuirgevo in 1416, of Saloniki in 1430, Janina in 1431, and Krusevacin 1434. By the end of the period the borders of the Ottoman Empirein the Balkans ran along the Danube as far upstream as Orsova.
The speed of conquest was spectacular. The bulk of the occupiedarea fell into Ottoman hands in less than a generation, a significantachievement, even if we know that it was attained at the expense of the weak Byzantine Empire and of a Bulgaria and Serbia undermined by internal strife. The systematic nature of the conquest was readily apparent as well. To cite Johann Zinkeisen's simile, the acquisitions grew around Gallipoli like annual rings of a tree. It seems that each step forward was the consequence of careful and rational assessments giving equal weight to political and strategic considerations. Except for Galamboc and Szendro the conquests proved to be lasting during this phase. The Turks undertook no unplanned ventures and, except for the raids designed to obtain booty and information, they engaged in no large-scale campaigns other than the siege of Belgrade in 1440.
From the strategic point of view the Ottoman state was in a betterposition than the Christian powers during this phase. First of all, its lines of operation were much shorter, which gave them considerable advantage in concentrating troops and in logistics. In 1389 at the battle of Kosovo the Ottoman armies were 200 km from their operational base, Philippopolis, as the crow flies, whereas the Hungarian and Wallachian contingents of the Christian host were 400 to 600km from their home. The strategic superiority of the Ottoman forces was enhanced by the fact that they stood on the interior line vis-a-vis Europe or Asia and the Balkan states. Being in the center, they had little difficulty in transferring forces from one trouble spot to another, whereas their adversaries were either unable to unite their forces--as in the case of Hungary or the principality of Karaman--or could do so only by lengthy, exhausting, and time-consuming marches, as in the case of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia.
While its geographical position offered the Ottoman state considerable advantages already at this early stage, in the fifteenth century, these advantages became even more marked and provided almost total protection. The Ottomans were able to halt all attacks at the borders, whereas the Christians had to negotiate long marches beyond their frontiers. They had to move more than 400 to600 km to the battle of Nicopolis, the second Kosovo campaign, orduring the long campaign of 1444; during the campaign of Varna,800 km. Under these circumstances, even if the Christian forces had scored a victory in one campaign or another, even if the European powers could have acted jointly, it is still doubtful whether they could have found the means to carry on a protracted war consisting of several campaigns--on account of the extreme distances and the difficulty of the terrain--and nothing short of such a war could have overthrown the Ottoman Empire.
Partly because of the distance to the theater of operations, but mostly because of delays at the outset, the campaigns of the Christian forces started in the fall and more than once dragged on into the winter. This late start was due to the slowly grinding mill of the feudal administration and the need to await the harvest in order toprovide the troops with food and fodder.
Already in this period the significance of the Danube as a means of transport and communication was apparent. Even though the Hungarian fleet on the Danube was still superior to the Ottoman one, by 1440 the latter succeeded in blockading the river at Belgrade with one hundred ships.
Before the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman Empire was never quite secure because its European and Asian provinces were separated by the sea. The Ottoman fleet was still too weak toguarantee safe crossing from one continent to the other. Even the fortification at Gallipoli could not fully compensate for this weakness. In contrast, Christian fleets could easily sail into the Black Sea and bolster an army which, avoiding the cumbersome mountain routes of the Balkans, would have reached the coast. All this was true in theory only, however, because under the given circumstances the maritime powers were unable to conclude an alliance among themselves and with a continental power, namely Hungary, which would have enabled them to carry out combined military operations.
In 1444 it did seem that such a fortunate conjuncture had come about, and this was the main reason for launching the Varna campaign in the first place; but the fleet provided by the maritime powers was not up to the task by a long shot. It was unable to prevent the Ottoman army from crossing the straits, nor could it give support to the Christian forces at the decisive encounter.
Gelibolu ancient Callipolis
Seaport and town (pop., 2000 est.: 23,100), European Turkey.
It lies on a narrow peninsula at the entrance to the Sea of Marmara, southwest of Istanbul. First colonized by the Greeks, it was the site of an important Byzantine fortress. It became the first Ottoman conquest in Europe (c. 1356) and was used as a naval base because of its strategic importance for the defense of Constantinople (Istanbul). Much of the town was destroyed in World War I (1914–18) during the Dardanelles Campaign. Historic sites include a 14th-century Ottoman castle and the tombs of Thracian kings.
1356 Gallipoli, First Phase of European Conquests: from 1356 to 1453.
The occupation of Gallipoli in 1356 was a decisive event in the history of the Ottomans: they acquired a safe crossover point to Europe. In the following years, the Turks occupied the Byzantine possessions in Eastern Rumelia, Thrace, and Eastern Macedonia, took the passes across the Balkan mountains, and, in 1383, set foot in Bulgaria with the occupation of Sofia. The occupied territories,designated as Rumelia, were attached to the Empire, and, as a resultof the most thorough work of organization, they soon became, in Sead-Eddin's words, "safety itself, and the permanent abode of peaceof mind in harmony", where the sultan "was most mindful of maintaining religious peace and organizing a Muslim state, as well as ofpreparing the fight to spread the faith."[73]
In the 1390s the Ottoman forces reached the line of the Danube, and, with the capture of Vidin, Nicopolis, Sistov, and Silistra, established important bridge heads for their advance into Wallachia. In this period they also took Uskub in Serbia; the city became the seat of the sanjak. The Mongolian attack of 1402 put a temporary halt to the expansion, but it soon started up again with the capture of Giuirgevo in 1416, of Saloniki in 1430, Janina in 1431, and Krusevacin 1434. By the end of the period the borders of the Ottoman Empirein the Balkans ran along the Danube as far upstream as Orsova.
The speed of conquest was spectacular. The bulk of the occupiedarea fell into Ottoman hands in less than a generation, a significantachievement, even if we know that it was attained at the expense of the weak Byzantine Empire and of a Bulgaria and Serbia undermined by internal strife. The systematic nature of the conquest was readily apparent as well. To cite Johann Zinkeisen's simile, the acquisitions grew around Gallipoli like annual rings of a tree. It seems that each step forward was the consequence of careful and rational assessments giving equal weight to political and strategic considerations. Except for Galamboc and Szendro the conquests proved to be lasting during this phase. The Turks undertook no unplanned ventures and, except for the raids designed to obtain booty and information, they engaged in no large-scale campaigns other than the siege of Belgrade in 1440.
From the strategic point of view the Ottoman state was in a betterposition than the Christian powers during this phase. First of all, its lines of operation were much shorter, which gave them considerable advantage in concentrating troops and in logistics. In 1389 at the battle of Kosovo the Ottoman armies were 200 km from their operational base, Philippopolis, as the crow flies, whereas the Hungarian and Wallachian contingents of the Christian host were 400 to 600km from their home. The strategic superiority of the Ottoman forces was enhanced by the fact that they stood on the interior line vis-a-vis Europe or Asia and the Balkan states. Being in the center, they had little difficulty in transferring forces from one trouble spot to another, whereas their adversaries were either unable to unite their forces--as in the case of Hungary or the principality of Karaman--or could do so only by lengthy, exhausting, and time-consuming marches, as in the case of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia.
While its geographical position offered the Ottoman state considerable advantages already at this early stage, in the fifteenth century, these advantages became even more marked and provided almost total protection. The Ottomans were able to halt all attacks at the borders, whereas the Christians had to negotiate long marches beyond their frontiers. They had to move more than 400 to600 km to the battle of Nicopolis, the second Kosovo campaign, orduring the long campaign of 1444; during the campaign of Varna,800 km. Under these circumstances, even if the Christian forces had scored a victory in one campaign or another, even if the European powers could have acted jointly, it is still doubtful whether they could have found the means to carry on a protracted war consisting of several campaigns--on account of the extreme distances and the difficulty of the terrain--and nothing short of such a war could have overthrown the Ottoman Empire.
Partly because of the distance to the theater of operations, but mostly because of delays at the outset, the campaigns of the Christian forces started in the fall and more than once dragged on into the winter. This late start was due to the slowly grinding mill of the feudal administration and the need to await the harvest in order toprovide the troops with food and fodder.
Already in this period the significance of the Danube as a means of transport and communication was apparent. Even though the Hungarian fleet on the Danube was still superior to the Ottoman one, by 1440 the latter succeeded in blockading the river at Belgrade with one hundred ships.
Before the capture of Constantinople the Ottoman Empire was never quite secure because its European and Asian provinces were separated by the sea. The Ottoman fleet was still too weak toguarantee safe crossing from one continent to the other. Even the fortification at Gallipoli could not fully compensate for this weakness. In contrast, Christian fleets could easily sail into the Black Sea and bolster an army which, avoiding the cumbersome mountain routes of the Balkans, would have reached the coast. All this was true in theory only, however, because under the given circumstances the maritime powers were unable to conclude an alliance among themselves and with a continental power, namely Hungary, which would have enabled them to carry out combined military operations.
In 1444 it did seem that such a fortunate conjuncture had come about, and this was the main reason for launching the Varna campaign in the first place; but the fleet provided by the maritime powers was not up to the task by a long shot. It was unable to prevent the Ottoman army from crossing the straits, nor could it give support to the Christian forces at the decisive encounter.
1772-1812 The Russo-Turkish Balkan Wars
Mavi Boncuk |
From the 1772 to 1812, Russia fought a series of wars in the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire. These wars were the predecessor for the many future conflicts over the next century between the two Empires. The most dramatic of these campaigns was the the campaign of 1810 by General Kamenskoi in Bulgaria. Russia's Balkan Wars
Russia actively campaigned against the Ottoman Empire from 1772 to 1812. These campaigns included:
1772-1773: Generals Rumyantsev and Suvorov cross the Danube into Bulgaria; Suvorov beats the Turks at Koseldui, Rumyantsev is defeated outside Schumen.
1789-1792: Generals Repnin and Suvorov invade Moldavia (Romania), and take Ismail, on the Danube, by storm.
1806: Russian armies under Michelson invade Moldavia and Wallachia cross the Danube and defeat Turks at Bazardjik "Pazarcik".
1809: Prince Prosorovski attacks Turks on the Danube. Russians unsuccessful at Braila, but capture Ismail and Constanta. Bagration briefly assumes command in October 1809.
From the 1772 to 1812, Russia fought a series of wars in the Balkans against the Ottoman Empire. These wars were the predecessor for the many future conflicts over the next century between the two Empires. The most dramatic of these campaigns was the the campaign of 1810 by General Kamenskoi in Bulgaria. Russia's Balkan Wars
Russia actively campaigned against the Ottoman Empire from 1772 to 1812. These campaigns included:
1772-1773: Generals Rumyantsev and Suvorov cross the Danube into Bulgaria; Suvorov beats the Turks at Koseldui, Rumyantsev is defeated outside Schumen.
1789-1792: Generals Repnin and Suvorov invade Moldavia (Romania), and take Ismail, on the Danube, by storm.
1806: Russian armies under Michelson invade Moldavia and Wallachia cross the Danube and defeat Turks at Bazardjik "Pazarcik".
1809: Prince Prosorovski attacks Turks on the Danube. Russians unsuccessful at Braila, but capture Ismail and Constanta. Bagration briefly assumes command in October 1809.
Portrait | Claes Rålamb 1622-1698
Claes Brorsson Rålamb ( 8 May 1622-1698)
Mavi Boncuk |
The Rålamb Costume Book
The 'Rålamb Costume Book' is a small volume containing 121 miniatures in Indian ink with gouache and some gilding, displaying Turkish officials, occupations and folk types.
"Magyar " - Claes Rålamb Book
They were acquired in Constantinople in 1657-58 by Claes Rålamb who led a Swedish embassy to the Sublime Porte, and arrived in the Swedish Royal Library / Manuscript Department in 1886.
This volume is a variant of the so-called muraqqa-album type, which is rather common in libraries in Europe. They were probably manufactured for European visitors, as precursors of the 19th century 'pittoresque' photos and the present-day folklore postcards.
The miniatures have strong connections with the 'Rålamb Procession Paintings', a series of 20 paintings depicting the Sultan's procession to Adrianople, which are now displayed in the Nordiska Museet in Stockholm. Rålamb witnessed this procession and described it at length in his diary. The paintings were executed to his order, probably by a European artist. The miniatures may well have served as models for the artist.
Rålamb, C., Diarium under resa till Konstantinopel 1657-1658, utg. gm Christian Callmer. - Stockholm 1963. - (Historiska handlingar ; 37:3).
After the five-year sojourn of King Charles XII in Turkey 1711-14 the influx of Islamic books grew considerably. Manuscripts were acquired through the Orientalist Henrik Brenner (specimen), who had traveled in Persia on diplomatic missions in the 1690's, and later became Librarian to the King, through the Secretary Hans Perman (specimen), posted in Constantinople during the King's stay in Turkey, and through his colleague Gustaf Celsing, (specimen), who later became a translator and responsible for Turkish relations at the Royal Chancery in Stockholm.
His two sons Gustaf and Ulric Celsing served as ambassadors in Constantinople 1745-80, but their large collections came to the Uppsala university library. Only a few Persian manuscripts and Turkish incunabula came to the Royal Library.
The first Swedish diplomats in Turkey after Charles XII were, however, two young students of economy, Edvard Carleson and Carl Fredrik von Höpken, who are also famous in book history as the transmitters to Sweden of the first set of 'Turkish incunabula' in 1736.
Some of Perman's manuscript and a few others, mainly poetry and fables, ended in the Drottningholm palace library, where king Gustav III had them rebound in red morocco and marked as 'suitable for the education of a young Prince', typical for the 'Pre-Romantic Orientalism' of the 18th century.
But the largest single collection of Oriental manuscripts came to the Library in 1832 through the naturalist Johan Hedenborg (1787-1865) who had arrived to Constantinople in 1825 as a doctor to the Swedish ambassador Löwenhielm and travelled widely in the Orient. The Government bought his collections, including 28 Oriental manuscripts (specimen) and a number of prints, e.g. the 'Cedid Atlas Tercümesi' 1803 and the large map of Greece 1797 by liberation hero Rhigas Ferraios. Hedenborg himself published an illustrated description of the "Customs and Costumes of the Turkish Nation" (1839, in Swedish). He was a veritable Collector; his preference for poetry and belles lettres, exquisite calligraphy and finely decorated bindings is representative for the early 'Romantic Orientalism'.
The ambassador Löwenhielm himself made a large number of watercolours with motives from Turkey, now preserved in the Uppsala University Library. Shortly before, Carl Peter von Heidenstam, another officer and diplomat at Constantinople, had produced an illustrated travelogue and some watercolours, now in the possession of the Royal Library.
Swedish Royal Library / Manuscript Department Orientalist Objects
Mavi Boncuk |
The Rålamb Costume Book
The 'Rålamb Costume Book' is a small volume containing 121 miniatures in Indian ink with gouache and some gilding, displaying Turkish officials, occupations and folk types.
"Magyar " - Claes Rålamb Book
They were acquired in Constantinople in 1657-58 by Claes Rålamb who led a Swedish embassy to the Sublime Porte, and arrived in the Swedish Royal Library / Manuscript Department in 1886.
This volume is a variant of the so-called muraqqa-album type, which is rather common in libraries in Europe. They were probably manufactured for European visitors, as precursors of the 19th century 'pittoresque' photos and the present-day folklore postcards.
The miniatures have strong connections with the 'Rålamb Procession Paintings', a series of 20 paintings depicting the Sultan's procession to Adrianople, which are now displayed in the Nordiska Museet in Stockholm. Rålamb witnessed this procession and described it at length in his diary. The paintings were executed to his order, probably by a European artist. The miniatures may well have served as models for the artist.
Rålamb, C., Diarium under resa till Konstantinopel 1657-1658, utg. gm Christian Callmer. - Stockholm 1963. - (Historiska handlingar ; 37:3).
After the five-year sojourn of King Charles XII in Turkey 1711-14 the influx of Islamic books grew considerably. Manuscripts were acquired through the Orientalist Henrik Brenner (specimen), who had traveled in Persia on diplomatic missions in the 1690's, and later became Librarian to the King, through the Secretary Hans Perman (specimen), posted in Constantinople during the King's stay in Turkey, and through his colleague Gustaf Celsing, (specimen), who later became a translator and responsible for Turkish relations at the Royal Chancery in Stockholm.
His two sons Gustaf and Ulric Celsing served as ambassadors in Constantinople 1745-80, but their large collections came to the Uppsala university library. Only a few Persian manuscripts and Turkish incunabula came to the Royal Library.
The first Swedish diplomats in Turkey after Charles XII were, however, two young students of economy, Edvard Carleson and Carl Fredrik von Höpken, who are also famous in book history as the transmitters to Sweden of the first set of 'Turkish incunabula' in 1736.
Some of Perman's manuscript and a few others, mainly poetry and fables, ended in the Drottningholm palace library, where king Gustav III had them rebound in red morocco and marked as 'suitable for the education of a young Prince', typical for the 'Pre-Romantic Orientalism' of the 18th century.
But the largest single collection of Oriental manuscripts came to the Library in 1832 through the naturalist Johan Hedenborg (1787-1865) who had arrived to Constantinople in 1825 as a doctor to the Swedish ambassador Löwenhielm and travelled widely in the Orient. The Government bought his collections, including 28 Oriental manuscripts (specimen) and a number of prints, e.g. the 'Cedid Atlas Tercümesi' 1803 and the large map of Greece 1797 by liberation hero Rhigas Ferraios. Hedenborg himself published an illustrated description of the "Customs and Costumes of the Turkish Nation" (1839, in Swedish). He was a veritable Collector; his preference for poetry and belles lettres, exquisite calligraphy and finely decorated bindings is representative for the early 'Romantic Orientalism'.
The ambassador Löwenhielm himself made a large number of watercolours with motives from Turkey, now preserved in the Uppsala University Library. Shortly before, Carl Peter von Heidenstam, another officer and diplomat at Constantinople, had produced an illustrated travelogue and some watercolours, now in the possession of the Royal Library.
Swedish Royal Library / Manuscript Department Orientalist Objects
Charles XII of Sweden and the Ottoman Exile
The battle of Poltava stood in the summer of 1709, and may be said mark the end of Sweden's role as a major power in Europe. Tsar Peter himself came with a huge army, far larger than the Swedish one. Worse was that the king was wounded and the command was handed over to the field marshal Rhensköld. Rhensköld had problems with the other officers, and unclear issuing of orders contributed to the defeat. The Swedish army couldn't use their artillery, they had no gunpowder and the infantry was almost wiped out in this the most famous defeat in Swedish history. Several thousands of prisoners were taken whom were put to work in the mines of the Ural Mountains or to build the new city of St Petersburg, the officers were mostly sent to Siberia and very few ever returned home.
Mavi Boncuk |
Sweden loses the Great Northern War
The showdown came on July 8,1709 without the trap that Charles had been hoping for. The Swedes were eager for battle and moved with élan against the Russian entrenchment. Not yet recovered, Charles was carried about on a litter. In two hours of battle, the Russians overwhelmed the Swedes and Mazepa's Cossacks. Russian artillery cut the Swedes down, and the poor quality of the gunpowder used by the Swedes caused their shots to fall short. The Swedes and Mezepa's troops fled. A remnant of the Swedish army -- 14,299 men and 34 cannon -- surrendered at Perevolchna. The Swedes had lost 6,901 dead and wounded, and 2,760 captured. The Russians had lost 1,345 dead and 3,290 woulded.22 Charles, his aides, a few hundred cavalry, Mazepa and around 1500 of his Cossack warriors escaped across the border into Ottoman territory -- to Okyakov. And with Mazepa went hope for Ukrainian independence.
Russians described the victory at Poltava as a divine miracle. Europeans outside of Russia were also astounded, and they viewed the Russian victory with foreboding. Russia, they thought, would now be a formidable power in European affairs.
Seeing Sweden as having been weakened, Augustus of Saxony and Frederick IV of Denmark renewed their alliance with Russia. A prince of the Hohenzollern family, Frederick of Brandenburg-Prussia, agreed with Russia to bar Swedish troops in Pomerania from access to Poland in exchange for gaining the town of Elbing (Elblag).
In November 1709, Frederick IV of Denmark invaded Sweden with 16,000 troops, overrunning the towns of Malmö and Lund, and in February they were driven back to Denmark, Sweden's successful defense impressing the rest of Europe.
Charles XII remained with the Ottomans, at Bender, about a hundred miles west of Okyakov. He urged the Ottomans to war against the Russians, and Europe watched with anticipation of another such war, with Sweden on the side of the Ottomans. The war between Russia began again, with Peter hoping to win the Christians in Ottoman territory to his side.
The Russians, meanwhile, had seized Vyborg, Riga, and Revel and had pushed into Finland. With Charles II defeated in East Europe, King Stanislaus I was repudiated in Poland, and with help from Peter, Augustus again assumed the title King of Poland. Stanislaus escaped to Swedish Pomerania, and from there he went to Weissenbourg, becoming master of the principality of Zweibrücken -- his daughter, Mary, to marry King Louis XV of France.
Peter's hopes regarding his war with the Ottomans had failed. With the Peter's armies spread thin, the Ottomans had the advantage over him. In 1711, numerically superior Ottoman forces surrounded Peter and an army short of ammunition and supplies, by the Pruth River, deep into Moldavia. But the Ottomans did not share Charles' passion for crushing the Russians, and they allowed the Russians to withdraw.
In 1712, the Danes took the Duchy of Bremen from the Swedes, and they took Charles's spot of land in Holstein. In 1713, Frederick William of Brandenburg-Prussia 23 took Stettin. And Georg Ludwig, the Elector of Hanover -- soon to be King George I of England -- joined the coalition against Sweden.
Peter and the Ottomans signed a peace treaty. Peter returned Azov and other territory he had gained from the Ottoman Empire in 1700, and he agreed to allow Charles safe passage from Ottoman territory back to Sweden. And the Ottomans recognized Augustus as Poland's rightful king.
In late 1714, Charles and around 1500 troops made their way back to Sweden by way of Vienna, and with help from the Habsburg monarchy in Vienna, which had begun to look with favor upon Charles and Sweden as a brake on Germans to their north. The Swedes journeyed through Bavaria and western Germany as incognito as possible, for the sake of safety.
Charles still saw the area around St. Petersburg as his territory, and Peter now considered St. Petersburg as Russia's capital.
From Ottoman territory, Charles went to Swedish Pomerania -- to his fortress at Stralsund. With his arrival back on Swedish territory, after a fourteen-year absence, the people of Sweden momentarily forgot the unusual hardships of the recent years and erupted with joy. They foresaw their king as now about to smash those who had dared to move against Swedish territory.
On December 11,1718, Charles XII was shot dead through the head by an assassin in Norway and was succeeded by his sister Ulrika Eleanora who also ruled during his exile in the Ottoman Lands.
Mavi Boncuk |
Sweden loses the Great Northern War
The showdown came on July 8,1709 without the trap that Charles had been hoping for. The Swedes were eager for battle and moved with élan against the Russian entrenchment. Not yet recovered, Charles was carried about on a litter. In two hours of battle, the Russians overwhelmed the Swedes and Mazepa's Cossacks. Russian artillery cut the Swedes down, and the poor quality of the gunpowder used by the Swedes caused their shots to fall short. The Swedes and Mezepa's troops fled. A remnant of the Swedish army -- 14,299 men and 34 cannon -- surrendered at Perevolchna. The Swedes had lost 6,901 dead and wounded, and 2,760 captured. The Russians had lost 1,345 dead and 3,290 woulded.22 Charles, his aides, a few hundred cavalry, Mazepa and around 1500 of his Cossack warriors escaped across the border into Ottoman territory -- to Okyakov. And with Mazepa went hope for Ukrainian independence.
Russians described the victory at Poltava as a divine miracle. Europeans outside of Russia were also astounded, and they viewed the Russian victory with foreboding. Russia, they thought, would now be a formidable power in European affairs.
Seeing Sweden as having been weakened, Augustus of Saxony and Frederick IV of Denmark renewed their alliance with Russia. A prince of the Hohenzollern family, Frederick of Brandenburg-Prussia, agreed with Russia to bar Swedish troops in Pomerania from access to Poland in exchange for gaining the town of Elbing (Elblag).
In November 1709, Frederick IV of Denmark invaded Sweden with 16,000 troops, overrunning the towns of Malmö and Lund, and in February they were driven back to Denmark, Sweden's successful defense impressing the rest of Europe.
Charles XII remained with the Ottomans, at Bender, about a hundred miles west of Okyakov. He urged the Ottomans to war against the Russians, and Europe watched with anticipation of another such war, with Sweden on the side of the Ottomans. The war between Russia began again, with Peter hoping to win the Christians in Ottoman territory to his side.
The Russians, meanwhile, had seized Vyborg, Riga, and Revel and had pushed into Finland. With Charles II defeated in East Europe, King Stanislaus I was repudiated in Poland, and with help from Peter, Augustus again assumed the title King of Poland. Stanislaus escaped to Swedish Pomerania, and from there he went to Weissenbourg, becoming master of the principality of Zweibrücken -- his daughter, Mary, to marry King Louis XV of France.
Peter's hopes regarding his war with the Ottomans had failed. With the Peter's armies spread thin, the Ottomans had the advantage over him. In 1711, numerically superior Ottoman forces surrounded Peter and an army short of ammunition and supplies, by the Pruth River, deep into Moldavia. But the Ottomans did not share Charles' passion for crushing the Russians, and they allowed the Russians to withdraw.
In 1712, the Danes took the Duchy of Bremen from the Swedes, and they took Charles's spot of land in Holstein. In 1713, Frederick William of Brandenburg-Prussia 23 took Stettin. And Georg Ludwig, the Elector of Hanover -- soon to be King George I of England -- joined the coalition against Sweden.
Peter and the Ottomans signed a peace treaty. Peter returned Azov and other territory he had gained from the Ottoman Empire in 1700, and he agreed to allow Charles safe passage from Ottoman territory back to Sweden. And the Ottomans recognized Augustus as Poland's rightful king.
In late 1714, Charles and around 1500 troops made their way back to Sweden by way of Vienna, and with help from the Habsburg monarchy in Vienna, which had begun to look with favor upon Charles and Sweden as a brake on Germans to their north. The Swedes journeyed through Bavaria and western Germany as incognito as possible, for the sake of safety.
Charles still saw the area around St. Petersburg as his territory, and Peter now considered St. Petersburg as Russia's capital.
From Ottoman territory, Charles went to Swedish Pomerania -- to his fortress at Stralsund. With his arrival back on Swedish territory, after a fourteen-year absence, the people of Sweden momentarily forgot the unusual hardships of the recent years and erupted with joy. They foresaw their king as now about to smash those who had dared to move against Swedish territory.
On December 11,1718, Charles XII was shot dead through the head by an assassin in Norway and was succeeded by his sister Ulrika Eleanora who also ruled during his exile in the Ottoman Lands.
July 02, 2004
Image of Woman in Ottoman Painting
Mavi Boncuk |
The Changing Image of Woman in 19th Century Ottoman Painting
by Zeynep Inankur Proceedings of 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, Utrecht 1999
“Goethe in Harem”
Abdülmecit EFENDI, Oil on canvass, 132x173 cm, A.D.R. and H.M. collection
Though not a military painter in the official sense, Abdülmecit EFEND? (1868-1944), son of 32nd Ottoman Emperor Abdülaziz, appears to have an extremely refined orientalism tendency despite the fact that he is deemed to be a true orientalist per se. He ascribed a particular importance to the figurative painting and overcame by mono and polyfigure compositions the human figure description issue that was put forth as a problem in the enate years of the Fine Arts Academy.
He also was an artist with certain socio-political attitudes as evidenced by his pictures titled "Dethronement of Abdülhamid II”, “Dauphinage of Mahmud II”, “Yavuz Selim” and “Lesson in History / Advice”.
The Changing Image of Woman in 19th Century Ottoman Painting
by Zeynep Inankur Proceedings of 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, Utrecht 1999
“Goethe in Harem”
Abdülmecit EFENDI, Oil on canvass, 132x173 cm, A.D.R. and H.M. collection
Though not a military painter in the official sense, Abdülmecit EFEND? (1868-1944), son of 32nd Ottoman Emperor Abdülaziz, appears to have an extremely refined orientalism tendency despite the fact that he is deemed to be a true orientalist per se. He ascribed a particular importance to the figurative painting and overcame by mono and polyfigure compositions the human figure description issue that was put forth as a problem in the enate years of the Fine Arts Academy.
He also was an artist with certain socio-political attitudes as evidenced by his pictures titled "Dethronement of Abdülhamid II”, “Dauphinage of Mahmud II”, “Yavuz Selim” and “Lesson in History / Advice”.
LEYLA and MEJNUN
Mavi Boncuk |
LEYLA and MEJNUN by Fuzuli
Translated by Sofi Nuri
III
Herein is recounted the Structure of the Building of Misfortune,
and the Antecedents to the Pain and Affliction that follow.
Gay was our child with his constant companion
With angel-like beauties he passed all his time.
In rows sat the pupils, all facing the teacher,
The first one of girls, the second of boys.
Together were gathered these nymphs in their glory
And soon became friends. No surprise is in this,
The market of love with occasion grows brisker
For languishing maids can enchant with their eyes.
And how can a lad bid his spirit be patient
When amorous glances and coquettish airs
Surround him and tease him and quicken his manhood?
Were patience his portion, what word could he say?
Among all the girls was one bright as a fairy,
Who aimed all her glances directly at Qays.
So beautiful she, with her ways and her graces,
That many an elder, forgetful of vows,
Might find all his virtue caught up in her curls.
Calamitous chain for the neck was the garland
Of ringleted locks that fell down in a cloud:
Affliction for lovers was spelled by her eyebrows,
As lovely as twins, and, as twins, forming one.
Each eyelash that curved from her lids was an arrow
That pierced to heart and that stirred all the blood:
Her eyes from their shelter poured forth fiery glances
That, piercing the soul, spread the fever of love.
Her brow, like an ocean, far spread and smooth rolling
Like the ocean had many a peril in check.
The black of her eyes shamed collyrium's darkness
And made it a captive in chains to her mole.
Her cheeks flushing red, paled her rouge to a whiteness,
No rouge ever sullied their delicate blush.
Should her eyes lose their pupils, no blindness would follow,
Her mole would become a black pupil of sight.
Her teeth, pearly white, from between her lips'redness
Gleamed forth as bright pearls in the heart of a rose:
When the doors of her speech were full opened, one fancied
The dead must spring forth from their mouldering tombs.
From her round dimpled chin her neck curved to her bosom;
Her stature and form were creation divine.
The falcon itself, a bird sacred to kingship,
Unhooded, can gaze in the eye of the sun,
But the eyes of this child, with their antelope softness,
Could flash forth a look that the falcon outshone.
Her motion was graceful, her words sugared honey,
No act but had grace, every movement a joy-
But why count her beauties? Put all in a sentence:
The whole world itself, in a passion of terror
Clung fast to her hair, as she went on her way.
Beloved of all the world was this maiden.
Qays looked and he perished, for Leyla her name.
As he with a sorrowful passion of yearning
With sighs fed the fire that her beauty awoke,
So she in a thousand sweet joys lost her reason
For him without whom she knew living was death.
She saw how the world gave its ultimate wonder,
She saw how he held all her world in his hands.
LEYLA and MEJNUN by Fuzuli
Translated by Sofi Nuri
III
Herein is recounted the Structure of the Building of Misfortune,
and the Antecedents to the Pain and Affliction that follow.
Gay was our child with his constant companion
With angel-like beauties he passed all his time.
In rows sat the pupils, all facing the teacher,
The first one of girls, the second of boys.
Together were gathered these nymphs in their glory
And soon became friends. No surprise is in this,
The market of love with occasion grows brisker
For languishing maids can enchant with their eyes.
And how can a lad bid his spirit be patient
When amorous glances and coquettish airs
Surround him and tease him and quicken his manhood?
Were patience his portion, what word could he say?
Among all the girls was one bright as a fairy,
Who aimed all her glances directly at Qays.
So beautiful she, with her ways and her graces,
That many an elder, forgetful of vows,
Might find all his virtue caught up in her curls.
Calamitous chain for the neck was the garland
Of ringleted locks that fell down in a cloud:
Affliction for lovers was spelled by her eyebrows,
As lovely as twins, and, as twins, forming one.
Each eyelash that curved from her lids was an arrow
That pierced to heart and that stirred all the blood:
Her eyes from their shelter poured forth fiery glances
That, piercing the soul, spread the fever of love.
Her brow, like an ocean, far spread and smooth rolling
Like the ocean had many a peril in check.
The black of her eyes shamed collyrium's darkness
And made it a captive in chains to her mole.
Her cheeks flushing red, paled her rouge to a whiteness,
No rouge ever sullied their delicate blush.
Should her eyes lose their pupils, no blindness would follow,
Her mole would become a black pupil of sight.
Her teeth, pearly white, from between her lips'redness
Gleamed forth as bright pearls in the heart of a rose:
When the doors of her speech were full opened, one fancied
The dead must spring forth from their mouldering tombs.
From her round dimpled chin her neck curved to her bosom;
Her stature and form were creation divine.
The falcon itself, a bird sacred to kingship,
Unhooded, can gaze in the eye of the sun,
But the eyes of this child, with their antelope softness,
Could flash forth a look that the falcon outshone.
Her motion was graceful, her words sugared honey,
No act but had grace, every movement a joy-
But why count her beauties? Put all in a sentence:
The whole world itself, in a passion of terror
Clung fast to her hair, as she went on her way.
Beloved of all the world was this maiden.
Qays looked and he perished, for Leyla her name.
As he with a sorrowful passion of yearning
With sighs fed the fire that her beauty awoke,
So she in a thousand sweet joys lost her reason
For him without whom she knew living was death.
She saw how the world gave its ultimate wonder,
She saw how he held all her world in his hands.
Portrait | Muhammed Fuzuli 1498-1556
Mavi Boncuk |
Muhammed Fuzuli (1498-1556)
BIOGRAPHY
Fuzuli is one of the greatest Azeri-Turkish poets. His real name is Muhammed Suleiman oglu (poet’s name and patronymic). We know almost nothing of the childhood and early youth of Fuzuli. It is generally considered that he was born app. in 1498 in Kerbela (in the area presently known as Iraq). Fuzuli belonged to the Turkic tribe of Bayat, one of the Turkoman tribes that was scattered in all over the Middle East, Anatolia and the Caucasus from X-XI cc. and which stands in the roots of the Azerbaijanian people. Although Fuzuli’s ancestors were of nomadic origin, Fuzuli’s family had long been town-dwellers. At that time the area where Fuzuli lived was a part of the Azerbaijanian Safavid State headed by the leader of the Turkoman Shiites Shah Ismayil Safavi. When young Fuzuli devoted a poem to Shah Ismayil named Bang-u-Badeh, where he praised his reigning.
