Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-72kh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-05T10:04:43.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Byzantine History in late Ottoman Turkish Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Michael Ursinus*
Affiliation:
Centre for Byzantine Studies and Modern Greek, University of Birmingham

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Notes
Copyright
Copyright ©The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1986

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. By ‘late Ottoman historiography’ as opposed to ‘late Ottoman Turkish historiography’ (as in the title) I want to indicate that the project (but not this Note) is ideally concerned with historical writing composed in the Ottoman empire during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, not only in Turkish, but in any language including, of course, Greek.

2. For a general account of early Ottoman historiography see Lewis, B. and Holt, P.M. (ed.), Historians of the Middle East (London 1962) 169216 Google Scholar. Ottoman historians and their works are individually treated in Babiner, F., Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (Leipzig 1927)Google Scholar, reprinted by University Microfilms International (Ann Arbor/London 1981).

3. For the ‘time of Ignorance’ see the article ‘Djahiliyya’ in Encylopaedia of Islam2 II, 383f.

4. Compare Karayannopulos, J. and Weiss, G., Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324–1453). Halband, Zweiter (Wiesbaden 1982) 5324 Google Scholar, especially No. 572.

5. I owe this interesting early example to the kindness of B. Flemming, Leiden. On the Ġurbetname-i Sultan Cem see Flemming, B., ‘A sixteenth-century Turkish apology for Islam: the Ghurbetname-i Sultan Djem’, Byzantinische Forschungen Google Scholar forthcoming.

6. Babinger, , Geschichtsschreiber, 229 Google Scholar. A recent detailed account of the life and work of Huseyin Hezarfenn as an historian is Wurm, H., Der osmanische Historiker Ḥüseyn b. Ğa’fer, genannt Hezārfenn, und die Istanbuler Gesellschaft in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg i. Br. 1971).Google Scholar

7. An early example for the gradual departure from the traditional historiographic concept is Hayrullah’s (1917–64) Tārīẖ-i Devlet-i ‘Alīye-i Osmānīye (History of the Ottoman Empire), published in Istanbul between 1271 (= 1854/5) and 1292 (= 1875), probably the first history of the Ottoman empire and its neighbours on the basis of Eastern and Western sources. See Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber, 360–2. Hammer-Purgstall called this work ‘a very strange thing’ (‘sehr merkwürdige Erscheinung’). The work is listed in Özege, Eski Harflerle Basilmiş Türkqe Eserler Kataloğu (Catalogue of Turkish Works Printed in the Old Script) (Istanbul 1971ff.) under No. 3955, p.274.

8. One of the earliest ‘Universal Histories’ of this kind written in the nineteenth century is the Tārīẖ-i ‘Umūmī (6 vols., Istanbul 1297–1299 (= 1879–80-1881/2) by Mehmed Murad, for use in the Mülkiye school. Özege, Catalogue, 1745f., No. 19936. On Mehmed Murad (1854–1917) see Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber, 391f., and the comprehensive study by Emil, B., Mizanci Murad Bey. Hayati ve Eserleri (Murad Bey, the Editor of the Newspaper Mizan. His Life and Works) (Istanbul 1979).Google Scholar

9. Ahmed Hilmi’s Tārīẖ-i ‘Umūmī(General History), an adaption of Chamber’s Universal History, is quoted by Kushner as ‘the first general history book to appear in Turkish’ ( Kushner, D., The Rise of Turkish Nationalism, 1876–1908 (London 1977), 28 Google Scholar). It was published in Istanbu$l between 1283 (=1866/7) and 1295 (=1878), see Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber, 364f.; Özege, Catalogue, 1754, No. 19931.

10. This corpus is bibliographically insufficiently covered by Babinger, Geschichtssschreiber. M.O. Bayrak, Osmanli Tarihi Yazarlari (Writers on Ottoman History) (Osmanli Yayinevi 1982) surveys it in a more comprehensive way, but is unreliable in detail and suffers from the fact that he has not used Özege (cited n. 7 above).

11. D. Kushner, Turkish Nationalism, 29 (cited no. 9 above) dates the establishment of a link between Ottoman and Central Asian Turkish history back to 1887. However, a similar idea had been expressed by the same author (i.e. Midhat Efendi) already in 1877: ‘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’. Midhat, Ahmed, Öss-i Inḳilāb (The Basis of Revolution). Vol. 1 (Istanbul 1294 = 1877) 11 Google Scholar. For this work see Özege, Catalogue, 1993, No.22431.

