Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:01:53.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Süleyman Pasha to Mehmet Fuat Köprülü: Roman and Byzantine history in late Ottoman historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Michael Ursinus
Michael Ursinus*
Affiliation:
Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following is a continuation of the task set out in my Note in BMGS 10 (1986) 211-22. Working towards a Bibliography, I have tried to bring together, in a corpus, Ottoman Turkish works of some importance dealing with Roman and Byzantine history (including historical topography) which appeared as books, or part of books, between c. 1870 and 1920. A particular aim has been to illustrate the development of this corpus in relationship with ‘westernising’ trends in the historiography of the Ottoman empire over the same period.

Type
Short Notes
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 12 , 1988 , pp. 305 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For brief accounts of the main figures and general developments in Ottoman historiography of the Tanzimat and Hamidian periods (1826-1908) see Kuran, E., ‘Ottoman historiography of the Tanzimat period’, Lewis, B. and Holt, P.M. (ed.), Historians of the Middle East (London 1962) 422–9 Google Scholar and Yinanç, M.H., ‘Tanzimattan Mesrutiyete Kadar Bizde Tarihçilik’, Tanzimat (Istanbul 1940) 573–95 Google Scholar.

2 In 1294 H./1877, for example, historical subjects taught in the Mekteb-iMiilkiye included muhtasar tarih-i Osmani (short history of the Ottoman empire); tarih; kurun-i ula (ancient history); tarih-i umumi (general history) and even ilm-i asar-i atika (archaeology). Except for Ottoman history, all other subjects were taught in French, but on the basis of textbooks most of which were also available in Turkish translations. Mücellitoğlu Ali Çankaya, Mülkiye Tarihi ve Mülkiyeliler. 2 vols (Ankara 1954) I 34, 45. On the rôle of French in the Ottoman empire see Kreiser, K., ‘Le rôle de la langue française en Turquie et la politique culturelle allemande au début du xxe siècle’, L’Empire Ottoman, la République de Turquie et la France (Istanbul-Paris 1987) 405–17 Google Scholar.

3 About this and the other schools mentioned below see in general: Shaw, S.J. and Shaw, E.K., History of the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey. Vol. II Reform, revolution and republic (Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne 1977) 48, 109fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the War Academy in particular, a most valuable source still is Mehmed Esad, Mirat-i Mekteb-i Harbiye (Istanbul 1310 H./1892-3).

4 The Most comprehensive source is Mücellidoğlu Ali Cankaya, Yeni Mülkiye Tarihi ve Mülkiyeliler, 8 vols (Ankara 1969-71).

5 See my introductory remarks in BMGS 10 (1986) 211-22.

6 As an introduction see Kushner, D., The Rise of Turkish Nationalism, 1876-1908 (London 1977)Google Scholar.

7 Called a ‘popular historian’ (halk tarihçisi) by Yinanç, Tarihçilik, 579. References to the work and life of Midhat Efendi in Western languages can be found in the above mentioned as well as in my Note in BMGS II (1987) 237-43. About Midhat as a writer under strong Western influences see O. Okay, Bati Medeniyeti Karsisinda Ahmed Midhat Efendi (Ankara 1975). This work does not, however, deal with Midhat’s historiographie works.

8 (1854-1917) The best and most comprehensive work on Mehmed Murad is Emil, B., Mizanci Mehmed Murad Bey. Hayati ve Eserleri (Istanbul 1979)Google Scholar. It includes a description of Mehmed Murad’s main historiographie works. An entry ‘Mīzāndji Mehmed Murād’ (by M.O.H. Ursinus) is forthcoming in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition.

9 (1877-1938) See the entry Ileri, Celai Nuri (by Duymaz, R.) in Turk Dili ve Edebiyati Ansiklopedisi IV (Istanbul 1981) 359fGoogle Scholar. The most detailed contemporary account of his life and works (including contemporary reactions vis-à-vis his main publication) not used by Duymaz is Haydar Kemal, Tarih-i Istikbal Miinasebetiyle Celai Nuri Beg (Istanbul 1331 H./1912-3).

10 A brilliant recent study is François Georgeon, Aux origines du nationalisme turc: Yusuf Akçura (1876-1935) (Paris 1980):

11 For this leading ideologist of Turkish nationalism see Heyd, U., Foundations of Turkish nationalism, the life and teachings of Ziya Gökalp (London 1950)Google Scholar.

12 Yinanç, M.H., for instance, accused Mizanci Mehmed Murad of being an ‘example of ignorance’, who would not deserve to be regarded a proper historian. Yet he concedes that most of the contemporaries of Murād thought otherwise: Yinanç, Tarihçilik, 579–81 Google Scholar.

13 Yinanç, M.H. also relates that people held Mehmed Murad’s Ottoman History in great esteem, and even learned by heart whole passages from it: Ibid., 581 Google Scholar.