Fuzuli was a versatile and learned man, and was both ambitious to possess these qualities, and proud in possessing them. He wrote: "…I am master of all the arts in discussing beauty of expression and in disputing agreeableness of style with those who are masters of one art only. Well, all this demonstrates the total "presumption" ("fuzuli" in Arabic), but also the perfection of Fuzuli". Thus, the poet explains his nom de plume, which literally means presumptuous, but which also brings to mind fuzul, the plural of fazl meaning "virtue". He chose this pseudonym in order not to be confused with others and be "unique". He was sure that because of its unpleasant meaning nobody else would adopt it.
Fuzuli had left us writings in Azeri (Turkish), Persian and Arabic. This trilingualism was not rare among the Turkic writers of the medieval period and is explainable by their cultural formulation, which was based, in fact, on Arabic religious and scientific tradition and on Persian literary tradition. In Fuzuli’s case the use of the three languages was conditioned also by his particular environment, because all three tongues were in use in Iraq, which as known from history was in XVI c. first a part of the Safavid State and later in 1534 became a part of the Ottoman Empire. The ability to write in more than one language was one of the things of which Fuzuli was most proud and one of his favorite habits was to use two or three languages alternately in same of his poetry or prose. Fuzuli wrote in Azeri Turkish not only by the fact that it was his mother tongue but also by political circumstances. Shah Ismayil Safavi, who conquered Baghdad in 1508, has left us a divan in Azeri Turkish. After the Ottoman conquest of Baghdad Turkish literature acquired even greater importance in this region. Fuzuli expressed Turkish prestige in words, which at that time was not exaggerated, "the high ranking of Turks constitute a large part of world order and a numerous category of the human species…". Nevertheless, he complains that to write "delicate" verse in Turkish rather than in Persian is difficult because the Turkish language is hard to be put in lines, since the words are mostly without connection and lacking harmony. Therefore, the language of the Fuzuli’s poems are extremely persianized. Today a Turk in Azerbaijan or in Turkey could not read many of his works without the help of dictionary. However, Fuzuli’s fame rests mainly on his work in Azeri-Turkish and his masterpiece world-wide famous poem "Leili and Mejnun" is written in Azeri-Turkish too.
Fuzuli lived in constant need, which we know from his numerous poetic complaints. The great poet died of cholera in Kerbela in 1556.
Muhammed Fuzuli (1498-1556)
BIOGRAPHY
Fuzuli is one of the greatest Azeri-Turkish poets. His real name is Muhammed Suleiman oglu (poet’s name and patronymic). We know almost nothing of the childhood and early youth of Fuzuli. It is generally considered that he was born app. in 1498 in Kerbela (in the area presently known as Iraq). Fuzuli belonged to the Turkic tribe of Bayat, one of the Turkoman tribes that was scattered in all over the Middle East, Anatolia and the Caucasus from X-XI cc. and which stands in the roots of the Azerbaijanian people. Although Fuzuli’s ancestors were of nomadic origin, Fuzuli’s family had long been town-dwellers. At that time the area where Fuzuli lived was a part of the Azerbaijanian Safavid State headed by the leader of the Turkoman Shiites Shah Ismayil Safavi. When young Fuzuli devoted a poem to Shah Ismayil named Bang-u-Badeh, where he praised his reigning.
Fuzuli was a versatile and learned man, and was both ambitious to possess these qualities, and proud in possessing them. He wrote: "…I am master of all the arts in discussing beauty of expression and in disputing agreeableness of style with those who are masters of one art only. Well, all this demonstrates the total "presumption" ("fuzuli" in Arabic), but also the perfection of Fuzuli". Thus, the poet explains his nom de plume, which literally means presumptuous, but which also brings to mind fuzul, the plural of fazl meaning "virtue". He chose this pseudonym in order not to be confused with others and be "unique". He was sure that because of its unpleasant meaning nobody else would adopt it.
Fuzuli had left us writings in Azeri (Turkish), Persian and Arabic. This trilingualism was not rare among the Turkic writers of the medieval period and is explainable by their cultural formulation, which was based, in fact, on Arabic religious and scientific tradition and on Persian literary tradition. In Fuzuli’s case the use of the three languages was conditioned also by his particular environment, because all three tongues were in use in Iraq, which as known from history was in XVI c. first a part of the Safavid State and later in 1534 became a part of the Ottoman Empire. The ability to write in more than one language was one of the things of which Fuzuli was most proud and one of his favorite habits was to use two or three languages alternately in same of his poetry or prose. Fuzuli wrote in Azeri Turkish not only by the fact that it was his mother tongue but also by political circumstances. Shah Ismayil Safavi, who conquered Baghdad in 1508, has left us a divan in Azeri Turkish. After the Ottoman conquest of Baghdad Turkish literature acquired even greater importance in this region. Fuzuli expressed Turkish prestige in words, which at that time was not exaggerated, "the high ranking of Turks constitute a large part of world order and a numerous category of the human species…". Nevertheless, he complains that to write "delicate" verse in Turkish rather than in Persian is difficult because the Turkish language is hard to be put in lines, since the words are mostly without connection and lacking harmony. Therefore, the language of the Fuzuli’s poems are extremely persianized. Today a Turk in Azerbaijan or in Turkey could not read many of his works without the help of dictionary. However, Fuzuli’s fame rests mainly on his work in Azeri-Turkish and his masterpiece world-wide famous poem "Leili and Mejnun" is written in Azeri-Turkish too.
Fuzuli lived in constant need, which we know from his numerous poetic complaints. The great poet died of cholera in Kerbela in 1556.
Ottoman Poetry
Mavi Boncuk |
Ottoman poetry
The Ottomans were one of the many Turkoman peoples who migrated into Anatolia (eastern Turkey) from the 11h century AD. They gradually converted to Islam, and created an empire that stretched from Azerbaijan to Algeria. Until the nineteenth century, when writers turned to Europe for inspiration, Turkish poetry belonged to three great schools. The court or Divan school modelled itself on Arabic and Persian, often Persianizing Turkish words in the process. The Tekke or religious poetry was written in theological centres, being best known in the west through the mysticism of Rumi (1207-73). Folk poetry drew its inspiration from pre-Islamic traditions, and is still continued by countless storytellers. Fuzuli was only one of a galaxy of outstanding Divan poets, women included — Baqi, Sultan Suleyman, Hayali, Tashcali Yahya Bey, Ruhi-i Baghdad, Naili, Nedim, Seyh Galip. Similar lists compiled for the other schools would at least mention Suleyman Celebi and Yunus Emre.
Ottoman poetry
The Ottomans were one of the many Turkoman peoples who migrated into Anatolia (eastern Turkey) from the 11h century AD. They gradually converted to Islam, and created an empire that stretched from Azerbaijan to Algeria. Until the nineteenth century, when writers turned to Europe for inspiration, Turkish poetry belonged to three great schools. The court or Divan school modelled itself on Arabic and Persian, often Persianizing Turkish words in the process. The Tekke or religious poetry was written in theological centres, being best known in the west through the mysticism of Rumi (1207-73). Folk poetry drew its inspiration from pre-Islamic traditions, and is still continued by countless storytellers. Fuzuli was only one of a galaxy of outstanding Divan poets, women included — Baqi, Sultan Suleyman, Hayali, Tashcali Yahya Bey, Ruhi-i Baghdad, Naili, Nedim, Seyh Galip. Similar lists compiled for the other schools would at least mention Suleyman Celebi and Yunus Emre.
Portrait | Johann Gottfried Herder 1744 - 1803)
Johann Gottfried Herder, father of Nationalism. What we must really understand is this. The colonial ambitions shrouded in nationalism never lies...They just tell stories.
Mavi Boncuk |
Johann Gottfried Herder (August 25, 1744 - December 18, 1803) is best known for his concept of the Volk and is generally considered the father of ethnic nationalism.
Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from historical cultural or hereditary groupings (ethnicities); the underlying assumption is that ethnicities should be politically distinct. This was developed by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who introduced the concept of the Volk (German for Folk).The Brothers Grimm were inspired by Johann Gottfried Herder's writings to create an idealized collection of tales which they labeled as authentically ethnic German.
Along with Wilhelm von Humboldt, he proposed what is now called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis - that language determines thought. Herder's focus upon language and cultural traditions as the ties that create a "nation" extended to include folklore, dance, music and art, and inspired Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their collection of Germanic folk tales.
Romantic nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism infused with Romanticism.
in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence of race ; in the spirit of Romanticism and opposed to Enlightenment rationalism
Romantic nationalism relies upon the existence of a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore Folklore is the ethnographic concept of the tales, legends, or superstitions long current among a particular ethnic population; in other words, the oral history of a particular culture. The concept developed as part of the 19th century ideology of romantic nationalism, leading to the reshaping of oral traditions to serve modern ideological goals; only in the 20th century did ethnographers begin to attempt to record folklore objectively.
Romanticism, the anxiety against rationalism, broadened after the beginnings of the European and Industrial Revolutions because of political insecurity to bring about religious revival, populism and nationalism. Even though the religious revival eventually blended into political populism and nationalism, romanticism's paradigm shift was marked by people looking for security and community because of a strong emotional need to escape from anxiety to believe in something bigger than themselves.
Mavi Boncuk |
Johann Gottfried Herder (August 25, 1744 - December 18, 1803) is best known for his concept of the Volk and is generally considered the father of ethnic nationalism.
Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from historical cultural or hereditary groupings (ethnicities); the underlying assumption is that ethnicities should be politically distinct. This was developed by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who introduced the concept of the Volk (German for Folk).The Brothers Grimm were inspired by Johann Gottfried Herder's writings to create an idealized collection of tales which they labeled as authentically ethnic German.
Along with Wilhelm von Humboldt, he proposed what is now called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis - that language determines thought. Herder's focus upon language and cultural traditions as the ties that create a "nation" extended to include folklore, dance, music and art, and inspired Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their collection of Germanic folk tales.
Romantic nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism infused with Romanticism.
in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence of race ; in the spirit of Romanticism and opposed to Enlightenment rationalism
Romantic nationalism relies upon the existence of a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore Folklore is the ethnographic concept of the tales, legends, or superstitions long current among a particular ethnic population; in other words, the oral history of a particular culture. The concept developed as part of the 19th century ideology of romantic nationalism, leading to the reshaping of oral traditions to serve modern ideological goals; only in the 20th century did ethnographers begin to attempt to record folklore objectively.
Romanticism, the anxiety against rationalism, broadened after the beginnings of the European and Industrial Revolutions because of political insecurity to bring about religious revival, populism and nationalism. Even though the religious revival eventually blended into political populism and nationalism, romanticism's paradigm shift was marked by people looking for security and community because of a strong emotional need to escape from anxiety to believe in something bigger than themselves.
Balkans | A Short Review
Bismarck once said that "the whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier."
Mavi Boncuk |
The Balkan peninsula is a region where civilisations and social systems have collided and merged for thousands of years. For over four hundred years, the Ottoman Empire headed by a Muslim sultan in Constantinople controlled most of the Balkans. The Ottomans taxed their subject peoples heavily and conscripted their young men to fight in frequent wars. But the west European obsession with ensuring that the religion of the people matched that of the ruler was not shared. The Orthodox Christian Church and the Jews enjoyed freedom of worship. They were allowed to maintain their own courts and judges, applying their own laws to their communities in a whole range of civil matters. Forcible conversions to Islam were rare. But among certain peoples, particularly the Slavs of Bosnia and the Albanians, large-scale conversions took place, not least because of the opportunities for upward mobility in the Ottoman bureaucracy or the military provided for Muslims.
The autonomy enjoyed by the Orthodox Church preserved cultural values pre-dating Islam, particularly memories of the Byzantine Empire which had lasted until 1453. This sense of religious and historical separation would provide the seedbed for nationalism when the Ottoman empire decayed. A Byzantine heritage was also preserved by influential Greek families, known as the phanariots, who administered parts of the Empire on behalf of the Sultan.
The Orthodox Church was a supranational body that was non-national in its doctrines and outlook. Sometimes the harshness of church courts and the exactions of the phanariots made ordinary Greeks view the Turks as less onerous oppressors. During the seventeenth century Greek peasants in the Peloponnese welcomed the return of the Turks after periods of Venetian rule marked by heavy taxation and forcible conversion to Catholicism.
Memories of the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Crusaders who looted and massacred, desecrating churches and fatally weakening the Byzantine empire, created long-term enmity between western and eastern Christianity. Today in Greece these images of western treachery and barbarism enable opinion formers to appeal for solidarity with fellow Orthodox Serbs and condemn what is seen as Nato aggression first in Bosnia and later in Kosovo.
Two hundred years ago, as the Ottoman empire became enfeebled and corrupt, it was the West which appeared to offer the path to modernisation and renewed greatness for local Christian leaders and especially restless intellectuals in the Balkans.
In 1807 the Serbs were the first South Slav people to establish their independence. This achievement encouraged the view among Serb rulers that they were entitled to play the leading role in creating a union of South Slav peoples. When Yugoslavia emerged in 1918, the domineering attitude of the Serb leadership provoked resentment among other peoples, particularly the Croats, who, because of their experience of Austrian Habsburg rule from Vienna, had acquired different governmental traditions and expectations.
Before their current demonisation, the Serbs had long enjoyed a vogue in Europe because of their martial sacrifices in the cause of political freedom as well as the beauty of their poetry. Writers from Goethe and Walter Scott to Rebecca West expressed their admiration for the lyric beauty of Serbian popular songs, while Jacob Grimm ranked Serb poetry alongside that of Homer.
The romantic nationalism pioneered by the German philosopher Herder found a ready audience among restless intellectuals in Eastern Europe. With its emphasis on the unique value of every ethnic group and on each group's `natural right' to carve out a national home of its own, romantic nationalism was able to undermine the multi-cultural traditions of the Eastern world. When Herder hailed the Slavs as `the coming leaders of Europe', intellectuals were encouraged to explore the past and all-too-often invent glorious historical pedigrees meant to give reborn nations the inalienable right to enjoy contemporary greatness. If this meant dominating territories shared by more than one ethnic group, then many nationalists justified such a course even if it meant that they were imitating the imperialists whose rule they were seeking to throw off.
The prospects of cultural nationalism were transformed by the French Revolution and Napoleon's humiliation of dynastic empires. The revolution against the traditional political order legitimised a West European concept of nationalism allowing a people to identify with a territory on which they were entitled to establish a state and government of their own.
The appeal of romantic nationalism for European public opinion was first revealed by the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s. Acts of cruelty were committed on both sides but it was the Ottoman atrocities against the Greeks that moved the liberal European conscience. The Ottoman massacre of Greeks on the island of Chios in 1822, immortalised in Delacroix's painting, enabled European public opinion to overrule governments that might have wished to limit Greek ambitions. It was not just Byron, but Shelley, Goethe and Schiller who unleashed a storm of enthusiasm for Philhellenism that cautious governments found hard to stem. In 1824, a series of privately financed loans, which in effect made the City of London the financier of the revolution, proved critical in ensuring Greek success.
One hundred and fifty years later, philhellenism was still a strong enough force to ensure that Greece entered the European Union even though there were nagging doubts about her real commitment to a post-nationalist agenda based upon European integration. In the 1980s and early 1990s Greece would earn the reputation of being arguably the most nationalistic of the Balkan states, under the populist premier Andreas Papandreou. Persistent interference by outside powers in its internal affairs had produced a culture of suspicion and complaint which helped nationalism to flourish.
After Greek independence was achieved in 1832, Great Power interference' combined with local factionalism to weaken the prospects of effective government. Russia and Britain in particular had conflicting interests and ambitions in the Balkans. As a multi-national empire in its own right, Russia was hostile to the pretensions of European small state nationalism. But the tsars claimed to be the legitimate successors to the Orthodox Empire at Byzantium and the defenders of east European Christendom.
In 1774 Catherine the Great of Russia extracted from the sultan the right to appoint consuls in the Ottoman empire who could make representations on behalf of its Christian subjects. Between 1787 and 1792, Russia fought a war with Turkey whose aim was to partition the Ottoman empire and establish Russian control of Constantinople and the Bosphorus Straits. For the first time Britain became aware of conflicting British and Russian interests in the Near East. The realisation gave birth to long-standing international tensions as two rival European powers sought to fill the vacuum left by the retreating Ottoman empire on their own terms.
Britain feared that its imperial possessions in India would be threatened if Russia became a Mediterranean power. Thus the Foreign Office became associated with the policy of propping up the Ottoman empire, or at least preventing its slow decline becoming a rapid collapse that might overturn a precarious balance of power.
An anti-Russian coalition headed by Britain waged war in the Crimea in 1853-54 to foil the tsar's bid to partition the Ottoman empire. Thus the only general European conflict in the hundred years between 1815 and 1914 was due to the Eastern Question. An independent Romania emerged afterwards under the sponsorship of France. The victors in the Crimean War chose to sponsor Romania to prevent Russia controlling the mouth of the Danube. The Romanians claimed Latin ancestry and could act as a bulwark preventing a union of South Slav peoples which Britain feared would enable Russia to clinch its ambitions in the eastern Mediterranean.
Thus the precedent was established for map changes in the Balkans in order to satisfy a precarious balance of power rather than to suit the wishes of the local inhabitants. Emerging peoples threw in their fortunes with a Great Power in the hope that they could achieve their territorial goals. Prospects of co-operation between the Balkan peoples diminished as outside powers were prepared to sponsor rival nationalisms for short-term goals. In 1876 the power of events in the Balkans to galvanise international opinion was shown by the reaction in Britain to massacres perpetrated by Turkish forces against Christian Slavs in Bulgaria. William Gladstone, the leader of the Liberal opposition, published his pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East in September 1876 and by the end of that month it had sold 200,000 copies. He demanded that prime minister Disraeli use Britain's authority to compel the sultan to grant freedom to the Christian Bulgarians.
Mavi Boncuk |
The Balkan peninsula is a region where civilisations and social systems have collided and merged for thousands of years. For over four hundred years, the Ottoman Empire headed by a Muslim sultan in Constantinople controlled most of the Balkans. The Ottomans taxed their subject peoples heavily and conscripted their young men to fight in frequent wars. But the west European obsession with ensuring that the religion of the people matched that of the ruler was not shared. The Orthodox Christian Church and the Jews enjoyed freedom of worship. They were allowed to maintain their own courts and judges, applying their own laws to their communities in a whole range of civil matters. Forcible conversions to Islam were rare. But among certain peoples, particularly the Slavs of Bosnia and the Albanians, large-scale conversions took place, not least because of the opportunities for upward mobility in the Ottoman bureaucracy or the military provided for Muslims.
The autonomy enjoyed by the Orthodox Church preserved cultural values pre-dating Islam, particularly memories of the Byzantine Empire which had lasted until 1453. This sense of religious and historical separation would provide the seedbed for nationalism when the Ottoman empire decayed. A Byzantine heritage was also preserved by influential Greek families, known as the phanariots, who administered parts of the Empire on behalf of the Sultan.
The Orthodox Church was a supranational body that was non-national in its doctrines and outlook. Sometimes the harshness of church courts and the exactions of the phanariots made ordinary Greeks view the Turks as less onerous oppressors. During the seventeenth century Greek peasants in the Peloponnese welcomed the return of the Turks after periods of Venetian rule marked by heavy taxation and forcible conversion to Catholicism.
Memories of the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by Crusaders who looted and massacred, desecrating churches and fatally weakening the Byzantine empire, created long-term enmity between western and eastern Christianity. Today in Greece these images of western treachery and barbarism enable opinion formers to appeal for solidarity with fellow Orthodox Serbs and condemn what is seen as Nato aggression first in Bosnia and later in Kosovo.
Two hundred years ago, as the Ottoman empire became enfeebled and corrupt, it was the West which appeared to offer the path to modernisation and renewed greatness for local Christian leaders and especially restless intellectuals in the Balkans.
In 1807 the Serbs were the first South Slav people to establish their independence. This achievement encouraged the view among Serb rulers that they were entitled to play the leading role in creating a union of South Slav peoples. When Yugoslavia emerged in 1918, the domineering attitude of the Serb leadership provoked resentment among other peoples, particularly the Croats, who, because of their experience of Austrian Habsburg rule from Vienna, had acquired different governmental traditions and expectations.
Before their current demonisation, the Serbs had long enjoyed a vogue in Europe because of their martial sacrifices in the cause of political freedom as well as the beauty of their poetry. Writers from Goethe and Walter Scott to Rebecca West expressed their admiration for the lyric beauty of Serbian popular songs, while Jacob Grimm ranked Serb poetry alongside that of Homer.
The romantic nationalism pioneered by the German philosopher Herder found a ready audience among restless intellectuals in Eastern Europe. With its emphasis on the unique value of every ethnic group and on each group's `natural right' to carve out a national home of its own, romantic nationalism was able to undermine the multi-cultural traditions of the Eastern world. When Herder hailed the Slavs as `the coming leaders of Europe', intellectuals were encouraged to explore the past and all-too-often invent glorious historical pedigrees meant to give reborn nations the inalienable right to enjoy contemporary greatness. If this meant dominating territories shared by more than one ethnic group, then many nationalists justified such a course even if it meant that they were imitating the imperialists whose rule they were seeking to throw off.
The prospects of cultural nationalism were transformed by the French Revolution and Napoleon's humiliation of dynastic empires. The revolution against the traditional political order legitimised a West European concept of nationalism allowing a people to identify with a territory on which they were entitled to establish a state and government of their own.
The appeal of romantic nationalism for European public opinion was first revealed by the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s. Acts of cruelty were committed on both sides but it was the Ottoman atrocities against the Greeks that moved the liberal European conscience. The Ottoman massacre of Greeks on the island of Chios in 1822, immortalised in Delacroix's painting, enabled European public opinion to overrule governments that might have wished to limit Greek ambitions. It was not just Byron, but Shelley, Goethe and Schiller who unleashed a storm of enthusiasm for Philhellenism that cautious governments found hard to stem. In 1824, a series of privately financed loans, which in effect made the City of London the financier of the revolution, proved critical in ensuring Greek success.
One hundred and fifty years later, philhellenism was still a strong enough force to ensure that Greece entered the European Union even though there were nagging doubts about her real commitment to a post-nationalist agenda based upon European integration. In the 1980s and early 1990s Greece would earn the reputation of being arguably the most nationalistic of the Balkan states, under the populist premier Andreas Papandreou. Persistent interference by outside powers in its internal affairs had produced a culture of suspicion and complaint which helped nationalism to flourish.
After Greek independence was achieved in 1832, Great Power interference' combined with local factionalism to weaken the prospects of effective government. Russia and Britain in particular had conflicting interests and ambitions in the Balkans. As a multi-national empire in its own right, Russia was hostile to the pretensions of European small state nationalism. But the tsars claimed to be the legitimate successors to the Orthodox Empire at Byzantium and the defenders of east European Christendom.
In 1774 Catherine the Great of Russia extracted from the sultan the right to appoint consuls in the Ottoman empire who could make representations on behalf of its Christian subjects. Between 1787 and 1792, Russia fought a war with Turkey whose aim was to partition the Ottoman empire and establish Russian control of Constantinople and the Bosphorus Straits. For the first time Britain became aware of conflicting British and Russian interests in the Near East. The realisation gave birth to long-standing international tensions as two rival European powers sought to fill the vacuum left by the retreating Ottoman empire on their own terms.
Britain feared that its imperial possessions in India would be threatened if Russia became a Mediterranean power. Thus the Foreign Office became associated with the policy of propping up the Ottoman empire, or at least preventing its slow decline becoming a rapid collapse that might overturn a precarious balance of power.
An anti-Russian coalition headed by Britain waged war in the Crimea in 1853-54 to foil the tsar's bid to partition the Ottoman empire. Thus the only general European conflict in the hundred years between 1815 and 1914 was due to the Eastern Question. An independent Romania emerged afterwards under the sponsorship of France. The victors in the Crimean War chose to sponsor Romania to prevent Russia controlling the mouth of the Danube. The Romanians claimed Latin ancestry and could act as a bulwark preventing a union of South Slav peoples which Britain feared would enable Russia to clinch its ambitions in the eastern Mediterranean.
Thus the precedent was established for map changes in the Balkans in order to satisfy a precarious balance of power rather than to suit the wishes of the local inhabitants. Emerging peoples threw in their fortunes with a Great Power in the hope that they could achieve their territorial goals. Prospects of co-operation between the Balkan peoples diminished as outside powers were prepared to sponsor rival nationalisms for short-term goals. In 1876 the power of events in the Balkans to galvanise international opinion was shown by the reaction in Britain to massacres perpetrated by Turkish forces against Christian Slavs in Bulgaria. William Gladstone, the leader of the Liberal opposition, published his pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East in September 1876 and by the end of that month it had sold 200,000 copies. He demanded that prime minister Disraeli use Britain's authority to compel the sultan to grant freedom to the Christian Bulgarians.
Portrait | William Ewart Gladstone 1809 1898
In 1876 Gladstone published The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, attacking the government's policy towards the Ottoman Empire. By the end of that month it had sold 200,000 copies. He demanded that prime minister Disraeli use Britain's authority to compel the sultan to grant freedom to the Christian Bulgarians.
Gladstone had earlier earned the gratitude of the Greeks when, after serving as governor of the Ionian Islands, he had persuaded the House of Commons to place them under Greek rule. He wished British policy in the Balkans to be guided by moral criteria, challenging the doctrine set down by Palmerston in 1848 when he argued that the furtherance of British interests should be the only object of a British
Mavi Boncuk |
Read More from Victorian Web William Ewart Gladstone 1809 1898
VANITY FAIR Cartoon: GLADSTONE The Rt. Hon. William E. Top Hat. Frock Coat. c8x14 ins. 'Were he a worse man he would be a better statesman'.
Gladstone had earlier earned the gratitude of the Greeks when, after serving as governor of the Ionian Islands, he had persuaded the House of Commons to place them under Greek rule. He wished British policy in the Balkans to be guided by moral criteria, challenging the doctrine set down by Palmerston in 1848 when he argued that the furtherance of British interests should be the only object of a British
Mavi Boncuk |
Read More from Victorian Web William Ewart Gladstone 1809 1898
VANITY FAIR Cartoon: GLADSTONE The Rt. Hon. William E
Portrait | Benjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881
In 1878 Disraeli was elevated to the House of Lords as the Earl of Beaconsfield; his administration was attacked by Gladstone for its policy towards the Ottoman Empire. In 1876 the Bulgarian atrocities had taken place but Disraeli said that the press reports were exaggerated - this was something of a faux pas for him and Gladstone made the most of his opportunity, publishing a pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East later in the year. Another outbreak of Russo-Turkish hostilities erupted in the war of 1877 which ended with the Treaty of Adrianople in 1878 and was followed by the Congress of Berlin that was attended by Disraeli and Salisbury on behalf of Britain. The meeting culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Berlin and Disraeli claimed to have won 'peace with honour'. In 1880 he resigned as PM following a Liberal victory at the general election and became leader of the Opposition from the Lords. Always something of a dandy, he arrived at a dinner party wearing 'green velvet trousers, a canary coloured waistcoat, low shoes, sliver buckles, lace at his wrists and his hair in ringlets...' [Henry Bulmer]. He died a year later and was buried at Hughenden parish church in Buckinghamshire. He was 76 years old.
Mavi Boncuk |
Read More from Victorian WebBenjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881
VANITY FAIR Cartoon: DISRAELI Rt. Hon Benjamin. Prime Minister. (Later Earl of Beconsfield). 'He educated the Tories�'. Top hat. Long coat. Umbrella. By Singe. Overall size c. 8x14 ins.
Mavi Boncuk |
Read More from Victorian WebBenjamin Disraeli 1804 - 1881
VANITY FAIR Cartoon: DISRAELI Rt. Hon Benjamin
Jewish Spies in Ottoman Palestine
Old Zichron's main thoroughfare, is lined with the town's original houses, some of which have been restored; you'll find the Aaronson House, at 40 Hameyasdim St. Aaron Aaronson (1876- 1919) was an agronomist of international repute who received his training in France under the aegis of the Rothschilds. He and his sisters, Sara and Rebecca, and his assistant, Absolom Feinberg, with whom he had set up an experimental farm at Athlit, were at the center of NILI, an anti-Turkish spy ring that supplied the British with intelligence during World War I. Feinberg was killed while traveling through Gaza on a desperate mission to contact the British army in Sinai. After the Six-Day War 50 years later, when a search was made so he could be reburied in Jerusalem, the site of his grave in Gaza was identified by a palm tree that sprouted from dates he had been carrying in his pocket when he was ambushed. Both Sara and Rebecca had been in love with Feinberg; Sara was arrested by the Turks and committed suicide . Aaron Aaronson himself, one of the most promising and admired members of the Jewish community in Palestine, died in a plane crash on his way to the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World WarI.
Mavi Boncuk |
Spies for Britain
World War I pitted the British against the Ottoman Empire. Some of the Jews of Palestine were convinced that supporting the British would help bring about a Jewish State. Led by Avshalom Feinberg and Aaron Aaronson, this group recruited other members of the Zichron Ya'acov community to work on behalf of the British. They called their organization NILI (Netzah Israel Lo Y'Shaker). Contact was made with the British, and in 1916 and 1917, NILI transmitted important intelligence information to the British.
Feinberg and Joseph Lishansky were ambushed by Bedouins near El Arish in 1917, and Feinberg was killed. In September of that year, a carrier pigeon used by NILI was ambushed. Two weeks later, a member of NILI was arrested and after torture, disclosed some of the group's secrets.
In early October, the Turks surrounded Zichron Ya'acov and arrested Sarah Aaronson (1890-1917). They interrogated her for three days, during which she refused to betray her friends. After three days, she managed to commit suicide. Two of the others -- Joseph Lishansky and Na'aman Belkind -- were executed by the Ottomans on December 16, 1917.
Spies for the Turks and Germans
The secret crescent cause By Abraham Rabinovich
At a conference at Tel Aviv University a couple of weeks ago on the Middle East in World War I, lecturers pointed out that while there was indeed sympathy for the Allied cause among many Palestinian Jews, others joined the Turkish-German struggle against the Allies.
Among them, according to an American historian, was the sister of Chaim Weizmann, Mina. A physician, Mina allegedly undertook to serve as a German spy against the Allied cause at the same time that her illustrious brother in England was contributing as a chemist to the British war effort and hanging his hopes for a Jewish homeland on an Allied victory.
The sensational allegation concerning Mina Weizmann - apparently aired publicly for the first time - was made offhandedly by Prof. Donald M. McKale of Clemson University during a lecture on German intelligence activity in the Middle East during the First World War.
The Germans, who encouraged their Turkish allies to attack the Suez Canal in order to draw off British forces from the European theater, had difficulty recruiting local agents to spy on the British forces in Egypt.
"The Ottoman government refused to permit the Germans to operate freely," said McKale. "Subsequently the Germans recruited a number of Jews in Palestine as spies, hoping to exploit the hatred of Russian Jews for czarism.
"One such was Mina Weizmann, a Russian emigre physician in Jerusalem and younger sister of Chaim Weizmann, who lived in London and was the Zionist leader."
CHAIM, who would become Israel's first president, was born in 1874 in Byelorussia, the third of 12 children. Mina was the 11th child, 16 years younger than Chaim. The 12th child was Khilik, father of Israel's current president, Ezer Weizman. Ezer himself was a year old when Mina, his aunt, died.
McKale said in an interview that he had come across a reference to Mina Weizmann while researching German archives for a book on Germany and the Middle East. Mina, who was 24 when the war broke out, had been living in Jerusalem but worked during the war as a doctor in a Cairo hospital where she presumably had access to British military personnel.
She was arrested by the British as a spy, said McKale, and transported to Malta where she was imprisoned briefly.
"Then, most unusually, she was returned to Russia. It is unclear whether she was in fact a double agent working for the British or whether she really was a German spy and that her influential brother assisted in her release."
At least one other Palestinian Jew recruited by the Germans as a spy, Isaac Cohen, turned out in fact to be a British agent, McKale noted.
The American historian said that Mina Weizmann's identity as a German spy had been reinforced by the son of the man who allegedly recruited her, a German agent named Curt Preufer, the subject of one of McKale's books. The elder Preufer would later serve as a senior diplomat under the Nazis.
Preufer's son, who lives now in the US, told McKale that his father and Mina had meetings in a hotel.
"There is an implication that the two of them had an affair," said McKale.
ANOTHER speaker at the symposium, Dr. Jacob Markovizky of Haifa University, noted that leaders of the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, encouraged Jewish youth after the outbreak of the World War I to enroll in the Turkish army.
"The Jewish elite, including teachers, felt that the mobilization of able-bodied young men into the Turkish army would be a tangible expression of Jewish loyalty to the Ottoman Empire. The Yishuv hoped that, in return, the Turkish authorities could, some day, recognize aspirations for a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
Students from prestigious high schools in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were pressured by the Yishuv leadership to enlist in the Turkish army for the sake of the long-term benefit of the Jewish community.
Some even became officers, but about one-fourth of the enlistees, feeling no sense of identity with the Ottoman empire, eventually deserted their units. Most of these were from Tel Aviv. Enlistees from Jerusalem were for the most part persuaded by the distinguished educator David Yellin to serve out their term, said Markovizky.
Prof. Gideon Biger of Tel Aviv University said that Israeli and other Jewish historians have been distinctly ungenerous to the Turks in making them out to be "the big bad wolf."
Acts of villainy attributed to the Turks during the World War I in fact constituted moderate, even civilized, behavior in the context of war, he said.
WHEN fighting broke out in 1914, there were 85,000 Jews in Palestine, most of whom had arrived in the decades after 1882. Most did not adopt Ottoman citizenship, preferring to retain citizenship of their home country, with the protection that offered.
With the outbreak of war, some of these home countries - like Britain, France and Russia - became enemies of Turkey. Their nationals were given a choice of becoming Ottoman subjects or leaving the Ottoman Empire. If they became subjects, they would be liable to draft but, as a gesture, the Turks said they would defer draft for a year.
About 15,000 foreign Jews who refused to take Ottoman citizenship were forced to leave the country. Noting that Israeli history books refer to this as "the cruel deportation," Biger said that no country behaved more gently to citizens of enemy states during a war.
