Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:01:00.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Notes on an Early Phase in the Modernization of Communications in Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Serif Mardin
Serif Mardin
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the recent attempts to formulate a general theory of nationalism has been Deutsch's approach to the question. This aims to show that a correlation exists between changes in the process of social communications and the rise of national consciousness. A considerable number of studies based on this approach to nationalism will have to be carried out before its contribution to the identification of the elusive “essence” of nationalism can be evaluated with any amount of fairness. In the meantime one tentative procedure which might be used to assess its usefulness is to try to fit this model to the evolution of social communications in a number of countries which the author has not included among his illustrations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , April 1961 , pp. 250 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1961

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 Karl, Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communications (New York, 1953).Google Scholar

2 Deutsch, , op. cit., p. 125.Google Scholar

3 Deutsch, , op. cit., p. 100.Google Scholar

4 See below p. 260, n. 48.

5 A fascinating strand to follow in the evolution of communications would be to look into the seemingly spontaneous emergence among certain nineteenth-century Ottoman poets who were attached to old Ottoman ways, but were forced to live in a transitional era, of an overwhelming “angoisse”. This feeling takes the form of a morbid interest in the concept of void, emptiness, nothingness. Men such as İzzet Molla, Akif Paṣa and Ziya Paṣa in whose writings these signs of intellectual stress appear, then go on to build a highly personal philosophy in which the concept of “nothingness” is central and from which a concept of the existential nature of man emerges. This is an entirely new concept for the Ottoman world. See: Tanpinar, Ahmet Hamdixlxncu Asir Türk Edebiyatl Tarihi, 2nd ed. (Istanbul, 1955), pp. 46–47, 300.Google Scholar

6 For an example of the first approach see: Levend, Agâh Sirrci, Türk Dilinde Geliṣme ye Sadeleṣne Safhalari (Ankara, 1949)Google Scholar; for the second: Heyd, Uriel, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism (London, 1950).Google Scholar

7 Anhegger, Robert, “Hezarfen Hüseyin Efendi'nin Osmanli Devlet Teṣkilâtina dair mülâhazalari”, Türkiyat Mecmuasi, X (1953), 392. The word ümera denotes the members of the military-administrative class known also as the “wielders of the sword” (seyfiyye was the name used for this order as opposed to Ilmiyye for the Doctors of Islamic Law).Google Scholar

8 With the exception of training provided at the Palace School (Enderun Mektebi) which was also staffed by Ulema but controlled by the Palace.

9 Toderini, [J. B.], De la Littérature des Turcs, Trs. Cournand (Paris, 1789), II, p. 28Google Scholar. Cf. Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von, Des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung (Vienna, 1815), II, pp. 403–4 for the accuracy of the above description.Google Scholar

10 See Çelebi, Kâtib, The Balance of Truth, Trs. and notes by Lewis, G. L. (London, 1957), p. 26Google Scholar; Gökyay, Orhan Ṣaik, “Kitip (sic) Celebi: Hayati, Sahsiyeti, Eserleri”, in Kâtip Çelebi: Hayai; Sahsiyeti, Eserleri. Hakklnda Incelemeler. Edited by Türk Tarih Kurumu (Ankara, 1957), p. 89, 182–83.Google Scholar

11 Cevdet, Tarih, 2nd ed. (Istanbul, 1309 A. H. / 1893 A. D.), V, p. 107–108.

12 Hammer, , Staatsverfassung …, II, pp. 102–175.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., I, pp. 31, 73–74. Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, Part I, Vol. I, p. 197. Uzunçarslll, Ismaii Hakki, Osmanli Devletinin Merkez ve Bahriye Teskilâti (Ankara, 1948), p. 69.Google Scholar

14 Hammer, , Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman…, Paris, 1835–1843, xiv, p. 305. For Hammer's translation of hâce in the above sense as “chef de bureau” see Hammer, Staatsverfassung …, II, 111. For a description of the DivanGoogle Scholar, Ibid. II, pp. 412 ff.

