Content

Christoph Herzog, Malek Sharif (ed.)

The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy

1. Edition 2010, ISBN print: 978-3-89913-745-3, ISBN online: 978-3-95650-680-2, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956506802

Series: Istanbuler Texte und Studien (ITS), vol. 18

CC-BY-NC-ND

Bibliographic information
The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISTANBULER TEXTE UND STUDIEN HERAUSGEGEBEN VOM ORIENT-INSTITUT ISTANBUL BAND 18 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy edited by Christoph Herzog Malek Sharif WÜRZBURG 2016 ERGON VERLAG WÜRZBURG IN KOMMISSION © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Umschlaggestaltung: Taline Yozgatian Umschlagabbildung: Opening of the first Ottoman Parliament, 1877. Source: Wikipedia. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-95650-191-3 ISSN 1863-9461 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul (Max Weber Stiftung) Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung des Werkes außerhalb des Urheberrechtsgesetzes bedarf der Zustimmung des Orient-Instituts Istanbul. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen jeder Art, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung sowie für die Einspeicherung in elektronische Systeme. Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Orient-Instituts Istanbul, gegründet von der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, aus Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung. Ergon-Verlag GmbH Keesburgstr. 11, D-97074 Würzburg © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Table of Contents The Contributors ..................................................................................................... 7 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 11 Introduction........................................................................................................... 13 Johann Strauss A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire. Translations of the Kanun-i Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages ....................................................................................... 21 Abdulhamit Kırmızı Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism Combined: Ahmed Midhat Efendi Between the Sultan and the Kanun-ı Esasi...................... 53 A. Teyfur Erdoğdu The Administrative and Judicial Status of the First Ottoman Parliament According to the 1876 Constitution ............... 67 Nurullah Ardıç Islam, Modernity and the 1876 Constitution ....................................................... 89 Milena B. Methodieva The Debate on Parliamentarism in the Muslim Press of Bulgaria, 1895-1908............................................................................................................. 107 Selçuk Akşin Somel Mustafa Bey of Radoviş (1843-1893): Bureaucrat, Journalist and Deputy of Salonica to the First Ottoman Parliament ......................................................................... 129 Bülent Bilmez / Nathalie Clayer A Prosopographic Study on some ‘Albanian’ Deputies to the First Ottoman Parliament ......................................................................... 151 Elke Hartmann The “Loyal Nation” and Its Deputies. The Armenians in the First Ottoman Parliament............................................... 187 Philippe Gelez Towards a Prosopography of the Deputies from Bosnia-Herzegovina in the First Ottoman Parliament.............................. 223 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 Johannes Zimmermann The First Ottoman Parliamentary Elections on Crete and the Cretan Deputies to the Meclis-i Mebusan ............................................... 255 Christoph Herzog Some Notes About the Members of Parliament from the Province of Baghdad ............................................................................ 275 Malek Sharif A Portrait of Syrian Deputies in the First Ottoman Parliament......................... 285 Appendix.............................................................................................................. 313 Index of Personal Names..................................................................................... 325 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The Contributors Nu r u l l a h A r d ı ç is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Istanbul Şehir University. He has published on Islam and politics in the Middle East, the Ottoman- Turkish modernization, and the sociology of intellectuals. He is currently working on a book on the transformation and demise of the Ottoman Caliphate in the early 20th century, and on an edited volume on contemporary Turkey's interaction with various globalization processes. B ü l e n t B i l m e z is a lecturer in the History Department of Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey. He has a Ph.D. from the Institute of Modern Near Eastern Studies at Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany (1998). An amended Turkish version of his Ph.D. dissertation entitled “Chester Project (1908-1923): A Case Study for the Eurocentric Modern Standardization Process in Modern Turkey” was published in Turkey in 2000 as Demiryolundan Petrole: Chester Projesi (1908-1923). N a t h a l i e C l a y e r is a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS, Paris), in the department of “Etudes turques et Ottomanes” (EHESS), and head of that department. A specialist on Islam, religious questions and nationalism in the Balkans, especially among the Albanians, her most recent publications are Religion et nation chez les Albanais, XIX-XX siècles (Istanbul 2003), Aux origines du nationalisme albanais. La naissance d’une nation majoritairement musulmane en Europe (Paris 2007) and Islam in Inter-War Europe (London-New York 2008), co-edited with Eric Germain. A . Te y f u r E r d o ğd u studied architecture, political sciences and history in Istanbul, Bamberg, Germany, Edinburgh, Scotland and Aix-en-Provence, France. In 2005 he completed his Ph.D. thesis on the “History of the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior.” Since 2006 he has been assistant professor in the Department of Humanities at Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul. His research interest is the Ottoman Empire. P h i l i p p e G e l e z , since receiving his Ph.D. (Paris-Sorbonne, 2006) with a thesis on the seminal figure of Bosnian Muslim nationalism, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934), has worked on the economic history of Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 19th century in the framework of the activities of the French School in Athens, with a special focus on demography and cadastral reform. E l k e H a r t m a n n has studied History and Islamic Studies at the Freie Universität Berlin and is currently employed in the history department of the same university. Her research interests focus on modern Ottoman history, especially on aspects of modernization, ways and conditions of cultural and „technical“ adaptations, minorities, state- and nation-building processes, public order and mass violence. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE CONTRIBUTORS 8 Ch r i s t o p h He r z o g studied Middle Eastern and European history in Freiburg, Germany and in Istanbul. In 1995 he completed his Ph.D. thesis on “Geschichte und Ideologie. Mehmed Murad und Celal Nuri über die historischen Ursachen des osmanischen Niedergangs.” In 2005 his Habilitation thesis “Osmanische Herrschaft und Modernisierung im Irak. Die Provinz Bagdad, 1817-1917” was accepted by the Faculty of Philosophy at Heidelberg University. Since 2008 he has been professor of Turcology at the University of Bamberg, Germany. A b d u l h a m i t K ı r m ı z ı is a British Academy Visiting Fellow in SOAS, at the University of London. He received his PhD from Bogaziçi University, Istanbul. His dissertation, entitled “Rulers of the Provincial Empire: Ottoman Governors and the Administration of Provinces, 1895-1908,” was published in Turkish as Abdülhamid’in Valileri (Istanbul, 2007). He is founding editor of TALİD (Türkiye Araştırmaları Literatür Dergisi – Turkish Studies Review). His fields of research include bureaucracy, nationalism and biography during the late Ottoman period. M i l e n a B . Me t h o d i e v a is an assistant professor at the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada, specializing in Ottoman and Balkan history. She received her Ph.D. from Princeton University, USA. Her dissertation has examined the reform initiatives, politics and culture among the Muslims in Bulgaria in the period 1878-1908. M a l e k S h a r i f is a visiting Assistant Professor at the American University of Beirut. He holds a Ph.D. in Ottoman History from the Free University of Berlin. In 2004-2005 he was a Junior Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Berlin. From 2005 until 2007 he received a research grant from the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and was affiliated to the German Orient Institute in Istanbul, where he worked on the parliamentary history in the Ottoman Empire and its successor states. He is the author of Imperial Norms and Local Realities (1860–1908), in print; he has also published on the history of vaccination in the Ottoman Empire. S e l ç u k A k ş i n S o m e l is Assistant Professor at Sabanci University. His research interests are 19th century Ottoman education; women and gender; modernization and social disciplining; central authority and peripheral populations in the Balkans, eastern Anatolia, and the Arab lands. His publications include The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1908 (Brill, 2001) and Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire (Scarecrow, 2003). J o h a n n S t r a u s s was born in Munich in 1952. After Munich, Birmingham (England) and Freiburg (Germany), he has been teaching since 1997 at the Département d'Etudes turques of Strasbourg University. In his research he has, among other things, dealt with Turkish intellectual history, cultural and linguistic contacts between the various communities of the Ottoman Empire, history of printing and publishing, and translation activities. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE CONTRIBUTORS 9 Jo h a n n e s Z i m m e r m a n n is presently assistant to the chair of Islamic Studies (Ottoman Studies) at the Seminar für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients in Heidelberg and is completing his Ph.D. thesis on the life and work of the Cretan publicist and translator İbrahim Zeki Cafadzade. Apart from his interest in late Ottoman history, he has worked on Byzantine-Ottoman cultural transfer processes and on the rituals of contemporary Alevism in Turkey and Germany. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Acknowledgements This volume emerged from a symposium held on September 23-24, 2006 under the same title, and organized by the Orient-Institute Istanbul in collaboration with the Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes. The editors would like to express their gratitude to all the contributors to this volume and participants in the conference. Special thanks go to Claus Schönig, Alexandre Toumarkine, Filiz Kıral, Barbara Pusch, Vanessa Karam and Ercüment Asil for their indispensable help at various stages of this project. We are indebted to the Orient-Institute Istanbul, which provided us with an excellent working atmosphere. We also acknowledge the generous financing of our symposium by the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, the Orient-Institute Istanbul and the Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes. Malek Sharif owes special thanks to the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung for granting him a post-doctoral scholarship to conduct research on this topic. The Orient-Institute Istanbul graciously accepted this volume in its publication series Istanbuler Texte und Studien and covered the necessary expenses; to the Institute goes our thanks again. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Introduction This volume emerges from a symposium held in Istanbul in September 2006, under the title “The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy: an Attempt for a New Approach.” The ten papers presented at the symposium were reworked, and two more articles were added in the compilation of this book. The symposium and its preparations coincided with the commemoration of the 130th anniversary of the year of the three Sultans. 1876 witnessed the last days of Abdülaziz, the short reign of Murat V, and Abdülhamit II girding the sword of Osman. It was also marked by tense negotiations in the process of drafting the constitution (kanun-ı esasi), an essential and necessary precursor of the first parliament (meclis-i meb’usan). The intense and dramatic events of this period have received more attention in the historiography than the ephemeral parliament that followed in its suit. The first Ottoman parliament convened in two terms between March 1877 and February 1878. On February 13, 1878, it was suspended indefinitely, but not formally abrogated by Sultan Abdülhamid II. Short-lived this parliament certainly was. However, it was also one of the pioneering experiments in democracy. Frequently it has been perceived as an unsuccessful experiment that lacked achievements and did not leave any impression on the political scene of the Empire. The parliament was suspended; but it is difficult to imagine that concepts, ideas and experiences could be cancelled with the strike of a pen or a verbal order. The parliament was remembered by the deputies who had been elected to it and had participated in its deliberations; they outlived their institution. Another reminder of the parliament was a number of laws that were deliberated and amended by its members. These laws remained in force and were never abrogated. In 1906 the significance of that institution became more apparent and calls for its restoration more pressing, due to the constitutional movements taking place in Russia and Iran. Parliamentary government was recommended as an antidote to the deadly malaise of despotism which was causing the decline and disintegration of the Empire, as al-Manār and al-Muqaṭṭam newspapers in Cairo stated.1 As evidence of the parliament’s success and a reminder of its existence and achievements, a book was published in 1907 by an anonymous author under the title Türkiye’de Meclis-i Meb’usan.2 In 1909 the photographs of 20 senators and 104 deputies from the first parliament were published in the Ottoman illustrated journal Resimli Kitab as physical evidence and in reminiscence of that pioneer institution.3 1 Al-Muqaṭṭam, October 15, 1906 referring to an article in al-Manār. 2 M. Q. (penname), Türkiye’de Meclis-i Meb’usan (Cairo 1907). 3 Resimli Kitab, January 17, 1909, 308-313 and 316-321. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 14 Whether it is meaningful and legitimate to describe the first parliament as “the first Ottoman experiment in democracy” remains an open question. Therefore, it is imperative for us to state that we understand the first Ottoman experiment in democracy to be groundwork, a learning experience for all participants characterized by trial and error. We do not attempt an anachronistic reading, which might draw parallels to what is now considered an established democracy with all the conditions, institutions, laws, electoral practices, checks and balances that are essential components of such a political system. However, the concepts of having representation, defending the interests of a constituency, negotiating taxation, interpellating the government and attempting to control the budget of the state were very well established and highly developed by the deputies of the first Ottoman parliament. They were aware of these political notions and tried to apply them as their participation in the parliament shows. Similar political ideas, which are considered decisive in establishing the English parliamentary democracy, were expressed by English parliamentarians during the Restoration period and the Glorious Revolution. The historian Enver Ziya Karal came to the conclusion that “the parliament was to attempt the greatest democratic experiment in history. This was the first time that representatives from three continents, Asia, Africa, and Europe, from Janina to Basra, and from Van to Tripoli of Libya, and members of different religious communities and different races all came together.”4 Karal’s fervor, substantiated by parallels from European parliamentary history encouraged us to retain for this book the original title of our symposium. The parliament of 1877-1878 is legitimately entitled to the primogeniture rank not only in the Ottoman Empire but in many of its successor states as well. Whether exclusively depicting it as the beginning of a democratic tradition in a nation state, or completely repudiating it in a nationalistic discourse, both approaches come at the cost of losing sight of the fact that the parliament was not Turkish but truly Ottoman. In general, the parliament was neglected and almost slipped into oblivion in the post-Ottoman period. The remarkable two-volume compilation work of Hakkı Tarık Us and Robert Devereux’s monograph, which relies on diplomatic correspondence and makes excellent use of Us’s compendium, are marked exceptions to the general rule.5 Understandably there was certain interest in the first Ottoman parliament in the Republic of Turkey, due to the official language of the institution and the geographical location of its seat, Istanbul. In a history of the Turkish parliament (TBMM), the first Ottoman parliament is considered as a 4 Enver Ziya Karal, “Non-muslim Representatives in the First Constitutional Assembly, 1876- 1877,” in: Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard, eds., Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (London, New York: Holems & Meier, 1982), 1:395. 5 Hakkı Tarık Us, ed., Meclis-i Meb’usan 1293-1877 Zabit Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası) 1939 and 1954); Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1963). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 15 forerunner of its current Turkish counterpart.6 The 90th and the centennial anniversaries of the first constitution were also commemorated in a number of specialized publications in Turkey.7 It is noteworthy that this important institution did not receive its due attention in the other successor states of the Ottoman Empire. This fact is discussed in a number of articles in this collection. The editors of this volume deem it long overdue for the first Ottoman parliament to receive its fair share of attention and thorough investigation. The restoration of the constitution in July 1908 and the parliaments elected thereafter received more attention and were subject to study. Some of these studies investigated the role and the political significance of the parliaments and the parliamentarians of the second constitutional period in different regions of the empire.8 However, the first parliament was never investigated along such lines, and the long period of disinterest makes such a task extremely difficult, for only a bare minimum of information about these deputies survives. This leads us to the issue of the sources, primary and secondary, and their limitations. It has so far been established by many historians that the original minutes of the first parliament were lost in the Çırağan palace fire in 1911. Thus, the work of Us becomes an indispensable text for this institution even though its primary source, the official Ottoman government newspaper (Takvim-i Vekayi), was subject to censorship. This fact made some deputies protest against curtailing the press, which they considered an illegal act.9 The primary and secondary sources that contain some information on the deputies are available in a wide array of literatures and languages. The sources include local chronicles, biographical dictionaries, the press, documents from the central Ottoman administration preserved in the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi in Istanbul, consular reports and autobiographies. They are written in Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Serbo- Croatian, Slavonic, Turkish, Ottoman-Turkish and many Western European lan- 6 İhsan Güneş, Türk parlamento Tarihi, vols. 1 and 2 (Ankara: TBMM Vakfı Yayınları, 1997.) 7 Bahri Savcı, “Osmanli Türk reformlarının (islahat hareketlerinin bir batı demokrasisi do- ğurma çabaları),” in: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, xxi/1 (1966), pp. 118-24; Sina Akşın, “Birinci Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Mebusani,” in: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, xxv/1 (1970), pp. 19-39 and xxv/2 (1970), pp. 101-22; A. Gündüz, “Osmanlı Meclis-i Meb’usanda Ba- ğdat demiryolu imtiyazı üzerine yapılan tartışmalar,” in: Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, xxv/2 (1970), pp. 15-56; A. Kapucu, Birinci meşrutiyeti ihaneti, Konya 1976; Siyasi İlimler Türk Derneği, Türk parlamentoluculuğun ilk yüzyılı 1876-1976, Ankara n.d. [1977]; and Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, Armağan–Kanun-u esasi'nin 100. yılı, Ankara 1978. 8 Sabine Prätor, Der arabische Faktor in der jungtürkischen Politik. Eine Studie zum osmanischen Parlament der II. Konstitution (1908-1918) (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1993); Taha Niyazi Karaca, Meclis-i Mebusan’dan Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi’ne geçiş süresinde Son Osmanlı Meclis-i Mebusan seçimleri (Ankara: TTK 2004); and ʿIsmat ʿAbd-al-Qādir, Dawr al-Nuwwāb al-ʿarab fī majlis al-mabʿūthān al-ʿuthmānī 1908-1914, Beirut 2006. 9 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 182. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 16 guages. The foregoing is but an incomplete list of the source languages used in the articles of this volume. Going through such a variety of source material, let alone studying and scrutinizing it, is definitely a task beyond the capability of any single historian. Cooperation was the original idea of this symposium, which produced a collection of articles that used all of the above-mentioned sources and languages, now presented in this volume. This volume may be loosely divided into two parts: the first concentrates on analyzing the political terminology and the perspective from the center of the empire; the second gives more attention to the margins of the empire, following a prosopographical approach. This approach intends to identify and study the largest possible number of to date little-known parliamentarians as a group within their specific historical and cultural context. This work comprises the biographies of 45 deputies who actually participated in the parliamentary procedures, as well as of some who decided to resign. All of them hailed from the provinces of the empire, or belonged to minorities in it. Their origins lie in peripheries that were in theory distant from the centers of power and decision-making in the empire. The articles show that due to the limitations of the sources, only fragmentary pictures were amenable to reconstruction. The biographies collected in this volume are far from comprehensive; for example, the biographies of some deputies from the Anatolian provinces, the Hijaz and Libya are not covered. The uncharted terrain of the first parliament cannot be covered by a single volume. Therefore, we are hopeful that this work will inspire further research in this field. The prosopographical part of the present volume launches a start that was long overdue. Johann Strauss’ contribution on the translation of the Ottoman kanun-i esasi into the minority languages covers new ground in the analysis of the development and modernization of Ottoman political and administrative terminology. It also serves as an important reminder that intellectual and political life in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the nineteenth century is not adequately definable in terms of a historiography that more often implicitly rather than explicitly remains tied to the discourse of the modern nation state by either limiting its scope to the dominant Muslim Turkish tradition or by telling the history of the Ottoman minorities ex-post facto from the perspective of nation building in the process of the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire. Abdulhamit Kırmızı’s contribution discusses two writings of Ahmed Midhat. The first is a passage of his famous Üss-i inkılab, the second a small treatise entitled Tavzih-i kelam ve tasrih-i meram, written a few years later. Kırmızı extracts the complex and self-contradictory political concept employed by Ahmed Midhat in his effort to reconcile and synthesize the concepts of absolutism and constitutionalism. In the end, for Ahmed Midhat the rule of law is embodied in the authority of the sultan. This political utopia comprises also a strong element that is both deeply romantic and pre-modern in that it believes in the possibility of establish- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 17 ing a direct link between the ruler and the ruled by circumventing and neutralizing the apparatus of the state bureaucracy. A. Teyfur Erdoğdu argues in his article that the Ottoman constitutionalism of the mid 1870s was a child born out of the idea to secure British support against the Russian threat of a partition of the Empire and did not outlive this political purpose. He disputes that the parliament exerted any significant political influence on the process of political decision-making within in the Ottoman administrative elite and claims that it was not designed to do so and that its legislative control over the budgetary process did not change the overall picture. He characterizes the Ottoman parliament as a mainly advisory body and the functional equivalent of a relief valve that reduced pressure within the Ottoman political system. Nurullah Ardıç in his contribution analyzes the relationship between religion and politics in the 1876 Constitution and various other texts of Ottoman-Turkish modernization, including the Reform Decree of 1839, the Reform Edict of 1856 and the Constitutions of 1921 and 1924. Using the perspective of Foucauldian discourse analysis, he argues that Islam played an important role in modernizing the state and society in Turkey, and that the discourse of modernization did not take the form of an outright attack on religion, but was rather based on the redefinition of the role of Islam in the public sphere. Milena B. Methodieva’s contribution takes a new perspective on the backwash of the first Ottoman constitutional experiment after its termination in public debate by presenting the discussion of parliamentarism in three major newspapers of the Muslim press in Bulgaria at the height of the Hamidian period. As the Muslim press in the autonomous yet de jure still Ottoman principality remained largely unaffected by Hamidian censorship, the resulting debate allowed for a much broader spectrum of political opinion about questions of constitutionalism and parliamentarism than did the curtailed press in the Ottoman capital or the anti- Hamidian pamphletism exhibited by some exile Young Turk publications in Europe and Egypt. Selçuk Akşin Somel presents in his article an elaborate biography of Mustafa Bey of Radoviş, the deputy of Salonika in the second session of the parliament. Somel gathered his information from a combination of sources, such as Sicill-i ahval, official reports presented to the ministry of education, and, most importantly, the rarely used private Ottoman-Turkish newspapers of Salonika Zaman and Rumeli. Mustafa Bey was the founder and editor-in-chief of both papers. Somel was able to reconstruct the political ideas of Mustafa Bey from the editorials and articles he published in the above mentioned newspapers. He brought to light the empathy of Mustafa Bey toward the most important personalities of the Young Ottoman movement and their political and journalistic ideas. The article follows the career of Mustafa Bey until the end of his life, more than fifteen years after the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 18 first parliament was suspended. His article demonstrates what could be achieved with a careful use of various Ottoman sources, once they are available to researchers. Bülent Bilmez and Nathalie Clayer conduct an extensive research of local Albanian source material and a wide range of secondary literature in order to reconstruct the biographies of eleven ‘Albanian’ deputies. They clearly indicate that due to the lack of researched archival material concerning that region of the Ottoman Empire, the secondary literature, in spite of its indispensability at the moment, shows clear biases and is influenced by nationalistic and ideological ideas. Their careful study brings to light three deputies from Yanya who were so far ignored by Robert Devereux and Hakkı Tarık Us. Elke Hartmann’s article provides a wide-ranging coverage of the Armenian deputies in the first Ottoman parliament. In order to show their network and their involvement in their community, Hartmann added to her long list of deputies further biographical information on members in the upper house and in the constitution drafting commission. Her article includes 16 biographies of deputies, seven of which are elaborate and detailed and the rest of which are of varying sizes due to the restrictions presented by the nature of the primary source material and the later Armenian historiography. She also includes in her article an analysis of the secondary literature in an attempt to explain its limitations concerning the Armenian deputies. In her article, she relies on a broad range of secondary literature and, most importantly, on the contemporary newspaper Masis that was published in Istanbul in the Armenian language. Philippe Gelez describes in his article the electoral procedure in the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He also provides a comprehensive bio-bibliographical study of all the deputies representing the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the first session of the parliament, and of those who represented the reorganized province of Bosnia in the second session. He relies on a broad variety of primary source material, which included local and foreign archives, contemporary newspapers and secondary literature printed in Sarajevo in the 20th century. In his article Gelez presents the continuity or the change that happened in the sociopolitical careers of these deputies after the province became practically subject to Austro-Hungarian suzerainty. The meticulous research of Gelez and his use of new source material shows that the lists of parliamentarians provided in the authoritative works of Us and Devereux need to be amended and completed. Johannes Zimmermann presents in his article the tension that accompanied the Cretan elections and the preparations preceding it. He studies the Greek attitude toward the elections and the parliament. His article contains a discussion of both the perception and the reception of the parliament as well as a thorough biobibliographical study of the two members that were elected to represent Crete in © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INTRODUCTION 19 the capital Istanbul. He also analyzes both the reasons that led to, and the discourses that surrounded, the resignation of Stephanos Nikolaides Efendi, the elected Greek member. Zimmermann tries successfully to provide a revisionist reading of the events concerning the resignation of the elected Greek member, as he treads a middle path between the different ways in which Crete’s historiographies are written. Christoph Herzog provides biographical notes on four deputies representing the province of Baghdad in the two sessions of the first parliament. He also includes the biography of Bağdadlı Mehmet Emin Efendi, a member of the upper house (meclis-i ayan) who hailed from Baghdad. Herzog uses a combination of available sources, which included local histories of Iraq, consular correspondence and documents from the Ministry of the Interior in the capital of the empire, namely Sicill-i ahval. He also attempts an assessment of a proposal by the deputy of Bagdad, Abdürrahman Şerifzade, to establish a mixed committee entrusted with the task of reforming taxation in Iraq. Malek Sharif ’s article attempts to present portraits of seven deputies from the provinces of Aleppo and Syria as well as the mutasarrıflık of Jerusalem. He relies in his research partly on contemporary biographical dictionaries as well as the Arabic press published in Beirut. British and Ottoman archival materials provide background information on some of the deputies he portrays. Five of the deputies in his study were Ottoman civil servants; consequently, the archival classifications of the Ministry of the Interior were an important source to tap. Five records concerning an equal number of deputies were retrieved from the Sicill-i ahval and are used in his study for the first time in combination with local sources. His article includes some concluding notes for the volume as a whole. Christoph Herzog, Bamberg Malek Sharif, Beirut © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire. Translations of the Kanun-i Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages Johann Strauss Introduction Ziya Pasha’s seminal article “Poetry and Prose” (Şiir ve inşa; 1868) contains an interesting paragraph on the untranslatability of the Ottoman language. In this passage, he writes that the Province of Tunis had asked for an Arabic translation of the Düstur, the Ottoman Code of Public Laws whose publication had begun in 1865. The local authorities had entrusted this task to a native Arabic speaker in Istanbul with knowledge of Turkish. This person encountered twenty or so problems in two or three pages. He therefore went to see seven or eight people with a perfect command of Turkish and a reputation for their mastery of prose and poetry. He presented his problems to them. Nobody knew how to resolve them. In some cases, their proposals even contradicted each other. The poor translator left with the impression that the translation of the Düstur he had embarked upon was a mass of riddles and was unable to complete his translation. Thereupon another person was entrusted with the task but he too failed. Eventually, Ziya Pasha concludes, “the Province of Tunis is unable to possess the law code of the state it belongs to.”1 Ziya Pasha (1825-1880) who sought with this article to bring about a reform of the Turkish language and of Turkish writing, is, of course, exaggerating. But having been trained as a government official, he was familiar with the intricacies of the Ottoman chancery style. He was right in so far as the Province of Tunis would remain without an Arabic version of the Ottoman Düstur until the end of Ottoman rule.2 But he was wrong in the long term because the Düstur was eventually translated into Arabic (at least partially) – having previously been translated into a variety of other languages spoken in the Ottoman Empire.3 1 See Agâh Sırrı Levend, Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri, 3rd ed. (Ankara: Ankara Üniv. Basımevi, 1972), 119. 2 On translations published in Tunis see Muḥammad Muwāʿada, Ḥarakat at-tarjama fī Tūnis wa ibrāz maẓāhirihā fī l-adab 1840-1955 (Tunis: ad-Dār al-ʿArabiyya li l-Kitāb, 1986). 3 Vide infra,n. 18. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 22 The Translation of Ottoman Official Texts into Minority Languages The translation of Ottoman official documents into the languages of the non- Turkish speaking population had a long tradition, beginning even before the Tanzimat reforms (1839). The very first Turkish paper to appear in the Ottoman Empire was the official gazette published by the Egyptians after the occupation of Crete (1830). It appeared in a bilingual edition (Turkish-Greek) under the title Vekayi-i giridiyye / Κρητική Εφημερίς.4 In Egypt itself, the history of the press had started with a government newspaper published in Turkish and Arabic, named Vekayi’-i mısriyye / al-Waqāʾiʿ al-miṣriyya.5 Publication started in 1828, three years prior to that of the Takvim-i Vekayi published in the Ottoman Capital.6 The official paper of the Empire founded in 1831 under Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1939), also appeared for a while in French, Greek7 and Armenian8. (According to some writers, there were also Arabic and Persian editions). Translation activity increased with the promulgation of various laws in the wake of the Tanzimat. The text of the famous Imperial Rescript of Gülhane was published not only in Turkish in the Takvim-i vekayi but also in French and Greek.9 The same applies to the Islahat fermanı of 1856.10 4 See Orhan Koloğlu, “La presse turque en Crète,” in Presse turque et presse de Turquie. Actes des colloques d’Istanbul, ed. Nathalie Clayer, Alexandre Popovic, and Thierry Zarcone (Istanbul- Paris: Isis, 1992), 259-267; here 259f. For specimens of these papers see Athanase Politis, Les rapports de la Grèce et de l’Égypte pendant le règne de Mohamed Aly (1833-1849) (Rome: R. Soc. di geogr. d'Egitto, 1935), appendix; Zaynab ʿIṣmat Rāshid, Kirīt taḥt al-ḥukm al-miṣrī, 1830-1840, (Cairo: al-Jamʿiyya al-Miṣriyya li 'd-Dirāsāt at-Tārīkhiyya, 1964), 179-182. 5 The first issue of this paper dates from December 3, 1828 (see Jean Deny, Sommaire des Archives turques du Caire (Cairo, Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1930), 122; also see the French translation of the Turkish editorial of the first issue, ibid., 152). 6 First issued 25 Cemaziyülevvel 1247 / November 1, 1831. For this paper, see Orhan Koloğlu, Takvimi Vekayi. Türk Basınında 150 yıl, 1831-1981 (Ankara: Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği, 1981). 7 Under the title Οθωμανικός Μηνύτωρ Othōmanikos Mēnytōr. One of the editors was Yanko Mousouros (1808-1869). According to a letter written by Sophronios, the Metropolitan of Chio around 1840, the paper was sent by the Ottoman government to the metropolises and bishoprics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But there were only three copies on the whole island of Chio. See Manuel Gedeon, Αποσημειώματα χρονογράφου 1800-1913 (Athens, “Phoinikos,” 1932), 49. 8 Under the title “Newspaper of the Great Ottoman State” (Ləro Gir Tērut‛eann Osmanean; first published in January 1832). It was printed by Boghos Arabian (1742-1836). See Toros Azadian, ed., Žamanak K‘aŕasnameay Yišatakaran 1908-1948 (Istanbul, 1948), 11. For the Armenian community, the publication of this official paper marked a turning point. Its Armenian version was the first Armenian paper published in the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, it appeared not in the classical (grabar) but in the vernacular language. 9 A printed Greek version is also listed in D. Gkines and V. Mexas, Ελληνική Βιβλιογραφία 1800-1863 (Athens, Grapheion Dēmosieumatōn tēs Akadēmias Athēnōn, 1939-1957), vol. 1, no. 3165. One French version appeared in the Moniteur (27 November 1839, p. 2065), © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 23 Among the principal law codes promulgated prior to the Constitution of which translations into minority languages are known were – the Penal Code (Ceza Kanunnamesi; 1840; revised in 1851 and 1857)11 – the Commercial Code (Ticaret Kanunnamesi; 1850; revised in 1861)12 – the Provincial Reform Law (Vilayet Kanunnamesi; 1864).13 The Ottoman government was interested in having these translations published. In his observations on the execution of the Islahat Fermanı, the Ottoman grandvizier Fuad Pasha (1815-1869), wrote: “Ces différentes lois dont le texte a été publié en turc et en français, n’ont pas été traduites dans les autres langues. Le Gouvernement a pris des mesures pour combler cette lacune par la publication complète et simultanée d’une traduction des codes de l’Empire dans toutes les langues usitées en Turquie.”14 We still lack detailed knowledge about the execution of this project. But the new Ottoman legislation (or parts of it) did eventually also became available in the languages of the minorities. Moreover, translations were not restricted to widely used languages such as those of the two major millets, Greek and Armenian, or Arabic. They existed also in Serbian, Bulgarian or Judaeo-Spanish. A Judaeo- Arabic version (Arabic in Hebrew Script) of the Ottoman Commercial Code, for example, was published in Baghdad in 1870,15 a translation of the Ottoman Constitution in 1908.16 For some non-Muslim communities, a translation of these laws into their ethnic language was not even necessary. For the Turkish-speaking Greek Orthodox and Armenians, the texts had only been transposed into another alphabet. This is shown by the Karamanli and Armeno-Turkish versions of the Penal Code, the Code of Commerce and the Düstur.17 another one, by the French dragoman François Alphonse Belin (1817-1877) was published in the Journal Asiatique. 10 A Greek version was published on the island of Samos, translated by Z. Ypandrevmenos. Cf. D. Gkines and V. Mexas, Ελληνική Βιβλιογραφία, vol. 2: no 6990. 11 On the Judaeo-Spanish version, vide infra. 12 Translated into Arabic by Nicolas Efendi Nakkache (vide infra). 13 A Serbian version, Ustavni Zakon Vilajeta bosanskog, was published in instalments in the weekly Bosanski vjestnik in 1866. The translator was Miloš Mandić (1843 –1900). 14 “Mémoire de Fuad Pacha: Considérations sur l’exécution du Firman Impérial du 8 février 1856,” in Aristarchi Bey, Législation ottomane, ou Recueil des lois, règlements, ordonnances, traités, capitulations et autres documents officiels de l´Empire ottoman, 7 vols. (Istanbul: Nicolaïdes, 1873-1888), 2: 31-32. 15 Qawanin al taǧariya, Baghdad, 5630 (1870). Listed in Abraham Yaari, Ha-defus ha-‘ivri beartsot ha-mizrah (“Hebrew Printing in the East”), 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1936-1940), no. 20. 16 Tarjamat al-khaṭṭ al-sharīf al-sulṭānī wa ’l-Qānūn al-asāsī, Baghdad 1226 ]1908]. Cf. Yaari, Hadefus ha-‘ivri, no. 167). 17 Karamanlı: Penal code: Ceza Kanunnamesi (1859); Code of commerce: Ticaret kanunnamesi (1860); Düstour (1868 – 1871). For references see Evangelia Balta, Karamanlidika. Nouvelles additions et compléments I, (Athens, 1997), 254-256; Armeno-Turkish: Ceza Kanunnamei hümayunu (1859); cf. Garabed Panossian, ed., Düstur, 2 vol. 1881-1882. For references see © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 24 The Düstur was eventually available in Greek, Armenian, Armeno-Turkish, Karamanli, Judaeo-Spanish, Bulgarian and – despite Ziya Pasha’s scepticism – even in Arabic.18 The Translators Many translations were published anonymously. Others were the work of translators who were prominent figures in their respective communities. This is particularly the case of the Arab translators, most of them Christians (Khalīl al-Khūri, Nicolas an-Naqqāsh, Anṭūn ʿĪd Ṣabbāġ, Niʿmatullāh Nawfal). The Maronite Nicolas an-Naqqāš (“İzzetlu Nikola Efendi Nakkaş,” 1825 – 1894), one of the pioneers, was also a distinguished writer and poet.19 He had already translated the Ottoman “Land Law” into Arabic20 before he was elected member of Parliament for Syria in 1876. An equally important figure was the translator of the Ottoman Penal code into Judaeo-Spanish, Yehezkel Gabay (1825-1896). He founded the Jurnal Yisraelit in Istanbul in 1860 and is therefore regarded as the father of Jewish journalism in Turkey. He also is said to have been the first Jewish employee of the Ottoman Ministry of Education. His translation of the Penal Code was published under the title Kanun name de Penas in 1860. Gabay was an experienced translator from Ottoman Turkish: the Ottoman Jews also owe to him a Judaeo-Spanish translation of Sadık Rif ’at Pasha’s moral treatise Risale-i ahlâk and, according to M. Franco, the Turkish version of the National Constitution of the Jewish millet (vide infra) whose text had first been drafted in Judaeo-Spanish.21 The Judaeo-Spanish version of the Düstur was published by Moïse del Médico and David Fresco under the title Koleksyon de las leyes, reglamentos, ordenanzas i instruksyones del Imperio Otomano (Istanbul, 1881).22 Del Médico (“Moiz Bey Dalmediko,” Istanbul 1848-1937)23 was a high-ranking government employee, who eventually became First Dragoman at the Ministry of the Navy (Premier Secrétaire-interprète du Ministère de la Marine). As a journalist, Dal Médico was in- Hasmik A. Stepanian, Hayataŕ T‘urk‘eren grk‘eri ew Hayataŕ T‘urk‘eren parberakan Mamuli matenagitut‘iwn (Istanbul, Turkuaz Yayınları, 2005). 18 Ni‘matullāh Nawfal, in collaboration with Khalīl al-Khūrī, Ad-Dustūr, 1st vol. (Beirut, Al- Maṭbaʿa al-adabiyya, 1301/1883-84). An Arabic version of the Mecelle, Al-Majallah, was published in Istanbul in 1297/1880 (only one volume). 19 See on Nicolas Naqqāsh Malek Sharif ’s contribution in this volume. 20 See Aṣl wa tarjamat qānūn wa niẓāmnāmat al-araḍī – Kanunname-i arazi ve tapu (Beirut: Maṭba‘at al-Abāʾ al-yasū‘iyyīn, 1290/1873) [Turkish--Arabic]. 21 See M. Franco, Essai sur l’Histoire des Israélites de l’Empire ottoman depuis les origines jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1897, 169. 22 See Elena Romero, La creación literaria en lengua sefardí, (Madrid: Ed. MAPFRE, 1992), 202. 23 See on Del Médico art. “Dalmediko, Moiz” (Rıfat N. Bali), in Yaşamları ve Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi, ed. Ekrem Çakıroğlu, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), 1:366-367 (with further references). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 25 volved in the publication of several Judaeo-Spanish papers. Together with his compatriots Marco Maiorcas and David Fresco, he published the paper El Nasional, a continuation of Gabay’s Jurnal Yisraelit. He later became a member of the “Commission for the propagation of the Ottoman Language” (Tâmim-i lisan-i osmani komisyonu) created in 1900. His excellent textbook for the study of Ottoman Turkish24 was adopted by the schools of the Alliance Israélite Universelle in the Ottoman Empire. His collaborator David Fresco (1850 – 1933) was a printer, publisher and a particularly prolific translator of works from French or Hebrew into Judaeo-Spanish. But like Dal Médico, he urged his coreligionists to adopt the Turkish language. Several prominent Greek translators (C. Photiades, I. Vithynos, G. Aristarchi ) shall be dealt with below. The Role of the Press The press of the non-Turkish-speaking population was also instrumental in the dissemination of the new legislation. Many laws and regulations promulgated in the wake of the Tanzimat were published in the papers of the non-Muslim communities in their respective languages (Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, Judaeo- Spanish, etc.). This press had developed rapidly after the proclamation of the Hatt-i şerif of Gülhane (1839) – in some cases more rapidly than the Turkish press, whose rise only begins after 1860. This was especially the case of the Greek, Armenian and Bulgarian press in Istanbul.25 After 1860, Fāris al-Shidyāq (“Ahmed Faris Efendi,” 1804-1887) started the publication of his famous Arabic paper Al- Jawāʾib in Istanbul, where numerous laws and regulations in Arabic translation were published.26 It was followed in 1876 by the Persian language paper Akhtar (“The Star”)27, which also contained many translations (including a Persian version of the Kanun-i esasi). The official press in the provinces, known as vilayet gazeteleri, played a particularly important role in our context since many of them also appeared in the vernacular languages (Arabic, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc). Publication of most of these papers began after the Reform of the vilayets (1864), except in the case of Tunis, where the publication of the official paper Al-Rāʾid at-Tūnisī (in Arabic) 24 Méthode théorique et pratique pour l’enseignement de la langue turque [Muallim-i lisan-i osmani], (Constantinople: Imprimerie du Ministère de la Marine, 1885) [2nd ed. (Istanbul, 1908)]. 25 See on the principal papers Johann Strauss, “Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th centuries)?,” Arabic Middle Eastern Literatures, 6.1 (2003), 39-76; here: 43. 26 They were collected in vol. 6 of the Kanz ar-raghāʾib fī muntakhabāt al-Jawāʾib, 7 vols. (Istanbul: Maṭbaʿat al-Jawāʾib, 1288/1871- 1298/1881). 27 See on this paper Anja Pistor-Hatam, Nachrichtenblatt, Informationsbörse und Diskussionsforum: Akhar-r Estānbūl (1876-1896) – Anstöße zur frühen persischen Moderne (Münster: Lit, 1999). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 26 had started already in 1860. Among the official papers of the Arabic provinces, Zevra / al-Zawrāʾ, the bilingual vilayet gazetesi of Baghdad province founded in 1869, enjoyed the highest prestige, at least for a while.28 The Role of the French Language French unquestionably played a pivotal role in this context. It is fair to say that without the French versions of these documents, the translation into the other languages would have encountered serious difficulties. French had become a sort of semi-official language in the Ottoman Empire in the wake of the Tanzimat reforms. Even before the promulgation of the Constitution in the Ottoman Empire (and of course also after that date) we have many publications of legal texts in French.29 These were usually communicated officially to the foreign diplomats and other residents. It is thanks to these translations that these texts found a wider audience, after having been reproduced in the European press, e.g. in the French Moniteur (Le Moniteur was the name of the French official gazette, first published as Le Moniteur universel in 1789). As Fuad Pasha’s observations (vide supra) show, the French translations were in the eyes of some Ottoman statesmen the most important ones. Sultan Mahmud II had already had public opinion in Europe in mind when he ordered the publication of the official paper in French. It appeared under the title Moniteur Ottoman echoing the title of its French counterpart. But this French version was also to play an important role for the native language press of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. As the title of the Greek version of the Takvim-i Vekayi’, Othōmanikos Minytōr (Οθωμανικός Μηνύτωρ), shows, it was clearly based on French, not on Turkish. Characteristically, also the Arabic press in the provinces began in 1858 with a newspaper that also appeared in a French edition, the semi-official Ḥadīqat al-Akhbār (French title: Hadikat-el-Akhbar. Journal de Syrie et Liban).30 It was published by Khalīl al-Khūrī (1836 – 1907), who was to become a leading official press figure in the Syrian provinces. It is true that French was not an ethnic language of the Ottoman Empire. But it was the only Western language which would become increasingly widespread among educated persons in all linguistic communities. The French translations published by the Ottoman government were usually the work of Ottoman na- 28 See on this paper Christoph Herzog, “The Beginnings of the Press in Iraq: Zevra,” in Amtsblatt, vilayet gazetesi und unabhängiges Journal: Die Anfänge der Presse im Nahen Osten, ed. Anja Pistor-Hatam, Frankfurt, etc.: Lang, 2001, 55-63. 29 One of the last translations was Law of the vilayets of the late sixties: Sublime Porte.: Sur la nouvelle division de l’Empire en gouvernements généraux formés sous le nom de Vilayets (Istanbul, 1867). 30 See G. Groc and İ. Çağlar, La presse française de Turquie de 1795 à nos jours. Histoire et catalogue (Istanbul: Isis, 1985), 107 (no. 208) and 62 (facsimile). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 27 tionals employed in the various sections of the translation service, in particular the Translation Office (Terceme odası).31 Moreover, one can safely assume that some documents (such as the Islahat fermanı of 1856) were originally drafted in that language. Aristarchi Bey’s Législation ottomane These French translations were eventually collected and published in Istanbul. The best-known example of such a collection, embracing the whole of Ottoman legislation (which is still useful today) is that of Grégoire Aristarchi Bey, Législation ottomane, ou Recueil des lois, règlements, ordonnances, traités, capitulations et autres documents officiels de l´Empire ottoman (7 vols., Istanbul, 1873-1888). This work was edited by Demetrius Nicolaides. Its prospective readers were, as the preface states, primarily foreign diplomats and residents.32 The work contains translations of both the Düstur and the Mecelle.33 Grégoire (“Ligor”) Aristarchi (1843- ?) was the scion of a well-known Phanariot family, which had supplied the Ottoman state with several Grand Dragomans in the past. Aristarchi Bey was trained as a jurist and started his career in the provinces. In 1861, he was appointed director of foreign correspondence in Crete. Later, he was vice-governor and political director (directeur politique) in Izmir (1867). The Législation ottomane was published when he was appointed Ottoman ambassador in Washington. There, he became a popular figure (and even a protagonist of one of Henry James’s novels). However Aristarchi Bey was not the translator of the entire corpus contained in this collection. One may even ask what contribution he actually made, since the translations in the Législation ottomane stem from the most diverse sources: The introduction and the classification of the laws was undertaken by a Greek lawyer in Istanbul, N. Petrakides, who had died an early death from consumption, a short time before the publication of the work. Petrakides also wrote the (voluminous) notes. The French version of the Hatt-i şerif of Gülhane was reproduced from the Manuale di diritto publico e privato ottomano. This very important collection, one of the first of its kind, had been published by the Italian lawyer Domenico Gatteschi in Alexandria in 1865.34 Even more intriguing is the fact that in vols. VI-VII of the Législation ottomane, containing translations of the Mecelle, Aristarchi’s name does not even appear.35 They seem to have been 31 See now on the Tercüme odası, Sezai Balcı, Osmanlı Devletinde Tercümanlık ve Babıali Tercüme Odası, unpublished Ph.D. thesis Ankara Üniversitesi, 2006. 32 In the preface, it is said: “[...] l’édition d’une collection des lois ottomanes, des conventions internationales, en langue française, à l’usage des chancelleries consulaires établies dans l’Empire, à l’usage des étrangers qui pour la plupart connaissent le français, était d’une nécessité absolue” (Aristarchi, Législation ottomane, 1:vii). 33 The latter contained in vols. VI and VI of Aristarchi, Législation ottomane. 34 Gatteschi was a lawyer at the Supreme Court of Appeal of the Italian Kingdom. 35 The first volume published under Abdülhamid II bears the title Doustour-i-hamidié. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 28 edited solely by Demetrius Nicolaides, who also wrote the dedication at the beginning, written both in French and Ottoman Turkish. From the book we learn that the translations of book IV (“du Transport de Dette”) and V (“du Gage”) were only reprinted from those published previously by the Armenian judge at the Criminal Court of Péra, Takvor Efendi Baghtchebanoglou. The fourteen remaining texts had been translated by the Istanbul lawyer, probably of Levantine origin, L. Rota, with the help of the Armenian Mihran Chirinian (books I, II, III and VI) and, in the following books, with that of the Greek Alexander Adamides.36 The Armenian lawyer G. Sinapian, a prominent jurist and Turkish scholar,37 translated the eight last chapters of the Mecelle contained in vol. VII of the Législation ottomane using thereby the translation of his compatriot Ohannes Bey Alexanian for the Livre des Preuves, as he says in his “Avertissement du traducteur” (p. 5f). What is striking is that no Frenchman or native speaker of French seems to have been involved in this translation work. Greek Versions and their Impact There are also other puzzling aspects in the Législation ottomane. It is evident that at least some sections had been translated into French not from Turkish but from Greek, by a translator (or translators) seemingly ignorant of Ottoman Turkish. This is clear from a number of details. In the first parts, Ottoman Turkish technical terms are transcribed almost slavishly from Greek, a language that has no equivalent for certain Turkish vowels and consonants. Cf.: “tourbé,” Ottoman Turkish türbe “mausoleum.” One even comes across a Greek plural in the case of “meharsides” (vol. I, p. 44 ; Ottoman Turkish: merhasalar “(Armenian) bishops”).38 Characteristically Greek is the treatment of Turkish ş and j: ş is usually rendered by s: Mehkémey-Teftiss (vol. I, p. 27; Ottoman Turkish Mahkeme-i teftiş); Selimié- Kislassi (vol. I, p. 31; Ottoman Turkish: Selimiye kışlası); c and ç as tz: Lalély Tzesmessi (vol. I, p. 30; Ottoman Turkish Laleli çeşmesi); b often appears as p: araziidjipayet (p. 605 – Ottoman Turkish arazi-i cibayet “land belonging to a pious foundation”); f = ph: phi-sebil-ul lah (vol. I, p. 34; Ottoman Turkish fi sebilillah “in the way of God”), etc. The translator seems to have been dimly aware of the problem. We therefore even find incorrect forms (“hyperurbanisms”) where z is wrongly replaced by j or s by ş to make it sound more “Turkish”: “Pejmi Alem” (p. 34; Ottoman Turkish: 36 Aristarchi, Législation ottomane, 5: c. 37 Sinapian, a prominent lawyer of the Istanbul bar, was also the co-author (with Andon Tinghir) of a comprehensive dictionary of technical terms Fransızcadan Türkceye ıstılahat luğati – Dictionnaire français-turc des termes techniques, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Imprimerie & Lithographie K. Bagdadlian, 1891-92). Later, he contributed to the Turkish journal Muhamat. 38 This term of Syriac origin is often read incorrectly as murahhasa. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 29 Bezm-i alem) “Hajiney Djelilé” (p. 35; Ottoman Turkish: Hazine-i celile), “resmitahlish” (p. 37; Ottoman Turkish: recte tahlis), etc. These examples make it clear that not only French but also Greek – undoubtedly the most prestigious language among the languages spoken by non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire – played a significant role in the context of translations of Ottoman law codes. The First Greek Version of the Düstur The first version of the Düstur published in a foreign language in the Ottoman Empire was in Greek. It appeared 1869-1871 under the title Othōmanikoi kōdēkes (Оθωμανικοί Κώδηκες) “Ottoman Codes.” A supplement (parartēma) was published in 1874, a second edition appearing in 1889-91. It was published by Demetrius Nicolaides (Istanbul 1843-?), the editor of the Législation ottomane. It was intended primarily for his Greek compatriots (homogeneis) but could also serve other Greek speakers. Nicolaides states proudly in the postface that “among the various nationalities in the Ottoman Empire, only the Greek one possesses now, in one volume, and written in Greek, all the laws governing the Empire. Even the Muslim nationality (ethnikotēs) still lacks such a work since the Düstur with its supplement only contains the oldest laws whereas the most recent and most important ones [...] are scattered in the official papers published in the Capital or the provinces.”39 Nicolaides presented his work to the Ottoman authorities, who approved it after examination. The editor was rewarded with the rank of a civil servant of the third class. The government even bought one hundred copies of it to send with a recommendation to the provinces.40 Nicolaides was an extremely active but somewhat enigmatic figure in the press life of 19th century Istanbul.41 He was a native of Istanbul and a graduate of the “Great National School” (Megalē tou Genous scholē) in 1861. He started a career as a journalist, editing various Greek papers (Anatolikos Astēr, Heptalophos, Thrakē, etc). He also founded the paper Kōnstantinoupolis in 1867, which was long to remain the most widely read Greek paper in the Ottoman Empire. One of his most interesting ventures was the publication in 1889 of a Turkish paper, Servet, of which the famous Turkish journal Servet-i fünun had first been a supplement. The publications of the Greek and French versions of the Ottoman legislation proved quite lucrative for Nicolaides.42 He reputedly became a wealthy man own- 39 Оθωμανικοί Κώδηκες, 1430. 40 Ibid. 41 See on Nicolaides, Malumat no. 45 (18 Temmuz 1312), 1002-1003; Gedeon, Αποσημειώ‐ ματα, 35-38, Ahmet İhsan [Tokgöz], Matbuat Hatıralarım, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Ahmet İhsan Matbaası, 1930-1931), 1:59f. 42 Gedeon, Αποσημειώματα, 35-36. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 30 ing two houses, one in the Phanar neighbourhood and another one on one of the Princes’ islands. But he eventually died in poverty during the First World War. The Othōmanikoi kōdēkes claim to have been translated from Turkish. However, it is not at all clear to what extent Nicolaides translated any of these texts himself (or merely reproduced translations previously published in the official press).43 Some of them were the work of translators whose names are quoted in the text: the Greek version of the Islahat fermanı was translated from the official French version, which had also been published in the French Moniteur and then been reproduced in Féraud-Giraud’s standard work De la juridiction française dans les échelles du Levant et de la Barbarie, 2 vols. (Paris, Durand, 1866 [1rst ed. 1859]).44 The notes were translated from the translation contained in Gatteschi’s Manuale45, which actually was the work of a French Oriental scholar, François Belin (1817-1877). Belin spent several decades in Istanbul in his country´s diplomatic service.46 His translation of the Islahat fermanı was originally published in his Etude sur la propriété foncière en pays musulman et spécialement en Turquie (1862) and had appeared first in the Journal Asiatique. Nicolaides cut a few of Belin’s notes (probably because he considered them too critical) and added other notes, such as the (Greek) text of a berat for a patriarch issued in 1860. The Greek version of the Ottoman Land Law contained in the Othōmanikoi kōdēkes was translated into Greek by D. Rhazes, the First Dragoman of the Greek embassy in Istanbul.47 This Greek version was apparently held in such high esteem that even the French version contained in the Législation ottomane, – another very learned translation by Belin with copious notes -,48 was corrected several times to bring it into line with Rhazes’s Greek translation .49 Nor was the Commercial Code (Ticaret kanunu) translated into Greek from Ottoman Turkish but, as it is explicitly stated, from the official French translation including its notes. This may have been due to the fact that this code was almost identical with the French Code de commerce. The Greek version contained in the Othōmanikoi kōdēkes even in- 43 We do not know where his knowledge of Ottoman Turkish actually came from. 44 Féraud-Giraud, De la juridiction française , 1:266. 45 See Gatteschi, Manuale, 259-270. 46 See on this scholar, F. A. Belin. Notice biographique et littéraire (Constantinople: Imprimerie A. Zellich, 1875). 47 See Оθωμανικοί Κώδηκες, 429. 48 It had originally been published in the Journal asiatique, “Sur la propriété foncière en pays musulman et spécialement en Turquie,” Journal asiatique 5.17 (1861), 180-248. 49 Cf. Aristarchi, Législation ottomane, vol. 1:72 n. 45: “Dans le texte de M. Belin se trouve le mot seulement, que nous avons remplacé par le mot aussi (voyez la traduction en grec moderne, insérée dans les Codes Ottomans de M. D. Nicolaïdes, pag. 434); p. 80 n. 69; translation of and comparison with the Greek version. Cf. p. 82 “Dans l’édition grecque….ce mot a été traduit par le terme παραχώρησις, c’est-à-dire cession.” Belin had translated firağ with “vente;” cf. 160 n. 180. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 31 cludes the special appendix listing the differences between the French model and its Turkish version – curiously enough only in Greek.50 The Bulgarian Version of the Düstur (1871-1886) In 1871 already, a certain Christo S. Arnaudov (of whom almost nothing is known) published the first volume of his “Complete Collection of the State Laws, Regulations, Instructions, and High Orders of the Ottoman Empire” (Pălno săbranie na dăržavnyte Zakoni, Ustavy, Nastavleniya i Vysoky Zapovedi na Osmanskata Imperia) in Istanbul (“Tsarigrad”). This is a Bulgarian version of the Düstur destined for the editor’s Bulgarian compatriots (edinorodci = Greek homogeneis). It also includes texts of treaties with foreign powers and other texts not contained in the Ottoman Düstur. The title and the preface says that it was “translated from Turkish” into “plain Bulgarian” with the help of some skilled collaborators.51 But the work shows certain striking similarities with Nicolaides’s collection. The notes, for instance, are almost identical and even Arnaudov’s preface is mostly a literal translation of Nicolaides. Two other volumes of this collection were published in Istanbul in 1872 and 1873, while the fourth and last volume only appeared after the end of Ottoman rule in Bulgaria in Sofia in 1886. The Greek Version of the Mecelle Another pioneering Greek translation of an Ottoman Law code, several times referred to in the Législation ottomane,52 is the Greek version of the Ottoman Civil Code, the Mecelle. It was published under the title Nomikoi kanones ētoi Astykos Kōdēx (Νομικοί κανόνες ήτοι Αστυκός Κώδηξ) between 1873 and 1881. The translation of this highly complex text, in which Islamic legal traditions feature prominently, was a demanding task. It required abundant notes. The two translators were competent both in Ottoman Turkish and in their native language. Eminent figures of the Greek community, they were later promoted to the highest ranks available for non-Muslims in the Ottoman state. The first translator, Constantine Photiades (d. 1897), was an outstanding Ottoman scholar, co- author of the first Greek-Turkish dictionary published in the Ottoman Empire (1860).53 He taught history of Turkish literature at the prestigious 50 Оθωμανικοί Κώδηκες, 177-180. 51 Arnaudov, Pălno săbranie , vol. 1, “Predislovie,” xii. 52 Cf. Aristarchi, Législation ottomane , 6:197. 