"The Turks gave them the opportunity to become loyal citizens or to leave the country, which was at war with their motherland. During the Second World War the Americans arrested all the Japanese who lived in the US and sent them to concentration camps although they were US citizens and had lived there for a generation.
"During the Second World War, the British sent all the Germans who lived in Palestine to Australia, since they were seen as potential spies. The Turkish activities in this situation were the normal activities of a country at war."
LIKEWISE, the expulsion of Jews from Tel Aviv by the Turks in 1917 is recalled as a traumatic, anti-Jewish event in memoirs which shaped the perception of the period among Israelis today.
Reality was quite different, said Biger.
The British Army had reached southern Palestine from Egypt earlier that year and had tried unsuccessfully to break through the Turkish line at Gaza. As the British prepared for another assault, the Turkish authorities feared that it might include a landing by sea north of Gaza. A likely target was Jaffa, which was also a departure point for an assault on Jerusalem.
Therefore, the Turkish authorities ordered all inhabitants to evacuate the city and go inland "partly to avoid British cooperation with the local Arabs and partly to protect [Jaffa's residents] from the possible [British] attack," said Biger.
Some 50,000 Arabs duly packed their belongings and trekked inland. So did the small population of the new Jewish suburb, Tel Aviv.
"All the houses were closed and stood unharmed for seven months," said Biger. "The Turkish regime even helped by supplying food. A group of young people, armed by the Turks, was left in Tel Aviv in order to protect the houses, which remained unharmed until the inhabitants came back."
THE MOST emotion-laden grievance against the Turks involved their crackdown on the Nili spy ring, founded by a group of young Jews in Zichron Ya'acov to help the Allied war effort. The ringleader, Aaron Aaronson, managed to escape but the Turks hanged other members of the ring and tortured Aaronson's sister, Sara, who finally shot herself.
The known facts are correct, said Biger, but the prevailing Jewish attitude is too narrow.
The only people punished by the Turks, he noted, were those actually involved in the ring - and only after a military trial. There was no collective punishment against the Jews of Palestine or even of Zichron Ya'acov.
"No house was burned and anyone can visit today the original house of the Aaronson family. The woman who committed suicide was actually a spy who received the 'usual treatment' of spies during war."
Eighty years onward, said Biger, it is time to understand that Turkish actions during the First World War were the result of circumstance and not of anti-Jewish sentiment. This new perception may not just be a function of passing time but of Israel's current warm strategic relations with Turkey.
A large number of Turkish academics and ex-military officers participated in the two-day symposium in Tel Aviv. Israeli participants then traveled to Istanbul for the symposium's second half.
Mavi Boncuk |
Spies for Britain
World War I pitted the British against the Ottoman Empire. Some of the Jews of Palestine were convinced that supporting the British would help bring about a Jewish State. Led by Avshalom Feinberg and Aaron Aaronson, this group recruited other members of the Zichron Ya'acov community to work on behalf of the British. They called their organization NILI (Netzah Israel Lo Y'Shaker). Contact was made with the British, and in 1916 and 1917, NILI transmitted important intelligence information to the British.
Feinberg and Joseph Lishansky were ambushed by Bedouins near El Arish in 1917, and Feinberg was killed. In September of that year, a carrier pigeon used by NILI was ambushed. Two weeks later, a member of NILI was arrested and after torture, disclosed some of the group's secrets.
In early October, the Turks surrounded Zichron Ya'acov and arrested Sarah Aaronson (1890-1917). They interrogated her for three days, during which she refused to betray her friends. After three days, she managed to commit suicide. Two of the others -- Joseph Lishansky and Na'aman Belkind -- were executed by the Ottomans on December 16, 1917.
Spies for the Turks and Germans
The secret crescent cause By Abraham Rabinovich
At a conference at Tel Aviv University a couple of weeks ago on the Middle East in World War I, lecturers pointed out that while there was indeed sympathy for the Allied cause among many Palestinian Jews, others joined the Turkish-German struggle against the Allies.
Among them, according to an American historian, was the sister of Chaim Weizmann, Mina. A physician, Mina allegedly undertook to serve as a German spy against the Allied cause at the same time that her illustrious brother in England was contributing as a chemist to the British war effort and hanging his hopes for a Jewish homeland on an Allied victory.
The sensational allegation concerning Mina Weizmann - apparently aired publicly for the first time - was made offhandedly by Prof. Donald M. McKale of Clemson University during a lecture on German intelligence activity in the Middle East during the First World War.
The Germans, who encouraged their Turkish allies to attack the Suez Canal in order to draw off British forces from the European theater, had difficulty recruiting local agents to spy on the British forces in Egypt.
"The Ottoman government refused to permit the Germans to operate freely," said McKale. "Subsequently the Germans recruited a number of Jews in Palestine as spies, hoping to exploit the hatred of Russian Jews for czarism.
"One such was Mina Weizmann, a Russian emigre physician in Jerusalem and younger sister of Chaim Weizmann, who lived in London and was the Zionist leader."
CHAIM, who would become Israel's first president, was born in 1874 in Byelorussia, the third of 12 children. Mina was the 11th child, 16 years younger than Chaim. The 12th child was Khilik, father of Israel's current president, Ezer Weizman. Ezer himself was a year old when Mina, his aunt, died.
McKale said in an interview that he had come across a reference to Mina Weizmann while researching German archives for a book on Germany and the Middle East. Mina, who was 24 when the war broke out, had been living in Jerusalem but worked during the war as a doctor in a Cairo hospital where she presumably had access to British military personnel.
She was arrested by the British as a spy, said McKale, and transported to Malta where she was imprisoned briefly.
"Then, most unusually, she was returned to Russia. It is unclear whether she was in fact a double agent working for the British or whether she really was a German spy and that her influential brother assisted in her release."
At least one other Palestinian Jew recruited by the Germans as a spy, Isaac Cohen, turned out in fact to be a British agent, McKale noted.
The American historian said that Mina Weizmann's identity as a German spy had been reinforced by the son of the man who allegedly recruited her, a German agent named Curt Preufer, the subject of one of McKale's books. The elder Preufer would later serve as a senior diplomat under the Nazis.
Preufer's son, who lives now in the US, told McKale that his father and Mina had meetings in a hotel.
"There is an implication that the two of them had an affair," said McKale.
ANOTHER speaker at the symposium, Dr. Jacob Markovizky of Haifa University, noted that leaders of the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, encouraged Jewish youth after the outbreak of the World War I to enroll in the Turkish army.
"The Jewish elite, including teachers, felt that the mobilization of able-bodied young men into the Turkish army would be a tangible expression of Jewish loyalty to the Ottoman Empire. The Yishuv hoped that, in return, the Turkish authorities could, some day, recognize aspirations for a Jewish homeland in Palestine."
Students from prestigious high schools in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were pressured by the Yishuv leadership to enlist in the Turkish army for the sake of the long-term benefit of the Jewish community.
Some even became officers, but about one-fourth of the enlistees, feeling no sense of identity with the Ottoman empire, eventually deserted their units. Most of these were from Tel Aviv. Enlistees from Jerusalem were for the most part persuaded by the distinguished educator David Yellin to serve out their term, said Markovizky.
Prof. Gideon Biger of Tel Aviv University said that Israeli and other Jewish historians have been distinctly ungenerous to the Turks in making them out to be "the big bad wolf."
Acts of villainy attributed to the Turks during the World War I in fact constituted moderate, even civilized, behavior in the context of war, he said.
WHEN fighting broke out in 1914, there were 85,000 Jews in Palestine, most of whom had arrived in the decades after 1882. Most did not adopt Ottoman citizenship, preferring to retain citizenship of their home country, with the protection that offered.
With the outbreak of war, some of these home countries - like Britain, France and Russia - became enemies of Turkey. Their nationals were given a choice of becoming Ottoman subjects or leaving the Ottoman Empire. If they became subjects, they would be liable to draft but, as a gesture, the Turks said they would defer draft for a year.
About 15,000 foreign Jews who refused to take Ottoman citizenship were forced to leave the country. Noting that Israeli history books refer to this as "the cruel deportation," Biger said that no country behaved more gently to citizens of enemy states during a war.
"The Turks gave them the opportunity to become loyal citizens or to leave the country, which was at war with their motherland. During the Second World War the Americans arrested all the Japanese who lived in the US and sent them to concentration camps although they were US citizens and had lived there for a generation.
"During the Second World War, the British sent all the Germans who lived in Palestine to Australia, since they were seen as potential spies. The Turkish activities in this situation were the normal activities of a country at war."
LIKEWISE, the expulsion of Jews from Tel Aviv by the Turks in 1917 is recalled as a traumatic, anti-Jewish event in memoirs which shaped the perception of the period among Israelis today.
Reality was quite different, said Biger.
The British Army had reached southern Palestine from Egypt earlier that year and had tried unsuccessfully to break through the Turkish line at Gaza. As the British prepared for another assault, the Turkish authorities feared that it might include a landing by sea north of Gaza. A likely target was Jaffa, which was also a departure point for an assault on Jerusalem.
Therefore, the Turkish authorities ordered all inhabitants to evacuate the city and go inland "partly to avoid British cooperation with the local Arabs and partly to protect [Jaffa's residents] from the possible [British] attack," said Biger.
Some 50,000 Arabs duly packed their belongings and trekked inland. So did the small population of the new Jewish suburb, Tel Aviv.
"All the houses were closed and stood unharmed for seven months," said Biger. "The Turkish regime even helped by supplying food. A group of young people, armed by the Turks, was left in Tel Aviv in order to protect the houses, which remained unharmed until the inhabitants came back."
THE MOST emotion-laden grievance against the Turks involved their crackdown on the Nili spy ring, founded by a group of young Jews in Zichron Ya'acov to help the Allied war effort. The ringleader, Aaron Aaronson, managed to escape but the Turks hanged other members of the ring and tortured Aaronson's sister, Sara, who finally shot herself.
The known facts are correct, said Biger, but the prevailing Jewish attitude is too narrow.
The only people punished by the Turks, he noted, were those actually involved in the ring - and only after a military trial. There was no collective punishment against the Jews of Palestine or even of Zichron Ya'acov.
"No house was burned and anyone can visit today the original house of the Aaronson family. The woman who committed suicide was actually a spy who received the 'usual treatment' of spies during war."
Eighty years onward, said Biger, it is time to understand that Turkish actions during the First World War were the result of circumstance and not of anti-Jewish sentiment. This new perception may not just be a function of passing time but of Israel's current warm strategic relations with Turkey.
A large number of Turkish academics and ex-military officers participated in the two-day symposium in Tel Aviv. Israeli participants then traveled to Istanbul for the symposium's second half.
Terminology | Sipahi
Mavi Boncuk |
Spa´hi " Sipahi"
n. 1. Formerly, one of the Turkish cavalry. 2. An Algerian cavalryman in the French army.
Feudal cavalryman of the Ottoman Empire whose status resembled that of the medieval European knight. The spahi (from Persian for “cavalryman”) was holder of a fief (timar; Turkish: timar) granted directly by the Ottoman sultan and was entitled to all of the income from it in return for military service. The peasants on the land were subsequently attached to the land.
Holzschnitt nach Melchior Lorch, 1646. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
Woodcut by Melchior Lorch, 1646. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
Timar was the smallest land owned by a sipahi, and would give a yearly revenue of no more than 10,000 akçe, which would be 2- 4 times what a teacher earned. Ziamet yielded up to 100,000 akçe and were owned by sipahiyin with officers rank. Hass gave revenues of more than 100,000 akçe and were only for the highest ranking in the military.
A timar sipahi were obliged to provide the army with up to 5 soldiers, a ziamet with up to 20, and a hass with far more than 20.
Many of the sipahiyin were actual slaves under the sultan, as collected through the devsirme system. By this relationship, the sultan could hope for loyalty and cooperation.
From the middle of the 16th century, the Janissaries troops had started to be the most important part of the army. But still the sipahi represented an important factor in the empire's economy and politics. As late as in the 17th century, the sipahiyin were, together with their enemies the Janissaries, the actual rulers in the early years of sultan Murad 4's reign.
Spa´hi " Sipahi"
n. 1. Formerly, one of the Turkish cavalry. 2. An Algerian cavalryman in the French army.
Feudal cavalryman of the Ottoman Empire whose status resembled that of the medieval European knight. The spahi (from Persian for “cavalryman”) was holder of a fief (timar; Turkish: timar) granted directly by the Ottoman sultan and was entitled to all of the income from it in return for military service. The peasants on the land were subsequently attached to the land.
Holzschnitt nach Melchior Lorch, 1646. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
Woodcut by Melchior Lorch, 1646. Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris
Timar was the smallest land owned by a sipahi, and would give a yearly revenue of no more than 10,000 akçe, which would be 2- 4 times what a teacher earned. Ziamet yielded up to 100,000 akçe and were owned by sipahiyin with officers rank. Hass gave revenues of more than 100,000 akçe and were only for the highest ranking in the military.
A timar sipahi were obliged to provide the army with up to 5 soldiers, a ziamet with up to 20, and a hass with far more than 20.
Many of the sipahiyin were actual slaves under the sultan, as collected through the devsirme system. By this relationship, the sultan could hope for loyalty and cooperation.
From the middle of the 16th century, the Janissaries troops had started to be the most important part of the army. But still the sipahi represented an important factor in the empire's economy and politics. As late as in the 17th century, the sipahiyin were, together with their enemies the Janissaries, the actual rulers in the early years of sultan Murad 4's reign.
Moorish culinary contribution
Mavi Boncuk |
Moorish culinary contribution
Expiración García in La Alimentación, Lucie Bolens in La cuisine andalouse, and Manuela Marín in Cuisine d'Orient have described Al-Andalus cuisine. However, contemporary Iberian cuisine has only a few elements of this Al-Andalus cuisine. In the Iberian Peninsula, these culinary features are marked by the prevalence or use of certain ingredients, dishes, methods of cooking, or ways of eating that were once typical of Al Andalus but devoid of any religious meaning. These features having a Moorish heritage are:
Communal sharing from the same dish. Examples of such shared dishes are paella, migas (fried breadcrumbs or semolina), and gachas and papas (porridges). This practice of sharing is no longer as prevalent as it once was.
Predominance of yellow, green, and white colors. Yellow is common in most rice dishes, in fish stews with rice or noodles, and in some chickpea stews. White is typical of some sweet rice puddings (arroz con leche and arroz doce), some porridges, and some soups such as ajo blanco (a white garlic soup), the original gazpacho, gazpachuelo (a fish and egg soup), and various almond soups. Green is the dominant color of some Portuguese dishes prepared with coriander, although the sopa verde (green soup) cannot be included in this category.
Use of saffron, cumin, and coriander. Coriander is rarely found in traditional Spanish cuisine but is very popular in Portugal, especially in dishes from Alentejo; some food writers relate this use to African influences. Saffron is used both to color and to flavor rice dishes, legume stews, and meat casseroles. Cumin seasons some legume stews, sausages, and dishes of meat or fish.
Spiced stews made from chickpeas, lentils, and from fresh or dried broad beans. Examples of such legume and bean stews include potaje de garbanzos, potaje de lentejas, fava rica, and favas con coentro. The consumption of broad beans, however, has diminished during the last sixty years. Bulgur, or cracked wheat, is still included in some dishes from the Alpujarras region in Andalusia.
Savory or sweet porridges, made from different grain flours. These porridges, such as gachas and papas, were also the basis of Roman cuisine
Dishes made with breadcrumbs or slices of bread. Breadcrumbs or torn up slices of bread are used for thickening and giving texture to many varieties of gazpacho and other kinds of soups (açorda, sopa de ajo, ensopados, and sopas secas). Breadcrumbs are also the main ingredient in migas, a traditional and popular dish. There are some factors that relate the recipe for migas, in its Andalusian version, to the recipe for couscous. The first element is the way in which migas are cooked. A sort of steam cooking is produced through the sauteeing and continuous stirring of the semolina or the crumbs (these are previously soaked and drained) and gives a golden and granulated appearance to the dish. Migas, similarly to couscous, serve as the base for a wide range of other ingredients such as fresh fruit, fried vegetables, fried or roasted fish or sausages, and even sweets. Finally, migas, like couscous, are eaten from the pan in which they were prepared. The pan is placed on the table, and the whole family eats from it.
Spiced fritters and desserts. Various doughnut-like fritters (buñuelos, boladinhos, roscos, filhós, pestiños) and desserts (alcorza, alfeñique, alajú, nougat, and marzipan) are made by combining honey or sugar, egg yolks, cinnamon, and sometimes ground almonds.
Other popular foods and dishes. Flatbreads, either baked (pão estentido) or fried (pão de sertã, torta), stuffed eggs, stuffed eggplants, vermicelli stew, spiced meatballs, shish kebabs (pinchos morunos, espetada), and quince paste are current Iberian foods also mentioned in Arab cookbooks.
Moorish culinary contribution
Expiración García in La Alimentación, Lucie Bolens in La cuisine andalouse, and Manuela Marín in Cuisine d'Orient have described Al-Andalus cuisine. However, contemporary Iberian cuisine has only a few elements of this Al-Andalus cuisine. In the Iberian Peninsula, these culinary features are marked by the prevalence or use of certain ingredients, dishes, methods of cooking, or ways of eating that were once typical of Al Andalus but devoid of any religious meaning. These features having a Moorish heritage are:
Communal sharing from the same dish. Examples of such shared dishes are paella, migas (fried breadcrumbs or semolina), and gachas and papas (porridges). This practice of sharing is no longer as prevalent as it once was.
Predominance of yellow, green, and white colors. Yellow is common in most rice dishes, in fish stews with rice or noodles, and in some chickpea stews. White is typical of some sweet rice puddings (arroz con leche and arroz doce), some porridges, and some soups such as ajo blanco (a white garlic soup), the original gazpacho, gazpachuelo (a fish and egg soup), and various almond soups. Green is the dominant color of some Portuguese dishes prepared with coriander, although the sopa verde (green soup) cannot be included in this category.
Use of saffron, cumin, and coriander. Coriander is rarely found in traditional Spanish cuisine but is very popular in Portugal, especially in dishes from Alentejo; some food writers relate this use to African influences. Saffron is used both to color and to flavor rice dishes, legume stews, and meat casseroles. Cumin seasons some legume stews, sausages, and dishes of meat or fish.
Spiced stews made from chickpeas, lentils, and from fresh or dried broad beans. Examples of such legume and bean stews include potaje de garbanzos, potaje de lentejas, fava rica, and favas con coentro. The consumption of broad beans, however, has diminished during the last sixty years. Bulgur, or cracked wheat, is still included in some dishes from the Alpujarras region in Andalusia.
Savory or sweet porridges, made from different grain flours. These porridges, such as gachas and papas, were also the basis of Roman cuisine
Dishes made with breadcrumbs or slices of bread. Breadcrumbs or torn up slices of bread are used for thickening and giving texture to many varieties of gazpacho and other kinds of soups (açorda, sopa de ajo, ensopados, and sopas secas). Breadcrumbs are also the main ingredient in migas, a traditional and popular dish. There are some factors that relate the recipe for migas, in its Andalusian version, to the recipe for couscous. The first element is the way in which migas are cooked. A sort of steam cooking is produced through the sauteeing and continuous stirring of the semolina or the crumbs (these are previously soaked and drained) and gives a golden and granulated appearance to the dish. Migas, similarly to couscous, serve as the base for a wide range of other ingredients such as fresh fruit, fried vegetables, fried or roasted fish or sausages, and even sweets. Finally, migas, like couscous, are eaten from the pan in which they were prepared. The pan is placed on the table, and the whole family eats from it.
Spiced fritters and desserts. Various doughnut-like fritters (buñuelos, boladinhos, roscos, filhós, pestiños) and desserts (alcorza, alfeñique, alajú, nougat, and marzipan) are made by combining honey or sugar, egg yolks, cinnamon, and sometimes ground almonds.
Other popular foods and dishes. Flatbreads, either baked (pão estentido) or fried (pão de sertã, torta), stuffed eggs, stuffed eggplants, vermicelli stew, spiced meatballs, shish kebabs (pinchos morunos, espetada), and quince paste are current Iberian foods also mentioned in Arab cookbooks.
Food Steps | Moorish culinary contribution
Mavi Boncuk |
Moorish culinary contribution
Expiración García in La Alimentación, Lucie Bolens in La cuisine andalouse, and Manuela Marín in Cuisine d'Orient have described Al-Andalus cuisine. However, contemporary Iberian cuisine has only a few elements of this Al-Andalus cuisine. In the Iberian Peninsula, these culinary features are marked by the prevalence or use of certain ingredients, dishes, methods of cooking, or ways of eating that were once typical of Al Andalus but devoid of any religious meaning. These features having a Moorish heritage are:
Communal sharing from the same dish. Examples of such shared dishes are paella, migas (fried breadcrumbs or semolina), and gachas and papas (porridges). This practice of sharing is no longer as prevalent as it once was.
Predominance of yellow, green, and white colors. Yellow is common in most rice dishes, in fish stews with rice or noodles, and in some chickpea stews. White is typical of some sweet rice puddings (arroz con leche and arroz doce), some porridges, and some soups such as ajo blanco (a white garlic soup), the original gazpacho, gazpachuelo (a fish and egg soup), and various almond soups. Green is the dominant color of some Portuguese dishes prepared with coriander, although the sopa verde (green soup) cannot be included in this category.
Use of saffron, cumin, and coriander. Coriander is rarely found in traditional Spanish cuisine but is very popular in Portugal, especially in dishes from Alentejo; some food writers relate this use to African influences. Saffron is used both to color and to flavor rice dishes, legume stews, and meat casseroles. Cumin seasons some legume stews, sausages, and dishes of meat or fish.
Spiced stews made from chickpeas, lentils, and from fresh or dried broad beans. Examples of such legume and bean stews include potaje de garbanzos, potaje de lentejas, fava rica, and favas con coentro. The consumption of broad beans, however, has diminished during the last sixty years. Bulgur, or cracked wheat, is still included in some dishes from the Alpujarras region in Andalusia.
Savory or sweet porridges, made from different grain flours. These porridges, such as gachas and papas, were also the basis of Roman cuisine
Dishes made with breadcrumbs or slices of bread. Breadcrumbs or torn up slices of bread are used for thickening and giving texture to many varieties of gazpacho and other kinds of soups (açorda, sopa de ajo, ensopados, and sopas secas). Breadcrumbs are also the main ingredient in migas, a traditional and popular dish. There are some factors that relate the recipe for migas, in its Andalusian version, to the recipe for couscous. The first element is the way in which migas are cooked. A sort of steam cooking is produced through the sauteeing and continuous stirring of the semolina or the crumbs (these are previously soaked and drained) and gives a golden and granulated appearance to the dish. Migas, similarly to couscous, serve as the base for a wide range of other ingredients such as fresh fruit, fried vegetables, fried or roasted fish or sausages, and even sweets. Finally, migas, like couscous, are eaten from the pan in which they were prepared. The pan is placed on the table, and the whole family eats from it.
Spiced fritters and desserts. Various doughnut-like fritters (buñuelos, boladinhos, roscos, filhós, pestiños) and desserts (alcorza, alfeñique, alajú, nougat, and marzipan) are made by combining honey or sugar, egg yolks, cinnamon, and sometimes ground almonds.
Other popular foods and dishes. Flatbreads, either baked (pão estentido) or fried (pão de sertã, torta), stuffed eggs, stuffed eggplants, vermicelli stew, spiced meatballs, shish kebabs (pinchos morunos, espetada), and quince paste are current Iberian foods also mentioned in Arab cookbooks.
Moorish culinary contribution
Expiración García in La Alimentación, Lucie Bolens in La cuisine andalouse, and Manuela Marín in Cuisine d'Orient have described Al-Andalus cuisine. However, contemporary Iberian cuisine has only a few elements of this Al-Andalus cuisine. In the Iberian Peninsula, these culinary features are marked by the prevalence or use of certain ingredients, dishes, methods of cooking, or ways of eating that were once typical of Al Andalus but devoid of any religious meaning. These features having a Moorish heritage are:
Communal sharing from the same dish. Examples of such shared dishes are paella, migas (fried breadcrumbs or semolina), and gachas and papas (porridges). This practice of sharing is no longer as prevalent as it once was.
Predominance of yellow, green, and white colors. Yellow is common in most rice dishes, in fish stews with rice or noodles, and in some chickpea stews. White is typical of some sweet rice puddings (arroz con leche and arroz doce), some porridges, and some soups such as ajo blanco (a white garlic soup), the original gazpacho, gazpachuelo (a fish and egg soup), and various almond soups. Green is the dominant color of some Portuguese dishes prepared with coriander, although the sopa verde (green soup) cannot be included in this category.
Use of saffron, cumin, and coriander. Coriander is rarely found in traditional Spanish cuisine but is very popular in Portugal, especially in dishes from Alentejo; some food writers relate this use to African influences. Saffron is used both to color and to flavor rice dishes, legume stews, and meat casseroles. Cumin seasons some legume stews, sausages, and dishes of meat or fish.
Spiced stews made from chickpeas, lentils, and from fresh or dried broad beans. Examples of such legume and bean stews include potaje de garbanzos, potaje de lentejas, fava rica, and favas con coentro. The consumption of broad beans, however, has diminished during the last sixty years. Bulgur, or cracked wheat, is still included in some dishes from the Alpujarras region in Andalusia.
Savory or sweet porridges, made from different grain flours. These porridges, such as gachas and papas, were also the basis of Roman cuisine
Dishes made with breadcrumbs or slices of bread. Breadcrumbs or torn up slices of bread are used for thickening and giving texture to many varieties of gazpacho and other kinds of soups (açorda, sopa de ajo, ensopados, and sopas secas). Breadcrumbs are also the main ingredient in migas, a traditional and popular dish. There are some factors that relate the recipe for migas, in its Andalusian version, to the recipe for couscous. The first element is the way in which migas are cooked. A sort of steam cooking is produced through the sauteeing and continuous stirring of the semolina or the crumbs (these are previously soaked and drained) and gives a golden and granulated appearance to the dish. Migas, similarly to couscous, serve as the base for a wide range of other ingredients such as fresh fruit, fried vegetables, fried or roasted fish or sausages, and even sweets. Finally, migas, like couscous, are eaten from the pan in which they were prepared. The pan is placed on the table, and the whole family eats from it.
Spiced fritters and desserts. Various doughnut-like fritters (buñuelos, boladinhos, roscos, filhós, pestiños) and desserts (alcorza, alfeñique, alajú, nougat, and marzipan) are made by combining honey or sugar, egg yolks, cinnamon, and sometimes ground almonds.
Other popular foods and dishes. Flatbreads, either baked (pão estentido) or fried (pão de sertã, torta), stuffed eggs, stuffed eggplants, vermicelli stew, spiced meatballs, shish kebabs (pinchos morunos, espetada), and quince paste are current Iberian foods also mentioned in Arab cookbooks.
Ottoman Turkish script
Mavi Boncuk |
Ottoman Turkish script
Turkish with Arabic Script (Türkçe)
Turkish is a Turkic language with about 70 million speakers in Turkey and in 35 other countries, including Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Iraq and Israel.
Until 1928, Turkish was written with a version of the Perso-Arabic script known as the Ottoman Turkish script. In 1928, as part of his efforts to modernise Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk issued a decree replacing the Arabic script with a version of the Latin alphabet, which has been used ever since. Nowadays, only scholars and those who learnt to read before 1928 can read Turkish written in the Arabic script.
Ottoman Turkish script
Ottoman Turkish script
Turkish with Arabic Script (Türkçe)
Turkish is a Turkic language with about 70 million speakers in Turkey and in 35 other countries, including Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Iraq and Israel.
Until 1928, Turkish was written with a version of the Perso-Arabic script known as the Ottoman Turkish script. In 1928, as part of his efforts to modernise Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk issued a decree replacing the Arabic script with a version of the Latin alphabet, which has been used ever since. Nowadays, only scholars and those who learnt to read before 1928 can read Turkish written in the Arabic script.
Ottoman Turkish script
The Morisco Rebellion | 1568-1571
Mavi Boncuk |
The Morisco Rebellion |1568-1571
According to the Treaty of Granada of 1492, the Muslim population of the Emirate was promised religious toleration. The treaty was broken only a few years later, and the Muslims were given the choice to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority of those who converted did so only pro forma. They kept their Arabic-style fashion and continued to speak in Arabic. As early as 1508, edicts had forbidden traditional Moorish fashion.
The Spanish authorities suspected the Moriscos of sympathizing with the Ottoman Empire and waiting for the right opportunity to revolt. Thus, the Morisco reforms were decided upon to tackle the issue head on; published in Jan. 1567, the reforms reiterated the ban on traditional Arab-style clothing and added a ban on the Arab language. Measures to curb the trade of Moorish silk (the industry was largelt in Morisco hands) preceded these steps (1561).
The Morisco rebellion, also referred to as the Alpujarras Rebellion erupted in 1568 and extended over the districts of Cadiz and Malaga. In 1570 Don Juan d'Austria restored Spanish control; the rebellion was suppressed in 1571. King Philip II. was not wrong in his suspicion that the Ottoman Empire was planning on a Morisco Revolt. The suppression of the revolt coincided with Ottoman actions, the seizure of Cyprus and the Naval Battle of Lepanto (where Don Juan d'Austria was the winning admiral).
While Spain maintained control of the Morisco provinces and increased pressure was exerted on this minority, Spain, despite her success in the Battle of Lepanto hardly could regard herself the winner in the contest with the Ottoman Empire. Cyprus was permanently lost (to the Republic of Venice); in 1574, Tunis and Goletta (Spanish outposts) were permitted to fall into the hands of the enemy.
The Morisco Rebellion |1568-1571
According to the Treaty of Granada of 1492, the Muslim population of the Emirate was promised religious toleration. The treaty was broken only a few years later, and the Muslims were given the choice to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority of those who converted did so only pro forma. They kept their Arabic-style fashion and continued to speak in Arabic. As early as 1508, edicts had forbidden traditional Moorish fashion.
The Spanish authorities suspected the Moriscos of sympathizing with the Ottoman Empire and waiting for the right opportunity to revolt. Thus, the Morisco reforms were decided upon to tackle the issue head on; published in Jan. 1567, the reforms reiterated the ban on traditional Arab-style clothing and added a ban on the Arab language. Measures to curb the trade of Moorish silk (the industry was largelt in Morisco hands) preceded these steps (1561).
The Morisco rebellion, also referred to as the Alpujarras Rebellion erupted in 1568 and extended over the districts of Cadiz and Malaga. In 1570 Don Juan d'Austria restored Spanish control; the rebellion was suppressed in 1571. King Philip II. was not wrong in his suspicion that the Ottoman Empire was planning on a Morisco Revolt. The suppression of the revolt coincided with Ottoman actions, the seizure of Cyprus and the Naval Battle of Lepanto (where Don Juan d'Austria was the winning admiral).
While Spain maintained control of the Morisco provinces and increased pressure was exerted on this minority, Spain, despite her success in the Battle of Lepanto hardly could regard herself the winner in the contest with the Ottoman Empire. Cyprus was permanently lost (to the Republic of Venice); in 1574, Tunis and Goletta (Spanish outposts) were permitted to fall into the hands of the enemy.
July 01, 2004
June 30, 2004
A Short History of Bellydance 2
Mavi Boncuk |
A Short History of Bellydance by Yasmina Ramzy
Danse du Ventre, Raks Sharqi and the Bellydance are names given to an ancient art form that has been so severely persecuted and repressed for the last 2000 years; it is a wonder the dance exists at all. It does indeed exist and right now is making an extraordinary impact on women all over the world. Its origins in the Middle East are subject to many debates. The Islamic regimes in North Africa and the Middle East deny that Bellydancing is part of Arabic culture at all, even though every single Arab daughter, sister, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother perform this dance for each other at all family gatherings. The dance is older than Islamic or even Christian culture. Many believe its roots are in the temple dancing and fertility rites of rites of ancient matriarchal religions.
A lineage of women called the Awalim (sing, Almeh) are known today as prostitutes and dancers, but were once highly respected in society for their expertise in all the arts including poetry, literature, dancing, music and the art of making love. It was their occupation to teach these arts. In the Middle East today and abroad in Arab communities, it is customary to perform the Wedding Procession or Zaffah at all weddings. The Rakiseh or Bellydancer leads the wedding procession from the church or mosque to the reception party. Along the way, she encourages the couple to perform hip movements and to occasionally kiss. Whether the family is Christian or Muslim, this tradition is so strong that many mothers feel if the Bellydancer is not present at the wedding, the couple may not produce babies and wealth. In small villages, still today, the Bellydancer leads the newlyweds to the bridal chamber to consummate the marriage rather than taking them to the banquet hall. The rhythm for the wedding march or the Zaffah cannot be found in other Arabic music. At one time this Bellydancer would have been the temple priestess or perhaps even an Almeh.
After overcoming the stigma attached to this dance, all women love to Bellydance. It is an expression of a woman enjoying her femininity, sensuality and the power that the female body has an embodiment of reproduction. A leading Bellydancer in the Middle East performs for an hour and a-half to two hours straight, accompanied by her own 50 piece orchestra. The show, which can be performed up to three times every evening, is all about her personality, beauty and agility. It is about one woman’s glorification of the fact that she is female.
The dance is for women of all ages, and in its natural form is performed by women for women. Behind closed doors, women from 3 to 103 strut their stuff for everyone’s appreciation. Once while performing at a large Syrian/Armenian family gathering, that was a 50th wedding Anniversary, I was brought to tears.
Often the Zaffah is performed at anniversaries as well as weddings, so in the middle of my performance, I went over to the couple to pull them up to dance. As I was approaching, the crowd stopped me with a big “NO” because the wife could not walk, so I was not to embarrass her. But before I could return to the dance floor, she grabbed my arm with a strength to be reckoned with. She then firmly placed one hand on the table and used the strength in both arms to help herself rise. Everyone around protested. She gave them a scolding and got herself almost to a standing position. Using all her strength to support herself on the table and my arm, she proceeded to sway her hips from side to side, while beaming a huge smile at me. The room was silent until she sat down, then roared with appreciation as she looked proudly into her husband’s wide and bedazzled eyes.
During twenty years of teaching Bellydancing to as many as 120 women a week, I have come to realize that the reasons students take up the dance are varied and that there is no “typical type” of woman. They come from all walks of life. These women persist because Bellydancing enhances self-esteem. Often one will tell how she found the courage to stand up to a boss, an abusive husband or equally difficult situations. Eating disorders have been alleviated, entrepreneurs born, and all have experienced a new awareness of comfort with their bodies regardless of shape and size. Coincidence? Maybe … but these women will tell you it is because of Bellydancing.
