Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:22:09.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Westernisation in the eighteenth-century Ottoman empire: how far, how fast?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

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

Abstract

A long-cherished assumption in standard periodisations of Ottoman history holds that Westernisation in the Ottoman empire had its beginnings in the early eighteenth century. According to the traditional view, the effects of the European Enlightenment began to be felt in the Ottoman empire with the establishment of the Muteferrika Press in 1727, gained pace as the century progressed and achieved a kind of culmination under the rule of the would-be reformist sultan Selim III (reigned 1789-1807). This study examines the evidence for the broader reception of Western, especially secular, ideas at the community level among various of the principal population groups (both Christian and Muslim) of the empire, and attempts a reassessment of the pace of Westernisation divorced from the usual Istanbul-centric and court-centred framework of analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 23 , 1999 , pp. 116 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1999

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. See in particular Yenişehirlioğlu, F., ‘Western influence on Ottoman architecture in the eighteenth century’ in Heiss, G. and Klingstein, G. (eds.), Das Osmanische Reich und Europa 1683 bis 1789 (Vienna 1983)Google Scholar [Wiener Beitrage zur Geschichte der Neuzeit, No. 10] 153-78, which reaches the as yet unsatisfactorily demonstrated, as well as risky, conclusion that the debt owed by Ottoman architects to their counterparts in Baroque Europe had a conceptual as well as technical dimension.

2. See Mardin, Ş., ‘Super westernization in urban Life in the Ottoman empire in the last quarter of the nineteenth century’ in Benedict, P. (ed.), Turkey: Geographic and Social Perspectives (Leiden 1974) 403-46Google Scholar. The term used by Mardin in the Turkish version of the same article was aşiri batilaşma which is perhaps closer to radical westernisation than to super westernisation.

3. Haldon, J.F., ‘Society, state and law’ in Haldon, J.F., Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge 1990) ch. 7: 254-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see in particular 255-8 on the canonisation of sixth-century Justinian law in later imperial epochs.

4. Karai, E.Z., ‘Tanzimattan evvel garphlaşma hareketleri (1718-1839)’ in Tanzimat I: Yüzüncü yildönümü münasebetile (Istanbul 1940) 13–30.Google Scholar

5. See in particular Sönmez, E., Turkish Women in Turkish Literature of the Nineteenth Century (Leiden 1960)Google Scholar, which satirises the superficially Europeanised ‘grandes dames’ of late nineteenth-century Istanbul, and Toker, S., Hüseyn Rahmi Gürpmarun romanlainda alafranga tipler (Izmir 1990)Google Scholar. In the latter book Toker analyses Gürpinar’s novel Ş’ik first published in 1888, whose stock characters still serve today as prototypical examples of shallow and hypocritical imitation of the West by Turkish social elites of yesterday and today.

6. Karai, ‘Garplilaşma’ 20.

7. See Küçükömer, I., Düzenin Yabancilaşmasi; Batiaşma (Istanbul, 1969)Google Scholar; A. Kabakh, Kültür Emperializmi: Manevi Sömürgecilik (n.p., 1971); Doğan, D.M., Batilaşma Ihaneti (Istanbul, 1975)Google Scholar; Sirma, A.S., Tanzimatin Götürdükleri (Istanbul 1988)Google Scholar. Also of relevance to the ongoing debate concerning the pros and cons of westernisation is Ibrahim Hilmi (Tuccarzade)’s essay, Avrupalaşmak: Felaketlerimizin Esbabi [Westernization: the Cause of Our Undoing] (Istanbul 1332/1916). On the latter see Özege, M. Seyfettin, Eski Harflerle Basilmiş Türkce Eserler Katalogu 5 vols. (Istanbul, 1971-1982) 1: 91 (no. 1315)Google Scholar.

8. See Karaman, K., Türkiyenin boyun ağriari (Istanbul 1991), p. 18 Google Scholar, where he cites a poem by the Tanzimat era traditionalist Ziya Paşa in which the poet mocks the concept of modernism and modernisation by use of the repeating refrain ‘yeni çikti’ [‘It has [just] been dreamed up’]. For Ziya’s biography, see ‘Ziyaeddin Abdülhamid Paşa’, Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmanî (4 vols. Istanbul 1308-1315) 3: 238-39.