15 Yöntmen, Ali Canib, “Sümbülzâde, Vehbi” Edebiyat Fakultesi Turk Dili ye Edebiyatl Dergisi, I (1946–1947), p. 83.Google Scholar

16 Tanpinar, Ahmet Hamdi, xcxncu Asir Türk Edebiyati Tarihi, I, p. xviii.Google Scholar

17 Krenkow, F., “Sadj'”, Encyclopedia of Islam, IV, pp. 43–44.Google Scholar

18 [Sevük], Ismail Habib, Edebiyat Bilgileri (Istanbul, 1943), p. 289 f.Google Scholar

19 [özön], Mustafa Nihat, Türkçede Roman Hakkinda bir Deneme, (Istanbul, [1939?]), p. 66.Google Scholar

20 Tanpinar, , xlxncu Asi …, p. xviii.Google Scholar

21 [Gerçek], Selim Nilzhet, Türk Matbaacilligi (Istanbul, 1928), p. 40 f.Google Scholar

22 The dictionary was an adaptation by Mehmed Mustafa el-VanÎ of an abridgement by Abūbakr al-Rāzī (7th century A.H.) of the al-Siḥāb of CevherÎ ( died 1003 A.D.). The two other dictionaries available at this time were the AhterÎ (sixteenth century) and the Ferheng-i SuurÎ (mid seventeenth century). In 1723, shortly after the publication of VanÎ's dictionary (more widely known as Van Kulu from the name of its author), the former Seyhülislâm Esad Mehmed Efendi started to compile his own Turkish-Persian-Arabic dictionary, the Lehçet ül-lûgat. See Levend, Agah Sirri, Türk Dilinde GeliSme ve SadeleSme Safhalari, (Ankara, 1949), p. 173Google Scholar; Babinger, F., Stambuler Buchwesen im xviii. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1919), p. 11.Google Scholar

23 Huart, Cl., “Kalem”, Islâm Ansiklopedisi, VI, p. 127.Google Scholar

24 Krenkow, F., “Kâtib”, Islâm Ansiklopedisi, VI, p. 431.Google Scholar

25 Rosenthal, , Political Thought in Medieval Islam (London, 1958), p. 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Krenkow, , “Kâtib”, p. 431.Google Scholar

27 Ziya Paşscedeil;a, “Siir ye InSa'”, Hürriyet, 7 September 1868.

28 Çelebi, Kâtib, The Balance of Truth, p. 12. Babinger, Stambuler Buchwesen.… p. 23, note 1.Google Scholar

29 Sir Rycaut, Paul, The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1686), p. 32.Google Scholar

30 Gerçek, , Türk Matbaaciligl, p. 39Google Scholar. İskit, Server, Türkiyede NeSriyat Hareketleri (Istanbul, 1939), p. 7.Google Scholar

31 For Rakim Efendi and his relations with the reformist Reisülküttab Ebubekir Ratib Efendi see: İnal, Ibnülemin Mahmud Kemal, Son Hattatlar (Istanbul, 1955), p. 269.Google Scholar For the Divan-I Hümayun Kalemi, Hammer, Staatsverfassung.… pp. 11, 109. For the scandal created by Efendi, Rakim: Ebüzziya Tevfik, “Rical-i Mensiye”, Mecmua-i Ebüzziya, xxi (1317 A.H./1899 A.D.), p. 438.Google Scholar

32 Kun, , “Ibrahim Müteferrika”, Islâm Ansiklopedisi V (1951), p. 898.Google Scholar

33 Lûfi, Ahmed, “Türkiyede Maarif TeSkilâti 1267–1287”, T.T.E.M. xvi (1927), p. 305.Google Scholar

34 [Sevük], Ismail Habib, Edebiyat Bilgileri, p. 289 f.Google Scholar

35 Gibb, E. J. W., A History of Ottoman Poetry (London, 1900–1909), IV, p. 13.Google Scholar

36 Kafiyā, Ibn al-Hadjīb's (Kafiye in Turkish). Babinger, Stambuler Buchwesen, p. 22.Google Scholar

37 The lehçet ul-lügat. Babinger, Stambuler Buchwesen…, p. 24.

38 These were known as the Nuhbe-i Vehbi and the Tuhfe-i Vehbi. Yöntmen, “Siimbillzade Vehbi,” p. 102. For the various editions: Fehmi Edhem Karatay, Istanbul üniversitesi Türkçe Basmalar Alfabe Katalogu (Istanbul, 1956), II, pp. 849–60.