In her book Revolution From Within, Gloria Steinem points out that although women can now vote and are paid better in more rewarding positions, the real changes haven’t happened because women haven’t changed how they feel about themselves. Deep down they still feel that they are second-class citizens with no inherent self-worth, except that which can be compared to a man. The most intimate part of themselves – their sexuality – has been robbed, and again only expressed from a male point of view. Bellydancing is both powerful and feminine at the same time. This combination often inspires a subconscious fear in many people, which feeds the stigma.
It is time for women to claim their natural heritage that has been withheld from them for so long and to begin a healing process that starts with an appreciation of their own bodies. Bellydancing is a perfect vehicle for opening a new door on how to view the female body, what can be expressed through it and the power that real feminine sensuality holds.
A Short History of Bellydance by Yasmina Ramzy
Danse du Ventre, Raks Sharqi and the Bellydance are names given to an ancient art form that has been so severely persecuted and repressed for the last 2000 years; it is a wonder the dance exists at all. It does indeed exist and right now is making an extraordinary impact on women all over the world. Its origins in the Middle East are subject to many debates. The Islamic regimes in North Africa and the Middle East deny that Bellydancing is part of Arabic culture at all, even though every single Arab daughter, sister, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother perform this dance for each other at all family gatherings. The dance is older than Islamic or even Christian culture. Many believe its roots are in the temple dancing and fertility rites of rites of ancient matriarchal religions.
A lineage of women called the Awalim (sing, Almeh) are known today as prostitutes and dancers, but were once highly respected in society for their expertise in all the arts including poetry, literature, dancing, music and the art of making love. It was their occupation to teach these arts. In the Middle East today and abroad in Arab communities, it is customary to perform the Wedding Procession or Zaffah at all weddings. The Rakiseh or Bellydancer leads the wedding procession from the church or mosque to the reception party. Along the way, she encourages the couple to perform hip movements and to occasionally kiss. Whether the family is Christian or Muslim, this tradition is so strong that many mothers feel if the Bellydancer is not present at the wedding, the couple may not produce babies and wealth. In small villages, still today, the Bellydancer leads the newlyweds to the bridal chamber to consummate the marriage rather than taking them to the banquet hall. The rhythm for the wedding march or the Zaffah cannot be found in other Arabic music. At one time this Bellydancer would have been the temple priestess or perhaps even an Almeh.
After overcoming the stigma attached to this dance, all women love to Bellydance. It is an expression of a woman enjoying her femininity, sensuality and the power that the female body has an embodiment of reproduction. A leading Bellydancer in the Middle East performs for an hour and a-half to two hours straight, accompanied by her own 50 piece orchestra. The show, which can be performed up to three times every evening, is all about her personality, beauty and agility. It is about one woman’s glorification of the fact that she is female.
The dance is for women of all ages, and in its natural form is performed by women for women. Behind closed doors, women from 3 to 103 strut their stuff for everyone’s appreciation. Once while performing at a large Syrian/Armenian family gathering, that was a 50th wedding Anniversary, I was brought to tears.
Often the Zaffah is performed at anniversaries as well as weddings, so in the middle of my performance, I went over to the couple to pull them up to dance. As I was approaching, the crowd stopped me with a big “NO” because the wife could not walk, so I was not to embarrass her. But before I could return to the dance floor, she grabbed my arm with a strength to be reckoned with. She then firmly placed one hand on the table and used the strength in both arms to help herself rise. Everyone around protested. She gave them a scolding and got herself almost to a standing position. Using all her strength to support herself on the table and my arm, she proceeded to sway her hips from side to side, while beaming a huge smile at me. The room was silent until she sat down, then roared with appreciation as she looked proudly into her husband’s wide and bedazzled eyes.
During twenty years of teaching Bellydancing to as many as 120 women a week, I have come to realize that the reasons students take up the dance are varied and that there is no “typical type” of woman. They come from all walks of life. These women persist because Bellydancing enhances self-esteem. Often one will tell how she found the courage to stand up to a boss, an abusive husband or equally difficult situations. Eating disorders have been alleviated, entrepreneurs born, and all have experienced a new awareness of comfort with their bodies regardless of shape and size. Coincidence? Maybe … but these women will tell you it is because of Bellydancing.
In her book Revolution From Within, Gloria Steinem points out that although women can now vote and are paid better in more rewarding positions, the real changes haven’t happened because women haven’t changed how they feel about themselves. Deep down they still feel that they are second-class citizens with no inherent self-worth, except that which can be compared to a man. The most intimate part of themselves – their sexuality – has been robbed, and again only expressed from a male point of view. Bellydancing is both powerful and feminine at the same time. This combination often inspires a subconscious fear in many people, which feeds the stigma.
It is time for women to claim their natural heritage that has been withheld from them for so long and to begin a healing process that starts with an appreciation of their own bodies. Bellydancing is a perfect vehicle for opening a new door on how to view the female body, what can be expressed through it and the power that real feminine sensuality holds.
A Short History of Bellydance
Jean-Leon Gerome (1824-1904) French / Dance of the Almeh, 1863 / oil on wood panel, 19 3/4 x 32 inches. The Dayton Art Institute
The World's Oldest Dance- A History of Bellydance by Karol Henderson Harding
Medieval Egypt and the Ghawazi
The Gypsies of Egypt are the well-known Ghawazi. There is no record of them until the
1600's when European foreigners s began to travel in the Middle East and write about the
scandalous and exotic dancers of Egypt. The reason for the lack of information is likely to be
the same that there is no written record of the dancing boys and girls of Istanbul; it simply was
not respectable or important enough for anyone to write about in a society where only the most
elite and most respectable knew how to write. From the previous history of Egyptian culture, it
is readily apparent that indeed, there were professional dancers from earliest times, and that
dance was a part of everyday life. What these early itinerant dancers might have worn, or have
been called, we have no record of. So we will continue the story as seen by outsiders.
In 1798 the first organized expedition to Egypt was undertaken by a European power:
Napoleon landed there seeking an alternative route to India. In Cairo, his soldiers encountered the
Ghawazi, otherwise known as "banat el beled", or daughters of the country. The Ghawazi, which
meant "invaders of the heart," were gypsies. They were found in settlements along the lower
Nile and also in Cairo, where they quickly discovered a new source of revenue - the French
soldiers. Bonaparte's Generals likened them to a pestilence and suggested that they be drowned
if they were found loitering. In fact, the writer Auriant tells about 400 of the Ghawazee who
were captured and decapitated, after which their bodies were bundled into sacks and thrown into
the Nile like so much vermin. General Billier then suggested to the government that perhaps they
should try to find proper work for the Ghawazi. On a more practical level, the French later set up
licensed brothels in the city. Not only could the women be checked by doctors, they could be
taxed. This chilling story is an example of the colonial attitudes of the times which Western
culture had towards any Eastern culture or tribal society. The Westerners cultivated a fantasy of
the exotic Oriental woman, dangerous Oriental men, and uncivilized, barbarian ideas. This
stereotype, unfortunately, persists to this day.
Although these early foreigners found the Ghawazi quite obscene, their pictures show
women wearing fitted tunics with a low cut bodice, large full skirts, and bulky scarfs around their
hips. The tunic, cut low around the bodice appears to have derived from the
Persian/Turkish tunics as seen on the ladies of the Ottoman Court. Another distinctive feature
associated with the Ghawazee are the elbow-length sleeves with a decorative piece of material
off the elbow; these are quite logically derived from the Persian coat, which had detachable
sleeves, and sleeves which were so long as to be impractical and purely decorative. They are also
shown wearing fitted jackets which go halfway down over their hips. Yet another version is the
sheer blouse, with small fitted vest, and long full skirt starting at the hips. A very full pair of
Turkish "hareem" pants might also have been seen instead of the skirt. Note the similarity of the
Ghawazi costume to the pants worn by the female Balkan Gypsies in Fig. 15.
The attitude of the Egyptians themselves toward the dancers was much different. They
were horrified at the idea of the Egyptian women consorting with the foreign infidels. There
were several levels of skill and respectability amongst dancers. During the reign of Haroun Al
Rashid in Egypt in the ninth century, dancers outnumbered singers to such an extent that it was
decided to train some of them more fully in the musical arts. These became known as Almeh
(from Alemah, Arabic for learned women). The Almeh were not seen by Napoleon's army
because they were so disgusted with the foreigners that they withdrew from the city and did not
return until Napoleon left. Except for special occasions it was considered improper to have
Ghawazi inside the house, which was the province of the more respectable Almeh. The Almeh
were often part of private harems, and taught the arts of love through their sensuous dances.
Today in Egypt, the Mazin family claims to be the true descendants of the "Ghawazi."
They were generally said to have been centered in Esna, Qena, or Luxor. The modern-day
descendants live in Luxor, and are known are the Banat Mazin,. The Egyptian National Folkloric
group used research done with this family to choreograph "Ghawazi" dances for the new folkloric
tradition. Interestingly, the Mazin dancers speak of their dance as "raqs sha'abi," or folk dance,
rather than "raqs sharqi" or belly dancing. "They said that oriental dancers moved around more,
and had a more varied repertoire, especially of arm movements. Oriental dancers performed to
"oriental" music with the classic middle eastern instruments, a taqsiym (slow/arrhythmic)
section; while the proper music of the Ghawazi was folk music on the mizmar and tabla baladi,
or perhaps the rebabi (a type of string instrument). Oriental dancers wore revealing costumes of
delicate, gauzy materials; Ghawazi wore heavier, more complicated outfits which, they said, did
not allow as much freedom of movement" (fig. 12) Morocco reports that the Banat Mazin have
not been allowed to dance in public for the last several years due to the protests of Islamic
fundamentalists.
As to the dance style of 19th century Ghawazi, Quamar notes that Edward Lane, the
19th century engraver, noted that their dances had "little of elegance; it's chief peculiarity being a
very rapid vibrating motion of the hips, from side to side". However those who see Lane's time-
stopped, very elegantly engraved dancing ladies forget that he intended nothing of the kind!
Qamar noted that the chief movement of the Ghawazee dance was a side-to-side shimmy
performed extensively to a very fast 4/4 beat, and was the basic movement to which the dancers
returned again and again. The dancers not only dance, they also sing, tell jokes, and generally
interact with the audience. This aspect of their performance would have been lost to foreigners,
who did not understand the language.
Terminology | Almeh
Almeh means a virgin in Hebrew. This points to an earlier role of virgins serving in a learned environment like a temple/school.The old testement considers Almeh giving birth to Emanuel. A virgin giving birth to a son of god. We see the same approach in the case of Mary and Jesus.
Mavi Boncuk |
Almehs Playing Chess in a Cafe
The women's suffrage movement started in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 and spread like wildfire through out America and Europe. Everywhere the issues of class, race and gender were being debated. For an artist such as Jean-Leon Gerome to paint the portrait of an unglamorous street prostitute would have been unheard of a century before, yet with her direct gaze this 'Almeh' tells us that regardless of what we think of her, she has played the hand that fate dealt her.
'An Almeh' by Jean-Leon Gerome, French. Oil, 1882.
An Egyptian dancing girl; an Alma.
Who were these enigmatic women who compelled European travellers to write of their splendour and immortalize them in paintings? The origins of the Almeh are subject to many debates since little has been documented, and much has been tailored to suit changing political and religious environments. The mere mention of the word Almeh (from Alemah: Arabic for 'learned one', Awalim is plural ) causes a stir since every opinion seems to differ. Some say they are highly educated and respected women while others call them vulgar prostitutes.
Frederick Arthur Bridgman /Almeh Flirting with an Armenian Policeman, Cairo
We also know of an Almeh about a hundred years ago from Flaubert, who later wrote Madame Bovary. He was propositioned by a 'almeh' while aboard his boat in Egypt. He went with her to the house of Kuchuk Hanem, where she danced (not so virtuously) the Bee. Mohammed Ali of Egypt also had band almeh from Cairo.
Mavi Boncuk |
Almehs Playing Chess in a Cafe
The women's suffrage movement started in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848 and spread like wildfire through out America and Europe. Everywhere the issues of class, race and gender were being debated. For an artist such as Jean-Leon Gerome to paint the portrait of an unglamorous street prostitute would have been unheard of a century before, yet with her direct gaze this 'Almeh' tells us that regardless of what we think of her, she has played the hand that fate dealt her.
'An Almeh' by Jean-Leon Gerome, French. Oil, 1882.
An Egyptian dancing girl; an Alma.
Who were these enigmatic women who compelled European travellers to write of their splendour and immortalize them in paintings? The origins of the Almeh are subject to many debates since little has been documented, and much has been tailored to suit changing political and religious environments. The mere mention of the word Almeh (from Alemah: Arabic for 'learned one', Awalim is plural ) causes a stir since every opinion seems to differ. Some say they are highly educated and respected women while others call them vulgar prostitutes.
Frederick Arthur Bridgman /Almeh Flirting with an Armenian Policeman, Cairo
We also know of an Almeh about a hundred years ago from Flaubert, who later wrote Madame Bovary. He was propositioned by a 'almeh' while aboard his boat in Egypt. He went with her to the house of Kuchuk Hanem, where she danced (not so virtuously) the Bee. Mohammed Ali of Egypt also had band almeh from Cairo.
1902 Ottoman Exposition of Artists
Poster Art by Zonaro
Locandina: 2nd. Exposition of artists,1902. Watercolor mm.400x305
Amadeo PREZIOSI
Amadeo PREZIOSI The Allied Fleets Anchored in the Bosphorus 1853, Watercolour on paper 46.5(H) x 95(W) Presented by William Selkirk, July 1952
Artist
Amadeo PREZIOSI
Title
Encampment at Scutari on the Bosphorus
Date
11 March 1854
Medium
Watercolour on paper
Inscription
br: Scutari 11 Mazio 1854 Preziosi
Acquisition
Presented by William Selkirk, July 1952
Orientalism | Théodore Chassériau 1819–1856
Chassériau actually witnessed this scene and sketched it in his notebook during a trip to Algeria in 1846. From the ancient town of Constantine, he wrote "I have seen some highly curious things: primitive and overwhelming, touching and singular. At Constantine, which is high up in some enormous mountains, one sees the Arab people and the Jewish people [living] as they were at the very beginning of time."
Mavi Boncuk |
Scene in the Jewish Quarter of Constantine Oil on canvas; 22 3/8 x 18 1/2 in. (56.8 x 47 cm)
Arab Horsemen Carrying Away Their Dead, 1850
Théodore Chassériau Santa (b. Domingo1819– d.Paris 1856)
Théodore Chassériau, born in 1819 in Santo Domingo in the West Indies, begins his artistic career at eleven in the studio of Ingres, who predicts that he will become the Napoleon of painting. When Ingres goes to Rome in 1834, Chassériau, owing to his youth, cannot compete for the Rome Prize, and his sojourn there in 1840, which depresses him, cannot restore the old relationship to his teacher, whom he now sees as merely a reproducer of the art of the past. Thus he is now open to the infIuence of Delacroix, whom he admires. A two-month sojourn in 1846 in Algiers –fourteen years after Delacroix’s stay in Algiers and Morocco – brings out his "Orientalism", for which he is predestined by his Creole descent.
Théophile Gautier, his sympathetic critic, along with others at first regrets this transition to his "seconde manière": "Nous déplorons seulement que l’artiste, qui pouvait vivre magnifiquement chez lui dans son palais de marbre aux colonnes ioniennes, aille sonner de l’oliphant devant le castel moyenâgeux d’Eugène Delacroix" (Criticism of the Salon of 1852; cited by Léonce Bénédite, Théodore Chassériau, sa vie et son œuvre, Paris 1931, 2 vol., II, p. 408). But the synthesis of the drawing from the school of Ingres and the painterly from Delacroix is the dominant feature of the last decade of the artist’s work after the Algerian sojourn.
Chassériau’s trip to Algeria in 1846 inspired a wealth of Orientalist images, which highlight a career abruptly terminated by the artist’s death at the age of 37. Visual memories of Algiers supported by numerous studies and reinforced by accounts of French officers of the conquest of Algiers ir 1830 furnish the themes. In 1850 Chassériau exhibits a picture showing Arabs salvaging the dead after a battle with the Sipahis.
Mavi Boncuk |
Scene in the Jewish Quarter of Constantine Oil on canvas; 22 3/8 x 18 1/2 in. (56.8 x 47 cm)
Arab Horsemen Carrying Away Their Dead, 1850
Théodore Chassériau Santa (b. Domingo1819– d.Paris 1856)
Théodore Chassériau, born in 1819 in Santo Domingo in the West Indies, begins his artistic career at eleven in the studio of Ingres, who predicts that he will become the Napoleon of painting. When Ingres goes to Rome in 1834, Chassériau, owing to his youth, cannot compete for the Rome Prize, and his sojourn there in 1840, which depresses him, cannot restore the old relationship to his teacher, whom he now sees as merely a reproducer of the art of the past. Thus he is now open to the infIuence of Delacroix, whom he admires. A two-month sojourn in 1846 in Algiers –fourteen years after Delacroix’s stay in Algiers and Morocco – brings out his "Orientalism", for which he is predestined by his Creole descent.
Théophile Gautier, his sympathetic critic, along with others at first regrets this transition to his "seconde manière": "Nous déplorons seulement que l’artiste, qui pouvait vivre magnifiquement chez lui dans son palais de marbre aux colonnes ioniennes, aille sonner de l’oliphant devant le castel moyenâgeux d’Eugène Delacroix" (Criticism of the Salon of 1852; cited by Léonce Bénédite, Théodore Chassériau, sa vie et son œuvre, Paris 1931, 2 vol., II, p. 408). But the synthesis of the drawing from the school of Ingres and the painterly from Delacroix is the dominant feature of the last decade of the artist’s work after the Algerian sojourn.
Chassériau’s trip to Algeria in 1846 inspired a wealth of Orientalist images, which highlight a career abruptly terminated by the artist’s death at the age of 37. Visual memories of Algiers supported by numerous studies and reinforced by accounts of French officers of the conquest of Algiers ir 1830 furnish the themes. In 1850 Chassériau exhibits a picture showing Arabs salvaging the dead after a battle with the Sipahis.
Events of September 6-7 1955
Turkish court martial of Yassiada in 1960-61, condemned Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and his Foreign Minister Zorlu for the organization and execution of the September 1955 riots and for the bomb exploded in the consular compound.
Mavi Boncuk |
Events of September 6-7 1955
In 1955, the Cyprus problem was the most important 'national issue' in Turkey. The tripartite discussions, among Greece, Turkey and England, commenced in London in August of 1955 to determine the status of Cyprus. Turkey planned an activity to demonstrate the sensitivity of this problem within the Turkish community.
The Turkish press, which was to play a crucial role in preparing the political atmosphere, received significant financial support from British sources. Specifically, the British gave financial assistance to two Turkish newspapers and to their owners/editors: to Hikmet Bil (editor of the newspaper Hurriyet and leader of the political organization Kibris Turktur— Cyprus is Turkish), and Ahmet Emin Yalmas, owner of the older Istanbul paper Vatan. Trips by these two journalists to London had become prominent in 1954-55. In 1952, the Turkish government had mobilized two large student organizations. The newspaper, ISTANBUL EXPRESS (6 September 1955), published the news of the bombing of Ataturk's birthplace in "Selanik" (Thessaloniki), Greece. Student protests started the same day. It developed into a nationwide response and within two days, shops, cemeteries and churches belonging to Greeks were destroyed.
Police, had to use force to stop it. Martial law was announced in Istanbul. The government declared that the communists were responsible for the violence. Many people known to be leftist, were placed under police supervision.
The Greek police charged a Turkish student, a Greek citizen with having placed the bomb. His name was Oktay Engin. Later, it was discovered that the events had been planned by the National Intelligence Agency (MIT) and Oktay Engin, was a MIT agent who, in 1992, was the Provincial Governor of Nevsehir, Turkey.
A chronology
1:30 p.m., announcement on the radio of the bomb in the house of Ataturk in Thessaloniki.
4:00 p.m., a special supplement of the newspaper Istanbul Express circulates, publishing this ‘news’ and featuring an artificially altered photograph of the purported destruction of the house [of Ataturk].
4:30 p.m., groups of young people roam about the main streets of Pera, writing on the walls insulting slogans against the Greeks.
5:30 p.m., the first groups of demonstrators gather in Taxim Square.
6:00 p.m., the gathering in Taksim Square listens to various speakers who are making inflammatory speeches against the Greeks and Greece.
6:30 p.m., the assembly is transformed into a demonstration, in which one group reaches the General Consulate of Greece but is dispersed by the immediate appearance of police forces, who close off all access to the consulate.
7:00 p.m., there commences the smashing of display windows and iron doors of the Greek shops on Taxim Square and of the shops on Pera Street Almost simultaneously, the violence begin to be manifested in the remaining neighborhoods and suburbs.
Mavi Boncuk |
Events of September 6-7 1955
In 1955, the Cyprus problem was the most important 'national issue' in Turkey. The tripartite discussions, among Greece, Turkey and England, commenced in London in August of 1955 to determine the status of Cyprus. Turkey planned an activity to demonstrate the sensitivity of this problem within the Turkish community.
The Turkish press, which was to play a crucial role in preparing the political atmosphere, received significant financial support from British sources. Specifically, the British gave financial assistance to two Turkish newspapers and to their owners/editors: to Hikmet Bil (editor of the newspaper Hurriyet and leader of the political organization Kibris Turktur— Cyprus is Turkish), and Ahmet Emin Yalmas, owner of the older Istanbul paper Vatan. Trips by these two journalists to London had become prominent in 1954-55. In 1952, the Turkish government had mobilized two large student organizations. The newspaper, ISTANBUL EXPRESS (6 September 1955), published the news of the bombing of Ataturk's birthplace in "Selanik" (Thessaloniki), Greece. Student protests started the same day. It developed into a nationwide response and within two days, shops, cemeteries and churches belonging to Greeks were destroyed.
Police, had to use force to stop it. Martial law was announced in Istanbul. The government declared that the communists were responsible for the violence. Many people known to be leftist, were placed under police supervision.
The Greek police charged a Turkish student, a Greek citizen with having placed the bomb. His name was Oktay Engin. Later, it was discovered that the events had been planned by the National Intelligence Agency (MIT) and Oktay Engin, was a MIT agent who, in 1992, was the Provincial Governor of Nevsehir, Turkey.
A chronology
1:30 p.m., announcement on the radio of the bomb in the house of Ataturk in Thessaloniki.
4:00 p.m., a special supplement of the newspaper Istanbul Express circulates, publishing this ‘news’ and featuring an artificially altered photograph of the purported destruction of the house [of Ataturk].
4:30 p.m., groups of young people roam about the main streets of Pera, writing on the walls insulting slogans against the Greeks.
5:30 p.m., the first groups of demonstrators gather in Taxim Square.
6:00 p.m., the gathering in Taksim Square listens to various speakers who are making inflammatory speeches against the Greeks and Greece.
6:30 p.m., the assembly is transformed into a demonstration, in which one group reaches the General Consulate of Greece but is dispersed by the immediate appearance of police forces, who close off all access to the consulate.
7:00 p.m., there commences the smashing of display windows and iron doors of the Greek shops on Taxim Square and of the shops on Pera Street Almost simultaneously, the violence begin to be manifested in the remaining neighborhoods and suburbs.
1571 The Naval Battle of Lepanto
The Naval Battle of Lepanto, 1571
A.) Prehistory
The Ottoman Empire, in the 1560es, pursued a policy of expansion, based on her military power. While the Great Siege of Malta (1565) entered the history book as an Ottoman defeat, it also had tested the will of the christian nations to resist to a limit. In the following year, the Aegaean Islands fell to an Ottoman fleet without resistance; even Venice and Genoa, the owners of these islands, failed to send a fleet.
In 1566, Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent died; he was succeeded by Selim II., who continued his predecessor's expansive policy. King Philip of Spain saw another military clash coming; he feared the only nominally christian Morisco minority living in the territory formerly having formed the Kingdom of Granada might revolt once a Spanish-Ottoman war broke out. So the Spanish authorities provoked the Morisco Revolt (1568-1571).
B.) The Naval Battle of Lepanto
An alliance was concluded between Spain, the Papal State and Venice, with Genoa and Savoy-Piemont contributing three ships each. The combined fleet, under the command of Don Juan d'Austria, half-brother of King Philip II of Spain, crushed the Ottoman fleet off Lepanto on the coast of Greece.
C.) The Legacy
The alliance failed to act upon her victory. An Ottoman force invaded and conquered the hitherto Venetian island of Cyprus (1571), which Venice ceded in a 1573 treaty. Don Juan d'Austria retook Tunis for Spain, but he was recalled and in 1574 the Spanish permitted the city to fall to the Ottoman forces without resistance. Again, as in the case of the Great Siege of Malta, the will of the christian states to hold on to their possessions in the eastern Mediterranean respectively on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, after a victorious battle, was low, another conflict avoided.
A major reason for the reluctance of the Alliance to follow up on her victory were the costs - in 1574 King Philip II. informed newly elected Pope Gregory XIII., the defense of Malta and the maintenance of the fleet would cost him two million ducats annually.
The Naval Battle of Lepanto was won by the Spanish-Venetian-Papal Alliance; the war was won by the Ottoman Empire
A.) Prehistory
The Ottoman Empire, in the 1560es, pursued a policy of expansion, based on her military power. While the Great Siege of Malta (1565) entered the history book as an Ottoman defeat, it also had tested the will of the christian nations to resist to a limit. In the following year, the Aegaean Islands fell to an Ottoman fleet without resistance; even Venice and Genoa, the owners of these islands, failed to send a fleet.
In 1566, Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent died; he was succeeded by Selim II., who continued his predecessor's expansive policy. King Philip of Spain saw another military clash coming; he feared the only nominally christian Morisco minority living in the territory formerly having formed the Kingdom of Granada might revolt once a Spanish-Ottoman war broke out. So the Spanish authorities provoked the Morisco Revolt (1568-1571).
B.) The Naval Battle of Lepanto
An alliance was concluded between Spain, the Papal State and Venice, with Genoa and Savoy-Piemont contributing three ships each. The combined fleet, under the command of Don Juan d'Austria, half-brother of King Philip II of Spain, crushed the Ottoman fleet off Lepanto on the coast of Greece.
C.) The Legacy
The alliance failed to act upon her victory. An Ottoman force invaded and conquered the hitherto Venetian island of Cyprus (1571), which Venice ceded in a 1573 treaty. Don Juan d'Austria retook Tunis for Spain, but he was recalled and in 1574 the Spanish permitted the city to fall to the Ottoman forces without resistance. Again, as in the case of the Great Siege of Malta, the will of the christian states to hold on to their possessions in the eastern Mediterranean respectively on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, after a victorious battle, was low, another conflict avoided.
A major reason for the reluctance of the Alliance to follow up on her victory were the costs - in 1574 King Philip II. informed newly elected Pope Gregory XIII., the defense of Malta and the maintenance of the fleet would cost him two million ducats annually.
The Naval Battle of Lepanto was won by the Spanish-Venetian-Papal Alliance; the war was won by the Ottoman Empire
Armenian Deportation
The official decision for DEPORTATION (Exile) was taken in May 27th of 1915. The Ottoman government had decided to force a number of its subjects, depriving them of their possessions and property, to exile to hundreds of kilometers away to Deyr-uz Zor.
Mavi Boncuk |
Armenian Deportation
16.03.2001 by Tayfun MATER
Armenians are a group of people who have historically lived in the East, Southeast and Central Anatolia and in the present Armenia. The Armenian Civilization, which rose out of the remains of the Errata Kingdom in the 500s (BC), reached the peek of its power in the 50s (BC). During the following centuries, the Armenians were caught in between the rivalries among the great empires.
Armenians, following their conveersion to Christianity in 300 BC, fell under the Byzantium rule. Later, in 653 they fell under the Arab rule. They were faced with the invasions of Turks in the 11th century, and of Mongols in the 13th century; in the 16th and 17th centuries Armenians were successively trapped between the Ottoman and Iranian rule.
The Armenian rebellions in the Ottoman land started at the end of the 18th century in the Kucukdaglik village Zeytun of Maras (a southern city of present Turkey). These rebellions, which interruptedly continued until 1915, comprised a vital element in the Armenian national movement. The Russian expansion into the Caucasus during 19th century, and the "Enlightenment" in Europe and the revival of the Armenian culture, may be listed among the factors that invigorated the Armenian National Movement.
The "ARMENIAN PROBLEM" was for the first time recognized in the international arena with the Ayastefanos Agreement that was signed after the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War. This agreement was handing the control of the Ottoman Armenia over to Russia, though it proved abortive.
Revolutionary organizations emerged in 1887 such as the Marxist- centralist Hinchaq (Bell), and in 1908 nationalist- socialist Tashnaq (Alliance) committees were founded. These committees, which in the future would grow into political parties, schemes of merger for broader political regrouping remained unsuccesful. Some major actions organized by these committees organized between 1890 and 1905 were:
1. Erzurum (a town in present eastern Turkey) Event (June 1890)
2. Kumkapi (a district in Istanbul) Demonstration (July 1890)
3. Merzifon, Kayseri, Yozgat (towns in present central Turkey) Events (1892-93)
4. First Sasun Rebellion (August 1894)
5. Bab-ı Ali (a section of Istanbul with publishing houses) Demonstration (September 1895)
6. Zeytun Rebellion (November 1895)
7. Van (a town in present eastern Turkey) Rebellion (June 1896)
8. Attack at the Ottoman Bank (August 1896)
9. Second Sasun Rebellion (April 1904)
10.A bomb attack at Abdulhamit, at Yıldız (a district of Istanbul) (July 1905)
The committees acted together with the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki) for a while. Following the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy in Istanbul in 1908, they gained legal recognition. Even though these committees declared that they would only engage in political activities, the events in Adana (a town in present southern Turkey) in March 1909 dampened the spirit of peace and they parted ways with the Ittihad ve Terakki.
The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) freed itself from Abdulhamit with the March 31st Rebellion. The Committee condoned the murder of the Grand Vizier Mahmut Sevket Pasha, and used this murder as an excuse to attack the opposition. Now, reporters were being killed on the Galata Bridge (in Istanbul), oppositional intellectuals were being exiled to Sinop (a town in present northern Turkey), and the Ottoman Empire was starting to head towards its collapse under the dictatorship of one party. With almost no written documents and along with the deception of "shall head to TURAN", Teskilat-I Mahsusa (Special Organization) was being founded. This criminal organization has survived up till today as counter guerilla and as the Susurluk gang. The Susurluk incident is named after a car accident that occurred in November 1996, close to Susurluk (a town in western Turkey). In the car there was a famous ultra nationalist, a parliamentarian and a police officer. The close relations among the three brought to light the concept of "deep state", which up till today has constituted a serious issue of worry, debate and research in Turkey.
While the I. World War bells were ringing in Europe, Tasnak Party held a congress in August 2-14, 1914, in Erzurum. The CUP sent a delegation to the congress. The delegation made a proposition of alliance to the Armenians against Russia, in case of a possible warfare. The delegation further proposed an autonomous Armenian administration. Armenian leaders preferred to have a policy of neutrality.
The Russian Armenians, who received a similar proposal from Russia, accepted this offer and started to build their volunteer groups. Even though they were only some 4-5 thousand people, these groups would become the pretext of the Ottoman government's deportation policy. With the start of the war, Eastern Anatolia fell into a serious chaos. Armenians ran away from the army and put up a resistance. The Special Organization troupes along with the Hamidiye troupes composing of Kurds, busted and burned down villages, under the pretext of chasing the runaways. These were the first indicators of the deportation.
Following the rebellion of the Armenian people of Van (a town in present eastern Turkey) in April 1915, the Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul were arrested, on April 24th , and were sent off to Ankara. Nothing further was heard from these some 700 people. The MASSACRE had gone into effect. Interior Minister Talat Pasha was its executioner.
The official decision for the DEPORTATION (Exile) was made on May 27th 1915. The government was prevalently sending a part of its subjects, depriving them of their possessions and properties, to exile to hundreds of kilometers away to the Iraqi deserts, to Devr-uz Zor. These subjects were the civilians, children and old people, who were supposedly under the responsibility and protection of the government. The Special Organization troupes, which were composed of convicts released from the jails, were attacking and plundering the convoys and were killing people. As a result of dehydration and hunger and diseases, death was awaiting those who reached the deserts.
It is yet to be found out how many people died due to the deportation. The official historians of the Turkish Republic claim that the number of deaths was 300,000. There are foreign resources that increase this number to 1 million. Germany, who was the ally of the Ottoman government at the time, was silently supporting the deportation. On August 31st 1916, Talat Pasha, addressing the representative of the German Embassy, said, "There is no Armenian problem."
In 1919, the Istanbul Court of Martial Law, by default, tried those people who were responsible of the deportation. The half of the 10-12 people accountable for the deportation was in various European countries and in Russia. They ended up being killed by the Armenian Committee members. The rest faced capital punishment in 1926, issued by the Istiklal Court, following the attempt to assassinate Mustafa Kemal (the founder of present Turkish Republic) in Izmir (a town in present western Turkey).
Mavi Boncuk |
Armenian Deportation
16.03.2001 by Tayfun MATER
Armenians are a group of people who have historically lived in the East, Southeast and Central Anatolia and in the present Armenia. The Armenian Civilization, which rose out of the remains of the Errata Kingdom in the 500s (BC), reached the peek of its power in the 50s (BC). During the following centuries, the Armenians were caught in between the rivalries among the great empires.
Armenians, following their conveersion to Christianity in 300 BC, fell under the Byzantium rule. Later, in 653 they fell under the Arab rule. They were faced with the invasions of Turks in the 11th century, and of Mongols in the 13th century; in the 16th and 17th centuries Armenians were successively trapped between the Ottoman and Iranian rule.
The Armenian rebellions in the Ottoman land started at the end of the 18th century in the Kucukdaglik village Zeytun of Maras (a southern city of present Turkey). These rebellions, which interruptedly continued until 1915, comprised a vital element in the Armenian national movement. The Russian expansion into the Caucasus during 19th century, and the "Enlightenment" in Europe and the revival of the Armenian culture, may be listed among the factors that invigorated the Armenian National Movement.
The "ARMENIAN PROBLEM" was for the first time recognized in the international arena with the Ayastefanos Agreement that was signed after the 1877-78 Ottoman-Russian War. This agreement was handing the control of the Ottoman Armenia over to Russia, though it proved abortive.