53 Lexikon Hellênotourkikon, (with A.Th. Phardys) (Istanbul: Typographeion Hē Anatolē, 1860). See Johann Strauss, “The Millets and the Ottoman Language. The Contribution of © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 32 “Great National School” and was also active within the Greek community. He was editor-in-chief of the Greek paper Anatolikos Astēr (“Eastern Star;” founded in 1861) and belonged to the founders of the prestigious “Greek Literary Society” (Syllogos), a learned society founded during the same period. Having been headmaster of Galatasaray lycée for one year (29 May 1873 to 26 May 1874), he was appointed governor of Samos (1874 – 1879). Yanko (Ioannis) Vithynos54 was also a graduate of the Megalē tou Genous Scholē. He made a career in government service: he became secretary of the governor of Crete (1868-1875), honorary professor at the University (Darülfünun), professor at the Law School (Mekteb-i hukuk; 1882-1904), a judge at the tribunal de première instance in Istanbul, and director of criminal investigations at the Ministry of Justice. He also was a member of the elections assembly in 1901. He reached the peak of his career when he succeeded Alexander Mavroyéni as governor of Samos (1904- 1906). With a perfect command of the Turkish language, he also published – in Turkish! – inter alia a popular commentary on the Commercial Code,55 and articles in the Turkish press. The Kanun-i esasi and its Translations After what has been said hitherto, it comes as no surprise that the Kanun-i esasi, promulgated at the end of December 1876, became almost immediately accessible to the various ethnic and linguistic communities of the Empire in their own languages. It was not only disseminated in its Turkish original, printed by both the State Press and private printing presses,56 but also in the principal languages used in the Ottoman Empire. These publications apparently occurred simultaneously. Translations into the various ethnic languages had probably been ready when the Kanun-i esasi was promulgated, since most of them also bear the date of 1876 on their cover page. Ottoman Greeks to Ottoman Letters (19th-20th Centuries),” Die Welt des Islams 35 (1995), 189-249; here: 224-226. 54 Strauss, “The Millets,” 225-256. 55 Şerh-i Kanun-i ticaret (Istanbul, 1296/1879 [2nd edition1300/1884]). 56 Kanun-i esasi (Istanbul: Matbaa-i amire 1292/1876); Kanun-i esasi (Istanbul: Hakikat Matbaası 1292). Although the First Constitutional Period in the Ottoman Empire was to end soon under Abdülhamid II, the text of the Constitution was regularly reprinted in the official yearbooks (salname). In recent times, it has become available also in Latin script thanks to the collection published by Suna Kili and A. Şeref Gözübüyük, Sened-i İttifaktan Günümüze Türk Anayasa Metinleri (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları), 31-44. 1rst ed. 1957; several times reprinted. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 33 Translations Into Other Languages Published The author of this paper has come across the following separate publications on the Ottoman Empire (the list is not exhaustive): Western languages – The official French version: Constitution ottomane promulguée le 7 Zilhidjé 1294 (11/23 décembre 1876), Constantinople, Typographie et Lithographie centrales, 1876, 29p. There is also another Istanbul print: Constitution ottomane promulguée le 7 Zilhidjé 1294 (11/23 décembre 1876). Rescrit (Hatt) de S.M.I. le Sultan... Constantinople, Loeffler [1876 ?], 20pp. This translation was made simultaneously by the Translation Office (Terceme odası) for transmission to the foreign ambassadors.57 It is this version which was reprinted in several other works such as those by Ubicini,58 Aristarchi Bey/Nicolaides, Schopoff59, etc. – English versions: There must have also been English translations published in the Ottoman Empire. The American Journal of International Law published in 1908 the text of an English translation made in Istanbul at the time of the promulgation without specifying its source.60 Minority languages – Greek version: Оθωμανικόν Σύνταγμα ανακηρυχθέν τη 7 Ζιλχιτζέ 1293 (11/23 δεκεμβρίου 1876) Othōmanikon Syntagma anakērychthen tē 7 Zilchitze 1293 (11/23 dekemvriou 1876), En Kônstantinoupolei, Typographion “Vyzantidos,” 1876. – Armenian version: Sahmanadrut‘iwun Ôsmanean Petut‘ean, Istanbul, “Masis,” 1877.61 – Armeno-Turkish version: Kanunu esasi memaliki devleti osmaniye, Istanbul, “La Turquie,” 1876.62 57 “Il en a été fait simultanément, par les soins du ‘Bureau des interprètes’ (terdjuman odaci)” de la Sublime Porte, une traduction en français qui a été communiquée aux ambassadeurs.” A. Ubicini, La Constitution ottomane du 7 zilhidjé 1293 (23 décembre 1876) expliquée et annotée (Paris: Catillon, 1877), 13. 58 See preceding note. 59 A. Schopoff, Les réformes et la protection des chrétiens en Turquie, 1673-1904. Firmans, bérats, protocoles, traités, capitulations, conventions, arrangements, notes, circulaires, réglements, lois, mémorandums, etc. (Paris: Plon, 1904). 60 “The Ottoman Constitution. Promulgated the 7th Zilbridje [sic] 1293 (11/23 December, 1876),” American Journal of International Law, Supplement, 2 (1908), 367-387. 61 See Haykakan matenagitut’iwn – Bibliographie arménienne, (Venice, 1883), 593. 62 Stepanian, Hayataŕ T‘urk‘eren grk’er, (cited n. 17), p. 93 no. 423. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 34 – Bulgarian version: Otomanskata konstitutsiya, provŭzglasena na 7 zilhidže 1293 (11/23 dekemvrii 1876), “Hakikat” Press, Ist., 1876. – Judaeo-Spanish version: Konstitusyon del Imperio otomano proklamada el 7 zilhidje 1283 (7 Tevet 5637), Istanbul, De Castro Press, 5637 (1877).63 – Arabic version: Tarjamat al-khaṭṭ ash-sharīf as-sulṭānī wa l-Qānūn al-asāsī, Istanbul, Al-Jawāʾib Press, 1293.64 65 As can be seen, most of them were printed by newspaper printing presses of; e.g.: the Bulgarian version (the same as the Turkish one) by the printing press of the paper Hakikat, the Greek version by that of Vyzantis, the Armenian version by that of Masis, the Armeno-Turkish by that of La Turquie, the Arabic by that of Al- Jawā’ib. But these were not the only publications which made the text accessible for the Ottoman public. In fact there were other publications of the text in newspapers, for the non-Turkish speaking population especially in those vilayet gazeteleri which were also published in the local languages: As far as the Bulgarian version is concerned, we know that the text of the Constitution appeared in four different papers: In Dunav/Tuna, the official paper of the vilayet of the Danube, the model province created in 1864; in the Istanbul paper Napredăk (“Progress”); in Iztočno Vreme, a sort of Bulgarian edition of the Levant Times; and in Zornitsa (“Morning Star”), the paper published by the American Protestant missionaries.66 There must have also been a Serbian version available in the vilayet of Bosnia, where Serbian was the second official language.67 The Armenian version also appeared in the journal Bazmavep (“Polyhistore”) published by the Mekhitarist monks in Venice.68 An Arabic version appeared in the paper Al-Jawāʾib published in the Ottoman Capital.69 There was even a Persian version which appeared in the paper Akhtar from 17 January 1877 onwards. 63 Abraham Yaari, Catalogue of Judaeo-Spanish Books in the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem (Jerusalem, Univ. of Jerusalem Press, 1934) [Special Supplement to Kirjath Sepher vol. 10], 107, no. 835. 64 Cf. Fehmi Edhem Karatay, İstanbul Üniversitesi Kütüphanesi Arapça Basmalar Alfabe Kataloğu (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1953), 571. 65 Bilingual edition 1297/1880: Khaṭṭ humāyūn sharīf wa Qānūn asāsī turkī wa ‘arabī (Istanbul, 1293); 3rd edition, Impr. Al-Jawāʾib , 1297 (1880). 66 See Manyo Stoyanov, Bălgarska văzroždenska knižnina, 3 vols. (Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1957-1959), 2:137. 67 Unfortunately the translation published after the Second Constitutional Period in Istanbul (Ustav Osmanskijog Carstva od 11/23 XII 1876 godine (Istanbul, 1908); translated by Arsenije Zdravković), which may contain indications to clarify this point, was not accessible to me. 68 See Bazmavēp 35 (1877), 62-74. 69 Reprinted in Kanz ar-raghāʾib fī muntakhābāt al-Jawāʾib, 6:4-26. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 35 Terminology and Style of the Various Translations of the Kanun-i Esasi A study of the Ottoman Kanun-i esasi and its translations raises a number of questions. First, there are those concerning the Ottoman Turkish text. – Was it just an adaptation of a text that had been originally drafted in French (like the Islahat fermanı)? – What is specifically “Ottoman” in this text? – Does it contain specifically “Ottoman” terminology ? Other questions concern the translations into the various languages: – On which text were they based: the Ottoman Turkish text or its French version? – Is the influence of Ottoman Turkish apparent in any of these translations? As far as we know, there exists no French draft of the Ottoman Kanun-i esasi. The official French version does not give the impression that the Ottoman text is a translation of it. The Ottoman text is Western in its spirit. What makes it to some extent exotic for Westerners is not its content but certain stylistic features, devices such as the use of honorific epithets (art. 81: berat-i şerif), of the deferential indirect style (taraf-i padişahi instead of padişah tarafından), etc.70 A satisfactory translation into Western languages is difficult, if not impossible. Other characteristic features of the Ottoman text are the excessive use of Arabic terminology (there are only about ten Turkish terms to be found in the whole text), Persian izafet constructions, and the convoluted sentences typical of Ottoman chancery style. The minority languages do not, in general, copy these features. One example is the stereotyped honorific epithet seniy (lit. “high, sublime, exalted, splendid”).71 This adjective only occurs in izafet constructions – and exclusively in its feminine form! (saltanat-i seniyye, irade-i seniyye, hükumet-i seniyye, etc). In the Ottoman context it corresponds to “Imperial.” An expression like irade-i seniyye thus becomes in Judaeo-Spanish Irade Imperial, in Greek Avtokratorikon Irade (diatagma) (Αυτο‐  κρατορικόν Ιραδέ (διάταγμα)’) “Imperial irade, Imperial Order.” The same expression is rendered by kayserakan hramanagir “Imperial Order” or kayserakan [< kayser “Emperor” < Greek καίσαρ < Latin] iradê in Armenian. In the Bulgarian translation of the Kanun-i esasi, the expression Imperatorski ukaz is used (e.g. art. 27 et seq.) which might have applied as well to the Russian Tsar.72 70 See Celia Kerslake, “La construction d’une langue nationale sortie d’un vernaculaire impérial enflé: la transformation stylistique et conceptuelle du turc ottoman,” in Langues et Pouvoir de l’Afrique du Nord à l’Extrême-Orient, ed. Salem Chaker (Aix-en-Provence: Edisud, 1998), 129-138; here: 130. 71 Seniy is also used as a proper name. 72 Cf. English ukase “an edict or decree having the force of law on proclamation, as in Tsarist Russia.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 36 The expression Devlet-i aliyye (lit. “the lofty empire”), the usual designation for the Ottoman State, did not often find its way into the written usage of Greek, Armenian and other languages at that period.73 These languages preferred to follow the more sober French example (“Empire ottoman”): Greeks then speak of Othōmanikē Epikrateia74 (Оθωμανική Επικράτεια), or Othōmanikē Avtokratoria75 (Оθω‐  μανική Αυτοκρατορία), Armenians of Osmanean Têrut´iwn, Petut‘iwn or Kaysrut‘iwn. In Judaeo-Spanish, Imperio otomano is used, in Bulgarian Otomanskata Imperiya. The use of the word “Turkey,” is unthinkable in official Ottoman usage, but fairly common in French76 and also in minority languages (Tourkia, T‘urk‘ia, Turtsiya77, etc.) It occasionally even appears in texts said to be translated from Ottoman Turkish. The Terms Used for “Constitution” An interesting case is the term used for “Constitution.” A term for this concept, which goes back to the 18th century, already existed in all the major languages of the Ottoman Empire. The term eventually adopted by the Muslim Turks for their Constitution was, interestingly enough, Kanun-i esasi “basic law,” which resembles rather the German Grundgesetz78 than the French constitution. (At an earlier stage, the French term konstitüsyon occasionally occurs in Ottoman texts). This choice did not have any influence on the terms used by the non-Muslim communities. The Ottoman term was adopted only in the translations into the two “Islamic” langues, Arabic (al-qānūn al-asāsī) and Persian (qānūn-e asāsī). Some languages followed the French example such as Judaeo-Spanish konstitusyon.79 The Bulgarian term, konstitutsiya, was adopted via Russian. In Serbian, the Slavonic term ustav (which means “statute” in Bulgarian) had been introduced. Greeks and Armenians had coined their terms on the basis of their own linguistic resources. The Greek word, σύνταγμα syntagma, was a calque of the French term constitution. A constitution was proclaimed in the Greek Kingdom on September 3, 73 Turkish devlet (devleti, tovleti, etc.) for the “(Ottoman) state, government,” however, was well known and widely used in the spoken languages. 74 Greek epikratía “state” 75 < aυτοκράτωρ avtokratōr “emperor.” 76 One of the principal French language papers published in Istanbul was the semi-official La Turquie. 77 Name of a Bulgarian paper published in Istanbul for some time, probably a Bulgarian version of La Turquie. 78 In Germany, where it is today the official term for the German Constitution, Grundgesetz became familiar after the Napoleonic wars. In the Prussian Constitution (Verfassung) of 1850, which seems to have influenced the Ottoman Constitution, also the term Staatsgrundgesetz occurs. 79 This seems surprising insofar as Judaeo-Spanish translators do not generally shun Turkish terms. In other translations of law codes, e.g., the Ottoman term kanunname is used.: cf. Kanun name de penas. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 37 1843 in the centre of Athens where the “Sindagma Square” is named after this event. The Armenians, though not having a state of their own, had been using the term sahmanadrut‘iwn (Sahmanatrov;ivn)80, which had become particularly popular thanks to their famous millet constitution. The term seems to have been introduced on that occasion.81 A multilingual dictionary published by the Mekhitarists in Vienna in 1846 has under the entry “constitution” the following words: ôrênk‘ [“law”], ôrênsdrut‘iwn [“legislation”], hastatut‘iwn [“institution”], *kargadrut‘iwn [“regulation”] and proposes as Turkish equivalents kanun, ayin, kanunname, töre.82 As a matter of fact, the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire had been preceded by “constitutions” of various communities.83 These may be termed “millet-constitutions” although these communities preferred to speak of themselves as “nations” (Armenian azg, Greek ethnos, Judaeo-Spanish nasyon, French nation, etc.).84 The Ottoman authorities did not accept the term “constitution.” In the Ottoman Turkish versions of these “constitutions,” included in various editions of the Düstur, the terms nizamname or nizamat “regulations” were used.85 The first of these “constitutions” was the so-called “Armenian Constitution” Azgayin Sahmanadrut‘iwn Hayoc` – Nizamname-i millet-i Ermeniyan adopted in 1863.86 It was followed by a Jewish “Constitution,” Konstitusyon para la nasyon yisraelita de la Turkia in 1865.87 Less ambitious as far as the choice of their term was concerned, the Ottoman Greeks had called the reformed constitution of their millet, ratified by the Ottoman Government in 1863, Genikoi/Ethnikoi Kanonismoi (Γενικοί/Εθνκοί Κανονισμοί) “General 80 From sahman “term, limit, stipulation” (a word of Persian origin; corresponds to Greek όρος); sahmanel “to regulate, stipulate.” 81 See Anahide Ter Minassian, “Enjeux d’une politique de reconquête linguistique: les Arméniens dans l’Empire ottoman (1853-1914), in Langues et Pouvoir de l’Afrique du Nord à l’Extrême-Orient, ed. Salem Chaker (Aix-en-Provence: Edisud, 1998), 155-167; here: 155. 82 See Nuovo dizionario italiano-francese-armeno-turco (Vienna: Tipografia dei PP. Mechitaristi, 1846), 238. 83 See on these Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1963), 124-131. 84 The term millet was not used in the languages of the Armenians, Greeks and Jews. On Greek and Armenian usage, see Johann Strauss, “Ottomanisme et ‘ottomanité’. Le témoignage linguistique,” in Aspects of the Political Language in Turkey (19th-20th Centuries), ed. Hans-Lukas Kieser (Istanbul: Isis, 2002), 15-39; here: 24-35. 85 Cf. also the Polozhenie “Statute” in the Russian Empire (1836) which allowed the Armenians a certain degree of self-government in ecclesiastical and educational matters. 86 See the facsimile of the Armenian and Armeno-Turkish versions in the appendix of Vartan Artinian, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Ermeni Anayasası’nın Doğuşu 1839-1863, tr. Zülal Kılıç (Istanbul: Aras Yayıncılık, 2004). For an English translation see H.F.B. Lynch, Armenia, Travel and Studies, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1901), 2:445-467. 87 Romero, La creación literaria, 202. Also see on this “constitution” (Hahamhane nizamnamesi in Turkish), Aron Rodrigue, “The Beginnings of Westernization and Community Reform among Istanbul’s Jewry, 1854-65,” in The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor Levy (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1994), 439-456, here: 452. The text was reprinted in 1913. See Hakhamkhane nizamnamesi – Estatuto organiko dela komunidad israelita promulgado en data del 23 de agosto de 1287 (Kostantinopla, Imprimeria Izak Gabay, Galata, 1913). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 38 (or National) Ordinances”88 (the Greek term κανονισμός kanonismos is generally used as an equivalent of Ottoman nizamname). Apart from “millet constitutions,” there were also genuine constitutions of countries like Romania and Serbia, which nominally formed part of the Empire until 1878 although they were de facto independent even before. In official Ottoman Turkish nomenclature, these countries (and others) were known under the somewhat equivocal designation of “privileged provinces” (eyalat-i mümtaze). These nominally “Ottoman provinces” had not waited for the proclamation of the Ottoman Kanun-i esasi to promulgate their own constitutions. The Romanian Constitution (Constituţiune)89 and the Serbian Constitution (Ustav; 1870) were promulgated ten and six years, respectively, prior to the Ottoman Kanun-i esasi (1870). The text of these constitutions was also included in some collections of laws and legal texts published in the Ottoman Empire. Nicolaides’s Nomikoi Kōdēkes contain Greek translations of both the Romanian and Serbian Constitution. As far as the “Tunisian Constitution” of 1861 is concerned, it was then widely known also in Europe thanks to French translations. This text, which partially reproduced the Hatt-i şerif of Gülhane, is considered today as the first constitution of a Muslim state.90 In contemporary Western sources, it is referred to as the “Buyuruldu of the Bey of Tunis.”91 A Turkish version of it appeared in the paper Ceride-i havadis (6 Ramazan/17 March 1861).92 Ottoman Terms of the Kanun-i Esasi and Their Rendering As indicated above, the original Ottoman terminology does not totally disappear in the translations. A number of Ottoman-Turkish terms even occur in the French version. For instance, we find “grand vezir” (passim), which is not the term used in Turkish (Ottoman Turkish sadr-i a’zam; colloquial pron. sadrazam) but contains the 88 See Γενικοί Κανονισμοί περί της διευθετήσεως των εκκλησιαστικών καί εθνικών πραγ‐ μάτων των υπό του Οικονομικού Θρόνου διατελούντων ορθοδόξων χριστιανών υπηκόων Της Αυτού Μεγαλειότητος του Σουλτάνου (Istanbul, 1862). For a French translation see George Young, Corps de droit ottoman, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905-1906), 2:21- 34. 89 Constituţiune din 1 Iulie 1866. See on this constitution and its terminology, P. Lindenbauer, M. Metzeltin, H. Wochele, “Der Zivilisationswortschatz im südosteuropäischen Raum 1840-1870: Der rumänische Verfassungswortschatz,“ in ‘Herrschaft’ und ‘Staat’. Untersuchungen zum Zivilisationswortschatz im südosteuropäischen Raum 1840-1870. Eine erste Bilanz, ed. Radoslav Katičić (Vienna: Verl. d. Österr. Akad. d. Wiss., 2004), 271-322. 90 See art. “Dustūr I – Tunisia,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition (Leiden-London: Brill, 1965), 2:638-640 and ibid., “Dustūr II – Turkey” (B. Lewis). 91 Cf. Féraud-Giraud, De la juridiction, 1:283 “Bouyourldi publié par le Bey de Tunis” 1861 (after I. de Testa, Recueil des traités de la Porte ottomane avec les puissances étrangères (Paris, 1864), 1:436). 92 Cf. Gatteschi, Manuale, 270. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 39 element “vezir” (Turkish vezir); and the untranslatable “Cheikh-ul-islam.” A number of titles and ranks – some of them only introduced after the Tanzimat Reforms – are used with an explanation, or a French synonym: this applies in particular to the names of the different administrative divisions like (art. 109) “province” (vilaïet), “district” (sandjak) and “canton” (caza); cf. also “daïré” (art. 71: “circonscription électorale”); and the offices of “vali,” “mutessarif,” “caïmacam.” It should be stressed that these terms were introduced, according to the communis opinio, as equivalents of the respective French terms during the Reform of the vilayets. Other terms, like iradèh (“ordonnance;” Turkish irade), which have become obsolete today, were quite common at that time in the European press.93 “Chéri” may sound ambiguous in French but the term, used in our context for Islamic law (Turkish: şer’(i), is widely used in the legal literature at that time. The same applies to the term “fonds vakouf (art. 48; “pious foundations,” Turkish vakıf), which did not sound exotic either. The term Tanzimat, which occurs in the speech of the Sultan, is treated as a singular (“Le Tanzimat”), a common usage at the time.94 More specific terms are extremely rare. An interesting case is (§ 24) djérimé “exaction under the form of fining” (Turkish: cerime, colloquially cereme < Arabic jarīma “crime, offence”), a somewhat unofficial “legal” term which had become, for obvious reasons, well known in the minority languages95. The term angarya “corvée” which occurs in the same article, is a Greek loanword in Turkish. It also used in the Greek (αγγαρεία) and Bulgarian (angariya) translations. It had to be replaced in Armenian (taraparhak caŕayut‘iwn “unpaid service”), in Arabic (suḥra) and Persian (bīkār). Cf.: Ottoman: § 24 Müsadere ve angarya ve cerime memnudur. French:96 La confiscation des biens, la corvée et le djérimé (exaction sous forme de pénalité pécuniare) sont prohibés. Greek:97 Απαγορεύονται η δήμευσις της περιουσίας, η αγγαρεία και το Δζερεμέ (παράνομος Φορολογία υπό μορφήν χρηματικης ποινής). Armenian:98 Goyic‘ grawumə, taraparhak caŕayut‘iwnn u tugank‘n argiluac en. Bulgarian:99 Konfiskaciyata na imotitě, angariyata i džeremeto (nasilstvennata globa) sŭ zapreteny. 93 Cf. English iradé, “written decree of Sultan of Turkey.” 94 Cf. Ed. Engelhardt’s classic, La Turquie et le Tanzimat, 2 vols. (Paris: Cotillon, 1882-1884). 95 E.g. Modern Greek: τζερεμές tzeremés, “fine or cost of damage (incurred undeservedly);” Bulgarian: džeremé, “fine, penalty.” 96 This and all following quotations from A. Ubicini, La Constitution ottomane. 97 This and all following quotations from Оθωμανικόν Σύνταγμα ανακηρυχθέν τη 7 Ζιλχι‐ τζέ 1293 (11/23 δεκεμβρίου 1876) (Istanbul: Typographeion Byzantidos, 1876). 98 This and all following quotations from Bazmavēp 35 (1877), 62-74. 99 This and all following quotations from Arnaudov, Pălno săbranie, 4:305. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 40 Judaeo- Spanish:100 La konfiskasyon (zabt) de los bienes, la angaria i la cerime son defendidas. As far as Ottoman ranks and titles are concerned, the translations into the minority languages largely follow French usage. Cf. (art. 27): “His Majesty invests with the charge of Grand Vizier and that of Sheik-ul-Islam the persons whom his high confidence thinks proper to be called. The nomination of the other Ministers takes place by imperial Irade (order).”101 Ottoman: Mesned-i sadaret ve meşihat-i islamiyye taraf-i padişahiden emniyet buyurulan zatlara ihale buyurulduğu misillü sair vükelanın memuriyetleri dahi ba irade-i şahane icra olunur. French: Sa Majesté le Sultan investit de la charge de grand-vezir et de celle de cheikh-ul-islam, les personnages que sa haute confiance croit devoir y appeler. La nomination des autres ministres a lieu par iradèh (ordonnance) impérial. Greek: Η Α[υτού] Μ[εγαλειότης] o Σουλτάνος (Soultanos) περιβάλλει το αξίωμα του Μεγάλου Βεζύρου (Megalou Vezyrou) και το του Σεϊχ‐  ουλισλάμ (Seïchoul-Islam) εις πρόσωπα, άτινα θεωρεί άξια της Υψηλής Αυτού εμπιστοσύνης. Οι διορισμοί των άλλων υπουργών γίνονται δι´ Αυτοκρατορικού Ιραδέ (Avtokratorikou Iradé) (διατάγ‐  ματος) Armenian: Vehap‘[aŕ]. Suldanə [Sultanə] kə bardzrac‘unê i paštôn Mec epark‘osi ew Šeyx-iwl-islami ayn andzink‘n, zoronk‘ aržani kə hamari ir bardzr vstahut‘eanə. Miws naxararnerə kayserakan hramanagrov (irade) k'anuanuin. Bulgarian: Negovo Veličestvo Sultanăt obliča v dostoïnstvo na Velikyi vezyr i na Šeyx-ul-Islyam, koito vysokoto mu dověrie mysli za dobro da prizove na tězy dostoïnstva. Naimenovanieto na drugytě ministry stava črez Imperatorskyi Ukaz. Judaeo- Spanish: Su maestad el sultan investe de la funksiones de gran vizir i de şeh ul islam las personas ke su alta konfiensa eskože. Los otros ministros son nominados kon irade imperial. 100 This and all following quotations from Konstitusyon del Imperio otomano proklamada el 7 zilhidje 1283 (7 Tevet 5637) (Konstantinopla: Estamparia De Castro en Galata, 5637 [1877]). 101 American Journal of International Law 2 (1908), 370. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 41 Replacement of Ottoman Turkish Terms Various ways are used to replace Ottoman Turkish terms. Bulgarian, for instance, adopts words from Church Slavonic or Russian, e.g. oblast for Ottoman vilayet. Languages like Greek or Armenian benefit from their classical variants: Greek draws on Classical Greek, or continues Byzantine usage; Armenian draws on the resources of Classical Armenian (grabar) whose model is the language of the texts produced in the Armenian “Golden Age,” the first six decades of the fifth century A.D.102 Some terms are known from ancient Armenian history: naxarar “minister” (Ott. nazır), e.g., is an historical term denoting members of princely families who formed the upper class of the ancient Armenian feudal system. The second element in Mec epark’os “grand vizier” is an ancient loanword from Greek meaning “prefect, vizier.” (In Greek, eparchos [έπαρχος] “sous-préfet” is used in the Ottoman context as an equivalent for vali or mutasarrıf.) Only Judaeo-Spanish makes frequent use of the Turkish term which is quoted between brackets in the French version. Terms used in the Greek version of the Ottoman Constitution for the Ottoman administrative divisions and governors introduced after the Provincial Reform Law are: Ottoman: Greek: vilayet επαρχία eparchia (“eparchy”) vali γενικός διοικήτης genikos dioikētēs (valē) = gouverneur-général sancak103 Διοίκησις dioikēsis104 (“province”) kaza υποδιοίκησις hypodioikēsis In the Greek translations of the Law of the Vilayets the following terms are used:105 Ottoman: Greek: vilayet Νομαρχία nomarchia “nomarchy”106 102 See on this issue, Johann Strauss, “Diglossie dans le domaine ottoman. Évolution et péripéties d’une situation linguistique,” in Oral et écrit dans le monde turco-ottoman, ed. Nicolas Vatin [= Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée nos. 75-76 (1995)], 221-255. 103 Occurs only in the French translation whereas the Ottoman text has liva (art. 109). 104 Cf. English diocese. 105 Cf. Nicolaides, Оθωμανικοί Κώδηκες, 72-88. 106 Derived from Greek nomos, meaning a province or district. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 42 Ottoman: Greek: vali νομάρχης nomarchēs “nomarch, prefect of department”107 sancak επαρχία eparchia “eparchy” mutasarrıf έπαρχος eparchos kaza δήμος dēmos108 “municipality, borough” Similar terms were used in the Byzantine Empire and the same system of administrative divisions existed in the Greek Kingdom. Terms used in the Armenian version of the Ottoman Constitution: Ottoman: Armenian: vilayet gawaŕ (“province”) vali kusakal (“governor”) sancak nahang (“province”) kaza awan (“borough”) Ottoman: Bulgarian: vilayet oblast (“province, region, district”) vali glaven upravitel (“governor-general”) sancak okrǔg (“county, province, region”) kaza okoliya109 (“district”) Note: The Vilayet of the Danube was officially called in Bulgarian Dunavska(ta) oblast, the “privileged provinces,” eyalat-i mümtaze, “privilegirovanytě oblasti (§§ 1; 7). Ottoman: Judaeo-Spanish : vilayet provinsiya (vilayet) 107 Nomarchs had also been the title of the semi-feudal rulers of Ancient Egyptian provinces. Serving as provincial governors, they each held authority over one of the some forty nomes into which the country was divided. 108 Also used for müdirlik. 109 This last term does not exist in Russian. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 43 Ottoman: Judaeo-Spanish : vali governador de provinsiya sancak sancak kaza kaza Note: In Arabic and Persian, for Turkish sancak its Arabic synonym liwāʾ (pl. alwiyāʾ) is used. The Term for “Sultan” For the Ottoman ruler, the term “Sultan”110 is used in the translations of the Kanun-i esasi. This was a relatively new phenomenon since traditionally Greeks had called their Ottoman ruler basileus in the Byzantine fashion,111 whereas the Bulgarians spoke of the tsar.112 In the Judaeo-Spanish version of the Constitution, the Ottoman sultan is called sultan (but spelt in the Hebrew fashion שלטנ or but he is also referred to as el rey “the King” in more ancient documents.113 ,(שולטנ The Ottoman term, padişah, only occurs once in the various translations since it is used – presumably for the sake of stylistic variety – even in the French translation. Cf. art. 4: “His majesty the Sultan is [...] the sovereign and the Padishar [sic] of all the Ottomans”:114 Ottoman: Zat-i hazret-i padişahi…bilcümle tebaa-i osmaniyyenin hükümdar ve padişahıdır. French: Sa Majesté le Sultan est….le Souverain et le Padichah de tous les Ottomans. Greek: Η Α. Μ. ο Σουλτάνος [Soultanos]…είναι δε ο κυρίαρχος και ΠΑΔΙΣΑΧ [PADISACH] πάντων των Οθωμανών. Armenian: Vehap‘aŕ Sultann …amen Ôsmanc‘woc‘ vehapetn u PADIŠAHN ê. Bulgarian Negovo Veličestvo Sultanăt… e vladětel´ i Padišax na vsičkitě Ottomany. 110 In Ottoman usage, this term is only used in connection with the name of the Sultan, e.g. Fatih Sultan Mehmed, Valide Sultan, etc. Otherwise, padişah is used. 111 On Greek usage, see Johann Strauss, “The rise of non-Muslim historiography in the 18th century,” Oriente Moderno 1 (1999), 217-232. 112 This term is preserved in the Bulgarian adjective carski, “imperial.” 113 In the Judaeo-Spanish version of the Penal Code (Kanun name de penas; 1860) the Ottoman formula suret-i hatt-i hümayun is still translated by “Letras de muestro sinyor el rey.” 114 American Journal of International Law, vol. 2 (1908), 367. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 44 The term “sultan” was also used in Arabic whereas the Persian word padişah had to be replaced by the Arabic malik in this article; cf.: Arabic: Inna ḥadrat as-sulṭān….wa huwa malik jamīʿ at-tabaʿa al-ʿuthmāniyya wa sulṭānuhā. Persian: Aʿlā-ḥażrat-e pādešāhī … pādešāh va ḥokmrān-e jomle-ye tabaʿe-ye ʿosmāniye hastand. Millet and Its Equivalents The term, which seems to be so essential for the understanding of the Ottoman system and especially the status of non-Muslims, is totally absent in the translations. All languages use instead a word meaning “community” (Judaeo-Spanish komunita, Greek κοινότης koinotēs, Armenian hasarakut‘iwn, Bulgarian obština, etc.), like the French version.115 Cf.: Ottoman: § 111: …her kazada her milletin bir cemaat meclisi bulunacak ve [….] her milletin müntehab efradından mürekkeb olacakdır French: Il y aura dans chaque caza un Conseil afférent à chacune des différentes Communautés…. Chaque conseil sera composé de membres élus par la Communauté qu’il représente… Greek: Εν εκάστω καζά υπάρχει συμβούλιον δι´εκάστην των διαφόρων κοινοτήτων [koinotētōn]... έκαστον Συμβούλιον θέλει συγκροτείσθαι εκ μέλων εκλεγομέ‐  νων υπό της κοινότητος [koinotētos] ην εκπροσωπεί Armenian: § 111: Awanac‘ mêj ayl ew ayl hasarakut‘eanc‘ iwrak‘ančiwrin verabereal xorhurd mə piti gətnui…. Iwrak‘ančiwr xorhurd, ir nerkayac‘uc‘ac hasarakutenên əntreal andamnerê piti bałkanay… Bulgarian: § 111: Šte ima v vsyaka okoliya po edin Săvět za vsyaka ot različnytě obštiny… vsěkoy Săvět šte sa săstavya ot členove izbrany ot obštinata, koyato predstavya 115 It has to be said that also in the Ottoman text of the Constitution cemaat is used to designate a religious community. Cf. (art. 11): “[...] cemaat-i muhtelifeye verilmiş olan imtiyazat-ı mezhebiyyenin kemakan cereyanı Devletin taht-i himayetindedir” – “the state...accords the religious privileges granted to the different communities.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 45 Judaeo- Spanish: En kada kaza avra un konsilio apartenente a kada una de la diversas komunitas.....kada konsilio sera kompuesto de miembros eskožidos de parte de la komunita ke el raprezenta. Only Arabic and Persian retain the Ottoman term although Arabic milla was increasingly to become obsolete in the modern language.116 A Comparison: Article 62 of the Ottoman Constitution in French, English, Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, Judaeo-Spanish, Arabic and Persian Art. 62 of the English version concerning the Senate reads as follows: “The rank of senator may be conferred on persons “en disponibilité,” having exercised the functions of minister, Governor-General, Commandant of Corps d’Armée, Judge, Ambassador or Minister Plenipoteniary, Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, General of Division of armies by land or sea, and generally on persons combining the requisite conditions.” Ottoman: Bu memuriyetlere vükelalık ve valilik ve ordu müşirliği ve kazi‘askerlik ve elçilik ve patriklık ve hahambaşılık memuriyetinde bulunmuş olan mazulînden ve berri ve bahri ferikānından ve sıfat-i lazimeyi cami‘ sair zevatdan münasibleri tayin olunur. French: La dignité de sénateur peut être conférée aux personnages en disponibilité ayant exercé les fonctions de ministre, gouverneur général, commandant de corps d’armée, cazi-asker, ambassadeur ou ministre plénipotentiaire, patriarche, khakham-bachi, aux généraux de division des armées de terre et de mer, et, en général, aux personnes réunissant les conditions requises. Greek: Το γερουσιαστικόν αξίωμα δύναται να απονεμηθή εις πρόσωπα εν διαθεσιμότητι, άτινα εχρημάτησαν υπουργοί, γενικοί διοικηταί (βαλή vali), αρχηγοί στρατωτικών σωμάτων, καζασκέραι [kazaskerai] (ανώταται δικασταί), πρέσβεις η πληρεξούσιοι υπουργοί, Πατ‐  ριάρχοι η χαχαμπάσαι [chachampasai] (μεγάλοι ραβίνοι), εις στρα‐  τηγούς και ναυαρχούς και εν γένει εις πρόσωπα κεκτημένα τας απαιτούμενας ιδιότητας. Armenian: Cerakuti andamnakc‘ut‘iwn krnay šnorhuil ayn anpaštôn andzanc‘, oronk‘ varac en naxararut‘ean paštôn, kusakalut‘iwn, zôrabanakac‘ hramanatarut‘iwn, kazaskêrut‘iwn, despanut‘iwn, patriark‘ut‘iwn, xaxamaglxut‘iwn. Noynpês krnay šnorhuil covayin ew c‘amak‘ayin zôrac‘ 116 For the meaning of “nation,” Arabic already used umma for Ottoman millet. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 46 fêrikneru, ew ař hasarak ayn andzanc‘ or pêtk‘ ełac paymannern ambołĵapês unin. Bulgarian: Senatorskoto dostoynstvo može da sa dade na lica, koito privremeno ne sŭ na služba, no koito sŭ ispălnyavali službı kato Ministry, Glavny upraviteli (Valii), komandanty na voenny tĕla, Kazaskeri, Poslannicy ili pălnomoštny Ministry, Patriarsy, Xaxamabašii, Devizionny generaly na suxopŭtnata i morska voyska i, văobšte, na lica koito să edinyavat ve sebe si izyskvanytě usloviya. Judaeo- Spanish: Los senatores son nombrados por toda la vida. La dinyita (mansub) de senator puede ser dada a las personas ke no estan en funksiones ma ke fueron ministros, governadores de provinsias, komandantes de los ordis, kazi askier, ambašadores, patriarkas, xaxam [חכם] baši, los ferikes de la armadas de tierra i de mar, i en cenere las personas ke tienen las kualitas menesterozas. The elegant French translation has preserved two Ottoman terms, cazi-asker and khakhambachi. Whereas the first term indeed appears to be untranslatable, it is more difficult to explain why the “Grand Rabbi” is referred to here under his Turkish name (khakham-bachi). Interestingly enough, all versions of the Ottoman Constitution use at least the first element, haham,117 although equivalents exist in the respective languages (only Greek adds a synonym). The military grade of müşir “marshal” is rendered by “commandant de corps d’armée.” Clearly, the “contemporary English version” was also translated from the French version. The Greek version follows the French translation. However, it sometimes adds synonyms, either the original Ottoman term (vali) when a Greek term is used, or Greek equivalents for Ottoman terms (kazasker and hahambaşı). Cf.: Terms Used for Administrative Functionaries Ottoman: Greek: meclis-i ayan (sénat) γερουσία gerousia (< géros “old;” cf. Latin senes) elçi (ambassadeur) πρέσβυς presvys Vekil (ministre) υπουργός hypourgos 117 < Hebrew ḥakham “sage.” This term is not used for “rabbi” in Hebrew; the Ottoman term actually reflects Karaite usage. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 47 Ottoman: Greek: vali (gouverneur général) γενικός διοικήτης (βαλή) genikos diokētēs (valē) Ferik (général de division) στρατηγός stratēgos Ordu müşiri (commandant d’armée) αρχηγός στρατωτικών σωμάτων archēgos stratiōtikōn sōmatōn kazasker καζασκέρης kazaskerēs (ανώτατος δι‐  καστής [“Supreme Judge”]) hahambaşı χαχαμπάσης chachampasēs (μεγάλος ρα‐  βίνος [Grand Rabbi“]). The Armenian version has taken into account the Ottoman text. It is the only version which does not contain the addition “…or Minister plenipotentiary,” which features in the French version (“ambassadeur ou ministre plénipotentiaire”) but not in the Ottoman Turkish original. There, only elçilik “ quality and functions of an envoy” occurs. The Armenian version uses despanut‘iwn (from despan “ambassador”), which corresponds exactly to elçilik. Like the Turkish, the Armenian version also employs abstract nouns for the different functions (kusakalut‘iwn, kazaskêrut‘iwn, patriark‘ut‘iwn, xaxamaglxut‘iwn, etc.). Unlike the French translation, the Armenian translation has also preserved the Ottoman term ferik “General of division” even though there were corresponding Armenian terms.118 Otherwise, the translation is puristic. Even the Ottoman term hahambaşılık is partially translated: Armenian xaxamglxut‘iwn (from xaxam [< Turkish “rabbi”]119 + glux “head” + suffix –ut‘iwn). Cf.: Ottoman: Armenian: meclis-i ayan (sénat) cerakut (< cer “old”) mazul (sans emploi, disponible) anpaštôn elçi (ambassadeur) despan vekil (ministre) naxarar vali (gouverneur général) kusakal ferik (général de division) ferik 118 Mihran Apiguian in his trilingual dictionary Erek‘lezuean Əndardzak Baŕaran tačkerên – hayerên – gałłierên, Istanbul, 1888, gives zôrabašni hramanatar. 119 The Armenian word for rabbi is rabbuni. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 48 Ottoman: Armenian: ordu müşiri (commandant d’armée) zôrabanakac‘ hramanatar (zôrabanak “corps d’armée” Turkish kolordu) The Bulgarian version clearly indicates that it was not “translated from Turkish” (“prevedeno ot turski”) as it is said on the title page of Arnaudov’s collection. The translation corresponds exactly to the French version. It does contain the addition “…or Minister plenipotentiary” (Poslannicy ili pălnomoštny Ministry), which features only in the French (and Greek) versions (vide supra). The Ottoman terms contained in the text are the same as in the French version. There is, however, the Bulgarian term for “Governor-General” (Glaven Upravitel) to which is added the Turkish term (vali) between brackets like in the Greek version by which it may have been influenced. Otherwise, ranks and titles appear in their Bulgarian equivalents. Cf.: Ottoman Bulgarian vekil (ministre) ministr elçi (ambassadeur) poslannik ordu müşiri (commandant de corps d’armée) komandant na voenny tĕla ferik (général de division) devizionny general It should be noted that the Bulgarian terms are mostly identical with those existing in Russian.120 Some of them (e.g. komandant) have become obsolete in the modern language. Ottoman Judaeo-Spanish: vekil (ministre) ministro elçi (ambassadeur) ambašador ordu müşiri (commandant de corps d’armée) komandante de los ordis ferik (général de division) ferik 120 I have not come across a Russian translation of the Kanun-i esasi. But it is highly probable that it existed. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 49 A totally different picture appears in the two versions of the “Islamic languages.” Cf.: Ottoman: hey’et-i ayan azalığı kayd-i hayat iledir. Bu memuriyetlere vükelalık ve valilik ve ordu müşirliği ve kazi‘askerlik ve elçilik ve patriklık ve hahambaşılık memuriyetinde bulunmuş olan mazulinden ve berri ve bahri ferikānından ve sıfat-i lazimeyi cami‘ sair zevatdan münasibleri tayin olunur. English: “The senators are nominated for life. The rank of senator may be conferred on persons “en disponibilité,” having exercised the functions of minister, Governor-General, Commandant of Corps d’Armée, Judge, Ambassador or Minister Plenipoteniary, Patriarch, Grand Rabbi, General of Division of armies by land or sea, and generally on persons combining the requisite conditions” French: Les sénateurs sont nommés à vie. La dignité de sénateur peut être conférée aux personnages en disponibilité ayant exercé les fonctions de ministre, gouverneur général, commandant de corps d’armée, cazi-asker, ambassadeur ou ministre plénipotentiaire, patriarche, khakham-bachi, aux généraux de division des armées de terre et de mer, et, en général, aux personnes réunissant les conditions requises. Arabic: ʿuḍwiyyat hayʾat al-aʿyān tabqā mā dāmat al-ḥayāt wa yataʿayyanu bi-hadhihi l-maʾmūriyyāt dhawāt min maʿzūlī l-wukalāʾ wa l-wulāt wa mušīrī l-muʿaskarāt wa quḍāt al-ʿaskar wa s-sufarāʾ wa lbaṭārika wa ruʾasāʾ al-khākhāmāt wa min furaqāʾ al-barriyya wa lbaḥriyya wa min sāʾir adh-dhawāt al-jāmiʿī ṣ-ṣifāt al-lāzima. Persian: aʿzāʾī-ye heyʾat-e a‘yān dāʾemī va mādāma l-hayāt ast, wa barāye in maʾmūriyat īn mī tavānad kasānī maʾmūr bešavand ke dar khedmat wa maʾmūriyat-e vokalāʾī va vālīgarī va mošīrī-ye ordū va qāżī-ʿaskarī va īlčīgarī va pātrīkī va khākhāmbāšīgarī būde va az maʿzūlān bāšand va az farīqān-e baḥrī va barrī va az dīgar aškhāṣ ke owṣāf-e lāzeme-ye īn maʾmūriyat rā jāme’ and. Here, we have the surprising phenomenon that the vocabulary of the three versions is almost identical. In the Arabic version only the Turkish and Persian words of the Ottoman text are different: ordu müşirliği becomes mušīrī l-muʿaskarāt (Arabic muʿaskar “camp”) and elçilik becomes as-sufarāʾ “the ambassadors.” Hahambaşılık is rendered by ruʾasāʾ al-khākhāmāt “heads of the khakhams.” In the Persian text, even the above mentioned Turkish words are retained since ordū and īlčī are not unknown in Persian. A more complex case is khākhāmbāšīgarī. The term khākhām is used today for “rabbi,” but this usage seems to be rela- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANN STRAUSS 50 tively new. The word does not figure in the older dictionaries (Vullers, Steingass). The term khākhāmbāšī may have been adopted from Ottoman Turkish.121 Conclusion Throughout the 19th century, Ottoman legislation was made available to the minority groups through translations in their respective languages. It is therefore not surprising to find that the Constitution of 1876 (Kanun-i esasi), too, was published promptly in the minority languages. A comparison of these translations, of which there is an impressive variety, reveals a number of conspicuous features. One can divide them into two groups: “Oriental-style” (or “Islamic”) and “Western-style” versions. The “Oriental-style” versions use an almost exclusively Arabic terminology. This is the case of the Ottoman, the Persian and, of course, the Arabic version. The terminology of the three languages is almost identical. This is less surprising in the case of Persian since this language adopted as a model the new political terminology created by the Ottoman Turks (by drawing almost exclusively from the Arabic stock) in the wake of the Tanzimat. It is also Persian that has remained most faithful to Ottoman political terminology:122 the term qānūn-e asāsī is still used in Persia today. The identical terminology is more surprising in the case of Arabic. This language had already started to differentiate itself more and more from Ottoman Turkish by developing its own terminology; this occurred not only in Egypt but even in the Arabic provinces under direct Ottoman rule (especially Syria and Lebanon).123 One of the results was the adoption of dustūr for “Constitution.” This term had already replaced al-qānūn al-asāsī when the Ottoman Constitution was reintroduced in 1908. The fact that the Arab translators stuck slavishly to the words used in the Ottoman text is significant, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for this practice. The “Western-style” versions present a more complex picture. Their terminology is variegated and reflects both foreign influences and national traditions – or even aspirations. Some of these versions were purist and used exclusively terms drawn 121 It is not listed in Dehkhoda’s monumental dictionary but in S. Haïm, New Persian-English Dictionary, 2 vols. (Teheran: Farhang Moaser, 1960-1962), 1:687: khākhāmbāšī “a chief rabbi, a (Jewish) pontiff.” 122 See Johann Strauss, “Turco-iranica: échanges linguistiques et littéraires irano-ottomans à l’époque des Tanzimat,” in Contact des langues dans l’espace arabo-turco-persan I. Actes du colloque organisé par l’INALCO (ERISM), l’Université de Téhéran et l’IFRI, ed. Taghi Azadarmaki, Christophe Balaÿ, and Michel Bozdémir (Teheran: Inst. Français de Recherche en Iran, 2005), 59-87. 123 See Johann Strauss, “Mouvements de convergence et de divergence dans le développement d’un vocabulaire de civilisation des langues islamiques (turc-arabe-persan),” in Contact de langues II: Les mots voyageurs et l’Orient, ed. M. Bozdemir and Sonel Bosnalı (Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2007), 87 – 127; here: 122-124. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A CONSTITUTION FOR A MULTILINGUAL EMPIRE 51 from their own linguistic resources. Others relied on the terminology of foreign languages. But all of them have in common that they hardly use any term borrowed from Ottoman Turkish, or coined according to an Ottoman model. One has the impression that by 1876, the languages of the major communities had already established a nearly standardized system of rendering Ottoman terminology in their respective languages, thereby demonstrating their cultural independence. Written Greek and Armenian were highly puristic.124 Even borrowings from French common in Ottoman Turkish (e.g. komisyon, büdce) were not adopted by these languages. Turkish terms had to be avoided. When such terms had to be quoted, they were usually accompanied by a translation. (In Greek, Ottoman terms were also adapted to the rules of Greek morphology: chattion “hatt,” firmanion “ferman,” veration “berat,” etc.). One may interpret this as an attempt of the language users to distance themselves from the language of the rulers. This is corroborated by the fact that most “Western-style” versions of the Kanun-i esasi tended to be translated from the French version rather than from Ottoman Turkish (though the Armenian – and perhaps the Judaeo-Spanish – version may have been checked against the original Ottoman text). In some instances, Greek may also have been the language of reference. For all of these languages, French was the model and the source of the terminology, either by direct borrowing or through calques. The different versions of the Kanun-i esasi therefore also reflect religious, ideological and other divisions existing in the Ottoman Empire. There is a sharp dividing line between those communities using the same alphabet and/or sharing the same religion, and the others. For reasons that cannot be dealt with here, Ottoman Turkish, the composite language of the rulers, did not have a unifying effect. It was relatively successful in the case of Arabic as far as terminology was concerned. But it had little impact on the written and literary languages of the non-Muslim (and non-Turkophone) population and was unable to contribute significantly to their enrichment. 124 It has to be stressed that this purism did not exist in the spoken languages of these communities, where Turkish loanwords were a most common phenomenon. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism Combined: Ahmed Midhat Efendi Between the Sultan and the Kanun-i Esasi Abdulhamit Kırmızı The outstanding intellectual figure of the late Ottoman Empire, the famous novelist, journalist and publisher Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844-1912) is known as an admirer of Sultan Abdülhamid II (1842-1918) and a backer of his authoritarian regime (1876-1908). Despite his close affiliation with authoritarian Hamidian policies, Ahmed Midhat always propagated the vital importance of the first Ottoman constitution (1876) and tried to convince the Sultan to take steps in this direction. This article examines the dual character of Ahmed Midhat’s political opinions, which was able to combine Hamidian autocracy and the constitutional regime. His famous work Üss-i İnkılab (1878) and his booklet Tavzih-i Kelam ve Tasrih-i Meram (1880) will be examined in order to find a more accurate portrait of Ahmed Midhat’s political stance and to gain insight into the intellectual aura of the first constitutional regime. The Many Faces of Ahmed Midhat Efendi Scholars of Ottoman intellectual history have tried to draw a consistent portrait of Ahmed Midhat Efendi, who had seemingly contradictory views regarding the political regime. Although a master of languages and a careful student of Western culture, Ahmed Midhat Efendi obviously was a loyal defendant of the traditional and religious norms of Ottoman society.1 1 Ahmed Midhat Efendi wrote a supplementary essay defending the harmony of Islam and modern sciences in Niza‘-i İlm ü Din 1–4 (Istanbul: Tercüman-i Hakikat Matbaası, 1313–18 [1895–1900]), which was his critical Turkish translation of John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Strauss notes that Ahmed Midhat serialized in his newspaper Tercüman-i Hakikat two works written in defence of Islam by the mufti of St. Petersburg, Ataullah Bayezitoff (1846–1911). Johann Strauss, “‘Kütüp ve Resail-i Mevkute’: Printing and Publishing in a Multi-Ethnic Society,” in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. Elisabeth Özdalga (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005), 228. Another example of Ahmed Midhat’s religious writings is an 1883 polemic with the American missionary Henry Otis Dwight (1843–1917). A series of articles appearing in the Tercüman-i Hakikat under the title “Müdafaa” (Defence) provoked sharp reactions because Ahmed Midhat violently attacked not only the missionaries but also the fundamentals of Western Christianity He published the series under the title Müdafaa: Ehl-i İslâmı Nasraniyete Dâvet Edenlere Karşı Kaleme Alınmışdır (Istanbul, 1300); see ibid, 242. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 54 Carter V. Findley identified Ahmed Midhat as Sultan Abdülhamid II’s collaborator and publicist, who on the one hand is easily branded as a conservative, but on the other had progressive convictions. Findley stressed Ahmed Midhat’s belief in the preference of social, economic and cultural change, in contrast to the progressive ideologues who took constitutionalism as their “symbol of western modernity.”2 The prolific author was definitely one of the vanguard supporters of women’s emancipation, yet he was also an intolerant critic of the “overwesternized” men of high society, whom he caricatured in his well-known fictive characters of Felâtun Bey and Sururi Efendi.3 As part of this critical stand, he wrote an essay on European good manners.4 According to Mardin, Ahmed Midhat was a modernist eager to appropriate Western technology, but not lifestyle. He was a populist intellectual of humble descent who, therefore, faded into the background among the arrogant liberal constitutionalist group of the New Ottomans (Yeni Osmanlılar) and became a supporter of Sultan Abdülhamid II.5 Ironically, it was Midhat Pasha (1822-1884), the leading political figure of the Ottoman constitutionalists, on becoming Grandvizier (1876-1877) and opening the way to the promulgation of the constitution, who took Ahmed Efendi into state service and gave him his name,6 according to an old bureaucratic tradition. Ahmed Midhat Efendi began his early career in Ruscuk (Ruse) as a protégé of Midhat Pasha, then the governor of the model vilayet of Tuna. After Midhat Pasha’s fall and exile, Ahmed Midhat Efendi, just having been made director of the Matbaa-i Amire (Imperial Printing Office), turned against his mentor and praised the Sultan in his writings.7 Ahmed Midhat Efendi’s relation with the Sultan could be described as a collaboration. This is especially convincing when we remember not only his state service, but also that he was chosen to be sent highly decorated by the Sultan to international events like the congress of orientalists in Stockholm and the World Exhibition in Paris, both in 1888. Şükrü Hanioğlu analyzed two articles written by Ahmed Midhat in 1878 in which the Ottoman intellectual defended the regime of Abdülhamid II. In his article “İstibdad,”8 Ahmed Midhat made a distinction between autocracy and abso- 2 Carter Vaughn Findley, “An Ottoman Occidentalist in Europe: Ahmed Midhat Meets Madame Gülnar, 1889,” American Historical Review 103.1 (February 1998), 21. 3 See Şerif Mardin’s careful literary examination of the characters in Ahmed Midhat’s novel struggling with the dilemmas brought on by the dualism of traditional and modern life in “Tanzimat’tan Sonra Aşırı Batılılaşma,” in id., Türk Modernleşmesi (Istanbul: İletişim, 1991), 21-79. 4 Avrupa Adâb-i Muʿaşereti yahud Alafranga (Istanbul: İkdam Matbaası, 1312 [1894–5]). 5 Mardin, Türk Modernleşmesi, 59. 6 Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Otoman Empire, 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 153- 154. 7 Ibid., 402. 8 Tercüman-i Hakikat, July 3, 1878. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 55 lutism: According to him, absolutism was synonymous with lawlessness. An absolutist government would be the consequence of corrupt statesmen. In another article entitled “Hürriyet-i Kanuniye,”9 law is defined as the representation of the general custom, while the ruler upholding it is characterized as a just ruler. People obedient to the just ruler are defined as “free people.” The antithetical system to just rule is absolutism, which, again, would result from a selfish group of bureaucrats misusing freedom in pursuit of their self-interest. Hanioğlu in his analysis further claims that Ahmed Midhat’s opinions on the difference between autocracy and absolutism affected his European friends like Sidney Whitman, who wrote an article entitled “Abdul Hamid an Autocrat not a Despot.”10 This, of course, was met by disagreement in many of the Young Turks’ writings.11 Moreover, Ahmed Midhat defended the bureaucracy in the columns of his newspaper against Teodor Kasap (1835-1905), the liberal editor of İstikbal and Diyojen, who had opposed the idea of selecting the members of parliament with the help of his bureaucrats. Kasap had written that “consultation” did not mean the consulting process between the Sultan and his appointed officials, but that the people had both the right and maturity to elect their representatives themselves. Before concluding with the argument that the Ottoman case had no similarity to the French constitutional revolution, Ahmed Midhat, answered Kasap by writing that “there is no aristocracy in the Ottoman case. The state and the nation are not different at all. Statesmen are chosen from simple citizens. Does this not mean that the government is in the hands of the nation itself?”12 Hilafgiran and Tarafgiran in Ahmed Midhat’s Üss-i İnkılab (1878) Ahmed Midhat’s Üss-i İnkılab (Base of Reform) was written on orders of the Sultan, who wanted him to defend the policies after the closing down of parliament, to justify the exiling of the constitutionalist ex-grand vizier Midhat Paşa, and to explain the Ottoman defeat in the Russian war. Ahmed Midhat’s book praised the Sultan’s liberalistic acts and policies, and described him as the father of freedom and liberty whenever he mentioned his name. Ahmed Midhat wrote that “the germ of freedom which fell on the fertile soil of public opinion did not find a fruitful place of ideas and could nourish itself only in the thoughts of his majesty Abdülhamid II, and the first leaf to blossom from this germ of freedom was his imperial rescript published at the beginning of his imperial enthronement.”13 9 Tercüman-i Hakikat, July 4, 1878. 10 New York Herald, Paris, August 17, 1896. 11 M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995), 27. 12 Tarık Zafer Tunaya, “Osmanlı Basını ve Kanun-i Esasî, in Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi,” 6 vols. (Istanbul: İletişim, 1985), 1:73. 13 Ahmed Mithat, Üss-i İnkılab. Kısm-i Sani. Cülus-i Hümayundan Birinci Seneye Kadar (Istanbul: Takvim-i Vekayi Matbaası, 1295), 2:177. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 56 He categorized the political positions in society toward the Kanun-i Esasi, the constitution, into two parties, hilafgiran and tarafgiran, the adversaries and the adherents, both divided into two subsidiary groups. A part of the hilafgiran saw the constitutional monarchy as “bidʿat,” an innovation or novelty without roots in traditional practice. According to them, the representation of non-Muslims in the parliament was irreconcilable with Islam. Another part of the hilafgiran did not see the constitution as a bidʿat, but politically harmful (siyaseten muzır). The tarafgiran, on the other hand, who favored the parliament’s use of power within the limits of the constitution, were also divided into two groups. One group thought that a constitution was something not to be granted by the state, but to be realized by the people. Therefore, the constitution and its supplementary laws had to be realized by the people, not decreed by the statesmen. The second group of the tarafgiran, with whom Ahmed Midhat identified himself, argued that the Ottoman constitution could not be compared with European constitutions because it was granted by the state; therefore, naturally, the laws had to be prepared by the state, too.14 After this brief introduction to the political groupings in accordance with their stance toward the constitution, Ahmed Midhat continued with a more detailed analysis that described the adversaries and adherents of the constitution and discussed their arguments. Constitutional monarchy, Ahmed Midhat argued, is not a religiously inadmissible innovation (bidʿat). The clear definition of the rights of all social groups and classes under Islamic law was identical with constitutionalism itself. Ahmed Midhat presented many examples from the Koran, the Hadith, the early history of Islam and, furthermore, pointed to the marginal position in the diplomatic arena of the Ottoman state in order to defend the Islamic nature of constitutional monarchy including the representation of non-Muslims in the parliament. After that, he criticized the deportation to the Mediterranean Islands of some members of the ulema who were agitating against the constitution. According to Ahmed Midhat, it was exaggerated to call these opponents “traitors” as long as the constitution had not been realized.15 Ahmed Midhat criticized the arguments of the second group of hilafgiran, who, he wrote, thought that the constitutional monarchy was harmful (muzır) because it limited the rights of the Sultan (hukuk-i hazret-i padişahiyi tahdid). Ahmed Midhat argued that writing down all the rights of the Sultan in a constitution did not limit these prerogatives, but confirmed and secured them (hukuk-i padişahi tahdid edilmiş olmaz, teyid ve temin edilmiş olur). If a ruler was patriotic enough to seek his personal interests in the general interests of his people, he would demand the constitution by himself, like the current Sultan who, according to Ahmed Midhat, had made freedom his motto (hükümdar-i hürriyet-şiarımız). On the other 14 Ibid., 179 15 Ibid., 180-186. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 57 hand, if a Sultan saw himself superior to his people and even mankind, he would consider the mere word “freedom” to be blasphemy as the former Sultan Abdülaziz Han did. It had happened during the time of the authoritarian regime that the once befriended peoples of the Balkans had become enemies of the Ottoman state; and thereafter all subsequent attempts of reconciliation came too late, he argued.16 Ahmed Midhat attacked the opponents whom he described as “eager to gain the favor of the Sultan by opposing the constitution.”17 He gave as strange an example as Namık Kemal, who is known for his liberal political thinking, but once wrote to the Sultan that the constitution “touches, above all, the holy rights of the Sultan” (herşeyden ziyade hukuk-i seniyye-i şehinşahilerine dokunuyor).18 The first group of the tarafgiran thought that constitution had to be achieved by the people and not given by the state, and that the people had to work out the constitution by themselves. Ahmed Midhat calls this group “people of extremist thoughts” (efkar-i mufrita erbabı). These extremists, according to him, did not have the right to compare the Ottoman case with the European case because of the nature of the Ottoman state: the Ottoman Sultan was in the position to adopt the constitution in the name of the state and in the name of the nation. Ahmed Midhat situated himself in the second group of the tarafgiran, a moderate fraction which legitimated the granting of the constitution by the Sultan stating that there never had been a European ruler who admired freedom so much (hürriyet-perver) as did Abdülhamid II. Even the fact that the Sultan had commissioned him, Ahmed Midhat, to write the book Üss-i İnkılab is interpreted by its writer as further evidence for the Sultan’s rejection of absolutism and for the fundamental difference between the Sultan and the rulers of Europe. Addressing the first group of the tarafgiran, whom he defined as being of the opinion that a constitution had to be achieved by the people, Ahmed Midhat insisted that there was no problem with a constitution granted by the Sultan: As the Sultan had no obligation to grant the people the constitution, there was no reason that should hinder the sovereign from commissioning the preparation of the constitution (which, Ahmed Midhat said, was essentially a work of jurisdiction) to the statesmen (heyet-i erkân-i devlet) instead of leaving it to the people.19 Especially interesting is the explanation given by Ahmed Midhat as an answer to those who regarded the Ottoman constitution as deficient and whom he therefore considered as extremist adherents of constitutionalism. Not only, he wrote, should the constitution be evaluated in accord with the historical and contemporary political circumstances of the Ottoman Empire, but in addition, in accordance to the limits of Islamic law. Islamic jurisprudence should be taken into account. In his an- 16 Ibid., 186-189. 17 Ibid., 198. 18 Ibid., 198. 19 Ibid., 189-194. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 58 swer to one of those whom Ahmed Midhat considered extremist constitutionalists, Teodor Kasap Efendi, he explained the British and French paths to their respective constitutions and showed the incompatibility of these examples with the Ottoman case.20 Ahmed Midhat admitted that constitutions were made by the people and not granted by the state in Europe; but he explained this with the circumstance that Europe never had seen a ruler such as Abdülhamid II, who was an admirer of freedom. Therefore, Ahmed Midhat concluded, there was no reason to blame the statesmen who prepared the constitution without the participation of the people. Tavzih-i Kelam ve Tasrih-i Meram (1880) A reconsideration of Ahmed Midhat’s opinions on constitutionalism can be found in the booklet Tavzih-i Kelam ve Tasrih-i Meram (Exposition of Word and Expression of Aspiration) published in 1880.21 This short work shows that Ahmed Midhat’s opinions on constitutionalism are more complex and have a far more sophisticated character than hitherto assumed. This booklet was written about two years after Üss-i İnkılab. It argued against rumors that the Sultan wanted to reinstate the constitution and reopen the parliament, but that some ministers and bureaucrats were opposing his will. After such rumors had emerged from letters written from Istanbul and were circulating in the European press, Ahmed Midhat presented this pamphlet to the palace. İsmail Kara notes on the importance of the booklet that it has to be seen as complementary to Üss-i İnkılab, and requires us to reconsider the arguments bluntly characterizing Ahmed Midhat Efendi as an unconditional supporter of Sultan Abdülhamid, an adherent of his despotism and a opponent of constitutional government.22 The title chosen by him for this booklet leaves the impression that Ahmed Midhat intended to clarify his views on the constitution he had expressed in his earlier book Üss-i İnkılab. The key argument of those who argue against the constitution was that Islamic law protected the independence of the Sultan more than did the Kanun-i Esasi and that the latter was harmful to the Sultan’s rule because it infringed on the Sultan’s rights by limiting them. Ahmed Midhat’s booklet argued against this view. In four chapters, it tries to reaffirm the importance of the constitutional regime for the Sultan. 20 “Muharrir-i Fakir Ahmed Midhat’ın Rodos’tan Yazıp İttihad Gazetesi’ne Dercettirdiği Mektuptur,” in Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i Inkılab, 2:245-254. 21 Ahmed Midhat, “Tavzih-i Kelam ve Tasrih-i Meram (8.5.1296),” transcription published in Hilafet Risaleleri, ed. İsmail Kara, 4 vols. (Istanbul, Klasik 2002), 1:111-138. 22 Cf. the concise summary and analysis of Ahmed Midhat’s booklet by İsmail Kara, Hilafet Risaleleri, 1:11-13. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 59 In the foreword, Ahmed Midhat called for awareness of the intrigues of some circles in Istanbul (mehâfil ve mecâmi) working against the constitutional regime who gained advantage from the above-mentioned rumors. In this context, he argued bluntly that it was the Sultan’s utmost desire to resummon the parliament. He also did not fail to characterize the Sultan as an admirer of, and even the father of freedom (hürriyet-i vicdanı ve sadakat-i lisanı gerçekten sever bir padişah-i hürriyet-perver, şehriyar-i hürriyet-şiarımız ve hükümdar-i ebu’l-ahrarımız). In the first chapter of his booklet, entitled “Şerʿan mesele-i hilafet,” Ahmed Midhat proposed that the Kanun-i Esasi was a kind of religious law and had to be protected by the Sultan. The condition of submission to the caliph in religious law was his ordering the good and forbidding the evil (emr-i bi’l-maruf ve nehy-i ʿan’ilmünker). This religious law at the same time defined the rights and obligations of the caliph, and the very act of defining was not directed against the liberty of the caliph. Defamation of the constitution was, therefore, defamation of religious law. Abdülhamid is here again described not as a tyrant, but as the grantor of freedom. A constitution would be his bodiless political guard (Kanun-i Esasi-i münif dahi bir muhafız-i manevi-i siyasi olacağı), as was the religious law. And it was for that reason that the Sultan himself protected the constitution from the assaults of its opponents. In the second chapter “Siyaseten Mesele-i Hükümrani,” Ahmed Midhat tried to explain the similarity of constitution and religious law. Decisions made by parliaments were like “icma-i ümmet,” the consensus of Muslims, one of the four fundamental pillars of canonical law. If icma-i ümmet accepted a decision and the Sultan consented, this decision would become law. The rights and responsibilities adopted in European constitutions were similar to those of the caliph and the ummah, the community of believers, in Islamic law. Opposing the Kanun-i Esasi with the argument that it limited the rights and responsibilities of the Sultan was like forgetting that Islamic law likewise limited the rights and responsibilities of the caliph. Additionally, both the Kanun-i Esasi and Islamic law protected the rights and responsibilities of the Sultan by delimiting and delineating them. Both were like a wall that protects a garden by creating an obstacle to any trespassing and thereby protecting the garden from assaults coming from outside. A constitution protects a ruler so powerfully, said Ahmed Midhat, that even an elected president, like the French one, was obeyed like a dynasty with a legitimizing tradition of hundreds of years. In countries with a constitution, rebellions and revolts, he claimed, were very rarely seen. As the British example demonstrated, constitutional regimes were not bound to result in democracy or end in a republic (cumhur/ hükumet-i cumhuriyye). In the end, the constitution did not restrict the rights of a ruler, but protected them to the degree that it formed a mutual declaration (sened-i mütekabil) in which the ruler promised just rule to the nation and the nation, obedience to the ruler. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 60 According to the third chapter, “Kanun-i Esasi’nin Vaz’ındaki Tehlike veya Menfaat,” there is no danger but only advantage in creating a constitution. The constitution does not delimitate the Sultan’s prerogatives vis-à-vis the council of ministers and the parliament, but strengthens him against both of them and the people by resting on law. The Ottoman state is a Rechtsstaat because so many laws are enforced there. But is it possible to be a Rechtsstaat without a constitution? A constitution serves as a guide for jurisprudence. The Sultan does not have to accept any parliamentary decision; he can reject them or even close the parliament because of its insistence on a certain decision. Even in the absence of a constitution, the Sultan does not decide on his own but by asking advice from his ministers and commanders. Even God asked the souls of human beings “Am I not your Lord?” at the beginning of creation and the souls answered “Yes.” Another fact, according to Ahmed Midhat, was that the people were more moved by love and loyalty than they could possibly be any council of ministers. Those who opposed the opening of the parliament out of concern for the Sultan’s rights were neglecting to consider the situation of the council of ministers: With its executive power, the cabinet was in constant danger of slipping into despotism. Because of the small number of ministers, the cabinet was able to unite in a matter against the state and people. By adopting illegitimate means, the cabinet could extend its power. The summoned representatives of the people would be a more accurate and more secure source of information for the Sultan. This would also be in accord with the habits of former Sultans: In earlier times, Sultans traveled the provinces by themselves or they sent loyal servants to collect information. In “Kanun-i Esasi’nin Mahvındaki Menfaat ve Tehlike,” the fourth chapter, Ahmed Midhat explained the pros and cons of abolishing the constitutional regime. Whereas the Sultan would not be affected by the absence of a constitution, the ministers and officials would mostly benefit. It was they who opposed any attempt of reinstating the constitution in order to escape from control, supervision and accountability to the parliament. Ahmed Midhat also argued that it would be dangerous to simply abolish the constitution after having granted the people the taste of freedom of thought. Another problem for Ahmed Midhat was the Europeans, who did not and were unwilling to understand the extent of freedom Islamic law granted Christians. This was because they themselves were intolerant towards non-Christians and therefore assumed that Islam had the same negative attitude. Whereas in some places, like Romania and Bulgaria, Muslims benefited from a constitution and the rights it granted, the absence of one in the Ottoman state created a considerable danger and prepared the ground for opposition. The nihilist movement angering the Russian government was gaining ground exactly because of this reason, the absence of a constitution. By mentioning the support for Russian nihilists in Europe, Ahmed Midhat covertly tried to intimidate the Sultan. Ahmed Midhat asked in this context whether it was a virtue to make millions of people © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 61 willing and grateful slaves (kemal-i minnetle ahrarane kul etmek) or to make them hostile in slavery (esirane düşman etmek), and concluded that being considerate of the glory and honor of the caliph was a religious duty for all his loyal servants. Between Constitutionalism and Autocracy Looking closer at his diagnosis, Ahmed Midhat turns out an autocratic loyalist who believed in “legal autocracy.” According to him, the best guarantee for the preservation of autocratic power was the establishment of clearly delineated responsibilities and rights, both for the Sultan and the people. After stressing the rights of the Sultan (padişah hukuku), Ahmed Midhat argued that the constitution would grant the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of autocratic rights. Anchoring these rights in a constitution did not mean limiting these rights but rather strengthening them. A constitution would not restrict the rights of the Sultan, but secure and reinforce them. By being written down and thus fixed, the divine rights of His Majesty would not just be kept in the minds and thoughts, but remain under the commitment of and contract with the people.23 Ahmed Midhat usually blamed disastrous government politics and harmful administrative action on ignorant, selfish and corrupt bureaucrats who allegedly had obstructed the ruler’s true intentions or had deliberately kept him uninformed. Positive reforms and concessions, on the other hand, were attributed to the personal efforts and perseverance of the sovereign himself. Ahmed Midhat clearly shared the traditional deep-seated belief in the personal goodness and power of the Sultan and the sinister role of his servitors. The ideal was to return to the autocracy of old, where the population was both consulted by the Sultan and in direct contact with him without bureaucratic interference and with its personal liberty protected. The rule of law and autocracy he deemed to be compatible. The observance of legality in the bureaucratic and social realm, Ahmed Midhat would have us believe, was not necessarily synonymous with a Western-style political constitution curtailing the rights and powers of the autocratic ruler. Even with the constitution, the autocrat does not share his political power with anybody; they are not in conflict. The monarch was not bound by anything nor curtailed in his right to change the administrative order whenever he deemed it necessary. The Sultan remained the sole sovereign source of power and hence retained his freedom to alter the political order at any given time. The requirement of legality was absolute and thereby transcended any particular administrative structure. 23 “Hukuk-i mezkurun kaffesi Kanun-i esasi’ye derc olundukdan sonra Hukuk-i Padişahî tahdid edilmiş olmaz, teyid ve temin edilmiş olur.” Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkılab, 2:187. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 62 The Constitutional Autocrat Here we have a contradiction: The Sultan’s power would continue to be unlimited in that he would retain the right to change the existing form of government at any time, yet the rule of law was to prevail. Would the ruler not be bound by the law, too, and thus cease to be autocratic? Ahmed Midhat continued to profess his faith in the autocrat’s personal and unlimited rule. The notions of legality and popular consultation (meşveret) were to bridge the gap between the two irreconcilables. No matter how fervently Ahmed Midhat believed in the supremacy of legality, his pragmatism forbade him to point to the inevitable consequences for the Sultan’s power. According to Ahmed Midhat, Ottoman methods of government were still maintained by unwritten laws called “teamül-i kadim,” which were still stronger than written laws. Society needed to see these unwritten laws as a “concrete law” (müşahhas kanun) in the form of a very man, who must be the ruler. The ruler is the embodied law, the law in person (şahsi kanun or kanun şahsı).24 The people’s deep-seated faith in the ideals of truth, justice and moral order required “a living incarnation of law” in a single person. The supreme power of the autocrat was not subject to the law; in fact, law was seen as incompatible with real authority and the exercise of free will. Instead, the law was to be an expression of the autocrat’s free will and thus free to be changed, to serve the autocratic power. According to the opponents of the constitution, those who sought to replace power with the authority of the law were condemned to failure. Although reserving all political and final decisions for the autocratic power, Ahmed Midhat sought to convince the Sultan of the need for national representation, which would help to determine the needs and wishes of the population. Listening to different opinions, he argued, might prove more useful than dangerous. Truth is born from the conflict of ideas. Such a concept of political representation, he believed, was compatible with autocracy. In his eyes, the right of permanent participation in legislation would make the throne more stable and secure. His objective was a type of legal autocracy in which the wall of bureaucratic arbitrariness, ignorance and disunity that separated the Sultan from the people would be torn down through some form of popular consultation and through legal checks on the workings of the government bureaucracy. He wanted to preserve the essence of autocracy while altering some of its nonessential forms. Ahmed Midhat underhandedly warned the Sultan that unless reforms were implemented and the natural desires of the people satisfied; change would come through revolution. In both of his works on constitutionalism, he tried to convince the Sultan to affirm the constitution and not to abolish it. He defended 24 Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkılab, 2:114. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 63 constitutionalism not by opposing the Sultan, but by trying to win him over. His use of accolades for the Sultan such as hürriyet-perver, ebu’l-ahrar, hürriyet-şiar was intended to convince him that he had made the right choice when granting the people a constitution. Understanding Ahmed Midhat Efendi’s Political Position After the Sultan had established himself safely on his throne some years later, Ahmed Midhat’s writings about the sovereign no longer included phrases of freedom. In Ahmed Midhat’s personal letters he sent after that time to the Sultan – these letters can be consulted in the Başbakanlık Arşivi in Istanbul (BOA) – Abdülhamid II figures as the holy caliph, the shadow of God on earth, while the writer describes himself as his humble servant who prays to the Lord for the health and sublimity of His Majesty.25 Ahmed Midhat was presenting his books to the court with respects and compliments not only to the Sultan, but also to the head of the Sultan’s clerks.26 He used these opportunities to beg for some benefits for his friends and family. Sometimes he was successful. Thus, the gravestone of the famous writer and poet Muallim Naci (1850-1893) was paid for from the personal treasury of the Sultan, after a petition by Ahmed Midhat Efendi who was, we should hasten to add, the father-in-law of Muallim Naci.27 25 “Atebe-i kudsî-mertebe-i hilafet-i İslamiyyenin abd-i sâdıkı olmak zaten dâreynde medâr-i necât bir imtiyaz-i cihan-derecât iken, bu defa cihanşumul olan inayât-i celile-i cenâb-i hilafetpenâhîlerine bu aciz bendenin bir kıta madalya ile taltifi hususundaki irade-i merâhim-ifade-i hazret-i velînimet-i azamîleri dû çeşm-i minnetdârî-i kemterânemi eşk-i sürûr u cübûr ile tarsî’ derecesinde kullarını sevindirmiş olduğundan hiçbir zaman lisan-i sadakat-i bendegânemin gafil olmadığı temâmi-i afiyet ve tevâfür-i izz ü iclâl-i cenâb-i zıllullahîleri duasına bir kat daha muvâzabet-i memlukânemi müstevcib olmuş idüğü muhât-i âlem-ârâ-yı şehriyarîleri buyrulmakda. Olbabda ve kâtıbe-i ahvâlde emr ü ferman ve lutf u ihsan şevketlû kudretlû ve kâffe-i enâma merhametlû padişahımız, padişah-i avâtıf-penâh ve şehinşah-i merâhim-iktinah efendimiz hazretlerinindir. Fi 3 Cemaziyyelevvel 1305 Karantinalar Başkatibi Ahmed Midhat kulları,” BOA, Y.MTV 31/34, 1305 C 3 [January 17, 1888]. Ahmed Midhat here is expressing his gratitude for being honored with a silver medal of favor (Gümüş İmtiyaz Madalyası). 26 “Mabeyn-i Humayun-i Cenab-i Mülukane Başkitabet-i Celilesine, Maruz-i bende-i kemineleridir ki,/ Selçukîlik ve Osmanlılık ünvanlarıyla Asya’nın müntehâ-yı şarkından Afrika’nın müntehâ-yı garbına kadar cihanı şan ve şerefle doldurmuş olan Türk kavm-i necibinin fezâil-i celile-i İslamiyye ile imtizac eden uluvv-i ahlakı üzerine bi’l-ibtina, acizane kaleme almış olduğum büyük roman kütübhane-i hümayun-i cenab-i hilafetpenâhîye vaz’a layık görülür ise masrûfî-i himem-i celile-i dâver-i fehmîleri buyrulmak niyazıyla – zat-i sütûde-sıfat-i devletleri içün olan nüsha ile beraber – takdime cesaret edilmiştir. Bu romanın Avrupa alem-i edebiyatınca dahi mazhar-i takdir olmuş ve nam-i nacizaneme gazetelerde bendler yazılmış bulunması kendimce değil, mücerred cümlemizin muallim-i hakikisi olan zat-i hikmetsimât-i cenab-i şehryarînin cümle-i âsâr-i terakkiyât-i hümayunlarından bulunmak haysiyetiyle medar-i mübâhât addeylerim […] 21 Mayıs 1310 [June 2, 1894] / Ahmed Midhat.” BOA, Y.MTV 96/98, 1311 ZA 28. 27 Ibid.: “Naci merhumun kabri üzerine bir taş vaz’ı familya halkınca arzu edilerek bu babda müsaade-i celile-i cenab-i şehriyarînin istihsali hususunda dahi inayet-i kerime-i âsafâneleri rica olunur. Herhalde emr ü ferman hazret-i veliyyü’l-emrindir.” Under the petition, the clerk noted © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ABDULHAMİT KIRMIZI 64 Obviously, Ahmed Midhat’s ideas went out of fashion a good while before the constitutional revolution of 1908. He was much criticized for his book Üss-i Inkılab.28 Once named as a “writing machine with forty horse power,”29 he abandoned his pen for years until he published the novel Jön Türk as a serial in his newspaper soon after the revolution. Jön Türk was the first novel to feature the Young Turks as its subject matter. It began with the announcement that “the readers who like the Young Turks, the lovely servants of our fatherland, will enjoy the novel.”30 The plot begins in the year 1897 and touches on many political pressures of the authoritarian Hamidian regime, such as censorship, informers, control of personal letters, torture, and to exile.31 In his last writings, he openly recalled the Hamidian era as an absolutist era (istibdat devri) and defended himself against accusations of being a propagandist of Abdülhamid II.32 Therefore, Ali Kemal accused him of being an opportunist and a “timeserver” (her devrin adamı).33 Although sent into retirement just after the revolution from his office as the vice-president of the council for health issues (Meclis-i Sıhhıye Reis-i Sânîsi), the post-Hamidian period provided new opportunities for Ahmed Midhat Efendi, with which his last novel must have helped him a lot. He taught history at university (darülfünun) and became member of some academic foundations, such as the Society for Islamic Teaching (Cemiyet-i Tedrisiye-i İslamiye). He also taught at the high school of Darüşşafaka, where he died of a heart attack on December 15, 1912. While some described Ahmed Midhat as having been in fear of the Sultan and having kept his desire of the abolishment of Abdülhamid’s rule to himself,34 the last official historian of the Ottoman state, Abdurrahman Şeref (1853-1925), wrote an article in memoriam of Ahmed Midhat soon after his death in which he excused the intellectual’s political stance as having been the result of his surroundings and the requirements of his time (muhitin tesirine ve zamanenin ilcaatına atfolunmak). He remarked that Ahmed Midhat’s political articles were not deeply the will of the Sultan: “Müteveffa-yı mûmâileyhin kabri üzerine bir taş vaz’ı Hazine-i Hassa’ya tebliğ olunmuşdur. Fi 3 Zilhicce 1311 [7 June 1894].” 28 Münir Süleyman Çapanoğlu, İdeal Gazeteci, Efendi Babamız Ahmet Mithat (Istanbul: Gazeteciler Cemiyeti Yayınları, 1964), 19. 29 Teodor Kasap was the first to use this expression to describe him; see Cevdet Kudret, Ahmet Mithat (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1962), 45. 30 “[V]atanın sevgili hâdimleri olan Jön Türkleri seven kârîlerimiz Jön Türk romanını da seve seve okuyacak […],” Tercüman-i Hakikat, no.9875, September 10, 1324 [1908], as mentioned by Alaattin Karaca, “Ahmet Midhat Efendin’in Jön Türk Adlı Romanı,” Türkoloji Dergisi 9.1 (1991), 121-141; here: 124. 31 Ibid., 137-138. 32 H.T. Us, “Ahmed Midhat Kendini Nasıl Savunuyordu?,” in ibid., 195-203. 33 Çapanoğlu, İdeal Gazeteci, 39-40. 34 Çapanoğlu, İdeal Gazeteci, 20, 43. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul AUTHORITARIANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM COMBINED 65 analytical (derin bir vukûf hissolunmaz), and, additionally, that nobody had been harmed by his political stance but himself.35 It was not only his reputation among constitutionalists that he lost during the Hamidian era. Ahmed Midhat’s books were seized by the censorship office, despite his title as director of the imperial printing office and his being the Sultan’s loyal servitor. The copies of one of his books, “Kıssadan Hisse,” were confiscated because they were deemed “administratively harmful and objectionable” (idareten mazarrat ve mahzurdan gayrisalim),36 and the copies of another book of his, “Sabık Şura-yı Devlet Bidayet Mahkemesi Reisi Said Bey ve Ahmed Midhat Efendi arasında Münazara,” were confiscated for “including harmful political and moral points” (siyaseten ve ahlaken bazı nukât-i muzırrayı şamil).37 Ahmed Midhat Efendi was the most popular modern Ottoman encyclopedist and novelist of the nineteenth century. But his distancing himself from Midhat Pasha and his political support of the Sultan, who was an unpopular figure in Turkish historiography before the 1980s, sufficed as a reason for widespread disinterest in research on Ahmed Midhat’s life and work.38 There is still much uninvestigated material in his countless writings that might contribute to a better understanding of the political thoughts of this important Ottoman intellectual. 35 “İşbu etvârından hiçbir ferd manen ve maddeten zarardîde olmamış, eğer ondan bir leke kalmış ise sırf nefsine ait ve munhasır bulunmuşdur,” Abdurrahman Şeref, “Ahmed Midhat Efendi,” Tarih-i Osmanî Encümeni Mecmuası, no. 18, February 1, 1328 [1913], 1113-1119; here: 1118. 36 BOA, MF.MKT 660/23, 1320 C 16 [September 20, 1902]. 37 BOA, MF.MKT 666/49, 1320 B 3 [October 6, 1902]. 38 Nükhet Esen-Erol Köroğlu (ed.), Merhaba Ey Muharrir! Ahmet Midhat Üzerine Eleştirel Yazılar (Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2006), 2-3. Köroğlu binds Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar’s critics to Ahmed Midhat Efendi to the same reason. “Tanpınar’a göre Ahmet Midhat: Esere Hayattan Girmek Yahut Eseri Hayatla Yargılamak,” in ibid., 329-337; here: 333. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The Administrative and Judicial Status of the First Ottoman Parliament According to the 1876 Constitution1 A. Teyfur Erdoğdu Introduction Midhat Paşa was a statesman who wished – and managed – to have a parliament in the Ottoman territory. His ideal – the first Ottoman parliament – held its opening session on March 19, 1877 despite the fact that he had been removed from the Sublime Porte one month earlier. Among the most important reasons for the establishment of an Ottoman parliament was the fact that Sultan Abdülhamid II and Midhat Paşa were both convinced they needed England’s support against Russia in order to save the empire. It was thought that England would be impressed if a constitution were proclaimed and a parliament established. Midhat Paşa had even believed that merely establishing a parliament before – or even without – writing and proclaiming a constitution, would be enough to secure England’s support for the Ottoman cause.2 Therefore Midhat wanted to make the parliament convene even before the constitution was promulgated. However, Abdülhamid II insisted on proclaiming the constitution before creating the parliament and calling elections.3 Finally Abdülhamid II named Midhat Paşa as grand vizier on December 19, 1876 and promulgated the constitution on December 23. However, the European states’ and particularly England’s reactions to the promulgation of the constitution were disappointing. On the other hand, what did impress was the appointment of Midhat Paşa as grand vizier.4 Abdülhamid II critically observed Midhat’s 1 I dedicate this article to Prof. M. Seyitdanlıoğlu (Ankara, Univ. of Hacettepe), and thank Dr. B. Sütçüoğlu (Istanbul, Univ. of Yeditepe), Asst. Prof. B. Ata (Ankara, Gazi Univ.) and Krista Yüceoral (Istanbul) for giving me very valuable support and advice. 2 It must be remembered that Britain has never had a constitution. 3 Joan Haslip, Bilinmeyen yönleriyle Abdülhamid, trans. N. Kuruoğlu (Istanbul, 1964), 34, 112; Ahmed Sâ’ib, Abdülhamîd’in evâ’il-i saltanatı (Cairo, 1326), 34; İhsan Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi. Meşrutiyete Geçiş Süreci: I. ve II. Meşrutiyet, 2 vols., (Ankara: TBMM, 1997), 1:53; Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (London: Hurst & Co, 1998), 242. 4 Victor Bérard, La revolution turque (Paris, 1909), 96-98. Lady Gwendolen Cecil, Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury (1921), 2:117 quoted in Harold Temperley, “British policy towards parliamentary rule and constitutionalism in Turkey (1830-1914),” Cambridge Historical Journal, 4 (1932-1934), 156-191, here 175. For the evidence see Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore, 1963), 58, 87, 88, 93. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 68 standing in Europe. He felt little incentive for retaining Midhat in his post and decided to banish him from the grand vizierate. Although he calculated that this might jeopardize England’s support, he still hoped that the opening of an Ottoman parliament might serve as a political signal that was sufficient to ensure the permanence of England’s support. Thus, Midhat was dismissed as grand vizier on February 5, 1877, charged with plotting against the throne, and therefore declared dangerous to the state. Europe was shocked.5 Yet during the following weeks the election of deputies was completed. On March 11, Abdülhamid II personally visited the building chosen for the parliament to inspect the progress of the work. He ordered the work to proceed night and day so that the building would be ready by March 19, the date fixed for the opening of the parliament.6 The Sultan opened the parliament on March 19, 1877 with a grand ceremony. As indicated above, at the beginning of his rule, Abdülhamid II shared Midhat Paşa’s idea concerning the necessity of seeking British support, and articulated the fact clearly in his speech on March 19, 1877 at the opening session of the parliament, saying that [...] We proved our sincere and pure intention concerning the carrying out of the wills and advice given by England, above all, and other European states [...]. Connected with this, our purpose has always been to guard our right of sovereign power (istiklâl). Therefore, the mentioned purpose was taken into consideration when we decided to establish the parliament [...].7 England reacted as expected, and right after the opening of the parliament, a new English ambassador, Henry Layard, was appointed to Istanbul. He believed that the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire should be preserved to maintain the security of British hegemony in India, and he defended this view many times against Gladstone in the British parliament.8 This seemed to confirm the Ottoman strategy. The new ambassador became one of the important keys of Abdülhamid’s and Midhat’s policy. Abdülhamid II pursued this policy to the degree that even though he had suspended the parliament in 1878, he continued to appoint new members to the chamber of senators (hey’et-i a‘yân) – the last appointment dating April 22, 1880.9 He also continued to promulgate the decisions consistent with the constitution as provisional laws,including in their titles cunning 5 For examples see Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 108. 6 The Times (March 17, 1877) quoted in Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 108. 7 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi [hereafter BOA], Yıldız Esas Evrak [hereafter YEE], 23/344; Takvim-i Vekayi [hereafter TV], no. 1867 (9 Mart 1293/ March 21, 1877); Basiret, no. 2043, (5 Ra 1294/ March 20, 1877); 1293 Senesi Meclis-i Mebʿusanın Küşadında Taraf-ı Padişahiden Îrâd İdilen Nutk-ı Padişahi (Dersaadet, 1326), 11-12; Soubhi Noury, Le régime représentatif en Turquie, (Paris: Giard & Brière, 1914), 68. 8 Yuluğ Tekin Kurat, Henry Layard’ın İstanbul Elçiliği, 1877-1880 (Ankara: AÜDTCF, 1968), 22. 9 Ali Akyıldız, “Meclis-i A‘yân,” in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: İSAM, 1988ff), vol. 28 (2003), 243-244, here 244. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 69 remarks such as “to be proposed as a law in the next session of the parliament’s general assembly (meclis-i ‘umûmînin ictimâ‘ında kânûniyeti teklîf olunmak üzere mer‘iyetine)”10 as if he were going to recall the members of the chamber of commons (hey’et-i meb‘ûsân) to reopen the parliament.11 It was only from April 1880 that the attitude of Abdülhamid II began to change. Why? Among the many reasons that can be cited, there is one that calls for particular attention: the fact that in the British election of March-April 1880 the Conservative Party under its leader Disraeli was defeated and the Liberal Party led by Gladstone came to power. As is well known, Gladstone opposed the pro-Turkish policy, i.e. preserving the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Under these circumstances, Abdülhamid II abandoned his policy aimed at appealing to Great Britain and stopped behaving as if he intended to reopen the parliament in the foreseeable future. It should be remarked that even most of the deputies agreed with Abdülhamid’s general political assessment of the constitution and parliament. This was expressed in the speech presented to the Sultan by Ahmed Vefik Paşa, the president of the chamber of commons, on the occasion of the opening or the parliament. There he stated among other things that [...] our main purpose has always been to fully guard the holy right of the state, sovereignty, and the Ottoman nation (Osmanlı milleti) as well [...]. In order to protect the sovereignty of the country, the constitution had been proclaimed with the benevolence of our Sultan and the guidance of England. At the time, we took pride in hearing the news of the establishment of a parliament with the same intent [...] in order to protect our country against assaults and molestations by foreigners [...].12 These lines of thought indicate the main reason for the establishment of the Ottoman parliament. But there were also other profound and practical reasons. Ottoman bureaucrats saw the parliament in the framework of a constitutional monarchy as only one method among others that guaranteed an institutionalized, practical, safe and trendy restriction of the Sultans’ despotic powers. In addition, by bringing the representatives of different millets under the roof of one parliament, Ottoman bureaucrats aimed to set their hearts upon a common emotion and to finally make them all feel as children of one – the Ottoman – motherland. Both Abdülhamid II and the Ottoman bureaucrats believed this policy allowed 10 For an example see “Meclis-i ʿUmûmînin ictimâʿında kânûniyeti teklîf olunmak üzere merʿiyyetine îrâde-i seniyye-i hazret-i pâdişâhi şeref-sudûr buyrulmuş olan emlâk vergisiyle ağnâm ve aʿşâr karârnâmesidir,” Düstur, tertib 1, 4:810-813. 11 Recai Galip Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsine ve Bunun Muaddel Şekillerine Göre İcrâ ve Teşrî Fonksiyonlarile Bunları İfa Edecek Organlar Arasındaki Münasebetler,” Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuasının c. XIII, sayı: 1, 1947 nüshasından ayrı bası (Istanbul, 1947), 9. 12 BOA, YEE, 23/313/I; TV, 1881, 14 Ra 1294/16 Mart 1293/ March 28, 1877; Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Mebusan 1293 Zabıt Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakit Gazetesi Matbaası, 1939- 1954), 1:18-19. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 70 them to prevent discontent ethnic groups and millets from breaking away from the Ottoman Empire.13 As the outcome of those considerations, the constitution was prepared and the parliament was opened. However, when we look at the Ottoman constitution carefully in order to understand the Ottoman parliamentary regime, we see that the constitution contained some crucial weaknesses and deficiencies that were to serve as a means to undermine the power and efficient functioning of the Ottoman parliament. These deficiencies resulted, according to the noted historian İlber Ortaylı, from the fact that the authors of the Ottoman constitution as well as the Ottoman bureaucrats in general were ignorant and/or careless of the conventional constitutional procedures of legislation and the basic principles of a typical constitutional regime.14 In fact, we learn from several primary sources that some Ottoman bureaucrats regarded the parliament only as a council of consultation (istişare meclisi), or as a council of supervision (nezaret meclisi) like the provincial councils (vilayet meclisleri) or the councils of non-Muslim communities (cemaât meclisleri).15 On the other hand, according to Robert Devereux, for Midhat and “the liberal party” the primary task of the parliament was to serve as a mechanism to exercise control over the government and its officials, while its legislative functions were only of secondary importance to them.16 It is therefore not surprising that the constitution and the parliament had weaknesses and deficiencies and were different from the conventional (European) examples of a typical constitutional regime, although some features of the Ottoman parliament, such as its bicameral (chamber and senate) aspect, were similar to European examples. 13 TV, no. 1867 (8 Mart 1293/ March 20, 1877); Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:10-11, 17-18. 14 İlber Ortaylı, “II. Abdülhamit Döneminde Anayasal Rejim Sorunu,” (Türkiye’de Demokrasi Hareketleri Konferansı, 6-8 Kasım 1985, Ankara), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4.1 (1986), 55-74, here 55. 15 BOA, YEE, k/23/11/71/e/1515; Vakit Gazetesi, no. 357 (9 L 1293/ October 27, 1877) quoted in Asımzade Hakkı, Türkiye’de Meclis-i Meb‘usân (Cairo, Matbaa-i İctihad, 1907), 103-104, 108-109; Basiret, no. 2081 (19 R 1294/ May 3, 1877); Recai Galip Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda Tanzimat ve Birinci Meşrutiyet Devirleri (Istanbul: Kenan Matbaası, 1946), 101; Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsi,” 6; Yıldızhan Yayla, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Meşrutiyet Kavramı,” in: Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, 6 vols. (Istanbul: İletişim, 1985), 4:950-951; Ebubekir Sofuoğlu, “Ahmed Midhat Efendi’nin Kanun-ı Esasi ve Meclis-i Mebusan’a Dair Layihası: Tavzîn-i Kelâm ve Tasrîh-i Merâm,” Toplumsal Tarih, 83 (2000), 55-57, here 55-56. For the discussions on whether a parliamentarian regime is proper according to Sharia or not, see also the same references and Ahmed Saib, Abdülhamid’in Evaʾil-i Saltanatı, 43. 16 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 172. As will be discussed below, this concept was woven into the constitution, being exemplified primarily by the control over the budget which was granted to the parliament. Beyond this, deputies were granted the right to interpellate ministers; to voice complaints against them, which, if approved by the Sultan, could result in their being brought to trial before the Supreme Court; and to receive petitions from private citizens bearing on injustices being perpetrated by government officials. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 71 In addition, it was the Achilles’ heel of the Ottoman constitution that it gave full authority to the Sultan without making him accountable. Additionally, executive power was not under the authority of the parliament but of the Sultan. As we will see below, the whole cabinet of ministers was politically accountable to the Sultan only, while the ministers were only individually politically accountable to the parliament.17 Moreover, the parliament possessed the right to put the government’s program neither to vote nor to a vote of confidence. On the other hand, even if all of these deficiencies made the constitution unsuitable for a regularly functioning constitutional monarchy, we have to admit that its Ottoman contemporaries frequently considered it as perfectly appropriate for the Ottoman case.18 This was the reason why, when Abdülhamid II suspended the parliament, not a single word was heard from the Ottoman bureaucrats or deputies. They considered the parliamentary regime as just one possible method to save the empire amongst others but not the only and therefore indispensable one. Neither the Ottoman bureaucrats (seyfiyye, ilmiyye, kalemiyye) nor the deputies formed a group that was unequivocal in its basic political attitude towards the constitution. For example, no one less than Hasan Fehmi Efendi, head of the parliament and deputy of Istanbul to the second session, declared that [...] the parliament was established based on a necessity: an intermediary between the Sultan and the Ottoman public had been necessary, an intermediary which was to explain the Sultans’ opinions to the public and to inform the Sultans of the public opinion […].19 This main thesis informs our following analysis of the short-lived first Ottoman parliament caught between the Sultan and the bureaucrats. The Life Cycle and the Political Power of the First Ottoman Parliament and its Relation with Other Parts of the State Apparatus The first Ottoman parliament (general assembly or meclis-i umumi) consisted of two chambers: the chamber of commons (heyet-i mebusan), and the chamber of senators (heyet-i ayan).20 However, in the current context when we use the expres- 17 Articles 35 and 38 of the Ottoman constitution of 1876. For the full text of the constitution, see Düstur, tertib 1, 4:4-20 and Kânûn-i Esâsî (Matbaa-i Amire, Istanbul 1293). İlhan Arsel, “Birinci ve İkinci Meşrutiyet Devirlerinde Çift Meclis Sistemi Tecrübesi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10.1-4 (1953), 194-211, here 198-199. Cf. Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 99, 109; Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsi,” 11-12; Cemil Koçak, “Meşrutiyet’te Heyet-i Âyan ve Heyet-i Mebusan,” in: Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, 4:961-973, here 964 and Ahmet Ali Gazel, “Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi’nde Meclis Araştırması (Anket Parlamenter),” OTAM, 15 (2004), 309-331, here 330. 18 For other weaknesses of the constitution see Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 61, 63-79. 19 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:163. 20 Article 42 of the Ottoman constitution. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 72 sion Ottoman parliament in general, we mean the chamber of commons (heyet-i mebusan). When we take a look at the life cycle of the parliament, we see that the first Ottoman parliament, after holding two sessions – the first one between March 19, 1887-June 28, 1877, and the second one between December 13, 1877-February 14, 1878 – was closed down just after the Russian threat was repelled with English support, and remained closed until 1908. The parliament held 56 meetings in the first session, and 29 meetings in the second in the old building of the university in the St. Sophia district.21 The opening ceremony of the parliament occurred in the hall of the divan of the palace in Beşiktaş. According to the protocol, the ministers and high ranking bureaucrats stood in line just on the two sides of the Sultan’s throne and the deputies were in front of the throne.22 Let us now focus on the legislative power and the political role of the parliament. Today we know that the ongoing debates in the Ottoman parliament and the complaints and dissatisfactions that were expressed there served as a kind of a relief valve that reduced tension in the Ottoman political system. It should be remembered that deputies of the first Ottoman parliament were to enjoy complete freedom in giving their opinions and votes, and by no means, could a deputy be accused for opinions declared during discussions in the parliament unless his respective chamber waived his immunity by majority vote.23 Contrary to widespread belief, the parliament had no serious share in either the process of political decision-making or in the supervision of the implementation of decisions. Evidence to support this claim is found in the Ottoman constitution and other primary sources. The legislative power of the Ottoman parliament was rather restricted: article 53 in the Ottoman constitution of 1876 specifies: “The enactment of laws or their 21 BOA, Dosya Usulü İradeler Kataloğu [hereafter DUİT], 5/1-4/1/1; 5/4-3/1/2; Vakit Gazetesi, no. 464 (28 M 1294/ February 12, 1877) quoted in Asımzade Hakkı, Türkiye’de Meclis-i Mebʿusan, 17-19, 32. For the decoration of the parliament, see Basiret, no. 2034 (25 S 1294/ March 12, 1877). “Le Parlement ottoman,” L’Illustration, no. 59 (April 7, 1877), 215 and Illustrated London News, (April 14, 1877) quoted in Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 119. 22 For the protocol (“Meclis-i ʿUmûmînin resm-i küşâdı hakkında olıcak teşrîfât-ı hümâyûn”), see BOA, YEE, 23/313/11/71; TV, no. 1867 (4 Ra 1294/ March 20, 1877); Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkilab, 2 vols. (Istanbul, Takvim-i Vekayi Matbaası, 1295), 2:218-222; Mahmud Celâleddîn, Mirât-ı Hakîkat, 3 vols. (Dersaadet: Matbaa-i Osmaniyye, 1326-1327), 1:273; Noury Soubhy, Le régime représentatif, 68, Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:4-6; Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 111, 116, 117; Hasene Ilgaz, “Yüz yıl önceki Meclis-i Âyan ve Meb’usan,” Eğitim ve Öğretim. Eğitim, Fikir ve Sanat Dergisi 19.218-219 (1977), 18-22, here 18; Selda Kaya Kılıç, “1876 Kanun-ı Esasi’nin hazırlanması ve Meclis-i Meb‘usan’ın Toplanması,” unpubl. MA Thesis, (Univ. of Ankara, 1991); Hakan Karateke, “I. Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi’nin Açılış Törenleri (19 Mart 1877),” 150. Yılında Dolmabahçe Sarayı Uluslararası Sempozyumu: Bildiriler, 2 vols., ed. K. Kahraman (Ankara, TBMM, 2007): I, 34-40. 23 Articles 47, 48, 79 of the Ottoman constitution. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 73 amendment belongs to the council of ministers. The chamber of senators and the chamber of commons may propose them as well [...].” A look at the constitution reveals that the right of submitting proposals to enact or amend a law was essentially given to the council of ministers. The council of ministers (heyet-i vükela) was empowered to propose the introduction of laws to the parliament in any matter. On the other hand, a deputy could request a proposal for or an amendment of a law only in areas falling under its jurisdiction (vazife-i muayyene). For this he had to present his proposal to the chamber of commons. In the event of a favorable committee report, the chamber of commons forwarded a memorandum to the grand vizier, asking that the proposal be sent to the council of state for drafting.24 Although the council of ministers had no right according to the constitution to return the draft bills approved by the chamber of commons to the parliament by partially or entirely declining them, the council did this several times in practice by working the respective ruling of the constitution (“The enactment of laws or their amendment belongs to the council of ministers”) to its own advantage. Yet again, according to an official report of the council of ministers (meclis-i vükela mazbatası) dated 10 S 1295/ February 13, 1878 and prepared by the council of ministers for the closure of the parliament, the only duty of the parliament had been to discuss and to examine a draft of a law enacted by the council of ministers.25 When the parliament wanted to propose a bill or request the amendment of an existing law, it had first to submit a proposal through the grand vizierate to the Sultan. If he agreed on its necessity, then details and comments would be demanded from the appropriate authority that was responsible for the specific subject matter of the respective law, and finally the Sultan would forward the chamber’s proposal to the council of state (şura-yı devlet) for elaboration into a draft law.26 A deputy or senator without submitting his proposal through the grand vizierate to the Sultan could still have achieved the same result by persuading a minister of the need for a particular law. But even ministerial bills had to be drafted by the council of state. As understood, the main office for the preparation of a draft was the council of state. The law bills prepared by the council of state had to be submitted first to the chamber of commons (heyet-i mebusan), and then to the chamber of senators (heyet-i ayan).27 If a law bill was refused by one of two chambers, it could not be discussed again during the period of assembly of that year.28 If the chamber of senators had wished, it could have refused all drafts com- 24 Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi (Istanbul, 1293), article 27, 28; see also Düstur, tertib 1, 4:36-58. 25 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:407. 26 Article 53 of the Ottoman constitution. 27 Article 54 of the Ottoman constitution. 28 Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 74 ing from the chamber of commons, thereby completely blocking the constitutional way of legislation. Yet this possibility never materialized.29 When a law bill was being debated in the chamber of commons, the members of the council of ministers and the council of state or their representatives, on behalf of the government, had the right to take part in the chamber’s proceedings in order to answer the critical remarks of the deputies about the bill.30 Interior Minister Cevdet Paşa, for example, was generally present in the chamber of commons during the first session whenever the provincial administrative law was being discussed.31 The session could be held as a closed session if fifteen deputies or one of the ministers proposed it.32 In addition, during the debating of the draft bill, the ministers did not have the right to influence the decision in favor of the draft or otherwise. When the chamber of commons decided to conduct a secret vote, the minister or his representative had to leave the room.33 If the bill was finally approved by the parliament, again the Sultan’s permission was necessary for it to become effective.34 No draft bill could become effective if the Sultan did not approve it. In addition, since the ministers were servants of the Sultan but not civil servants, Abdülhamid II was clearly in a position to control the business placed before the parliament. The Sultan also had the right to send any draft bill he wanted to be debated first to the council of state, then to the council of ministers, and finally to the chamber of commons. But the Sultan had no need to send any decree anywhere. It was nowhere stated that a decree issued by the Sultan would not have the force of law as had always been the case. In addition, the Sultan had the right of absolute veto. When we read written reports of assemblies to be found in Hakkı Tarık Us’s collection Meclis-i Meb‘usan Zabıt Ceridesi or as archival materials, we have to conclude that in practice the parliament could take an active part in 29 Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 103; Arsel, “Birinci ve İkinci Meşrutiyet,” 196-197. 30 Article 37 of the Ottoman constitution; Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi, article 79. 31 See Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1. 32 Article 78 of the Ottoman constitution; Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi, article 85. For examples see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:100-102, 282; 2: 104. 33 Article 37 of the Ottoman constitution; However, Ahmet Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı, İşleyişi ve Kapanması,” unpubl. PhD. Thesis, (Univ. of Hacettepe, 2003) Ankara, 140 writes that he couldn’t discover even a single incident of this practice during the sessions of the first Ottoman Parliament. 34 Article 54 of the Ottoman constitution. In the constitution of 1876 there was no deadline indicated for the Sultan’s decision (article 54); Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 104; Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsi,” 8. Therefore Abdülhamid II saw no harm in ratifying the bill concerning the election of deputies accepted by the parliament in 1877 31 years later, in 1908. Cezmi Eraslan and Kenan Olgun, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Meşrutiyet ve Parlamento (Istanbul: 3F Yayınevi, 2006), 55. After 1908 the chiefs of the Committee of Union and Progress had inserted a deadline in the modifications of the constitution for this reason. Henceforth the Sultan had to decide within two months whether to ratify or return a law bill (“Zilhicce 1293 Tarihli Kanun-i Esasi’nin Bazı Mevadd-i Muʿadelesine Dair Kanun,” 5 Ş 1327/8 Ağustos 1325/ August 21, 1909, article 54; Düstur, tertib-i sâni, 1:638). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 75 legislation only in those areas falling under its jurisdiction (vazife-i muayyene) and was a mere legislative tool in the hands of Abdülhamid II. The chamber of commons, like the chamber of senators and the council of ministers, had the right to propose the modification of any article of the constitution, only if the modification was absolutely necessary. In order to become law, the bill needed to be passed first by the chamber of commons with a two-thirds majority , then to be confirmed by the chamber of senators with a two-thirds majority, and finally ratified by imperial decree.35 On the other hand, the legal interpretation of the articles of the constitution was made not by the chamber of commons, but only by the chamber of senators, whose members were appointed by the Sultan.36 The chamber of senators also took up matters on which the members of the chamber of commons could not come to an agreement. In addition to all that, there was the phenomenon of provisional law. According to the constitution, when the parliament was on holiday, dissolved or unable to convene for any reason, binding decisions, as long as they were not contrary to the constitution, were taken by the council of ministers and were called provisional law.37 Therefore, in spite of their provisional state, the decisions that were taken by the council of ministers, as long as they were not unconstitutional, had the force of law (if approved, of course, by the Sultan) until parliament made a decision on them in its first session.38 However the constitution failed to state what would happen if the parliament refused to approve the decrees. Although it can be presumed that the drafters of the constitution intended the provision to mean that the decrees would become invalid in such an event, this was not stated in the constitution. Therefore, as Devereux points out, this article could also be interpreted to mean that the decrees were merely to be presented to parliament for its information.39 How limited the legislative power of the parliament actually was can be gleaned from the fact that despite approximately twenty laws’ coming into force during the parliament’s active period, only one among the several bills proposed by the parliament was accepted and ratified into law. This was the Dersaadet Belediyye Kânûnu.40 35 Article 116 of the Ottoman constitution. 36 Article 117 of the Ottoman constitution; Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 1:88, 90. 37 Article 36 of the Ottoman constitution; Okandan,“7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasî,” 9. 38 Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi, article 36. For how this looked in the political practice, see Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 74-75. 39 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 68, 69. 40 BOA, YEE, 23/313-I/e/11/71; Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkilâb, 2:229-248; Ahmed Saib, Abd- ülhamid’in Evaʾil-i Saltanatı, 200-201; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:399; Necdet Öklem, 1877 Meclis-i Mebusanında, Bütçe, İller Kanunu ve İç Tüzük Üzerinde Tartışmalar (İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1987), Jongil Kim, “Birinci Meclis-i Mebusan Zabıt Ceridelerinin Tahlili (1293/1877-1294/1878),” unpubl. MA Thesis, (Univ. of Istanbul, 1993); Oğuz, “I. Meşruti- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 76 In brief, the parliament was a debating society and a sounding board for grievances rather than a legislative assembly. It spent all its time debating and commenting on the draft bills that came from the council of state. Political thinking in the Ottoman Empire, in general, also supported this kind of role allocation between the bureaucrats and the deputies. In fact, we know of several controversies between the deputies and the council of ministers or the council of state. Some of the deputies distinguished themselves in the first session of parliament by their generally critical stand toward the government. Despite their critics in the second elections, the same deputies, like Yenişehirlizade Hacı Ahmed (Aydın), Mustafa Bey (Salonica), Yusuf Ziya (Jerusalem), Nafi Efendi (Aleppo) etc., were re-elected. According to Devereux, this constitutes the best available proof that the deputies were far from being mere creatures of the Sublime Porte.41 Nevertheless, the members of the council of state or of the council of ministers regarded themselves as superior to the deputies. For instance, when the provisional instructions concerning the election of deputies (meclis-i mebusan azasının suret-i intihabı ve taʿyinine dair taʿlmat-i muvakkate)42 were being debated in the chamber of commons, a member of the council of state, Midhat Bey stated, “[…] I’m requesting that you not oppose them in the name of the state […].”43 The weakness of the Ottoman parliament arose also from its limited supervisory powers. Neither the grand vizier nor the council of ministers needed a vote of confidence from the parliament to carry out their duties. They were independent from the parliament and only accountable to the Sultan. As mentioned before, not the cabinet but only individual ministers were politically accountable to the parliament.44 The parliament did not have the right to call for an interpellation nor a way to achieve a change in the cabinet. But when a deputy requested for a minister to give an explanation before the chamber of commons or when a deputy made a complaint about a minister, depending on the rule, this request or complaint had to be approved by the parliament’s general assembly (meclis-i umumi). Next, a motion would be sent to the grand vizierate, and after the Sultan’s approval, it would be passed on to the council of state and then back again to the chamber of comyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 74; Eraslan and Olgun, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Meşrutiyet, 54-55. 41 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 148. 42 For its full text dated 10 Ş 1293/ October 29, 1876, see TV, no. 1844, 18 L 1293/ November 6, 1876; Serkis Karakoç, Tahşiyeli Kavânîn, 2 vols. (Dersaadet, 1341/1343), 2:34-36; “Meclis-i Mebʿusan-i Osmani. İntihabât Hakkında Taʿlimât” (Library of the University of Istanbul, no. 78881). 43 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:296. 44 Articles 35 and 38 of the Ottoman constitution; Arsel, “Birinci ve İkinci Meşrutiyet,” 198- 199. Cf. Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 99, 109; Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsi,” 11-12; Koçak, “Meşrutiyet’te Heyet-i Âyan ve Heyet-i Mebusan,” 964 and Gazel, “Osmanlı Mebusan Meclisi’nde,” 330. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 77 mons.45 A complaint could be brought forward even by ordinary citizens. Once received, the petition had to be studied by the parliament. If the parliament did not reject the petition, it would be forwarded to an appropriate ministry for further action.46 Afterwards, the minister in question had to respond to the parliament’s questions either himself or by appointing a subordinate in his stead.47 When the chamber of commons would carry out secret voting, the minister or his representative had to leave the room.48 The minister, however, could postpone his appearance if he deemed it necessary to do so by assuming the full responsibility for his act. Moreover, if the minister had accepted to appear before the chamber and if the absolute majority of the deputies present at the session where the interrogation took place decided that the minister had to be further investigated, an official note of complaint would be sent to the grand vizierate. Only with the permission of the Sultan, would the minister’s file be sent to the Supreme Court (divan-i âli).49 Even then the chamber of commons’ right of accusation pertained only to a minister’s criminal actions, not to his political acts. The chamber of commons interpreted this right as extending not only to ministers in office but also to former ministers and even to all state officials.50 However, there was no case requiring the application of this rule during the parliament’s existence, although the parliament demanded trials several times during both sessions.51 In any case, it would have been unclear how a minister was to be tried because the procedure for such trials had not been determined.52 After the chamber of commons had experienced delayed responses from the ministers it had summoned, the chamber decided that in such cases if there was no reply within two weeks, the request would be repeated by the president of the 45 For example, individual deputies interpellated various ministers from time to time on the conduct of the war with Russia. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:274-276. 46 For details see article 52 of the Ottoman constitution and Heyʾet-i mebʿusan nizamname-i dahilisi, articles 44-50, chapter VIII. Devereux pointed out that the first chamber of commons received and processed several hundred petitions, while during the second session they constituted one of the chamber’s principal occupations. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 176. 47 For an interesting example (the speech of Mustafa Bey, deputy of Thessalonica) that demonstrates how deputies interpreted their right to call the ministers to the parliament, see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:391: “[...] ‘the minister’ means ‘the servant of the nation’. The ministers have to do what the nation wants. They should come just in time when the nation calls.” 48 Articles 37 and 38 of the Ottoman constitution. However, according to Oğuz this was never applied during any sessions of the first Ottoman Parliament. Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 140. 49 Heyʾet-i mebʿusan nizamname-i dahilisi, articles 29 and 31-32; articles 31, 38 and 92 of the Ottoman constitution of 1876. 50 For examples see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1 and 2. 51 Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 139. 52 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 68. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 78 chamber.53 However, the chamber of commons had no means to enforce sanctions if a minister failed to reply.54 Because members of the council of ministers or the council of state regarded themselves as representing state authority, they would not consider themselves accountable to the parliament. If a deputy suggested otherwise, serious debates would follow.55 The chamber of commons made attempts at a better control of the council of ministers, especially in the second period.56 The most important reason for this was the decision made by the council of ministers to enter into war with Russia in 1293 (1877-78) and the fact that this war was not going favorably for the Ottoman side. This development became directly visible to the deputies when Istanbul was flooded by countless refugees, which caused the government numerous problems.57 Under these circumstances, deputies were much less reluctant to criticize ministers than before.58 It has to be remarked, however, that the first Ottoman parliament had relatively more power in the financial and budgetary area. Two aspects have to be taken into consideration here: First of all, the budgets of the state, prepared by the council of ministers, had to be submitted to the parliament for ratification each year immediately after the opening of the session.59 Moreover, the Ottoman government was forbidden to levy and collect any taxes and to expend any funds which were not provided for in the budget as approved by parliament.60 Secondly, the members of the court of accounts (divan-i muhasebat), which was to ex- 53 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:40, 41. For examples of the reply to the request see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:304, 388. 54 For example, 33 days after the deputy of Janina, Daviçon Efendi, had sent a note to the council of ministers, the parliament still had not received a reply; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:261. Neither in the Ottoman constitution of 1876 nor in its modification dated 5 Ş 1327/ August 21, 1909 was a deadline for how long a minister could postpone the interrogation mentioned (article 38). Later the chiefs of the Committee of Union and Progress put a limit for such a postponement in the new modifications of the constitution. Henceforth a minister had to request permission from the chamber of commons if he wanted to postpone the questioning (“Zilhicce 1293 tarihli Kanun-i Esasi’nin Bazı Mevadd-i Muʿadelesine Dair Kanun,” 5 Ş 1327/8 Ağustos 1325/August 21, 1909, article 38, Düstur, tertib-i sani, 1:640-641). 55 Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 140. Devereux states in addition that the article was also silent on the consequences of rejection of a minister’s explanations as unsatisfactory by the chamber of commons. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 69. This must also be seen as another weakness of the parliament. 56 Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 123; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, vol. 2. 57 Alexandre Toumarkine, Les Migrations des populations musulmanes balkaniques en Anatolie (1876-1913) (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1995); A. Teyfur Erdoğdu, “Dahiliye Nezareti teşkilat tarihi (1836-1922),” unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, (Univ. of Hacettepe, 2005), Ankara, 269, 272- 273. 58 Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-ı Hakikat, 3:22. For an example of harsh criticism made by Nafi, deputy of Aleppo, see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:241. 59 Article 99 of the Ottoman constitution. 60 Articles 97 and 100 of the Ottoman constitution. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 79 amine all financial operations and to submit a yearly report on its work to the chamber of commons, would be appointed by the Sultan but, once appointed, could not be dismissed except by a majority vote of the chamber of commons.61 On the other hand, the parliament’s control of finances was still limited for three reasons: first of all, if a session should end before the budget law was enacted, the council of ministers could apply the budget of the previous year.62 And with this provision the Sublime Porte gained the possibility to avoid parliamentary financial control entirely by not submitting the new budget until the session was near its end, when the parliament would no longer have time to act. This was possible because the constitution failed to include provisions that would ensure the council of ministers’ submitting the budget to the chamber of commons at the time stated.63 Devereux pointed out that the ministry according to article 44 could also achieve the same effect “by persuading the Sultan to curtail the length of the session.”64 But in practice Abdülhamid II acted responsibly to the constitution. The first session of the parliament had been scheduled to end on June 19, but on that date the chamber of commons was informed that Abdülhamid II had extended the session for another ten days. It seems, he took this decision in order to enable the chamber of commons to rework the budget law, one article of which the chamber of senators had rejected.65 This constitutionally correct behavior of Abdülhamid II might be explained by the fact that the Ottoman Empire was still at war with Russia and in this desperate situation needed England’s support more than ever before. The second limitation on the budgetary power of the parliament was stipulated in article 101. According to this article, the council of ministers could in the case of urgency caused by extraordinary circumstances when the General Assembly was not sitting, obtain imperial decrees for raising and expending the necessary resources, provided that the decrees were submitted for legislative action of the parliament immediately after the opening of the next session.66 Thirdly, the draft on the actual operation of the definitive budget (muhasebe-i katʿiyye kanununun layihası) did not need to be submitted to the general assembly until four years after the end of the year to which the accounting pertained.67 It is clear that, as Devereux aptly pointed out, after that period of time 61 Article 105-107 of the Ottoman constitution. But the special law of the court of accounts’ organization and functions did not pass through the legislative process before the parliament was on holiday. 62 Article 102 of the Ottoman constitution. 63 Article 99 of the Ottoman constitution. 64 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 72. 65 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 206. 66 Article 101 of the Ottoman constitution. Devereux is right in asking what consequences would follow in the event that parliament refused to accept the council of ministers’ justification. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 72. 67 Article 104 of the Ottoman constitution. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 80 “it would have been difficult, even impossible in many cases to bring derelict ministers to account for illegal expenditures. And if the Sultan were shown to have ordered the expenditures in question, nothing could possibly be done.”68 This could happen because the minister had to act on the Sultan’s orders, and the Sultan himself, it should be remembered, was not accountable for his acts.69 Then again on budgetary issues the Ottoman parliament generally used to criticize the policies of ministers and of the council of state more harshly than on the other issues.70 It can therefore be stated that even if the parliament had only very limited capabilities to legislate and control, it had been equipped with the means to prevent the enforcement of any law that the majority of its members did not accept, in particular when it came to budgetary issues.71 The Relationship Between the Ottoman Chamber of Commons and the Sultan The relations between the first Ottoman parliament and the Sultan may provide us with further insight into the role and importance of the parliament. One may ask whether the parliament was docile all along or only in the beginning. Was the parliament a yes-man parliament as Engelhardt contended72 or a bastion of hardheaded opposition? The architectural features of the parliament building can provide some clues to the questions. At the end of the hall of the parliament stood a box, for use by the Sultan as in ancient times in the council-chamber (divan-ı hümayun) in Topkapı Palace. To answer these questions exactly we should focus on the details. In this context we have to give up the idea that all rights and all duties of the chamber of commons were meticulously defined by law. There is more than one instance of the Sultan commissioning some of the deputies to perform a duty the constitution did not provide for. For example, on April 25, 1877 Abdülhamid II ordered a few deputies to inspect the imperial shipyard (tersane-i amire) and to produce a report about their inspection during the parliamentary holiday.73 68 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 72. 