14 There had been occasional publications, in Ottoman Turkish, on the ancient world before, for example the Tarih-i Iskender Bin Filpos (Bulak 1254 H./1838-9) (Õzege No. 19837); further A [leksandr] Kostantinidi Pasha’s Tarih-i Yunanistan-i Kadim (Ancient History of Greece) (Istanbul 1286 H./1869-70) (Õzege No. 19958) who is also the author/editor of a little work entitled Tarih-i Ayasofya (Istanbul 1285 H./1868-9) (Ozege No. 19768); and Mustafa Behcet (transi.), Abdurrahman bin Hasan, Tarih-i Mistr (Istanbul 1282 H./1865-6) (Õzege No. 19867).

15 An early reference to Ottomans as being Turks can be found in Süleyman Pasha’s History of the World (1876) 383. Ahmed Midhat Efendi, in 1877, is more explicit: ‘Only the virtues which the Turks had brought from Central Asia could do away with such immorality as generated in the Byzantine lands by the ancient civilisation’: Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i Inkilab. Vol. I (Istanbul 1294 H./1877) 11. According to Midhat, ‘the Ottomans are those Turks who were the last to enter Anatolia’: Ahmed Midhat, Kainat (Kütübhane-i Tarih): Devlet-i Osmaniye (Istanbul 1298 H./1880-1) 145. About one of Midhat’s main sources see n. 27.

16 Pasha, Süleyman Hüsni, Tarih-i Alem (Istanbul 1293 H./1876). The Romans cover pp. 797–950 Google Scholar; Byzantine history is outlined on pp. 950-8 (Õzege No. 19760). Among his sources is a Histoire générale by Louis Alvarez. This and other Ottoman Turkish titles are given here in the way they are rendered into the modern Turkish alphabet by Õzege, , Eski Harflerle Basilmis Türkçe Eserler Katalogu (Istanbul 1971ff)Google Scholar.

17 Murad, Mehmed, Tarih-i Umumi. 6 vols. (Istanbul 1297 H./1879-80-1299 H./1881-2)Google Scholar. The History of the Roman State (Roma Tarihi) is identical with vol. II of the above work which was re-issued several times (for details see Õzege No. 19936). Ottoman history is outlined in vol. IV, 319-451. Babinger (see n. 18) 391, describes his sources as of French and Russian origin. Another Roman history is Cevdet’s Manzara-i Iber Yahut Roma Tarihi. 2 vols. (Istanbul 1305 H./1888-9) (Õzege No. 12220).

Ahmed Cevdet Pasha had already dealt briefly with Roman and Byzantine history as part of an outline of ancient and medieval European history (Avrupa’nm ahval-i sabika ve lahikasi): Tarih-i Cevdet (first edition) vol. 6 (second print Istanbul 1294 H./1877) 5-33 (Õzege No. 19772). Roman history down to Constantine the Great is limited to the first ten pages of this account, the remainder deals with Byzantine history.

18 Babinger, F., Die Geschkhtsschreiber der Osmanen undihre Werke (Leipzig 1927) 371 Google Scholar states that Namik Kemal completed his Introduction down to the year 1046 A.D.

19 Kemal, Namik, Osmanli Tarihi. I. Cild:Medhal (Istanbul 1305 H./1887-8) (Õzege No. 15994)Google Scholar.

20 Kuntay, M.C., Namik Kemal. 2 vote (Istanbul 1944–56)Google Scholar II, 2 654ff. This work, in Turkish, is a prime source for the life and work of Namik Kemal (1840-1888).

21 Kemal, Namik, Osmanli Tarihi. 4 vols. (Istanbul 1326-27 H./1908-09)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 15995).

22 Rasim, Ahmed, Eski Romalilar (Istanbul 1304 H./1886-7 — 1306 H./1888-9)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 5117).

23 Sahib, Ahmed (transi.) Kayasire-i Isnaaserin Yasayisi (Istanbul 1330/1914)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 10454).