Revolutionary organizations emerged in 1887 such as the Marxist- centralist Hinchaq (Bell), and in 1908 nationalist- socialist Tashnaq (Alliance) committees were founded. These committees, which in the future would grow into political parties, schemes of merger for broader political regrouping remained unsuccesful. Some major actions organized by these committees organized between 1890 and 1905 were:
1. Erzurum (a town in present eastern Turkey) Event (June 1890)
2. Kumkapi (a district in Istanbul) Demonstration (July 1890)
3. Merzifon, Kayseri, Yozgat (towns in present central Turkey) Events (1892-93)
4. First Sasun Rebellion (August 1894)
5. Bab-ı Ali (a section of Istanbul with publishing houses) Demonstration (September 1895)
6. Zeytun Rebellion (November 1895)
7. Van (a town in present eastern Turkey) Rebellion (June 1896)
8. Attack at the Ottoman Bank (August 1896)
9. Second Sasun Rebellion (April 1904)
10.A bomb attack at Abdulhamit, at Yıldız (a district of Istanbul) (July 1905)
The committees acted together with the Committee of Union and Progress (Ittihad ve Terakki) for a while. Following the declaration of the Constitutional Monarchy in Istanbul in 1908, they gained legal recognition. Even though these committees declared that they would only engage in political activities, the events in Adana (a town in present southern Turkey) in March 1909 dampened the spirit of peace and they parted ways with the Ittihad ve Terakki.
The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) freed itself from Abdulhamit with the March 31st Rebellion. The Committee condoned the murder of the Grand Vizier Mahmut Sevket Pasha, and used this murder as an excuse to attack the opposition. Now, reporters were being killed on the Galata Bridge (in Istanbul), oppositional intellectuals were being exiled to Sinop (a town in present northern Turkey), and the Ottoman Empire was starting to head towards its collapse under the dictatorship of one party. With almost no written documents and along with the deception of "shall head to TURAN", Teskilat-I Mahsusa (Special Organization) was being founded. This criminal organization has survived up till today as counter guerilla and as the Susurluk gang. The Susurluk incident is named after a car accident that occurred in November 1996, close to Susurluk (a town in western Turkey). In the car there was a famous ultra nationalist, a parliamentarian and a police officer. The close relations among the three brought to light the concept of "deep state", which up till today has constituted a serious issue of worry, debate and research in Turkey.
While the I. World War bells were ringing in Europe, Tasnak Party held a congress in August 2-14, 1914, in Erzurum. The CUP sent a delegation to the congress. The delegation made a proposition of alliance to the Armenians against Russia, in case of a possible warfare. The delegation further proposed an autonomous Armenian administration. Armenian leaders preferred to have a policy of neutrality.
The Russian Armenians, who received a similar proposal from Russia, accepted this offer and started to build their volunteer groups. Even though they were only some 4-5 thousand people, these groups would become the pretext of the Ottoman government's deportation policy. With the start of the war, Eastern Anatolia fell into a serious chaos. Armenians ran away from the army and put up a resistance. The Special Organization troupes along with the Hamidiye troupes composing of Kurds, busted and burned down villages, under the pretext of chasing the runaways. These were the first indicators of the deportation.
Following the rebellion of the Armenian people of Van (a town in present eastern Turkey) in April 1915, the Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul were arrested, on April 24th , and were sent off to Ankara. Nothing further was heard from these some 700 people. The MASSACRE had gone into effect. Interior Minister Talat Pasha was its executioner.
The official decision for the DEPORTATION (Exile) was made on May 27th 1915. The government was prevalently sending a part of its subjects, depriving them of their possessions and properties, to exile to hundreds of kilometers away to the Iraqi deserts, to Devr-uz Zor. These subjects were the civilians, children and old people, who were supposedly under the responsibility and protection of the government. The Special Organization troupes, which were composed of convicts released from the jails, were attacking and plundering the convoys and were killing people. As a result of dehydration and hunger and diseases, death was awaiting those who reached the deserts.
It is yet to be found out how many people died due to the deportation. The official historians of the Turkish Republic claim that the number of deaths was 300,000. There are foreign resources that increase this number to 1 million. Germany, who was the ally of the Ottoman government at the time, was silently supporting the deportation. On August 31st 1916, Talat Pasha, addressing the representative of the German Embassy, said, "There is no Armenian problem."
In 1919, the Istanbul Court of Martial Law, by default, tried those people who were responsible of the deportation. The half of the 10-12 people accountable for the deportation was in various European countries and in Russia. They ended up being killed by the Armenian Committee members. The rest faced capital punishment in 1926, issued by the Istiklal Court, following the attempt to assassinate Mustafa Kemal (the founder of present Turkish Republic) in Izmir (a town in present western Turkey).
The New Republic | Allied Forces by Soner Cagaptay
The New Republic June 30, 2004
DAILY EXPRESS / Allied Forces by Soner Cagaptay
With the U.S. having transferred sovereignty to Iraqis earlier this week, the Kurds find themselves in a more precarious position than at any time in the last year. On June 8, the U.N. Security Council accepted a new resolution dictating the guidelines for post-U.S. Iraq. The resolution did not mention the autonomy that Kurds have meticulously constructed in northern Iraq since 1991; nor did it refer to the Kurds' growing independence in Iraq since the end of the most recent war. The absence of such acknowledgments from the resolution went a long way toward confirming the Kurds' worst fears about the direction of post-Saddam Iraq: that the country's majority Arab population will take the nation's destiny into its own hands, without regard for the aspirations of the Kurdish minority. With the U.S. gone, Kurds increasingly face the prospect of political isolation in their own country.
Confronting hostility from their neighbors to the south, Kurds may now seek friendship to their north. During much of the 1990s, Kurds enjoyed a mostly chilly relationship with the Turkish government in Ankara, which has always been wary of Kurdish nationalism. So it may seem odd that an alliance, or at least a warming of relations, with Turkey is now very much in the Kurds' interest. But the Kurds cannot afford to be isolated on both their southern and northern flanks at the same time. They need allies in a region generally hostile to their aspirations. As a result, it would not be surprising to see the Kurds make overtures to Ankara in the months ahead.
The Kurds, of course, have enjoyed autonomy and relative success in building their society during the last thirteen years. But relations with their neighbors have not always been smooth. Operations during the 1990s by the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)--which used northern Iraq as a base to attack southeastern Turkey--led to a deterioration of relations between Ankara and the two governing entities in that region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). And since the ouster of Saddam, the Kurds have frequently been at odds with Iraqi Arabs to their south. At the onset of war, when Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to open up a northern front against Saddam, the Kurds moved to fill the void. The two Kurdish parties, already close with the U.S., became America's only and best allies in Iraq, hoping that in return Washington would reward them. Shortly after the war, the KDP and PUK expanded their territorial control, grabbing parts of north-central Iraq, including the city of Kirkuk, which sits atop 40 percent of Iraq's oil. In Baghdad, the two parties made clear that the rest of Iraq would have to take them seriously. According to one member of the Iraqi Governing Council whom I spoke to while traveling in Iraq this past winter, "When the Council discusses business regarding northern Iraq, the Kurds do not allow anyone else to join in the debate." The KDP and PUK made sure their autonomy was mentioned in Iraq's interim constitution. More importantly, the Kurds won the right to veto the permanent Iraqi constitution if they found it detrimental to their interests.
Not surprisingly, these gains by the Kurds have only frustrated non-Kurdish Iraqis. Such privileges are unfair, they say, because the Kurds are a relatively small minority in Iraq, making up just 15 to 20 percent of Iraq's population. Iraqi Arabs resent that Kurds secured their rights through U.S. favor. When I spoke last winter to Shiite notables and tribal and religious leaders in southern Iraq, many referred to the Kurds as "infidel" collaborators and seemed very unhappy with their gains in post-war Iraq. This feeling is as potent among the Sunnis as among the Shiites. On June 14, five Kurdish fighters whose car broke down outside the Arab city of Samarra in the Sunni triangle were ambushed and killed. The episode was similar to the brutal slaying of U.S. contractors in Fallujah on March 31: The corpses of the five Kurdish men were abused and burnt beyond recognition. If this atrocity indicates anything, it is that a simmering hatred for Kurds endures among many Arabs.
Arab distrust of Kurds has undermined U.S. efforts to secure Iraq. Washington has started to appreciate the fact that its constituency in Iraq includes not only the Kurds, but also the country's Arab majority population, especially Shiites. Back in March, when Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani expressed dissatisfaction with Kurdish veto powers in the interim constitution, Washington first tried to placate him. When that strategy backfired, however, the U.S. acquiesced to Shiite demands and approved the June 8 U.N. resolution that failed to mention the Kurds.
Now that Iraqis have reclaimed their sovereignty, Kurds will likely find themselves opposing the rest of Iraq on a number of issues, ranging from secularism to the future of the Kirkuk oil fields. The Kurds seem unlikely to budge on secularism. The PUK Minister of Cooperation and Foreign Affairs, Abdul Rezzak Mirza, says that "secularism is an outstanding issue between the PUK and the rest of Iraq. If secularism is not written into Iraq's constitution, we will use all our means to fight and resist that."
As for Kirkuk, although the city is multi-ethnic, at least one Coalition Provisional Authority official suggested to me that Kurds want to keep it for themselves. By laying exclusive claims to Kirkuk, the Kurds have united all their adversaries--the Turkmens, Shiite and Sunni Arabs, and even Moqtada al-Sadr from southern Iraq--around a common cause. Banners of Sadr loyalists and Turkmen parties flew together at a recent anti-Kurdish demonstration in Kirkuk. To keep Kirkuk, the Kurds will have to confront the whole of Iraq. In fact, so long as the Kurds are perceived as America's favorites, all of their moves will be checked by a broad alliance of unlikely bedfellows.
Enter Turkey. Because America's primary interest at the moment is in stabilizing Iraq, the Kurds can no longer count on our unqualified support; and as a result they need other allies. The Kurds' two other neighbors, Iran and Syria, seem unlikely to fill this role. Tehran is wary of the Kurds' secularism and pro-western orientation; and Syria, which recently experienced a Kurdish uprising, is growing anxious over Kurdish nationalism. But Turkey could fit this bill. But for that to happen, the Kurds will have to placate Turkey on two issues: the PKK and Kirkuk.
The PKK lies at the heart of Turkey's distrust of the Kurds. The group renounced its unilateral ceasefire on June 1 and substantially increased attacks on Turkey after a five-year lull. PKK offensives will increasingly become a major cause of concern for Ankara. In order to win Turkish support, the KDP and PUK will need to crack down on the approximately 5,300 PKK terrorists currently residing in areas under their control. Should the PKK launch sensational attacks into Turkey, as it did in the 1990s, the Turkish government will come under popular pressure to enter northern Iraq to destroy the group's bases. Such a scenario poses a major challenge to Iraqi Kurds who would find themselves battling on two fronts--against Turkey in the north, and against Arab Iraq in the south. But if the KDP and PUK were to help the U.S. and Turkey shut down the PKK, they would achieve two goals. First, the parties would signal to the U.S. that they are willing to fight terrorism even when it is Kurdish terrorism. Second, by acting against the PKK, the KDP and PUK could restore themselves to the good graces of Ankara.
Then there is the problem of Kirkuk. Exclusive Kurdish control of the city would be unpopular in Turkey because of the city's substantial population of Turkmens. For the Kurds, reaching out to Turkey would likely mean working out some kind of power-sharing arrangement in Kirkuk with Arabs and Turkmens. Of course, such a settlement would make obsolete one of the reasons for Kurdish estrangement from Baghdad--and that estrangement is, in turn, the reason the Kurds need an alliance with Ankara. But with so many other sources of tension between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq--namely, secularism, the degree of Kurdish autonomy, and the perception among Arabs that the U.S. favors the Kurds--the Kurdish relationship with Baghdad would still be rocky even with a resolution on Kirkuk. So a settlement on Kirkuk would bolster the chances of a Turk-Kurd alliance without obviating the need for that alliance in the first place.
Contrary to common wisdom, the gap between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is neither wide nor unbridgeable. Rather, it is a recent phenomenon related to the PKK's emergence in northern Iraq. In the early 1990s, the Iraqi Kurds had a cordial relationship with Ankara. Turkey supported U.S. efforts to protect them against Saddam Hussein and extended a helping hand to KDP leader Massoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talabani. The two visited Ankara often and traveled all over the world with Turkish diplomatic passports. Throughout much of the 1990s, the KPD and the PUK were allied with Turkey. Relations between the two parties and Ankara soured only when the PKK became a significant force in northern Iraq, creating worries that the KDP and the PUK were more interested in helping the PKK than in their partnership with Turkey. If the Iraqi Kurdish parties were to take decisive action against the PKK now, they would once again earn Turkey's confidence.
Turkey, it turns out, also has an important reason of its own to want improved relations with the Iraqi Kurds: Both Ankara and the Iraqi Kurds are very interested in a secular government in Baghdad. In this endeavor, then, Turkey, the KPD, and the PUK are natural allies. Which is why there is reason to believe that should the Kurds make overtures to Ankara, the Turkish government would be more than willing to listen. In any event, the Kurds' alternative--to remain sandwiched between an unfriendly Turkey to the north and a hostile, powerful alliance of non-Kurdish Iraqis to the south--is not an attractive one.
Soner Cagaptay is the head of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
DAILY EXPRESS / Allied Forces by Soner Cagaptay
With the U.S. having transferred sovereignty to Iraqis earlier this week, the Kurds find themselves in a more precarious position than at any time in the last year. On June 8, the U.N. Security Council accepted a new resolution dictating the guidelines for post-U.S. Iraq. The resolution did not mention the autonomy that Kurds have meticulously constructed in northern Iraq since 1991; nor did it refer to the Kurds' growing independence in Iraq since the end of the most recent war. The absence of such acknowledgments from the resolution went a long way toward confirming the Kurds' worst fears about the direction of post-Saddam Iraq: that the country's majority Arab population will take the nation's destiny into its own hands, without regard for the aspirations of the Kurdish minority. With the U.S. gone, Kurds increasingly face the prospect of political isolation in their own country.
Confronting hostility from their neighbors to the south, Kurds may now seek friendship to their north. During much of the 1990s, Kurds enjoyed a mostly chilly relationship with the Turkish government in Ankara, which has always been wary of Kurdish nationalism. So it may seem odd that an alliance, or at least a warming of relations, with Turkey is now very much in the Kurds' interest. But the Kurds cannot afford to be isolated on both their southern and northern flanks at the same time. They need allies in a region generally hostile to their aspirations. As a result, it would not be surprising to see the Kurds make overtures to Ankara in the months ahead.
The Kurds, of course, have enjoyed autonomy and relative success in building their society during the last thirteen years. But relations with their neighbors have not always been smooth. Operations during the 1990s by the terrorist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)--which used northern Iraq as a base to attack southeastern Turkey--led to a deterioration of relations between Ankara and the two governing entities in that region, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). And since the ouster of Saddam, the Kurds have frequently been at odds with Iraqi Arabs to their south. At the onset of war, when Turkey refused to allow the U.S. to open up a northern front against Saddam, the Kurds moved to fill the void. The two Kurdish parties, already close with the U.S., became America's only and best allies in Iraq, hoping that in return Washington would reward them. Shortly after the war, the KDP and PUK expanded their territorial control, grabbing parts of north-central Iraq, including the city of Kirkuk, which sits atop 40 percent of Iraq's oil. In Baghdad, the two parties made clear that the rest of Iraq would have to take them seriously. According to one member of the Iraqi Governing Council whom I spoke to while traveling in Iraq this past winter, "When the Council discusses business regarding northern Iraq, the Kurds do not allow anyone else to join in the debate." The KDP and PUK made sure their autonomy was mentioned in Iraq's interim constitution. More importantly, the Kurds won the right to veto the permanent Iraqi constitution if they found it detrimental to their interests.
Not surprisingly, these gains by the Kurds have only frustrated non-Kurdish Iraqis. Such privileges are unfair, they say, because the Kurds are a relatively small minority in Iraq, making up just 15 to 20 percent of Iraq's population. Iraqi Arabs resent that Kurds secured their rights through U.S. favor. When I spoke last winter to Shiite notables and tribal and religious leaders in southern Iraq, many referred to the Kurds as "infidel" collaborators and seemed very unhappy with their gains in post-war Iraq. This feeling is as potent among the Sunnis as among the Shiites. On June 14, five Kurdish fighters whose car broke down outside the Arab city of Samarra in the Sunni triangle were ambushed and killed. The episode was similar to the brutal slaying of U.S. contractors in Fallujah on March 31: The corpses of the five Kurdish men were abused and burnt beyond recognition. If this atrocity indicates anything, it is that a simmering hatred for Kurds endures among many Arabs.
Arab distrust of Kurds has undermined U.S. efforts to secure Iraq. Washington has started to appreciate the fact that its constituency in Iraq includes not only the Kurds, but also the country's Arab majority population, especially Shiites. Back in March, when Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani expressed dissatisfaction with Kurdish veto powers in the interim constitution, Washington first tried to placate him. When that strategy backfired, however, the U.S. acquiesced to Shiite demands and approved the June 8 U.N. resolution that failed to mention the Kurds.
Now that Iraqis have reclaimed their sovereignty, Kurds will likely find themselves opposing the rest of Iraq on a number of issues, ranging from secularism to the future of the Kirkuk oil fields. The Kurds seem unlikely to budge on secularism. The PUK Minister of Cooperation and Foreign Affairs, Abdul Rezzak Mirza, says that "secularism is an outstanding issue between the PUK and the rest of Iraq. If secularism is not written into Iraq's constitution, we will use all our means to fight and resist that."
As for Kirkuk, although the city is multi-ethnic, at least one Coalition Provisional Authority official suggested to me that Kurds want to keep it for themselves. By laying exclusive claims to Kirkuk, the Kurds have united all their adversaries--the Turkmens, Shiite and Sunni Arabs, and even Moqtada al-Sadr from southern Iraq--around a common cause. Banners of Sadr loyalists and Turkmen parties flew together at a recent anti-Kurdish demonstration in Kirkuk. To keep Kirkuk, the Kurds will have to confront the whole of Iraq. In fact, so long as the Kurds are perceived as America's favorites, all of their moves will be checked by a broad alliance of unlikely bedfellows.
Enter Turkey. Because America's primary interest at the moment is in stabilizing Iraq, the Kurds can no longer count on our unqualified support; and as a result they need other allies. The Kurds' two other neighbors, Iran and Syria, seem unlikely to fill this role. Tehran is wary of the Kurds' secularism and pro-western orientation; and Syria, which recently experienced a Kurdish uprising, is growing anxious over Kurdish nationalism. But Turkey could fit this bill. But for that to happen, the Kurds will have to placate Turkey on two issues: the PKK and Kirkuk.
The PKK lies at the heart of Turkey's distrust of the Kurds. The group renounced its unilateral ceasefire on June 1 and substantially increased attacks on Turkey after a five-year lull. PKK offensives will increasingly become a major cause of concern for Ankara. In order to win Turkish support, the KDP and PUK will need to crack down on the approximately 5,300 PKK terrorists currently residing in areas under their control. Should the PKK launch sensational attacks into Turkey, as it did in the 1990s, the Turkish government will come under popular pressure to enter northern Iraq to destroy the group's bases. Such a scenario poses a major challenge to Iraqi Kurds who would find themselves battling on two fronts--against Turkey in the north, and against Arab Iraq in the south. But if the KDP and PUK were to help the U.S. and Turkey shut down the PKK, they would achieve two goals. First, the parties would signal to the U.S. that they are willing to fight terrorism even when it is Kurdish terrorism. Second, by acting against the PKK, the KDP and PUK could restore themselves to the good graces of Ankara.
Then there is the problem of Kirkuk. Exclusive Kurdish control of the city would be unpopular in Turkey because of the city's substantial population of Turkmens. For the Kurds, reaching out to Turkey would likely mean working out some kind of power-sharing arrangement in Kirkuk with Arabs and Turkmens. Of course, such a settlement would make obsolete one of the reasons for Kurdish estrangement from Baghdad--and that estrangement is, in turn, the reason the Kurds need an alliance with Ankara. But with so many other sources of tension between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq--namely, secularism, the degree of Kurdish autonomy, and the perception among Arabs that the U.S. favors the Kurds--the Kurdish relationship with Baghdad would still be rocky even with a resolution on Kirkuk. So a settlement on Kirkuk would bolster the chances of a Turk-Kurd alliance without obviating the need for that alliance in the first place.
Contrary to common wisdom, the gap between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is neither wide nor unbridgeable. Rather, it is a recent phenomenon related to the PKK's emergence in northern Iraq. In the early 1990s, the Iraqi Kurds had a cordial relationship with Ankara. Turkey supported U.S. efforts to protect them against Saddam Hussein and extended a helping hand to KDP leader Massoud Barzani and PUK leader Jalal Talabani. The two visited Ankara often and traveled all over the world with Turkish diplomatic passports. Throughout much of the 1990s, the KPD and the PUK were allied with Turkey. Relations between the two parties and Ankara soured only when the PKK became a significant force in northern Iraq, creating worries that the KDP and the PUK were more interested in helping the PKK than in their partnership with Turkey. If the Iraqi Kurdish parties were to take decisive action against the PKK now, they would once again earn Turkey's confidence.
Turkey, it turns out, also has an important reason of its own to want improved relations with the Iraqi Kurds: Both Ankara and the Iraqi Kurds are very interested in a secular government in Baghdad. In this endeavor, then, Turkey, the KPD, and the PUK are natural allies. Which is why there is reason to believe that should the Kurds make overtures to Ankara, the Turkish government would be more than willing to listen. In any event, the Kurds' alternative--to remain sandwiched between an unfriendly Turkey to the north and a hostile, powerful alliance of non-Kurdish Iraqis to the south--is not an attractive one.
Soner Cagaptay is the head of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Mavis and the Old Man
Mavi Boncuk |
"Yillar once herseyimi, esimi, isimi, evimi evet herseyimi terk ederek, teknem Mavis ile Kuzey Ege'ye gittim ve uc yil oralarda teknemde yasadim.
Orada, Kuzey Ege'de, o 3 yil icinde yasadigim, dusundukce, hatirladikca hala gozlerimin yasla doldugu , bu animi, orada yasadigim bu drami, kaleme almanin tam sirasi diye dusundum."
Yazar bundan sonra teknesi Mavis ile Midilli'ye dogru yola ciktigini, sonunda Kolpos Yares denen limanina demirledigini ve ertesi sabah bir rembetiko ile uyanisini anlatiyor. Hemen havuzluga kosup merakla kim olduguna bakiyor ve basinda kurdelalu fotr sapkasi, ustunde eski ama temiz ince cizgili lacivert kruvaze takim elbise bulunan 80-85 yaslarinda bir Rum'un bir balikci kayiginda 13-14 yaslarinda bir kiz cocugu ile sarki soyleyerek balik sattigini goruyor. Daha sonra bu ihtiyar Rum Mavis'e yaklasiyor ve Haldun Sevel'e, hafif Rum sivesi, fakat temiz bir Turkce ile 'Siz Turk'sunuz' diye soruyor. "Sasirdim 'evet evet' diye kekeledim, teknemin Mavis isminin altindaki L. Istanbul yazisina bakti. 'Istanbul'dan?' diye sordu. 'Evet Istanbul'dan' dedim heyecanla. Sanirim bir dost bulmak uzereydim!.. 'Yoksam Fenerbahce'den?" 'Evet Fenerbahce'den geliyorum deyince ihtiyar Rum'un mavi gozlerinin nemlendigini gordum, kupestemi tutan elleri titriyordu. Heyecanla sordu... 'Belvu duruyor mu Belvu?' 'Belvu gazinosu! Duruyor tabi." Diye baslayan sohbet ihtiyar Rum'un eskiden yasadigi yerleri ve olaylari anlatmasiyla uzamis.
Todori'yi, Koco'yu, Papazin Bagi'ni(simdiki Fenerbahce Stadi'nin oldugu yermis) anlattikca duygulandi, duygulandikca anlatti. Bir damla gozyasi beyaz sakallarinin arasindan gecmis olmali ki cenesinin kenarindan ceketinin yakasina damladi, gozyasini gordum. Yakasinda tanidik bir rozeti var... Eskimis Fenerbahce takimi rozeti. Gonul verdigim futbol takiminin rozetini gorunce, tikandim... Fenerbahce neresi, Midilli'nin o ucra fakir yeri neresi? " Bundan sonra ihtiyar Rum kendini tanitip Haldun Sevel'i aksam misafir etmek istedigini soyler. Hatta baliginin, musakkasinin, caciginin ve uzosunun oldugunu ama rakisinin olmadigini da ilave eder, sen de var mi diye sorar: " 'Var kaptan istedigin raki olsun.' Ihtiyar Rum bana aynen soyle dedi: 'Ataturk'un rakidan, onun rakidan olsun.' " Yazar daha fazla dayanamayip rakilari alip ihtiyar Rum'un kayigina binip kiyiya giderler. Ihtiyar Rum adinin Aristidi oldugunu babasinin, dedesinin hepsinin dogma buyume Istanbul'lu oldugunu, Moda Mektep Sokagi'nda oturduklarini ama maalesef 6-7 Eylul olaylarindan sonra Turkiye'den ayrilmak zorunda olduklarini anlatir.
"Soze girebilsem lafi yakasindaki Fenerbahce rozetine getirecegim ama, Aristidi kaptan hic susmuyor... Tam bir hafta misafirleri oldum, neler anlatti neler?.
"Son gece ben onlarda misafirdim, hava neredeyse isiyacakti. Biz hala balkonda cacigi kasiklayip raki bittigi icin uzo iciyoruz... 'Vakit gec oldu, artik kalkayim, ogleden sonra bati bindirir, once sacak altindan yukari vururum, oradan da pupa yelken Cunda'ya...' 'Yine geleceksin?' diye sordu. 'Soz gelecegim, istedigin birsey var mi? Lutfen soyle sana ne getireyim?' deyince guldu: 'Ataturk'un rakidan' dedi birlikte gulduk. 'Soz getirecegim, baska ne istiyorsun?' diye israr ettim. Yakasindaki eskimis Fenerbahce rozetini gosterdi... 'Bundan getir' dedi. 'Bu da benim gibi eskidi, buralarda yok.' 'O rozeti niye takiyorsin?' diye sordum. Bekledigim firsat elime geçmisti. Hemen kaslarini çatti, ben devam ettim: 'Sen Moda'lisin, Fenerbahceli benim... Hem Fenerbahce neresi, Midilli neresi, öyle degil mi, o rozeti niye takiyorsun?' Suratima bakti bakti, agizindan ne cikacak diye bekliyorum. 'Dogru 1923 neresi, 1994 neresi, senin baban bile bilmez benim niye Fenerbahce rozeti taktigimi...' '1923' dedim. '1923, Istanbul isgal altindaydi, oniki yasindaydim, birgun babam beni heyecanla tutup maça gidecegimizi soyledi, buyuk bir mac olacakmis, mac degil harp, isgal kuvvetleri generali bir mac tertip etmis... Ingiliz takimi bir Turk takimi ile mac yapacakmis, Turk'lere bir ders vereceklermis... Isgal kuvvetleri dedigim Istanbul'u isgal etmis Ingiliz kuvvetleri... Tarihini de soyleyeyim Mart 1923... Babamla erkenden yer bulabilmek icin yola ciktik. Yolda ogrendik, Ingiliz takiminin karsisina Fenerbahce takimi cikacakmis... Butun isgal ordusu orada yer gok inliyor... Fenerbahce sahaya cikarken sesler kesildi, ne bir tezahurat ne bir alkis... Kiran kirana bir mac oldu. Mac degil harp. Sedye ile disari kac kisi tasidilar hatirlamiyorum... Ne oldu biliyor musun? Fenerbahce kazandi, oyle bir cakti ki, simarik isgal takimina, o gece Istanbul'da sabahlara kadar Fener alaylari yapildi... Simdi anladin mi yakama o rozeti nicin taktigimi? Iste ben o gunden beri Fenerbahce'liyim...' Aristidi kaptan asagi yukari bana bunlari anlatti, yuregim tikanarak dinledim, kalktim ihtiyar Rum'un ellerinden optum, o bizden biriydi.
Haldun Sevel yazisinin bundan sonraki bolumunde Turkiye'ye donusunu, orada yaptiklarini anlatiyor. Cok istemesine ragmen Midilli'ye bir turlu gidemiyor. Ta ki 9.Mayis.1996'ya kadar.
Ve denize iner inmez hareket ettim. 9.Mayis.1996... Rotam Midilli, ihtiyar dostuma gidiyorum, her taraf Kulup Raki'si dolu, ceplerim de Fenerbahce rozetleri.
Elimdeki torbada rakilar, cebimde Fenerbahce rozetleri, nefes nefese vardim ihtiyarin evine kapinin tokmagini tiklattim, bekledim, sert sert vurdum, zili cevirdim bir daha cevirdim, karsi kaldirima gecip ust katin pencerelerine bakiyordum ki, birden kapi acildi ve ihtiyar Aristidi'yi gordum... O anda birsey gordum ve cok uzuldum... Uc yildir gormedigim, ama hic unutamad¹g¹m ihtiyar dostumun boynunda, girtlaginin alt tarafinda, bir celik vardi, ihtiyar Aristidi girtlak kanserine yakalanmisti... Kulup Raki' larindan birini cikartip gosterdim, gulumsedi, ona bir avuc yepyeni Fenerbahce rozeti de getirmistim, rozetleri gorunce omuzumu sevdi, kulagima sokulup kisik bir sesle : 'Niye bu kadar gec kaldin?' dedi. Duvara civilenmis tahta askida sazi ve elbiseleri duruyordu. Ceketini istedi verdim. Yatagin yanindaki iskemlenin arkasina itina ile yerlestirdi, yoruldu yatagina oturdu. 'Hadi tak rozetimi' dedi. Ceketinin yakasindan eskimis rozeti cikarttim, yeni rozeti itina ile taktim. Yuzu kizardi, sanki ona madalya takmistim. Bir sure seyretti Fenerbahce rozetini, gulumsuyordu, sulu gozlu ihtiyar Rum yine duygulanmisti.
Yakalarimiza Fenerbahce rozetlerimizi takip tas kahveye gittik, diger Rum'lar bizi alkisladilar. Ihtiyar Aristidi mezarina memleket topragi istiyordu, o istegi de oldu... Eger Mavis ile birlikte, bu yaz da inersem Ege'ye, gonlumu biraktigim yere, yine goturecegim ona memleket topragi.
Haldun Sevel
"Yillar once herseyimi, esimi, isimi, evimi evet herseyimi terk ederek, teknem Mavis ile Kuzey Ege'ye gittim ve uc yil oralarda teknemde yasadim.
Orada, Kuzey Ege'de, o 3 yil icinde yasadigim, dusundukce, hatirladikca hala gozlerimin yasla doldugu , bu animi, orada yasadigim bu drami, kaleme almanin tam sirasi diye dusundum."
Yazar bundan sonra teknesi Mavis ile Midilli'ye dogru yola ciktigini, sonunda Kolpos Yares denen limanina demirledigini ve ertesi sabah bir rembetiko ile uyanisini anlatiyor. Hemen havuzluga kosup merakla kim olduguna bakiyor ve basinda kurdelalu fotr sapkasi, ustunde eski ama temiz ince cizgili lacivert kruvaze takim elbise bulunan 80-85 yaslarinda bir Rum'un bir balikci kayiginda 13-14 yaslarinda bir kiz cocugu ile sarki soyleyerek balik sattigini goruyor. Daha sonra bu ihtiyar Rum Mavis'e yaklasiyor ve Haldun Sevel'e, hafif Rum sivesi, fakat temiz bir Turkce ile 'Siz Turk'sunuz' diye soruyor. "Sasirdim 'evet evet' diye kekeledim, teknemin Mavis isminin altindaki L. Istanbul yazisina bakti. 'Istanbul'dan?' diye sordu. 'Evet Istanbul'dan' dedim heyecanla. Sanirim bir dost bulmak uzereydim!.. 'Yoksam Fenerbahce'den?" 'Evet Fenerbahce'den geliyorum deyince ihtiyar Rum'un mavi gozlerinin nemlendigini gordum, kupestemi tutan elleri titriyordu. Heyecanla sordu... 'Belvu duruyor mu Belvu?' 'Belvu gazinosu! Duruyor tabi." Diye baslayan sohbet ihtiyar Rum'un eskiden yasadigi yerleri ve olaylari anlatmasiyla uzamis.
Todori'yi, Koco'yu, Papazin Bagi'ni(simdiki Fenerbahce Stadi'nin oldugu yermis) anlattikca duygulandi, duygulandikca anlatti. Bir damla gozyasi beyaz sakallarinin arasindan gecmis olmali ki cenesinin kenarindan ceketinin yakasina damladi, gozyasini gordum. Yakasinda tanidik bir rozeti var... Eskimis Fenerbahce takimi rozeti. Gonul verdigim futbol takiminin rozetini gorunce, tikandim... Fenerbahce neresi, Midilli'nin o ucra fakir yeri neresi? " Bundan sonra ihtiyar Rum kendini tanitip Haldun Sevel'i aksam misafir etmek istedigini soyler. Hatta baliginin, musakkasinin, caciginin ve uzosunun oldugunu ama rakisinin olmadigini da ilave eder, sen de var mi diye sorar: " 'Var kaptan istedigin raki olsun.' Ihtiyar Rum bana aynen soyle dedi: 'Ataturk'un rakidan, onun rakidan olsun.' " Yazar daha fazla dayanamayip rakilari alip ihtiyar Rum'un kayigina binip kiyiya giderler. Ihtiyar Rum adinin Aristidi oldugunu babasinin, dedesinin hepsinin dogma buyume Istanbul'lu oldugunu, Moda Mektep Sokagi'nda oturduklarini ama maalesef 6-7 Eylul olaylarindan sonra Turkiye'den ayrilmak zorunda olduklarini anlatir.
"Soze girebilsem lafi yakasindaki Fenerbahce rozetine getirecegim ama, Aristidi kaptan hic susmuyor... Tam bir hafta misafirleri oldum, neler anlatti neler?.