39 Hammer, , Histoire…, xiv, pp. 492–507.Google Scholar

40 See: ülkütaSir, M. Sakir, “Mütercim âsim”, Türk Dili, I (1951), pp. 34–35.Google Scholar

41 Toderini, , De la littérature des Turcs, III, 105.Google Scholar

42 Lewis, Bernard, “The Impact of the French Revolution on Turkey: Some Notes on the Transmission of Ideas”, Journal of World History, I (1953), p. 121.Google Scholar

43 Mehmed Esad, üss-ü afer, 1st edition (Istanbul 1243 A.H.), began 25 July 1827.

44 MacFarlane, Charles, Constantinople in 1828 … (London, 1829), II, p. 23.Google Scholar

45 Loc. cit.

46 Loc. cit.

47 Sevük, Edebiyat Bilgileri, p. 291.

48 al-Mustaṭraf fi kull Fann mustaẓraf. See C. van Arendonk, “al ”, Encyclopedia of Islam, II, p. 443; for Esad's preface: Köpülüzide Mehmed Fuad, Muill Edebiyat Cereyanlarinin İ1k MübeSSirleri ye Divan-i Türki-i Basit (Istanbul, 1928), p. 32.

49 Köprülüzâde, , op.cit., p. 32.Google Scholar

50 Lûtfi, Ahmed, Tarih, IV, p. 84.Google Scholar

51 Gibb, E. J. W., A History of Ottoman Poetry (London, 1900–1909), V (1905), p. 328.Google Scholar

52 See [Akif PaSa] Tabsira-i Akif PaSa (Istanbul, 1300 A.R./1883 A.D).

53 Tanpinar, Ahmed Hamdi, xixncu Asir Türk Edebiyati…, p. 111, quoting from Cevdet PaSa's unpublished Tezakir.Google Scholar

54 PaSa, Said, Gazeteci Lisani (Istanbul, 1328 A. H./1910 A. D.), p. 24.Google Scholar

55 See Sungu, Ihsan, “Mekteb-i Maarif-i Adliyyenin Tesisi”, Tarih Vesikalari, I (1941), pp. 212–213. The institution was established in February 1839.Google Scholar

56 PaSa, Said, Gazeteci Lisani, p. 50.Google Scholar

57 PaSa, Said, Gazeteci Lisani, p. 106–107.Google Scholar

58 d'Eschavannes, E., “Académie des Sciences de Constantinople”, Revue de l'Orient, XII (1852), pp. 361–372.Google Scholar

59 Ilm-i Tedbir-i Menzil (Istanbul, 1268 A.H./1851–52 A.D.).

60 Southgate, Horatio, Narrative of a Journey through Armenia … (New York, 1840), I, p. 76.Google Scholar

61 Ergin, Osman, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi (Istanbul, 1939–1943), p. 301. This tradition of writing textbooks of grammar at the military school was continued with Abdullah Ramiz PaSa's Emsile-i Türki and by the first text of “lecture expliquee” to appear in the Ottoman Empire, Süleyman Hüsnü PaSa's Mebani ül-İnSa'; Süleyman PaSa was a graduate of one of ReSid PaSa's short-lived new “faculties”. See Süleyman PaSa Muhakemesi, edited by SüleymanpaSazâde Sami (Istanbul, 1911–1912), p. 24 f.Google Scholar

62 Yusuf Halts Efendi's Miftah ül-Lisan. See Karatay, , Türkçe Basmalar, I, p. 266Google Scholar; Hayreddin, , Vesaik-i Tarihiye ye Siyasiye (Istanbul, 1326 A.H./1910 A.D.), II, p. 65.Google Scholar