12. The suitability of, if not the need for, such an arrangement was expressed as early as 1880/1: Ahmed Midhat, Kā’ānat (Kütübẖāne-i Tārīh): Devlet-i ‘Osmamye (The Universe [Historical Library]: The Ottoman Empire) Istanbul 1298 (= 1880/1) 58ff. The first realisation of this new approach was published five years later. See below, p.215ff. For a reference to the above title see Özege, Catalogue, 799f., No. 9937.

13. The Ottoman empire finally collapsed in November 1922.

14. See below, p.218ff.

15. Vol. II, 269.

16. Fuat, Köprülüzade Mehmet, ‘Bizans Müesseselerinin Osmanli Müesseselerine Te’siri Hakkinda bâzi Mülahazalar’, Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat Tarihi Mecmuasi 1 (Istanbul 1931) 165313 Google Scholar. For the treatment of ‘Byzantium’ in modern Turkish historiography see now Strohmeier, M., Seldschukische Geschichte und türkische Geschichtswissenschaft im Urteil moderner türkischer Historiker (Berlin 1984) 20518.Google Scholar

17. I do not know of any previous systematic attempt towards a collection of historical writing in Ottoman Turkish on the subject in question.

18. The work is misleadingly (but not entirely without justification) described by Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber, 390 as ‘allgemeine Welt- und Kulturgeschichte vom Altertum bis auf die Neuzeit’. Kushner, Turkish Nationalism, 118 knows only of the first two volumes. Özege, Catalogue, lists the work under No. 14011, p.1186.

19. There is no reference to this title in Babinger, Geschichtsschreiber. Özege, Catalogue, has it under No. 15998, p.1377.

20. 1844–1913. There is a brief bio-bibliographical sketch of Ahmed Midhat in the Encyclopaedia of Islam2 (by B. Lewis). For further details see Siyavuşgil, A. in Islam Ansiklopedisi I, 184187.Google Scholar

21. Compare n.12. My quotation is from a passage on page 59 of The Ottoman Empire published in 1880/1.

22. Translated and annotated by Guizot, Paris2 1828.

23. I could not verify this work.

24. The Histoire du Bas-Empire is part of the author’s Abrégé de l’histoire universelle, ancienne el moderne à l’usage de la jeunesse (15 vols., Paris: Eymery 1817–19). It figures as vols. XVI-XIX of the 1824–26 edition of the Histoire universelle, which has been published in vols. X-XIX of Ségur, L.-P. Comte de, Oeuvres complètes de M. Le Cte. de Ségur (33 vols., Paris: Eymery 1824–26)Google Scholar. Apt, L., Louis-Philippe de Ségur. An Intellectual in a Revolutionary Age (The Hague 1969) 1218.Google Scholar

25. Detailed History of Modern Times 2, 270.

26. Nicephorus III. The drawing of a Palaeologan emperor (identified as Andronicus instead of Michael who figures on the next page) opposite page 384 is almost identical with that of Michael Palaeologos facing page 104 in Byzantios, Skarlatos, ‘H t.3 (Athens 1869).Google Scholar

27. Necib Asim (Yaziksiz), 1861–1935. On the importance of Asim Bey for the development of Turkish nationalism see Kushner, Turkish Nationalism, Index, cf. Asim.

28. 1873–1919. An early ‘portrait’ of Mehmed Arif is the highly unfavourable account published as a necrology by his colleague and co-author Necib Asim in Tirih-i ‘Osmani Engümeni Mecmūcasi, year 7–8 ([Nisan 1335-Haziran 1337] Istanbul 1339 [=1920/1]) 122–5.

29. The project outlined by the Programme was heavily criticised by the Turkist Yusuf Akçura as being much too traditional: see his Kücük Muḥtira of August 1913 in Georgeon, F., Aux origines du nationalisme Turc. Yusuf Akçura (1876–1935) (Paris 1980) 126f.Google Scholar (Özege, Catalogue, No. 16000, dates the Programme to the year 1915, taking the year of publication (1331) as mālīye instead of hicrīye).

30. Beau, Ch. Le, Histoire du bas-empire. 27 vols. (Paris 1757–1784 Google Scholar, nouvelle éd., revue entièrement, corrigée et augmentée d’après les historiens orientaux par M. de Saint-Martin [et continuée par M. Brosset jne] 21 tomes, Paris 1824–36).

31. Grenier, P., L’empire byzantin, son évolution sociale et politique, 2 vols. (Paris 1904).Google Scholar

32. Ottoman History 437.

33. Lecky, W.E.H., History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. 2 vols. (London 1869) vol. 2, 13f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Detailed History of Modern Times 2, 384f.