"Son gece ben onlarda misafirdim, hava neredeyse isiyacakti. Biz hala balkonda cacigi kasiklayip raki bittigi icin uzo iciyoruz... 'Vakit gec oldu, artik kalkayim, ogleden sonra bati bindirir, once sacak altindan yukari vururum, oradan da pupa yelken Cunda'ya...' 'Yine geleceksin?' diye sordu. 'Soz gelecegim, istedigin birsey var mi? Lutfen soyle sana ne getireyim?' deyince guldu: 'Ataturk'un rakidan' dedi birlikte gulduk. 'Soz getirecegim, baska ne istiyorsun?' diye israr ettim. Yakasindaki eskimis Fenerbahce rozetini gosterdi... 'Bundan getir' dedi. 'Bu da benim gibi eskidi, buralarda yok.' 'O rozeti niye takiyorsin?' diye sordum. Bekledigim firsat elime geçmisti. Hemen kaslarini çatti, ben devam ettim: 'Sen Moda'lisin, Fenerbahceli benim... Hem Fenerbahce neresi, Midilli neresi, öyle degil mi, o rozeti niye takiyorsun?' Suratima bakti bakti, agizindan ne cikacak diye bekliyorum. 'Dogru 1923 neresi, 1994 neresi, senin baban bile bilmez benim niye Fenerbahce rozeti taktigimi...' '1923' dedim. '1923, Istanbul isgal altindaydi, oniki yasindaydim, birgun babam beni heyecanla tutup maça gidecegimizi soyledi, buyuk bir mac olacakmis, mac degil harp, isgal kuvvetleri generali bir mac tertip etmis... Ingiliz takimi bir Turk takimi ile mac yapacakmis, Turk'lere bir ders vereceklermis... Isgal kuvvetleri dedigim Istanbul'u isgal etmis Ingiliz kuvvetleri... Tarihini de soyleyeyim Mart 1923... Babamla erkenden yer bulabilmek icin yola ciktik. Yolda ogrendik, Ingiliz takiminin karsisina Fenerbahce takimi cikacakmis... Butun isgal ordusu orada yer gok inliyor... Fenerbahce sahaya cikarken sesler kesildi, ne bir tezahurat ne bir alkis... Kiran kirana bir mac oldu. Mac degil harp. Sedye ile disari kac kisi tasidilar hatirlamiyorum... Ne oldu biliyor musun? Fenerbahce kazandi, oyle bir cakti ki, simarik isgal takimina, o gece Istanbul'da sabahlara kadar Fener alaylari yapildi... Simdi anladin mi yakama o rozeti nicin taktigimi? Iste ben o gunden beri Fenerbahce'liyim...' Aristidi kaptan asagi yukari bana bunlari anlatti, yuregim tikanarak dinledim, kalktim ihtiyar Rum'un ellerinden optum, o bizden biriydi.
Haldun Sevel yazisinin bundan sonraki bolumunde Turkiye'ye donusunu, orada yaptiklarini anlatiyor. Cok istemesine ragmen Midilli'ye bir turlu gidemiyor. Ta ki 9.Mayis.1996'ya kadar.
Ve denize iner inmez hareket ettim. 9.Mayis.1996... Rotam Midilli, ihtiyar dostuma gidiyorum, her taraf Kulup Raki'si dolu, ceplerim de Fenerbahce rozetleri.
Elimdeki torbada rakilar, cebimde Fenerbahce rozetleri, nefes nefese vardim ihtiyarin evine kapinin tokmagini tiklattim, bekledim, sert sert vurdum, zili cevirdim bir daha cevirdim, karsi kaldirima gecip ust katin pencerelerine bakiyordum ki, birden kapi acildi ve ihtiyar Aristidi'yi gordum... O anda birsey gordum ve cok uzuldum... Uc yildir gormedigim, ama hic unutamad¹g¹m ihtiyar dostumun boynunda, girtlaginin alt tarafinda, bir celik vardi, ihtiyar Aristidi girtlak kanserine yakalanmisti... Kulup Raki' larindan birini cikartip gosterdim, gulumsedi, ona bir avuc yepyeni Fenerbahce rozeti de getirmistim, rozetleri gorunce omuzumu sevdi, kulagima sokulup kisik bir sesle : 'Niye bu kadar gec kaldin?' dedi. Duvara civilenmis tahta askida sazi ve elbiseleri duruyordu. Ceketini istedi verdim. Yatagin yanindaki iskemlenin arkasina itina ile yerlestirdi, yoruldu yatagina oturdu. 'Hadi tak rozetimi' dedi. Ceketinin yakasindan eskimis rozeti cikarttim, yeni rozeti itina ile taktim. Yuzu kizardi, sanki ona madalya takmistim. Bir sure seyretti Fenerbahce rozetini, gulumsuyordu, sulu gozlu ihtiyar Rum yine duygulanmisti.
Yakalarimiza Fenerbahce rozetlerimizi takip tas kahveye gittik, diger Rum'lar bizi alkisladilar. Ihtiyar Aristidi mezarina memleket topragi istiyordu, o istegi de oldu... Eger Mavis ile birlikte, bu yaz da inersem Ege'ye, gonlumu biraktigim yere, yine goturecegim ona memleket topragi.
Haldun Sevel
Terminology | Megale Idea
Mavi Boncuk |
Megale Idea (1912-1922)
Megale Idea implies the goal of reestablishing a Greek state as ancient geographer Stravon wrote, with a greek world extended west from Sicily, to Mikra Asia and Euxenus Pontus to the east, and from Macedonia and Epirus, north, to Crete and Cyprus to the south. Greek populations still lived in those territories in the beginning of 20th century.
The dream of every Greek always had been to liberate all the territories and establish a new state with Constantinople as its capital, as it had been in medieval times. After the achievement of Greek independence in 1821, the Megale Idea played a major role in Greek politics. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people remained outside the borders of the limited Greece permitted by the Great Powers, who had no intention for a larger Greek state to replace the Ottoman Empire.
Megale Idea (1912-1922)
Megale Idea implies the goal of reestablishing a Greek state as ancient geographer Stravon wrote, with a greek world extended west from Sicily, to Mikra Asia and Euxenus Pontus to the east, and from Macedonia and Epirus, north, to Crete and Cyprus to the south. Greek populations still lived in those territories in the beginning of 20th century.
The dream of every Greek always had been to liberate all the territories and establish a new state with Constantinople as its capital, as it had been in medieval times. After the achievement of Greek independence in 1821, the Megale Idea played a major role in Greek politics. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people remained outside the borders of the limited Greece permitted by the Great Powers, who had no intention for a larger Greek state to replace the Ottoman Empire.
Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204)
Mavi Boncuk |
Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204)
The Fourth Crusade was directed at Egypt. There were, however, a series of financial difficulties which enabled the Venetians, who had been hired as transportation providers, to divert the crusade to their own ends. First it attacked the Christian city of Zara, and then Constantinople itself. The result was the establishment of a series of Latin states in Greece and the Agean, and the permanent collapse of communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates here gives an account of the sack of the city.
. . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was se en what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced bv a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.
Nor can the violation of the Great Church [note: Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.
When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch's seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself, have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one ivho opposed them at all or hindered their demands.
No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!
trans. by D. C. Munro, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Series 1, Vol 3:1 (rev. ed.) (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1912), 15-16
Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204)
The Fourth Crusade was directed at Egypt. There were, however, a series of financial difficulties which enabled the Venetians, who had been hired as transportation providers, to divert the crusade to their own ends. First it attacked the Christian city of Zara, and then Constantinople itself. The result was the establishment of a series of Latin states in Greece and the Agean, and the permanent collapse of communion between Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates here gives an account of the sack of the city.
. . . How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was se en what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-Christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced bv a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.
Nor can the violation of the Great Church [note: Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.
When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch's seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself, have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one ivho opposed them at all or hindered their demands.
No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, the groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, the separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, bow great the distress!
trans. by D. C. Munro, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Series 1, Vol 3:1 (rev. ed.) (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1912), 15-16
A Maltese Painter Of Istanbul Scenes: Amadeo Preziosi
Mavi Boncuk |
A Maltese Painter Of Istanbul Scenes:
Amadeo Preziosi
The fascination for Istanbul in 19th century Europe made the city a popular destination for western travellers of all descriptions, scholars and writers, musicians and painters, not to mention the merely curious. Many of them later published accounts of what they saw and did, illustrated with sketches or engravings. These books in libraries, museums and private collections are a valuable source of information about the daily life, customs, people and buildings of the time. Nineteenth century Istanbul was still the capital of a huge but diminishing empire, nearing the end of its long life. Among the artists who depicted Istanbul in the last century were such famous names as Melling, Thomas Allom, Eugene Delacroix, Alexandre Decamps and Eugene Fromentin. They stayed sometimes a few months, sometimes a few years, and left a legacy of paintings and engravings illustrating the city’s mosques, palaces, fountains and squares. But there was one who fell in love with the city, settled down and spent the rest of his life there: Count Amadeo Preziosi. As a result, his depictions of people and daily life are full of original detail not to be found in the works of others.
Preziosi was descended from a family which had migrated from Corsica to Malta in the 17th century and been awarded a title by the king of Sicily. Preziosi was born in Valetta on 2 December 1816, and spent his childhood and youth in Malta. His father Count Gio François was an eminent figure in Malta and a wealthy man. Preziosi was educated by private tutors, and his passion for drawing and painting began as a child. Although he studied law in compliance with his parents’ wishes he eventually abandoned this profession to devote himself to painting, first entering the studio of Giuseppe Hyzler, and subsequently going to France to complete his art education at the Paris Academy of Fine Arts. This was a time when European painters were flocking to the Gateway to the East, as Istanbul was known, and under this influence Preziosi packed up his paints and brushes and set out from Malta in 1842, travelling first to Italy and then to Istanbul. He notes in his memoirs that his original intention had been to stay for two years, but so absorbed did he become in the sights and bewitching atmosphere of this city that it held him like a magnet, and he hardly noticed the passing of the years. Sketchbook under arm he wandered its streets, caught up in an increasing love for the city and its people. Istanbul returned Preziosi’s affection, and he was welcomed everywhere, in tiny back street shops, coffee houses, hamams (Turkish baths), and places of worship. In his canvases he immortalised the humdrum sights of daily life: a street seller, a dancing bear, a woman filling her water jar at a street fountain. Through his eyes we also see the blue waters of the Bosphorus with caiques gliding along, pavilions and palaces. His paintings sold well among local and foreign customers alike, who hung them on the walls of their grand houses and palaces.
Despite his father’s entreaties Amadeo Preziosi refused to return to Malta, where the other members of his family followed ‘respectable’ careers as doctors, merchants and lawyers. He remained loyal to the passionate loves of his life: Istanbul and painting.
As well as his mother tongue of Italian, Preziosi spoke French, Greek, English and Turkish. He married an Istanbul Greek woman and the couple had four children, three girls and one boy. For many years they lived in Beyoğlu, at number 14 Hamalbaşı Sokak near the present British Consulate. When he wanted to get away from the bustle of city life he went to Yeşilköy, then an outlying country district on the Marmara coast. Here he had friends among the Levantine families, and spent much time hunting. This area west of Istanbul was famous for its game until engulfed by the growing city during the 20th century, and Preziosi purchased a hunting lodge where he spent much of his time. On 27 September 1882, when he was 65, he was hunting with a party around Yeşilköy when he accidentally dropped his rifle. It went off, causing injuries of which Preziosi died the following day.
Lithographs of Preziosi’s paintings were published in two albums,
Stamboul: Recollections of Eastern Life In 1858, and
Stamboul: Souvenir d’Orient in 1861.
In 1883, the year after his death, a third album was published entitled:
Encyclopedie Des Arts Decoratifs de L’Orient: Stamboul - Moeurs et Costumes
with a foreword by Victor Champier, who wrote of Preziosi and the Istanbul which he depicted: ‘Istanbul... This word sounds to the ear like a battle cry or a song of victory. Istanbul is the name given by the Turks to this glorious city, once known as Byzantium and today also as Constantinople. It is Istanbul, with its winding streets, markets, picturesque excursion places and curious sights, whose life and true substance Monsieur Amadeo Preziosi presents to us in his watercolours. Certainly one rarely encounters an artist who has left his homeland at a young age, and made a home for himself in the bosom of a civilisation little known even in Europe. This is an artist whose eyes have been rinsed in the splendid light of the Orient, enabling him to capture the depth of its meaning and enjoy the happiness of sensing the strength and capacity of its spirit.
Count Preziosi’s paintings were exhibited in Paris and London in 1858, 1863 and 1867. For some years he was court painter to Sultan Abdülhamid II, and today examples can be seen in the Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture, Topkapı Palace, the Naval Museum and several private collections.
Preziosi was buried in the Catholic cemetery in Yeşilköy, where his grave still stands today.
Skylife
* Turgay Tuna, freelance writer.
A Maltese Painter Of Istanbul Scenes:
Amadeo Preziosi
The fascination for Istanbul in 19th century Europe made the city a popular destination for western travellers of all descriptions, scholars and writers, musicians and painters, not to mention the merely curious. Many of them later published accounts of what they saw and did, illustrated with sketches or engravings. These books in libraries, museums and private collections are a valuable source of information about the daily life, customs, people and buildings of the time. Nineteenth century Istanbul was still the capital of a huge but diminishing empire, nearing the end of its long life. Among the artists who depicted Istanbul in the last century were such famous names as Melling, Thomas Allom, Eugene Delacroix, Alexandre Decamps and Eugene Fromentin. They stayed sometimes a few months, sometimes a few years, and left a legacy of paintings and engravings illustrating the city’s mosques, palaces, fountains and squares. But there was one who fell in love with the city, settled down and spent the rest of his life there: Count Amadeo Preziosi. As a result, his depictions of people and daily life are full of original detail not to be found in the works of others.
Preziosi was descended from a family which had migrated from Corsica to Malta in the 17th century and been awarded a title by the king of Sicily. Preziosi was born in Valetta on 2 December 1816, and spent his childhood and youth in Malta. His father Count Gio François was an eminent figure in Malta and a wealthy man. Preziosi was educated by private tutors, and his passion for drawing and painting began as a child. Although he studied law in compliance with his parents’ wishes he eventually abandoned this profession to devote himself to painting, first entering the studio of Giuseppe Hyzler, and subsequently going to France to complete his art education at the Paris Academy of Fine Arts. This was a time when European painters were flocking to the Gateway to the East, as Istanbul was known, and under this influence Preziosi packed up his paints and brushes and set out from Malta in 1842, travelling first to Italy and then to Istanbul. He notes in his memoirs that his original intention had been to stay for two years, but so absorbed did he become in the sights and bewitching atmosphere of this city that it held him like a magnet, and he hardly noticed the passing of the years. Sketchbook under arm he wandered its streets, caught up in an increasing love for the city and its people. Istanbul returned Preziosi’s affection, and he was welcomed everywhere, in tiny back street shops, coffee houses, hamams (Turkish baths), and places of worship. In his canvases he immortalised the humdrum sights of daily life: a street seller, a dancing bear, a woman filling her water jar at a street fountain. Through his eyes we also see the blue waters of the Bosphorus with caiques gliding along, pavilions and palaces. His paintings sold well among local and foreign customers alike, who hung them on the walls of their grand houses and palaces.
Despite his father’s entreaties Amadeo Preziosi refused to return to Malta, where the other members of his family followed ‘respectable’ careers as doctors, merchants and lawyers. He remained loyal to the passionate loves of his life: Istanbul and painting.
As well as his mother tongue of Italian, Preziosi spoke French, Greek, English and Turkish. He married an Istanbul Greek woman and the couple had four children, three girls and one boy. For many years they lived in Beyoğlu, at number 14 Hamalbaşı Sokak near the present British Consulate. When he wanted to get away from the bustle of city life he went to Yeşilköy, then an outlying country district on the Marmara coast. Here he had friends among the Levantine families, and spent much time hunting. This area west of Istanbul was famous for its game until engulfed by the growing city during the 20th century, and Preziosi purchased a hunting lodge where he spent much of his time. On 27 September 1882, when he was 65, he was hunting with a party around Yeşilköy when he accidentally dropped his rifle. It went off, causing injuries of which Preziosi died the following day.
Lithographs of Preziosi’s paintings were published in two albums,
Stamboul: Recollections of Eastern Life In 1858, and
Stamboul: Souvenir d’Orient in 1861.
In 1883, the year after his death, a third album was published entitled:
Encyclopedie Des Arts Decoratifs de L’Orient: Stamboul - Moeurs et Costumes
with a foreword by Victor Champier, who wrote of Preziosi and the Istanbul which he depicted: ‘Istanbul... This word sounds to the ear like a battle cry or a song of victory. Istanbul is the name given by the Turks to this glorious city, once known as Byzantium and today also as Constantinople. It is Istanbul, with its winding streets, markets, picturesque excursion places and curious sights, whose life and true substance Monsieur Amadeo Preziosi presents to us in his watercolours. Certainly one rarely encounters an artist who has left his homeland at a young age, and made a home for himself in the bosom of a civilisation little known even in Europe. This is an artist whose eyes have been rinsed in the splendid light of the Orient, enabling him to capture the depth of its meaning and enjoy the happiness of sensing the strength and capacity of its spirit.
Count Preziosi’s paintings were exhibited in Paris and London in 1858, 1863 and 1867. For some years he was court painter to Sultan Abdülhamid II, and today examples can be seen in the Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture, Topkapı Palace, the Naval Museum and several private collections.
Preziosi was buried in the Catholic cemetery in Yeşilköy, where his grave still stands today.
Skylife
* Turgay Tuna, freelance writer.
Amadeo Preziosi 1816-1882
Mavi Boncuk |
Amadeo Preziosi b. Malta 1816- d. Istanbul 1882
Everyday life in Constantinople
"There is, perhaps, no country under heaven where it is more difficult for a European to obtain a full and perfect insight into the national character, than in Turkey."Miss Julia Pardoe, who made this observation in her detailed and perceptive account of Constantinople, The city of the Sultan published in 1837, was one of the western Europeans in the 19th century who did reach some understanding of the Turkish way of life. Another, who used images instead of words to express his own appreciation of the complexity and diversity of the Turkish character, was the artist Amadeo Preziosi.
Amadeo Preziosi was born in Malta in 1816. His father had been a representative of Maltese nobility during negotiations for the treaty of Amiens in 1802 when the island came under British rule. Intending that his eldest son should play a significant part in the island's new administrative system, he sent Preziosi to study law. The young Preziosi, however, was already more interested in art and began his study of it in the studio of Guiseppe Hyzler, an artist highly regarded in Malta and a follower of the Nazarene School founded in Rome by Fredrich Overbeck.
Sometime in his early twenties, he went to Paris with his brother. Little is known of his life in Paris, nor with whom he associated, but he would no doubt have absorbed some of the prevailing artistic tastes and styles. He would certainly have known the lithographs of Honore Daumier who by 1840 had been forced to replace his political satires of the 1830s withthe more humorous, rapidly-sketched scenes of everyday life which may have made a significant impression on Prezioso.
On his return to Malta, he found his father no less antagonistic to his artistic inclinations than before, and only by leaving his island could be hope to pursue his own choice opf career. The place he selected for his escape was Constantinople.It is not certain when Preziosi arrived in Constantinople, but it seems to have been before November 1842, the date on a group of drawings of Constantinople subjects. Preziosi's staple subjects were the ordinary inhabitants of Constantinople. Both the Curzon and the Victoria and Albert Museum albums bring many of these together, revealing the extraordinary cultural diversity of the city's large population. In addition to Turks of varying descriptions -- merchants, street vendors, sodiers, dervishes, and women -- there are among other nationalities, Greeks, Albanians, Circassians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Jews, Kurds and Nubians -- all representatives of the different components of the still extensive Ottoman Empire.
Amadeo Preziosi b. Malta 1816- d. Istanbul 1882
Everyday life in Constantinople
"There is, perhaps, no country under heaven where it is more difficult for a European to obtain a full and perfect insight into the national character, than in Turkey."Miss Julia Pardoe, who made this observation in her detailed and perceptive account of Constantinople, The city of the Sultan published in 1837, was one of the western Europeans in the 19th century who did reach some understanding of the Turkish way of life. Another, who used images instead of words to express his own appreciation of the complexity and diversity of the Turkish character, was the artist Amadeo Preziosi.
Amadeo Preziosi was born in Malta in 1816. His father had been a representative of Maltese nobility during negotiations for the treaty of Amiens in 1802 when the island came under British rule. Intending that his eldest son should play a significant part in the island's new administrative system, he sent Preziosi to study law. The young Preziosi, however, was already more interested in art and began his study of it in the studio of Guiseppe Hyzler, an artist highly regarded in Malta and a follower of the Nazarene School founded in Rome by Fredrich Overbeck.
Sometime in his early twenties, he went to Paris with his brother. Little is known of his life in Paris, nor with whom he associated, but he would no doubt have absorbed some of the prevailing artistic tastes and styles. He would certainly have known the lithographs of Honore Daumier who by 1840 had been forced to replace his political satires of the 1830s withthe more humorous, rapidly-sketched scenes of everyday life which may have made a significant impression on Prezioso.
On his return to Malta, he found his father no less antagonistic to his artistic inclinations than before, and only by leaving his island could be hope to pursue his own choice opf career. The place he selected for his escape was Constantinople.It is not certain when Preziosi arrived in Constantinople, but it seems to have been before November 1842, the date on a group of drawings of Constantinople subjects. Preziosi's staple subjects were the ordinary inhabitants of Constantinople. Both the Curzon and the Victoria and Albert Museum albums bring many of these together, revealing the extraordinary cultural diversity of the city's large population. In addition to Turks of varying descriptions -- merchants, street vendors, sodiers, dervishes, and women -- there are among other nationalities, Greeks, Albanians, Circassians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Jews, Kurds and Nubians -- all representatives of the different components of the still extensive Ottoman Empire.
June 29, 2004
Hanseatic League
How to make enemies...By the late 16th century, the Hanseatic League had all but imploded, unable to deal with its own internal struggles, the social and political changes that accompanied the Reformation, the rise of Dutch and English merchants and the incursion of the Ottoman Turks upon its trade routes and the Empire itself.
Mavi Boncuk |
Hanseatic League
The foundations of the Hanseatic League, an alliance of trading cities that for a time in the later Middle Ages and the Early Modern period maintained a trade monopoly over most of Northern Europe and the Baltic, can be seen as early as the 12th century. At about this time, merchants in a given city began to form societies, or Hansa, with the intention of trading with foreign cities. These societies worked to acquire special trade privileges for their members. For example, the merchants of Cologne were able to convince Henry II of England to grant them special trading privileges and market rights in 1157.
Eventually, some of these cities began to form alliances with other cities, forming a loose network of mutual assistance that would become the Hanseatic League. The chief city of the Hanseatic League was Henry the Lion of Saxony in 1159. Its location on the Baltic gave access to trade with Scandinavia and Russia, putting it in direct competition with the Scandinavians who had previously controlled most of the Baltic trade routes. Competition was ended through a treaty with the traders of Gotland. Through this treaty, the L?merchants also gained access to the Russian port of Novgorod, where they built a trading post. Lübeck, which had access to the Baltic and North Sea fishing grounds, later formed an alliance with Hamburg, another trading city that controlled access to salt routes. The allied cities were able to gain control over most of the salt fish trade. Other such alliances formed throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Over time, the network of alliances grew to include upwards of 100 cities.
Eventually, the capital of Hansa were moved to Polish main port of Danzig. Other important Polish cities, members of Hansa were Thorn, Elbing and 1368 and 1370, the League's ships fought against the Danes, and forced the Danish king to grant the League 15 percent of the profits from Danish trade (Treaty of Stralsund).
Exclusive trade routes often came at a high price. In most foreign cities, the Hansa traders were confined to certain trading areas and to their own trading posts. They were seldom, if ever, allowed to interact with the local inhabitants, except in the matter of actual negotiation. Moreover, the power of the League was envied by many, merchant and noble alike. The very existence of the League and its privileges and monopolies created economic and social tensions that often crept over into rivalry between League members.
Despite its demise, several cities still maintain the link to the Hanseatic League. Even in the 21st century, the cities of Deventer, Kampen, Zutphen, Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar, Stralsund, Greifswald and Anklam call themselves Hansa cities. For Lübeck in particular, this anachronistic tie to a glorious past remained especially important in the second half of the 20th century.
List of members
Gdansk (capital)
Wroclaw
Szczecin
Torun
Elblag
Hamburg
Bremen
Deventer
Kampen
Zutphen
Rostock
Wismar
Stralsund
Greifswald
Anklam
Mavi Boncuk |
Hanseatic League
The foundations of the Hanseatic League, an alliance of trading cities that for a time in the later Middle Ages and the Early Modern period maintained a trade monopoly over most of Northern Europe and the Baltic, can be seen as early as the 12th century. At about this time, merchants in a given city began to form societies, or Hansa, with the intention of trading with foreign cities. These societies worked to acquire special trade privileges for their members. For example, the merchants of Cologne were able to convince Henry II of England to grant them special trading privileges and market rights in 1157.
Eventually, some of these cities began to form alliances with other cities, forming a loose network of mutual assistance that would become the Hanseatic League. The chief city of the Hanseatic League was Henry the Lion of Saxony in 1159. Its location on the Baltic gave access to trade with Scandinavia and Russia, putting it in direct competition with the Scandinavians who had previously controlled most of the Baltic trade routes. Competition was ended through a treaty with the traders of Gotland. Through this treaty, the L?merchants also gained access to the Russian port of Novgorod, where they built a trading post. Lübeck, which had access to the Baltic and North Sea fishing grounds, later formed an alliance with Hamburg, another trading city that controlled access to salt routes. The allied cities were able to gain control over most of the salt fish trade. Other such alliances formed throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Over time, the network of alliances grew to include upwards of 100 cities.
Eventually, the capital of Hansa were moved to Polish main port of Danzig. Other important Polish cities, members of Hansa were Thorn, Elbing and 1368 and 1370, the League's ships fought against the Danes, and forced the Danish king to grant the League 15 percent of the profits from Danish trade (Treaty of Stralsund).
Exclusive trade routes often came at a high price. In most foreign cities, the Hansa traders were confined to certain trading areas and to their own trading posts. They were seldom, if ever, allowed to interact with the local inhabitants, except in the matter of actual negotiation. Moreover, the power of the League was envied by many, merchant and noble alike. The very existence of the League and its privileges and monopolies created economic and social tensions that often crept over into rivalry between League members.
Despite its demise, several cities still maintain the link to the Hanseatic League. Even in the 21st century, the cities of Deventer, Kampen, Zutphen, Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock, Wismar, Stralsund, Greifswald and Anklam call themselves Hansa cities. For Lübeck in particular, this anachronistic tie to a glorious past remained especially important in the second half of the 20th century.
List of members
Gdansk (capital)
Wroclaw
Szczecin
Torun
Elblag
Hamburg
Bremen
Deventer
Kampen
Zutphen
Rostock
Wismar
Stralsund
Greifswald
Anklam
Greek Fire
Mavi Boncuk |
Greek Fire was the secret weapon of the Eastern Roman Emperors. It is said to have been invented by a Syrian Engineer, one Callinicus, a refugee from Maalbek, in the seventh century (673 AD). The "liquid fire" was hurled on to the ships of their enemies from siphons and burst into flames on contact. As it was reputed to be inextinguishable and burned even on water, it caused panic and dread. Its introducation into warfare of its time was comparable in its demoralizing influence to the introducation of nuclear weapons in our time. Both Arab and Greek sources agree that it surpassed all incendiary weapons in destruction. The secret behind the Greek fire was handed down from one emperor to the next for centuries.
Rumors about its composition include such chemicals as liquid petroleum, naphtha, burning pitch, sulphur, resin, quicklimeand bitumen, along with some other "secret ingredient". The exact composition, however, remains unknown.
For a thorough investigation of the weapon one can refer to Professor J.R. Partington's book, "A history of the Greek Fire and Gunpowder", Heffer, 1960. This volume quotes the ancient authorities extensively, with an excellent commentary. It also examines ancient and modern theories on the composition of the chemicals used in the Greek Fire. This is considered the most up to date source on the subject.
The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, a thirteenth century French nobleman, include these observations of Greek Fire during the seventh Crusade:
“It happened one night, whilst we were keeping night-watch over the tortoise-towers, that they brought up against us an engine called a perronel, (which they had not done before) and filled the sling of the engine with Greek fire. When that good knight, Lord Walter of Cureil, who was with me, saw this, he spoke to us as follows: "Sirs, we are in the greatest peril that we have ever yet been in. For, if they set fire to our turrets and shelters, we are lost and burnt; and if, again, we desert our defences which have been entrusted to us, we are disgraced; so none can deliver us from this peril save God alone. My opinion and advice therefor is: that every time they hurl the fire at us, we go down on our elbows and knees, and beseech Our Lord to save us from this danger."
“So soon as they flung the first shot, we went down on our elbows and knees, as he had instructed us; and their first shot passed between the two turrets, and lodged just in front of us, where they had been raising the dam. Our firemen were all ready to put out the fire; and the Saracens, not being able to aim straight at them, on account of the two pent-house wings which the King had made, shot straight up into the clouds, so that the fire-darts fell right on top of them.”
“This was the fashion of the Greek fire: it came on as broad in front as a vinegar cask, and the tail of fire that trailed behind it was as big as a great spear; and it made such a noise as it came, that it sounded like the thunder of heaven. It looked like a dragon flying through the air. Such a bright light did it cast, that one could see all over the camp as though it were day, by reason of the great mass of fire, and the brilliance of the light that it shed.”
“Thrice that night they hurled the Greek fire at us, and four times shot it from the tourniquet cross-bow.”
Beyond the physical dangers of Greek Fire, this excerpt gives us an idea of its potency as a psychological weapon. The horrors of watching your comrades burn to death must have been a shattering blow to many a soldier. Many men were known to simply flee their posts rather than face the flames.
Greek Fire was the secret weapon of the Eastern Roman Emperors. It is said to have been invented by a Syrian Engineer, one Callinicus, a refugee from Maalbek, in the seventh century (673 AD). The "liquid fire" was hurled on to the ships of their enemies from siphons and burst into flames on contact. As it was reputed to be inextinguishable and burned even on water, it caused panic and dread. Its introducation into warfare of its time was comparable in its demoralizing influence to the introducation of nuclear weapons in our time. Both Arab and Greek sources agree that it surpassed all incendiary weapons in destruction. The secret behind the Greek fire was handed down from one emperor to the next for centuries.
Rumors about its composition include such chemicals as liquid petroleum, naphtha, burning pitch, sulphur, resin, quicklimeand bitumen, along with some other "secret ingredient". The exact composition, however, remains unknown.
For a thorough investigation of the weapon one can refer to Professor J.R. Partington's book, "A history of the Greek Fire and Gunpowder", Heffer, 1960. This volume quotes the ancient authorities extensively, with an excellent commentary. It also examines ancient and modern theories on the composition of the chemicals used in the Greek Fire. This is considered the most up to date source on the subject.
The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, a thirteenth century French nobleman, include these observations of Greek Fire during the seventh Crusade:
“It happened one night, whilst we were keeping night-watch over the tortoise-towers, that they brought up against us an engine called a perronel, (which they had not done before) and filled the sling of the engine with Greek fire. When that good knight, Lord Walter of Cureil, who was with me, saw this, he spoke to us as follows: "Sirs, we are in the greatest peril that we have ever yet been in. For, if they set fire to our turrets and shelters, we are lost and burnt; and if, again, we desert our defences which have been entrusted to us, we are disgraced; so none can deliver us from this peril save God alone. My opinion and advice therefor is: that every time they hurl the fire at us, we go down on our elbows and knees, and beseech Our Lord to save us from this danger."
“So soon as they flung the first shot, we went down on our elbows and knees, as he had instructed us; and their first shot passed between the two turrets, and lodged just in front of us, where they had been raising the dam. Our firemen were all ready to put out the fire; and the Saracens, not being able to aim straight at them, on account of the two pent-house wings which the King had made, shot straight up into the clouds, so that the fire-darts fell right on top of them.”
“This was the fashion of the Greek fire: it came on as broad in front as a vinegar cask, and the tail of fire that trailed behind it was as big as a great spear; and it made such a noise as it came, that it sounded like the thunder of heaven. It looked like a dragon flying through the air. Such a bright light did it cast, that one could see all over the camp as though it were day, by reason of the great mass of fire, and the brilliance of the light that it shed.”
“Thrice that night they hurled the Greek fire at us, and four times shot it from the tourniquet cross-bow.”
Beyond the physical dangers of Greek Fire, this excerpt gives us an idea of its potency as a psychological weapon. The horrors of watching your comrades burn to death must have been a shattering blow to many a soldier. Many men were known to simply flee their posts rather than face the flames.
Cheers! Turkish Raki
ESKILER ALIYORUM
ALIP YILDIZ YAPIYORUM
MUSIKI RUHUN GIDASIDIR
MUSIKIYE BAYILIYORUM
SIIR YAZIYORUM
SIIR YAZIP ESKILER ALIYORUM
ESKILER VERIP MUSIKILER ALIYORUM
BIR DE RAKI SISESNDE BALIK OLSAM.
ORHAN VELI KANIK
Mavi Boncuk |
Cheers
When one thinks of Turkey or Turks, one is reminded of Raki. Although it is not known where or when this drink was invented, it is certain that the history of raki does not go as far back as wine or beer. There are many proverbs on raki which is the traditional Turkish drink. Raki is made from different fruits in different regions, but grapes, figs and plums are the main ones.
In the near and middle east countries the drink is known by different names such as Araka, Araki, Ariki which obviously come from the same origin. Some claim that it is called Iraqi (from Iraq) because it was first made in this country and spread to other regions. Others say it got its name from the razaki grapes used in producing it. Both theories are acceptable. Another theory is that arak in Arabic means "sweat" and araki " that which makes one sweat." If one drinks too much raki one does sweat and when raki is being distilled it falls drop by drop like sweat, so the name could have come from Arabic. In neighboring countries different kinds of raki have different names. In Greece gum is added to it and the drink is called "Mastika". Duziko which comes from the slavic word "Duz" means raki with aniseed. In Turkey, raki made from grape residue used to be called Düz Raki or Hay Raki. Zahle raki has taken this name because it is made in the city of Zahle in Lebanon. Raki is not a fermentation drink like wine and beer but a distillation drink, so more technical knowledge and equipment are necessary for its production. Encyclopedias write that in "Eastern India a drink produced by distilling fermented sugar cane juice is called "arak" and the same name is given Ceylon and Maleysia to an alcoholic drink made by the distillation of the juice of the palm tree. It is also noted that in Iran the drink made in the same way from grapes and dates is also called arak.