9. Lewis, B., The Political Language of Islam (Chicago 1988) 111 Google Scholar, 157 (n. 39).

10. Karal, ‘Garplilaşma’ 19.

11. Berkes, N., Türk Düşününde Bati Sorunu (Ankara 1975) 17–30 Google Scholar.

12. Butterfield, H., the Whig Interpretation of History (London 1931)Google Scholar (reprinted New York 1965) 31-2.

13. It was not before the era of the Young Turks (1908-1918) that the Ottomans began to write in similarly adulatory terms about their counterparts in western society. See, as an example of early twentieth-century Ottoman admiration for western technological and especially industrial advancement, the letters of Cenab Şehabeddin (1870-1934) written during a wartime visit to Germany and later collected and published under the title Avrupa Mektuplari [Letters from Europe] (Istanbul 1335/1919). On Şehabeddin as a literary figure, much influenced by contemporary western trends in writing, see F. Iz’s article in Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition 9 vols. (Leiden 1960-1997), (hereafter cited as EI 2) 2: 439-40. It goes without saying that the esprit du temps which animated Ottoman intellectual and literary creativity during Mehmed Said Paşa’s heyday in the 1730s was something fundamentally different, for a brief survey of Mehmed Said’s career in public service, see Unat, F.R., Osmanli Sefirleri ve Sefaretnameleri (Ankara 1968) 70-2Google Scholar.

14. Hoçi, Yanko Iskender (ed.), ‘Sadr-i azam Said Mehmed Paşa-i merhumun hacegân-i divan-i hümayundan iken Istokholm’a vuku bulan sefareti’ in Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuasi (hereafter cited as TOEM) i/11 (1329/1911) 658-77Google Scholar. The portion containing the text of Mehmed Said’s report follows under a separate title; ‘Müşarün ileyh [Said Paşa]’ nin avdetinde makam-i sadaret-i uzmaya takdim eylediği takrir’, pp. 660-77. The transcription of the passage in the Arabic given here is taken from p. 664, lines 12-13 with minor changes to correct for typographical errors.

15. See Hoçi, ‘Said Mehmed Pasa’ nin sefareti’: 659 where he specifies that of a total duration of 327 days accounting for Said Paşa’s embassy, only three months and two days (101 days) were actually spent in Stockholm. The remainder of the time (226 days) was taken up by the outward bound journey from Istanbul during winter (159 days), and his return journey undertaken during the summer months (67 days).

16. Darnton, R., The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775-1800 (Cambridge, Mass. 1979)Google Scholar. See in particular Darnton’s remarks (on p. 6) about the significance of the production of ‘cut-rate’ editions for the rapid dissemination of the ideas of the encyclopédistes.

17. Hourani, A., ‘Culture and change: the Middle East in the eighteenth century’ in Hourani, A., Islam in European Thought (Cambridge 1991) 136-63Google Scholar; see in particular p. 140.

18. M. Aktepe, ‘Mahmud I’, in EF 2 6: 55-8. For the reference to Mihrabad, see p. 57.

19. Ortayli, I., ‘Istanbul’da Barok’ in Tarih ve Toplum 3 (1984) 215-18Google Scholar. For the reference to Hümayunabad, see p. 217.

20. K. Mikes, Türkiye Mektublari (Törökorszagi Levekek) (1717-1748), S. Karatay (trans.) 2 vols. (Ankara 1944-1945) 1: 81-7, letter no. 38 (28 May 1720). See especially p. 84.

21. Ipşirli, M., ‘Lale devrinde teşkil edilen tercüme heyetine dair bazi gözlemler’ in Ihsanoğlu, E. (ed.), Osmanli Ilmî ve Meslekí Cemiyetler (Istanbul 1987) 33–42 Google Scholar. See especially p. 34, n. 5.

22. Karahan, A., ‘Rağib Paşa: Edebî şahsiyeti’, in Islam Ansiklopedisi 13 vols. (Istanbul 1940-1986)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as IA) 9: 596-8; and Hikmet, I., Koca Rağib Paşa ve Fitnat (Istanbul 1993)Google Scholar [Milli Kütüphane: Edebiyat Serisi, no. 22] 20-4.

23. Şeşen, R. et al., Catalogue of Islamic Medical Manuscripts (in Arabic, Turkish and Persian) in the Libraries of Turkey (Istanbul 1984), p. 391 Google Scholar, ms. no. 445; and Tahir, Bursali Mehmed, Osmanli Müellifleri (hereafter cited as OM) 3 vols. (reprinted Istanbul 1975) 3 Google Scholar: 158 (no. 1).

24. Şeşen, Medical Manuscripts, p. 276, ms. no. 265; OM, vol. 3, p. 230.

25. J. Vemet, ‘Ibn Baytar’ in EF 2 3: 737.

26. OM 3: 158 (no. 1).

27. A number of reproductions (both in black and white and colour) of this portrait have been published. See in particular the black and white version published in ‘La mode des portraits Turcs au XVIII, siècle’ unsigned article in La Revue de l’Art Ancien et Moderne 12 (1902) 210-15 (p. 211) and the colour version in Sievernich, G. and Bude, H. (eds.), Europa und der Orient 800-1900 (Munich, 1989) 823 Google Scholar (illustration no. 896).

28. Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmanî 3: 29-30.

29. Halasi-Kun, T., ‘Ibrahim Müteferrika’ in IA 5: 896–900 Google Scholar; especially p. 900.

30. Ménage, V.L., ‘The map of Hajji Ahmed and its makers’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 20 (1958) 291–314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Gibb, H.A.R. and Bowen, H., Islamic Society and the West, vol. 1 pts. 1 and 2 (London 1950-1957)Google Scholar, pt. 2: 235-6; Hourani, Islam in European Thought, 144.

32. For details, see notes 43-44, 46-47 below.

33. See Lofting, H., The Story of Doctor Dolittle (London 1920)Google Scholar (reprinted New York, 1988) 73-80: The Rarest Animal of All’.

34. Runciman, S., The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge 1968) 202 Google Scholar.

35. Politis, L., A History of Modern Greek Literature (Oxford 1973) 74 Google Scholar.

36. As an example of the ambivalent and self-contradictory character of Greek thought in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries one might cite the case of the celebrated founder of the Mavrocordato dynasty, Alexander Mavrocordatos (1641-1709). Although Alexander had studied ‘new science’ in Europe, his own written works were, in the estimation of Kitromilides, devoted to ‘traditional religious and literary subjects’, see Kitromilides, P., ‘The idea of science in the modern Greek Enlightenment’ in Nicolacopoulos, P. (ed.), Greek Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Dordrecht and Boston 1990)Google Scholar [Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, no. 121] 187-200; see in particular p. 189.

37. See Wilkinson, W., An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia: Including Various Political Observations Relating to Them (London 1820) 130 Google Scholar. The view that the student body of these schools was not made up exclusively of the country’s social elites is reiterated in the only comprehensive study devoted to the academies. Camariano-Cioran, A., Les academies princières de Bucharest et de Jassy et leurs professeurs (Thessaloniki 1974)Google Scholar; see in particular p. 283; ‘A notre avis, jusqu’à envers la fin du XVIIIe siècle la majorité des élèves provenaient des couches moyennes et inférieures de la population; alors que les fils des grands boyards avaient des professeurs particuliers’ [italics are mine].

38. Camariano-Cioran, Academies 147 (notes 4-6).

39. Kitromilides, ‘Idea of science’, 135.

40. Ibid., 188.

41. Kitromilides, P., ‘Cultural change and social criticism: the case of Issipos Moisiodax’, History of European Ideas 10 (1989) 667-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; especially p. 667.

42. Stourdza, A., L’Europe orientale et le râle historique des Maurocordate, 1660-1830 (Paris 1913) 200 Google Scholar.

43. Ware, T., Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford 1964) 7 Google Scholar. Ware is here citing the observation of the Russian cleric Father Florovsky.

44. Runciman, Church in Captivity, 357.

45. For a contemporary account of the proselytising activities of the Jesuits in the East, see Aubrey de La Mottraye, F., Voyage du Sieur A. de La Mottraye en Europe, Asie et Afrique [1699-1715] 2 vols. (La Haye 1727)Google Scholar. See in particular 1: 299-304 (1703) where La Mottraye relates the troubles between the Catholic and anti-Catholic congregations of Istanbul’s Armenian community and the role played by the Catholic missionaries in those disputes, and 1: 305 (1703) where he records the sultan’s decision to order the closing of the Jesuit college in Trabzon as a source for the fomenting of inter-denominational acrimony.

46. Ware, Eustratios Argenti, 23.

47. Ware, Eustratios Argenti, 171.

48. By the early twentieth century on the eve of the Young Turk Revolution Istanbul boasted more than 300 tekkes (Sufi lodges). According to statistics provided by Gündüz, Irfan, Osmanlilarda devlet-tekke münasebetleri (Istanbul 1984) 219-20Google Scholar, a rapid increase (a rise of more than 23 per cent) in the number of Istanbul’s Sufi lodges had taken place during the relatively short period of four decades between 1868 and 1908. During this period, the number of Sufi lodges rose by 59 from a base number of 252 in 1868 to 285 in 1890 and reached a peak of 311 in 1908. In the years following the Young Turk Revolution their number seems to have stabilised at around 250, but it is significant that in later years (see for example the statistics for the year 1330/1912 published in 1330 Senesi Istanbul Belediyesi Ihsaiyat Mecmuasi [Istanbul 1331] 109-13), alongide the established orders such as the Nakşibendî (52 lodges), the Kadirî (45 lodges), the Rifaî (40 lodges) and the Halvetî (32 lodges)), some of the more recently founded orders also seem to have survived.

49. See note 43 above.