24 Saki, Ahmed (transi.), Romalilann Azamet ve Inhitatlari Hakktnda Miitalaat (Istanbul 1335-36/1919-20)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 17045). A number of European works on ancient history appeared in Ottoman Turkish translations among which the following are to be mentioned: Sem’i, Ibrahim (transi.), Tarih-i Kadim ve Elenoz ve Roma (Istanbul 1307 H./1889-90)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 19851); Resad, Ali, (transi.) Tarih-i Kadim (Istanbul 1331/1915)Google Scholar (Õzege 19852); Resad, Ali (transi.), Tarih-i Kadim. Romalilar, Bizanslilar, Islavlar, Türkler, Iraniler (Istanbul 1331/1915)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 19853); Refik, Ahmed (transi.), Tarih-i Medeniyet 3 vols.(Istanbul 1328/1912)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 19865); A(bdülgani) Seniy [Yurtman] (transi.), Tarih-i Medeniyet. 2 vols. (Istanbul 1328/1912) (Ôzege No. 19864); Hüseyin Cahid [Yalcin] (transi.), Tarih-i Umumi. 2 vols. (Istanbul 1327/1911) (Ózege No. 19941); Ali Resad (transi.), Tarih-i Umumi. Dôrdüncü Asirdan Zamammiza Kadar (Istanbul 1334/1918). Deals with period 395-887 A.D.; a second part, translated by Necib Asim, Ali Reçad, Behcet and Ali Muzaffer was published only in 1926, dealing with period 395-1095 A.D. (Õzege No. 19949). Õzege, Catalogue (as in n. 16), gives the names of the original authors in only some cases. Among the most extensively translated authors is Charles Seignobos.

25 See n. 17. Efendi’s, Hayrullah famous History of the Ottoman Empire (Tarih-i Devlet-i Aliye-i Osmaniye) (Istanbul 1271 H./1854-5 — 1292 H./1875)Google Scholar (Ozege No. 3955) is roughly contemporary with the first edition of the Tarih-i Cevdet, and the treatment of Byzantine history in both works would deserve a comparative investigation.

26 In vol. III of his General History, 60-75.

27 Midhat, Ahmed, Kainat (Kütübhane-i Tarih): Yunanistan (Istanbul 1298 H./1880-1)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 9937). The chapter Sark Imperatorliğt (covering the period 395-1453 A.D.) can be found on pp. 63-99. For this as well as the other volumes of his Kainat (= Univers e) Midhat is said to have extensively used a French histoire générale entitled L’univers pittoresque: Yinanç, Tarihçilik, 579. The work is mentioned in Midhat’s Detailed History of Modern Times (see below) I, 162.

28 Midhat, Ahmed, Kainat (Kütübhane-i Tarih): Devlet-i Osmaniye (Istanbul 1298 H./1880-1) 58ffGoogle Scholar.

29 Lecky, W.E.H., History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. 2 vols. (London 1869) II, 13fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 ‘Whether the rise of the Ottomans was to the benefit of the civilisation of mankind or to its detriment will become apparent by comparing Ottoman history with that of the Eastern Roman empire’ (see BMGS 10 (1986) 238 n. 9).

31 [lleri], Celai Nuri, Tarih-i Tedenniyat-i Osmaniye. Mukadderat-i Tarin (Istanbul 1331 H./1912–3)Google Scholar (Ózege No. 19923). The chapters Roma Ile Osmanli Devletleri Arasinda Mukayese-i Tarihiye and Kadim Yunanistan, Bizans ve Osmanli Devieti cover pp. 378-87-and 388-400, respectively.

32 Murad, Mehmed, Tarih-i Ebulfaruk. 7 vols. (Istanbul 1325 M./1909 — 1332 M./1916). The first volume of this work is described in some detail in Emil, Mizanci, 547–602 Google Scholar (Õzege No. 19778).

33 Vol. II, 259: ‘Rum illeti:

34 Tarih-i Sultan Mehmed Han Sani (Istanbul 1328/1912) (Õzege No. 19912). A Turkish translation of Doukas was published only in 1956: M. Mirmiroglu (transi.), Bizans Tarihi (Istanbul).

35 Bedreddin, Hasan (transl.), Bizans (Istanbul 1329/1913)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 2469). For further translations of works on Byzantine topics, especially history and institutions, by Western authors see above, n. 24.

36 Refik, Ahmed [Altinay], Bizans Imperatoriceleri (Istanbul 1331/1915)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 2473). It may be related to Charles Diehl’s work under the same title. See also the same author’s Bizans Karsisinda Tiirkler 699-857 (Istanbul 1927) (Õzege No. 2473).

37 [Arseven], Celai Es’ad Eski Istanbul Abidat ve Mebanisi (Istanbul 1328/1912)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 5113). Together with Raif’s, Mehmed Mir’at-i Istanbul. Vol. I (all published) (Istanbul 1314 H./1896–7)Google Scholar, a description of the most important monuments of Istanbul (see Babinger, , Geschichtsschreiber, 400) this is one of the most important Ottoman Turkish publications on the historical topography of ConstantinopleGoogle Scholar.

38 [lleri], Celai Nuri, Coğrafya-yi Tarihi-i Mülk-iRum (Istanbul 1918) (Õzege No. 3132)Google Scholar.

39 [lleri], Celai Nuri Rum ve Bizans (Istanbul 1917)Google Scholar (Õzege No. 17109). The passage quoted below is to be found on p. 54.

40 First published in Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat Tarihi Mecmuasi I (Istanbul 1931) 165-313.