The drink made in Anatolia and known as Turkish raki has a history going back 300 years. The art of distillation which started in the Arab world and spread to the neighboring countries was implemented when people thought of making use of the sugar in the residue of wine processing. With the addition of aniseed, raki took on its Turkish characteristic. The famous Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi listed the artisans of Istanbul in the first volume of his book on his voyages which he wrote in 1630. Among the artisans he also mentioned the arakmakers. While writing that arak was made from all kinds of plants, he also mentioned the word raki and said that drinking even one drop of this intoxicating drink was sinful. It is known that at that time in Istanbul 300 people in 100 workshop were occupied in the production and sale of this drink. Evliya Çelebi spoke of tavern-keepers as "accursed, ill omened, blame worthy" and said there were taverns all over Istanbul but especially in Samatya, Kumkapi, Balikpazari, Unkapani, Fener, Balat and the two shores of the Bosphorous and added "Galata means Taverns". Evliya Çelebi recorded the small wine shops and the kinds of wine they sold and also mentioned the taverns that sold raki, all kinds of raki, like raki wine, banana raki, mustard raki, linden raki, cinnomon raki, clove raki, pomegranate raki, hay raki aniseed raki.
Club Raki
Club Raki is a Turkish specialty made with raisin neutral spirits and with anis oil added. Distilled and bottled in Istanbul, Turkey, this fine spirit is excellent when served chilled with any meal and goes with every occasion.
Yeni Raki
Yeni Raki is an aniseed flavored spirit drink obtained by distilling Suma (raisin distillate) in traditional copper distilling stills. Suma used in the production of raki is a grape-origin distillate, distilled up to maximum 94.5 % alcohol by volume in order to protect the taste and smell of the grape. Yeni Raki can be taken straight or spring water half and half; but it is always drunk cold (must be served chilled 8-10°C). A smooth and cylindrical glass used in drinking raki is ideal for enjoying magical whitening in the mixture of raki and water. Yeni Raki, can be taken as an aperitif, but it is recommended to drink raki, in line with Turkish drinking tradition, together with original cold and hot dishes and to fill cooled glass with raki by 1/3 and water by 2/3. While sipping this tasteful product, you will find in grape and anise flavor the traces of Anatolian Culture
ALIP YILDIZ YAPIYORUM
MUSIKI RUHUN GIDASIDIR
MUSIKIYE BAYILIYORUM
SIIR YAZIYORUM
SIIR YAZIP ESKILER ALIYORUM
ESKILER VERIP MUSIKILER ALIYORUM
BIR DE RAKI SISESNDE BALIK OLSAM.
ORHAN VELI KANIK
Mavi Boncuk |
Cheers
When one thinks of Turkey or Turks, one is reminded of Raki. Although it is not known where or when this drink was invented, it is certain that the history of raki does not go as far back as wine or beer. There are many proverbs on raki which is the traditional Turkish drink. Raki is made from different fruits in different regions, but grapes, figs and plums are the main ones.
In the near and middle east countries the drink is known by different names such as Araka, Araki, Ariki which obviously come from the same origin. Some claim that it is called Iraqi (from Iraq) because it was first made in this country and spread to other regions. Others say it got its name from the razaki grapes used in producing it. Both theories are acceptable. Another theory is that arak in Arabic means "sweat" and araki " that which makes one sweat." If one drinks too much raki one does sweat and when raki is being distilled it falls drop by drop like sweat, so the name could have come from Arabic. In neighboring countries different kinds of raki have different names. In Greece gum is added to it and the drink is called "Mastika". Duziko which comes from the slavic word "Duz" means raki with aniseed. In Turkey, raki made from grape residue used to be called Düz Raki or Hay Raki. Zahle raki has taken this name because it is made in the city of Zahle in Lebanon. Raki is not a fermentation drink like wine and beer but a distillation drink, so more technical knowledge and equipment are necessary for its production. Encyclopedias write that in "Eastern India a drink produced by distilling fermented sugar cane juice is called "arak" and the same name is given Ceylon and Maleysia to an alcoholic drink made by the distillation of the juice of the palm tree. It is also noted that in Iran the drink made in the same way from grapes and dates is also called arak.
The drink made in Anatolia and known as Turkish raki has a history going back 300 years. The art of distillation which started in the Arab world and spread to the neighboring countries was implemented when people thought of making use of the sugar in the residue of wine processing. With the addition of aniseed, raki took on its Turkish characteristic. The famous Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi listed the artisans of Istanbul in the first volume of his book on his voyages which he wrote in 1630. Among the artisans he also mentioned the arakmakers. While writing that arak was made from all kinds of plants, he also mentioned the word raki and said that drinking even one drop of this intoxicating drink was sinful. It is known that at that time in Istanbul 300 people in 100 workshop were occupied in the production and sale of this drink. Evliya Çelebi spoke of tavern-keepers as "accursed, ill omened, blame worthy" and said there were taverns all over Istanbul but especially in Samatya, Kumkapi, Balikpazari, Unkapani, Fener, Balat and the two shores of the Bosphorous and added "Galata means Taverns". Evliya Çelebi recorded the small wine shops and the kinds of wine they sold and also mentioned the taverns that sold raki, all kinds of raki, like raki wine, banana raki, mustard raki, linden raki, cinnomon raki, clove raki, pomegranate raki, hay raki aniseed raki.
Club Raki
Club Raki is a Turkish specialty made with raisin neutral spirits and with anis oil added. Distilled and bottled in Istanbul, Turkey, this fine spirit is excellent when served chilled with any meal and goes with every occasion.
Yeni Raki
Yeni Raki is an aniseed flavored spirit drink obtained by distilling Suma (raisin distillate) in traditional copper distilling stills. Suma used in the production of raki is a grape-origin distillate, distilled up to maximum 94.5 % alcohol by volume in order to protect the taste and smell of the grape. Yeni Raki can be taken straight or spring water half and half; but it is always drunk cold (must be served chilled 8-10°C). A smooth and cylindrical glass used in drinking raki is ideal for enjoying magical whitening in the mixture of raki and water. Yeni Raki, can be taken as an aperitif, but it is recommended to drink raki, in line with Turkish drinking tradition, together with original cold and hot dishes and to fill cooled glass with raki by 1/3 and water by 2/3. While sipping this tasteful product, you will find in grape and anise flavor the traces of Anatolian Culture
June 28, 2004
Music Portrait | Hammâmîzâde İsmail Dede Efendi 1778-1845
Mavi Boncuk |
Hammâmîzâde İsmail Dede Efendi
Hammâmîzâde İsmail Dede Efendi was born in Istanbul in 1778.At the age of eight, he started studies with Mehmed Emin Efendi.He attended rituals at Yenikapİ Mevlevi Lodge.While here, he learned to play ney, which was soon overshadowed by his accomplishments as a composer and singer. In 1797,he became a Mevlevi and soon after was heard by Sultan Selim III, who called him to perform at fasıls at the Palace.With his sheihk Ali Nutki Dede 's permission, he became a Dede in 1779.Dede Efendi 's music was well appreciated by Sultan Selim III and he often performed his works at the palace, and became a teacher at Enderûn (the palace school).
But soon Dede Efendi experienced many tragedies, starting with the loss of his spiritual leader Ali Nutki Dede. In 1807,Sultan Selim III was overthrown and killed; Sultan Mustafa IV succeeded him. The new palace introduced Western music and instruments, placing less emphasis on traditional Turkish music. However, during this period away from the palace, Dede Efendi composed prolifically, including many of his masterpieces. This visionary composer did return to the palace, but the climate was less amenable to his music, and in 1845 Dede Efendi left to Mecca for pilgrimage. While there, he died from cholera.
Dede Efendi is considered to be the most significant composer of Turkish music in the 19th century. He carried on his forefathers 'work, remaining true to the traditional art, while composing many new pieces with previously unknown ornamentations. His mastery was not constrained to a single form; religious works included ayins (rituals), ilahis and duraks; secular works included kâr, murabba, nakış, semâi and, of course, şarkıs (songs).
Prior to Dede Efendi, lyrics of most compositions belonged to Divan poetry (Ottoman classical school of poetry). Dede Efendi also used his own poetry, as well as folk songs, as lyrics for his pieces. As a modal innovator, he created the Sultanî-Yegâh, Neveser, Saba-Bûselik, Hicaz-Bûselik, and Araban-Kürdî makams. While expanding Turkish traditional music with his secular and religious works, Dede Efendi also wrote pieces with the influence of Western music that he heard in the Palace.
Hammâmîzâde İsmail Dede Efendi
Hammâmîzâde İsmail Dede Efendi was born in Istanbul in 1778.At the age of eight, he started studies with Mehmed Emin Efendi.He attended rituals at Yenikapİ Mevlevi Lodge.While here, he learned to play ney, which was soon overshadowed by his accomplishments as a composer and singer. In 1797,he became a Mevlevi and soon after was heard by Sultan Selim III, who called him to perform at fasıls at the Palace.With his sheihk Ali Nutki Dede 's permission, he became a Dede in 1779.Dede Efendi 's music was well appreciated by Sultan Selim III and he often performed his works at the palace, and became a teacher at Enderûn (the palace school).
But soon Dede Efendi experienced many tragedies, starting with the loss of his spiritual leader Ali Nutki Dede. In 1807,Sultan Selim III was overthrown and killed; Sultan Mustafa IV succeeded him. The new palace introduced Western music and instruments, placing less emphasis on traditional Turkish music. However, during this period away from the palace, Dede Efendi composed prolifically, including many of his masterpieces. This visionary composer did return to the palace, but the climate was less amenable to his music, and in 1845 Dede Efendi left to Mecca for pilgrimage. While there, he died from cholera.
Dede Efendi is considered to be the most significant composer of Turkish music in the 19th century. He carried on his forefathers 'work, remaining true to the traditional art, while composing many new pieces with previously unknown ornamentations. His mastery was not constrained to a single form; religious works included ayins (rituals), ilahis and duraks; secular works included kâr, murabba, nakış, semâi and, of course, şarkıs (songs).
Prior to Dede Efendi, lyrics of most compositions belonged to Divan poetry (Ottoman classical school of poetry). Dede Efendi also used his own poetry, as well as folk songs, as lyrics for his pieces. As a modal innovator, he created the Sultanî-Yegâh, Neveser, Saba-Bûselik, Hicaz-Bûselik, and Araban-Kürdî makams. While expanding Turkish traditional music with his secular and religious works, Dede Efendi also wrote pieces with the influence of Western music that he heard in the Palace.
Music Portrait | Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu 1874-1926
Mavi Boncuk |
Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu
Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu was born in Istanbul on September 21,1874 at the Beşiktaş Palace.He was a şehzade (son of a sultan) and youngest among five sons of Sultan Aziz and Valide Sultan Gevherin. Like many members of the Ottoman Empire's ruling family, he showed talents in arts and started his studies in painting and music at a very early age. He learned to play the tanbur and kemençe, and was also an accomplished hanende (singer).
During the last days of the Ottoman Empire, Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu became a supporter of arts. His residence was a place of meeting for musicians. In time, he improved his own musicianship and started to participate in sessions with his instruments and voice. At the end of Ottoman Empire, he moved to Nice, France and died there on October 19,1926. He is buried in Syria, next to Sultan Vahdettin.
Among his known works are six peşrevs, seven saz semais, eight ilahis, one kâr, eight beste, one ağır semai, two şarkıs and two tavşanca (dance) pieces.
Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu
Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu was born in Istanbul on September 21,1874 at the Beşiktaş Palace.He was a şehzade (son of a sultan) and youngest among five sons of Sultan Aziz and Valide Sultan Gevherin. Like many members of the Ottoman Empire's ruling family, he showed talents in arts and started his studies in painting and music at a very early age. He learned to play the tanbur and kemençe, and was also an accomplished hanende (singer).
During the last days of the Ottoman Empire, Seyfeddin Osmanoğlu became a supporter of arts. His residence was a place of meeting for musicians. In time, he improved his own musicianship and started to participate in sessions with his instruments and voice. At the end of Ottoman Empire, he moved to Nice, France and died there on October 19,1926. He is buried in Syria, next to Sultan Vahdettin.
Among his known works are six peşrevs, seven saz semais, eight ilahis, one kâr, eight beste, one ağır semai, two şarkıs and two tavşanca (dance) pieces.
A Short Glossary of Ottoman Classical Music
Mavi Boncuk |
Glossary
Taksim: instrumental improvisation.
Peşrev (Peshrev): An instrumental compositional form with two to four verses (called hane) and a recurring section (called the teslim). Peşrevs are composed in long rhythmic cycles, including 16/4,20/4,28/4,and 32/4. Peşrev literally means “prelude,”and they normally occur at the beginning of a set of classical music.
Saz Semaisi: An instrumental compositional form with four verses (called hane and a recurring section (called the teslim .Saz semaisi are generally in the 10/8 rhythm, and are generally played at the end of a fasıl.
Fasıl: a suite of Turkish classical pieces, all written in the same makam. A fasıl normally begins with the peşrev and ends with the saz semaisi.
Şarkı (sharkı): song; most common secular vocal form
Ilahi: religious hymn (Mevlevi sufi order)
Nefes: religious hymn (Bektaşi sufi order)
Beste: a vocal compositional form with four verses.
Makam: the modal system of the Middle East. Makams consist of scales, as well as rules as to the unfolding of the pitches in the scales.
Tanbur: long-necked lute, unique to Turkish classical music.
Ney: end-blown reed flute with seven holes.
Kemençe: bowed fiddle with three gut strings.
Rebab: bowed fiddle with three strings.
Glossary
Taksim: instrumental improvisation.
Peşrev (Peshrev): An instrumental compositional form with two to four verses (called hane) and a recurring section (called the teslim). Peşrevs are composed in long rhythmic cycles, including 16/4,20/4,28/4,and 32/4. Peşrev literally means “prelude,”and they normally occur at the beginning of a set of classical music.
Saz Semaisi: An instrumental compositional form with four verses (called hane and a recurring section (called the teslim .Saz semaisi are generally in the 10/8 rhythm, and are generally played at the end of a fasıl.
Fasıl: a suite of Turkish classical pieces, all written in the same makam. A fasıl normally begins with the peşrev and ends with the saz semaisi.
Şarkı (sharkı): song; most common secular vocal form
Ilahi: religious hymn (Mevlevi sufi order)
Nefes: religious hymn (Bektaşi sufi order)
Beste: a vocal compositional form with four verses.
Makam: the modal system of the Middle East. Makams consist of scales, as well as rules as to the unfolding of the pitches in the scales.
Tanbur: long-necked lute, unique to Turkish classical music.
Ney: end-blown reed flute with seven holes.
Kemençe: bowed fiddle with three gut strings.
Rebab: bowed fiddle with three strings.
THE DAWN OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Mavi Boncuk |
THE DAWN OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Osman Gazi began his first military and political actions on the Byzantine lands. When he became the leader of Kayi Clan in 1281, firstly, he unified the Turkmen clans.
The first war in the Ottoman history was the Armenian-Beli War, in Hamzabey Village 10 km far from Inegol, Bursa (1284). In this battle the nephew of Osman Gazi, Baykoca had died. The first conquest in the Ottoman history, was the Castle of Kulaca in 1285.
The Seljuk Sultan Alaeddin Keykubat III gave Eskisehir city and Inonu region to Osman Gazi. Osman Gazi battled against the Prince of Inegol in 1291 and invaded Karacahisar. He marched through Sakarya. His uncle Dundar Bey was executed because of his connection with the Byzantine Empire.
While Osman Gazi’s political and social progress was continuing, the Ilhans exiled Alauddin Keykubat. The end of the Seljuk Sultanate 1299 is considered as the first year of the Ottoman Sovereign. In the same year the capital was transfered to Bilecik (in some sources 27th July 1301 is accepted as the first year of the Ottomans. In this year the Ottoman Forces defeated the Byzantine army in the War of Befeus and won their independence).
The Castle of Yenisehir was captured in 1300 and the capital moved from Bilecik to Yenisehir the year after.
Osman Gazi divided the lands between his sons, his brother and his arm men, adaquate to the Turkish tradition. He gave Eskisehir to his brother Gunduz, Karacahisar to his son Orhan Gazi, Yarhisar to Hasan Alp, Inegol to Turgut Alp . These were all the Ottoman frontiers. Osman Gazi divided all these strategical areas between his best commanders as he was planing to extand his territories. Commanders as Abdurrahman Gazi, Akcakoca, Samsa Cavus, Konuralp, Aykutalp are the important names in the policy of extension.
Ottomans defeated the Byzantine Army in Koyunhisar in 1302. In 1303, Iznik was invaded and Marmaracik Castle was conquered. The Ottomans were advancing in Anatolia. In the end of Dinboz War in 1306, Kestel, Kete and Ulubat castles were captured and the first military treaty in the Ottoman history was signed. In 1308, Karahisar was conquered and one of important commerce and social centres of the region, Iznik was besieged.
Osman Gazi was a political genius and he began to pressure on the Byzantine Empire by dominating the trade roads. Many Byzantine people even some princes converted to Islam in this period. Kose Mihal the prince of Harmankaya was one of them, he joined the Ottoman Army with his men and castle. He invaded Lefke, Meceke and Akhisar.
In 1315, Bursa was besieged. In 1317, Osman invaded Karatekin, Ebesuyu, Tuzpazarı, Kapucuk and Keresteci castles. In the same year he took Akcakoca and Kocaeli regions.
After 1320, because of age and illness Osman Gazi gave attorney to his son Orhan Gazi. The Ottoman Army under the command of Orhan Gazi invaded Mudanya and Gemlik (1321), Akyazi and Ayankoy (1323), Karamursel and Karacabey (1324), and Orhaneli (1325). Osman Gazi inherited 4800 km2 land and he left 16000 km2 land to his son.
Osman Gazi was establishing new institutions for the Islamisation of the all Ottoman regions. He was a law maker and his laws were mostly based on the Seljuk laws. The first tax was collected in his time. A special kind of tax called “Bac” was impose on the whole sale goods sold in the bazaars. Bac has not been collected from the goods such as a few chickens or a few kilos of oil , sold by the peasants. The Timar system which was in common use by the Selcuks was carried on in Osman Gazi’s time as well. The Sipahis (cavalrymen) were collecting the Timar from the villages they were responsible of and they bought horses, weapons, armours and the other necessary goods for the wars.
THE DAWN OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Osman Gazi began his first military and political actions on the Byzantine lands. When he became the leader of Kayi Clan in 1281, firstly, he unified the Turkmen clans.
The first war in the Ottoman history was the Armenian-Beli War, in Hamzabey Village 10 km far from Inegol, Bursa (1284). In this battle the nephew of Osman Gazi, Baykoca had died. The first conquest in the Ottoman history, was the Castle of Kulaca in 1285.
The Seljuk Sultan Alaeddin Keykubat III gave Eskisehir city and Inonu region to Osman Gazi. Osman Gazi battled against the Prince of Inegol in 1291 and invaded Karacahisar. He marched through Sakarya. His uncle Dundar Bey was executed because of his connection with the Byzantine Empire.
While Osman Gazi’s political and social progress was continuing, the Ilhans exiled Alauddin Keykubat. The end of the Seljuk Sultanate 1299 is considered as the first year of the Ottoman Sovereign. In the same year the capital was transfered to Bilecik (in some sources 27th July 1301 is accepted as the first year of the Ottomans. In this year the Ottoman Forces defeated the Byzantine army in the War of Befeus and won their independence).
The Castle of Yenisehir was captured in 1300 and the capital moved from Bilecik to Yenisehir the year after.
Osman Gazi divided the lands between his sons, his brother and his arm men, adaquate to the Turkish tradition. He gave Eskisehir to his brother Gunduz, Karacahisar to his son Orhan Gazi, Yarhisar to Hasan Alp, Inegol to Turgut Alp . These were all the Ottoman frontiers. Osman Gazi divided all these strategical areas between his best commanders as he was planing to extand his territories. Commanders as Abdurrahman Gazi, Akcakoca, Samsa Cavus, Konuralp, Aykutalp are the important names in the policy of extension.
Ottomans defeated the Byzantine Army in Koyunhisar in 1302. In 1303, Iznik was invaded and Marmaracik Castle was conquered. The Ottomans were advancing in Anatolia. In the end of Dinboz War in 1306, Kestel, Kete and Ulubat castles were captured and the first military treaty in the Ottoman history was signed. In 1308, Karahisar was conquered and one of important commerce and social centres of the region, Iznik was besieged.
Osman Gazi was a political genius and he began to pressure on the Byzantine Empire by dominating the trade roads. Many Byzantine people even some princes converted to Islam in this period. Kose Mihal the prince of Harmankaya was one of them, he joined the Ottoman Army with his men and castle. He invaded Lefke, Meceke and Akhisar.
In 1315, Bursa was besieged. In 1317, Osman invaded Karatekin, Ebesuyu, Tuzpazarı, Kapucuk and Keresteci castles. In the same year he took Akcakoca and Kocaeli regions.
After 1320, because of age and illness Osman Gazi gave attorney to his son Orhan Gazi. The Ottoman Army under the command of Orhan Gazi invaded Mudanya and Gemlik (1321), Akyazi and Ayankoy (1323), Karamursel and Karacabey (1324), and Orhaneli (1325). Osman Gazi inherited 4800 km2 land and he left 16000 km2 land to his son.
Osman Gazi was establishing new institutions for the Islamisation of the all Ottoman regions. He was a law maker and his laws were mostly based on the Seljuk laws. The first tax was collected in his time. A special kind of tax called “Bac” was impose on the whole sale goods sold in the bazaars. Bac has not been collected from the goods such as a few chickens or a few kilos of oil , sold by the peasants. The Timar system which was in common use by the Selcuks was carried on in Osman Gazi’s time as well. The Sipahis (cavalrymen) were collecting the Timar from the villages they were responsible of and they bought horses, weapons, armours and the other necessary goods for the wars.
Testament of Osman Gazi
Mavi Boncuk |
Testament of Osman Gazi Addressed to His Son Orhan Gazi "Ghazi"
“ Son! Be careful about the religious issues before all other duties. The religious precepts build a strong the state. Do not give the religious duties to careless, faithless and sinful men or to dissipated, indifferent or inexperienced people. And also do not leave the state administrations such people. Because the one without fear of God the Creator, does not afraid of the created. The one committing a great sin and continuing to sin can not be loyal. If that one would had loyal person is loyal he fits to the prophet’s true notification and so does not go out from Ser-i Serif ( sheriat ). Avoid from the cruelty and superstition. Remove the persons who encourage the cruelty and superstition from your state. Underlying reason is that such persons make decline to you. Always widen the state by jihad. Because if the campaign is not held for a long time a deficiency and clumsiness appear on the braveness of soldier, on the knowledge, information and measure of commanders. Such persons who know better about the campaign die and inexperienced persons come instead of them. So many mistakes emerge and the state damage much from this. Save the Beytul Mal ( treasury ). Try to make much the state stock. With the border of Ser-i Serif be contented with you have and do not destroy in an unuseful way but your needs and necessities and do not squander. Do not be proud with your soldiers and goods. Because they are the intermediaries in the way of God for being carried the public services as a whole and for widening justice and virtue to the world. Protect the statesmen working for God’s sake. After their death care about their families and answer their needs. Do not seize your public goods by violence. Give your kind hand to the deserved people and save such persons’ relations from the troubles. Protect better military officials. Scholars, virtue men, artists, literary men are the power of the state structure. Treat with kindness and show honour to these men. Make close relationship when you hear about a virtuous man and give wealth and grant him. In your state the number of learned men, virtuous men and knowledged men becomes high. Put order the political and religious duties. Take lesson from me so I came to these places as a weak leader and I reached to the help of God ( inayet-i celile-i Rabbani ) although I did not deserve. You follow my way and protect Din-i Muhammedi and the believers and also your followers. Respect the right of God and his servants. Do not hesitate to advise your successors in this way. Depend on God’s help in the esteem of justice and fairness, to remove the cruelty, attempts in every duty. Protect your public from enemy’s invasion and from the cruelty. Do not behave any person in an unsuitable way with unfairness. Gratify the public and save all of their sake."
Testament of Osman Gazi Addressed to His Son Orhan Gazi "Ghazi"
“ Son! Be careful about the religious issues before all other duties. The religious precepts build a strong the state. Do not give the religious duties to careless, faithless and sinful men or to dissipated, indifferent or inexperienced people. And also do not leave the state administrations such people. Because the one without fear of God the Creator, does not afraid of the created. The one committing a great sin and continuing to sin can not be loyal. If that one would had loyal person is loyal he fits to the prophet’s true notification and so does not go out from Ser-i Serif ( sheriat ). Avoid from the cruelty and superstition. Remove the persons who encourage the cruelty and superstition from your state. Underlying reason is that such persons make decline to you. Always widen the state by jihad. Because if the campaign is not held for a long time a deficiency and clumsiness appear on the braveness of soldier, on the knowledge, information and measure of commanders. Such persons who know better about the campaign die and inexperienced persons come instead of them. So many mistakes emerge and the state damage much from this. Save the Beytul Mal ( treasury ). Try to make much the state stock. With the border of Ser-i Serif be contented with you have and do not destroy in an unuseful way but your needs and necessities and do not squander. Do not be proud with your soldiers and goods. Because they are the intermediaries in the way of God for being carried the public services as a whole and for widening justice and virtue to the world. Protect the statesmen working for God’s sake. After their death care about their families and answer their needs. Do not seize your public goods by violence. Give your kind hand to the deserved people and save such persons’ relations from the troubles. Protect better military officials. Scholars, virtue men, artists, literary men are the power of the state structure. Treat with kindness and show honour to these men. Make close relationship when you hear about a virtuous man and give wealth and grant him. In your state the number of learned men, virtuous men and knowledged men becomes high. Put order the political and religious duties. Take lesson from me so I came to these places as a weak leader and I reached to the help of God ( inayet-i celile-i Rabbani ) although I did not deserve. You follow my way and protect Din-i Muhammedi and the believers and also your followers. Respect the right of God and his servants. Do not hesitate to advise your successors in this way. Depend on God’s help in the esteem of justice and fairness, to remove the cruelty, attempts in every duty. Protect your public from enemy’s invasion and from the cruelty. Do not behave any person in an unsuitable way with unfairness. Gratify the public and save all of their sake."
OSMAN GAZI (OTHMAN GHAZI)
Mavi Boncuk |
OSMAN GAZI (OTHMAN GHAZI)
1281 - 1326
Father : Ertugrul Gazi
Mother : Hayme Hatun
Date of Birth : Sogut, 1258
Date of Death : Bursa, 1326
Reign : 1281 - 1326
Territories : 16.000 km2
BIOGRAPHY
The father of the Ottoman Empire Osman Gazi was born in 1258 in the town of Sogut. His father was Ertugrul Gazi and his mother was Hayme Sultan. Osman Gazi was a tall man with a round face, dark complexion, hazel eyes, and thick eyebrows. His shoulders were fairly large and the upper part of his body was longer than the other parts. He used to wear a Horasan crown in the style of Cagatay, which was made of red broad cloth.
Osman Gazi was a brilliant leader. He was fair, brave and gracious. He helped the poor. Sometimes he gave his own cloths to the poor. Every mid-day, he gave a lavish meal to all people in his house.
Osman Gazi was just 23 when he succeeded the leadership of the Kayi Clan in Sogut, in 1281. He was a very brilliant rider and a fencer. He married to Mal Sultana who was the daughter of famous Omer bey. Mal Sultan gave birth to Orhan who succeeded the throne.
Osman Gazi appreciated the opinions of Edebali (the famous Ahi Sheik) and he respected him. He often went to Edebali’s house where a dervish group meets in Eskisehir Sultanonu and been his guest.
One night, when he was a guest in Sheik Edebali’s dergah, he had a dream. As the sun shined, he went to Edebali and told him: “My Sheik, I saw you in my dream. A moon appeared in your breast. It rose, rose and then descended into my breast. From my novel there sprang a tree. It grew up and turned green. It branched out and got complicated. The shadow of its branches covered the whole world. What does my dream mean ?”
After a little silence, Seyh told him :
“ I have got good news Osman! God gave you sovereignty and to your son. All the world will be under the protection of your son and my daughter will be the wife to you.”
After this unusual event, the Sheik gave his daughter Bala Sultana to Osman and Alaeddin was born from this marriage.
The founder of Ottoman empire- risen from Anatolia and reigned for 600 years, over three continents- Osman Gazi, died of gout, in Bursa in 1326. When he died, he left an horse armor, a pair of high boots, a few sun jacks, a sword, a lance, a tirkes, a few horses, three herds of sheep, salt and spoon containers.
His sons : Pazarli, Coban, Hamit, Orhan, Ala-ed-din, Ali, Melik, Savci
His daughters : Fatma Sultan.
OSMAN GAZI (OTHMAN GHAZI)
1281 - 1326
Father : Ertugrul Gazi
Mother : Hayme Hatun
Date of Birth : Sogut, 1258
Date of Death : Bursa, 1326
Reign : 1281 - 1326
Territories : 16.000 km2
BIOGRAPHY
The father of the Ottoman Empire Osman Gazi was born in 1258 in the town of Sogut. His father was Ertugrul Gazi and his mother was Hayme Sultan. Osman Gazi was a tall man with a round face, dark complexion, hazel eyes, and thick eyebrows. His shoulders were fairly large and the upper part of his body was longer than the other parts. He used to wear a Horasan crown in the style of Cagatay, which was made of red broad cloth.
Osman Gazi was a brilliant leader. He was fair, brave and gracious. He helped the poor. Sometimes he gave his own cloths to the poor. Every mid-day, he gave a lavish meal to all people in his house.
Osman Gazi was just 23 when he succeeded the leadership of the Kayi Clan in Sogut, in 1281. He was a very brilliant rider and a fencer. He married to Mal Sultana who was the daughter of famous Omer bey. Mal Sultan gave birth to Orhan who succeeded the throne.
Osman Gazi appreciated the opinions of Edebali (the famous Ahi Sheik) and he respected him. He often went to Edebali’s house where a dervish group meets in Eskisehir Sultanonu and been his guest.
One night, when he was a guest in Sheik Edebali’s dergah, he had a dream. As the sun shined, he went to Edebali and told him: “My Sheik, I saw you in my dream. A moon appeared in your breast. It rose, rose and then descended into my breast. From my novel there sprang a tree. It grew up and turned green. It branched out and got complicated. The shadow of its branches covered the whole world. What does my dream mean ?”
After a little silence, Seyh told him :
“ I have got good news Osman! God gave you sovereignty and to your son. All the world will be under the protection of your son and my daughter will be the wife to you.”
After this unusual event, the Sheik gave his daughter Bala Sultana to Osman and Alaeddin was born from this marriage.
The founder of Ottoman empire- risen from Anatolia and reigned for 600 years, over three continents- Osman Gazi, died of gout, in Bursa in 1326. When he died, he left an horse armor, a pair of high boots, a few sun jacks, a sword, a lance, a tirkes, a few horses, three herds of sheep, salt and spoon containers.
His sons : Pazarli, Coban, Hamit, Orhan, Ala-ed-din, Ali, Melik, Savci
His daughters : Fatma Sultan.
Profile | Dr. Robert Anhegger 1911- 2001
Biographical/historical note : German Turkologist; educated in Switzerland; member of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD); travelled widely in Turkey together with the Austrian Turkologist and fellow party member Andreas Tietze; settled in Turkey in 1939; after the Second World War director of the German cultural institute, later Goethe Institute (1961-68), in Istanbul and lastly of the Goethe Institute in Amsterdam. Mavi Boncuk |
ANHEGGER, Robert Friedrich Moritz b. Vienna 1911- d. Amsterdam 27 March, 2001
Anhegger was born in Vienna in 1911, the son of a German trader. After World War I (much of which he spent in Switzerland), Anhegger moved with his parents to Rotterdam. In 1923 the family moved to Zürich. In Zürich, Anhegger started to read Law, History and Literature at the university, before moving to Vienna in 1932. There he continued his studies, this time reading Economic History, Slavonic studies and Islamic studies. He also started to learn Turkish. It was during his studies in Vienna that he befriended Andreas Tietze. They not only shared scholarly interests, but also a passion for left-wing politics. Anhegger made his first trip to Turkey in 1935. In 1939 he received his Ph.D. degree at the University of Zürich and in 1940 he moved (and as it turned out emigrated) to Istanbul. He had several motives for doing so: quite apart from his scholarly interest in Turkey, his background in the Communist movement and the fact that he shared his life with a Jewish woman, made him feel unsafe so close to Germany. In Istanbul he worked at the German Archeological Institute until he was dismissed in 1942 for refusing to join up when called to serve in the German army. After his dismissal he worked as a teacher of German language and literature in a number of places, notably Istanbul University. As a German with intimate knowledge of Turkey, who was untainted by any Nazi connections, Anhegger from the early fifties onwards became the lynchpin of German cultural activities in Istanbul, culminating in his directorship of the Goethe Institute after 1961. In 1958 Anhegger married the Turkish architect Muallâ Eyüboğlu, the sister of the painter Bedri Rahmi. His connections with modern Turkish painters led him to found the first private art gallery in Istanbul in 1957. Robert and Muallâ Anhegger now live partly in Istanbul, partly in Amsterdam.
*Anadolu Hisarı, EI2 (İng.), I/481.
*Beiträge zur Frühosmanischen Baugeschichte II: Moscheen vom Bauschema der Üçşerefeli Cami in Edirne, Zeki Velidi Togan'a Armağan, İstanbul, 1955, s.315-325.
*Beiträge zur frühosmanischen Baugeschichte, III- Zum Problem der alten Fatih-Moschee in Istanbul, Zeki Velidi Togan Armağanı, İstanbul, 19534-1955, s.301-330.
*Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bergbaus im Osmanischen Reich, İstanbul, 1943-1945.
*Beiträge zur Osmanischen Baugeschichte, Istambuler Mitteilungen, XVII, İstanbul, 1967, s.314-317.
*Die Römerbrücke von Mostar. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Organistaion des Bauwesens im Osmanischen Reich, Oriens, VII/1 (1954), s.87-107.
*Eski Fatih Camii Meselesi, TD, VI/9 (1954), s.145-160.
*Hezârfen Hüseyin Efendi’nin Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatına Dair Mülahazaları, TM, X (1953), s.365 vd.
*İznik, İA, V/2, s.1256-1258.
*İznik, İA, V/2, s.1259-1264.
*Kânûnnâme-i Sultânî ber mûceb-i Örf-i Osmânî. II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknâme ve Kanunnâmeler, TTK yay., XI. seri- nr.5, Ankara, 1956. Halil İnalcık ile birlikte.
*Martolos, İA, VII/341-344.
*Martoloslar Hakkında, TM, VII-VIII/1 (1944), s.282-300.
*Moscheen vom Bauschema der Üç Şerefeli Cami in Edirne, Zeki Velidi Togan’a Armağan, İstanbul, 1950.