69 Article 5 of the Ottoman constitution. 70 Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzda, 121; Ali Birinci “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Mebusanında Hükûmete Yöneltilen Tenkitler,” Sanat, Bilim ve Kültürde Orkun 8 (1983), 22-25, here 24; Öklem, 1877 Meclis-i Mebusanında, 55-136. For an example of harsh criticism made by Astarcılar Kâhyâsı Ahmed, deputy of Dersaadet, see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:74. For the objection of Yanko Efendi, a member of the council of state, to criticisms of deputies, see Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:121-126. 71 Yıldızhan Yayla, Anayasalarımızda Yönetim İlkeleri, Tevsi-i Mezuniyet ve Tefrik-i Vezaif (Istanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1982), 23-25. 72 Ed. Engelhardt, La Turquie et la Tanzimat ou histoire des réformes dans l'empire ottoman depuis 1826 jusqu’à nos jours, 2 vols. (Paris: Cotillon, 1882-1884), 2:170. 73 BOA, YEE 71/22 quoted in Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 127. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 81 However, it is not only this kind of extra-constitutional work imposed on the deputies but also the details of the rights and duties of the parliament towards the Sultan as prescribed in the Ottoman constitution which testify to the weak position of the chamber vis-à-vis the Sultan. The members and the president of the chamber of senators were selected and appointed by the Sultan, but the president of the chamber of commons was elected.74 The members of the chamber of commons had to pledge their allegiance to the Sultan as well as to the country and the constitution.75 Nevertheless, the members of parliament were free in their voting and in expressing their views and opinions.76 Article 77 of the Ottoman constitution of 1876 provided that the chamber of commons should have a president and two vice presidents, and that the Sultan had to appoint the president and two vice presidents from among three candidates for each of the three posts elected by the chamber of commons by majority vote. The names of the candidates were then to be forwarded through the grand vizier to the Sultan. However, as a head of the chamber of commons was needed at the first opening of the parliament, its president was selected and appointed by the Sultan. Abdülhamid II chose and appointed Ahmed Vefik Paşa on March 20, as the president of the chamber of commons in this way. Ahmed Vefik Paşa was not even a deputy at the time, for the Istanbul elections had not yet taken place. Therefore Abdülhamid II made Ahmed Vefik Paşa a deputy, and the Istanbul electors ratified the Sultan’s action with little choice on March 1. It is also worth mentioning here that the last post of Ahmed Vefik Paşa before he was appointed president of the parliament had been member of the council of state. He is known to have acted disrespectfully towards the deputies on a number of occasions, silencing speakers in a rude manner, and was famously reported to have addressed a molla in the chamber with the words “Sus eşek! (Shut up, you donkey!).”77 It is also remarkable in this context that he was a well-known opponent of constitutional government.78 Lupos apud oves custodes relinquere. The deputies were quite aware of his arbitrary and autocratic nature. For this reason, at the parliament’s first public sitting, some deputies denounced the Sultan’s action. A courageous deputy, Yusuf Ziya (Jerusalem), rose in the chamber and exclaimed “The member for Istanbul, His Excellency, Ahmed Vefik Efendi, tells us that he is our president. Who made him so?”79 74 Articles 60-62 of the Ottoman constitution. 75 Article 46 of the Ottoman constitution. 76 Article 47 of the Ottoman constitution. 77 Sir Edwin Pears, Forty Years in Constantinople (London 1916), 68 quoted in Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 158. 78 Recai Galip Okandan, Amme Hukukumuzun Ana Hatları (Istanbul: İÜHF Yayınları, 1977), 179-184; İbnülemin Mahmud Kemal İnal, Osmanlı Devrinde Son Sadrıazamlar, 4 vols. (Istanbul: Dergah Yay., 1982), 2:666. 79 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 156. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 82 At the beginning of the second session, the parliament elected its candidates, on December 22, and three candidates for the presidency, three candidates for the first vice-presidency, and three candidates for the second vice-presidency were presented to the Sultan. Abdülhamid II on December 30, showed a certain measure of disrespect for the constitutional procedure and appointed Sheikh Bahâeddin as the first vice-president even though his name was with two other names on the list of the candidates for the presidency. An even more serious breach of the constitutional rules occurred with the Sultan’s selection of Hüdâverdizade Ohannes Efendi as the second vice-president of the parliament despite the fact that Ohannes Efendi had not been nominated on any of the three lists presented to the Sultan by the parliament.80 The designation by the Sultan of Hüdâverdizade as second vice-president aroused protests. And Yenişehirlizade Hacı Ahmed (Aydın) said at the December 31 sitting that “[…] there must be some error here. We did not elect him.”81 The Sultan’s action was clearly a violation of the constitution and internal regulation (Heyet-i Mebusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi). But in the end the protests changed nothing: Suprema lex regis voluntas est. The Sultan used to supervise the chamber of commons through the chamber of senators, whose members he chose and appointed as mentioned before. In the legislative field, the constitution gave the chamber of senators superiority in comparison to the chamber of commons. In other words, the chamber of senators had supervisory power over the chamber of commons’ bills. The chamber of senators had the right to veto the commons’ bills, or to return them. The former used to examine the bills given by the latter according to the following points: religious matters, sublime rights of the Sultan, liberty, rules of the constitution, indivisibility of country and state, internal and external security of the state, and general customs. When it found any objection, it had the right to refuse ormodify the bill, or return it to the chamber of commons. On the other hand, when it accepted a bill proposed by the latter, the bill could be submitted to the grand vizierate only by the former.82 However, it is not clear how the chamber of senators applied this right in practice.83 The chamber of commons in turn had no right to criticize the chamber of senators, by law, and the head of the chamber of commons would not permit those who wanted to criticize the senators.84 Moreover, there were rumors that Abdülhamid II had had ‘agents’ in the parliament since its inception, and the deputies reacted harshly the rumor. It is remarkable, however, that during the discussions over the potential agent, Kadri Efendi, the deputy of Aleppo, wrote a report (jurnal) to inform Abdülhamid II 80 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:22, 26, 30. 81 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:30. 82 Article 64 of the Ottoman constitution. 83 Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 120. 84 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:79. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 83 about the contributions of deputies criticizing him.85 In fact, there were many other formal ways that the Sultan could find out about the discussions taking place in the parliament: for example, the members of the council of ministers or of the council of state could attend the parliamentary meetings. We know that three types of sittings were held for the parliamentary meetings: public, closed, and secret. In addition, summaries of the proceedings of the commons were published in the official journal Takvim-i Vekayi just as for public sittings.86 Nevertheless, Abdülhamid II obviously wanted to know about the gossip whispered even in the small galleries and lounges as well. The Regulations Concerning the Opening and Closure of the Parliament The parliament would be opened each year by the summons of the Sultan at the beginning of November and would cease to function at the beginning of March, again by imperial will (irade-i seniyye).87 However, the Sultan could convene or close the parliament earlier than the normal period.88 Deputies and senators all pledged allegiance to the person of Sultan, the country, and the rules of the constitution in the presence of the grand vizier on the first day of parliament.89 In case of a disagreement that could not be resolved between the council of ministers and the parliament (for example, if the parliament refused the same bill of the council of ministers twice), it was the Sultan who could either replace the 85 BOA, YEE, 71/11 and 84/112 quoted in Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 207, 211. 86 Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi, article 87 provided that the minutes were to be published in Takvim-i Vekayi. Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkilâb, 2:224. However, the minutes published there were not the verbatim accounts taken down by the clerical staff but rather summaries prepared by Ahmed Midhat, the director of Takvim-i Vekayi; cf. Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkilâb, 2:226-228. Therefore the deputies and even the ministers complained frequently that debates were being reported incorrectly in the press. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:250, 256. Thereupon on January 9, 1878 the chamber of commons voted to have summaries published in a journal other than Takvim-i Vekayi, and Basiret was selected for this purpose; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:106, 250. Concerning the chamber of senators, according to Heyʾet-i Mebʿusan Nizamname-i Dahilisi, article 71, all of its sittings were to be closed to visitors except ministers or their representatives and such deputies as might have been specifically invited to attend. As a result, newspapers of the day, including Takvim-i Vekayi, never published any information about this chamber’s proceedings. Therefore, as Devereux pointed out rightly, how often the chamber of senators met, what decisions it made, the positions taken by individual senators on various question, etc. must remain forever shrouded in mystery. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 234. 87 Article 43 of the Ottoman constitution. 88 Article 44 of the Ottoman constitution. 89 Article 46 of the Ottoman constitution; Basiret, no. 2044 (6 Ra 1294/ March 21, 1877); Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:22. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 84 minister or dissolve the chamber of commons and order the parliament to go on recess until the next general election.90 We know that Abdülhamid II applied this rule. He replaced İbrahim Edhem Paşa as grand vizier with Ahmed Hamdi Paşa on January 11, 1878 because a disagreement occurred between the grand vizier and the chamber of commons. Abdülhamid II also requested Ahmed Hamdi Paşa to get along well with the chamber of commons.91 The grand vizier was not a head of government in the parliamentary sense of the term, and his only rights were to preside over cabinet meetings (article 28) and to resolve matters not falling entirely within the competence of a single ministry (article 29). He remained a primus inter pares, and the other ministers would keep their posts as long as they retained the confidence of the Sultan even when in disagreement with the Grand Vizier. However, we know that the replacement of a grand vizier meant, in Ottoman political practice, in most case the alternation of the council of ministers. Therefore the replacement of İbrahim Paşa caused the downfall of his cabinet. In the second period of the parliament, Abdülhamid II changed the cabinet once again after being informed that there would be a major disagreement between the parliament and the council of ministers after the defeat of the Ottoman army in Shipka and the opening of the route to Istanbul to the Russians as a result of the Armistice of Adrianople of January 31, 1878.92 In this situation the opposition deputies met in the parliament building on February 3 to discuss the current situation of the war. They agreed to raise opposition in the parliament on the following day. But when the chamber of commons convened the following day, it discovered that Ahmed Hamdi Paşa had been dismissed as grand vizier and Ahmed Vefik Paşa had taken his place. Abdülhamid changed the post of the grand vizierate (sadr-ı azamlık) into the post of prime minister (başvekillik) to make sure that there would be a better dialogue between the council of ministers and the 90 Articles 7, 35, 73 of the Ottoman constitution. Devereux points to a sin of omission: if the Sultan wished neither to dismiss the minister nor to dissolve the chamber of commons, he had merely to order the minister to withdraw the law bill in question, which he could then promulgate directly by virtue of his inherent decree power. Here again the power of parliament was tempered as is clearly seen. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 68. But Abdülhamid II never exercised this possibility. 91 BOA, YEE, 75/19 quoted in Oğuz, “I. Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Umumisinin Açılışı,” 147; Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3:22-23. Devereux, however, on the authority of Mahmud Celaleddin’s book, Mirat-i Hakikat, claims the true reason had been that İbrahim Edhem Paşa had failed to take what the Sultan considered a sufficiently determined stand against the deputies. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 235. 92 Although Abdülhamid II changed the cabinet twice and didn’t dissolve the parliament during these periods, Prof. Aldıkaçtı points out that the authority of Sultans to change cabinets or dissolve the parliament was vested by the constitution in article 35 not in order to make him an arbitrator between these two state apparatuses, but to force the parliament to obey the Sultan's wishes; cf. Orhan Aldıkaçtı, Anayasa Hukukumuzun Gelişmesi ve 1961 Anayasası (Istanbul: İÜHF Yayınları, 1982), 58. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 85 parliament.93 However, this intervention of the Sultan was criticized by the opposition in the parliament since the modification of the title (from grand vizier to prime minister) was not in accordance with articles 27-29, 115, 116 of the Ottoman constitution. On February 9, the special committee of the parliament reported back that the change had indeed violated the constitution94 because the constitution called specifically for a grand vizier and constitutional government required strict compliance with the constitution. The opposing deputies also requested on February 5, that the Supreme Court be constituted to try Mahmud Nedim Paşa, former grand vizier, and numerous military leaders for criminal behavior and incompetence. After heated debate the motion was accepted despite strong opposition and warnings by the moderate and pro-government deputies.95 In brief, the Sultan had all rights in case of necessity (lede’l-iktizâ) to convene the parliament, to send it on holiday, or even to close it down for good according to the Ottoman constitution.96 Towards the Anxious End Ne cesaretle olur münkeşif ebnâ’-yı vatan Dehşet-âlûd-i cebânet eb-i meşrûtiyyet Yoksa dünyada nasîb olmıyacak mı bilmem Bize, nev‘-i beşerin hakkı olan hürriyet.97 By then, a strong opposition not only against the council of ministers but also towards Sultan Abdülhamid II had developed. Opposition in the parliament argued that “the chamber of commons should either function according to the constitution or be abolished.”98 The end was in sight. Abdülhamid II, on February 13, 1878, invited the president of parliament and two deputies together with forty other distinguished persons to serve as members on his new advisory board (meclis-i meşveret) formed after the Russian approach towards Istanbul. One of the deputies, Astarcılar Kethüdası Ahmed Efendi, a deputy of Istanbul, replied in the meeting critically with unprecedented frankness: 93 BOA, Y.EE, 75/20, 1 S 1295/5 Şubat 1878; William J.J.R.N. Spry, Life on the Bosphorus. Doings in the City of the Sultan. Turkey, Past and Present. Including Chronicles of the Caliphs from Mahomet to Abdul Hamid II (London: Nichols, 1895), 267. 94 Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3:61; Osman Nuri, Abdülhamid-i Sani ve Devr-i Saltanatı: Hayat-i Hususiyye ve Siyasiyyesi, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Osmaniyye, 1327), 1:340; Abdurrahman Şeref, Tarih Musahebeleri (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, 1339), 261, 265; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:310-312, 371, 372; Sina Akşin, “Birinci Meşrutiyet Meclis-i Mebusan- ının Ele Aldığı Başlıca Sorunlar,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25.2 (1970), 101-122, here 115. 95 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:296-302. 96 Articles 7 and 27 of the Ottoman constitution; Okandan, “7 Zilhicce 1293 Kanunu Esasîsi,” 10. 97 Ziya Paşa in İnal, Son Sadrıazamlar, 1:345. 98 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:346, 347. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A. TEYFUR ERDOĞDU 86 Our help should have been sincerely requested when it was possible to avert disaster. You are asking for our opinion far too late[…] Thus, we do not accept any responsibility. No decision of the parliament has been carried out […].99 This kind of criticism was not new, but voiced by a deputy directly to Abdülhamid II was the last straw. Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat. In fact, during the war with Russia, the deputies had not hesitated to blame Abdülhamid II and the ministers for what they regarded as a scandalous conduct of the war.100 Abdülhamid II wanted this deputy to be punished and declared he had made a mistake in imitating the soft-minded reform policy of his father Sultan Abdülmecid, and hence felt forced to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather Sultan Mahmud II.101 Alea iacta est. Abdurrahman Şeref, the last official chronicler in the Ottoman Empire, gave another reason, besides internal and external (for the latter particularly the Russian factor) reasons102 (the latter particularly being the Russian factor) for the closure of the first Ottoman parliament, stating that in the second session of the parliament criticisms and attitudes of deputies towards the government and bureaucrats went too far, and he wrote “[...] the end became inevitable and disaster is mutual […].”103 Tension between the deputies and the ministers was actually tremendous in the second period.104 Sir Edwin Pears, the correspondent of The Daily News in Istanbul commented aptly that “[...] the hostility between the Chamber and the pashas became serious, and various correspondents predicted that within a short time the Chamber would upset the rule of the pashas, or the pashas would get rid of the Chamber [...].”105 Indeed the Ottoman cabinet wrote to the Sultan proposing to close down the parliament temporarily.106 99 Said Paşa, Said Paşa’nın Hatıratı (Istanbul: Sabah Matbaası, 1328), 207; Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3:81. More, slightly differing versions of this incident are documented in Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:401-404. 100 BOA, YEE, 23/1797/11/71, 2 M 1295/5 January 1878; BOA, DUİT, 5-1/5-4, leff 1, 11 S 1295/ February 14, 1878. 101 Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3:82; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:401. 102 For other reasons, see Bülent Tanör, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Anayasal Gelişmeler (Istanbul: Der Yayınları, 1991), 90-91; Yılmaz Kızıltan, “I. Meşrutiyetin İlanı ve İlk Osmanlı Meclis-i Mebusanı,” unpubl. PhD. Thesis (Gazi Üniversitesi, 1994), Ankara, 157-158; Fran- çois Georgeon, Abdülhamid II, le Sultan calife (Paris: Fayard, 2003), 89. 103 Abdurrahman Şeref, Tarih Musahebeleri, 265, 266. 104 BOA, YEE, 23/1821/11/71, 10 S 1295/ February 13, 1878; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:105-117. For the diverse criticism of and opposition to the government during the first and second sessions see Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 149, 150. 105 Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961), 165. For the similar observation of another British correspondent, see The Times (January 8, 14 and 15, 1878) and Layard (Istanbul) to Derby, June 2, 1877 Accounts and Papers, Turkey, no. 26 (1877). Further correspondence respecting the affairs of Turkey quoted in Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 149, 150, 152. 106 BOA, DUİT, 5-1/5-4, leff 1, 11 S 1295/ February 14, 1878; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:407. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL STATUS OF THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 87 The next day on February 14, 1878, when the chamber of commons was in the middle of the meeting, the Sultan’s decision to ask the parliament to prorogue for an undetermined period arrived.107 Humiles laborant, ubi potentes dissident. In addition, Astarcılar Kethudası Ahmed was arrested and jailed but released a few hours later. Soon after, ten opposing deputies were exiled from Istanbul on February 20, according to article 113 of the constitution which authorized the Sultan to exile anyone deemed dangerous to the security of the state.108 Le grand coup vient d'être porté contre eux. Although parliament ceased to exist, the chamber of senators legally continued to exist, and its members continued to hold the dignity of senator; they also continued to be paid. In the end, the parliament was suspended109 without notable opposition. Only the ten deputies protested the order as completely illegal and unconstitutional, and one of them, Yusuf Ziya (Jerusalem), wrote two letters to the prime minister in order to get him to enforce the provision of the constitution.110 Perhaps it was not easy to raise opposition in that period. In any case, the constitution granted this right to the Sultan. We should also remember that if there was opposition by some deputies and some journalists, it was not about the closure of the parliament but about the exiling of deputies from Istanbul.111 107 BOA, DUİT, 5-1/5-4, leff 1, 11 S 1295/ February 14, 1878; Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2: 406- 407. Yavuz Ercan, “Tartışma,” (Türkiye’de Demokrasi Hareketleri Konferansı, 6-8 Kasım 1985, Ankara), Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 4.1 (1986), 106-109 calls for prudence in the speculation of possible reasons for the closure of the parliament. 108 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:410, 412; Bekir Sıdkı Baykal, “93 Meşrutiyeti,” Belleten, 6.21-22 (1942), 45-83, here 81; Georgeon, Abdülhamid II, 89. 109 In juridical terms the imperial irade ordered the parliament not to be dissolved (according to articles 7 or 35) but to be suspended (according to article 7); BOA, DUİT, 5-1/5-4, leff 1, 11 S 1295/February 14, 1878. 110 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:410-411. 111 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:410-412. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Islam, Modernity and the 1876 Constitution Nurullah Ardıç Introduction In this chapter I analyze the 1876 Constitution and various other texts that played significant roles in the modernization of Turkey with a particular focus on the discursive role played by Islam. I will contextualize the proclamation in 1876 of the first constitution (Kanun-ı Esasi) and the institution of the first General Assembly (Meclis-i Mebusan) by first focusing on two important reforms, the Reform Decree (the Tanzimat Fermanı of 1839) and the Reform Edict (the Islahat Fermanı of 1856) in terms of the way they reflect and construe the relationship between religion and state. I will then proceed to the debates over the next significant reform, the 1876 Constitution, which are illustrative of the above theme. Finally, I will analyze the Constitutions of 1876, 1921 and 1924 in a comparative fashion, focusing on similarities and differences between the 1876 Constitution and the others, and paying attention to the evolution of the discourse on the role of Islam in the public sphere. The analysis of these texts can give important clues about the nature of the modernization and secularization process in Turkey. My method in this chapter is discourse analysis based particularly on Foucault’s approach. He basically means by the term discourse “a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements.”1 His “theory” of discourse is closely related to the notions of “truth,” “power” and “knowledge,” for it is because of these elements that discourse produces its effects. His work focuses partly on the ways in which social subjects struggle to exclude certain forms of knowledge from being considered as “true.” He is also critical of a negative understanding of power and of what he calls the “repressive hypothesis” – that power is always about prevention, constraint and repression. This ‘productive’ model of power implies that it is dispersed throughout social relations and produces certain forms of behavior and thought as well as restricts others. For him, a proper textual analysis should be concerned with the “discursive formations,” by which he means a set of rules concerning the formation of “objects,” “subject positions,” “enunciative modalities,” “concepts” and “strategies.” Foucault’s approach in his “archaeological” studies includes two major theoretical insights: the idea of discourse as constitutive and constructive of social relations and identities, and of the interdependency of discursive practices. The first point above involves the notion that discourses actively produce and shape social reality, more specifically the objects of knowledge, social 1 Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, [transl. S. Smith] (London: Tavistock, 1972), 80. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 90 subjects, and the self as well as social relationships and various conceptual frameworks, whereas the latter emphasizes that they, as “texts,” are in constant relation with each other, referring to the concept of intertextuality. Despite these strengths of his model, however, it lacks a dialectical understanding of the relationship between discourse and social reality, paying less attention to the interaction between the pre-constituted dimensions of reality (social subjects, objects, etc.) and the discourse that helps constitute them, and overemphasizing the constitutive power of the latter. Foucault calls discursive organization of objects, concepts and “enunciative modalities” a “strategy,” which involves different “theories” and – less coherent and stable – “themes.”2 Finding this concept too general, I distinguish three levels within it. A “meta-discursive strategy” is the most general one, which consists of the different discursive strategies that in turn contain different “discursive techniques” at the most specific level. Thus, for example, the strategy of invoking the sacred texts of Islam for legitimation involves such techniques as abstracting verses and hadiths from their contexts, and emphasizing some concepts in them while ignoring others, etc. This strategy in turn is part of the larger discursive strategy of deriving justification from Islam, which was the main pattern in the secularization process in the Middle East. This article argues that the relationship between Islam and secularism is one of accommodation as well as conflict, and that the nature of the process of secularization in Turkey involves an extensive use of the discourse of “serving religion” or “protecting Islam.” The traces of this discourse that included many Islamic elements can be found in the very first attempts at modernization in the Ottoman Empire. An analysis of these early attempts as well as the later corner-stones of modernization in the 19th century, including the Tanzimat Fermanı, the Islahat Fermanı and the 1876 Constitution, shows that the meta-discursive strategy of justification with reference to the Islamic Sharia was extensively applied in these reforms. The two discursive strategies frequently employed in them included “invoking sacred Islamic texts” and “maintaining the superiority of the Sharia.” The main discursive technique employed in these texts was that of “renewing the existing institutions in accordance with the rules of Sharia,” which justified extensive reforms in the state system. When Selim III (1789-1807) first started the modernization of the army by inviting European experts and founding a new, Western-style army, he justified his attempts with reference to a famous hadith [saying of the prophet Muhammad] that states that “you can use your enemy’s weapon.” He maintained that there is nothing against Sharia in “defeating the infidels by using their own weapons.”3 Similarly, when Mahmud II accelerated the reforms that 2 Ibid., 64ff. 3 Quoted in Halil İnalcık, “The Nature of the Traditional Society: Turkey” in: Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, ed. E. Ward and D. Rustow (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968), 49. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 91 had been started by his uncle, Selim III, he resorted to the same discourse. For instance, in his 1838 speech at the opening ceremony of the Royal Medical School (Dar-ul Ulum-u Hikemiyye ve Mekteb-i Tıbbiyye-i Şahane), which was going to be a source of change towards Westernization, the Sultan referred to the “sacredreligious duty” of protecting human health, which is one of the duties of the state and the legal system according to the Islamic Sharia, saying that he had “given precedence to this school because it [would] be dedicated to a sacred duty – the preservation of human health.”4 The Sultan then went on to comment on the fact that the language of instruction would be French, and insisted that it was necessary to take the medical knowledge from Europe instead of the Muslim world due to its obsolete character in the latter. The ultimate justification for the Westernization of education was to serve the cause of Muslims according to Sultan Mahmud, who paved the way for the Tanzimat reforms. The Reform Decree (1839) and the Reform Edict (1856) The Tanzimat era was the second phase of the Ottoman-Turkish modernization after the “New Order” of Selim III and Mahmud II. It began, as mentioned above, with the Royal Decree of Gülhane (Tanzimat Fermanı; sometimes called the “Gülhane Charter”) on November 3rd, 1839, inaugurated by Sultan Abdülmecid I. It included several modernizing reforms especially in the legal system. A product essentially of the pressures of the European states and the modernist, ‘enlightened’ intellectuals, the decree, which proclaimed the principles of the Tanzimat, granted and guaranteed certain rights called “the fundamentals” (Mevadd-ı Esasiye) such as the guarantee of life, property and honor for all subjects of the Sultan – non- Muslims as well as Muslims. Although the decree was aimed at delimiting the realm of the Islamic Sharia and separating the government’s temporal authority from the Caliph’s religious sovereignty, it was filled with Islamic terminology and references to the Qur’an and the prophetic Sunna. The very first sentence stated the need for a change in the state institutions, which had been a widespread assumption – and a discursive strategy – in all modernizing reforms since the late 18th century, and justified the reforms with reference to the “blessed Sharia” which had not been obeyed properly, unlike the earlier times when “the orders of the Holy Qur’an and the rules of the Sharia were observed perfectly.” The decree then declared the Sultan’s order for issuing a number of “new laws” (kavanin-i cedide) that would regulate the legal and financial system “relying on the help of the Almighty God and the spirit of the blessed prophet.”5 4 Rıza Tahsin, Mir’at-ı Mekteb-i Tıbbiye, (Istanbul, 1906), I, 18; quoted in Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey, (New York: Routledge, 1998), 113. 5 The original Turkish text of the Tanzimat Fermanı was published in Takvim-i Vekayi, no. 187 (15 Ramadan 1255/1839); see also Tanzimat I. Yüzüncü Yıldönümü Münasebetile (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1940), 48-50; Mehmed Ö. Alkan (ed.), Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce I: © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 92 Also, a Consultative Council prepared a protocol which stated the conditions upon which the Tanzimat Decree was built as follows: a) the old disordered system has to be replaced by one based upon new laws, b) these laws will be in accordance with the Sharia, c) they will be based on the inviolability of life, property, and honor as legal fundamentals, d) they will be applicable to all Muslims and to the peoples of the millets.6 A basic presupposition in the protocol as well as in the decree was the idea that “the old disordered system has to be replaced by one based upon new laws,” the necessity of a change, which was explicitly mentioned in article (a).7 What was implicit, however, was the direction of this change: the change in the legislative system would be towards the secular West. The “new laws” mentioned in the text and article (a) of the protocol were the ones that would limit the authority and domain of the Islamic Sharia, as well as that of the Sultan, which would be proven by later developments – e.g. the institution of the first-ever constitution and parliament in 1876. That is why the authors of the protocol needed to refer in the next article to the Sharia as the source of legitimation, unlike in older times when the necessity of a law being driven from Sharia had been taken for granted and was not mentioned in the legislative process, as it was associated with the realm of “doxa” – a set of uncontested beliefs and ideas of which subjects are often unaware.8 This protocol paved the way for the positioning of the Sharia as an object of the discourse of secularization – as a source of legitimacy in law making. However, its objectification would take a different form in later years, and its discursive status as the only source of legitimacy would shift to that of being in need of protection by the political-legal system as well. Thus, the significance of these texts lies in the fact that they involved many Islamic elements on the discursive level and yet signified an important departure from the sovereignty of Islamic law in the current legal system. It is explicitly mentioned both in the decree and in article (b) above that all new laws should be “in Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet’in Birikimi, Istanbul: İletişim, 2001), 449-451. English translations can be found in various sources, including Edward Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, 3 vols. (London: Butterworths, 1875), 2:1002-5; and Frank Edgar Bailey, British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement: A Study in Anglo-Turkish Relations 1826 – 1853 (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1942.), 277-79. 6 Quoted in Berkes, Development, 145. The complete text of the protocol can be found in Reşat Kaynar, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat (Ankara: TTK, 1954), 172-73. 7 A parallel discursive technique that assumes the backwardness of Islamic society, for which “tradition” is blamed, was a common pattern among statesmen and intellectuals in the Second Constitutional Period as well. However, actors also always insisted that the “true Islam” that could be found in “sources” (sacred texts and early Islamic history) was not to blame; on the contrary, the solution was deemed to be found in “returning to the sources”; see İsmail Kara, İslamcıların Siyasi Görüşleri, vol. I: Hilafet ve Meşrutiyet, 2nd ed. (Istanbul: Dergah, 2001), 20-21. 8 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 93 accordance with the Sharia,” acknowledging the superiority of Islamic law over the Sultan’s (or the government’s) will. Moreover, the basis of these proposed new laws as stated in article (c) again was Islamic law. The principles of the “inviolability of life, property, and honor,” together with those of ‘reason’ and ‘generation’, constitute what is known as the “five goals of Sharia.” According to Islamic fiqh, all rules and laws exist ultimately for the purpose of protecting these five elements of human life.9 We see therefore a clear reference to an Islamic framework for the justification of the reforms that were proposed by the royal decree. However, the discourse employed in the protocol had an important implication: it proposed to limit the authority of the Caliph-Sultan. The decree, too, which was itself signed by the Sultan, limited his sovereignty, making him an executive bound to the laws made by others – by the councils of deliberation (Mecalis-i Meşveret). So, the sources of legislation would become these councils whose members would increasingly consist of high-ranking staff officers who had a Western-style education. Moreover, it is very significant that although the decree acknowledges the Sharia, and although it obviously concerns it, the proclamation of the decree was unusually not accompanied by a fetva (religious permit) by the Şeyhulislam, the Caliph’s chief religious deputy, indicating a decline in the Şeyhulislam’s power. In traditional practices of passing a law or issuing a decree, a fetva had been considered a must in order to provide a practice with legitimacy. Thus, the lack of fetva – as a discursive practice itself – signifies the first formal breach between “the temporal” and “the religious” in legislation. This is highly significant especially when we consider the fact that even as late as 1922, almost a century later, Mustafa Kemal and his friends did need a fetva by the chief Müfti when they decided to abolish the Ottoman monarchy. A similar observation can be made for the Reform Edict (Islahat Fermanı), which was proclaimed on February 28th, 1856 – again as a result of the pressures by the European countries to further extend the privileges of Christians living in Turkey -- and granted important privileges to the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire.10 This meant the creation of a whole new institution, the modern citizenship, and a further step towards the formation of a modern state. The edict included the reaffirmation of older rights and privileges as well as additional rights such as the guarantee of equal treatment of non-Muslims in matters of education, military service, administration of justice, taxation, and the appointments to governmental posts; the right of foreigners to own property; the reform of the judicial tribunals and penal and commercial codes; and the representation of religious 9 ʿAbdalkarīm Zaydān, Al-Wadjīz fī uṣūl al-fiqh, 3rd ed. (Muʾassasat al-Risālah, Maktabat al- Bashāʾir. 1411/1990). 10 For the full text of the Edict in Turkish see Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanlı Tarihi (Ankara: TTK, 1947), 5:266-72; Alkan, Siyasi Düşünce I, 451-454; for the English version, Bailey, British Policy, 287-91. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 94 communities in the Supreme Council. The edict described the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire as “the emanet trusted by Almighty God,” and granted equality for all subjects “who are related to each other with the sincere bonds of citizenship.” There was, however, much less reference to the Islamic Sharia in the edict compared to the Tanzimat Decree. Instead the edict extensively employed another discourse: that of ‘catching up with contemporary civilization’. The edict granted privileges to non-Muslims with reference to the principle of freedom of conscience. As a justification of the proposed regulations, it stated the necessity “to improve the conditions [of the citizens] in accordance with the glory of our Sublime State and the eminent place it holds among the civilized nations.” Therefore, the edict implied, as Berkes observes,11 political, legal, moral, religious, educational, and economic reforms in which such notions as equality, freedom, material progress, and rationalism form the “background.”12 What we see in the two reform projects, then, is an attempt to separate religious and temporal authority, and delimit both the sovereignty of the Sultan and the authority of the Sharia, which was made possible with the help of the discourse of renewing the old institutions in accordance with the Sharia. This argument based on the inadequacy of the old institutions, including laws, and the need to replace them with new ones would be repeated time and again in the later reforms that would embody and reproduce the ideology of secularism. Supported by the two reforms, the political and economic developments which brought the Ottoman State closer to Europe in that era13 paved the way for the first-ever constitution in Turkish history. Debates on the 1876 Constitution and the Parliament The young Sultan Abdülhamid II came to power by means of a deal he made with the Young Ottomans, promising them a transition to the constitutional system. This would also be a proper response to the European powers, including Russia, that were pressuring Istanbul for further economic and political reforms, reforms that would open the Ottoman borders to European capitalists and further expand the rights of non-Muslim Ottomans. The proclamation of the first constitution (Kanun-i Esasi) and the institution of the first General Assembly (Meclis-i Mebusan) in 1876, which marked the beginning of the First Meşrutiyet era, were important corner stones on the way to the secularization of the Ottoman State. For they signified a radical, even though partial, change in the foundation of the 11 Berkes, Development, 153. 12 See Şerif Mardin, “Turkish Islamic Exceptionalism Yesterday and Today: Continuity, Rupture and Reconstruction in Operational Codes,” Turkish Studies 6.2 (2005). 13 Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1963). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 95 state’s sovereignty by assigning ‘the people’ part of the basis for its legitimation and thereby limiting the domain of the monarchy. In his royal decree, the Sultan defined the purposes of the new general assembly as follows: To guarantee the complete enforcement of the laws needed; to make them in accordance with the Sharia and the real and legitimate needs of the country and the people; to supervise the balance of revenues and expenditures of the state.14 Again we see here the same meta-discursive strategy employed in virtually all modernizing reforms in the pre-1924 era of the Ottoman modernization. From the late 17th century on, all social, political and legal changes had been justified with reference to the Sharia. The theme of the congruence of the new laws with the Sharia had already been maintained in the Tanzimat decree. Here, too, there is a clear reference as a complementary discursive technique to the ‘implementation of the rules of the Sharia in a more efficient way’ in the institution of the new Parliament, which constituted another step in the formation of modern state. Within the intra-discursive realm, therefore, there is the relationship of what Foucault (1972) calls “presence” between the two texts: the discourse embodied in the earlier text(s) is present in the latter, too. Although this element of discourse seems to be in a “relationship of opposition” to secularism it is actually “complementary” to the process of modernization because it is part of a strategy that binds Islam to the process of reform. Moreover, Abdülhamid II, the sultan who signed the decree, was not sympathetic to the ‘Westernizers’ (Young Ottomans) and secular reforms; on the contrary, as mentioned above, he pursued a Pan-Islamist policy during his sultanate. However, due to the delicate balance of power relations with the European states and the Young Ottomans, he had to cooperate with them in instituting the Assembly and proclaiming the Constitution in 1876, which he later abolished when he found the opportunity in 1878. The significance of this point lies in the fact that it was not only the reformers but also the anti-Westernists (conservatives) themselves who resorted to the same discourse of serving Islam when attempting to modernize the political system. A similar example illustrates this point even further. After the Sultan’s decree, the issue was brought to the Council of Ministers and then to a larger convention where approximately two hundred persons, including ministers and the dignitaries of the civil, military, and ulema ranks, discussed the institution of a parliament. Despite the opposition by the majority of the ulema, and the accusation that Midhat Pasha, the Sadrazam (Grand Vizier) and a leading figure among the Young Ottomans, who was called the “Father of the Constitution,” behaved in an un-Islamic way by letting the ‘infidel’ (non-Muslim) deputies into the Parliament, 14 Ahmed Midhat, Üss-i İnkılab, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1294-1295), 2:281 [my italics]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 96 he succeeded in winning over the ulema.15 He did this with the help of some members of the ulema themselves, the Constitutionalist members who justified the idea of a parliament with reference to the Qur’an. Among them, for example, Chief Justice (Kadıasker) Seyfeddin Efendi played an important role: Seyfeddin again explained at length, “by akli [rational] and nakli [textual] evidences,” that meşveret [consultation, which he interpreted as ‘Parliament’] was “perfectly in accordance with Islam.” To the delight of the constitutionalists who interpreted meşveret on their own way, Seyfeddin supported Midhat Pasha with a number of hadiths and the Qur’anic injunctions such as washawir hum fi’l amri and wa ta’muru baynakum bi-ma’rufin (“and consult with them upon the [conduct of] affairs” [III, 59]; and “and consult together in kindness”[LXV, 6]).16 In fact, this is another example of a situation where we often see that modernists apply the strategy of deriving justification for a reform (here, for a constitutional government) from the Qur’an, by employing different discursive techniques including dissecting the sacred texts; abstracting verses, sentences, or even phrases from their context; and applying these to the solution of an emerging problem in terms of the lexicographical meaning of the selected phrases. Moreover, in the above quote, Islam (or the Qur’an) still preserves its ‘object position’ as being the primary source of legitimation for a constitutional change. However, the verses that were cited by the speaker were being transformed through a brand new and, given the centuries-long tradition of tafsir (the interpretation of the Qur’an) in Islam, unusual interpretation.17 This – what I would like to call – “transformative technique” by which meanings of verses as objects of knowledge were transformed would frequently be repeated; hence the new meanings attributed to 15 See Cemil Oktay, “Hum Zamirinin Serencamı: Kanun-ı Esasi İlanına Muhalefet Üzerine Bir Deneme,” Hum Zamirinin Serencamı (Istanbul: Bağlam, 1991). 16 Berkes, Development, 233 quoting from Mahmud Celaleddin, Mir’at-ı Hakikat, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Osmaniye, 1326-1327), 1:189. The Qur’anic concepts of şura and meşveret were also interpreted as “democracy” and “parliament” by a member of the so-called Islamist Welfare Party in the early 1990s, indicating the continuity of the same trend in contemporary Turkey. Şerif Mardin, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (Albany – New York: SUNY Press, 1989) analyzes how the Islamic “idiom” was used by Said Nursi, a leading Islamic figure in late Ottoman and early Republican periods, for cultural and religious mobilization of the masses in Turkey. For accounts of the use of the Qur’anic idiom in political discourses in different secularized contexts – in contemporary Yemen, Iran, and Egypt, see Brinkley Messick, The Calligraphic State. Textual Domination and History in a Muslim Society (Berkeley etc.: Univ. of California Press, 1993); Anabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi and Ali Mohammadi, Small Media, Big Revolution: Communication, Culture, and the Iranian Revolution (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1994) and Gregory Starrett, Putting Islam to Work: Education, Politics, and Religious Transformation in Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), respectively. 17 The interpretation of the Qur’anic verses in unusual ways became a very common discursive technique, especially after 1908, in accordance with the pace of modernization in Turkey; see Suat Mertoğlu, “Osmanlı’da II. Meşrutiyet Sonrası Modern Tefsir Anlayışı (Sırat-ı Müstakim/Sebilürreşad Dergisi Örneği: 1908-1914),” unpubl. PhD Thesis, Istanbul: Marmara University, 2001. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 97 them would be reproduced, in subsequent attempts at Westernizing political institutions and secularizing the political sphere. Furthermore, in the text the speaker put himself, and other Constitutionalists whom he represented, in a subject position where he had the authority to interpret the sacred text in an unusual way, and thus to bring about change in a state institution in accordance with his political agenda. Finally, the non-discursive element that made his discourse possible was the institutional position he occupied – his being the Minister of Justice and a member of the ulema class. His bureaucratic position and scholarly authority not only made it possible for him to perform this speech-act, but also to consolidate the subject position constituted in his speech by legitimizing his authority to be an interpreter of the Qur’an based on his power/knowledge. This, then, is an instance of a situation where we can detect the interaction between discursive and non-discursive structures. On the other hand, the fact that a member of the ulema, albeit a supporter of the Constitutionalists, referred to the authority of the Qur’an and hadiths to prove the compatibility of a Western institution with Islam indicates again that important changes in the way of modernization were often realized in both discursive and political spheres by resorting to Islam itself. In other words, we see in the quote above that the recurrent theme of the congruence of a reform with Islam appears again, however with a different technique. Although he encountered great opposition, Seyfeddin successfully integrated the Islamic elements, which were supposed to belong to a different, even an opposite, field of statements, into a discourse that he deliberately employed to make his case in the debates over the institution of the Parliament, lending a life-saving support to Midhat and the Constitutionalists. This case is one of the early examples of the imbrication of power with knowledge where the secularists, up until 1924, were often in desperate need of the support by the modernist ulema who were the only social group who could draw upon Islam for the justification of the secularizing reforms.18 One of the most important of these reforms was the proclamation of the 1876 Constitution. Constitutions and the Formation of the Modern State a – The 1876 Constitution (Kanun-i Esasi) The Kanun-i Esasi [Basic Law],19 the first-ever constitution in Turkish history, included 119 articles and was more developed than the next (1921) constitution (Teşkilat-ı Esasiye) which was prepared in the midst of war. The main discursive 18 For discussions on the 1876 Constitution, see Cemil Oktay, “‘Hum’ Zamirinin Serencamı: Kanun-ı Esasi İlanına Muhalefet Üzerine Bir Deneme,” in id., “Hum” Zamirinin Serencamı (Istanbul: Bağlam, 1991). 19 See Düstur, tertib 1, 4:4-20, see also Tarhan Erdem, Anayasalar ve Seçim Kanunları 1876- 1982 (Istanbul: Milliyet, 1982), 3-26; Suna Kili, Türk Anayasaları (Istanbul: Tekin, 1982). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 98 strategy employed in the former constitution was the inseparability of Islam and the Caliph-Sultan, and many of the articles contained in it expressed different techniques comprising this main strategy. For example, the Kanun-i Esasi maintained first and foremost that both the sultanate and the caliphate belonged to the Ottoman dynasty (Ar. no. 3), and that the Sultan was the protector of Islam and the ruler of the subjects of the Ottoman Empire (Article 4). The Constitution also glorified the Sultan maintaining that “the blessed Sultan himself is sacred and unaccountable” (Ar. no. 5). However, because Abdülhamid II abolished the Constitution in 1878 and set himself as the absolute ruler until 1908, the Constitution would later be amended by the ruling CUP in 1909 by adding a new sentence to Ar. no. 3 requiring an oath by the Sultan that he be loyal to the “blessed Sharia and the rules of the Basic Law [the Constitution].” Also, the Sultan’s authority to abolish the Parliament (Ar. no. 73) was abrogated later in 1914. Thus, the absolute ruler’s authority was gradually limited through modifications in the articles of the Constitution. In accordance with the earlier pattern, this was done by applying the same discursive strategy, ‘by reference to the Sharia’, as is evident in the requirement of the oath which would also be in the name of God. Taking an oath in the name of God, which was required of both the Sultan and deputies, and not only in this but also in the following two constitutions (1921, 1924) was a discursive practice that functioned as part of the larger strategy to derive justification for a modern institution (the Parliament) from Islam. Moreover, the original version of the Constitution itself limited the authority of the Sultan and the Sharia. For instance, the principle of the separation of powers was adopted, and separate sections were devoted to the executive branch, instituting a modern government with a prime minister, ministries and a cabinet (Ar. nos. 27-38); to the legislation (Ar. nos. 42-80) restraining the power of the Caliph- Sultan; and to the jurisdiction (Ar. nos. 81-91), which involved a bifurcation in the legal system separating the religious courts (Mehakim-i Şer’iyye) from the administrative ones (Mehakim-i Nizamiyye). Bifurcation was also maintained in the education system, which involved in higher education both religious schools (medreses) and ‘secular’ ones (mektebs). The adoption of the modern principle of the separation of powers, which had originally been put forward by Montesquieu (1834), was another important element of a modern state (“Constitutional Absolutism”) characterized by the co-existence of what Max Weber calls bureaucratic or “legal-rational” and “traditional” authorities.20 The Constitution also maintained that the official language of the State was Turkish (Ar. no. 18), and the state religion was Islam, but that all other beliefs and religions could also be freely practiced (Ar. no. 11). Furthermore, it was stated that “all subjects of the State have personal freedom” (Ar. no. 9), which included, in 20 See Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, (New York: Oxford University Press 1947). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 99 accordance with the regulations in the earlier Reforms, the non-Muslims living in the Ottoman territory who were granted, together with Muslims, other rights such as equality before the law (Ar. no. 17) and equality in public employment (Ar. no. 19). All these regulations meant the ‘constitutionalization’ of citizenship, as anticipated in the earlier Reform Decrees, making the inhabitants of the Empire both ‘subjects’ of the Sultan and ‘citizens’ of the state at the same time – another indication of the hybridity of the Ottoman (traditional and legal-rational) political system. Finally, the granting of freedom of the press (Ar. no. 12) also contributed to the modernization as both secularand religious ideas gained a ready soil for dissemination, and to the limitation of the Sultan’s sovereignty, especially considering the fact that the press was the main basis of the opposition and the basic tool that disseminated the revolutionary ideas towards 1908. That is why Abdülhamid II, after abolishing Parliament, censored the press and exiled the opposition leaders (who then founded the CUP abroad), who were also the publishers of various newspapers, particularly in France and Macedonia. That is also why the CUP leaders added, after the 1908 Young Turk revolution, the phrase “with no censorship” to the same article, though later (after 1913) they themselves would censor the press. b – The 1921 Constitution (Teşkilat-ı Esasiye) The CUP controlled the Ottoman state from 1908 until the end of World War I, when the three leaders of the Committee, Enver, Cemal and Talat Pashas, fled the country. But it was the CUP leaders, including also Kara Kemal, who organized the resistance movement in Anatolia by first founding an underground organization called the “Karakol,” which would later turn into the “Anatolian Association of the Defense of Rights,” and appointing Mustafa Kemal, a mid-ranking military officer and relatively unknown member of the CUP, as its leader. By the end of the war against the Greeks, which ended in August 1922, Kemal had gradually come to be the only leader of the movement by receiving the help of other CUP leaders and by eliminating his rivals within the CUP.21 In April 1920 the resistance proclaimed the opening of the Grand National Assembly in Ankara, which would be the center first of the movement and later, the Turkish Republic. The second Constitution22 was thus prepared during the War of Independence by the leadership of the Turkish nationalist movement headed by Mustafa Kemal. The same meta-discursive strategy of deriving legitimacy from Is- 21 Jan Erik Zürcher, The Unionist Factor. The Rôle of the Committee of Union and Progress in the Turkish National Movement, 1905-1926 (Leiden, etc.: Brill, 1984). 22 This constitution was published in Resmi Gazete on February 7, 1921. See Düstur, 1:196; see also Erdem, Anayasalar, 27-30; Kili, Türk Anayasaları. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 100 lam was applied throughout the text. In fact, Islam was emphasized even more here than in the earlier texts we have analyzed, due to warfare and the need to legitimize the nationalist movement (initially an insurgency) and to organize the resistance against occupation. The 1921 Constitution consisted of only 23 articles and was much less sophisticated compared to the earlier one. One of the reasons for this was the adoption of the principle of the unification of powers (Ar. nos. 2- 3), including no separate sections on the executive and the judiciary, which also constituted an important difference between the two constitutions. The basic difference, however, was stated in the first article: Article 1 – Sovereignty belongs, with no restrictions and no conditions, to the nation… Emphasizing this first article, some have claimed that this constitution completed the shift in the basis of sovereignty.23 For them, it completely changed the basis of sovereignty by granting no authority to the Caliph-Sultan -even though the monarchy and the caliphate had not yet been abolished- but instead to the Grand National Assembly (GNA) that represented the “nation.” Thus, the proclamation of the Constitution was an important corner stone in the process of secularization, for it curtailed the functions and power of the caliphate in practice, before this was officially done in 1924. However, this shallow and teleological view ignores both the uncontested dominance of the Islamic discourse in the rest of the text and the actual conditions upon which the new Parliament and Constitution were built. The Constitution was proclaimed in a context where Istanbul, the Ottoman capital, was under British invasion and the Caliph-Sultan and the FAP government were powerless – except that they had sent Mustafa Kemal to Anatolia and were actively supporting the resistance militarily and economically.24 Despite the fact that the Palace had little political authority in Anatolia, the resistance leadership, including Mustafa Kemal, and members of Parliament were still loyal to the Caliph-Sultan until mid-1922: they conducted the war against the Greeks in the name of the Caliph. The 1921 Constitution instead still maintained a partial change in the basis of sovereignty, a process that had been started with earlier reforms and made explicit in the Kanun-i Esasi. The underlying discursive strategy in the former was, unlike in the latter, which emphasized the inseparability of the Caliph-Sultan and Islam, that the “nation” and Islam co-existed as the two bases of sovereignty. In this configuration, the GNA represented the “nation” and the Caliph represented Islam. The Islamic character of the new Turkish state would later be reinforced when the Constitution was amended on the day the Republic was proclaimed (October 29, 23 See e.g. Berkes, Development; Ergun Özbudun 1921 Anayasası (Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları 1992); Bülent Tanör Osmanlı-Türk Anayasal Gelişmeleri (1789 – 1980) (Istanbul: AFA, 1995). 24 Zürcher, Unionist Factor; Idem., Turkey. A Modern History (London – New York: Tauris, 1993), 141. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 101 1923) by adding a new article to it that read: “The religion of the state is Islam” (Article no. 2). Moreover, in the text “the nation” was not defined on the basis of (secular) ethnicity, and did not exclude non-Turkish Muslims; the ethnic dimension would enter into the 1924 Constitution, though not in an anti-religious framework. However, the insertion of “the nation” into the Constitution was still a step towards secularization, though this relatively radical change in practice was smoothly materialized at the discursive level. For, the ‘strategic’ discourse employed in the text was again that of serving Islam and the Sharia. For instance, article no. 7 regulated the GNA’s authority over the “implementation of the rules of the Sharia” as well as the way of making, implementing and abolishing other laws, and declaring war. The same article maintained that all laws and regulations must be “in accordance with the rules of the fıkh [Islamic jurisprudence] that are compatible with the needs of the time and practices of the people.” This article is illustrative of the main theme of this study as well as an important element of the secularist ideology in Turkey. As in the CUP’s programs and Ziya Gökalp’s writings,25 this text, too, employed two different discursive techniques at the same time – that of implementing the Islamic sharia and of ‘the needs of the time and of the people’. The discursive strategy underlying these techniques was the idea that Islam and modern civilization were compatible and that Islam only needed to accommodate modernity. It thus referred to Islam as a source of legitimation but also limited its domain. It maintained that all laws and regulations would be in accordance with the Islamic Sharia insofar as it was compatible with the requirements of modern life.26 Within the intra-discursive realm, therefore, these two techniques, which were employed frequently not only by politicians but also by intellectuals, and not only by secularist actors, but by modernist Islamists as well, are in what Foucault calls a “relationship of complementarity,” as part of the same “discursive strategy.” c – The 1924 Constitution (Teşkilat-ı Esasiye) After the independence movement had defeated the Greeks, the GNA separated the caliphate from the sultanate and abolished the latter in November 1922; signed the Lausanne peace treaty in July 1923 with Western powers, including Greece, wherein they all recognized Turkey’s independence ; then Mustafa Kemal and his newly-founded party, the Republican People’s Party (RPP), proclaimed the 25 Cf. Ziya Gökalp, Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization: Selected Essays of Ziya Gökalp, transl. and ed. by Niyazi Berkes (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1959). 26 Mustafa Kemal would later (in 1927) claim that he had influenced the content of the Constitution and that the direction of the developments in his mind at that time was towards the secular West; cf. M. Kemal Atatürk, Nutuk, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1961), 2:445ff. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 102 Republic on October 29, 1923; they also abolished the caliphate, and together with it, the Office of the Şeyhulislam and all religious schools, on March 3,1924 – though a Faculty of Theology and the Department of Religious Affairs were founded in place of the latter two – and sent the Ottoman dynasty into exile. The 1924 Constitution27 was adopted six months after the declaration of the Republic and only three weeks after the abolition of the caliphate. By that time Mustafa Kemal had succeeded in becoming the leading power actor in Turkey, a status he later consolidated by first crushing the Kurdish opposition in 1925 and then completely eliminating his political rivals (ex-members of the CUP and his old friends) in 1926. His party, the RPP, had established a single-party system and controlled every state institution in the country, including the GNA by eliminating the pre-1923 opposition, and then proclaimed a new constitution in 1924. The basic difference between this constitution and the earlier ones concerns the regime of the new state, which is stated in the very first article:28 Article 1 – The State of Turkey is a Republic. This dictum was in fact a confirmation of the existing situation, where the monarchy had already been abolished and the Republican regime was declared by Mustafa Kemal and his party, but also referred to a breakaway from the earlier regime by implying the upcoming radical secular reforms in the way of Westernization. However, as in the 1876 Constitution, it explicitly and immediately referred to Islam as the official religion of the State (Ar. no. 2).29 The next article stated again that “sovereignty belongs, with no restrictions, to the nation” signifying the (partly) secular basis of it. These two articles revealed the underlying discursive strategy employed: that Islam and “the nation” co-existed as the two bases of state sovereignty, which implied, as in the previous (1921) Constitution, that the state had not yet been completely secularized – this would be gradually achieved through amendments during the late 1920s and 1930s. In addition, like the first constitution and unlike the second one, the 1924 Constitution adopted the principle of the separation of powers (Ar. nos. 4-8), devoting separate sections to the legislative, which was maintained to belong to the 27 See Düstur, 5:576-585; see also Erdem, Anayasalar, 31-45; Kili, Türk Anayasaları. 