63 Karatay, , Türkçe Basmalar, I, pp. 130–131. Thirteen editions were printed between 1851 and 1893–94.Google Scholar

64 Bianchi, , “Bibliographie Ottoman”, Journal Asiatique, Series V, XV 1(1860), p. 336.Google Scholar

65 Levend, , Türk DiliSme Gelisme., p. 121 f.Google Scholar

66 MacFarlane, Charles, Türkey and its Destiny (London, 1850), p. 272.Google Scholar

67 PaSa, Said, Gazeteci Lisant, p. 41 ff., p. 45.Google Scholar

68 Kaplan, Mehmet, Namik Kemal (Istanbul, 1948), p. 135Google Scholar. For biographical information see inal, Ibnülemin Mahmud Kemal, Son Asir Türk Sairleri (Istanbul, 1930–1942), pp. 1646–1648.Google Scholar

69 “Not merely was it the first unofficial journal in Türkey [This is incorrect but the Tasvir-i Efkâr might as well have been the first journal in view of the limited popularity of its predecessors], it was the first utterance of the modern school… Here, for the first time, an Ottoman man of letters conversant with and appreciative of a great European language set out to reconstruct from its very foundations the whole edifice of Türkish literary style.” Gibb, , Ottoman Poetry, V, p. 26.Google Scholar

70 Tevfik, Ebüzziya, “Rical-i Mensiye”, Mecmua-i Ebüzziya, xix (1317 A.H./1899–1900 A.D.), p. 339Google Scholar; Tevfik, Ebüzziya, “Süleyman Nazif Beyefendiye”, Mecmua-i Ebüzziya, (1329 A.H./1911 A.D.), p. 579.Google Scholar

71 Mardin, Ebül'ülâ, Medent Hukuk Cephesinden Ahmet Cevdet PaSa (Istanbul, 1946), p. 10, note 8. Quoting from an unpublished portion of Cevdet's Tezâkir.Google Scholar

72 This debate has been published in pamphlet form: See Sinasi, ibrahim, Müntahabat-I Tasvir-i Efkâr: Mes'ele-yi Mebhuset-u Anha, ed. by Tevfik, Ebüzziya, 1st ed. (Istanbul, 1303 A.H./1885 A.D.).Google Scholar

73 PaSa, Ziya, “Siir ve inSa'”, Hürriyet, 7 September, 1868, p. 4.Google Scholar

74 Suavi, Ali, reply to a reader, Muhbir, 27 Zilhicce, 1283–2 May, 1867, p. 1.Google Scholar

75 Kaplan, Mehmet, Namik Kemal (istanbul, 1948), p. 136.Google Scholar

76 Loc. cit.

77 Bala, Mirza, “Feth-Ali”, Islâm Ansiklopedisi, IV (1947), pp. 577–80.Google Scholar

78 Tansel, F. A., “Arap harfierinin islahi ve degiSirilmesi hakkinda ilk teSebbüsler ve neticeleri”, Belleten, xvii (1953), pp. 234–37.Google Scholar

79 By establishing in the 1860's as standard their own simple way of writing, the journalists had taken the initiative in the simplification movement out of the government's hands. The kitabet-i resmiye was thus bypassed and left to wallow in its fetid pool of circumlocutions. One result of this side-stepping was that even today, after years of strongly enforced linguistic reform during the time of Atatürk, official prose has remained quite rigid. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in particular, the changing of a comma into a semi-colon is still given the rapt attention of under-secretaries of state.

80 For this dictionary, the Lehçe-i OsmanÎ, see Tanpinar, Ahmed Hamdi, “Ahmed Vefik PaSa”, Islâm Ansiklopedisi, I (1941), p. 209.Google Scholar

81 For a letter of Namik Kemal making fun of these activities of Vefik PaSa, see Pakalin, Mehmde Zeki, Ahmed Vefik PaSa (Istanbul, 1942), p. 135.Google Scholar

82 See Karatay, , Türkçe Basmalar …, I, p. 131Google Scholar. For Ziya PaSa's advice to go back to the “unspoilt” Türkish of the pre-Islamic era, see Ertaylan, Ismail Hikmet, Ziya PaSa (Istanbul, 1932), p. 150.Google Scholar

83 Deutsch, , op. cit., p. 162.Google Scholar

84 Ibid.