*Mostar Köprüsü ve Mimar Hayrettin, IV. TTK Bildiriler (1952), s.312-317.
*Mostar Köprüsü, Osmanlı Devleti’nde İnşaat İşlerinin Tarihi, TT, sy. 131 (1994), s.283-294.
*Mu’âlî’nin Hünkârname’si, TD, I/1 (1949), s.145-166.
*Quellen zur osmanischen Keramik (K. Otto Dorn, Das islamische Iznik içinde), Berlin, 1941.
*Tanışık'ın Kitabının Tanıtılması: Tahlil, Tenkit ve İlaveler, Isl., XXX (1952), s.232-242.
*Türk çocuklarının eğitimi ve gerekli koşullar, çev. Doç. Dr. Nurhan Akçaylı, Sosyal Siyaset konf., sy. 30 (1979), s.131-145.
ROBERT ANHEGGER - HALIL INALCIK: Kanunname-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani ( Mehmet II. and Bayezid II Period Laws and Restrictions).
Two Young Ottomanists Discover Kemalist Turkey:
The Travel Diaries of Robert Anhegger and Andreas Tietzeby Erik-Jan Zürcher (Leiden University)
ANHEGGER, Robert Friedrich Moritz b. Vienna 1911- d. Amsterdam 27 March, 2001
Anhegger was born in Vienna in 1911, the son of a German trader. After World War I (much of which he spent in Switzerland), Anhegger moved with his parents to Rotterdam. In 1923 the family moved to Zürich. In Zürich, Anhegger started to read Law, History and Literature at the university, before moving to Vienna in 1932. There he continued his studies, this time reading Economic History, Slavonic studies and Islamic studies. He also started to learn Turkish. It was during his studies in Vienna that he befriended Andreas Tietze. They not only shared scholarly interests, but also a passion for left-wing politics. Anhegger made his first trip to Turkey in 1935. In 1939 he received his Ph.D. degree at the University of Zürich and in 1940 he moved (and as it turned out emigrated) to Istanbul. He had several motives for doing so: quite apart from his scholarly interest in Turkey, his background in the Communist movement and the fact that he shared his life with a Jewish woman, made him feel unsafe so close to Germany. In Istanbul he worked at the German Archeological Institute until he was dismissed in 1942 for refusing to join up when called to serve in the German army. After his dismissal he worked as a teacher of German language and literature in a number of places, notably Istanbul University. As a German with intimate knowledge of Turkey, who was untainted by any Nazi connections, Anhegger from the early fifties onwards became the lynchpin of German cultural activities in Istanbul, culminating in his directorship of the Goethe Institute after 1961. In 1958 Anhegger married the Turkish architect Muallâ Eyüboğlu, the sister of the painter Bedri Rahmi. His connections with modern Turkish painters led him to found the first private art gallery in Istanbul in 1957. Robert and Muallâ Anhegger now live partly in Istanbul, partly in Amsterdam.
*Anadolu Hisarı, EI2 (İng.), I/481.
*Beiträge zur Frühosmanischen Baugeschichte II: Moscheen vom Bauschema der Üçşerefeli Cami in Edirne, Zeki Velidi Togan'a Armağan, İstanbul, 1955, s.315-325.
*Beiträge zur frühosmanischen Baugeschichte, III- Zum Problem der alten Fatih-Moschee in Istanbul, Zeki Velidi Togan Armağanı, İstanbul, 19534-1955, s.301-330.
*Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bergbaus im Osmanischen Reich, İstanbul, 1943-1945.
*Beiträge zur Osmanischen Baugeschichte, Istambuler Mitteilungen, XVII, İstanbul, 1967, s.314-317.
*Die Römerbrücke von Mostar. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Organistaion des Bauwesens im Osmanischen Reich, Oriens, VII/1 (1954), s.87-107.
*Eski Fatih Camii Meselesi, TD, VI/9 (1954), s.145-160.
*Hezârfen Hüseyin Efendi’nin Osmanlı Devlet Teşkilatına Dair Mülahazaları, TM, X (1953), s.365 vd.
*İznik, İA, V/2, s.1256-1258.
*İznik, İA, V/2, s.1259-1264.
*Kânûnnâme-i Sultânî ber mûceb-i Örf-i Osmânî. II. Mehmed ve II. Bayezid Devirlerine Ait Yasaknâme ve Kanunnâmeler, TTK yay., XI. seri- nr.5, Ankara, 1956. Halil İnalcık ile birlikte.
*Martolos, İA, VII/341-344.
*Martoloslar Hakkında, TM, VII-VIII/1 (1944), s.282-300.
*Moscheen vom Bauschema der Üç Şerefeli Cami in Edirne, Zeki Velidi Togan’a Armağan, İstanbul, 1950.
*Mostar Köprüsü ve Mimar Hayrettin, IV. TTK Bildiriler (1952), s.312-317.
*Mostar Köprüsü, Osmanlı Devleti’nde İnşaat İşlerinin Tarihi, TT, sy. 131 (1994), s.283-294.
*Mu’âlî’nin Hünkârname’si, TD, I/1 (1949), s.145-166.
*Quellen zur osmanischen Keramik (K. Otto Dorn, Das islamische Iznik içinde), Berlin, 1941.
*Tanışık'ın Kitabının Tanıtılması: Tahlil, Tenkit ve İlaveler, Isl., XXX (1952), s.232-242.
*Türk çocuklarının eğitimi ve gerekli koşullar, çev. Doç. Dr. Nurhan Akçaylı, Sosyal Siyaset konf., sy. 30 (1979), s.131-145.
ROBERT ANHEGGER - HALIL INALCIK: Kanunname-i Sultani Ber Muceb-i Örf-i Osmani ( Mehmet II. and Bayezid II Period Laws and Restrictions).
Two Young Ottomanists Discover Kemalist Turkey:
The Travel Diaries of Robert Anhegger and Andreas Tietzeby Erik-Jan Zürcher (Leiden University)
War at Sea - Hydra, Spetses, Psara
Mavi Boncuk |
War at Sea - Hydra, Spetses, Psara
Because of the Greece's geography, there has always been the need to travel in Aeagean Sea, in Euxenus Pontus or Mediterranean Sea. So Greeks had always been skillful seamen. The greek revolutionary fleet was drawn almost exclusively from three islands: Hydra and Spetses, on the east of the Peloponnese and Psara in the northern Aegean. Also Samos, Kassos and the port of Galaxidi contributed in ships and sailors to the national struggle. The three islands were nominally under the control of kapitan pasha to whom they paid their taxes and contributed a number of sailors to the Ottoman navy. After the Kioutsouk - Kainartzi treaty, 21 July 1774, the greek merchant ships could sail under the protection of russian flag. So the islands had a relatively autonomy and through commerce the islanders had prospered. The sailors were venturous and during the Napoleonic wars they ran through the british blockade of french coast, transported goods and made fortunes. The ship-owners had acquired the sultanic permission to equip their ships with cannons in order to fight the algerian and tinesian pirates. So, at the outbreak of the revolution, Greeks had a fleet of 150 merchant ships converted to war ships each equipped with about 8 to 20 guns. The Ottoman navy was enormously superior in size and in power. The turkish fregates had 80 guns and the corvettes had 30 guns and there were hundred other ships of less power. They used mainly Romios as sailors, but most of the sailors deserted on the outbreak of the revolution. But the secret weapon of Hellenic navy was the fireship or bourloto, which was first used by Greeks in support of Russia against Turkey, in Tsesme near Smyrna, 7 July 1770, when the whole turkish fleet was burnt. Bourloto was a vessel carrying flammable material like pitch, oil, sulphur, gunpowder and coal. The captain and crew remained on board until the fireship was attached to the enemy ship by hooks. When the crew scrambled to the escape boat, the captain lighted the powder and later both captain and crew rowed away. If all went according to plan, the fire ship exploded and the target ship caught fire too.
War at Sea - Hydra, Spetses, Psara
Because of the Greece's geography, there has always been the need to travel in Aeagean Sea, in Euxenus Pontus or Mediterranean Sea. So Greeks had always been skillful seamen. The greek revolutionary fleet was drawn almost exclusively from three islands: Hydra and Spetses, on the east of the Peloponnese and Psara in the northern Aegean. Also Samos, Kassos and the port of Galaxidi contributed in ships and sailors to the national struggle. The three islands were nominally under the control of kapitan pasha to whom they paid their taxes and contributed a number of sailors to the Ottoman navy. After the Kioutsouk - Kainartzi treaty, 21 July 1774, the greek merchant ships could sail under the protection of russian flag. So the islands had a relatively autonomy and through commerce the islanders had prospered. The sailors were venturous and during the Napoleonic wars they ran through the british blockade of french coast, transported goods and made fortunes. The ship-owners had acquired the sultanic permission to equip their ships with cannons in order to fight the algerian and tinesian pirates. So, at the outbreak of the revolution, Greeks had a fleet of 150 merchant ships converted to war ships each equipped with about 8 to 20 guns. The Ottoman navy was enormously superior in size and in power. The turkish fregates had 80 guns and the corvettes had 30 guns and there were hundred other ships of less power. They used mainly Romios as sailors, but most of the sailors deserted on the outbreak of the revolution. But the secret weapon of Hellenic navy was the fireship or bourloto, which was first used by Greeks in support of Russia against Turkey, in Tsesme near Smyrna, 7 July 1770, when the whole turkish fleet was burnt. Bourloto was a vessel carrying flammable material like pitch, oil, sulphur, gunpowder and coal. The captain and crew remained on board until the fireship was attached to the enemy ship by hooks. When the crew scrambled to the escape boat, the captain lighted the powder and later both captain and crew rowed away. If all went according to plan, the fire ship exploded and the target ship caught fire too.
Ottoman Empire | Trade Routes and Caravans
Mavi Boncuk |
Although officially the Ottoman Empire had no trade with anyone outside the Empire, the reality is quite different. Caravans left and arrived in Istanbul on a daily basis and there are numerous records of merchant ships moving between English and Ottoman ports. Shipping by boat between England and the Ottoman Empire was at a standstill only between 1550 to 1573, due to generally unfavorable economic conditions. During this time walking caravan trade made up for the shortages.
Caravans were made up of people and pack animals traveling in large groups; up to 20,000 people and 300,000 animals has been recorded in a general caravan made up of merchants and pilgrims traveling to Mecca. A pilgrim caravan to Mecca would carry a heavier percentage of people (50,000) to animals (40,000). Smaller caravans would join together to make larger caravans and provide safety in numbers. Occasionally heavy wagons would be used, but this slowed progress and "time is money", (the expression was already in use). An enormous variety of goods were shipped across Europe, the mid-east and north Africa (the Maghreb). Faires generally lasted a fortnight (two weeks). Faires were typically one to two weeks walk apart or approximately 250 miles, with caravans traveling 20 to 35 miles a day, much slower with wagons (5 to 10 miles a day).
The pack animals consisted of camels, dromedaries, donkeys, mules and horses. Each different animal was used for the climate and terrain it was best suited, camels used in the steppe regions, were traded for dromedaries in the desert, and donkeys and mules were used in the Balkans, Syria, and Palestine.
Everyone on a caravan had a job to do and in many ways it became a city in motion. Many trades were necessary to keep a caravan moving. A caravan couldn't go far without animal handlers and shoemakers. It was not uncommon for marriages to happen between people on a caravan, with a divorce happening if the families decided to go separate ways. Leadership positions were elected by the membership at large, as you needed the most able and trustworthy person to see the caravan safely through to the next faire. Caravan leaders had to have the experience to select the correct routes, make provisions for protection, know how and where to find fresh water, know prices and goods, and what would make the most profit. Your class or status didn't make as much difference as your experience and ability.
When selecting items for trade there were many considerations. The ease of moving the items, what kind of duty and customs charges might be incurred, the possibility of a city sequestering your items (not an uncommon practice if transporting high demand items like wheat). Ultimately the most important consideration was not the volume of trade, but the ultimate rate of profit. It was safer and easier to transport luxury goods and "royal merchandise" than to transport high demand items such as grain, which might leave the caravan open to raids or sequestration by a starving populace. Caravans were occasionally hired to transport gold from one country to another, with couriers carrying up to 5,000 crowns sewn into their garments.
Merchants also dabbled in every kind of operation and speculation: purchases of land or houses, industrial investments, banking, marine insurance, lotteries, urban rents, peasants quit-rents, stock farming or speculation on foreign exchanges. Gambling also held an important place in the life of a merchant and any subject was a pretext for a wager, such as the number of cardinals to be promoted, the death or survival of famous men, the sex of unborn children, or the outcome of battles.
The following are three major trade routes taken by caravans during the renaissance. Only one of these includes England. The Russian Isthmus: Istanbul, Bucharest, Odessa, following the Dneper North, Ekaterinoslav (now Dnepropetrovsk), Kiev, Smolensk, Novgorod, to Narva (on the coast), back to Novgorod, to Moscow, following the Volga South, Cere (now Kazan), Saratov, Tsaritsyn (now Volgograd), Astrakhan, Baku, Tabriz, somewhere in Armenia (can't locate the city name) where the bankers hung out, Trabizond, from here we either walked the coast or took a boat (they had boats especially for pack animals and caravans) to Sinop and back to Istanbul. Many times marauders would try to take over a caravan, especially one carrying practical goods such as grain or textiles. This is especially true in the case of Cossacks or Tartar raiders along the Volga. The problem was severe enough to essentially close the route between 1560 and 1570.
The Maghreb Isthmus: From Istanbul taking a path inland across Turkey stopping I know not where, Aleppo, Jeble (on the coast and a major money faire), Damascus, Ma'an (now Amman?), to Medina, Mecca, and Medina during Ramadin, Cairo, Jalu, Kufra, Marzuq, Ghat, Ghudamis, Algiers, (from here we would most likely take a ship), Tunis, Tripoli, Benghazi, Alexandria, to Beiruit, to Jeble (again), Smyrna (with minor stops along the Turkish coast), and Istanbul.
The Hanseatic Isthmus: Istanbul, Bucharest, to Cracow following the Danube? or Odessa and Kiev to Cracow, Breslau, to either Leipzig or Prague, Nuremberg (whose population was over 40,000 and was a great place to sell furs), Frankfurt, Cologne, Antwerp, London, Kings Lynn, Hull, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Oslo, to either Dansig and Riga or Stockholm, to Reval, Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev, Odessa, Bucharest and Istanbul.
Major faire or trade cities (in no particular order) were: Marseilles, Lyon, Rouen, Bridgewater, Gniezmo, Posen, Warsaw, Lublin, St. Dominic's, Vienna, Lwow, Galatz, Sandomir, Frankfurt-am-Oder, Augsberg, Emden, Hamburg, Bremen and Copenhagen. They avoided Hungary during this period due to political strife and frequent outbreaks of war.
Although officially the Ottoman Empire had no trade with anyone outside the Empire, the reality is quite different. Caravans left and arrived in Istanbul on a daily basis and there are numerous records of merchant ships moving between English and Ottoman ports. Shipping by boat between England and the Ottoman Empire was at a standstill only between 1550 to 1573, due to generally unfavorable economic conditions. During this time walking caravan trade made up for the shortages.
Caravans were made up of people and pack animals traveling in large groups; up to 20,000 people and 300,000 animals has been recorded in a general caravan made up of merchants and pilgrims traveling to Mecca. A pilgrim caravan to Mecca would carry a heavier percentage of people (50,000) to animals (40,000). Smaller caravans would join together to make larger caravans and provide safety in numbers. Occasionally heavy wagons would be used, but this slowed progress and "time is money", (the expression was already in use). An enormous variety of goods were shipped across Europe, the mid-east and north Africa (the Maghreb). Faires generally lasted a fortnight (two weeks). Faires were typically one to two weeks walk apart or approximately 250 miles, with caravans traveling 20 to 35 miles a day, much slower with wagons (5 to 10 miles a day).
The pack animals consisted of camels, dromedaries, donkeys, mules and horses. Each different animal was used for the climate and terrain it was best suited, camels used in the steppe regions, were traded for dromedaries in the desert, and donkeys and mules were used in the Balkans, Syria, and Palestine.
Everyone on a caravan had a job to do and in many ways it became a city in motion. Many trades were necessary to keep a caravan moving. A caravan couldn't go far without animal handlers and shoemakers. It was not uncommon for marriages to happen between people on a caravan, with a divorce happening if the families decided to go separate ways. Leadership positions were elected by the membership at large, as you needed the most able and trustworthy person to see the caravan safely through to the next faire. Caravan leaders had to have the experience to select the correct routes, make provisions for protection, know how and where to find fresh water, know prices and goods, and what would make the most profit. Your class or status didn't make as much difference as your experience and ability.
When selecting items for trade there were many considerations. The ease of moving the items, what kind of duty and customs charges might be incurred, the possibility of a city sequestering your items (not an uncommon practice if transporting high demand items like wheat). Ultimately the most important consideration was not the volume of trade, but the ultimate rate of profit. It was safer and easier to transport luxury goods and "royal merchandise" than to transport high demand items such as grain, which might leave the caravan open to raids or sequestration by a starving populace. Caravans were occasionally hired to transport gold from one country to another, with couriers carrying up to 5,000 crowns sewn into their garments.
Merchants also dabbled in every kind of operation and speculation: purchases of land or houses, industrial investments, banking, marine insurance, lotteries, urban rents, peasants quit-rents, stock farming or speculation on foreign exchanges. Gambling also held an important place in the life of a merchant and any subject was a pretext for a wager, such as the number of cardinals to be promoted, the death or survival of famous men, the sex of unborn children, or the outcome of battles.
The following are three major trade routes taken by caravans during the renaissance. Only one of these includes England. The Russian Isthmus: Istanbul, Bucharest, Odessa, following the Dneper North, Ekaterinoslav (now Dnepropetrovsk), Kiev, Smolensk, Novgorod, to Narva (on the coast), back to Novgorod, to Moscow, following the Volga South, Cere (now Kazan), Saratov, Tsaritsyn (now Volgograd), Astrakhan, Baku, Tabriz, somewhere in Armenia (can't locate the city name) where the bankers hung out, Trabizond, from here we either walked the coast or took a boat (they had boats especially for pack animals and caravans) to Sinop and back to Istanbul. Many times marauders would try to take over a caravan, especially one carrying practical goods such as grain or textiles. This is especially true in the case of Cossacks or Tartar raiders along the Volga. The problem was severe enough to essentially close the route between 1560 and 1570.
The Maghreb Isthmus: From Istanbul taking a path inland across Turkey stopping I know not where, Aleppo, Jeble (on the coast and a major money faire), Damascus, Ma'an (now Amman?), to Medina, Mecca, and Medina during Ramadin, Cairo, Jalu, Kufra, Marzuq, Ghat, Ghudamis, Algiers, (from here we would most likely take a ship), Tunis, Tripoli, Benghazi, Alexandria, to Beiruit, to Jeble (again), Smyrna (with minor stops along the Turkish coast), and Istanbul.
The Hanseatic Isthmus: Istanbul, Bucharest, to Cracow following the Danube? or Odessa and Kiev to Cracow, Breslau, to either Leipzig or Prague, Nuremberg (whose population was over 40,000 and was a great place to sell furs), Frankfurt, Cologne, Antwerp, London, Kings Lynn, Hull, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Oslo, to either Dansig and Riga or Stockholm, to Reval, Novgorod, Smolensk, Kiev, Odessa, Bucharest and Istanbul.
Major faire or trade cities (in no particular order) were: Marseilles, Lyon, Rouen, Bridgewater, Gniezmo, Posen, Warsaw, Lublin, St. Dominic's, Vienna, Lwow, Galatz, Sandomir, Frankfurt-am-Oder, Augsberg, Emden, Hamburg, Bremen and Copenhagen. They avoided Hungary during this period due to political strife and frequent outbreaks of war.
June 27, 2004
Railways of the Ottoman empire | Compound de Glehn
Compound de Glehn steam engine Compound de Glehn, a German-made steam engine used on the railways of the Ottoman empire, 1894-1912, Thessaloniki, Greek Railways Organization Engine-shed. Built by Batignolles in 1907 (Works No 1594) Ex Piraeus - Demerli - Frontiers railway line (PDS) #B 206. The sole survivor of its kind in Europe.
Alexandroupolis (Dedeagatch) early 1900. The railway station.
Briefly stated, four early steam locomotive types were as follows:
De Glehn. The name given to a French system of compounding used at the turn of the century. High-pressure cylinders, outside and behind smoke-box, driving the rear drivers. Low-pressure cylinders, inside under smoke-box, driving crank axle of front drivers. Four separate slide valves and four Walschaert valve gears allowing independent regulation of the high- and low-pressure valves. Compounding used the steam twice, once in a high-pressure cylinder and then in a low-pressure cylinder.
Although France had been the cradle of dual expansion applied to the locomotives, it is not at all in her place that the compound locomotive has covered all the phases of her development; It's in Germany almost, thanks to the persevering efforts of von Borries, that the compound mode spreaded the most easily. In 1890, ten years after the first application of the system in this country, not less than 430 two cylinders compound were counted.
France get started right away in the 4 cylinder compound mode; It's in this way that the first compound intended to a major company was set up in 1886 (10 years after the first Mallet's machine) on the network of the Nord; She had been built upon the initiative of Mr. de Glehn, engineer of the Société Alsacienne de Constructions Mécaniques, in the factories of this company.
Cole. High-pressure cylinders, inside but in advance of the smoke-box, driving front axle. Low-pressure cylinders, outside in line with the smoke-box, driving rear driving axle. Two piston valves on a single stem serve the steam distribution for each pair of cylinders, and each valve stem is worked from an ordinary link motion.
Vauclain. High-pressure cylinders inside and low-pressure cylinders outside, all on the same horizontal plane, in line with the smokebox and all driving the front driving axle. As in the von Borries, a single piston valve worked from a single link effects the steam distribution for the pair of cylinders on each side.
Von Borries. High-pressure cylinders inside and low-pressure cylinders outside all on the same horizontal plane in line with the smoke-box and all driving the front driving axle. Each cylinder has its own valve but the two valves of each pair of cylinders are worked from a single valve motion of a modified Walschaert type. This arrangement permits the varying of the cut-off of the two cylinders giving different ratios of expansion which cannot, however, be varied by the engine-man.
Thessaloniki early 1900. The area of the railway station "Salonique-Ville".
Talking "Turkey"
Mavi Boncuk |
Native Americans used a wide variety of names for turkey, among them chaloklowa (in Chickasaw), cuyoni' (Comanche), gv-n (Cherokee), mizise (Ojibwe), o'othham (Papago and Pima), tazhii (Apache and Navajo), and zezecha (Sioux). This being the case, then why was the word turkey applied?
It is commonly recorded that after the 16th century these New World birds were traded in the Mediterranean region by Turkish merchants. According to this view, English-speaking peoples did not know the Native American words for this fowl, and adopted the term, Turkie, to commemorate Ottoman trade
patterns.
A counter argument has been advanced that the birds were not, in fact, widely traded by Turkish merchants, whether in the Mediterranean and southern Europe, until the mid- to late 19th century. Other scholars have argued that the name "turkey" was applied because it became confused with guinea-fowl, an African species, that previously had been imported to Turkey, therefore, the name became confused with "the bird from Turkey."
Still, other European nations correctly understood the bird's origins with Native Americans and the New World, or with India, as in French (coq d'Inde or dindi), German (indianische Henn), and Italian (galle d'India). The word for turkey in Greek (gali or galopoula), however, clearly reveals an etymological association with France, not the Ottoman Empire.
Benjamin Franklin urged adoption of the turkey as the national symbol for the United States. Despite his endorsement, Congress selected the bald eagle. Franklin expressed his disappointment to Sarah Bache in an oft quoted letter, dated January 26th, 1784:
"I wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our country; he is a bird of bad moral character. . . like those among men who live by. . . robbing. The turkey. . . is a much more respectable bird . . . a true original native of America."
While the wild turkey lost to the American bald eagle, turkey has continued to play important roles in American song and slang through the years as evidenced by: Turkey in the Straw, a favorite fiddler's tune; "cold turkey," to abruptly stop a behavior or habit; "talking turkey," or plain-speaking in business; "turkey-shoot," or something easy, a cinch; even "turkey" in reference to a film or theatrical failure. Turkey also has remained an enduring American food especially through its association with Thanksgiving and holiday festivals, so much so that the average American eats nearly 15 pounds of turkey or turkey products annually.
Native Americans used a wide variety of names for turkey, among them chaloklowa (in Chickasaw), cuyoni' (Comanche), gv-n (Cherokee), mizise (Ojibwe), o'othham (Papago and Pima), tazhii (Apache and Navajo), and zezecha (Sioux). This being the case, then why was the word turkey applied?
It is commonly recorded that after the 16th century these New World birds were traded in the Mediterranean region by Turkish merchants. According to this view, English-speaking peoples did not know the Native American words for this fowl, and adopted the term, Turkie, to commemorate Ottoman trade
patterns.
A counter argument has been advanced that the birds were not, in fact, widely traded by Turkish merchants, whether in the Mediterranean and southern Europe, until the mid- to late 19th century. Other scholars have argued that the name "turkey" was applied because it became confused with guinea-fowl, an African species, that previously had been imported to Turkey, therefore, the name became confused with "the bird from Turkey."
Still, other European nations correctly understood the bird's origins with Native Americans and the New World, or with India, as in French (coq d'Inde or dindi), German (indianische Henn), and Italian (galle d'India). The word for turkey in Greek (gali or galopoula), however, clearly reveals an etymological association with France, not the Ottoman Empire.
Benjamin Franklin urged adoption of the turkey as the national symbol for the United States. Despite his endorsement, Congress selected the bald eagle. Franklin expressed his disappointment to Sarah Bache in an oft quoted letter, dated January 26th, 1784:
"I wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our country; he is a bird of bad moral character. . . like those among men who live by. . . robbing. The turkey. . . is a much more respectable bird . . . a true original native of America."
While the wild turkey lost to the American bald eagle, turkey has continued to play important roles in American song and slang through the years as evidenced by: Turkey in the Straw, a favorite fiddler's tune; "cold turkey," to abruptly stop a behavior or habit; "talking turkey," or plain-speaking in business; "turkey-shoot," or something easy, a cinch; even "turkey" in reference to a film or theatrical failure. Turkey also has remained an enduring American food especially through its association with Thanksgiving and holiday festivals, so much so that the average American eats nearly 15 pounds of turkey or turkey products annually.
VARIETIES OF OTTOMAN CALIGRAPHIC SCRIPT
"The Qur'an was revealed in Mecca, read in Egypt and written in Istanbul"
Mavi Boncuk |
VARIETIES OF OTTOMAN CALIGRAPHIC SCRIPT
1. Kufic. This is the oldest of the various Arabic scripts and consists of a modified of the old Syrian script. At the time of the emergence of Islam this type of script was already in use in various parts of the Arabian Peninsula. It was in this script that the first copies of the Qur'an were written.
Kufic is a form of script consisting of straight lines and angles. It is still employed in Islamic countries though it has undergone a number of alterations over the years and also displays regional differences. The difference between the Kufic script used in the Arabian Peninsula and that employed in Egypt. Algiers and Morocco is very marked.
Kufic is commonly seen on Seljuk coins ad monuments and on early Ottoman coins, its decorative character led to its use as a decorative element in several public and domestic buildings constructed prior to the Republican period.
2. Thuluth. This script made its first appearance in the fourth century of the Hegira. The straight angular forms of Kufic were replaced in the new script by curved and oblique lines. Various types of script invented later could be said to have been derived from Thuluth by the introduction of quite slight changes of form.
Some of the oldest copies of the Qur'an were written in Thuluth, later copies were written in a combination of Thuluth and either Naskhi or Muhakkak, while still later copies (after the fifteenth century) were written in Naskhi.
3. Jeli Thuluth. This term was applied to writings in Thuluth script when the point of the pen employed was at least one centimeter broad. This type of script was used in large panels and for inscriptions carved in stone on buildings or tombstones.
4. Naskhi. This type of script was derived from Thuluth by introducing a number of modifications resulting in smaller size and greater delicacy, It is written using a small, very fine pen known as a cava pen, which makes the script eminently suitable for use in book production. Naskhi was used in copying Qur'ans, Delails, En-ams and Hadiths. It was also used in commentaries on the Qur'an (Tefsir) and in collections of poetry (Divan). It was a very widely used form of script.
5. Muhakkak. This is a type of script derived from Thuluth by widening the horizontal sections of the letters in the Thuluth script. It was abandoned after the sixteenth century and only a very few panels and a number of Besmeles in Hilyes describing the virtues and qualities of the Prophet are to be found written in this script.
6. Rika'. This type of script could be described as a smooth, round, sinuous form of Naskhi. It used to be employed in the icazets awarded to students of calligraphy.
7. Tevki. This is a modified and smaller version of Thuluth. It was mostly employed in official state papers and documents.
8. Ta'Iiq. This is a type of script in which all the letters display a tendency towards curved and oblique forms. It was invented in Iran, and the finest writings in this script were to be found in Iran and Azerbaijan. It differs from Thuluth in so far as the spaces between the letters are not filled or decorated with signs or motifs, which has led some calligraphers to describe it as a naked" script. As a result of its bare simplicity it is a type of script in which beauty and perfection are very difficult to achieve. If we glance through the annals of Turkish calligraphy we shall discover that although there have been scores of calligraphers in every period who can write an acceptable Thuluth or Naskhi there have been very few calligraphers capable of writing an acceptable Ta'Iiq.
Calligraphic Inscription in Ta'liq Script,"The Prophet of Allah has proclaimed: Allah has ninety-nine names and he who can count them will enter paradise."
9. Jell Ta'Iiq. This is the name given to Ta'Iiq script written with a pen having a point measuring one centimetre or more. Large panels and inscriptions carved in stone are to be found written in this script. Turkish calligraphers displayed great skill in the use of this type of script, which was rarely used in Iran, and achieved very great beauty of from. A very fine example of this type of script is the inscription "Elkasib Habibulla" by the calligrapher Sami Effendi (1837-1912) carved in stone above one of the doors of the Covered Market opening out towards Bayezid
10. Divani. This is a more lively, highly decorated form of Ta'Iiq. From the time of Sultan Selim I onwards it was used by the Turks in writing out fermans (imperial rescripts) and its use in any other type of document was strictly forbidden.
11. Jell Divani. This type of script was invented by the Ottoman Turks and consisted of a more complex, ornately embellished and decorated form of Divani. It was employed only in important documents connected with the Sultan or the Saray. It was a rather difficult type of script to read.
12. Siyakat. The use of this type of sc
Mavi Boncuk |
VARIETIES OF OTTOMAN CALIGRAPHIC SCRIPT
1. Kufic. This is the oldest of the various Arabic scripts and consists of a modified of the old Syrian script. At the time of the emergence of Islam this type of script was already in use in various parts of the Arabian Peninsula. It was in this script that the first copies of the Qur'an were written.
Kufic is a form of script consisting of straight lines and angles. It is still employed in Islamic countries though it has undergone a number of alterations over the years and also displays regional differences. The difference between the Kufic script used in the Arabian Peninsula and that employed in Egypt. Algiers and Morocco is very marked.
Kufic is commonly seen on Seljuk coins ad monuments and on early Ottoman coins, its decorative character led to its use as a decorative element in several public and domestic buildings constructed prior to the Republican period.
2. Thuluth. This script made its first appearance in the fourth century of the Hegira. The straight angular forms of Kufic were replaced in the new script by curved and oblique lines. Various types of script invented later could be said to have been derived from Thuluth by the introduction of quite slight changes of form.
Some of the oldest copies of the Qur'an were written in Thuluth, later copies were written in a combination of Thuluth and either Naskhi or Muhakkak, while still later copies (after the fifteenth century) were written in Naskhi.
3. Jeli Thuluth. This term was applied to writings in Thuluth script when the point of the pen employed was at least one centimeter broad. This type of script was used in large panels and for inscriptions carved in stone on buildings or tombstones.
4. Naskhi. This type of script was derived from Thuluth by introducing a number of modifications resulting in smaller size and greater delicacy, It is written using a small, very fine pen known as a cava pen, which makes the script eminently suitable for use in book production. Naskhi was used in copying Qur'ans, Delails, En-ams and Hadiths. It was also used in commentaries on the Qur'an (Tefsir) and in collections of poetry (Divan). It was a very widely used form of script.
5. Muhakkak. This is a type of script derived from Thuluth by widening the horizontal sections of the letters in the Thuluth script. It was abandoned after the sixteenth century and only a very few panels and a number of Besmeles in Hilyes describing the virtues and qualities of the Prophet are to be found written in this script.
6. Rika'. This type of script could be described as a smooth, round, sinuous form of Naskhi. It used to be employed in the icazets awarded to students of calligraphy.
7. Tevki. This is a modified and smaller version of Thuluth. It was mostly employed in official state papers and documents.
8. Ta'Iiq. This is a type of script in which all the letters display a tendency towards curved and oblique forms. It was invented in Iran, and the finest writings in this script were to be found in Iran and Azerbaijan. It differs from Thuluth in so far as the spaces between the letters are not filled or decorated with signs or motifs, which has led some calligraphers to describe it as a naked" script. As a result of its bare simplicity it is a type of script in which beauty and perfection are very difficult to achieve. If we glance through the annals of Turkish calligraphy we shall discover that although there have been scores of calligraphers in every period who can write an acceptable Thuluth or Naskhi there have been very few calligraphers capable of writing an acceptable Ta'Iiq.
Calligraphic Inscription in Ta'liq Script,"The Prophet of Allah has proclaimed: Allah has ninety-nine names and he who can count them will enter paradise."
9. Jell Ta'Iiq. This is the name given to Ta'Iiq script written with a pen having a point measuring one centimetre or more. Large panels and inscriptions carved in stone are to be found written in this script. Turkish calligraphers displayed great skill in the use of this type of script, which was rarely used in Iran, and achieved very great beauty of from. A very fine example of this type of script is the inscription "Elkasib Habibulla" by the calligrapher Sami Effendi (1837-1912) carved in stone above one of the doors of the Covered Market opening out towards Bayezid
10. Divani. This is a more lively, highly decorated form of Ta'Iiq. From the time of Sultan Selim I onwards it was used by the Turks in writing out fermans (imperial rescripts) and its use in any other type of document was strictly forbidden.
11. Jell Divani. This type of script was invented by the Ottoman Turks and consisted of a more complex, ornately embellished and decorated form of Divani. It was employed only in important documents connected with the Sultan or the Saray. It was a rather difficult type of script to read.
12. Siyakat. The use of this type of sc