28 This sentence had already been added, though in a slightly different form, to the 1921 Constitution with the declaration of the Republic in 1923. 29 This sentence would, however, be removed from the Constitution in 1928 and the principle of secularism would enter it in 1937. Secularism was one of the six principles of Kemalism, which are also called the “six arrows of the RPP,” and it entered the Constitution together with others including Republicanism, Nationalism, Populism, Etatism, and “Revolutionism.” That the article stating the official religion of the Turkish State was replaced by Atatürk’s (or the RPP’s) principles is another indication of the fact that Kemalism was perceived among the state elite as a “secular religion” with its own sacred book (The Speech), its various rituals and sacred sites, such as the Anıtkabir in Ankara, and a savior (Kemal Atatürk). This is also evident in the RPP’s programs; see, for example, CHP Tüzüğü, 1935 (Ankara: Ulus Basımevi, 1935). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 103 GNA (Ar. nos. 9-30); to the executive that maintained the institution of a government and also – different from the first constitution – the presidency as the head of the executive branch (Ar. nos. 31-52), rather than the office of the Sadrazam; and to the judiciary, abolishing the system of legal bifurcation (Ar. nos. 53-67). (Bifurcation in higher education had already ended on March 3, 1924 with the abolition of religious schools by the ‘Law of the Unification of Education’.) Another indication of the incorporation of Islamic elements in the constitution is a familiar discursive practice: that the President and deputies would take their oaths “on my honor and in the name of God [Vallahi]” promising “loyalty to the principles of the Republic” (Ar. nos. 38, 16). Unlike the first constitution, however, there was no mention of loyalty to “the rules of the Sharia.” Moreover, the clause “in the name of God” would, together with Article no. 2, be removed in 1928 and replaced by that of “I promise.” Similarly, another Islamic element, the clause “the application of the rules of the Sharia” as one of the exclusive duties of the GNA (Ar. no. 26) was kept in the original version, and removed in 1928. Another important trend that went hand in hand with secularization emerged in the 1924 Constitution: nationalization. Nationalism had already been underway since the Balkan War of 1912, which caused the loss of the Balkan lands occupied by Christian – and some Muslim – peoples, and accelerated with the struggle for national independence during 1919-1922. As a discursive strategy, ‘nationalization’ contributed to the separation of ‘the nation’ from Islam, implying the secularization of the new Republican elite’s mentality. The first Teşkilat-ı Esasiye of 1921 had used the word “Turkish state,” and mentioned the ‘Grand National Assembly’ as well as ‘the nation’ but never specified their ‘Turkishness’ due to the fact that ‘the nation’ was not yet independent and the country was still under invasion. It was only after independence that the second Teşkilat-ı Esasiye (1924) could include articles on Turks, and qualified the name of the GNA as the ‘Turkish Grand National Assembly’. It also stated that “the official language [of the Turkish State] is Turkish, and its capital is Ankara” (Ar. no. 2). Moreover, unlike the Kanun-i Esasi (1876), it exclusively spoke of ‘the Turks’ in the section devoted to individual rights, which was entitled “the Public Rights of Turks” (Ar. nos. 68-88). Article no. 88 maintained that “[t]he inhabitants of Turkey, regardless of religion and race, are called Turks,” which indicated the contrast between the cosmopolitanism of the first constitution, which recognized the multiplicity of religions among the citizens, and the nationalism of the last constitution, which denied the different ethnicities among the inhabitants of the country, a stance that has been a problem to this day. In addition, as a further step towards secularism, the definition of citizenship on the basis of Turkishness caused religion to lose its status as a basis of the classification of identity. In fact, this is another indication of the project to replace religion with secular nationalism as the main source of identification for the people. Unlike the Kanun-i Esasi, in which ‘the citizens of the Empire’ were classified on the basis of their religious affiliation, © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 104 and were granted autonomy accordingly, this constitution not only made nationality the basis of the categorization of citizens, which is an important strategy of instilling in them a ‘national consciousness’, but also denied the diversity of nationalities among the country’s inhabitants. Therefore, this new discursive technique – of replacing Islam with ethnicity as the basis of identity and citizenship – that belonged to a non-Islamic (Western) framework is a reflection of the gradual influence of Western discourses, which became increasingly more effective after World War I, particularly after the abolition of the caliphate in 1924. Moreover, defining citizenship on the basis of nationality constitutes another dimension of the project of state formation and nation building in modern Turkey; and this process was intensified with the incorporation in 1937 of Nationalism into the Constitution as one of the basic principles of the state. A comparative analysis of these three constitutions indicates, therefore, that they played an important role in the process of the modernization of Turkey. They were significant developments that both reflected and contributed to the constitution of an increasingly secularized state that gradually evolved into a nation-state. An important trend that we observe in the three constitutions is the fact that Islam, as in all other attempts at modernization in Turkey, was present as the fundamental source of justification – the main discursive strategy modernizing actors employed in their projects. The secularist discourses employed in the modernizing reforms always incorporated various Islamic elements; and the underlying strategy was to better serve Islam by replacing the old institutions with new ones. We also observe, however, a discursive pattern that involves a gradual decrease over time in the extent to which Islamic elements were incorporated in the constitutions, though legitimation by Islam was always there: the three constitutions share a “relationship of presence,” as the same discourse is present in all. Whereas the 1876 Constitution gives priority to serving Islam and to the rights of the Caliph-Sultan, the Constitution of 1924 involves much less reference to Islam and certainly no reference to the caliphate in particular, because the caliphate had already been abolished. Also, it would later get rid of most of the Islamic elements in 1928 in a period during which the most radical secularizing reforms, from the famous ‘Hat Revolution’ to the adoption of the Latin alphabet, took place. Finally, I have argued that these important texts not only contributed to the ‘constitution of reality’ but also are a reflection of it. The adoption of various articles in these constitutions, such as the institution of a modern government, and bifurcation in the legal and educational systems in the Constitution of 1876, and their unification in that of 1924, indicates the evolution of a discursive strategy reflecting the changes in the current socio-political conditions. However, I also argue that these texts instituted and implicated certain actual developments as well, including the separation of powers in the Constitutions of 1876 and 1924, and their unification in the Constitution of 1921, the institution of a parliament © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ISLAM, MODERNITY AND THE 1876 CONSTITUTION 105 and an election system in 1876 and various modifications in the constitutions, which shaped reality in different ways. They were all justified with reference to the ‘exigencies of time’ as well as to the Islamic Sharia, the main discursive strategy applied in modernizing reforms. Conclusion As many prominent scholars have demonstrated,30 Islam was one of the most important social forces that penetrated not only the cultural life but also the political institutions of the Ottoman Empire, playing an important role in the modernization of Turkey during the 18th and 19th centuries. This article has argued that at the discursive level the secularism of modernization in Turkey did not take the form of an explicit confrontation between the sacred and the profane, an open struggle between Islam and modernity; but rather that secularization was presented as a way of serving Islam, helping it better function, and of placing it in its proper place to protect its authenticity. To demonstrate this argument, I have analyzed various important texts including the Reform Decree and the Reform Edict, as well as debates over the 1876 Constitution, and the texts of the Constitutions of 1876, 1921, and 1924. I have also briefly touched upon the fact that the discourse of accommodating Islam with modernity was also employed in the early attempts at military and educational reforms by Selim III and Mahmud II. I have subsequently shown that the Islamic Sharia was resorted to as a basic source of justification in both the Tanzimat Decree (1839) and the Islahat Edict (1856), both of which aimed at limiting the authority of the Sharia and the sovereignty of the Sultan. The Kanun-ı Esasi of 1876 marked a partial change in the basis of sovereignty and further limited the respective domains of the authority of the Sultan- Caliph; nevertheless its purpose was stated as “making the laws in accordance with the Sharia.” It also enjoyed strategic support from some members of the traditional ulema, the only social group that could make an effective use of Islamic elements in legitimizing the first Ottoman constitution and other ‘secular’ reforms. The 1921 Constitution still marked a partial change in the basis of sovereignty and involved the notion of the separation of the temporal and religious authorities. It utilized, however, the discourse of “serving Islam” by applying its rules more effectively. The 1924 Constitution, which firmly established the notion of popular sovereignty and brought the regime change (from monarchy to 30 See e.g. Şerif Mardin, Din ve İdeoloji, (Istanbul: İletişim Yay., 1983), Idem, Religion and Social Change in Modern Turkey: The Case of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, (Albany & New York: SUNY Press, 1989), Mümtaz’er Türköne, Siyasi İdeoloji Olarak İslamcılığın Doğuşu (Istanbul: İletişim Yay., 1991), Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Philosophical and Institutional Dimensions of Secularization: A Comparative Analysis” in A. Tamimi and J. Esposito (eds.) Islam and Secularism in the Middle East, (New York: NYU Press, 2000), İsmail Kara, Din ile Modernleşme Arasında, (Istanbul: Dergah Yay., 2003). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul NURULLAH ARDIÇ 106 republic), maintained Islam as the official religion of the new state, and required the President of Turkey and the deputies to take an oath in the name of God. (These regulations were, however, removed later in 1928, and the secular character of the new Republic was formalized in 1937.) This text also marked the beginning of the process in which the Turkish secularists tried to replace Islam as the fundamental frame of reference and source of identity with Turkish nationalism (the Kemalist ideology), by defining citizenship on the basis of nationality (Turkishness). Therefore, it is safe to argue that, due to the centrality of Islam, the Turkish case offers an example of a different path to secularization. It differs from the Western cases where, as David Martin31 and others describe, despite the regional differences, there was mostly an open conflict between religion and politics, unlike in Turkey where the discursive secularization of the public sphere did not involve an explicit challenge posed by the secular forces against Islam. The Turkish case can thus be explained by means of the “accommodation paradigm” (which also includes a degree of ‘conflict’), rather than the “confrontation paradigm,” of the relationship between religion and modernity. 31 David Martin, A General Theory of Secularization (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The Debate on Parliamentarism in the Muslim Press of Bulgaria, 1895-1908 Milena B. Methodieva The convening of the first Ottoman parliament in March 1877 was an unprecedented moment in the history of the Ottoman Empire. It was the first time that over a hundred deputies from all parts of the Empire met in the capital Istanbul to pass legislation and deliberate on its internal and foreign affairs.1 The convening of the parliament, along with the promulgation of the first Ottoman constitution in December 1876, were regarded as a decisive victory of the liberal groups, represented most notably by the Young Ottomans and the pro-constitutionalist bureaucrats led by Midhat Pasha (1822-1884), and the culmination of years of struggle and reform. Yet others attached great hopes to it as the solution that would bring stability to the Empire after the series of crises that had shaken it for over a year.2 The parliament, its successes notwithstanding, turned out to be short-lived. After convening for several sessions, the second Ottoman parliamentary chamber was abruptly ended on February 14, 1878 by an imperial decree issued by the Sultan citing as justification the urgent circumstances facing the Empire. Over the previous eight months the Ottomans had effectively been at war with Russia and by early 1878 the Russian army had advanced to the outskirts of Istanbul, forcing the Ottomans to sign an armistice at Edirne. At the time the proroguing of parliament was perceived as a temporary measure,3 but in fact no 1 The author would like to thank the organizers and participants of the symposium “The First Ottoman Experiment with Democracy: the First Ottoman Parliament, 1877-1878. An Attempt for New Approaches,” as well as Professors Şükrü Hanioğlu, Stephen Kotkin and Robert Finn of Princeton University for their feedback and comments on this paper. The first parliamentary chamber met in the period March-June 1877 and the second convened December 1877-February 1878; on the first Ottoman parliament see Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period: a Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963). 2 As it will be recalled, starting from 1875 through 1876 the Empire experienced a series of challenges – ill-fated revolts in Bosnia and Bulgaria, a war with Serbia, insistent demands from the liberal opposition and bureaucrats for the promulgation of a constitution, the forceful deposition of two sultans and increased great power pressure to introduce reforms favoring the non-Muslim nationalities; on these events see e.g. Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963); Barbara and Charles Jelavich, The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986); François Georgeon, Abdülhamid II: Le Sultan Calife (1876- 1909), (Paris: Fayard, 2003). 3 It should be noted that while the request of the ministers initiating the parliament’s proroguing included the word “temporary,” the Sultan’s decree did not, a fact which in the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 108 other parliamentary session was convened for the next three decades. As Sultan Abdülhamid II (1876-1909) increasingly consolidated his control over the Empire’s government and institutions, “parliament” joined the list of words and topics proscribed or consciously avoided in public discussion. However, the memory of parliament and the idea of parliamentarianism continued to live and to be debated within Ottoman society, and they were further incorporated into the political discourse of various groups opposing the Hamidian regime, among them the Young Turks. What did parliament come to mean for Ottoman society over the three decades following its suspension until the Young Turk revolution of 1908? The current article will address this question by looking at the Muslim Turkish press coming out in Bulgaria between 1895 and 1908 since this press remained largely uninfluenced by the censorship practices that affected publications in the Empire at the time and since certain local reformist journals actively published comments of Muslims from the local community and the Ottoman state. This article explores the debates among the Muslim public in Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire regarding the principle of consultation (meşveret),4 the institution of the parliament and the various types of political systems as expressed in three of the most popular local Muslim Turkish publications – the pro-Hamidian Gayret and the reformist and Young Turk publications Sebat and Balkan (Plovdiv). The Bulgarian Principality (1878-1908), the Muslim Community and the Local Muslim Turkish Press Given the strict control and censorship over the Ottoman press from the early 1890s onwards, as well as the widely spread practices of spying and reporting on any kind of activity deemed to be antagonistic to Sultan Abdülhamid II, one of the ways to follow the contemporary attitudes and debates within Ottoman society is through examining the Muslim press published in territories outside the Empire’s effective control. Among these territories, Bulgaria had a special place because of its relationship to the Empire and the presence of a sizable Muslim community. light of subsequent developments was seen as an indication of Abdülhamid II’s intentions, Devereux, 237. 4 This principle provided religious legitimacy to the arguments for introducing representative government. According to Islamic tradition, mashwara (Arabic) or meşveret (Turkish), the principle of consultation by the ruler of his advisors, was practiced by the prophet Muhammad, the early Islamic caliphs, and was sanctioned in the Qur’an. In the 19th c., however, this concept became largely synonymous to parliament, Bernard Lewis, “Mashwara” or “Mashūra,” The Encyclopedia of Islam. New Edition, vol. 6, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), 724-725. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 109 Bulgaria separated from direct Ottoman rule following the Russo-Ottoman war of 1877-78.5 In accordance with the provisions of the Berlin Treaty, it became an autonomous principality within the confines of the Empire and maintained this status until September 1908, when it declared independence and proclaimed itself a kingdom. From the very beginning of its existence, however, the Bulgarian Principality demonstrated an inclination to act much more independently than its vassal status implied and on a number of occasions rebuffed Ottoman attempts to influence its internal affairs. The press was among the institutions that functioned independently from Ottoman control, and the various Bulgarian governments and political parties attached importance to maintaining freedom of public expression. Censorship was banned by law, which was generally observed. In some cases involving the Muslim Turkish journals, it was the Ottoman Commissioner, Istanbul’s highest diplomatic representative to Bulgaria, who most often alerted the local authorities about publications offensive to the sultanate and demanded sanctions.6 That being said, one must not assume that free press, even by the standards of the time, was always the norm in Bulgaria. The Principality knew cases of infringement of press freedom and indirect censorship throughout the rule of certain governments in the thirty years of its existence.7 There were instances of legal prosecution or outright assault against newspaper editors and their offices, both Muslim and Bulgarian, as well as cases when journalists or publishers were forced to abandon a certain political line through paternal advice or open threat.8 5 On the Congress of Berlin see W. N. Medlicott, The Congress of Berlin and After: a Diplomatic History of the Near Eastern Settlement, 1878-1880, ( London: Methuen & Co., 1938). For an overview of the history of Bulgaria during that period see Richard J. Crampton, Bulgaria 1878-1918. A History, (New York: Columbia University Press, East European Monographs, Boulder, 1983). 6 See, for example, the cases involving the following Muslim journals: Malumat, Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Istanbul [Prime Ministry Ottoman Archive, Istanbul, henceforth BOA] Y.PRK.MK 7/50 October 17-28, 1896; Gayret, BOA, Y.PRK.MK 7/76 June 29 – July 13, 1897; Feryad, Şark BOA, Y.MTV 288/39 Ottoman Commissioner (henceforth OC) Sadık el-Müeyyed to Mabeyn, July 3, 1906; Muvazene, Ahali, Temaşa-i Esrar, Efkâr-ı Umumiye BOA, A.MTZ.04 127/87 OC Sadık el-Müeyyed to Sadaret, April 12, 1907; Malumat, Fünun, Balkan (Russe), Gayret Tsentralen Dǔrzhaven Arhiv (Central State Archive, Sofia, henceforth TsDA) f. 321k, op. 1, a. e. 1241, January 17, 1898 – June 29, 1898. 7 The most well-known period of infringement upon press freedom in Bulgaria was the regime of Stefan Stambolov (1889-1894) and his National-Liberal party, although even then opposition newspapers did exist, see Crampton, 125-161 and Duncan M. Perry, Stefan Stambolov and the Emergence of Modern Bulgaria, 1870-1895, (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993). Yet, there were cases of violating this freedom in the preceding and subsequent years, see for example Vasilka Tankova, Svobodata na pechata v Kniazhestvo Bǔlgaria i Iztochna Rumelia, 1878-1885, (Plovdiv, 1994). 8 For a case involving the Muslim journal Balkan published in Russe, see “Vazi’-i Kanun, Sansür Slan Şehr Muhafızı” (Turkish section), “Gradonachalnik zakonodatel i tsenzor” (Bulgarian section), Balkan (Russe), no. 7, June 20, 1898, 1-2, 3-4; and BOA, A.MTZ.04 56/46 OC to Sadaret, June 22, 1898; on the attacks on the offices of the Bulgarian Vecherna Poshta newspaper see BOA, A.MTZ.04 127/87 OC Sadık el-Müeyyed to Sadaret, April 12, 1905. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 110 Bulgaria had a sizable Muslim population, most of it Turks, who were a living legacy of the centuries-long Ottoman presence in the region. Towards the end of the 19th c. the Muslims in the Principality numbered about 650,000 and represented a fifth of the country’s inhabitants.9 They were deeply attached to their native places in Bulgaria but also felt inherently connected to the Ottoman state, which they saw as their primary protector. On many occasions they referred to themselves as being part of the Ottoman nation and spoke of the Empire as their homeland. They followed closely the developments taking place there, which was facilitated by Bulgaria’s geographical proximity: Bulgarian cities with significant Muslim communities, such as Plovdiv, the largest city in the country after the capital Sofia, and Varna, the major port on the western Black Sea coast were just a few hours away from Istanbul by train or ship. The exchange and spread of information was further facilitated by trade, labor migration and by the press. Even though literacy levels among the Muslims in Bulgaria were low (3.86% for all Muslims and 3.96% for the Turks in 1905),10 the establishment of kıraathanes (reading rooms) and the widely spread practice of reading newspapers aloud and discussing their contents in coffeehouses ensured that the information they contained reached a wider public than those who could read and write. Muslim newspapers and journals in the Principality were in a more delicate position than their Bulgarian counterparts. They had to toe a tight line between effectively advocating the interests of the Muslims in Bulgaria, including protesting against various assaults and demonstrating their loyalty to the Bulgarian state. Although rarely spoken, there was always the concern among the editors of Muslim journals that excessive criticism of Bulgarian policies and actions could jeopardize the very existence of their publications. Yet, the development of the local Muslim press and the fortunes of individual newspapers during the period under discussion did not depend only on their relations with the Bulgarian authorities, but on a variety of external and internal factors. Among them were the state of Bulgarian-Ottoman relations, Bulgarian willingness to abide Ottoman requests to ban Muslim journals accused of maintaining anti-Hamidian rhetoric and an inclination to use the issue as leverage in obtaining concessions,11 concern about the protests of the political opposition,12 and the editor’s political alignment.13 9 Among the Muslims, there were about 570,000 Turks, see Statisticheski godishnik na Bǔlgarskoto Tsarstvo, 1909, (Sofia: Dǔrzhavna pechatnitsa, 1910), 38-39. 10 Statisticheski godishnik, 65, 72-73; it should be noted though that there were considerable variations between the literacy levels among urban and rural populations, as well as differences according to gender. Thus, among the Muslims the category with the highest literacy raters – over 20% – were Turkish men living in the cities. 11 For example TsDA, f. 321k, op. 1, a. e. 1397 Agent Geshov to Bulgarian PM Ivanchov, October 21, 1899, 1, regarding the journal Islâh. 12 See for example Bulgarian arguments for refusing to have a special Ottoman envoy investigate the actions of a group of Muslims in Russe, among them the former editor of Sebat © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 111 However, in comparison to the Empire at the time, the Muslim press in Bulgaria was subject to relatively lesser restrictions. During the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II the press, both local and imported foreign periodicals, book publishing and public expression in general were subjected to censorship and various other limitations. Abdülhamid II was not the person to introduce censorship in the Empire, nor was his period of rule the last time in Ottoman history when it was practiced. Yet, it was a characteristic feature of the period that left a palpable imprint on its intellectual and political life. Censorship and self-censorship made their way gradually along with the development of Ottoman print culture. In the first years after Abdülhamid’s accession to power the press was relatively free, but the rules became tighter towards 1889-1890.14 This was when terms like “revolution,” “dynamite,” “republic,” “constitution” and proper names such as “Macedonia,” “Armenia” and “Murad” (referring to the Sultan’s dethroned brother) became extinct from public use. The Ottoman newspapers were prevented from reporting and commenting on ongoing political crises and sensitive subjects, such as the Armenian crisis of 1894-96. Furthermore, the press was not allowed to make the faintest allusion to assassination of monarchs or heads of state lest such reports engendered dangerous thoughts among any disgruntled Ottoman subjects. Thus, the American president McKinley was reported of having died of anthrax and the Serbian King Alexander and Queen Draga of indigestion.15 It is against this background that the Muslim press in Bulgaria, particularly the reformist Young Turk publications, stood out. They openly discussed and opined on current developments, while some of them regularly published opinions from their readers in Bulgaria and the Empire. These letters are particularly valuable since they allow us a glimpse into Muslim popular attitudes and public opinion at the time. The first attempts to issue Turkish Muslim journals in Bulgaria were made in the 1880s, but more active publication activity developed from the middle of the 1890s as a consequence of a series of interrelated events. In Bulgaria the political climate and press regime experienced relative liberalization after Stefan Stamthat will be discussed below, on the grounds of distributing Young Turk propaganda, TsDA, f. 176k, op. 1, a. e. 936 MFRA to Agent Dimitrov, July 25, 1896, 17a-18a 13 In the case of Balkan (Russe) mentioned above, it is likely that the Bulgarian authorities pressured its editor Ahmet Zeki to close his publication not only because of insistent Ottoman requests. Ahmet Zeki was involved in the local branch of the National-Liberal party of Stefan Stambolov that was forced out of power in 1894 and replaced by Konstantin Stoilov’s People’s (Narodna) party regime (1894-1899). Thus, Ahmed Zeki’s sympathies with the political opposition could have provided another motive to make him stop issuing Balkan, on his political activity see “Sair mahallarda…,” Sebat, no. 9, March 31, 1895, 4. 14 Georgeon, 162-164; Donald Cioeta, “Ottoman Censorship in Lebanon and Syria, 1876- 1908” International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (1979), 167-186. 15 For some other anecdotal cases see Süleyman Kâni İrtem, Abdülhamid Devrinde Hafiyelik ve Sansür, (Istanbul: Temel Yayınları, 1999), 217-234. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 112 bolov and his National-Liberal party stepped down from power in 1894.16 The other development was the arrival of Young Turk émigrés who were fleeing persecution in the Empire. Soon Bulgaria acquired the reputation of a suitable ground for Young Turk opposition activity: the Bulgarian authorities often neglected Ottoman requests to extradite the troublemakers or bring them under legal prosecution, and setting up a journal was easier. At the same time Bulgaria’s proximity provided ample opportunity for smuggling Young Turk publications17 and maintaining contact with sympathizers in the Empire proper. The expansion of Young Turk activity in Bulgaria had an important affect on the local Muslim community, as it contributed to the rise of a cultural and political reform movement, and intensified the debates about the place of the community in Bulgaria, with regard to the Empire and the modern world. The polarization among the Muslims in Bulgaria from the middle of the 1890s onwards was reflected in their press. Between 1895 and 1908 out of the seven most significant Muslim journals that came out for a year or longer, two were pro- Hamidian publications (Gayret (Zeal) and Rağbet (Desire)) and the remaining five (Sebat (Perseverance), Muvazene (Equilibrium), Balkan (issued in Plovdiv), Tuna (Danube), and Uhuvvet (Brotherhood)) were reformist publications associated with the activity of the Young Turks. The divisions within the community were also manifested in the divergent opinions on the necessity of parliament for the Ottoman state. On one hand, there were many Muslims who saw the Sultan and the Empire as their primary protectors. Thus, they supported the existing regime and maintained that the type of government a state practiced should correspond to the character of its people. They criticized those who demanded the reopening of the parliament as having succumbed to the influence of the hostile foreign powers who wished the Ottoman Empire’s dissolution. Some of them also argued that the Ottoman Empire already practiced consultation in its governance and administrative institutions. On the other hand the reformists and Young Turk sympathizers argued that reconvening the parliament, along with restoring the constitution, was the only viable solution for the challenges facing the Empire. According to them, a parliament was expected to bring equality and justice; it 16 Stefan Stambolov, a highly controversial historical figure, and his National-Liberal party dominated Bulgarian state affairs between 1888 and 1894. He took guidance of the Bulgarian state in a critical moment after a Russophile officer coup had dethroned and sent into exile the first Bulgarian prince Alexander Battenberg; the subsequently chosen head of state Ferdinand was not internationally recognized and relations with Russia were severed. In the course of time Stambolov consolidated his personal hold of Bulgarian government, curbed the actions of the opposition and established very good relations with the Ottoman Empire. He stepped down in May 1894 under increasing pressure from the allied opposition and about a year later he was assassinated, see Crampton, 105-161 and Perry, passim. 17 On the Young Turk activities in the Balkans, including Bulgaria, see Şükrü Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), (henceforth Opposition) 89-90, 109, 122-124, 165-166; on smuggling from Bulgaria see Edhem Ruhi Balkan, Edhem Ruhi Balkan Hatıraları – Canlı Tarihler 6, (Ankara: Türkiye matbaası, 1947), 33. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 113 would prevent separatist tendencies among the various nationalities. While the former group saw the parliament as the cause that would ultimately lead the Empire to perdition, the latter argued that the Ottoman state would collapse unless it was reinstated. The discussions examined here are of further importance since they reflect the opinion of larger segments of Muslim society, including people from the Ottoman provinces, that allow us an insight into the popular repercussions of debates taking place among the elites in the capital and in exile. Gayret: the People Deserve the Government They Get To present the perspective of those who supported the regime in the Empire, this section examines Gayret, one of the longest-running Muslim newspapers in the Bulgarian Principality. Gayret was first issued in January 1895 and continued appearing until 1903, when the Sultan requested its closure and demanded that its owner cede the printing equipment.18 It started as a weekly but subsequently began coming out twice a week. The journal’s place of publication was Plovdiv, the second largest city in Bulgaria at the time and one of the well-established cultural and economic centers in the region. Gayret’s owner and editor-in-chief was Ali Rıza Pasha İbrahimov, a native of Plovdiv. Born in 1850, he had acquired a position of respect for being a member of the local court and one of the city’s successful rice merchants. In the period 1895-1903 Rıza Pasha also ran as a candidate in Bulgarian parliamentary elections probably as an independent but was elected only once in 1897.19 Even though after the Young Turk revolution he would present himself as a vocal critic of Abdülhamid II and one of his victims, at the time he was apparently deeply devoted to the Sultan and the Empire. Rıza Pasha kept close relations with the Ottoman representatives in Bulgaria, who referred to him as a “friend of the sultanate,” praised his loyalty and tried to intervene in his favor in the few cases when distribution of his newspaper in the Empire was stopped because of publishing features that the Ottoman censors found objectionable.20 In 1898 as a reward for his services, Rıza Pasha was given a monthly salary of 1,500 guruş from the Ottoman treasury.21 Gayret was granted permission for free distribution throughout the Empire almost immediately after its establishment,22 and it appears that it was widely read in both Bulgaria and the Empire, also reach- 18 BOA, A.MTZ.04 136/40 OC Sadık el-Müeyyed to Sadaret, December 5, 1905. 19 Bǔlgarski almanah, 1897, (Sofia: 1898), XIV; Bǔlgarski almanah, 1902, (Sofia: 1903), 680; TsDA, f. 371k, op. 5, a. e. 16, 1901 parliamentary elections, 31; February 1902 parliamentary elections, 56-57. 20 See for example BOA, Y.PRK.A 9/75 Second Secretary in Plovdiv to Sadaret, January 11, 1895; A.MTZ.04 181/32, Second Secretary to Sadaret, November 10, 1895, 7; Second Secretary to Sadaret, November 25, 1895, 13; A.MTZ.04 79/1 OC Ali Ferruh to Sadaret, May 27, 1902, 1. 21 BOA, A.MTZ.04 59/3 July 27, 1898 – October 31, 1898. 22 BOA, A.MTZ.04 179/9 July 1895, 12. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 114 ing other neighboring countries, such as Romania.23 According to the claims of its owner, at the peak of its popularity the newspaper had over 2,000 subscribers, many of whom lived in the Empire.24 Gayret printed primarily reports and opinion pieces discussing current political events although it was careful not to publish anything potentially offensive to Abdülhamid even for the sake of refuting it. It explicitly advocated Ottoman interests, the policy of the existing Ottoman regime, as well as the interests of the local Muslim community. The articles rarely bore a byline, so while we know the names of a few of its contributors, it is difficult to determine the precise authorship of the various pieces.25 The newspaper seldom published feedback from readers, but even then such pieces did not deal with subjects that could be politically sensitive for the Ottoman administration. In April-May 1895 Gayret printed a series of articles titled “Gazi Sultan Abdülhamid Sâni” that praised the Sultan and his style of rule.26 The motives for publishing this feature are not immediately obvious, but perhaps the direct occasion was the honoring of Rıza Pasha with a Mecidiye order along with the decoration of several other Plovdiv notables.27 Another compelling reason was the desire to defend the Sultan in the midst of the unfolding diplomatic and internal crisis from growing European criticism provoked by the recently suppressed Armenian revolt in Sasun.28 While it did not talk explicitly about parliament, the article addressed the issue indirectly by discussing the political system in the Empire. The piece was a eulogy of the Sultan and his contributions to the glory of the Ottoman state; it vowed gratitude for his paternal guidance and extolled the welfare of all Ottoman subjects, proclaiming their unconditional love and devotion to their ruler. Yet the last part went even further to denounce the Europeans and the critics within the Empire who accused the Sultan of despotism. It justified the Sultan’s methods of rule, which were best suited to the character of the Ottoman nation, and pronounced the government system in the Empire as a non-oppressive autocratic rule. To discredit the critics’ arguments Gayret contrasted the safety within the Ottoman state with the insecurity in Europe caused by the actions of radical groups. 23 See the letter of some Muslims from Romania who inquired about why they were not receiving Gayret, “Romanya’da Toksofu Kariyesinden” followed by Muvazene’s comment, Muvazene, no. 278, May 14, 1903, 4. 24 BOA, A.MTZ.04 79/1 OC Ali Ferruh to Sadaret, May 27, 1902, 1. 25 Among the initial contributors were Priştineli Selim and Selânikli Hilmi, yet both were pressured to resign, the former for allegedly importing “harmful publications,” BOA, A.MTZ.04 31/62 November 4, 1895; BOA, A.MTZ.04 33/96 May 19 – June 11, 1896, 1, 2, 6. 26 “Gazi Sultan Abdülhamid Sâni,” Gayret, no. 16, May 3, 1895, 1. 27 “Teveccühat ve Nişan,” Gayret, no.12, April 8, 1895, 1; BOA, A.MTZ.04 76/142 Second Secretary İbrahim Fethi to OC Mehmed Nebil, January 7, 1895. 28 Hanioğlu, Opposition, 75; Georgeon, 286-309. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 115 It is a pity that after so many great foreign and internal political and cultural successes that were the sole result of the right governance of Ottoman sultans, some greedy European politicians do not shy away from criticizing the present-day organization of the Ottoman administration. ‘… to tread on people’s freedom with tyrannical government means an insult to humanity; at the end of the 19th c. in such progressive times no society should be ruled by an absolute government.’ In such a way they are trying to confuse the minds of the people. Since such subjects always invite discord we are writing the following to those prejudiced against the government. Personal rule, absolutist rule, constitutional government, republic, democracy, aristocratic rule – all these types of government have their special advantages and disadvantages. More precisely, the enumerated advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of society’s wisdom are nothing at the end, everything is relative. In that respect since practicing good government is quite difficult … to say that constitutionalism is good or republic is good is nothing but stupidity. The best type of government for the noble Ottoman nation is absolutist government, because [it] suits best the morality and the condition of the great Ottoman society. [...] Why do the anarchists and nihilists who oppose the different European administrations and create such crises and disturbances that make governments feel as if they sit on top of a volcano emerge? Is this because Europe’s governments are good or bad? Ottoman society is secure and it has not seen anarchism, socialism or communism. The current Ottoman system of administration is not the absolutist rule of a single person but rather a non-oppressive autocratic rule. Even if this government is not the absolutely best one, it is still the best for Ottoman society.29 Gayret’s assertions that the system of rule a state adopted should match the people’s character and moral preparedness resembled arguments made by other pro- Hamidian journals published in the Empire. Probably the best-known example of the agenda they maintained was Ahmet Midhat (1844-1912), the contemporary writer and publicist, whose articles expressed the stance of the ruling regime. Since he enjoyed the special favor and financial support of the Sultan, he had the rare opportunity to discuss sensitive issues. In a piece published in May 1896 in the Tercüman-ı Hakikat, Ahmet Midhat Efendi argued that representative government would be detrimental to a multi-national and multi-religious state like the Ottoman one. The parliament would pass laws that could violate the powers of the people, and thus they would eventually have to be annulled.30 Yet, such 29 “Gazi Sultan Abdülhamid Sâni,” Gayret, no. 16, May 3, 1895, 1. 30 Ahmet Midhat in Hanioğlu, Opposition, 31; on the Sultan’s views see ibid. 31, f. 219. Incidentally, this statement represented a significant departure from an earlier stance he expressed in 1880 in an opinion letter addressed to the Sultan. In this letter Ahmet Midhat argued that the parliament and the constitution did not intrude upon the ruler’s authority; it was their absence that threatened to strengthen the power of the ministers. He further warned that in spite of the recent war and hostility the Muslims in Bulgaria would acquire legal freedom sooner than their co-religionists in the Empire since they lived in a country ruled by a constitution. The idea of Muslims under non-Muslim government enjoying more freedom than Muslims under the protection of an Islamic ruler seemed particularly disturbing to the author and perhaps to many other Muslim Ottoman contemporaries. Ahmet Midhat Efendi, “Tavzih-i Kelam ve Tasrih-i Meram,” (May 20, 1880) haz. Cengiz © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 116 claims were also advanced by some of the members of the earlier Ottoman liberal opposition. Another “well-wisher” to the sultanate, either from Plovdiv or from among the customs officials at the Sirkeci railway station that received publications from Bulgaria for distribution in Istanbul, sent a copy of Gayret’s piece on Abdülhamid II together with other issues of the newspaper it deemed problematic to the Grand Vizier’s office. A note under the article in all likelihood scribbled by the sender warned that its author’s real intentions were to awaken the ideas of Ali Suavi in the capital.31 Such an allegation could have serious consequences for the newspaper and its owner. Ali Suavi (1839-1878), one of the leading figures of the Young Ottoman movement, experienced a series of dramatic ideological transformations throughout the period of his intellectual and political activity. Initially, he was a staunch supporter of constitutionalism and among the first to argue that Islamic traditions commanded democratic consultation, but later he turned to criticizing this political process. Eventually he met a tragic end after leading a group of Muslim refugees in an attack on Abdülhamid’s palace.32 In an article published in exile in the journal Ulum which was among the first Ottoman writings to use the word “democracy,” Ali Suavi argued that the type of government in each state should be chosen in consideration of the moral character and condition of its people. Ali Suavi also made a distinction between democracy and parliamentary government. While he advocated the introduction of a parliamentary system, he insisted that democracy or equality, as he alternatively called it, was not suitable for the Ottoman state because of its large size, diverse population and since its subjects were of bad morality.33 It is not clear whether the Ottoman authorities proceeded to investigate the alleged ideological connection between Ali Suavi and the political line pursued by Gayret. By the time they received this report, the newspaper had already been suspended, the immediate reason being a piece criticizing British policy towards the Empire with regard to the Armenian question.34 Eventually Rıza Pasha was Şeker, Hilafet Risâleleri. 1. cilt, II. Abdülhamit Devri, ed. İsmail Kara, (Istanbul: Klasik, 2002), 111-138. I would like to thank Abdülhamit Kırmızı for bringing this document to my attention. 31 BOA, A.MTZ.04 177/90 July 23, 1895, “when (the article) is examined well, the matter will become clear” the informer continued. 32 Şerif Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought, (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000, orig. publ. by Princeton University Press, 1962), Hüseyin Çelik, Ali Suavi ve Dönemi, (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994) and Ali Suavi, “Democracy: Government by the People, Equality,” in Charles Kurzman, ed. Modernist Islam, 1840-1940. A Sourcebook, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 138-143. 33 According to Ali Suavi, in the Ottoman case such “[a] government is required that will not only satisfy the material needs but also see to the moral needs of such an immoral and leprous people,” in Kurzman, 140. 34 BOA, A.MTZ.04 179/9 June 19 – August 8, 1895. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 117 again allowed to import Gayret into the Empire35 and became stricter in his selfcensorship.36 Sebat: a Case of Popular Debate Gayret’s article on Abdülhamid II provoked a reaction from Sebat, the other Muslim journal issued in Bulgaria at the time. Sebat openly disputed Gayret’s claims that absolutist rule was better for the Empire than constitutional and parliamentary government, and invited men of political wisdom to express their views on the matter. Furthermore, Sebat published Abdülhamid II’s ferman promulgating the constitution issued in December 1876, thus signaling its Young Turk leanings.37 Shortly after, the newspaper received a warning from the Ottoman authorities and halted the initiative although it did not completely abandon the idea.38 Sebat was published in Russe, the capital of the former Ottoman Danube vilayet and the largest Bulgarian city on the Danube. Its owner and editor was İskender Mahmudov, a local notable and later a member in the Bulgarian parliament.39 The journal was first published in February 1895 and came out once a week for a year, after which it closed down due to financial constraints and technical difficulties: it did not have a printing press, so until the end it was handwritten and lithographed, which cost its publishers significant efforts. At the time obtaining printing equipment with Arabic fonts was not easy and could be considerably expensive. The two closest centers from where one could purchase printing presses were Istanbul and Vienna. The export of presses from the Empire was subject to severe limitations and was allowed in rare cases only after a thorough investigation of the background of the potential publishers. On the other hand, obtaining equipment from Vienna was twice as expensive and Sebat, could not afford to buy it without incurring a large debt or collecting in advance the fees from its subscribers. Since the authorities in Istanbul considered Sebat’s publishing team unreliable, they rejected its requests.40 Apparently, they had enough good reason for that. As time passed and it became clear that the newspaper would not obtain a printing press, its publishing team, i.e. its owner and editor İskender Mahmudov, the translator 35 BOA, A.MTZ.04 177/90 Sadaret to OC Mehmed Nebil, July 23, 1895. 36 For example in September Gayret received a few anonymous letters which were allegedly offensive to the Ottoman state and the newspaper’s agenda. Gayret published only vague warnings against their sender without referring to the specific charges these letters were making. “Ahvâl-ı Dahiliye,” Gayret, no. 35, Sept. 15, 1895, 2; “Muameleye Göre Mukabele,” Gayret, no. 36, Sept. 22, 1895, 2. 37 “Filibe’de neşr olunan…,” Sebat, no. 15, May 11, 1895, 1. 38 BOA, A.MTZ.04 9/9 OC Mehmed Nebil to Sadaret, June 11, 1895, 57. 39 TsDA, f. 371k, op. 5, a. e. 10 February 1902 parliamentary elections, 338; BOA, A.MTZ.04 79/75 OC Ali Ferruh to Sadaret, July 31, 1902. 40 “İdarehanemizin Rica ve Hasbihali,” Sebat, no. 17, May 26, 1895, 2; “İhtar ve İ‘tizar,” Sebat, no. 37, October 19, 1895, 1. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 118 Ahmet Zeki and another collaborator, Muamelecizâde Emin Ağa, gradually revealed their Young Turk sympathies. In addition, one of the printers turned out to be Mustafa Ragıb, a former student in the Imperial Medical School in Istanbul and a Young Turk who was sought by the Ottoman authorities. He fled the Empire in 1892 first to Berlin and then to Bulgaria.41 After Sebat’s closure all these individuals expanded their involvement with the opposition organization,42 and later they were involved in the publication of other Young Turk journals such as Balkan (issued in Russe), Islâh (Improvement/Reform) and Feryad (Cry). In the autumn of 1895 Sebat’s columns featured a heated readers’ debate about the necessity of parliamentary government in the Ottoman Empire, which was intensified by the critical events in the Empire – the Armenian revolts, their suppression and the Great Power response. The crisis originated with the ill-fated Sasun uprising in November 1894, after which the Empire came under growing European pressure to introduce reforms in the eastern provinces explicitly favoring the Armenians, but the situation deteriorated in the autumn of 1895. On September 30, 1895 the Hunchak committee organized a political demonstration in the capital to present a petition to the Ottoman government. However, the peaceful march turned into a violent melee after some extremists brandished guns and the gendarmerie fired on the demonstrators. The incident was followed by a series of attacks on Armenians in the capital and eastern Anatolia. The Sultan was induced to proclaim a plan for reforms and in the course of the crisis replaced four grand viziers.43 The sentiments these turbulent events provoked among the Muslims in Bulgaria were well reflected in Sebat and to some extent in Gayret, which, in contrast to the Ottoman press, widely discussed the crisis. Besides the articles and editorials, Sebat also published readers’ letters which give us an opportunity to follow the popular perceptions and debates on representative government and the current events in the Empire. On September 22, 1895 Sebat published a letter from a Muslim from Varna whose name was withheld.44 The letter accounted the following story: recently the author had visited Istanbul on personal business and one evening his host had taken him to a learned gathering. There the guests participated in literary and 41 BOA, Y.MTV 285/69 OC to Dahiliye, March 17, 1906; İbrahim Temo, İbrahim Temo’nun İttihad ve Terakki Anıları, (Istanbul: Arba yayınları, 1987), 57-58. In his memoirs Temo mistakenly reports the journal’s title as Tuna (Danube). According to the available evidence there was no such journal in Russe at the time and comparison with other developments suggests that the publication in question was Sebat. 42 See for example the correspondence between the Ottoman Commissioner and the Bulgarian authorities, TsDA, f. 176k, op. 1, a. e. 936, May 24, 1896 – Oct. 29, 1896, 6-26. 43 On those events see Georgeon, 286-296; Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, vol. 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 200-205. 44 “Varna’dan Mektub-u Mahsus,” Sebat, no. 33, Sept. 22, 1895, 4-6. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 119 scholarly debates, whose grace and details stunned the visitor from Varna. Eventually, the conversation turned to the state of current political affairs. The author immediately became alert and began listening carefully so that he could write about the discussions to Sebat, an idea which he had entertained for some time. First, the guests discussed the questions of Macedonia and Thessaly, and since the author was from Bulgaria, they asked him about the local state of affairs regarding these issues. The party agreed that because the Great Powers supported the Greeks and the Bulgarians they would continue to advance their plans in the contested areas. Then, the guests moved to the projects for Armenian reforms. After discussing in detail various articles in the European press on this issue, the company speculated that it would be necessary to grant certain concessions to the Armenians which would be to the disadvantage of the Turks. Finally, the party addressed the larger question of why the various nationalities in the Ottoman Empire sought to separate from its control. Some of the guests suggested that because of their close connections with the Europeans, the Ottoman Christians had been awakened, their wealth increased and they had started looking down on the Muslims. Being subjected to Muslim rule hurt their feelings, and that is why they decided to break away. Others, however, argued that since the Ottoman state did not adopt the principle of consultation (usul-i meşveret), it pushed public affairs into evil hands, which led to general dissatisfaction. The majority of the attendees agreed with this second opinion. Then a knowledgeable gentleman took the floor and enumerated the various benefits of consultation. He supported his view with Qur’anic verses, hadīths and historical examples. Then he stated that it was the Turks rather than the Armenians who deserved the sympathy of the Europeans, since they were the ones who carried the heavy duties of military service. This person urged that it was the right time to explain this to the Europeans and attract their support by using the various newspapers published in Europe. He was abruptly silenced by the other guests, who agreed with his point that consultative government was necessary but argued that it would be a disgrace for the Muslims to use the European press for such purposes. Everybody was unanimous that since the Rashidun caliphs no other Muslim state had worked as hard for the benefit of the Muslims and for the protection of religion as the Ottoman one. At that point in the text the Muslim from Varna considered it necessary to reassure the readers that no offensive word was uttered against Sultan Abdülhamid II. At the end the party began thinking of a way to overcome “the suppression of free thought” (mezalim-i efkar) in the Ottoman state. The solution for that was to appeal through the foreign journals to the Sultan to rely on his people, reopen the parliament, dismiss his incapable advisors and restore freedom of the press. Even though the guests had initially deprecated the notion of using the foreign press to make their voices heard, eventually the majority accepted the idea. On this note the gathering came to an end. The Muslim from Varna promised then © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 120 and there that he would write about the issue to Sebat and enthusiastically appealed to the journal’s editor to publish his letter for the sake of patriotism. The letter immediately evoked responses among the Muslim public in Bulgaria that expressed divergent views. Among the first to write back was another Muslim from Varna who signed as “a Turk” (Bir Türk).45 At the beginning the author praised the press for its role as a guide of public opinion and morals and then turned against his fellow townsman, pejoratively referring to him as an “unintelligent Turk” and then as “a person of unknown nationality.” Among the Ottomans, he argued, there were people who had ideas about reform but others, like the “Western mannered Turk” in question read the lies published in the European press and complained about a great state of 650 years. He further condemned the “fake Turk turned European” for being one of the “disgraceful people.” This second Muslim from Varna admitted that the people, i.e. the Ottomans, were deprived of free press and freedom of thought but rather than appealing to the European press and thus offending the exalted caliphate, he suggested that a more successful strategy would be to plead with the Sultan to restore these freedoms. He even argued that there were already positive signs for loosening various restrictions, such as the fact that the grand vizier Said Pasha had lifted the ban on some previously prohibited books and allowed the journal Tercüman, printed in the Crimea, to be circulated in the Empire. Very soon, the author prognosticated, the people in the Empire would gain freedom of press and thought and would see the implementation of reforms. The same issue of Sebat also published a response from Silistra signed as Muhibb-i Sadık bin Âli, who was understood to be a member of the ulema.46 He offered a harsh response to the first letter from Varna accusing it of instigating “confusion in the minds” and being completely devoid of wisdom. Similar to Gayret, the ʿālim warned about succumbing to the treacherous foreign publications that only instigated disobedience and consequently brought many terrible events upon the Ottoman state. But above all, he stressed, the deed of the Varna Muslim lacked dignity: important state matters were discussed in official places, and it was not pertinent to talk about government affairs in the “konaks, ordinary houses, coffeehouses, and pubs” because everybody knew that in such environment no one would be safe from erring. The Silistra Muslim went on to praise the current state of the Ottoman Empire: the ruler had entrusted the government into the hands of competent officials, and there was not even the smallest reason for complaint. “If we open our eyes by thinking with fairness and mercy, we find our- 45 “Muharrir Efendi...,” Sebat, no. 35, Oct. 5, 1895, 5. Letters published in the journal were usually signed with a pen name, but their authors were required to confirm their real name and address to the editorial office, “İhtar,” Sebat, no. 34, Sept. 29, 1895, 8. 46 “Silistre’den Mektub-u Mahsus,” Sebat, no. 35, Oct. 5, 1895, 7-8. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 121 selves living in a blissful age. Even the most powerful pens are weak in praising and appreciating it.” He extolled the advances of the Ottoman state and Abdülhamid II’s role in their enhancement and ended with a promise to address the question about the necessity of free press and parliament in another letter. The debate became particularly heated after one of Sebat’s self-proclaimed most devoted readers, who identified himself simply as “the Sailor” (Gemici) joined in.47 He wrote in a fiery impulsive style and appeared well informed about ongoing events in the Empire and abroad, and also alluded to his Young Turk sympathies. The Sailor expressed support for the second letter from Varna, but he scorned the ʿālim from Silistra for his disregard of current events in the Empire, which proved the necessity for change. To strengthen his criticism, he sought to challenge the ʿālim by means of religious argumentation. “I am asking if this person is really a dervish, for let him remember the words of the caliph ʿAlī ‘wherever there is no consultation there is no right’ and let him not speak against the principle of consultation proclaimed by the most glorious of prophets.” The Sailor also accused the Silistra Muslim of being one of the people anticipating awards from the Yıldız palace and ended his letter by appealing to those in charge of the homeland (in that case apparently the Ottoman Empire) to devote and if necessary sacrifice their lives for its sake and not to listen to false advisors. The Silistra ʿālim responded promptly, pointing out that the Sailor had not understood his main argument: “It is admitted that even a small matter, let alone the important affairs of state, cannot be resolved without consultation; in our previous article we did not say a single world against consultation and we will never do so; such an idea does not even exist in our imagination.” 48 He further accused the Sailor of creating the wrong impression that Ottoman governmental affairs proceeded without consultation, an idea which “even the schoolchildren nowadays” found inconceivable. All branches and offices of the Ottoman government were bound by the Sharia and functioned in accordance with the principle of consultation. The ʿālim thanked the Sailor for labeling him a eulogizer, since he considered it an honor and duty to support the Ottoman state, and called upon him to declare openly his ideological convictions. To those challenges the Sailor replied with the following statement: O, brother! The consultation required by a constitutional government is one thing and the consultation among a few people is another. In a place where there is no constitutional government the power to issue orders to bring reforms and reorganization in accordance with the regional necessities could pass into the hands of seditious spies and corrupt officials. In the places where there is constitutional government no matter how much evil there is, it could be prevented by trusting the people and electing patriotic representatives; all 47 “Bir Gemici Taifesinden Alınan Tahriratın Suretidir,” Sebat, no. 36, Oct. 13, 1895, 7-8. 48 “Silistre’den Mektup,” Sebat, no. 38, Oct. 26, 1895, 4. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 122 kinds of benefits will ensue and evil will be averted through consultation and discussion among those respectable individuals. Even though I am a sailor, I have observed and learned this. In view of that, with respect, there is no doubt that everything in this world comes with consultation. Even we … (the) sailors consult with each other what time to eat the mamaliga (maize bread) let alone the important government affairs. So, as I’ve said above, constitutional consultation is one thing, absolutist consultation is another.49 After this fiery letter, Sebat announced that it would not publish any further correspondence on this subject. Its editor did not give any specific reasons for this decision, and while it is possible that he had received a warning, it might as well be that technical difficulties pressed him to cut the number pages by half, and thus there was no space for such lengthy readers’ letters. While Sebat gave the opportunity for divergent views to be expressed, its editorial team openly supported the idea that reconvening the parliament was the best way to improve the state of the Empire. This stance was initially visible from Sebat’s first response to Gayret, but it became more outspoken throughout the following months. In a lead article on October 26, 1895 Sebat objected to the Ottoman decision to introduce reforms in the eastern vilayets undertaken in response to western pressure, since it made the Muslims “very sad.”50 It criticized the Istanbul newspapers which wrote and repeated one another in stating that reforms would be implemented in accordance with the preparation of the local population but did not dare to voice the people’s demands. And what all the Muslims without exception wanted, Sebat maintained, was the reopening of the parliament. A parliament would secure peace in the east, curb the illegitimate demands of the Europeans and prevent them from interfering in the internal affairs of the Ottoman state under the pretext of humanity and protection of the Christians. The newspaper expressed hope that the Sultan would agree to issue the necessary order since this was the right thing to do. A letter from a “Muslim patriot from Kosovo” threw more light onto the attitude towards current events and the parliament in the Ottoman provinces. The author of this letter probably belonged to the ranks of the Ottoman military since he appeared to be well informed about the condition of the army contingent stationed in the Kosovo vilayet. He also gave a clue about his Young Turk sympathies by alluding positively to a “patriotic newspaper,” about to be issued in Europe, which in all likelihood was the Young Turk organ Meşveret. The Muslim from Kosovo spoke with anger about the recent events in Istanbul. 51 He protested that the Armenians were being appointed to various administrative posts 49 “Muharrir efendi...,” Sebat, no. 39, November 2, 1895, 3-4. 50 “İcmal,” Sebat, no. 38, Oct. 26, 1895, 1. 51 “Kosova’dan Bir Muhibb-i Vatan Bir İslamın Sedasıdır,” Sebat, no. 37, Oct. 19, 1895, 2-4l; on Meşveret see Hanioğlu, Opposition, 77-78. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 123 and gaining advantages at the expense of the Muslims, but that rather than being grateful, they revolted. He was also indignant at the inactivity of the press in the Empire and stated: “If we didn’t get information from the newspapers issued by patriots in the Crimea, Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Cyprus, we would not know anything, but our destruction would be underway.” The author asserted that the only way out of this disastrous situation was the reconvening of the parliament. Furthermore, he assured the readers that such demands did not mean that those who advanced them were against the Sultan since he also desired the best for his subjects. The author concluded his letter with the appeal “If the parliament is not reconvened we are doomed!” The discussions featured in Sebat in the autumn of 1895 suggest that the debate concerning the parliament and the political system in the Empire was not the exclusive priority of the elites in the Ottoman capital or exiled in Europe but involved wider social segments. The Muslim public were interested and through various channels followed the current events in the Ottoman state and used the press published abroad to voice their opinion. Edhem Ruhi and the Balkan Daily: the Activist Young Turk Perspective Invariably, the most vocal in their demands for parliament and their criticism of the Hamidian regime were the Young Turks. The Committee for Union and Progress (CUP), which was the organization’s formal name, was founded in 1889 in opposition to Sultan Abdülhamid II by students of the Imperial Medical Academy in Istanbul, but its members developed more significant activity from the mid 1890s onwards. In 1894-95 a series of arrests among students in the higher schools in the Empire sent many of the organization’s sympathizers into exile. Following the 1902 congress of the Ottoman opposition in Geneva, the organization split up into rival factions advocating different strategies for continuing the struggle, which left it weakened. Young Turk ideology was inspired by social Darwinism, positivism and science, and parliament and constitutionalism featured prominently in the organization’s political rhetoric. This trait, along with the fact that the Young Turks initiated the revolution of 1908, led many historians to qualify them as a constitutional movement. This suggestion has been challenged by Şükrü Hanioğlu, who has argued that the Young Turk opposition bore little resemblance to other constitutional movements, such as those in Europe and North America. For the Young Turks the notions of parliament and representative government were of little real significance beyond being symbols of modernity and an instrument for preventing Great Power encroachment upon the Empire’s internal affairs. Largely influenced by elitist theories, the original members of the CUP saw the parliament as “a heterogeneous crowd” that could potentially be harmful to the “scientific” administration they sought to establish. However, as they expanded their activity and al- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 124 lied themselves with other opposition groups, their ideology gradually evolved and modified its initial character.52 Regardless of whether the Young Turk leadership sincerely believed in the benefits of consultative government for the Ottoman state or not, calls and arguments for reconvening the parliament were regularly present in the Young Turk press, including that published in Bulgaria. Emphasis on the parliament became another way of challenging the legitimacy of Abdülhamid II’s regime. To make their claims more forceful, Young Turk journals in Bulgaria often juxtaposed the Principality and the Empire, extolling the former for its parliamentary and constitutional system and its political advances. Comparing Bulgaria, one of the main Ottoman rivals on the Balkans, to the Empire in such a favorable way was sure to irritate at least a few officials in Istanbul. To present the Young Turk perspective, the following section will examine one of the most influential Young Turk newspapers in Bulgaria, which was the mouthpiece of the reform movement at the time, the Balkan daily published between 1906 and 1910 in Plovdiv. Balkan’s editor-in-chief was Edhem Ruhi, who was among the most distinguished leaders of the Young Turk organization’s activist wing. Born in Istanbul, Edhem Ruhi joined the ranks of the opposition movement in the 1890s while a student in the Imperial Medical Academy. In 1898 he was arrested along with other members of the organization and sent to prison and exile in Tripoli.53 After spending two years there, he managed to escape to Geneva, where he joined the Young Turk émigré circle and became involved in the publication of the organization’s central organ Osmanlı. Soon Edhem Ruhi was appointed director of the branch, partly in recognition of his wide popularity and charismatic character.54 He moved along with the newspaper to London and then, following the 1902 Congress, to Cairo.55 Edhem Ruhi sided with the organization’s activist wing and gradually developed a more explicit Turkist discourse and a more radical line. According to his autobiography, while in Egypt he became tired of writing and wanted to be involved in more extreme but effective actions, “to do terror.” “The only successful way to overthrow the dictatorial regime (of Abdülhamid II) was through terror” he stated in his memoirs. To carry out his plans in 1904 he traveled to Bulgaria, where he visited the reliable branches of Russe, Vidin and Varna and, among others, met with Sebat’s former editor İskender Bey.56 His plan to assassinate the Sultan, however, came to naught as the dynamite smuggled from Bulgaria via the 52 On the history and ideology of the Young Turks see Hanioğlu, Opposition, passim; and idem. Preparation for a Revolution: the Young Turks, 1902-1908, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) (henceforth Revolution); on Young Turk views of the parliament and constitutionalism, see Opposition, 28-32. 53 Edhem Ruhi, 6-13; Hanioğlu, Opposition, 121. 54 Edhem Ruhi, 24-25; Hanioğlu, Opposition, 142-146. 55 Edhem Ruhi, 24-30; Hanioğlu, Revolution, 53-59. 56 Edhem Ruhi, 29. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 125 mountainous border was captured along with the direct perpetrator.57 In the face of such fiascos, Edhem Ruhi decided to give up his political activity and make peace with the Istanbul regime. He was given the position of secretary at the Ottoman Commissioner’s office in Sofia, where he remained for a few months in 1905.58 However, another unsuccessful attempt on Abdülhamid’s life threw him back into the opposition camp. Although Edhem Ruhi had no connection with the plot, suspicion fell on him and he was sentenced to death in absentia. To avoid further Ottoman persecution he married into a prominent Muslim family from Plovdiv and apparently changed his citizenship.59 Soon afterwards he started publishing in Plovdiv the weekly Rumeli and from 1906 onwards the popular daily Balkan. With his straightforward ideas and at times populist rhetoric, he appealed to the growing group of disgruntled members of the organization, mostly from the ranks of the military, who advocated urgent revolutionary actions.60 A series of editorials Edhem Ruhi wrote for Balkan in 1907 entitled “Either a constitution or our annihilation is certain!” was an example of how he and many Young Turks viewed the parliament. Similar to the contributors to Sebat, Edhem Ruhi presented the parliament and the constitution as an instrument to prevent foreign intervention and a symbol of modernity. Their absence was seen as the inherent reason for the misfortunes and territorial losses the Empire had suffered in the recent decades. There is no one who doesn’t know the nature of the various calamities that have affected the imperial government over the past thirty years. Isn’t counting the territories that have detached from Ottoman rule during the last thirty years mind-boggling? I don’t know whether the Ottoman nation could easily forget the pain caused by the loss of the huge island of Crete given to the Greeks as a present on top of their defeat by the lion-like Ottoman soldiers who roared at Domokos, Yenişehir and Velestin. And those before Crete? Those huge territories, didn’t they go for nothing? […] There is uprising and restlessness not only in Turkey, there is bloodshed also in Russia and Romania. But they are different. No one can say anything to them, no one can pen a word on their domestic affairs. What is the reason for that? Why doesn’t Europe see the wood in its eyes, why should it always see the splinter in the eyes of the Turks? This reason is very simple. It is not because we are Muslims; it is because we have not opened our eyes earlier and did not become a member of the European balance of power and civilization through organizing and reforming our administration. To meet this necessity we had a constitution and a parliament but they were abolished thirty years ago and because of that we cannot stand up to the Europeans.61 57 Edhem Ruhi, 30; Hanioğlu, Revolution, 57. 58 BOA, A.MTZ.(04), İrade, June 14, 1905; Edhem Ruhi, 31. 59 In spite of that the Bulgarian authorities still made an attempt to extradite him, see Edhem Ruhi, “Açık Bir Mektup,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 111, Dec. 15, 1906, 1; Edhem Ruhi, “Tebşir ve Teşekkür,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 112, Dec. 25, 1906, 1; Edhem Ruhi, “Hakikat-ı Hal,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 118, January 16, 1907, 1; Edhem Ruhi, 33; 36. 60 Hanioğlu, Opposition, 146. 61 Edhem Ruhi, “Ya Kanun-i Esasi Ya Mahvımız Mutlak! – 1” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 173, April 4, 1907, 1. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 126 These lines undoubtedly touched a chord among the Muslims of Bulgaria since the events they described reminded them of their own fate. Three decades earlier Bulgaria had become one of the irretrievably lost pieces of the Ottoman realm, and the Muslims who stayed in its confines felt most immediately the consequences of this transition. This was a sentiment on which Edhem Ruhi could rely to gain support for his arguments and newspaper. The parliament and the constitution were further seen as the guarantee for justice and law. Spying and reporting on people’s actions, two practices widely spread at the time of the Hamidian regime and which were condemned by the author, would cease. “If there is a parliament and a constitution in our country those injustices will not be committed. The rule of justice will settle more or less.”62 Edhem Ruhi acknowledged the objections of those skeptics who believed that justice was bought with money rather than achieved by law, but argued that it was in the power of the people to bring the rule of law or neglect it. To demonstrate the benefits of constitutional government, he embarked upon a contrast between the absolutist government in Istanbul and the constitutional regime in Bulgaria, presenting the latter in an idealized light and painting a dark picture of the former. In Bulgaria, a Bulgarian cannot even be taken out of his house without being questioned or without a ruling of the court because the constitution does not permit it. But is it like that with us? Today more than hundreds even thousands of people are separated from their homes, children and family in a beastly way and are being thrown into the deserts of Fezzan because of a simple spy report or the will of someone in the palace. Why is that? Because we do not have a constitution and a parliament. In a country that has a parliament injustice is unacceptable and cannot reach such levels.63 On various other occasions Edhem Ruhi expressed his fascination with the parliamentary system in Bulgaria calling the local parliament a “temple of freedom,” “foundation of law and justice,” “a sacred building, home to a young state and nation of thirty years.” The Bulgarians, Balkan’s editor asserted, had lived together with the Ottomans for 600 years, but they were at a more advanced political and social level because they had a parliament. He also pointed out how Bulgarian Prince Ferdinand evoked his subjects’ love and admiration as he appeared in person to open the session of the newly elected national assembly.64 Furthermore, Balkan saw the lack of a constitution and parliament as the inherent reason for the hostility and conflict among the various nationalities in the Empire,65 a view that echoed the letter of the Varna Muslim to Sebat from over a decade earlier. In this spirit Balkan published an appeal entitled “Brotherhood in the Ottoman Empire” from “a patriotic Ottoman Muslim” who remained anony- 62 “Ya Kanun-i Esasi Ya Mahvımız Mutlak! – 4,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 180, April 12, 1907, 1. 63 “Ya Kanun-i Esasi Ya Mahvımız Mutlak! – 5,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 181, April 13, 1907, 1-2. 64 Edhem Ruhi, “Sobranya’da Ne Gördüm,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 485, July 3, 1908, 1. 65 “Ya Kanun-i Esasi Ya Mahvımız Mutlak! – 6,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 209, July 5, 1907, 1-2. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE DEBATE ON PARLIAMENTARISM IN THE MUSLIM PRESS OF BULGARIA 127 mous to the readers but was probably another Young Turk political émigré. Using Ottomanism as a banner to rally the various religious groups in the Empire, the appeal compared the Ottoman state to a big family and its population to family members. “Oh, Muslim, Christian and Jewish Ottomans! Our country, our beloved mother is groaning under oppression. She is stretching her hands powerlessly under the severity of despotism asking us for help, crying such words: ‘Oh, my dear children! Don’t separate from each other, don’t abandon each other, don’t plunge into discord, unite yourselves!’” The article criticized the current Ottoman regime as oppressive and dictatorial – a few greedy people were in charge of government affairs but they worked only for their personal benefit and robbed all the rest regardless of their religion. The only way out of this situation, the author argued, was to reconvene the parliament. It would bring about justice, freedom equality and rights, and in such a way the Empire would reach the level of the civilized foreign countries. He further called on everyone to overcome their religious differences in a spirit of secular Ottoman patriotism. “Every individual is responsible for his religion only to God, but all of us are collectively responsible to the homeland” the author asserted authoritatively and concluded: “The happiness and peace of our country and homeland are dependent upon gaining freedom and constitution. Shout until you are out of voice ‘we want freedom, we want justice, we want parliament!’ making yourselves heard all around.”66 Conclusion As seen from the examples discussed, the Muslims in the Empire and the Bulgarian Principality were divided as to whether the parliamentary system was the most appropriate form of government for the Ottoman state. Among the letters and articles of those who supported the re-opening of the parliament one can identify two main themes. First, the parliament was perceived as a major instrument for warding off European pressure from the Ottoman Empire and an institution that would be in the interest of the Muslims. Instead of implementing reforms favoring a specific group, the introduction of parliamentary government promised to bring equal treatment and representation of all ethnic and religious communities in the Empire. In fact, it would be to the advantage of the Muslims and would quell growing discontent over the granting of privileges to the Christians at the expense of the Muslims, an attitude that was demonstrated particularly by the examples in Sebat. This concern was also one of the reasons that turned Midhat Pasha, the major proponent of the constitution in 1876, to favor the idea of convening a parliament, although initially he had spurned it as harmful to a multi-national Empire.67 Second, the parliament was seen as being an inviolable guarantee of justice, the 66 “Memalik-i Osmaniye’de Kardeşlik,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 226, July 30, 1907, 1-2. 67 Hanioğlu, Opposition, 30. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MILENA B. METHODIEVA 128 common good and the proper functioning of state affairs. Thus, it was often idealized and presented as the universal remedy for all the problems the Empire experienced and the solution to the various Muslim grievances – the alleged injustice, loss of territory, Christian demands for concessions, Great Power pressure for reforms or more practical matters such as the poor provisioning of the army. But when it came to the situation in Bulgaria, the two sides shared remarkably similar views. Those who objected to re-opening the parliament in the Ottoman Empire, believed that in Bulgaria the parliamentary institution served the interests of the local Muslim community. Gayret, for example, faithfully advocated Abdülhamid II’s autocratic regime in the Empire, yet its owner Rıza Pasha ran in elections and made it into the Bulgarian parliament. The Ottoman representatives in the Principality also followed vigilantly the number and actions of the Muslim members of parliament,68 and even the Sultan himself showed personal interest in this matter.69 On the other side of the debate, Sebat’s owner and editor İskender Mahmudov was a member of parliament, and Edhem Ruhi agitated the Muslims from the pages of Balkan to take part in the Bulgarian elections and vote for representatives capable of defending their rights.70 For the local Muslim community the parliament was more than an abstract and idealized notion – it was a way through which the Muslims could safeguard their interests. 68 On the insistence of the Ottoman Commissioner to have more Muslim representatives in the Bulgarian parliament see BOA, A.MTZ.04 74/22 OC Ali Ferruh to Sadaret, Feb. 23, 1902, 2; and his boastful report that the Muslim MPs finally united under his guidance, A.MTZ.04 69/62 OC Ali Ferruh to Sadaret, March 21, 1901. 69 TsDA, f. 321k, op. 1, a. e. 1050 Agent Dimitrov to MFRA Nachovich, Oct. 27, 1894, 27-29. 70 “Bulgaristan İntihabçılarına,” Balkan (Plovdiv) no. 455, May 29, 1908, 3-4; see also the praises for the activity of certain Muslim members of parliament and how they served the interests of the community, “Ağızımızı Değil Gözümüzü Açalım,” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 388, March 12, 1908, 3; “Gözümüzü Açalım Ama Neye?” Balkan (Plovdiv), no. 428, April 28, 1908, 1. After 1908 he himself would be elected to the Bulgarian parliament. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Mustafa Bey of Radoviş (1843-1893): Bureaucrat, Journalist and Deputy of Salonica to the First Ottoman Parliament1 Selçuk Akşin Somel Mustafa Bey, or “Mustafa bin Mollazâde Hüsrev Radovişî,” as his official seal reads, is not a well-known personality in present-day Ottoman historiography.2 However he used to be quite well known in Salonica in the 1870s and 1880s. He was the publisher of the weekly newspaper Rumeli and, then, Zamân. These papers were rather independent publications, relatively critical of the Ottoman administration between 1873 and 1876 and becoming, to a certain extent, a voice of independent Muslim opinion in this major provincial port city. While serving as deputy to the first Ottoman parliament, Mustafa Bey emerged as an outspoken critic of government encroachments on constitutional rights and was forcibly deported to Salonica following the closure of parliament. During the autocracy of Abdülhamid II, Mustafa Bey became a member of the educational bureaucracy and functioned as the Director of Education in the provinces of Salonica and the Archipelago. Before his death in Istanbul, he was the head of the Department of Secondary Schools at the Ministry of Public Education. Mustafa Bey is an ancestor of the well-known Turkish journalist and author Şevket Rado. Early Life Our knowledge about the life of Mustafa Bey of Radoviş is limited to three sources, namely the Registers of Services of Government Employees (Sicill-i Ahvâl), located at the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archives, the Sicill-i Osmânî, the 1 I would like to thank the staff of the Atatürk Kütüphanesi in Istanbul for providing me with the digital copies of the available Rumeli and Zamân collections. My thanks also go to the ISAM and Süleymaniye libraries for allowing me to use their rich book collections. I am also grateful to the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi for giving me access to the Sicill-i Ahvâl registers. 2 I discussed Mustafa Bey of Radoviş on three occasions, mainly as the provincial director of education who sent detailed reports concerning the educational situation in the rural areas of Salonica. See Akşin Somel, Das Grundschulwesen in den Provinzen des Osmanischen Reiches während der Herrschaftsperiode Abdülhamids II (1876-1908) (Egelsbach; Frankfurt; St.Peter Port: Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 1995), 136; idem, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1908: Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline (Leiden; Boston; Köln: E.J.Brill, 2001), 169-172; idem, “Maarif Müdürü Radovişli Mustafa Bey’in Raporları ve Müslim ve Gayrimüslim Eğitimi: II.Abdülhamid Devri Selânik Taşrasında Maarif Meselesi (1885-1886),” Tarih ve Toplum. Yeni Yaklaşımlar 2 (2005), 113-147. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 130 Ottoman biographies compiled by Mehmed Süreyya, and the salnâmes, i.e. official yearbooks.3 These sources inform us that Mustafa Bey was born in Radovište, present-day Macedonia, in 1259/1843 to Radovişli Hüsrev Bey. His father was a local financial official, responsible for the collection of the tithes (kaza âşâr memuriyeti). The Sicill-i Ahvâl reports that Mustafa continued his education at the local Seha Ali Efendi Medresesi, the only madrasa of Radovište.4 He studied Islamic sciences until the level of Monla Câmi’s el-Kâfiye, a well-known treatise on Arabic grammar for students with an intermediate-level of Arabic proficiency.5 It appears that he left madrasa education and became a clerk at local courts. Between 1278/1862 and 1286/1869 Mustafa acted as a secretary (kitâbet) at the courts of local kaza- and sancak-centers such as Štib (İştip), Shkodër (İşkodra) and finally Skopje (Üsküp).6 Having a madrasa-background, we may assume that it was only natural for Mustafa to work at Islamic kadı-courts. Mustafa Bey as a Civil Servant in Salonica, the Archipelago and Istanbul This more or less Islamic career seems to have changed around 1287/1870, when Mustafa moved to Salonica and entered government civil service.7 He first acted as a document drafter (müsevvid) at the Secretary of the Government of Salonica (Selânik Mektubî-i Vilâyet Kalemi), but apparently Mustafa was able to prove himself, and within two years he rose to the position of chief clerk (mümeyyiz) at the same office (1872).8 In addition to being a chief clerk, we see Mustafa Bey from 1873 onwards as a member of the “Provincial Educational Commission” (Vilâyet Maârif Komisyonu), a service which lasted at least until 1875.9 This membership of a provincial educational council might have been Mustafa Bey’s first encounter with educational issues, with which he would later become closely involved. He seems to have continued his position of chief clerk at the Government of Salo- 3 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi [BOA] Sicill-i Ahval Defteri I/I, Sıra No.60760, p.54; Mehmed Süreyya: Sicill-i Osmanî, 6 vols. Ed.by Nuri Akbayar (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yay- ınları, 1996), 4:1145; official yearbooks of the state (Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye) as well as official yearbooks of the province of Salonica (Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâmesi). 4 Somel, Maarif Müdürü, 116; Ş.Sâmî, “Râdovîşte,” in idem, Kamûs al-Âlâm. Vol. III (Istanbul: Mihran Matbaası, 1308), 2240. 5 Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 116; Hulusi Kılıç, “El-Kâfiye,” in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1988ff) [henceforth TDVİA] (2001), 24:153-154; Cevat İzgi: Osmanlı Medreselerinde İlim. 2 vols. (Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 1997), 70-71. 6 Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 116. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 See Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâmesi 1291. Def’a 4 (Selânik: Vilâyet Matbaası, 1291), 36; Salnâme-i Selânik. Sene 1293. Def’a 6 (Selânik: Vilâyet Matbaası, 1293), 33. About provincial educational councils, see Somel, Modernization, 92-105. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 131 nica when Sultan Abdülaziz (r. 1861-1876) was deposed and the pro-Young Ottoman Prince Murad acceded the throne (May 31, 1876).10 In February 1877 Mustafa Bey was promoted to the Second Grade Class Two (rütbe-i sâniye sınıf-i sâlis) of the Ottoman bureaucratic rank order.11 When Grand Vizier Midhat Pasha proceeded with the opening of the First Ottoman Parliament, Mustafa Bey became one of the eleven Salonican deputies to the parliament.12 However, Mustafa rejected his election (February 1877).13 Although there is no source explaining this rejection, we know for certain that Mustafa Bey was a sympathizer of the Young Ottomans (see below), and possibly also of Midhat Pasha. The sudden dismissal of Midhat Pasha from the grand vezirate and his banishment to Italy might have created a major shock to his sympathizers such as Mustafa Bey. The subsequent opening of parliament may have appeared to be mere window-dressing, with no real political significance. If this conjecture is correct, it could explain why Mustafa Bey rejected his election to parliament. However, when new elections were made for the second parliamentary period and Mustafa Bey was elected for a second time, he accepted his nomination and joined the parliament.14 As we will see below in more detail, Mustafa Bey became one of the main voices of parliamentary opposition. When parliament was closed down on February 13, 1878, Mustafa Bey and a few other well-known oppositional figures were forcibly sent back to their home provinces. We learn from the Sicill-i Ahvâl report that following his return to Salonica, Mustafa Bey began to act first as the Director of the Archive of the Government of Salonica (vilâyet evrâk müdürlüğü), and shortly afterward to resume his former position of chief clerk (mümeyyiz) of the the same office. The Sicill-i Ahvâl report ends in 1295/1879, observing that there had been no complaints about Mustafa Bey and that he was never taken into custody. In addition, the governor of Salonica, the future grand vizier Halil Rıfat Pasha, praised him as a capable official.15 The continuation of Mustafa Bey’s official story can be traced from the limited information provided by the Sicill-i Osmanî, official yearbooks and the three re- 10 Selânik 1291, 36; Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâmesi 1292. Def’a 5 (Selânik: Vilâyet Matbaası, 1292), 34; Selânik 1293, 34. 11 Zamân, no. 189 (21 Muharrem 1294/February 5, 1877); Selânik Vilâyeti Salnâme[ si] Sene 1294. Def’a 7 (Selânik: Vilâyet Matbaası, 1294), 34. 12 For the number of deputies representing Salonica, see Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), 264. 13 Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 116; Zamân, no. 192 (12 Safer 1294/February 26, 1877). Also see Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 267 no. 46. 14 Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 116; Zamân, no. 226 (21 Şevval 1294/October 29, 1877) and no. 227 (28 Şevval 1294/November 5, 1877); Salnâme [-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye]. Sene 1295. Def’a 33 (n.d), 103. 15 Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 116. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 132 ports he submitted to the Ministry of Public Education.16 Despite the positive opinion conveyed by the above-mentioned Sicill-i Ahvâl report, it is very probable that the regime of Abdülhamid II distrusted him due to the role he played in parliament. Looking at the state official yearbooks, it is conspicuous that his name is never mentioned in connection with any government office in Salonica between 1881 and 1884.17 It seems that Mustafa Bey remained unemployed for at least three years. After 1884, however, he reappears on the official scene as the director of education of the province of Salonica.18 He kept this position for no more than one year, as we observe him then transferred to the province of the Archipelago, again in the position of director of education of.19 This transfer from a major port city such as Salonica to the peripheral town of Chios appears to be a sort of banishment. Mustafa Bey acted as director of education in this province between 1885 and June 1888.20 During his time in Chios, Mustafa Bey sent a series of detailed reports to the Ministry of Public Education in Istanbul in which he described the educational situation in the province of Salonica, outlined his activities and deeds to promote instruction among the local Muslim population, and warned about the “dangerous” political influences of foreign educational institutions as well as native non-Muslim schools among the non-Muslim Ottoman subjects.21 It is striking that these reports mostly dealt with the educational conditions in Salonica, whereas their author resided in Chios and did not discuss the region of his assignment. It might be that by sending these reports Mustafa Bey was trying to draw the attention of the ministry to the situation in Salonica, and at the same time to ensure his return from Chios to Salonica as director of education. He apparently was rather unhappy to remain in the region; we learn from Namık Kemal, the well-known Young Ottoman administrator (mutasarrıf) of the sub-province (sancak) of Chios, that Mustafa Bey was promoted, probably around 16 For a detailed discussion of Mustafa Bey’s educational reports, see Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Maarif Müdürü.” 17 Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Otuzyedinci def’a ([Istanbul]: Mahmûd Bey Matbaası, 1299); 1300 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Osmâniyye. Otuzsekizinci sene (Konstantiniyye: Matbaa-i Ebüzziya, 1299); 1301 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Otuzdokuzuncu def’a ([Istanbul]: Matbaa-i Osmâniyye, 1301); 1302 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkıncı def’a ([Istanbul: Matbaa-i Osmaniyye, 1302]). 18 1303 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkbirinci def’a (Dersaâdet: Mahmûd Bey Matbaası, 1303), 426. 19 1304 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkikinci def’a ([Istanbul]: Mahmûd Bey Matbaası, 1304), 402. 20 1305 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırküçüncü def’a (Dersaâdet: Mahmûd Bey Matbaası, 1305), 310; 1306 Sene-i Hicriyesine Mahsûs Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye (n.d.), 618; Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 138; Fevziye Abdullah Tansel (ed.), Nâmık Kemâl’in Husûsî Mektupları IV. VII.-VIII. Rodos ve Sakız Mektupları (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1986), 560-561. 21 For the details of these reports, see Somel, “Maarif Müdürü,” 118-131. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 133 June 1888, to the office of the Chief Secretary (mektûbcu) of the Archipelago province, but was still unhappy and applied for the same position in İzmir.22 Finally, in 1889, Mustafa Bey was able to leave Chios; the Ministry of Public Education transferred him from Chios directly to the ministerial bureaucracy in Istanbul. It is noticeable that his new position within the ministry was a rather modest one; Mustafa Bey became Chief Secretary (başkâtib) of the Administration of Primary Schools (Mekâtib-i İbtidâiyye İdâresi).23 He remained in this position for around two years. During this period Mustafa Bey apparently found the favour of the Hamidian regime; on June 6, 1890/ 17 Shawwal 1307 he was decorated with the Osmânî-medal, third rank.24 It is possible that he was protected by Münif Pasha, at that time Minister of Public Education.25 When a new department was founded in 1891 within the ministry, i.e. the Administration of Secondary Schools (Mekâtib-i İ’dâdîye İdâresi), Mustafa Bey became its director.26 These promotions and the increasing responsibilities within the Ministry of Education are indicative of Mustafa Bey’s rising star as a bureaucrat, and in fact of his coming to terms with the autocratic regime of Abdülhamid II. However, he died on 15 Zilkade 1310/May 31, 1893, around the age of fifty.27 The Journalist Mustafa Bey The bureaucratic story of Mustafa Bey shows us a rather colourless clerk who first worked at the Islamic courts of minor provincial towns in the province of Salonica, then shifted to the civil service at the provincial capital, and finally lived the last years of his life as a medium- to high-level functionary at the Ministry of Education in Istanbul. However, only the fact that he was elected twice to the Ottoman parliament reveals that he was a notable public figure in the province of Salonica. Indeed, Mustafa Bey was the founder of the weekly newspaper Rumeli. He remained its publisher from of its first publication on February 24, 1873 until June 27, 1876. Meanwhile Rumeli was renamed Zamân in September 1874. Following Mustafa Bey’s resignation from the editorship, Zamân continued to appear 22 Letter of Namık Kemal to Menemenli Rifʿat Bey, dated July 12, 1888, in Tansel, Nâmık Kemâl, 560-561. 23 1307 Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkbeşinci def’a (Dersaâdet: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1307), 348; Sicill-i Osmânî, 4:1145. 24 1308 Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkaltıncı sene (Dersaâdet: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1308), 350. 25 About the life and deeds of Münif Pasha (1830?-1910), one of the enlightened bureaucrats of the late Tanzimat and early Hamidian periods, see Ali Budak, Batılılaşma Sürecinde Çok Yönlü Bir Osmanlı Aydını: Münif Paşa (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004). 26 1310 Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırksekizinci sene (Dersaâdet: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1310), 384; Sicill-i Osmânî 4:1145. 27 Sicill-i Osmânî, 4:1145. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 134 until 1880. It appears that during his editorship, a major part of the newspaper articles were authored by Mustafa Bey himself.28 Rumeli and then Zamân have still not received the scholarly attention they actually deserve.29 They are either regarded wrongly as a local official newspaper,30 or described as a paper where small bits of encyclopedic knowledge about everything are represented together with occasional letters from readers.31 In fact, Rumeli is among the earliest private Ottoman-Turkish language newspapers which appeared outside Istanbul and within the Ottoman borders in the strict sense.32 Despite the fact that the weekly paper was printed at the printing house of the provincial administration (Selânik vilâyeti matbaası), Mustafa Bey insisted on the independent character of his newspaper. In the very first issue of Rumeli he underlines the importance of the journalistic profession.33 In the article titled “Talk About Blessing” (Tahdîs-i Nimet) it is stressed that journalism promotes “the light of education,”34 while “in civilized countries exchange of ideas is realized through newspapers.”35 At this point Mustafa Bey refers to the prominent Young Ottoman author Namık Kemal’s statement that “the flash of truth emanates from the clash of ideas.”36 According to the editor, the clash of ideas is realized through the newspapers. The article then underlines the necessity for the newspapers to be financially independent, unlike others which are subsidized by the state. If certain obstacles could be overcome, the number of independent newspapers certainly would increase within the Ottoman Empire.37 By pointing to other independent provincial newspapers such as the Bosnian Gülşen-i Sarây and the Smyrniote Devir, 28 Ibid. According to the Eski Harfli Türçe Süreli Yayınlar Toplu Kataloğu (Ankara: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı Milli Kütüphane Başkanlığı Yayınları, 1987), 304, Rumeli kept its name until issue no. 77. From no. 78 onwards the name of this newspaper was changed to Zamân. 29 In Turkey the collections of Rumeli and Zamân are located at Atatürk Kütüphanesi and Hakkı Tarık Us Kütüphanesi in Istanbul and at the National Library in Ankara. However, none of these collections is complete. 30 Hıfzı Topuz, relying on Orhan Koloğlu’s Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Basın (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınevi, 1994), states that Rumeli appeared in Bitola (Manastır), which is obviously a mistake. See Hıfzı Topuz: II.Mahmut’tan Holdinglere Türk Basın Tarihi. Second Edition (Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 2003), 33-34. 31 Meropi Anastassiadou: Salonique, 1830-1912. Une ville ottomane à l’âge des Réformes (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill), 37. 32 The earliest private Ottoman-Turkish provincial newspaper appears to have been the Gül- şen-i Saray, published by Mehmed Şakir in Sarajevo (1286/1870). This was followed by the Devir (İzmir), published by Mehmed Sâlim and Yanko Resmî. The first issue appeared on 3 Receb 1289/September 6, 1872. Another private Ottoman-Turkish newspaper, İzmir, appeared from 1877 onwards. See Eski Harfli Türkçe Süreli Yayınlar Toplu Kataloğu, 53,82,129. 33 “Gazetecilik bir büyük vazîfe oldığı.” Rumeli, no. 1 (26 Zilhicce 1289/February 24, 1873), 1. 34 “Gazete envâr-ı maârifin nâşiri[dir].” Ibid. 35 “Düvel-i mütemeddinede gazetelerle müdâvele-i efkâr olunur.” Ibid. 36 “Asrımızın edîb-i meşhûrı Kemâl Bey’in dediği gibi ‘bârika-i hakîkat müsâdeme-i efkârdan çıkar’.” Ibid. 37 “Bazı esbâb-ı mânia bertaraf edilmiş olsa daha nice gazetelerin çıkacağı şübhesizdir.” Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 135 Mustafa Bey indicates that there had been a growing interest among people in the provinces to read private newspapers – a development which, according to Mustafa Bey, was not valid for official newspapers.38 Mustafa Bey seems to have seen Rumeli as a kind of bulletin aimed at creating a patriotic consciousness about issues related to Salonica as well as the empire as a whole.39 The editorial text mostly consists of topics such as economy and trade, of the need for educational investment, ethics, military service, law and justice, provincial administration, municipality, etc. As stated above, Mustafa Bey strongly emphasized the necessity for newspapers to be independent from state authority or official financial support. At this point it is legitimate to ask how Mustafa Bey could manage to found Rumeli/ Zamân and succeed in sustaining its publication for years. Though the newspaper was printed at the provincial administration’s printing house, this favourable condition itself certainly would not have made it financially feasible for Mustafa Bey to issue Rumeli/ Zamân on his own. In other words, it is clear that there must have been stable financial backing for Mustafa Bey’s newspaper venture. An indirect clue for the existence of such a backing might also be sensed in Mustafa Bey’s self-confident manner and language when, by implication, he attributes Rumeli/ Zamân the function of being a patriotic voice of the Salonican civil population. This was an attitude that a non-governmental publisher would not have so easily dared to express without feeling confident of the powerful support of a certain segment of the local population. There is no document or direct evidence available that would inform us about the nature of this probable support which Mustafa Bey apparently enjoyed during the publication of Rumeli/ Zamân. However, it is possible to make an assumption based on some traces of information. For example, we are informed that Mustafa Bey, while being in the office of the director of education of the province Salonica, was extremely helpful in the process of founding the Muslim private school Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi (“School for the Enlightenment of Children”) in 1885. The founders of the school were Mustafa Tevfik Bey, a local civil servant, and his brothers. The involvement of our Mustafa Bey in the establishment of this school included providing free timber for the construction of the school building as well as donating 200 gold mecidiyes for other construction expenses, all of this support provided from the funds of the educational administration of Salonica province. During the construction of Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi, Mustafa Bey was also a member 38 Ibid. 39 This aim is clearly expressed in a reply to a reader’s letter in Rumeli no. 4 (18 Muharrem 1290/March 18, 1873), 2, where Mustafa Bey states that “the service our paper will offer consists of awakening the patriots and arousing and encouraging public-spirited people [for patriotic action] through warning them (gazetemizin edeceği hidmet ehl-i vatanı îkaz ve erbâb-ı hamiyyet ve himmeti tahrîk ve teşvîk yolunda ihtârdan ibâretdir). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 136 of the school board.40 It is important to note that Feyz-i Sıbyân Mektebi was set up by members of the Karakaş-sect, part of the Cryptojewish Dönme (“Convert”) community of Salonica.41 In addition, it has also been claimed that Mustafa Bey supported Şemsi Efendi, member of the Kapancı-group within the Dönme community, at the founding of the Mekteb-i Sıbyâniye-i Osmâniye (“Ottoman Primary School”) in 1872, when Mustafa Bey supposedly held the office of director of education of Salonica province.42 However, this piece of information appears to be unreliable since Mustafa Bey did not act as director of education in the 1870s and also because at that time Mustafa Bey would not have had the power and/or the resources to support the foundation of a private school. Notwithstanding the degree of reliability of these bits of information, one does have an overall impression that Mustafa Bey maintained a close relationship with the Dönme community of Salonica. The Dönmes were converts from the Jewish Sabbatean movement to Islam after 1666, and despite being nominally Muslims, they retained their communal identity until the early twentieth century. In the course of the Tanzimat-modernization the Dönme community of Salonica emerged as a wealthy Muslim merchant social stratum that had close commercial ties with Europe and pursued a cosmopolitan way of life.43 In the second half of the nineteenth century, Salonican Dönmes became famous for founding modern private Muslim schools both in Salonica and in Istanbul. In these schools a combination of Islamic education, modern instruction and professional training were offered.44 As will be seen in the following passages discussing Rumeli/ Zamân we encounter a similar combination emphasizing Islamic values together with a discourse of modernization and frequent calls for the development of private commercial initiatives to compete with 40 Mert Sandalcı, Feyz-i Sıbyân’dan Işık’a. Feyziye Mektepleri Tarihi (Istanbul: Feyziye Mektepleri Vakfı, 2005), 40, 41. 41 Özcan Mert, “Atatürk’ün İlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi (1852-1917),” Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi 7.20 (1991), 337. 42 İsmail Eren, “Atatürk’ün İlk Hocası Şemsi Efendi” in Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, 5.26 (1969), 5-7; Faik Reşit Unat, “Atatürk’ün İlk Öğretmeni Şemsi Efendi ve Okulu,” in Eğitim I-36 (1963), 40; Mert, 337. All these authors base their information on Osman Şevki, Yeni Usûl Talim-i Kıraat. Kemâlât-ı Milliye. VI.Kısım (Selanik, 1330), 209-217, where a detailed biography of Şemsi Efendi was published. 43 Marc Baer, “Globalization, Cosmopolitanism, and the Dönme in Ottoman Salonica and Turkish Istanbul,” in Journal of World History 18.2 (2007), 5-6. 44 See Osman Ergin, İstanbul Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve San’at Müesseseleri Dolayısiyle Türkiye Maarif Tarihi. Second edition. 2 vols. (Istanbul: Eser Kültür, 1977), 470-472; Mehmet Ö.Alkan, İmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e Selânik’ten İstanbul’a Terakki Vakfı ve Terakki Okulları (Istanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu, 2003), 59-79; Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Autonomous Dynamics of Cultural Modernization at the Provincial Level: Muslim Private Educational Initiatives in the Ottoman Provinces (1856-1908)” (unpublished paper presented at the conference The Ottoman Empire in the 19th Century: Aspects of Reform and Change, University of Haifa, June 11-13, 2007), 11-16. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 137 the foreign economic presence. In a sense, Rumeli/ Zamân could be considered to be a newspaper representing the interests of the Muslim middle class of Salonica. On the basis of these arguments, one may assume that Mustafa Bey was supported by at least a segment of the Dönme community in Salonica to publish a newspaper which would reflect the modernist and commercial outlook of the Muslim Dönme middle class of this port city. The first issue of Rumeli includes an article about the province of Salonica, its geography and natural as well as human resources The main idea is that Salonica has major economic potential thanks to its harbor as well as the railway line to Skopje, which was still under construction and in the near future would provide immense commercial wealth to the local inhabitants. Here, Mustafa Bey warns the readership of the danger of the domination of foreign capital in Salonica at the expense of the local population and urges Salonicans to be more active in the economic life of the town.45 The subject of the editorial text in the following issue of Rumeli is the importance of education. In the introductory section, the author states the necessity of education both in terms of material progress and preservation of the fatherland46 and also as a means of religious fulfillment. Then Mustafa Bey discusses Ottoman history, claiming that the early Ottoman expansion and military successes were made possible by high moral qualities as well as education.47 Similarly, the empire’s decline is attributed to the abandonment of the path of progress, which resulted in negligence and decadence,48 while the neighboring nations invested in education, sciences and industry. Here, the author appears to be optimistic, stating that if the Ottomans worked hard for education and the sciences they would be able to surpass within fifty years the European achievements of the last one hundred years. At this point Mustafa Bey turns to the issue of Ottoman Christian citizens, showing them as an example of hard work, who without government support were able to establish schools.49 The Muslims, however, despite the encouragements of their religion, do not strive enough for education, according to the author.50 Finally Mustafa Bey strongly recommends his Muslim fellow citi- 45 “Bizim içün birinci derecede nazar-ı dikkate alınması elzem olan şey memleketimizin mevkien hâiz olub karîben göstereceği ticâret ve serveti yalnız ecânib ellerinde görmemek ve kendi elimize almak üzere mevkufün aleyhi bulunan esbâb ü vesâile şimdiden mürâcaat ve istihsâline itinâ ve dikkat idüği rehîn-i rütbe-i bedâhetdir.” Ibid. 46 “Vatanlarının servet ü mamûriyet ve selâmetini maârifle istihsâl.” See Rumeli, no. 2 (4 Muharrem 1290/March 4, 1873), 1. 47 “Bu muvaffakıyet adedlerinde kesret değil belki maârifleriyle mekârim-i ahlâklarının netâyic-i memdûhasıdır.” Ibid. 48 “Tavr-ı terakkîden yüz çevirdiğimiz vakitleri elbette devr-i ihmâl ve sefâhat görmek tabî’idir.” Ibid. 49 “Bakınız Hıristiyân vatandâşlarımız sa’y ü himmetleri semeresiyle bize müsâbakat etdiler. Devlete bâr olmaksızın kendüliklerinden mektebler yapdılar.” Ibid. 50 “Biz ki İslâmız maârifle terakkiyi maârifi sa’yle tahsîli bize Şeriat-ı Mutahhara emr eder. Ulüvv-i himmet en ziyâde bize yakışur iken hakkıyle çalışmıyoruz.” Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 138 zens to invest in education, since “only through education will we be able to learn how to exploit the natural resources of our fatherland.”51 The next issue of Rumeli concentrates on the importance of morality (ahlâk) in society. Mustafa Bey argues that proper morality (hüsnü ahlâk) is one of the major foundations of civilized societies. Therefore, governments have always made an effort to preserve justice and proper morality.52 Since individuals with proper morality treat each other equitably, the fortunate members of such a civilized population prefer to serve the progress of society rather than their personal interests. Acting in this manner, they do not think of anything else than serving the prosperity, safety and felicity of the fatherland and society.53 The author claims that proper morality leads people to work hard, and as a consequence the most civilized and happiest societies are those where proper morality predominates. Among other qualities attributed to proper morality, Mustafa Bey cites harmony (ittifâk), unity (ittihâd), obedience (itâat), submission (inkıyâd), effort and zeal (sa’y ü gayret) and endeavor (ictihâd). The successes of the early Islamic and later Ottoman conquests were the result of proper morality, which helped to strengthen social ties. On the other hand, the oppressive rule of those cursed tyrants such as Hulegu and Tamerlane did not last long. Their lack of morals was destructive both to their government and to their society.54 Similarly, the neglect of later Ottoman governments to promote proper morality led to the catastrophes inflicted by the Janissaries.55 At the present time, Mustafa Bey continues, the Muslims of Central Asia are losing their freedom and their rights as a consequence of Russian occupation. According to the author, ignorance and bad morals had created discord among the Asian Muslims, which weakened their ability to resist successfully.56 Mustafa Bey concludes this article by underlining that the future and stability of nations depend on proper morals, which is also true for the Ottoman Empire. According to him the 51 “Vatanımızın servet-i tabi’îyesinden istifâde esbâbını arayalım öğrenelim. Meydâna çıkaralım. Bu da maârifle olur.” Ibid. 52 “Hüsnü ahlâk cemiyet-i medeniyenin a’zam esbâbından oldığı cihetle yeyüzünde nevbet nevbet zuhûr eden hükûmetler adâletle hüsnü ahlâkın muhâfazasına itinâ eylemişlerdir .” See Rumeli, no. 3 (11 Muharrem 1290/March 11, 1873), 1. 53 “Hüznü ahlâk efrâdı yekdiğeriyle olan muâmelâtında adâletle temîn etdiğiçün cemiyet içinde yaşayan bahtiyârlar heyet-i medeniyelerinin terakkiyâtı hidmetini münferiden şahıslarına râci olan menfaate tercîh ederek vatan ve cemiyetin mamûriyet ve selâmet ve saâdetinden özge efkâra düşünmezler.” Ibid. 54 “Hülagû ve Timur gibi târîhlerde nefrîn ile yâd olunan zaleme bu âlem-i insâniyetde neler yapdılar. Ânlar bir seyl-i belâ gibi dünyâyı istilâ etmişler iken fesâd-ı ahlâkları çok sürmeyüb cemiyet ve hükûmetlerini berbâd ve perîşân etmiş.” Ibid. 55 “Ve bu Devlet-i Osmâniyede Yeniçeriler yüzünden zuhûra gelen fâcialar dahî hüsnü ahlâkın muhâfazasında vaktiyle mübâlât olunamamasından hâsıl olmuşdur .” Ibid. 56 “Elyevm vukuâtını teessüfle gazetemize yazmakda oldığımız Asya Müslümanlarını Rusya pençesine düşüren ve hukuk-i hürriyetlerini mahv ü harab eden cehâletle sû-i ahlâk değil midir. Bunlar Rusya’nın kuvvetine mukavemet edebilecek kudret-i sahîheye mâlik iken aralarında olan ittifâksızlık gayretsizlik gözleri önünde firâde firâde mülk ü milletlerinin ezilüb mahv olmasını intâc ediyor.” Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 139 development of education in recent years had strengthened proper morality within the empire. However, more remained to be done. Mustafa Bey wrote similar editorials to warn society of potential dangers threatening the Ottomans and the Muslims in particular. A crucial portion of the pages of Rumeli and Zamân were devoted to events and developments taking place in Istanbul, in other Ottoman provinces and also in foreign countries. His sources for such news were newspapers from Istanbul such as İbret, Basîret, Vakit, Şems, Ruznâme, Hâdika and Phare de Bosphore. This means that these media reached Salonica within days of their publication in the capital. Since the Istanbul papers themselves were mostly dependent on British and French newspapers, it would be difficult to talk about “close currentness” of the news published in Mustafa Bey’s paper. It can be said that the news reports from Istanbul were probably the most current. These consisted mostly either of official news (public announcements from ministries or promotions) or news on developments in the press life of the capital (news on publishers such as Ahmed Midhat Efendi or Teodor Kasap Efendi). News from the provinces were about diverse topics such as an earthquake in Beirut, the foundation of new schools in İzmir, construction of the railway track between Bursa and Mudanya, etc. As for international news, it should be noted that Mustafa Bey seems to have been particularly interested in developments related to Muslims living outside the Ottoman borders. A significant portion of the issues of Rumeli/ Zamân, published under the editorship of Mustafa Bey, reported on the conditions of Muslims under non-Muslim rule. One of the countries that Rumeli/ Zamân focused on was Russia. An article titled “Asya” in the first issue of Rumeli discusses in detail Russian expansion in Central Asia, the military operations of General Kaufmann (Jenerâl Kafmân) and the Russo-British negotiations concerning Afghanistan.57 The next issue contains three separate news items about Russia. An article titled “Iran” reports that the Shah of Persia is planning to sign an alliance with Russia. However rumours have been heard that Russia aims to annex the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan. The article concludes with the recommendation that the Shah ought to read the “Testament of Tsar Peter” (Petronun vasiyeti), where the Tsar allegedly urges his successors to conquer Asia.58 Just below this article is another article titled “İngiltere,” which actually is again about Russia. The report states that Lord Chandler (Lord Çanler), as a representative (vekâlet) of the Queen, stated in the opening speech of the British parliament that the most important problem for Britain was Russian expansion in Central Asia and the Russian threat to Afghanistan.59 This text is followed by another piece, titled “Asya,” which describes how the Russians were transferring artillery weapons and additional mili- 57 “Asya,” in Rumeli, no. 1 (26 Zilhicce 1289/February 24, 1873), 3. 58 “İran,” in Rumeli, no. 2 (4 Muharrem 1290/March 4, 1873), 4. 59 “İngiltere,” Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 140 tary units from Caucasia to Central Asia. The same article also contains information about Count Shuvalov’s visit to Britain in order to discuss Russian policies in Asia with the British authorities.60 Articles of a similar vein, which included the struggle of the Muslims of Sinkiang against Chinese imperial power or the resistance of the Achenese and Javanese against Dutch colonial rule, continued in other issues of Rumeli/ Zamân.61 News concerning Muslims in Asia was nearly always based on articles published in Basîret. Basîret was an influential paper representing conservative Muslim opinion in Istanbul. In the 1870s this newspaper issued articles propagating the cause of solidarity and union among the world’s Muslims against the colonial powers, which was labeled İttihâd-ı İslâm (“Union of Islam,” after 1875 “Panislamism” in Western languages).62 Mustafa Bey published a series of articles from Basîret concerning Panislamism and also regarding the international importance of the office of caliph for the cause of union of Muslims around the world.63 While discussing Rumeli/ Zamân’s reporting of international news, the question about Mustafa Bey’s foreign language proficiency should be raised. It can be said that Mustafa Bey, in addition to Turkish, received some intermediate-level classical Arabic training and knew – perhaps – some degree of colloquial Bulgarian. But what about his proficiency in modern European languages? As stated above, one of the news sources for articles in Rumeli/ Zamân was the Phare de Bosphore, the Istanbul French-language press organ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.64 It is probable that Mustafa Bey had at least passive reading skills in French; while Mustafa Bey was deputy in the Ottoman parliament in late 1877, we encounter incidentally in the minutes of the parliamentary debates a statement of where he 60 “Asya,” Ibid. 61 In Rumeli articles on Russia can be found in no. 3 (11 Muharrem 1290/March 11, 1873); no. 7 (9 Safer 1290/April 8,1873); no. 14 (29 Rebiyülevvel 1290/May 27, 1873); no. 22 (26 Cemâziyülevvel 1290/July 22, 1873); no. 24 (10 Cemâziyülâhir 1290/August 5, 1873); no. 33 (14 Şaban 1290/October 7, 1873). On the issue of Sinkiang Rumeli includes articles in no. 4 (18 Muharrem 1290/March 18, 1873); no. 13 (22 Rebiyülevvel 1290/May 20, 1873); no. 19 (4 Cemaziyülevvel 1290/June 30, 1873); no. 22 (26 Cemâziyülevvel 1290/July 22, 1873); no. 25 (17 Cemâziyülâhir 1290/August 12, 1873); no. 34 (21 Şaban 1290/October 14, 1873). On the Muslims in the Dutch East Indies Rumeli contains texts in no. 18 (27 Rebiyülâhir 1290/June 24, 1873); no. 21 (18 Cemâziyülevvel/July 14, 1873); no. 31 (30 Receb 1290/September 23, 1873). 62 Roderic Davison: Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876 (New York: Gordian Press, 1973), 275-277; Şerif Mardin: Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu. Transl. by Mümtaz’er Türköne, Fahri Unan and İrfan Erdoğan (Istanbul: İletişim, 1996), 73; Mümtaz’er Türköne: Bir Siyasi İdeoloji Olarak İslâmcılığın Doğuşu (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1991), 198-199, 208-234. About the publisher of the Basîret newspaper, see Basiretçi Ali Efendi: İstanbul’da Yarım Asırlık Vekayi-i Mühimme. Edited by Nuri Sağlam (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 1997). 63 In Rumeli the issues no. 19 (4 Cemaziyülevvel 1290/June 30, 1873) and no. 34 (21 Şaban 1290/October 14, 1873) include articles on Panislamism. 64 About Phare de Bosphore, see Topuz, Türk Basın Tarihi, 39. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 141 cites an article from La Turquie,65 another French-language newspaper based in Istanbul.66 Another noteworthy function Rumeli/ Zamân fulfilled as a paper was to act as the voice of the local people. This can be seen clearly in a case where Rumeli entered into a conflict with the administration of Salonica. This affair emerged from a judicial case among certain Orthodox individuals of the district of Görice (present-day Korçë, Albania). According to the record, a minor orphan girl, Konstandia, encouraged by a certain Nikola, made a legal petition to the local judicial commission to have an inherited piece of land handed over to her direct disposal from her legal guardian Yovan, who was also her uncle. When this petition was approved by the commission, Yovan, her guardian, considered this transaction to be unlawful and dangerous, and applied to the Court of Appeal of Salonica to stop this process. However, his application was rejected by the court. Thereupon Yovan published a long letter in Rumeli where he reported his grievances.67 The publication of Yovan’s letter in Rumeli apparently created a strong negative reaction among the members of the Court of Appeal, who published a declaration in the local official paper Selânik. In this declaration the court members accused Rumeli of interfering in affairs which were not the business of the paper.68 Mustafa Bey’s reply to this attack is noteworthy as to how it displays Rumeli’s independence from the provincial administration. Mustafa Bey emphatically stated that “the function of a newspaper is to be the interpreter of the opinions of the nation.”69 According to him “newspapers have to provide service to the country, to the nation, to society, to civilization and to education. They do not respect arbitrary authority but rather the rights of the nation. Newspapers do not allow the suppression of the rights of the nation.”70 According to the editor of Rumeli, newspapers have the right to demand from the government the administration of justice. They are the voice of the people against injustice.71 By making these statements, Mustafa Bey underlined the civilian character of the paper and even its ability to oppose illegitimate actions of the administration and the judicial apparatus. This rather independent journalistic attitude of Rumeli can be observed particularly in its first twenty issues. It is possible that the increasing pressures on the 65 About La Turquie, see Topuz, Türk Basın Tarihi, 38, 60. 66 Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Meb’usan 1293=1877, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakit, 1939-1954), 2:40-41. 67 Rumeli no. 6 (3 Safer 1290/April 2, 1873), 3-4. 68 Rumeli, no. 7 (9 Safer 1290/April 8, 1873), 1. 69 “Gazete ne demek oldığını henüz anladamadık. Yahud anlaşılmak istenilmiyor. Bir daha söyleyelim gazete milletin tercümân-ı efkârıdır” In “Şaşılacak Şey,” Rumeli no. 8 (16 Safer 1290/April 15, 1873), 1. 70 “Hidmet-i mülke millete cemiyyete medeniyyete marifete ve kezâ keyfe değil milletin hukukını gözedir ezdirmez.” Ibid. 71 “Hükûmetden ihkak-ı hakkı taleb eder. Bâb-ı devletden adâlet ister....Velhasıl haksızlığa karşı durub bağırır çağırır” Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 142 press after mid-1873 also left its mark on Rumeli/ Zamân. We can see this in the changing quality of Mustafa Bey’s editorials. While he previously confronted local authorities about a variety of problems such as the inefficiency of the administration, the police or the judiciary, later editorials concentrate on issues that did not provoke the local government, such as education or economics. Nevertheless, these papers continued to publish numerous letters from places in the province of Salonica as well as from other towns in the Balkans or the Archipelago which reflected the grievances of the local population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. It would have been very interesting to see the reaction of Zamân to the incident of the murder of the French and German consuls by an angry Muslim crowd on May 6, 1876.72 However, the collections available to the researchers do not contain issue no. 158 of the paper, which would have corresponded to May 9, 1876. We learn from a government announcement published in issue no. 159 that the newspaper was closed down by the government for two weeks for “publishing information contrary to reality” and “containing comments exceeding the limits of the function [of a newspaper].”73 Mustafa Bey as a Politician in the First Ottoman Parliament With the Balkan crisis turning into an international issue, the government of Midhat Pasha considered it imperative to convene parliament as soon as possible. Due to the impossibility of carrying out free elections at the imperial level in a short time, a provisional measure was the implementation of the “Provisional Electoral Regulation” (October 28, 1876). This regulation authorized provincial councils at the levels of kaza, sancak and vilâyet to elect deputies for parliament. According to the regulation, members of the local councils were given the freedom to propose possible names for parliament, which would then be counted at the provincial level, with those names that appeared in the majority becoming deputies.74 In the case of Salonica, however, the governor, Eşref Mustafa Pasha, apparently did not allow members of the local councils to proceed with the elections, but himself appointed three of the Muslim deputies while requiring heads of the non-Muslim communities to proceed likewise.75 This fact is interesting, as it thus appears that Mustafa Bey was one of the three Muslim deputies appointed by Eşref Mustafa Pa- 72 For the details of this incident, see Mark Mazower: Salonica. City of Ghosts. Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430-1950 (London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2004), 170-175. 73 “Zamân gazetesinin bu hafta çıkan 158 numerolu nüshası hakîkat-ı hâle münâfi bazı şeyleri ve dâire-i vazîfesi hâricinde mütâleaları hâvi oldığı.” In Zamân no. 159 (21 Rebiyülâhir 1293/May 16, 1876), 1. 74 For details concerning the electoral procedures, see Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period , 124-126. 75 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period , 127. For a list of the governors of Salonica, see Sinan Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricâli (1839-1922). Prosopografik Rehber (Istanbul: Isis, 1999), 37-38. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 143 sha. This indicates that Mustafa Bey was held in some esteem by the governor. As stated above, Mustafa Bey was promoted in February 1877 to Second Grade Class Two of the Ottoman bureaucratic rank order, which also would not have been possible without the support of the governor. However, as discussed earlier, Mustafa Bey turned down this appointment to the first parliamentary period. We do not know why Mustafa Bey decided to accept his second nomination to parliament in October 1877. It could be assumed that he felt he could serve his province and also the Ottoman Empire better while present in the assembly. Undoubtedly the disastrous development of the Russo-Ottoman War affected Balkan towns such as Salonica to a major degree. The city was flooded by refugees, which created a humanitarian crisis.76 In addition to the refugee crisis, martial law was declared in Salonica. Perhaps Mustafa Bey had learned that the first parliamentary period was much more than window-dressing, and that substantial issues could be raised during the debates at the sessions.77 What we know is that Mustafa Bey took part in the second parliamentary period, which began on December 13, 1877 and ended on February 13, 1878. Following the opening of the second parliamentary period, Mustafa Bey was elected one of the four secretaries of the assembly (December 22).78 According to Devereux, the main functions of the secretaries were as follows: The principal duty of the secretaries was to aid the presiding officer, helping him on such matters as voting and ascertaining whether a quorum was present, etc. The regulations specifically made them responsible for maintaining the register of deputies who had indicated a desire to speak on a certain topic, for editing the minutes, and for reading at each sitting the minutes of the preceding sitting. Then, once the minutes had been approved by the Chamber, at least two of the secretaries had to sign them. […] the secretaries, like the president, were ex officio members of any delegation named by the Chamber.79 Shortly after his election to secretary of the assembly, we see Mustafa Bey emerging as one of the main political figures who were highly critical toward the government. One routine procedure following the opening of the Ottoman parliament was the preparation of an official text expressing the gratitude of the parliament in reply to the sultan’s opening speech. During the debate over the content of the reply text, certain deputies, Mustafa Bey among them, expressed the view that grievances concerning the misconduct of war should also be included in the text, which would reflect the discontent of the parliament about the government.80 76 Zamân no. 200 (9 Ramazân 1294/September 17, 1877) and the following issues. 77 Concerning the unexpectedly oppositional spirit during the first session of parliament, see Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Meb’usan, 1:156-157, 201-208, 212-222, 226-228, 235-242, 258, 286-288, 295, 338-339, 342-344; Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period , 150-152. 78 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period , 164. 79 Ibid. 80 The debate took place on December 31, 1877. See Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Meb’usan, 2:35-37. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 144 On January 2, 1878 Mustafa Bey triggered a debate over the situation on the Balkan front, drawing attention to the military operations of Romanians and Serbs deep in Ottoman lands and the danger of banditry in Macedonia. While underlining the need to protect the Muslim civilian population in the region, Mustafa Bey requested parliament to summon the Minister of War (Serasker) to the assembly and question him about the security measures for the protection of the population as well as about the military precautions taken at the Balkan and Anatolian fronts.81 When on the same day a telegram reached the assembly, sent by the Muslim nobility of Skopje and containing information about the Serbian army’s move toward the south, Mustafa Bey denounced the government ministers for being unable to use the ironclads of the Ottoman navy to transfer sufficient numbers of troops and artillery to the front. He again insisted on the need to summon the Minister of War to the assembly to question him.82 When Russian troops occupied Edirne and refused Ottoman initiatives for a cease-fire, Mustafa Bey on January 31, 1878 submitted a proposal to parliament to invite government ministers to discuss the present war situation as well as the issue of defending the capital against a possible Russian invasion. This proposal underlined the fact that Russian troops were moving from Edirne toward Istanbul, and thus it was incumbent upon the parliament and the government to enact measures to defend the city against the enemy. It was also stated that it would be possible to raise from Istanbul an army of nearly two-hundred-thousand men, including the Balkan refugees, to protect the rights of the state and as well as the honour of the millet. Mustafa Bey’s proposal was accepted by a majority of the deputies.83 On February 2, 1878, Mustafa Bey expressed his concern over the application of martial law in Salonica and claimed that the court martial in that city was involved in activities which were contrary to the interests of the state. He also underlined that the declaration of martial law by the Sublime Porte was itself legally questionable, since no legal justification document was submitted to parliament. Mustafa Bey’s statements opened a major debate in parliament, where it became apparent that the existing ruling concerning martial law was invalid, since it had not been previously approved by parliament. Finally the majority of the assembly agreed to demand from the Sublime Porte a legal explanation concerning the application of martial law in Istanbul and Salonica.84 When a proposal was submitted on February 4 to set up a court martial with the aim to try those military commanders responsible for the defeats during the warfare together with the former Grand Vizier Mahmud Nedim Pasha, considered 81 Ibid., 75. 82 Ibid., 78. 83 Ibid., 270. 84 Ibid., 283-286. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 145 to be responsible for the outbreak of the Russo-Ottoman War, Mustafa Bey was one of the deputies who strongly supported this proposal.85 Another issue addressed by Mustafa Bey was the opening of a parliamentary inquiry concerning the war conduct of Rauf Paşa, the Minister of War. On February 11, 1878, Mustafa Bey presented a request to cross-examine Rauf Pasha at the assembly on the grounds of his failure to coordinate the Ottoman armies, the impropriety of the orders issued by him leading to the defeat and retreat of the Ottoman troops as well as the massacres committed by Russian troops upon the Muslim civil population due to wrong decisions again taken by Rauf Pasha.86 As Devereux reports, Rauf Pasha was a favourite of the sultan, and the accusations directed at the Minister of War were probably perceived by Abdülhamid as an indirect attack against him.87 During the second session on the same day, Mustafa Bey announced a telegram concerning the military situation, dated February 7 and sent by Süleyman Hüsnü Pasha, the commander-in-chief of the Ottoman Balkan armies. The author of the telegram, addressing the palace, the cabinet, the Ministry of War as well as the Ministry of the Navy, reported in a worried tone about the Russian move toward the Aegean Sea and the Dardanelles and accused the government for not utilizing the battleships, lying idly in Istanbul, to transport troops to counter the Russians in Thrace. After stating that he, as a commander, did not have the power to deliver his troops, being “his religious brethren and compatriots” (din ve vatan kardeşlerim) passively into the hands of the enemy, Süleyman Pasha threatened to resign his command if battleships were not sent to the front within two days. This rather desperate-sounding telegram made a deep impact on the deputies. Mustafa Bey and other deputies demanded to summon Mehmed Said Pasha, the Minister of the Navy as well as the Minister of War to parliament to explain the content of this telegram.88 Mustafa Bey was among those deputies who appeared most vocal in their criticism of and opposition to the government.89 This group of deputies, through their activities and criticisms, rebelled against the Constitution of 1876, according to which the parliament was designed to be no more than an advisory assembly to the government and to hold no significant political authority. However, these deputies were highly conscious of their role as representatives of Ottoman society, and thus acted accordingly. Consequently, they felt it their right to accuse members of the government concerning the conduct of warfare and to demand a po- 85 Ibid., 296-300. 86 Ibid., 376-381. 87 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 240-241. 88 Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Meb’usan, 2:389-391. 89 These deputies included Abdürrahim Bedran Efendi (Syria), Emin Efendi (Aydın), Halil Ganem Efendi (Syria), Manuk Efendi (Aleppo), Mustafa Bey (Janina), Nâfi Efendi (Aleppo), Râsim Bey (Edirne), Yenişehirlizâde Ahmed Efendi (Aydın), and Yusuf Ziyâ Efendi (Jerusalem). See ibid., 410-412. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 146 litical explanation.90 The increasing sovereign attitude of the parliament as a body was one reason among others leading to its closure by Abdülhamid II on February 13, 1878.91 It should be noted that the sultan did not consider merely closing parliament to be a sufficient measure; those deputies who were the most outspoken in their criticism and incited parliamentary debate, including Mustafa Bey, were regarded too dangerous to be allowed to remain in the capital. Consequently, ten deputies, including Mustafa Bey, were forcibly deported from the capital to their home provinces.92 Concluding Remarks Mustafa Bey of Radoviş was a member of the first generation of Ottomans born following the declaration of the Edict of Gülhane in 1839. This first generation, to which the Young Ottomans also belong, mostly did not receive a modern formal education. With the exception of his intermediate level religious medrese education, Mustafa Bey should be considered an autodidact. In other words, this early Tanzimat-generation grew up under the strong influence of traditional and Islamic values, while at the same time experiencing the modernist changes the empire was going through. Considering that Mustafa Bey came from a small town in the Ottoman periphery and lacked a strong family basis, it is rather remarkable how he was able to establish himself in Salonica and publish an independent newspaper. The fact that he was twice elected as a deputy for Salonica during the First Constitutional Period is proof of his importance as a public figure in Salonica. Looking at Mustafa Bey’s journalistic activities and the ideas he expressed in Rumeli/ Zamân, the following statements can be made about his thoughts during the period between 1873 and 1876. Above all, Mustafa Bey considered himself to be a professional journalist. He never grew tired of emphasizing the importance of journalism for Ottoman society. For him journalism was important because he saw a close connection between proper journalism and patriotism. At this point we may be able to establish an intellectual relationship between Mustafa Bey and the Young Ottomans. It is known that the Young Ottoman movement emerged together with independent oppositional journalism. This journalism, initiated by İbrahim Şinasi (1826-1871) and continued by Namık Kemal (1840-1888), constituted a proto-nationalist reaction with strong Islamist features against the Ottomanist policies of Âlî Pasha and Fuad Pasha. The Young Ot- 90 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 208; Stanford J. Shaw & Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Volume II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 187. 91 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 234-240. 92 Hakkı Tarık Us, Meclis-i Meb’usan, 2:410-412. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 147 tomans were worried about the social and political disadvantages for the Ottoman Muslims brought about by the legal equality between Muslims and non- Muslims since 1856. The Young Ottoman intellectuals also considered the contemporary government to be too lenient to diplomatic pressures from the European powers and lacking any zeal for protecting the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The administration of Âlî Pasha, in addition, had strong autocratic features which did not tolerate political opposition. Under these conditions, Young Ottoman journalism displayed features of Islamism and patriotism while giving importance to developing public opinion among Muslims and making demands for popular political participation.93 We can say for sure that Mustafa Bey admired Namık Kemal as a journalist. In the very first editorial of Rumeli his name is mentioned as a source of inspiration. The missions Mustafa Bey attributed to journalism such as to be a forum for the clash of different opinions to reach the truth, to create a critical public opinion, to educate the population, to stir patriotic sentiments among the people, to remain independent from political authority, to represent public grievances and to search for justice – all these can be also seen in the Young Ottoman style of journalism. In addition, Mustafa Bey’s occassional manifestations of sensitivity concerning the declining role of Muslims in Ottoman socio-economic life was quite close to Namık Kemal’s Islamist sentiments. Also, the rather Panislamistic news taken from the conservative Basîret seem to be akin to Namık Kemal’s vision of a Panislamist union among the world’s Muslims. Therefore one could claim that Rumeli/ Zamân under the editorship of Mustafa Bey were to a certain extent the provincial versions of Namık Kemal’s İbret. Considering that Rumeli/ Zamân served as forums for popular grievances, and that Mustafa Bey tried to preserve an independent attitude vis-à-vis the administration, one may understand the popularity of these papers, which were apparently read throughout the Balkans. It is possible that Mustafa Bey received substantial financial backing from a segment of the Dönme-community of Salonica for the publication of Rumeli/ Zamân. If true, this could also explain Rumeli/ Zamân’s self-confidence in considering itself as the voice of the provincial civil population. The Dönme-community constituted an important Muslim segment within the city of Salonica, emerging as a commercial middle class that was entering into economic competition with non-Muslim as well as foreign merchants. And Rumeli/ Zamân strongly propagated the development of private Muslim economic initiatives. It is noticeable that Mustafa Bey shared a political trajectory comparable to that of most of the other Young Ottomans. Despite the fact that Rumeli/ Zamân began to appear a few years after the death of Fuad Pasha and Âlî Pasha, Mustafa Bey shared the Young Ottoman distance toward the bureaucratic hegemony of 93 Mardin, Yeni Osmanlı, 24-26, 32-38, 304-305, 315-347, 361-368; Türköne, Siyasî İdeoloji Olarak, 63, 67, 68, 71, 86, 96-97. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SELÇUK AKŞİN SOMEL 148 the Sublime Porte. Like the main Young Ottoman figures, Mustafa Bey was engaged in journalistic activity with the aim of creating critical public opinion vis-àvis the administration. When Sultan Abdülaziz was deposed and a prospect of a constitutional regime emerged on the horizon, Rumeli/ Zamân was quite enthusiastic about this possibility. And as discussed previously, Mustafa Bey was one of the chief oppositional figures in the parliament. However, like some of the Young Ottomans, he eventually came to terms with the autocratic regime of Abdülhamid II. Following his deportation to Salonica, Mustafa Bey was banned from holding official positions for a few years. Later, he served as director of education in Salonica and in the Archipelago province. A similar fate can also be observed for Young Ottomans such as Namık Kemal, Ziya Pasha, Süleyman Hüsnü Pasha, Bereketzâde İsmail Hakkı, etc., who were sent to provincial posts from 1877 onwards.94 Finally, Mustafa Bey apparently gained the confidence of the Hamidian regime and succeeded in moving to Istanbul; prior to his death he had been promoted to the “First Rank Second Degree” (Ûlâ-i Sânî ) bureaucratic rank.95 Looking at the Young Ottomans, we see that names like Ahmed Midhat Efendi, Ebüzziyâ Tevfik, even Ziya Pasha and Namık Kemal cooperated with the Hamidian regime.96 One could argue that the catastrophic Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878, which brought the empire to the brink of collapse, eliminated the previous optimism in regard to the constitutional political future of the empire, possibly leading to a “rude awakening” to the basic developmental and infrastructural needs of the empire. Cooperation with the autocracy was probably seen as justified by the necessity of “saving the empire.” A final observation should be made about the quality of Rumeli/ Zamân as possible sources for the social history of the city of Salonica as well as the local towns of the province. From the beginning of its appearance onwards, Rumeli and then Zamân regularly published readers’ letters (varaka) from Salonica, from the district towns of the province of Salonica as well as from more distant towns of other Balkan provinces. These letters contain a variety of topics such as judicial cases, complaints about schools, conditions of the medreses, theater performances, the functioning of the newly built railroad between Salonica and Skopje, the working of the municipalities and the local administrative councils, agricultural conditions, forestry, etc. These were printed on the second and third pages of the newspaper. Some letters are long enough to form continuous series of articles. Despite expected differences in the quality of the information contained in 94 Niyazi Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal: Mc Gill University Press, 1964), 250. 95 1311 Salnâme-i Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye. Kırkdokuzuncu sene (Dersaâdet: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1310), 402. 96 Şerif Mardin, Yeni Osmanlı Düşüncesinin Doğuşu, 90-91; M.Orhan Okay, “Ahmed Midhat Efendi,” in: TDVİA, 2:100-103; Ziyad Ebüzziya, “Ebüzziya Mehmed Tevfik,” in: TDV İA, 10:374-376. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MUSTAFA BEY OF RADOVİŞ (1843-1893) 149 them, it can be said that quite a few of these readers’ letters constitute a new source for the study of the social history of Salonica and its surroundings for the period between 1873 and 1878. Considering the rather independent character of Rumeli/ Zamân, these letters form a source which possibly reflects the authentic thoughts and feelings of a literate and non-official group of provincial people, mostly Muslims but sometimes also non-Muslims. However, due to their letter format these texts have their specific limitations in terms of the amount of information, and therefore could be consulted mainly as an auxiliary to more comprehensive historical projects. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A Prosopographic Study on some ‘Albanian’ Deputies to the First Ottoman Parliament Bülent Bilmez / Nathalie Clayer Introduction This article presents the biographies of some ‘Albanian’ deputies elected to the first Ottoman parliament. Of course the term ‘Albanian’ is problematic. In fact at the beginning we considered covering all the deputies of the provinces of Yanya (Ioannina/Janina), İşkodra (Shkodra/ Shkodër) and Kosova (Kosovo) (i.e. the central-western fringe of the Balkan Ottoman territories), on whom we had some material. However, as specialists of Ottoman-Albanian studies, we found that our material was silent on deputies who were not considered without hesitation as ‘Albanian’. More precisely, looking at the lists of the deputies from Yanya given by Robert Devereux and Hakkı Tarık Us, we were not able to trace the three Christian deputies of the first session (Nicolas Chanaka – also present in the second session, Algivyadi Lambi and Argiri Kantarji from Volos). Probably there is more information to be found in Greek sources on these deputies, as well as on Davicho Levi, a Jew from Yanya. For the vilayet of İşkodra, we present all the deputies except Angeli Efendi, deputy in both sessions. Of him, we only know that he was also known as Ejll Paloka, a Catholic from a notable family in İşkodra, and member of the commercial court there, and that he was sent to the first Ottoman parliament to represent the Catholics of the vilayet instead of Aleksandër Bonati. He died in the Ottoman capital on April 10, 1878, shortly before his planned return to İşkodra. For the vilayet of Kosovo, which comprised also the districts of Niš, Sofia, and Samokov, we present only a single biography, that of Ömer Şevki Efendi, because we were unable to find information on other deputies such as Zeynelabidin of Prishtina. The data in this study were almost all drawn from secondary sources, which are not very reliable by nature: they are either studies with a strong (nationalist or communist) bias or texts that have some similarities to oral history. They give us not only a partial, but also an incomplete image of the persons in question. Further research, using Ottoman and, above all, diplomatic sources is needed in order to correct and complete this account. The nationalist bias in the historiography is closely linked to the context of the opening of the parliament. Let us recall that the Constitution was proclaimed by Sultan Abdülhamid, the elections for the parliament organized and the parliament convened, partly because of intense troubles which broke out in the Balkan Ottoman territories directly threatening the essence of the Ottoman state. The revolts in Herzegovina and Bulgaria in © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 152 1876, the preparation of insurrections in Epirus and Thessaly, the Russian- Ottoman War between April 1877 and January 1878, concluded by the San Stefano Treaty (March 1878), had all led to the real or potential loss of a great part of the Empire’s European territories. Faced with this menace, different actors in the Balkans reacted. In particular, the context favoured the manifestation of an Albanian nationalism in connection with different solutions to the crisis that were envisioned within the Ottoman framework or outside of it. One of these reactions was the famous “League of Prizren” which, as a mythologized moment, became the key episode of the Albanian nationalist narrative. As can be expected, this narrative systematically and exaggeratingly linked many deputies who came from these regions and participated in meetings, protestations, and/or negotiations with the ‘League’. All these attempts to respond to the crisis are generally interpreted as steps towards independence, or at least towards an autonomy designed to put an end to ‘Turkish’ (i.e. Ottoman) rule. This, of course, was not always the case. Despite the lack of sources and the bias in the existing ones, the collected data in this study allow us to confirm the fact that all deputies were notables. As far as the vilayet of Yanya is concerned, all the Muslim deputies were members of the important bey families of the northern and western part of the vilayet. As for the non-Muslims, we only know that one of them was a wealthy tobacco merchant from the north of the vilayet. In the smaller vilayet of İşkodra, the elected persons were members of bey families who represented central Albania: a mufti, deputy from Podgorica in the northern part of the vilayet, and three deputies from İşkodra, each one representing a religious community (Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox) and all apparently members of local wealthy families involved in commerce and themselves members of local courts. Last but not least, the deputy of the vilayet of Kosova, whose biography we were able to draw up, was also from a wealthy family and additionally enjoyed personal religious authority as a müderris. We must also add that our study is mainly prosopographic. We have therefore mostly neglected the political activities of these deputies in the parliament (both in the plenum and in the parliamentary committees). These activities need to be analyzed in a separate study. Furthermore, it is important to underline that the general problem of insufficient primary and secondary sources on the election and the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activities of the ‘Albanian’ deputies in the first Ottoman parliament also applies to the deputies from other regions of the Empire. The essential lack of the official minutes from the parliamentary sessions, which were lost in a fire in later years, prevents us from drawing a reliable and comprehensive picture of the activities in parliament. Hence, based on the informal minutes published by Hakkı Tarık Us, which rely mainly on the press of that time, we would have to confine ourselves here to stating that Abdül Bey and Mehmet Ali Bey, two deputies of Yanya in the second session who occupy rather prominent places in our study, were also among the most active deputies in the parliamentary negotiations in general. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 153 Finally we would like to add two technical remarks: While the various versions/spellings of the names of deputies in different sources will be indicated in this work, the Ottoman-Turkish version appearing in Hakkı Tarık Us’ work will serve as our standard here: e.g. Abdül Bey, instead of Adyl Beu or Abdullah Hüsnü; Ömer Şevki, instead of Ymer Prizreni; etc. As there are also different versions/spellings of the place names including the constituencies in the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman-Turkish version appearing in Hakki Tarik Us’ work will be given first followed by other versions in brackets: e.g. Yanya (Janina/Ioannina), İşkodra (Shkodra/Shkodër), etc. Deputies Abdül (Abdullah Hüsnü) Bey (Yanya, Muslim) (1839-1892) He was a deputy for Yanya province [Janina/Ioannina], today a city in northern Greece, in the second session of the first Ottoman parliament between December 13, 1877 and February 14, 1878. Abdül has been glorified as one of the fathers of Albanian nationalism in the modern Albanian historiography with the name Abdyl Frashëri and was awarded by the socialist Albanian state the title “Hero of the People” in 1978. It is not surprising, therefore, to observe that extensive information on him can be found in different sources and studies in different languages, where one encounters various versions/spellings of his name: Abdül Bey; Abdyl be Frashëri; Abdyl Frashëri; Abdoul Phrashari; Abdoul Bey [of] Phrachari; Abdul Bey Frassari; Abdulj Frašeri; Abdyl Frasheri; Abyl Fracheri; Abdul Bey [Beu]; Fraşarlı Halid oğlu Abdullah Hüsnü; Abdyl Hysni; Abdullah Hüsnü Fraşheri; Abdullah Hysni; Abdül Fraşari; Abdül Fraşeri; and Fraşarlı Abdül Bey. The construction of Abdül’s image as the heroic leader of the national struggle had started already at the beginning of the twentieth century in the Albanian press and folk songs. This image was consolidated in the scholarly and popular historiography in twentieth-century Albania. Abdül is represented in the official encyclopaedia of socialist Albania, Fjalori enciklopedik shqiptar (1985), as a “distinguished patriotic democrat, one of the progressive ideologues of the national awakening [Rilindja Kombëtare], one of the main pioneers of the Albanian League of Prizren [Lidhja Shqiptare të Prizrenit], and Hero of the People.” The eldest of the famous Frashëri Brothers (Abdül and his younger brothers Naim [1846-1900] and Shemseddin Sami [1850-1904]), who have been glorified in Albanian historiography for playing a decisive role in the Albanian nationbuilding process, Abdül was born on 29 August 1839 in the mountain village of Frashër, then a relatively large village in the Premedi (Përmet) district in the Ergiri (Gjirokastër) sub-province of Yanya province (vilayet) – today a small village in the Përmet district in southern Albania. The grandfathers of Abdül’s father Halid Bey (1797-1859) had supposedly moved to this village from Berat in southern Albania © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 154 where he used to own the fief (timar) to Frashër. Halid’s second wife and Abdül’s mother, Emine (1814-1861), was from an aristocratic family of Imrahors in Görice (Korça), their history going back to the illustrious Koca İmrahor İlyas Bey of the fifteenth century. Abdül had younger sisters, Nefise (b. 1841) and Shanisha (b. 1848); and five younger brothers: Sherif (1843-1874), Naim (1846-1900), Sami (1850-1904), Tahsin (1853-1876) and Mehmed (1856-1918). Coming from a Bektashi family, Abdül spent his childhood in his native village, where he, like his younger brothers, was partly educated by Baba Alushi in the Bektashi lodge (tekke), while probably also attending the conventional primary school (sıbyan mektebi) there. According to his brother Sami’s encyclopaedic entry on Abdül, the latter was barely fourteen (1853) when together with his father he took part in the military campaigns on the Ottoman-Greek border. Having already been engaged with business together with his father in Yanya, Abdül continued doing business in Yanya also after his father’s death in 1859. After the death of his mother in 1861, Abdül, as the eldest of the eight orphaned children, took on the burden of raising his family through his activities as a minor merchant in the region. In 1865 he moved his family to Yanya, where his younger brothers attended the Greek Zosimea secondary school. While working in Yanya as a merchant, Abdül had the opportunity as an entrepreneur to travel in the region and to learn the political, cultural and economic relations in other countries during his activities in business. He is supposed to have known Albanian, Greek, Turkish and French. At the beginning of the 1870s, Abdül’s family was going through significant changes: his younger brother Naim left Yanya for Saranda (in today’s southern Albania) to work as a customs officer there, and Sami left for Istanbul to become a writer/journalist. His sister Nefise died of tuberculosis while his younger sister Shanisha left the family when she married Ibrahim Starova. Abdül himself married Ballkëz (Balkız/Belkız) in 1874, whose family was originally from Frashër, now living in Yanya. After his brother Sherif married and left the house during this period, Abdül and his wife were living together with Abdül’s two younger brothers Tahsin and Mehmed, who were both still attending school. His brother Sherif died in 1874 in Yanya and his younger brother Tahsin died in 1876 also in Yanya. Abdül entered the service of the Ottoman Empire and was appointed at the beginning of 1877, according to the daily Istanbul newspaper Tercüman-ı Şark, as the head of the customs office in Yanya. It was in this period of his life that he started writing for different periodicals in different languages. The earliest known text by Abdül is an article with the title “Albanian Language” sent from Yanya on December 18, 1875 to be published in the Istanbul newspaper Basiret by his brother Şemseddin Sami Frashëri who was among the publishers of this paper. The article couldn’t be published, however, because the periodical was closed down by the government at the end of that © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 155 year. Sami informed his elder brother Abdül in a letter on 11 January 1876 that the article would be published as soon as the periodical was allowed to be printed again; however, this never happened. Hence, we know neither what the content of this article was nor whether it was later published anywhere at all. After the first Ottoman parliament was convened and the Russo-Ottoman War broke out on April 24, 1877, Abdül co-organized a meeting among the local elite in Yanya in May 1877 to initiate a resistance movement against the Greek plans to capture some (allegedly Albanian) territories of the Ottoman Empire. According to the conventional historiographical narrative, the ‘committee’ formed during this meeting aimed to create a large ‘Albanian’ vilayet out of the four existing (allegedly mainly Albanian-speaking) Ottoman provinces (vilayets) of İşkodra (Shkodra), Kosova (Kosovo), Manastır (Monastir) and Yanya (Ioannina/Janina); the new vilayet was to be administered by the Albanians, and Albanian schools were to be opened there. There is not enough evidence to suggest, however, that the demands of this meeting (and also of the later ones) organized by the Albanian elite went beyond demanding a union of the four vilayets in question and refusing any possible territorial annexation by their neighbours. It is important to emphasize that this (mostly shared) objection to the annexation was in favour of the Ottoman government’s interests and that the local resistance movement was therefore initially supported (if not initiated) by the latter. It was in the same year that Abdül led the first round of the covert negotiations with Greek authorities in Yanya (in July 1877) in order to achieve an alliance between Greece and the Albanians for the establishment of an autonomous Albanian state within Greece or in a sort of federative Greco-Albanian state. These negotiations ended, however, without any significant results. Thus, when Abdül was elected deputy in November 1877 he had already been active in Albanian elite circles in Istanbul and Yanya, first as a modern entrepreneur and the head of the customs office and then as a local political activist. Before going into his election as deputy, it must be clarified that the election of the deputies for the Ottoman parliament was taking place through the votes of the electors, who were the members of the local administrative councils under the direct influence of the governor of the province (vali). Still the voice of native social, political and economic circles were also playing albeit a small role in this election. The elections of the deputies of Yanya province, especially of Abdül, for the second session could be a good example for this: Three Muslim and three non-Muslim deputies were supposed to be selected by the 570 secondary electors chosen in January 1878 for the election of deputies from Yanya to the first session of the parliament. These electors, Kristo Frashëri guesses, must have been more independent in the November 1878 elections for the second session, because the vali and other top administrators could not apply their power to the usual extent due to the extraordinary conditions caused by the ongoing Russo-Ottoman war. According to Kristo Frashëri, the abovementioned ‘Albanian committee’ founded © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 156 in Yanya and headed by Abdül to fight against the annexation must have played a role in this election, and did mostly achieve its goals of sending deputies from their circles. A letter from the French vice-consul in Yanya on 9 November 1877 to the Foreign Ministry in Paris summarizing the news in the provincial (vilayet) official newspaper (November 8, 1877) about the elections in Yanya, stated that the rank of the Muslim candidates according to their votes was as follows: Mustafa Nuri Bey (Vlora) with 46 votes, Mehmet Ali Bey (Vrioni) with 39 votes, Rüstem Paşa (Leskoviku) with 27 votes, Abdül Bey (Frasheri) with 24 votes, Naki Bey (Libohova) with 21 votes and Müslim Ağa (Vasjari) with 20 votes. Apart from Naki Bey, they were all members of the Albanian committee in Yanya; however, Abdül, as the fourth on the list, would not become a deputy with these results because only the first three Muslims were to represent Yanya in parliament. Nevertheless, Abdül became deputy because Rüstem Paşa (Leskoviku) stepped back. Kristo Frashëri claims that the reason for this must have been the efforts of the committee to send Abdül as one of the deputies of Yanya, although he does not offer any persuasive evidence for this claim. After the elections in Yanya in November 1877, Abdül came to Istanbul to attend the second session of the parliament starting from December 13, 1877. While in Istanbul, Abdül took part in the foundation meeting of the so-called ‘Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People’ (Komiteti Qendror për Mbrojten e të Drejtave të Kombësisë Shqiptare) in December 1877 in Istanbul. It has commonly been stated in the historiography that Abdül and his younger brother Sami in Istanbul were among the founders of this society and that Abdül was supposedly elected as the head of this ‘Central Committee’, the activities and aim of which is still questionable although it has been univocally claimed in all Albanian and some international sources that it was founded to strive ‘to obtain a certain autonomy for the Albanians within the Ottoman Empire’. It was also during this period of his stay in Istanbul that he led the second round of secret negotiations with Greek authorities in Istanbul in December 1877 in order to achieve an alliance between Greece and the Albanians for the establishment of an autonomous Albanian state within Greece or in a sort of federative Greco-Albanian state. These negotiations also ended without any positive results. Regarding Abdül’s activity in parliament, it must be underlined that, as a lowranking bureaucrat and local political activist in Yanya, Abdül was actually not a well-known figure before or during his rather short membership of parliament. He became a historical personality rather due to his activities immediately after the closure of the parliament. He was later glorified by modern Albanian historiography also as a prominent active deputy with a clear ethnocentric Albanian attitude, although the first Ottoman parliament in general has been to a large extent overlooked by the same historians. It is emphasized in Albanian historiography that Abdül usually gave examples from Albania in his speeches in parliament and that he criticized the absence of any school teaching the Albanian language in the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 157 region as well as the policy of the Ottoman government to prevent Albanian schools in general. One of the main reasons for these general statements about Abdül’s allegedly ethnocentric efforts in parliament is a talk he delivered in parliament on January 14, 1878. What Abdül was actually advocating for in this talk, which represented a modernist discourse, was the inevitability of and necessity for the development of modern education in the Ottoman Empire in general, and thus he stressed the role of education in the wide-ranging modernization process in the Ottoman Empire. Abdül’s participation in parliament can be observed through his interventions during the discussion sessions and his memberships in different committees. Contrary to the common narrative in Albanian historiography, Abdül did not display any clear ethnocentric Albanianism in parliament, but rather demonstrated a progressive liberal attitude in his interventions, advocating the continuation and consolidation of the modernization process in the whole empire. Application of the current educational and administrative reforms and the enhancement of these reforms were the main motifs in his speeches on January 14, 1878, January 24, 1878 and January 30, 1878. One other piece of evidence used in the historiography to demonstrate his ethnocentric attitude is that he was sensitive to the issues in Albania and especially in the Balkans during these sessions; however, this is quite naturally to be expected in the attitude of any deputy caring for the region he or she represents. Regarding Abdül’s post-parliamentary activities after the closure of the parliament on February 14, 1878, as the now de facto redundant Yanya deputy staying in Yanya, Abdül was one of the main leaders of the activities of the Albanian elite in Istanbul and Albania against the new territorial regulations in the Balkans decided in the Treaty of San Stefano (March 3, 1878), which was signed after the ultimate defeat of the Ottoman army by the Russian forces on January 31, 1878. Abdül’s involvement in the resistance movement against the implementation of decisions of the San Stefano Treaty was first exposed through the publication of some articles in Ottoman, and other newspapers, reflecting the opposition against the annexation of the territories in question from the Ottoman Empire. He discussed the recent developments in the ‘Albanian’ vilayets and advocated the rights of the Albanians in his letter (memorandum) published in the Istanbul daily Basiret on 21 April 1878, two months after the closure of the parliament. Abdül discusses in this “Letter from Yanya,” signed as “Deputy of Yanya, Abdül,” the Albanian question within the current international and Ottoman context; and he concludes that nobody, not even the nominal ruler, i.e. the Ottoman Empire, had the right to stop Albanians from defending their territories. Adbül also published seven articles in the French-language periodical Messager de Vienne in Vienna advocating the Albanian cause on April 26, 1878, May 3, 1878, May 17, 1878, May 24, 1878, May 31, 1878, June 7, 1878 and October 24, 1878. In the same period he published an article in the Greek-language Kleio in Trieste on May © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 158 23, 1878 with the same aim of informing the foreigners about the Albanian question. In another article published in Tercüman-ı Şark on June 10, 1878, Abdül criticised the attitude of the Greek newspaper Neologos in Istanbul towards the question of the Greco-Ottoman border. Implying the first (albeit vague) ethnocentric claims by an Albanian-speaking Muslim elite it was through this article, according to Hasan Kaleshi, that the ‘Albanian question’ was introduced to the Ottoman public opinion. Abdül published articles in the same newspaper also on September 7, 1878 and September 15, 1878. Abdül organized a meeting in the Bektashi lodge (tekke) of his native village Frashër at the end of May 1878 in order to organize local resistance against the implementation of the decisions of San Stefano and in order to influence the decisions of the upcoming Congress of Berlin. Following an invitation from the government, Abdül left Frashër for Istanbul while the meeting was in session and arrived there during the first days of June 1878. After an endless wait for a meeting with the prominent statesmen and the Sultan himself, Abdül and his friends decided to leave Istanbul in order to take part in the general assembly in Prizren due to start on June 10, 1878. Abdül left Istanbul on July 8, 1878 by train and arrived in Prizren, via Ferizaj (Firzovik), on July 9, 1878. The meeting in Prizren took place on June 10, 1878 and mainly (but not only) Albanian and Muslim delegates from all over the western Balkans participated in this assembly with the knowledge that it was implicitly supported by the Ottoman state. Abdül, who was supposedly representing the ‘Central Committee in Istanbul’ and the Albanians of southern Albania, is claimed to have given a speech in the first meeting of the League; however, this information is rather arguable. The resolutions (Kararname) of the League signed by some Albanian local notables (forty-seven beys) on June 18, 1878 refused to recognize the foreseen annexation of any territory to Serbia, Montenegro or Greece, and demanded formation of an autonomous (Albanian-speaking) province. The general assembly in Prizren ended on June 17, 1878, and Abdül and another deputy of Yanya Mehmet Ali (Vrioni) were elected (probably in their absence) to the commission for foreign relations/affairs. According to Kristo Frashëri, Abdül left, together with Jani Vreto, for Berlin immediately after the opening meeting of the Prizren League (on June 10, 1878) for Berlin, where he met Bismarck during the Congress of Berlin. He returned from Berlin to Prizren at the end of June 1878. Abdül and Mehmet Ali (Vrioni) sent a petition to the Sultan on June 23, 1878 appealing for the rejection of the implementation of the decisions of the Congress of Berlin regarding the handover of the Albanian territories to neighbouring Balkan countries. It was stated in this memorandum that Albanians were “... ready to fight to the end for the defence of their national identity and the territorial integrity of the Albanians. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 159 Ultimately, the Congress of Berlin (June 13 – July 13, 1878) confirmed the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and did not recognize the claims of the League (and indeed the very existence of the Albanians as a separate ethnic group). The Congress also foresaw the annexation of some Ottoman territories (claimed to be Albanian-speaking and hence Albanian in the nationalist discourse) to Montenegro, Serbia and Greece. It was decided in the Congress of Berlin on July 5, 1878 that some Ottoman territories in Thessaly and Epirus were to be annexed by Greece, whereas the details of these new frontier settlements were left to a future international committee. Immediately after returning from Berlin, Abdül took part in the meetings in Prizren on July 1 and 2, 1878 summoned to rephrase the rather conservative and pro-Ottoman decisions of the previous meeting ending on June 17, 1878 while Abdül had been in Berlin. In mid-July 1878 Abdül was in southern Albania to organize local committees (branches) of the League and gather troops to fight against the annexation of Ottoman territories in Yanya by Greece. The struggle in the South was also supported by the Ottoman government, who wanted to represent it as the voice of the native people who could influence the attitude of the international committee set up after the Congress of Berlin to decide the new boundary between the Ottoman Empire and Greece. According to Hasan Kaleshi, the struggle of the Yanya committee in the South under Abdül’s leadership towards organizing a resistance movement in southern Albania was much more successful than similar efforts in the North. Accordingly, there were copious telegrams from the region against the new settlement of the Greek border. As a part of these efforts, Abdül first managed to bring Muslim and Christian elites together for an assembly at the Bektashi monastery in his native village Frashër at the end of July 1878. The resolutions of this assembly were signed on July 24, 1878, and were apparently more radical than those of the League of Prizren in June 1878, as they included clearer demands of autonomy. The assembly sent a telegram to the Sultan on August 4, 1878 protesting the plans for the annexation of territories to Greece. On August 29, 1878 Abdül wrote a letter to the Istanbul-based Ottoman- Turkish newspaper Tercüman-ı Şark, which was published by his brother Sami, in response to an article published in the Istanbul-based French-language periodical Phare du Bosphore. This “Letter from Yanya” was published in Tercüman-ı Şark on September 7, 1878. – After the assassination of Mehmet Ali Paşa in Yakova (Gjakova) on September 6, 1878, Abdül went to Istanbul. Abdül was in Istanbul in mid-September and there took part in a secret meeting of the Central Committee of Istanbul. A more radical program with demands for autonomy from the Ottoman government was formulated during this meeting. This program was published by Abdül’s brother Sami in the daily newspaper Tercüman-ı Şark in Istanbul on September 27, 1878 and it was going to be recognized on November 27, 1878 also © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 160 by the League of Prizren, which had been going through a process of radicalization among the remaining Albanian opposition led by Abdül after the separation from the Ottoman state From Istanbul, Abdül returned to Yanya again, in order to proceed with his activities in the region. Before leaving for the Albanian cities in the North, Abdül wrote an article in French with the title “Albanian League” to be published in Messager de Vienne on October 24, 1878. As part of his activities in the region between Debre (Dibër, Dibra) and Avlonya (Vlora) aimed at organizing networks of resistance during this period, Abdül, as the representative of southern Albania, took part in the convention of Debre (Dibër), which issued a five-point memorandum on November, 1 1878 demanding publicly from the Ottoman government the creation of an autonomous unified Albanian province. This memorandum, signed also by Abdül, was submitted through a delegation headed by İlyas Paşa Debre to the Sultan in January 1879. Leaving Debre for a propaganda trip in the southern cities of Elbasan, Berat, Fier, Vlora, Gjirokastro and Delvina, Abdül took part in organizing the assembly in Preveze starting on January 11, 1879 and issuing a memorandum on January 28, 1879 to protest against Greek demands for the annexation of the Ottoman (‘Albanian’) territories in Epirus (today’s southern Albania and northwestern Greece). Some historians have maintained that during the organization of this assembly in the second half of January 1879, Abdül severely opposed the plans for the control of the Epirus region by Greece in discussions with Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Paşa, the head of the Ottoman delegation in the commission for the settlement of the Greek border in Preveze, In the assembly Abdül was elected to serve as head of the delegation to be sent to Istanbul to discuss with the government the formation of an autonomous Albanian vilayet. After the Ottoman-Greek negotiations for the settlement of the frontier changes foreseen in the Congress of Berlin started on February 6, 1879, Albanian representatives still in Preveze issued on February 28, 1879 another memorandum prepared also by Abdül and addressed to the governments of the Great Powers, repeating the demands contained in the previous memorandum of Preveze. As the program of the Preveze convention was not recognized by the Sultan and because the Ottoman-Greek negotiations met some difficulties, making the role of the intervention of the Great Powers in this issue more important, another memorandum was issued on March 22, 1879 by the Albanian elite led by Abdül. This memorandum again was addressed to the governments of the Great Powers. After their failure to secure the support of the Great Powers through these conventions and memorandums, Abdül and Mehmed Ali Vrioni (also deputy of Yanya in the second session of the Ottoman parliament) travelled in spring 1879 to the European capitals Rome, Paris, London, Berlin and Vienna in order to propagate against the Greek territorial claims and to defend the Albanian/Ottoman cause. Abdül and his companion left Preveza for Italy on March 31, 1879. In Rome, while negotiating with the Italian government in May 1879, a memoran- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 161 dum signed by Abdül and his friends was sent to the French, German, British and Austro-Hungarian governments. During his trip to the European capitals, Abdül himself is supposed to have written memorandums and petitions declaring the existence of the Albanian nation, which had been denied its right of existence and identity because of the European powers’ predatory interests. During this period Abdül published in Moniteur Universel on May 2, 1879 his last article known to us. After returning from this rather unsuccessful European journey to Yanya, Abdül Bey travelled together with other two deputies Mehmet Ali (Vrioni) and Veysel (Dino) to Istanbul on August 13, 1879 to try to assume any role possible in the Ottoman and Greek negotiations on border issues about the resumption of which they had been informed as representatives of the local people. During his stay in Istanbul this time, Abdül took part in the foundation of the ‘Society for the Publication of Albanian Writing’ (Shoqëria e të Shtypuri Shkronja Shqip) founded in October 1879 in Istanbul. He was one of the signatories to the Statute of this society dated October 12, 1879. Following his failed efforts to achieve union among Albanians in all regions, Abdül managed to organize an assembly of the elites of southern Albania in Ergiri (Gjirokastër) on July 23, 1880 in which some delegates from the North also took part. This assembly produced the most explicit revolutionary program to date, strongly demanding the union of the supposedly ‘Albanian’ vilayets that they believed should have an autonomous status as one integrated vilayet in the Ottoman Empire. Similar demands and complaints about the policy of the Ottoman government in the region were summarized also in a memorandum (layiha) signed by “Abdullah Hüsnü” and addressed to the Sultan on October 13, 1880, archived in the State Archive in Istanbul. Abdül advocated this program in the second general convention of Debre (Dibër) starting on October 20, 1880, where the radical wing of the movement was gathered. Apparently, Abdül spent the following few months in Istanbul propagating this program. The ultimate resolution of the question of the new Ottoman boundaries with both Montenegro in the North and Greece in the South was reached in late 1880 and early 1881 through the intervention of the international forces, but was opposed by the League. This opposition changed the image of the now disobedient Prizren alliance into a dangerous illegal movement in the eyes of the Ottoman state, who decided to put the opposition down through military force. Although the radical program was not accepted by the moderates, Abdül decided to try to implement a policy of armed struggle together with his comrades, also from Kosovo: Although he was under strict police surveillance because of this new development, Abdül managed to go to Prizren in December 1880 and take part there in a meeting starting in December 1880 and ending in January 1881. After Mitrovica (January 18, 1881) and Prishtina (January 25, 1881) came under the control of the forces of the so-called ‘Provisional Government’, in January 1881 Abdül deposed the local governor (mutesarrıf) of Debre (Dibër), which was also in- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 162 cluded in the territory claimed by the resistance movement, in order to put this city also under the de facto administration of the ‘Provisional Government’. Abdül had to leave Debre on March 4, 1881, travelled within Manastır vilayet for a few weeks and then returned to Prizren on March 20, 1881. As the issue of the new Ottoman-Greek frontiers was finalized in the Second Conference of Istanbul on March 25, 1878, the Ottoman government, no longer in need of the local representatives’ pressure on the Great Powers against Greek territorial demands, reacted fiercely to the action in Debre and to other attacks by the local Albanian resistance movement in the region and in spring 1881 sent in troops under the command of Derviş Paşa to repress the resistance movement, which was only temporarily able to stand firm in some places. Before the recapture of Prizren on April 23, 1881 by state forces, Abdül managed to leave for Debre to organize the local resistance there. The notables there instigated an assassination attempt against Abdül, during which Abdül managed to escape while two of his companions were wounded. After Prizren fell into the hands of state forces, sporadic local resistance in the region continued until autumn 1881; however, following the defeat in Debre during the last week of April 1881, Abdül was forced to escape. Derviş Paşa, the head of the state forces, apparently had promised a prize for Abdül’s capture. Abdül was arrested while crossing the Shkumbin River near Elbasan on his way to the Adriatic coast via Debre and Tirana, in an attempt to escape abroad. He was first sentenced to death by a military court in Prizren, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. After spending three years in jail and twenty months in exile (internment), Abdül was pardoned in late 1885 or early 1886 (supposedly through the mediation of Gazi Osman Paşa, the heroic Ottoman champion of Plevne) and went to Istanbul. According to Abdül’s brother Sami, after the former was pardoned and came to Istanbul, he became a member of a municipal council (“Şehremaneti meclisi azalığı”). He held this position with a small salary from 1886 to 1888 until he became bedridden due to his deteriorating health. In this period Abdül prepared in 1887 and in 1888 two memorandums on the present and future problems of Albania, addressed to the Italian prime minister Francesco Crispi (1860-1900), whom the former had met during his visit in Italy in Spring 1879 when Crispi was not yet prime minister. Still bedridden, Abdül prepared another memorandum in 1890 addressed to Crispi. Abdül died on October 23, 1892 after a long illness and was buried in Merdivenköy, in the cemetery of the bektashi tekke. Abdül’s brother Sami states in his encyclopaedic entry on Abdül that he left behind two children: a toddler daughter and a son, who were adopted by Sami when their mother Ballkëz (Balkız/Belkız) and Sami started to cohabit in 1894, following Abdül’s death in 1892 and the death of Sami’s wife Emine Veliye in 1893. We don’t know much about Abdül’s daughter Emine; however, his son Midhat (1880-1949), who lived in Istanbul from 1883 on, and later on became an © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 163 Ottoman administrator in Salonica, was going to play an important role in the Albanian history of the first half of the twentieth century, as an important actor in the development of Albanianism in the Ottoman Empire, and then in the Albanian state. As a leader of an anti-communist resistance movement, he fled abroad in 1944 and died in New York in 1949. The vast collection in his personal library, which was confiscated by the new socialist regime in 1945, was to form the main basis of the current National Library in Tirana. Abdül’s remains were transferred from Istanbul to Albania and reburied in Tirana in 1978 during celebrations of the centenary of the League of Prizren, while Abdül was designated “Hero of the People.” Sources: Devereux 1963:212 and 271; Frashëri 1981; Frashëri 1984; Frashëri 1985; Rexha 2003; Rizaj 1978; Rizaj 1978a; Rizaj 1978b; Rizaj 1979; Rizaj 1982; Kaleshi 1974 (Alb.: Kaleshi 1996a); Prifti 1979; Alpan 1978:14-19; Shuteriqi 1955: 256, 257; Shala 1972:200-201, 201; Haxhihasani 1962: 24 and 27; Faensen 1980:42, 43, 99-102, 106, 108, 109, 116 and 129; Alpan & Kaçi 1997: 70-71; Elsie 2004:147-148; Elsie 1995:226-229, 248, 326-329; Hutchings 1996:95-96; Rexha 1979: 134 and passim; Rizaj 1978:passim; Totraku 1979/81; Kofos 1975:124-125, 144-147; Korkuti 1979/81:87-102; Ippen 1916:342-385; Skendi 1953:219-232; Bartl 1995:282-283; Accounts and Papers, 37, 1878-79, LXXVII (77), p. 430 (See Rizaj 1978:256 and 121); Accounts and Papers, (36), 1878-79, LXXVII (7), pp. 433-434 (See Rizaj 1978:257-258 and 122-123; Accounts and Papers, 36, 1878-79, LXVVII (77), pp. 32-393 ; Accounts and Papers, 39, 1880, LXXVII, 78, p. 362. (See also Rizaj 1978:130); TA – Abdül Bey 1989; Sami 1896; Günaydın 1978; Aruçi 1996; Bozbora 2006; Kılıç 2006; Clayer 2007:passim. Ali Naki Bey [Lebhova] (Yanya, Muslim) (1842-1904) One of the three Muslim deputies from Yanya [Janina/Ioannina] province in the first session, various versions/spellings of Ali Naki Bey’s name can be found in different sources: Ali Naki Bey, Lebhovalı Ali Naki Bey, Neki Paşa Libohova and Neki Beu [Bey]. Ali Naki Bey was born in 1842 in Lebhova [Libohova], a town not far from Gjirokastër in southern Albania. His father, Malik Naili Paşa (Janina 1810 – Libohova 1892), beylerbey of Rumelia, was a scion of the famous and rich landowning Libohova-Arslan Paşali family, named after this small city where Ali Paşa Tepedelenli had built a fortress for his sister Şahnişa (or Shenisha). Before being elected as a deputy, Ali Naki Bey was governor of Gjirokastër. He became paşa and member of the State Council in Istanbul. Regarding his election as a deputy, it was stated in a letter from the French vice-consul in Yanya to the Foreign Ministry in Paris on November 9, 1877 (summarizing the official vilayet newspaper report (November 8, 1877) about the elections in Yanya) that Naki Bey also took part in the elections in Yanya for the second session of the parliament but failed, getting only 21 votes, which made him fifth on the list. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 164 Regarding his extra-parliamentary activities during his parliamentary membership, it must be stated that Ali Naki Bey took part in the convention/assembly of Gjirokastra. Ali Naki Bey died in Istanbul in 1904. His spouse Behixhe Hamza was a Circassian from Taupse, sister of the third wife of Mehmed Ali Vrioni (another deputy of the vilayet), with whom he had four sons and one daughter. Among his sons, there were Ahmet Myfid (1876 Libohova – 1927 Saranda), who was in the Ottoman diplomatic service and later became a minister in independent Albania, and Mahmut Ekrem Bey (born in Gjirokastra in 1882), who occupied high offices in inter-war Albania. Under the Italian occupation during the Second World War, he took part in the government. He died in Rome after the war. Sources: Vlora 1973:267-268; Mile 1978:101 [AMPJ LPK, Vol. 9, pp. 168-173]; Devereux 1963:263; Bartl 1979a:30; Bartl 1979b:31-32; Us 1954: passim; Aristarchi Bey 1878:351; Güneş 1998:14 and 714; Kim 1993:127. (For pictures of Ali Naki Bey, see Güneş 1998:218-219; Dilo 1979/81:109; Omari 1985:895.) Filip Ağa Rosto (Şkodra, Orthodox Christian) Serving as the deputy of İşkodra [Shkodra/İşkodra] in both sessions, Filip Ağa Rosto is known also as Filip Efendi, Filip Aga [Agha] Rosto, Filip Risto Vuçković or Philippe Effendi. A Christian Orthodox, Filip Risto Vuçković (probably from the small Orthodox community of İşkodra, if we consider the family name “Vuçković”), was born into a quite wealthy family from İşkodra, where he became member of the court of appeals. Elected as a deputy to the first Ottoman parliament, after returning from Istanbul, he retired in Elbasan (central Albania), where he had relatives and where he died when around the age of 100. Sources: Bushati 1998:539-40; Devereux 1963:264 and 272 and passim; Us 1954: 18 and passim; Güneş 1998:12 and passim, 17; Kim 1993:124 and 131; Dilo 1979/81:109. Mehmed Ali Bey (Yanya, Muslim) (1842-1895) Deputy of Yanya (Janina/Ionnina) in the second session, Mehmed Ali Bey was from Berat. His name is spelled variously in different sources: Mehmed Ali Bey, Mehmet Ali Vryoni, Mehmet Ali Beu [Bey], Mehemed Ali Bey of Berat, Mehemed Ali Vrion, Mehmet Ali Vrioni, Mehmed Ali Vrion and Mehmet Ali Berati. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 165 Mehmet Ali Bey (1842-1895) was from the famous Albanian landowning bey family of Berat (southern Albania) named Vrioni, a family that increased its wealth and power during the modernization process in the Ottoman Empire of the nineteenth century. The French vice-consul in Yanya described Mehmet Ali’s family, in his letter to the Foreign Ministry in Paris dated November 9, 1877, as one of the ‘best’ landowning families and the wealthiest Albanians in Berat. Mehmet Ali was a grandson of Ömer Paşa, one of the generals of Tepedelenli Ali Paşa, and later governor of Epirus, and the son of Hüseyin Paşa, who was governor of Berat between 1845 and 1863. His mother was Sabush Hanım Toptani, daughter of Ali Bey Toptani of Tirana. In his abovementioned letter the French vice-consul in Yanya wrote that Mehmet Ali Bey had received a quite good education in Istanbul and therefore, without the help of his origins or support from his family, he had prospects of making a good administrative career. He spoke Albanian, Turkish, Greek and French. Mehmet Ali Bey was elected deputy to the second session of the first Ottoman parliament with 39 votes, giving him the second best result in the election for the vilayet of Yanya. Mehmet Ali’s name is not included in Hakkı Tarık Us’s list of deputies because it was missing in the Official Yearbook (Devlet Salnamesi) that he used. Only the three non-Muslim deputies of Yanya are on his list. The author does note, however, that this must be a mistake, and, as it was also reported by the newspaper Basiret, that Beratlı Mehmet Ali Bey must have also been an elected deputy because his name appears in minutes and on commissions. Regarding his activities in parliament, it is of note that Mehmet Ali Vrioni was a member of the special committee at the beginning of the second session tasked with drafting the reply of the Chamber of Deputies to the speech by the Sultan. In general, he was a quite vigorous deputy in parliament, actively taking part in discussions on a variety of issues and in forming different commissions in parliament. As regards his extra-parliamentary activities, Mehmet Ali Vrioni was, according to Albanian historiography, a member of the Albanian Committee (Komiteti Shqiptar) of Yanya founded in May 1877. He had led a large militia force with at least one thousand men, and he had been successful as the leader of a 1,500-thousand strong militia force in the fighting in Herzegovina in fall 1876. He wanted to repeat this in Epirus (southern Albania), but he was elected deputy of Yanya. According to mainstream Albanian historiography, Mehmet Ali Vrioni, who had come to Istanbul as deputy of Yanya, was, together with some other Albanian deputies, one of the founders of the Komiteti Qendror për Mbrojten e të Drejtave të Kombësisë Shqiptare (Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People) founded by members of the Albanian elite in Istanbul in December 1877. Together with Abdul Bey Frasheri, he led negotiations with the Greek authorities in July and December 1877 in order to achieve an alliance. In spring 1879 he visited, with Abdul Bey and Abidin Dino, the main European capitals (Rom, Paris, Berlin, Vienna) in order to defend the fate of the Albanian territories. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 166 While taking part in the organization of the resistance movements, Mehmet Ali Vrioni, like other deputies, still saw himself as a deputy of the (albeit suspended) Ottoman parliament, and, hence, having learned of the resumption of the Ottoman and Greek negotiations on border issues, he, together with two other deputies from Yanya, Abdül Bey and Veysel (Dino), travelled on August 14, 1879 from his region to Istanbul to try to play any role possible as a representative of the local people in those negotiations in the capital. According to Albanian historiography, he remained one of the members of the central committee of the “League of Prizren” from its inception to its end. With the repression of the “Albanian League,” he was arrested in 1881 but was able to flee to Corfu. According to the nationalist narrative in the official Albanian encyclopaedia, his last known ‘patriotic act’ was the signing of a memorandum in 1890 together with Abdül Bey. Mehmet Ali died in 1895. He had married two wives of relatively local important families – Emine Hanım Klisura and Hüsniye Hanım Vokopola – and a Circassian woman, Mihri Hanım. With Hüsniye Hanım he had a son, İlyas Bey (born in 1882 or 1883). İlyas Bey Vrioni studied at the Mekteb-i Mülkiye, became mayor of Berat after the Young Turk revolution, participated in the Assembly of Vlora in 1912, which declared Albanian independence, and was twice prime minister of Albania, and several times member of parliament, minister and ambassador in the new Albanian state before his death in 1932. He married a woman from the well-known Dino family (from Preveza), and had three children with her, among them Yusuf Vrioni, the translator of İsmail Kadare into French. Sources: Clayer 2005; Devereux 1963: 208 and 208 fn. 57, 215 and 215 fn. 79, 271 and passim; Elsie 2004: 444, 444-445; Kaleshi 1974:536, [Alb. translation: Kaleshi 1996a:85]; Faensen 1980: 18 and 18 fn. 107, 43, 100; Frashëri 1984:80-86, 91-103 ; Frashëri 2004:287; Hutchings 1996:250; Korkuti 1979/81: 92-93; Pollo & Pulaha 1978, 83-88; Kofos 1975:124-125, 144-147; Alpan 1979:308; Mehmeti & Frashëri 1985:1178; Myzyri 1985:501; Us 1954:20, 23, 35-41, [fn. 58], 154, 181-187, 304, 388, and passim; Güneş 1998:19; Kim 1993:133; Mile 1978:101 [AMPJ LPK, Vol. 9, pp. 168-173]; Pollo & Buda 1965:147-148;Rizaj 1978: 115, 128-130, 250, 264-265, 320; Rizaj 1978b; Vrioni 1998; Vlora 1968:139, 145; Vlora 1973: 278-279; Vlora 1911:61-65; Accounts and Papers, 37, 1878-79, LXXVII (77), p. 430 (See Rizaj 1978:256 and 121); Accounts and Papers, (36), 1878-79, LXXVII (7), pp. 433-434 (See Rizaj 1978:257-258 and 122-123; Accounts and Papers, 36, 1878-79, LXVVII (77), pp. 32-393; Accounts and Papers, 39, 1880, LXXVII, 78, p. 362. (See also Rizaj 1978:130); Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv (Wien), PA XXXVIII/443, Ranzi, 12/8/1905; O Neos Kuvaras, No II, 1962, pp. 140-152 and 152-177. Mihail Harito Efendi (Yanya, Orthodox Christian) (1836-1897) Deputy of Yanya in the second session, Mihail Harito Efendi is named differently in various sources: Hiristo Efendi; Mihail Efendi; Mihail Hiristo Efendi; Mihal Harito Efendi[u]; Mihal Haritoja, Harito E. or Mihal Kristo. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 167 Mihal Harito was from a wealthy Orthodox Christian family from the Albanian-speaking village of Nivan, in the mountainous Zagori region, north-east of Ergeri [Argirikastro/Gjirokastër], in the north of the vilayet of Yanya/Ioannina. He and his brother, Qiro Harito, had bought the tobacco trade monopoly in the kazas of Avlonya [Vlora/Vlonja] and Arnavut Belgradı [Berat], as well as the administration of the post of Ergeri [Argirikastro/Gjirokastër]. They also controlled a caravan transport between Gjirokastër and Thessaly. In his letter to the Foreign Ministry in Paris, sent on 9 November 1877, the French vice-consul in Yanya describes Mihail Harito as a “Hellenized Albanian,” who was “not lacking in intellect, criticism or education.” He could speak Albanian, Greek and Turkish. He also states that Mihail Harito had held the presidency of the commercial court in Preveze [Preveza] and Ergeri [Argirikastro/Gjirokastër], and also served as the director of the exclusively Christian town of Himara; however, his staff was not satisfied with his work and attempted to replace him with a Muslim statesman. Still this ‘strange’ event does not seem to have affected Harito’s career very much. Mihal Harito was a benefactor for the Christians in his native region: in 1861, with his brother, he built a church, and in 1881, with Petro Kondi, he founded a school. He is said to have been in favour of an Albanian Orthodox Church. In 1877, he became a member of the first Ottoman parliament. In a letter from the French vice-consul in Yanya on 9 November 1877 to the Foreign Ministry in Paris summarizing the news in the official vilayet newspaper (November 8, 1877) about the elections in Yanya, it was stated that Mihail Hristo [Harito] Efendi obtained only 14 votes and actually came in sixth in the election for the non- Muslim deputies of Yanya, from where three non-Muslim deputies were supposed to be sent to the parliament. However, in the end Harito Bey was sent to parliament as the third non-Muslim Yanya, because the other non-Muslim candidates Algivyadi Lambi Efendi (29 votes), Kantarcı Efendi (28 votes) and Zoidhi Efendi (15 votes) decided not to take part in the parliament. The reason for this decision seems to be that their business had suffered much during their service in Istanbul as deputies in the first session as they had had to stay away from their hometown for a long period of time. According to the dominant narrative in Albanian historiography, Mihail Harito, who had come to Istanbul as the deputy of Yanya, was one of the members of the Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People (Komiteti Qendror për Mbrotjen e të Drejtave të Kombësisë), the association founded in 1877 by a group of Albanian intellectuals in Istanbul, three Albanian deputies of Yanya (Abdül Frashëri, Mehmet Ali Vrioni, Mustafa Nuri Vlora) among them. Regarding his participation in parliament, it must be stated that he took part in several negotiations in the chamber, and on one occasion on January 9, 1878, for instance, Mihail Hristo was involved in the discussions in the Chamber about the © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 168 responsibility for the failure of the Ottoman Empire in war against the Russians, questioning the interference by Istanbul and the incapability of military commanders. He died in 1897 at the age of 61. One of his sons, Petro Harito, was a member of the Albanian parliament several times during the inter-war period. Sources: Laska 2001:195-198; Pirro Loli, Itaka brenda meje, Athinë, November 2003-2004, http://www. albnet.gr/book/zagoria/memorandum.htminternet; Devereux 1963:214 fn. 77, 271; Dilo 1979/ 81:110;Us 1954:20, 155 ; Kim 1993:19; Mile 1978:101-102 [AMPJ LPK, Vol. 9, pp. 168-173]; Alpan 1978:39; Alpan 1979:308, 311; Güneş 1998:19; Buda et al. 1985; Mehmeti & Frashëri 1985:1178; Myzyri1985; Frashëri 2004:287. Mustafa (Nuri) Bey (Yanya, Muslim) (1830/31-1885/86) Deputy of Yanya in both sessions, Mustafa (Nuri) Bey was from Avlonya [Vlora/Vlonya]. Different versions of his name can be encountered in different sources: Mustafa Bey [Beu]; Yanyalı Mustafa Bey; Yanyalı Ahmed Paşazade Mustafa Bey; Moustapha Bey; Mustafa Paşa; Mustafa Paşa Vlora; Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora; [Yanya Mebusu] Mustafa Efendi[u]. Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora was born in 1246/1830-31 into the famous bey family of Vlora (Avlonya) in southern Albania, in the vilayet of Yanya [Ioannina]. His father was Beqir Bey or Avlonyalı Hacı Ebubekir Bey, a treasurer, and the brother of Selim Paşa (b. 1820) who was mütesarrif [official local governor] of Gjirokastër subdistrict. According to his biography in the Ottoman registers, he received a traditional religious education with a private professor. However he also studied other subjects, as he was able to speak, read and write not only Turkish, Arabic and Persian, but also French and Greek. He could also speak Italian and Albanian. After an unsuccessful rebellion by his family against the central authorities, he was banned to Konya, where he stayed with his brother and his cousins between 1848 and 1851. However, a few years later he began a career in the Ottoman administration. In 1854-55 he was appointed a member of Seyyar Komisyonu in the vilayet of Yanya, and the following year he became member of the vilayet assembly. He then occupied several posts of kaymakam: in Ergeri [Argirikastro/Gjirokastër] (1862-63), in Görice/Korçë (1863-64), and in Narda (1864-65). Then he was appointed Midhat Paşa’s deputy, vali of the Danube vilayet (1865-66). In 1867-68 he was promoted to mutessarıf and occupied different posts as such, successively in Resmo (Rethymno) 1867-1870 and in Kandiye (1870-71), both in Crete. In 1873, after a five-month stay in Vlorë, he was sent to Herzegovina as a mutessarıf. In 1876, he stayed in Vlorë for seven months before being appointed councillor of the vali of Crete. In 1877, he resigned and remained without an administrative position for fourteen months. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 169 A letter from the French vice-consul in Yanya to the Foreign Ministry in Paris on 9 November 1877 reported that Mustafa Bey was elected with the largest number of votes (46 votes). According to Albanian historiography, Mustafa Nuri, who had come to Istanbul as the deputy of Yanya, was, together with some other Albanian deputies, one of the founders of the so-called Komiteti Qendror për Mbrojten e të Drejtave të Kombësisë Shqiptare (Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People) founded by the Albanian elite in December 1877 in Istanbul. As pointed out by Robert Devereux, Mustafa Nuri Vlora (Yanya) was one of “[…] the ten most prominent opposition deputies […]” who were going to be deported on 15 February 1878 from Istanbul after the Chamber was dissolved. Mustafa Nuri Vlora (Yanya) was, together with nine other opposition deputies, “[…] summoned [on February15, 1878] to the Ministry of Police and informed curtly that, with the Chamber having been dissolved, they no longer had any business to transact in Istanbul and they were therefore required to leave the capital for their homes by the first available ship. The ten deputies protested the order as completely illegal and unconstitutional […] the deputies had no choice but to board the Austrian ship Mars, which sailed from Istanbul on February [1878].” According to the correspondent of The Times, on February 25, 1878, the government even refused the deported deputies their travelling expenses, which they were indeed entitled to by the Constitution. Regarding his extra-parliamentary activities, we know that at that time in Yanya (Janina/Ioannina), Mustafa Nuri mobilized volunteers to defend the Ottoman- Greek border against any attempted intrusion by the Greeks before he was elected deputy to the first Ottoman parliament. This is probably why in 1878-79 he refused an appointment as mutessarıf of Görice (Korçë). As a consequence, he was dismissed and his salary was cut. In June 1878 he was elected the head of the Vlora branch of the ‘Albanian League’ (Lidhja Shqiptare) and took part in the preparations for the protests against the Great Powers at the Berlin Congress. According to Neil Shehu, the author of the entry on Mustafa Nuri in the official Albanian encyclopaedia, “the head of the Vlora branch of the League, Mustafa Nuri, in a conversation with the deputy consul of Austria-Hungary in Vlora, frankly expressed his opinion about the policy of Vienna, a policy intending to extend the conquest of the Balkans over a broader area, especially in Kosovo, Macedonia and up to the Aegean Sea. He did not believe the deputy consul’s words about the ‘help’ for Albania, which he promised in the name of the Viennese government.” In Februray 1879 he represented Vlora at the Preveza meeting of the Albanians (mbledhj e Prevezës), summoned to discuss the ongoing problem of settling the border between Greece and Ottoman Albania. Mustafa Nuri was pursuing a kind of ‘cultural Albanianism’ by replying that ‘the language of the region is Albanian and all correspondence should be in Albanian’, when the Austro-Hungarian deputy consul in Vlora suggested to him that the Commercial Court should use Greek rather than © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 170 Turkish. On July 7, 1880 Mustafa Nuri Vlora, as the head of a commission from the South, visited İşkodra [Shkodra/Shkodër] to talk with the Albanians in the North about cooperation between the southern and northern Albanians in protecting the current (Ottoman) Albanian borders against the external plans for cession. In 1881, he was arrested with other Albanian leaders and exiled to Çanakkale, where he spent some time. In 1883, he was again appointed as a mutessarıf in Menteşe district, a post from which he resigned at the end of 1884. During a stay there, he had made several gifts (two fountains, a building for a rüşdiye and a street between the city and the port) to his native town. He died in 1885 or 1886, in Minne while he was making the pilgrimage to Mecca. He was married to Naile Hanım Yanina, of the Aslan-paşalı family, with whom he had four sons (Neşet Paşa, Mehmet Ferit Paşa, Süreyya Bey and Namik Bey) and two daughters (Nasip Hanım and Melek Hanım). Ferid [Ferit] Paşa became grand vizir in 1903. Sources: İsmail Kemal Bey 1920:27; Vlora 1973:275-277; Shehu 1985:1172; Kaleshi 1981:428 [Albanian translation with some mistakes: Kaleshi 1996b:127]; Kaleshi 1981:433 [Kaleshi 1996c:183]; Devereux 1963:247-248, 247-248 fn. 24, 248 fn. 26, 263, 271; Pollo & Buda 1965:147; Alpan 1978:36; Rizaj 2001:100 & 104 ; Frashëri 2004:287. Hysni Myzyri, “Komiteti Qendror për Mbrotjen e të Drejtave të Kombësisë,” Buda et al. 1985:501; Aristarchi Bey 1878:351; Us 1954:20, 79, 154, 410-411; Kim 1993:127, 133 ; Shehu 1979/81:112-114; Belegu 1939:69 ; Korkuti 1979/81:94-95; Güneş 1998:14, 19, 218-219, 714 and passim; Kutay 1960a:6207; Mile 1978:101 [The letter of the French vice-consul in Yanya on 9 November 1877 to Foreign Ministry in Paris summarizing the news in the official vilayet newspaper (08.11.1877) about the elections in Yanya for the second session. (Quoted from AMPJ LPK, Vol. 9, pp. 168-173)], Sicill-i Ahval defteri n°1, p. 110; Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv (Vienna), PA XIV/7, Liasse V/1, Ranzi, Valona, 18/4/1905. Ömer Şevki Efendi (Prizren/Kosova, Muslim) (1820?-1887) In the sources on the first Ottoman parliament the name of one of the deputies from the Kosovo province (vilayet) in the second session usually appears as ‘Ömer Şevki’, albeit with different spellings and with the epithet ‘Nardalı’ showing that he was from Narda/Narta in present-day north-western Greece and in the Ottoman province of Yanya of that time: Nardalı Ömer (Şevki) effendi; Ömer Şevki Efendi; Ömer effendi or Ömer Shevki Effendi or Nardalı Ömer Efendi. This “Nardalı Ömer Efendi” version also appears in some Ottoman-Turkish documents. It is commonly accepted in Albanian historiography both in Kosovo and Albania, on the other hand, that this deputy was the well-known Albanian figure of that period Ömer Prizreni (1820/21-1887), whose name appears in a number of versions in various sources in different languages: Haxhi Ymer Prizreni; Haxhi © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 171 Ymer Efendiu (i Prizrenit) [Effendi]; Hadži Imer-efendi Prizreni; Hadji Omer Effendi; Sheh Umer Prizreni; Haxhi Ymer Efendiu; Myderriz Ymer Prizreni, Myderiz Omer Effendi, Sheh Omer Prizreni, Sheh Ymer, Ymer Efendi Prizreni; Omer Efendiu nga Prizreni; myderiz Omer Efendi(u); Ymer Prizreni and Prizrin’li Hacı Ömer. It can be inferred from this list (without speculating about the reasons) that the versions without ‘Şevki’ (Shevki) have prevailed in these sources. Exceptions to this can be seen in the collections of documents, where also the names Amer Chevki, Amer Shevki, Ymer Shefki[u], Omer Shevki and Omer Chevki are used for Ymer Prizreni. Regarding the question whether the person named in all of these sources is, as commonly suggested, the same person, it must be noted that Narda/Narta was not in the Ottoman vilayet of Kosova but rather in Yanya, whereas the deputy in question was elected from Kosovo province. The minutes of the first parliament compiled by Hakkı Tarık Us, for instance, report that Ömer, the deputy of Kosova vilayet, was from Narda. The source for this information, which has been repeated in some other studies on the first Ottoman parliament, is totally unclear; it is striking, however, that no one has questioned how someone from the vilayet of Yanya became a deputy of the vilayet of Kosova in the Ottoman parliament. Leaving aside the question of two different people with the name Ömer, we will focus here on Ömer Prizreni, who commonly has been suggested to have been the deputy of Kosovo to the first Ottoman parliament, while noting that we do not possess much information about Ömer from Narda/Narta. Ömer [Alb. Ymer] Prizreni is a historical figure that one comes across in almost every study on the history of Kosovo between 1878 and 1881, and has been glorified in Kosovo as one of the fathers of Albanian nationalism. He was described in a short entry on “Haxhi Ymer Prizreni” in the official encyclopaedia of socialist Albania as one of the “distinguished” activists of the National Movement, one of the main pioneers of the Albanian League of Prizren and head of the provisional government established at the end of the League.” His recently mythologized image in the Albanian historiography in Kosovo can be seen as the counterpart to Abdül Frashëri’s (Yanya) place in the Albanian historiography of Albania. This image of Ömer as “the heart and soul of the Albanian League” is believed to have been overshadowed in the historiography by that of Abdül, and Ömer Efendi is introduced as the “progressive cleric, enlightener, genuine son of the Albanian people, and patriot, who not only formed the Albanian League but also remained its devoted leader to the end.” Ömer was from a Muslim clerical family from Zgatar, a village near Prizren. As it is not known when his father Süleyman Efendi Zgatari (a religious instructor [müderris] in the religious school [medrese] of Bayraklı Mosque in Prizren) moved from Zgatar to Prizren, it is not clear in which of these places Ömer was born. Süleyman Efendi’s father (i.e. Ömer’s grandfather) Ali Nuhi, on the other hand, © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 172 had been the founder and the first imam of the Zgatar Mosque. Ömer had two brothers: Ali and Osman. Ömer Efendi was supposedly from a rich family that was one of the initiators of modern (capitalist) business in Prizren, and had steadily increased its wealth. Running a tannery, the family also owned land around Prizren and Opoje, the region in southern Kosovo where the family was from. There is also disagreement about the date of Ömer’s birth in the historiography; it is usually accepted, however, that he was born either in 1820 or 1821. Ömer attended primary and secondary school in Prizren and graduated from a religious school (medrese) in Prizren, supposedly the ‘Mehmed Paşa Medrese’, and worked as a religious instructor (müderris) in the same town from the 1860s on. It is sometimes claimed that Ömer studied law, philosophy and theology in Istanbul; however, no evidence is given for this information. It is sure that Ömer was a cleric (as a müftü of Prizren and as a religious instructor [müderris] at the medrese of the Bayraklı Mosque in Prizren). His Albanian biographers maintain that Ömer spoke “Albanian, Gorançe or Gorani, a Slavic/Bulgarian language spoken among the Muslim Slavs of the Opoja region, Turkish, Arabic, Persian and French, and understood German.” This information is, however, rather unreliable, as it is doubtful that he knew French or German. Belonging to the Naqshbandi mystical order (tarikat/tariqa), Ömer Efendi also carried the epithet Hacı following his pilgrimage, in addition to his other labels such as Müderris, Müftü, Sheyh and Hoca. He is supposed to have taken part in the preparations for the so-called ‘Albanian League’ (allegedly from the second half of 1877 on) by organizing the resistance of local forces against the military campaigns of the neighbouring countries into the Ottoman territories during the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 and by fighting for the rights of the Albanians in the region. He organized a committee for self-defence in the district (sancak) of Prizren, which, like many other such committees in Kosovo, was preparing for military resistance against the annexation of the region by the Serbian forces and organizing help for many refugees escaped from the Serbian armies into Kosovo. In 1877, the year Ömer was elected deputy of Kosova province for the second session of the first Ottoman parliament, he became a member of the so-called ‘Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People’ (Komiteti Qendror për Mbrojten e të Drejtave të Kombësisë Shqiptare), which was allegedly established in December 1877 in Istanbul under Abdül’s (Yanya) leadership. According to mainstream Albanian historiography, Ömer was the head of the commission that in spring 1878 prepared the general assembly of local elites to take place in Prizren in June 1878, during which the League of Prizren was founded. It has been claimed by one of his biographers that the assembly in Prizren actually did not start on June 10, 1878, as commonly believed, but with the meeting at the Bayraklı Mosque (Alb.: Bajrakli Xhami) on June 4, 1878, where © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 173 Ömer held the opening speech. Ending on June 18, 1878, this assembly supposedly elected Ömer as head of the ‘central committee’ (Cemiyet-i Merkeziyye-i İttihadiyye) formed during the first assembly in Prizren, which was dominated by those from the radical wing not only fighting against the plans for the annexation of some territories by the neighbours, but also striving for a unified autonomous Albanian province under the Ottoman Empire. It is generally claimed that he was later elected on July 2, 1878 to the General Board of the League and on October 3, 1879 as the head both of the whole Albanian League and of the so-called ‘Provisional Government.’ According to Albanian historiography in January 1881 this government declared an autonomous Albania, which is of course a distorted vision of reality, even if Ömer did play an important role locally. One can find Ömer’s signature (“Amer Chevki”) under a memorandum written in French and addressed by “Des Délégués Albanais” to the British diplomat A. H. Layard, on July 10, 1879. During the organization of local forces fighting against the implementation of the resolutions of the Berlin Congress and secondarily striving for the formation of a unique and autonomous province, Ömer’s role apparently became more important. In his report of June 12, 1880, the British consul in Prizren St. John, who gives a critical analysis of the meaning of this resistance movement, states explicitly that “[…] a person named Hadji Omer Effendi is exercising great influence at Prisrend. This man has now adopted the character of a ‘dictator’, taking a very active part in public affairs, political and judicial, the Mutessarif who nominally represents the Government being completely set aside.” While the geographic scope and substance of Ömer’s power may be disputed, it is clear from this report that Ömer had gradually built a power structure within a certain range. Ömer Efendi was also one of the organizers of the second assemblies in Prizren on July 22, 1880 and in Dibra (Debre) between October 20 and 23, 1880. The resistance of this rather faithful movement against the demands of first Montenegro and then Greece had proved very helpful for the Ottomans in their international negotiations over the new borders. However, once those borders had been settled on, some factions of this regional movement became undesirable for the Ottoman state so that in spring 1881, Dervish Paşa was commissioned by the Ottoman state to control or suppress these factions that had by then become disloyal. After the suppression of the Albanian League of Prizren by the Ottoman armies in April 1881, which could not be overcome by the weak local armed resistance groups, Ömer managed to escape to Ulqin in Montenegro. While there are different speculations about his final destination, it is claimed by one of his biographers that Ömer left Prizren on April 30, 1881 for Durrës (Dıraç). On his way to Dıraç, Ömer secretly stayed in İşkodra in the house of Yusuf Efendi [Golemi], one of the leaders of the resistance movement in the region; after six days he left this city for Ulqin in Montenegro, where he arrived on May 18, 1881. Although © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 174 the Ottoman government had apparently sent him delegates in 1884 to call him back with the promise of amnesty, he is claimed to have refused to return to the Ottoman Empire and obtained refugee status from Montenegro. While different years for his death are given in different sources, according to the inscription on his tombstone in Ulqin in Montenegro, Ömer died in Hicri 1304, i.e. between September 30, 1886 and September 18, 1887. Enver Baftiu, relying on a document he had, clarified that Ömer was killed in front of his house in Ulqin on “Hicri 20 Ramadan 1304,” i.e. June 12, 1887. His tomb remains in Ulqin in Montenegro to this day. A Turkish encyclopaedia states that he (“Prizrin’li Hacı Ömer”) is the father of Besim Akalın (1862-1940); however this information is probably wrong as no relation between these two persons is mentioned in the entry on Besim Akalın himself in the same volume. Referring to a document dated “Hicri 13 ramazan [Ramadan] 1307,” i.e. May 3, 1890, some Kosovar historians have maintained, however, that Ömer Efendi was married to “Fatime” and had a daughter called “Ajshe” [Ayshe]. It is also stated that both Fatime and Ajshe were interned first in Thessalonica and later in Izmir for an unknown period, and returned to their “motherland” around 1890. Ayshe was married to an Albanian named Vehbi Fluku, who was supposedly Ömer Efendi’s student in the medrese. Relying on interviews with Ömer’s descendants, some Kosovar historians have claimed that Ömer also had a son who died very young. Sources: Altıparmak 1981; Pirraku 1978; Verli 2002; Verli 2003; Mataj 2002; Kolçe 1985; Pirraku 2002a; Pirraku 2002b; Pirraku 2003; Rizaj 2002; Baftiu 2002a; Baftiu 2002b; Kosova 2002; Rexha 1979; Mataj, Ferizi & Halilaj 1979/81; Devereux 1963:271. Selim Ağa Göriz (İşkodra, Muslim) (?-1885) Selim Ağa Göriz, also known as Selim Efendi; Selim Göriz Aga [Agha/Ağa] and Selim Aga Gjyrezi, was the deputy of İşkodra [İşkodra/Shkodra] to the second session of the first Ottoman parliament. Selim Ağa Göriz (Gjyrezi in Albanian) was born in Shkodër into a rich family of merchants, who had also acquired lands. His father was involved in trade with Venice. He was himself a member of the esnaf of salt in 1846. In 1861, he was appointed president of the commercial court of the city, and he was elected deputy to the first Ottoman parliament. At that time, he became involved in the local movement against the cession of some territories to Montenegro, in particular against the cession of Ulcinj in 1880. Selim Ağa died in 1885, in Shkodër, at a very old age. His sons Ibrahim and Muhamet held political positions in inter-war Albania, the first as a deputy from 1923 to 1924, and the other as president of the Shkodër © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 175 municipality; however, they had to leave the country in 1925 because of their opposition to Ahmet Zogu. Sources: Bushati 1998:539, 554-555; Bushati 1999:174-176; Devereux 1963:272 and passim; Kim 1993: 124, 127, 131; Güneş 1998:17; Us 1954: 148, 155 and passim. Pollo et al. 1984:239 Toptanzade Sami Bey (Şkodra, Muslim) Toptanzade Sami Bey, whose name appears also as Sami Bey or Toydanzade Sami Bey in different sources, was the deputy of İşkodra [Shkodër/İşkodra] in the first session. Devereux gives his name as “Toydanzade Sami B” and states that he is a Muslim Albanian, and that his “residence” and “occupation” are not known. Jongil Kim mistakenly states in his MA thesis that he is Arab [sic]. It is known, however, that his name was Toptanzade (and not Toydanzade) Sami Bey, and that he was a member of the famous Toptani family (originally from Krujë), which came to be the most powerful family in Tirana and surroundings, in central Albania, from the beginning of the nineteenth century onwards. He was the son of Hacı Mehmed Paşa, and the grandson of Kaplan Paşa (d. 1816). We know almost nothing about Toptanzade Sami except that he was elected to the first Ottoman parliament, and that in the parliament, according to Devereux, he was elected together with Yenişehirli Ahmed (Aydın) and Mihaliki Efendi (Selanik), as one of the administrative officers who “[…] were responsible for supervising the Chamber’s clerical staff and other employees (doormen, ushers, etc.).” His only son, Celal Bey, died in Plevne in 1877. Sources: Bakiu 1998: 33; Devereux 1963: 165 and 264 and passim; Aristarchi Bey 1878:348; Us 1954:18, 133, 415 and passim; Güneş 1998:12, 132 and passim; Kim 1993:14, 124 Veysel Bey [Dino] (Yanya, Muslim) Veysel Bey was one of the deputies from Yanya to the first session of the first Ottoman parliament. Different versions of his name can be encountered in different sources: Veysel Bey, Veissel Bey, Vesil Bey, Vesel Bey, Vessel Bey, Vesel beg, Vesel beu, Vesel bej Dino and Vejsel Bey Dinua. Veysel Bey was from the famous Dino family of Albanian notables from Çamëri (west of Ioannina). He was the son of Ahmet Paşa Dino (1785-1849) of the Preveza district, who died during the cholera epidemic during the 1880s in Ankara, where his son Abidin Paşa was serving as governor. His mother was Saliha Dino. His brother, Abidin Paşa Dino, vali and Ottoman Minister of For- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 176 eign Affairs in 1880, was one of the founders of the Komiteti Qendror për Mbrojten e të Drejtave të Kombësisë Shqiptare (Central Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Albanian People) founded by the Albanian elite in December 1877 in Istanbul. At the end of the 1870s, Veysel Bey Dino was head of the Military Commission of the vilayet of Ioannina. In 1877, he was elected to the first Ottoman parliament. Relying on a report in the Stamboul newspaper (January 31, 1877), Devereux states that Veysel Bey was “[e]lected when Hüsnü B., a notable of Larissa, declined to serve.” He was one of the leaders of the southern branch of the ‘Albanian League’ together with his brother Abidin Paşa Dino Preveza, Abdyl Bey Frasheri (Yanya) and Mehmet Ali Bey Vrioni (Yanya). Like Feyzi Efendi (also deputy of Yanya), Veysel Bey was, according to Devereux, a member of “one of the most important” special committees in the parliament – “[…] an eleven-man group, comprising four Muslims and seven Christians, created on June 6, 1877, to consider ways and means of raising the funds needed by the government for the prosecution of the war.” He was a member of the so-called ‘Society for the edition of Albanian books,’ founded in the Ottoman capital under the leadership of Şemseddin Sami Fraşer [Frashëri] in 1879. In a letter from the British Vice-Consul in Preveza C. A. Blakeney, to Sir A. H. Layard on March 3, 1879, it was stated that “[a] deputation, consisting of four members of the Albanian League, two of whom were cadi [Kadı] of Prevesa and Vessel Bey, brother of Abedin Bey [Abidin Dino Paşa], called at this Vice-Consulate yesterday morning, and handed to me, under flying seal, a petition [with the date of February 28, 1879] addressed by them and their colleagues to the Marquis of Salisbury, […] The above deputation also informed me that a similar petition has been addressed to the Consuls of Great Powers for transmission to their respective governments.” The petition addressed “by the members of the Albanian League” in Preveza was protesting against the plans for the cession to Greece of the Ottoman (Albanian!) territories of Preveza, Arta and Yanya. Another petition by “[t]he Albanian League to Mr. Malet” himself, also enclosed in the same letter, declared that “[t]he territories of Prevesa [Preveza], Janina [Yanya] and Arta, which Greece claims, from abantiquo an integral part of Albania, and the cession of these territories to Greece would be equivalent the extinction of the whole of Albania.” Edward Malet, the British diplomat in the region, informed his government in a letter dated April 1, 1879 that “another petition addressed to the Marquis by the “Albanian Chiefs” had been handed over to him by Vesel Bey. It was declared in this petition dated March 2, 1879 “[…] that if the Greek Government persists in its resolve to encroach upon the rights of the Albanian people, we must cast upon it all the responsibility of the consequences, since for our part we are determined to die in the defence of our nationality.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 177 Underneath another memorandum addressed by “the Albanian Delegates” to A.H. Layard on July 10, 1879, who forwarded it to the Marquis of Salisbury on July 20, 1879, we can see that the French text was signed inter alia by “Vassal Dinor,” whose name was translated into Albanian by Skender Rizaj, who published both the original and Albanian translation of this document, as “Vasal Dinor.” The person who signed this petition “protesting any portion of territory to a foreign power” was probably Veysel Dino himself. While taking part in the organization of the resistance movement in the region, Veysel Dino, like all other deputies, still saw himself as a deputy of the (albeit suspended) Ottoman parliament, and hence when he was informed about the resumption of the Ottoman and Greek negotiations on border issues, he, together with two other deputies from Yanya, Abdül Bey and Mehmet Ali Vrioni, travelled on August 14, 1879 from the region to Istanbul to try to play any role possible in those negotiations in the capital as a representative of the local people. Sources: Clayer 2007:272; Mehmeti 1998:21, 77; Devereux 1963:168-169, 169 fn. 37, 263 and 266 fn. 36; Faensen 1980:43; Alpan & Kaçi 1997:75-76; Korkuti 1979/81:93; Rizaj 1978:128-130 and 264- 265 ; Güneş 1998: 14, 218-219 and 714; Kaleshi 1979: 477-478; Us 1954:20 and passim; Kim 1993:127; Kutay 1960:6348; Kaleshi 1979:477; Aristarchi Bey 1878:351; Kim 1993:127; Rizaj 1978:321 (index) ; PRO 78/2939 (published in Accounts and Papers, 39, 1880, LXXVII, 78, p. 362); PRO F.O. 78/2936 (published in Accounts and Papers, 36, 1878-1879, LXXVII (7), pp.387- 389. See also Rizaj 1978:250-255); PRO, F.O. 78/1879 (published in Accounts and Papers, 36, 1878-1879, LXXVII (77), pp.345-348. See Rizaj 1978:246-249). Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi (İşkodra, Muslim) (ca. 1830-1901) Deputy of İşkodra [Shkodra/Shkodër] in both sessions of the first Ottoman parliament, Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi has been named differently in various sources: Yusuf Efendi [Efendiu], Podgoriçeli Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi, Youssouf Effendi, Jusuf Oruçi, Jusuf Uruçi, Jusuf Ziaeddin Podgoroci, Jusuf Efendi Podgorica, or Myderiz Jusuf Podgorica. Generally called Yusuf Efendi Podgorica, or Yusuf Oruçi (or Uruçi), he was born around 1830 in Podgorica [Podgoriçe/Podogorika in present-day Montenegro], into a family originating in the mountainous region of Trieshi (today in Montenegro). One of his ancestors is said to have settled along the Buna River. Later on, the family migrated to Podgorica, where they remained until 1879 when the city came under Montenegrin rule. Yusuf Efendi himself studied with his father, Hacı Ibrahim Rustem Efendi Uruçi, then in the medrese situated in the bazar of Shkodër with the ulema Salih Efendi and Sali Efendi Pata, and later on in Istanbul. After completing his studies, he became mufti and müderris in Podgorica. Because of that, he was named “fetfacia” (fetvacı), the one who issues fetvas. He was a learned ʿālim, who knew Alba- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 178 nian and Serbo-Croatian, but also Turkish, Arabic and Persian, and he owned a big library. Elected as a deputy of Podgorica to the first Ottoman parliament, it is known that he intervened at least twice during the discussions in the parliament, in April and December 1877, criticizing the Ottoman authorities and defending the integrity of the Ottoman lands against Montenegro. Devereux states that the newspaper “Stamboul, November 23, 1877, identified the second Muslim deputy [of İşkodra] as Davud E, provincial inspector of schools. Either the newspaper was in error, or Davud, having resigned before the session started, was replaced by Yusuf.” According to Devereux, Yusuf Efendi was one of the most active participants in the parliamentary discussions the on the ‘Montenegrin problem’ opposing the cession of any Ottoman-Albanian territory to Montenegro. Also outside the parliament, he was one of the activists who fought against the transfer of Ottoman territories to Montenegro. Two or three years after the inclusion of the Podgorica region into Montenegro in February 1879, he left for İşkodra because he opposed the schooling of Muslim children in Montenegrin schools. The Ottoman authorities helped him settle in İşkodra by giving him the administration of heritages (miras). He died in 1901 in İşdokra, where he was buried. He had four sons and one daughter. At least two of his sons performed religious functions. Sources: Aristarchi Bey 1878:348; Bushati 1998: 534-539; Devereux 1963:188-189, 264, 272, 274 fn. 39; Güneş 1998: 12, 17,132, 218-219, 714; Kim 1993:124 and 131; Pirraku 2003:32; Panorama 2006: 14-15; Pirraku (Radio Ylberi); Rizaj 2001:101-102; Ulqini 1982:22; Us 1954:18, 155. Bibliography 1. Alpan, Necip P. 1978: Prizren Birliği ve Arnavutlar, Ankara: Çağdaş Basımevi. 2. Alpan, Nexhip 1979: “Disa Çështja Shqiptare të Diskuturara në Parlamentin e Parë Osman,” Buda et al. 1979:308-311. 3. Alpan, Nexhip P. & Kaçi, Nesip 1997: Shqiptarët në Perandorinë Osmane, Tiranë: Albin. 4. Altıparmak, Hamid 1981: “Kontribut ndriçimit të Ymer Prizrenit gjatë Lidhjes së Prizrenit,” Konferenca Shkencore 100-vjetorit të Lidhjes Shqiptare të Prizrenit, Vol I, Prishtinë, 1981. 5. Aristarchi Bey, Gregoire 1878: Doustouri Hamidie. Appendice a la Législation ottomane, Cinquième Partie: Contenant les Lois et règlements promulguées a partir de l’année 1874-1878, (Publié par Demetrius Nicolaides, Directeur-Editeur de journal Thraki), Constantinople: Bureau de Journal Thraky. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 179 6. Aruçi, Muhammed 1996: “Fraşiri, Abdül (1839-1892),” in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 13, pp. 194-195. 7. Baftiu, Enver 2002a: “Dritë e re për Gjenealogjinë e Ymer Prizrenit,” in: Pirraku 2002a:163-169. 8. Baftiu, Enver 2002b: “Kontribut ndriçimit të jetës veprimtarës së Ymer Prizrenit,” Ymer Prizreni, personalitet i shquar i Lëvizjes Kombëtare Shqiptare, Sesion shkencor, 25-26 maj 2002, Ulqin: ART CLUB, 2002 9. Bakiu, G. A. 1998: Qyteti i Tiranës, Tiranë. 10. Bartl, Peter 1968: Die albanischen Muslime zur Zeit der nationalen Unabhängigkeitsbewegung 1878-1912, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. [Tr.: Bartl 1998] 11. Bartl, Peter 1979a: “Libohova, Ekrem (Eqrem) Bey,” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1979:30-31. 12. Bartl, Peter 1979b: “Libohova, Mufid (Myfit) Bey,” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1979:31-33. 13. Bartl, Peter 1995: Albanien. Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Südosteuropa Institut München, Verlag Friedrich Pustet Regensburg. 14. Belegu, Xhafer 1939: Lidhja e Prizrenit e veprimet e saje 1878-1881, Tiranë: Kristo Luarasi. 15. Bernath, Mathias & Schroeder, Felix von (ed.) 1974: Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, Bd. 1 (A-F), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag (Südosteurpäische Arbeiten 75). 16. Bernath, Mathias & Schroeder, Felix von (ed.) 1976: Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, Bd. 2 (G-K), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag (Südosteurpäische Arbeiten 75/II). Bernath, Mathias & Schroeder, Felix von (ed.) 1979: Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, Bd. 3 (L-P), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag (Südosteurpäische Arbeiten 75/III). 17. Bernath, Mathias & Schroeder, Felix von (ed.) 1981: Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas, Bd. 4 (G-K), München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag (Südosteurpäische Arbeiten 75/IV). 18. Bozbora, Nuray 2006: “The Policy of Abdülhamid II Regarding the Prizren League,” Turkish Review of Balkan Studies (Foundation for Middle East and Balkan Studies), 2006, 45-67. 19. Buda, Aleks et al. 1979a: Konferenca Kombëtare e Studimeve për Lidhjen Shqiptare të Prizrenit, 1878-1881 (12 – 28 qershor 1978), Vol I, Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e RPS të Shqiperisë, Instituti i Historisë. 20. Buda, Aleks et al. 1979b: Konferenca Kombëtare e Studimeve për Lidhjen Shqiptare të Prizrenit, 1878-1881 (12 – 28 qershor 1978), II: Materialet e Sesioneve Shkencore të Rretheve, Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e RPS të Shqiperisë, Instituti i Historisë. 21. Buda, Aleks; et al. 1985: Fjalori enciklopedik shqiptar, Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e RPSSH. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 180 22. Bushati, Hamdi 1998: Shkodra dhe motet, vol. I, Shkodër. 23. Bushati, Hamdi 1999: Shkodra dhe motet, vol. II, Shkodër. 24. Chekrezi, Constantin Anastasi 1919: Albania Past and Present, New York: The Macmillan Company. 25. Clayer, Nathalie 2005: “The Albanian students of the Mekteb-i Mülkiye. Social networks and trends of thought,” in: Elisabeth Özdalga (ed.), Late Ottoman Society. The Intellectual Legacy, London & New York: Routledge Curzon, p. 289-339. 26. Clayer, Nathalie 2007: Aux origines du nationalisme albanais, Paris. 27. Dako, Christo A. 1919: Albania. The Master Key to the Near East, Boston, Massachusetts: e. L. Grimes Company. 28. Dako, Christo A. 1922: Liga e Prizrenit, Bukuresht. 29. Devereux, Robert 1963: The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 30. Dilo, Lefter 1979/81: “Kuvendi Gjirokastës dhe Programi i tij për Autonominë e Shqiprisë,” in: Buda et al. 1979/81:107-110. 31. Diturija, Tirane, No 9-11, 1928. 32. Elsie, Robert 2004: Historical Dictionary of Albania, (New Edition), Lanham, Maryland and London: Scarecrow Press. 33. Faensen, Johannes 1980: Die albanische Nationalbewegung, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (Copyright Osteuropa-Institut Berlin). 34. Ficker, Friedbert 1993: “Bildende Kunst,” in: Grothusen 1993:704-713. 35. Frashëri Kristo 1964: The History of Albania (A Brief Survey), Tirana. 36. Frashëri, Gani 1926: “Kujtime mbi Lidhjen Prizrenit,” Kalendari Kombiar, Tirane, 1926, pp. 54-62. 37. Frashëri, Kristo 1979: Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit 1878-1881, (Album), Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 38. Frashëri, Kristo 1981: “Shkrimet Politike të Abdyl Frashërit,” in: Studime Historike, Vol 35 (18), No 1, Tiranë, pp.64-103. 39. Frashëri, Kristo 1984: Abdyl Frashëri (1839-1892), Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 40. Frashëri, Kristo 1985: “Frashëri Abdyl (1839-1892),” in: Buda et al. 1985:288-289. 41. Frashëri, Kristo 1989: Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit 1878-1881, Vol 1, Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 42. Frashëri, Kristo 1997: Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit 1878-1881, Tiranë: Botimet Toena. 43. Frashëri, Kristo 2004: Historia e Tiranës, Vëll. I: Historia e Tiranës si qytet deri më 1920, Tiranë: Toena. 44. Frashëri, Rifat 1926: “Kujtime mbi Lidhjen Prizrenit,” Kalendari Kombiar, Tirane, 1926, pp. 51-58. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 181 45. Gani bej Frashëri 1926: “Një kujtim për ngjarjet e motit 1878-1882,” (Transmitted by Lumo Skendo [Mithat Frasheri]), KK 1926:67-74. 46. Günaydın 1978: “Arnavutlar, milli kahramanları Abdül Fraşeri’nin kemiklerini 86 yıl sonra Türkiye’den aldı,” in: Günaydın, Yıl 10, Sayı 3348, 17 Mart 1978. 47. Güneş, İhsan 1997: Türk Parlamento Tarihi, Meşrutiyete Geçiş Süreci: I. ve II. Meşrutiyet, I. Cilt, Ankara: TBMM Vakfı Yayınları, No:14. 48. Güneş, İhsan 1998: Türk Parlamento Tarihi, Meşrutiyete Geçiş Süreci: I. ve II. Meşrutiyet, II. Cilt: Ayan ve Mebusan Meclisleri Üyelerinin Özgeçmişleri, Ankara: TBMM Vakfı Yayınları, No:15. 49. Hutchings, Raymond 1996: Historical Dictionary of Albania, Lanham, Maryland and London: Scarecrow Press. 50. İsmail Kemal Bey 1920: The Memoirs of Ismail Kemal Bey, Ed.: Sommerville Story, London: Constable and Company Ltd. 51. Jacques, Edvin E. 1995: The Albanians. An Ethnic History From Prehistoric Times to the Present, Jefferson, North Carolina & London: McFarland & Company, Inc. 52. Kalendari Kombiar, Tirane, 1926. 53. Kaleshi 1996a [1974] = “Abdyl Frashëri,” in: Sadiku 1996:83-87. 54. Kaleshi 1996b [1981] = “Ferid Pashë Vlora,” in: Sadiku 1996:127-131. 55. Kaleshi 1996c [1981] = “Syreja Bey Vlora,” in: Sadiku 1996:183-187. 56. Kaleshi, Hasan 1974 = “Frashëri, Abdyl,” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1974:535-537. 57. Kaleshi, Hasan 1979: “Preveza, Abidin Pascha,” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1979:477-479. 58. Kaleshi, Hasan 1981: “Vlora, Ferid Pascha (in türkischen Quellen Avlonyalı Ferid Pascha und Memid Ferid Pascha),” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1981:428- 430. 59. Kaleshi, Hasan 1981: “Vlora, Süreya Bey (in den türkischen Quellen Avlonyalı Süreya),” in: Bernath & Schroeder 1981:433-436. 60. Karal, Enver Ziya 1995: Osmanlı Tarihi, VIII. Cilt, Birinci Meşrutiyet ve İstibdat Devirleri (1876-1907), (4. Baskı) Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. 61. Kılıç, Selda 2006: “Bir Osmanlı Aydının Arnavutluk’a Dair Görüş ve Düşünceleri,” OTAM, No 19 (2006), pp. 257-270. 62. Kim, Jongil 1993: "Birinci Meclis-i Meb’usan Zabıt Ceridlerin Tahlili (1293/1877-1294/1878),” Yüksek Lisans Tezi (MA Thesis), (Tez Danışmanı: Ali İhsan Gencer), İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yakınçağ Tarihi Anabilim Dalı. 63. KK 1926 = Kalendari Kombiar për Vitin 1926, (Shkruarë prej Lumo Skendo, Botuarë prej Kristo P. Luarasi në Tiranë, 1926. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 182 64. Kofos, Evangalos 1975: Greece and the Eastern Crisis, 1875-1878, Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies. 65. Kolçe, Valentina 1985: “Prizreni Ymer Haxhi (1820-1886),” in: Buda et al. 1985:869. 66. Korkuti, Belul 1979/81: “Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit dhe Veprimtaria e saj në Jug,” in: Buda et al. 1979/81:87-102. 67. Kosova, Parim 2002: “Monumentet dhe Eksponatet Muzeale në Kujtesën për Ymer Prizrenin,” in: Pirraku 2002a:171-199. 68. Kutay, Cemal 1960a: Türkiye İstiklal ve Hürriyet Mücadeleleri Tarihi, Cilt 11, Sayı 17 (Mart 1960), Istanbul: Tarih Yayınları. 69. Kutay, Cemal 1960b: Türkiye İstiklal ve Hürriyet Mücadeleleri Tarihi, Cilt 12, Sayı 18 (Haziran 1960), Istanbul: Tarih Yayınları. 70. Kutay, Cemal 1960c: Türkiye İstiklal ve Hürriyet Mücadeleleri Tarihi, Cilt 13, Sayı 19 (Eylül 1960), Istanbul: Tarih Yayınları. 71. Laska, Ilia 2001: Zagoria. Histori dhe tradita, Tiranë. 72. Logoreci, Anton 1977: The Albanians. Europe’s Forgotten Survivors, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. 73. Malcolm, Noel 1998: Kosovo. A Short History, London: Papermac. 74. Mataj, Qemal 2002: Ymer Prizreni (1820-1887). Themelues i Shtetit të Parë Autonom Shqiptar, Prizren: Kosova. 75. Mataj, Qemal; Ferizi, Sami & Halilaj, Isa 1979/81: “Ymer Prizreni, një nga Organizatorët dhe Udhëheqësit e Shquar të Lidhjes Shqiptare të Prizrenit,” in: Buda et al. 1979/81:69-74. 76. Mehmeti, Ahmet 1998: Abedin Dino, Tiranë: Onufri. 77. Mehmeti, Drita & Frashëri, Kristo 1985: “Vrioni Mehmet Ali (1842-1895),” in: Buda et al. 1985:1178. 78. Mehmeti, Drita 1979: “Veprimtaria diplomatike e delegacionit të Lidhjes Shqiptare në Pranverën e vitit 1879,” in: Buda et al. 1979:240-248. 79. Mile, Ligor (ed.) 1978: Shqiperia ne vitet e Lidhjes Shqiptare të Prizrenit, (Dokumente arkivore franceze), Vol. 1 (1876-1879), Tiranë: Akademia e Shkencave e RP të Shqipërisë, Instituti i Historisë. 80. Myzyri, Hysni 1985: “Komiteti Qendror për Mbrotjen e të Drejtave të Kombësisë,” Buda et al. 1985:501. 81. Omari, Luan 1985: “Qeverite Kuislinge,” in: Buda et al. 1985:895. 82. Ortaylı, İlber 2000b: “İlk Osmanlı Parlamentosu ve Osmanlı Milletlerinin Temsili,” in: Ortaylı 2000: 201-212. 83. Panorama 2006 = “Jusuf Oruçi, autori i promemories shqiptare në Kongresin e Berlinit,” Panorama, 16.10.2006. 84. Pirraku (Radio Ylberi) = Muhamet Pirraku, “Roli i myderris Jusuf efendi Podgoricës për ndërkombëtarizmin e çështjes shqiptare para dhe gjatë LShP- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 183 së,” Radio Ylberi, http://www.radio-ylberi.com/modules.php?name=News& file=article&sid=2766. 85. Pirraku, Muhamet (ed.) 2002a: Dritë e re për Kryetarin e Parë të Shqipërisë Etnike, Tribunë shkencore në 115-vjetorin e martizimit të Ymer Prizrenit, 12 qershor1887- 12 qershor 2002, Prishtinë: Instituti Albanologjik i Prishtinës, Dega Historisë. 86. Pirraku, Muhamet 1996: “Roli i Kosovës në përgatitjen e pavarësisë së Shqipërisë,” in: Shqiptarët në Rrjedhat Ballkanike – materiale të sesionit shkencor mbajtur më 17 dhe 18 qershor 1992, Prishtinë: Instituti Albanologjik i Prishtinës, 1996, pp. 45-61. 87. Pirraku, Muhamet 2002b: “Myderriz Ymer Prizreni. Ora, Zemra dhe Shpirti i Lidhjes Shqiptare, 1877-1887,” in: Pirraku 2002a:67-161. 88. Pirraku, Muhamet 2003: Myderriz Ymer Prizreni. Ora, Zemra dhe Shpirti i Lidhjes Shqiptare, Prishtinë: Sharr. 89. Pirraku, Muhammed 1978: “Shtypi kroat mbi Haxhi Ymer Prizrenin,” Zëri i rinisë, no 21, Prishtinë, pp. 22-23. 90. Pollo & Buda et al. 1965 = Pollo, Stefanaq; Buda, Aleks; Frashëri Kristo; Alibali, Jusuf & Plasari, Ndreçi (eds.) 1965: Historia e Shqipërisë (në tre vëllime), Vëllimi i Dytë, Tiranë: Mihal Duri. 91. Pollo et al. 1984 = Pollo, Stefanaq; Buda, Aleks; Prifti, Kristaq & Frashëri, Kristo 1984: Historia e Shqipërisë në katër vëllime, Vëllimi i Dytë (Vitet 30 të shek. XIX-1912), Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 92. Pollo, Stefanaq & Pulaha, Selami (eds.) 1978: Akte të Rilindjes Kombëtare Shqiptare, 1878-1912 (Memorendume, vendime, protesta, thirrje), Tirana: Akedemia e Shkenceve e RP të Shqipërise, Instituti Historisë. 93. Pollo, Stefanaq 1990: Në Gjurme të Historise Shqiptare 1, Tiranë: Akedemia e Shkencave e RPS të Shqiperise, Instituti i Historise. 94. Prifti, Kristaq 1979: “Abdyl Frashëri – udhëheqës i Lidhjes Shqiptare të Prizrenit,” in: Buda et al. 1979:298-307. 95. Puto, Arben & Pollo, Stefanaq 1981: The History of Albania. From its Origins to Present Day, London et al.: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 96. Puto, Arben 1985: La Question Albanaise dans les Actes Internationaux de l’Epoque Imperialiste, Receuil de Documents, I (1867-1912), Tirana: 8 Nëntori. 97. Rexha, Iliaz 2003: “Memorandumi i Abdyl Frashërit kundër Vendimeve të traktatit të Shën Stefanit,” Gjurmime Albanologjike, Seria e Shkencave Historike, No 31-32 (2001-2002), 245-260. 98. Rexha, Illijaz 1979: “Komiteti i Stambollit dhe Aktiviteti Ideopolitik i Vëllezërve Frashëri në Periudhën e Lidhjes së Prizrenit,” in: Vjetar i Arkivit të Kosovës, No 10-11 (1974-1975), Prishtinë, pp. 107-150. 99. Rizaj, Gazmend 2001: “Aspekte të Luftës Ruso-Osmane (1877-1878) Nga Konteksti i Punimeve të Parlamentit Osman,” in: Buletini i Fakultetit Filozofik, 26 (1996), Prishtinë: Universiteti i Prishtinë, pp.95-109. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul BÜLENT BİLMEZ / NATHALIE CLAYER 184 100. Rizaj, Skender (ed.) 1978: Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit në Dokumente Angleze (1878- 1881), Prishtina:Arkivi i Kosovës. 101. Rizaj, Skender (ed.) 1993a: The English Documents about the Albanian League of Prizren and the Beginning of the Disintegration of the Balkans (1877-1885), Dokumante Angleze mbi lidhjen shqiptare te prizrenit dhe fillimin e copetimit te ballkanit (1877-1885), Vol. 1: 1877-1878, Prishtine: Academy of Albanian Intellectuals of Sciences and Arts (The section of historical sciences; Book 2). 102. Rizaj, Skender (ed.) 1993b: The English Documents about the Albanian League of Prizren and the Beginning of the Disintegration of the Balkans (1879-1885), Dokumante Angleze mbi lidhjen shqiptare te prizrenit dhe fillimin e copetimit te ballkanit (1877-1885), Vol. 2: 1979-1885, Prishtine: Academy of Albanian Intellectuals of Sciences and Arts. 103. Rizaj, Skender 1978a: “Abdyl Frashëri mbi Arsimin dhe Kulturën,” in: Horizontet e Historisë, 2, Prishtinë, pp. 105-121. 104. Rizaj, Skender 1978b: “Gjurmë e dokumente nga diskutimi i A. Frashërit në Parlamentin Osman,” Rilindja, Prishtinë, 2 shtator [Septemeber] 1978. 105. Rizaj, Skender 1979: “Roli i Abdyl Frashërit në Lidhjen Shqiptare të Prizrenit Sipas Burimeve Osmane dhe Angleze,” in: Seminari Nderkombëtar për Gjuhën Letërsinë dhe Kulturën Shqiptare, 5, Prishtinë: Universiteti i Prishtinë, pp. 147-164. 106. Rizaj, Skender 1982: “Jeta dhe Veprimtaria Politiko-Patriotiike e Abdyl Frashërit Deri të Kongresi i Berlinit (1878),” in: Gjurmime albanologjike, Seria e shkencave historike, XI (1981), Prishtinë, pp. 151-175. 107. Rizaj, Skender 1998: Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit (1877-1885), Prizren. 108. Rizaj, Skënder 2002: “Lidhja Shqiptare e Prizrenit në Dritën e Brumive Autentike,” in: Pirraku 2002a:9-65. 109. Sadiku, Riza 1996: Hasan Kaleshi Jeta dhe Vepra, Shkup: Focus. 110. Sami 1896: “Abdül Bey,” Kamusu’l A’lam, Vol. V, pp. 3113-4. 111. Shala, Demush 1972: Këngë Popullore Historkie, (Botimi i dyte i plotësuar), Prishtinë: Enti i Teksteve i Mjeteve Mësimore i Krahinës Socialiste Autonome të Kosovës. 112. Shaw, Stanford J. & Shaw, Ezel Kural 1977: History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol II: Reform, Revolution, and Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press. 113. Shehu, Neil 1979/81: “Veprimtaria dhe Rolli i Degës së Lidhjës Shqiptare në Vlorë Gjatë Viteve 1878-1881,” in: Buda et al. 1979/81:111-115. 114. Shehu, Neil 1985: “Vlora, Nuri Mustafa,” in: Buda et al. 1985:1172. 115. Shtylla, Zamir 1991: “Probleme der Nationalbewegung bis zur Proklamation der Unabhängigkeit,” in: Grothusen 1991, pp. 71-78. 116. Shuteriqi, Dhimitër 1955: Kënga e popullit, Tiranë. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PROSOPOGRAPHIC STUDY ON SOME ‘ALBANIAN’ DEPUTIES 185 117. Skendi, Stavro 1953: “Beginnings of Albanian Nationalist and Autonomous Trends: The Albanian League, 1878-1912,” American Slavic and East European Studies, vol. 12, No. 2 (April 1953), pp. 219-232. 118. Skendi, Stavro 1967: The Albanian National Awakening, 1878-1912, Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press. 119. TA – Abdül Bey 1989 = “Abdül Bey, Abdullah Hüsnü [Fraşerili],” Türk Ansiklopedisi, Cilt 1, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1989, p. 47. 120. Totraku, Najram 1979/81: “Veprimtaria e Abdyl Frashërit në Dibër,” in: Buda et al. 1979/81:185-189. 121. Ulqini, Kahreman 1982: Gjurmë të Historisë Kombëtare në Fototekën e Shkodrës, Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 122. Us, Hakkı Tarık (ed.) 1939: Meclis-i Mebusan, 1293=1877, Istanbul: Vakit. 123. Us, Hakkı Tarık (ed.) 1954: Meclis-i Mebusan, 1293=1877, İkinci Cild, 13 Aralık 1877 = 16 şubat 1878 İn’ikadları, Istanbul: Vakit. 124. Verli, Marenglen 2002: “Disa sondazhe në dokumentacionin konusllar austrohungarez për Ymer Prizrenin,” Ymer Prizreni, personalitet i shquar i Lëvizjes Kombëtare Shqiptare, Sesion shkencor, 25-26 maj 2002, Ulqin: ART CLUB, 2002 125. Vlora, Ekrem bey 1911: Aus Berat und von Tomor, Sarajevo. 126. Vlora, Ekrem bey 1968: Lebenserinnerungen, Vol. I (1885 bis 1912), München. 127. Vlora, Ekrem bey 1973: Lebenserinnerungen, Vol. II, München. 128. Vrioni, Jusuf 1998: Mondes effacés. Souvenirs d’un européen, Paris: JC Latès. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The “Loyal Nation” and Its Deputies. The Armenians in the First Ottoman Parliament Elke Hartmann In its title this article starts with what seems to be a contradiction. The title refers to the Armenian deputies of the first Ottoman parliament as representatives of their community, referred to as the “loyal nation” (millet-i sadıka) by the Ottoman- Turkish ruling elite. But the principle motivating the composition of the parliament was not to provide proportional representation for each community of the empire – religious, ethnic, linguistic and the like – but rather to send representatives of whatever affiliation for a given number of male inhabitants of a province to the capital.1 Furthermore, these deputies were not elected by only one – their own – confessional group. Instead, they had to obtain the votes of those entitled to vote in all religious groups, whether the (male) population in Istanbul, or electors in the provinces. Why then, should we look at the Armenian – or Greek or Arab or Bulgarian – deputies as distinct groups? Apart from the merely technical, but very legitimate argument that one needs specific language skills to use sources written in the non-Turkish languages of the Ottoman Empire, there are also other reasons for this approach. For the contradiction lies in the structure of the Ottoman parliament itself. In principle, its members were supposed to be deputies of the Ottoman people without confessional distinction, eligible only on the grounds of their personal qualities. In fact their religious affiliation played a role in their nomination and election because quotas for Muslims and non-Muslims were established. Otherwise, as Devereux argues, the non-Muslims would have sent hardly anybody to the Istanbul parliament because deputies were elected by members of the provincial administrative council, where, by definition, Muslims were always in the majority.2 It should be noted that Devereux takes it for granted that members of these councils would have acted not as Ottomans but as Muslim Ottomans, and would never have considered electing a non-Muslim deputy, whatever his qualifications. The same lack of faith in the de facto spread of the idea of Ottomanism even among the members of the elite was obviously shared by the Ottoman government itself, which guaranteed the participation of an appropriate number of non-Muslims by establishing quotas.3 1 Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore 1963), 124-125, 138-141. 2 Ibid., 124-125. 3 Ibid. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 188 The number of deputies per province depended not on the local population, but on the importance of the province to the central government. Likewise, the ratio between Muslim and non-Muslim deputies differed from province to province.4 But the regulations distinguished only between Muslims and non-Muslims; they did not stipulate ethnic or linguistic criteria because these categories did not exist in the administrative system of the empire or in Ottoman political thinking (which does not mean that people were not aware of differences within the Muslim “millet-i hakime”). Newspaper articles, and in some cases also statistics, very clearly distinguish Turks and Arabs. On the other hand, all other Muslims, obviously even the non-Sunni Muslims, were lumped together under the general rubric of “Turk,”5 on the assumption that all Muslims shared the same interests, regardless of their ethnic or linguistic background. Similarly, the regulations did not make distinctions among the different non- Muslim millets, although this was indeed a category in Ottoman politics, and, paradoxically, one of growing importance in the Reform period. It was only then that the millet-system was fully developed. And it was in this period as well that the millets changed slowly from religious groups to communities with a growing national awareness. As result of this shift, the Greek Orthodox millet split along ethno-linguistic lines, whereas the Armenian millet split in consequence of missionary activities and inner-Armenian socio-political conflicts, as well as reform movements inside the Armenian Church. The official recognition of these new, distinct millets contributed to accelerating the nation-building processes as well as increasing competition among the different millets. The Ottoman government was at all times well aware of these differences and this competition and took them into consideration in its administrative order, making use of them – especially in the nineteenth century – playing one group off against the other in masterly fashion.6 Geopolitics and demography, history and tradition, as well as social and cultural factors provided very different and sometimes conflicting political options for the various non-Muslim communities in the Ottoman Empire. Especially under the conditions of 19th-century Ottoman politics, every millet-community found its own way to place itself in the framework of Ottoman statehood, reform, 4 For details see ibid, 138-141. 5 Ibid., 145. 6 About the close connection between millet-system and nation-building in the Ottoman Empire see Kemal H. Karpat, “Millets and Nationality: The Roots of the Incongruity of Nation and State in the Post-Ottoman Era,” in: Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis, 2 vols. (New York and London 1982), 1:141-169; for the emergence of the Catholic and Protestant millets see Hagop Barsoumian, “The Eastern Question and the Tanzimat Era,” in: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, 2 vols., ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997), 2:175-201 and Vartan Artinian, “The Formation of Catholic and Protestant Millets in the Ottoman Empire,” The Armenian Review 28 (1975), 3-15. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 189 European influence and national aspirations. Given the complexity and diversity of Ottoman society, the entire non-Muslim population of a region hardly could have shared the same political agenda and interests. The Armenian deputies to the Ottoman Parliament were, as we have seen, sent to Istanbul as Ottomans, as emissaries of a region, as Christians but not as Armenians. In the tangle of multiple and overlapping identities that every Ottoman subject lived with, how did the Armenian deputies conceive of themselves? On whose behalf did they act in parliament? Whom did they represent? And as whose representatives were they regarded? Did they speak in the name of the region they came from? Or did they refer to their religious community? And, if the latter, did they focus on being Christian or Armenian, perhaps even stressing the distinction between Apostolic and Catholic Armenians? Or did they try to go beyond the frame of reference of their own millet and think and act as Ottoman citizens? We may say, at the outset, that only a few weeks after it was established, the work of the parliament was dominated and overshadowed by the war with Russia, a war declared on the pretext that Ottoman Christians needed protection against Muslim misrule, thus imposing the topic of religious affiliation on the deputies. In this situation, most Armenian deputies felt obliged to explain their attitude explicitly as Armenians. They did so more often and more obviously than any other confessional group. * * * Who then were these Armenian deputies, and where did they come from? There is uncertainty even about such basics as names and numbers. According to the list of names provided in the published minutes of the parliament, there were 116 deputies at the first session (20.03.1877-28.06.1877), of whom eleven were Armenian, and at the second session 95 deputies, of whom eight were Armenian.7 However, this list is incomplete. Devereux has collated it with a variety of additional sources and added to it people who are not mentioned in the official list but can be traced in the minutes as taking part in the debates.8 According to this more complete list, out of 119 members of parliament at the first session, the following twelve Armenians were present: Krikor Bzdigoğlu Efendi (Adana), Manug Karadjian Efendi (Aleppo)9, Mikael (Mike) Altıntop Efendi (Ankara), Hagop Sbartalian Efendi (Izmir)10, Mardinli Hovsep (Osep) Kazazian Efendi (Diyarbekir), Rupen 7 Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Mebusan 1293 Zabıt Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakıt Matbaası, 1940-1954), 2:16-20. 8 Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, appendices B and C; 261-275. 9 In the minutes listed as Karaca Manok, in the Armenian press referred to as Manug Kharadjian, in the Armenian Church Register of Aleppo he is mentioned as Manug Karadjian. 10 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan and Devereux, The First Constitutional Period mention him as Ispartalıoğlu Agop, Armenian literature always as Hagop Sbartalian © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 190 Yazıdjian Efendi (Edirne)11, Hamazasb Ballarian Efendi (Erzurum)12, Taniel Kharadjian Efendi (Erzurum)13, Sahag Yavrumian Efendi (Ishak Efendi) (Bursa), Sebuh Maksudian Efendi (Istanbul), Hovhannes (Ohannes) Allahverdian Efendi (Istanbul)14 and Hagop Shahinian Efendi (Sivas). During its second session, the Ottoman parliament comprised 113 members. Of its Armenian deputies, Manug Karadjian (Aleppo), Hagop Sbartalian (Izmir), Hovsep Kazazian (Diyarbekir), Rupen Yazıdjian (Edirne), Sahag Yavrumian (Bursa) and Ohannes Hüdaverdian (Allahverdian) (Istanbul) were re-elected. Melkon Donelian Efendi (Ankara)15, Hagop (Agop) Efendi (Kayseri, vilayet Ankara), Murad Bey (Varna, vilayet Tuna), Hagop (Agop) Kazandjian (Rusçuk, vilayet Tuna), Giragos (Kiragoz) Kazandjian Efendi (Erzurum)16, Khatchadur Der-Nersesian (Erzurum)17, Hagop (Agop) Kazazian Efendi (Istanbul), Kevork Efendi (Sivas) and Hovhannes (Ohannes) Kürekian Efendi (Trabzon) were new-comers. Thus the number of Armenian deputies during the second session rose to fifteen. There were also Armenians among the senators (ayan). Among the 27 senators appointed on March 17, 1877, Servitchen Efendi and Mihran Düz Bey were Armenian. Among those who joined the senate after the Constitution was suspended was yet another Armenian, Apraham Paşa Yeramian.18 Of the 28 members of the drafting commission for the Constitution, there were again, three Armenians: Krikor Odian Efendi, Vahan Bey and Tchamitch Ohannes Efendi.19 The members of the drafting commission as well as the ayan were among the best-known personalities of their time. They therefore found their way into Armenian historiography, so that their biographies can be easily reconstructed on the basis of countless letters, entries in yearbooks and calendars, obituaries and contemporary newspaper articles. Their works and personal papers are kept in archives, and, although scattered, some have even been published. Since they are still marginalized in European and Turkish research literature, their biographies are summarized below. 11 In Devereux’s study wrongly listed as Zasioğlu. 12 In Armenian sources always named Ballarian, whereas the Turkish texts identify him as Hallacian or Kallacyan. 13 In the minutes named Danyel Karacyan. 14 Other variants of his name read Hüdaverdizade, Allahverdi or Hüdaverdian. 15 In the minutes the versions Daniloğlu and Doniloğlu can be found; the correct form is most probably the latter, in its Armenian form Donelian. Cf. Türk Parlamento Tarihi, vol. 2 (Ankara: TBBM Vakfı Yayınları, 1998), 15 gives his name as Doniloğlu. 16 Sometimes also mentioned as Khazandjian. 17 In the minutes: Hacaduryan Efendi. 18 Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 276-282. 19 Ibid., appendix A, 259. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 191 The Ayan (Members of the Senate) Servitchen Efendi Servitchen was born as Serovpe Vitchenian in 1815 and died in 1897. He was one of the most famous Ottoman physicians of his generation.20 His father, Sarrafoğlu Bey Vitchen (or Khazez Sarrafoğlu Ağa Vitchen), a banker who had worked for the famous Kazaz (Khazez) Artin (Bezdjian) and accordingly acquired a certain wealth, made special efforts to ensure a good education for his children. At a young age, Servitchen learned French, Italian and Greek from private teachers. In 1834 he was, together with Kasbar Sinabian, who became a very famous physician as well, the first Armenian student to go to Paris to study medicine. There he met not only the Ottoman ambassador of the day, Reşid Paşa, but also Fuad and Âli Paşas, who supported his studies.21 In 1839, he continued his education at the medical faculty of Pisa, from which he graduated in 1840 after defending his doctoral thesis. In 1842, we find him back in Istanbul, where he quickly gained a good reputation in his profession. Soon after, he was appointed head doctor of the Seraskeriate. Servitchen also served in high positions as a teacher of medicine and medical law. In 1846, he started giving classes on medical subjects at Galatasaray Mekteb-i Sultani. For four decades, he was director of the military medical faculty at Pangaltı. Finally, he was elected to leading functions in several medical associations and organisations. In 1856, he helped found the Ottoman Medical Association, later serving two terms as its president; at the same time, he presided over the High Medical Commission of Istanbul. In 1876/77, he served as a consultant of the Red Cross in the Ottoman capital. In obedience to an order from the Sultan, he founded the first Ottoman medical journal in 1849. Beyond the field of medicine he was active in politics as well. In 1858 he was appointed to the Ottoman Educational Council (maarif meclisi). In 1877, when he already had many honours to his name, he was first elected one of the Istanbul deputies to the Ottoman parliament and then exchanged this mandate for a seat in the senate. His place in the chamber of deputies could then be given to a Greek notable, after the Greek newspapers of the capital had raised their voice in protest against what they considered as unjust distribution of seats among the Armenian and Greek millets. Within the Armenian millet Servitchen served in many functions. He used his influence to advance the cause of the Armenian National [i.e. millet] Constitution. Later, he served as a deputy in the Armenian mil- 20 For the following short biography see in particular: Vahan Kevork Zartarian, Hishadagaran (1512-1933) (Cairo 1933-1939), 394-396; Vahram H. Torkomian, Pjishg Dokt. Servitchen Efendi (Vienna 1893); Minas Tcheraz, Gensakragan miusionner (Paris 1929), 39-48; Y. G. Çark, Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler 1453-1953 (Istanbul 1953), 91-93, Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:95. 21 Çark, Ermeniler, 92. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 192 let-parliament and as a member of its various committees, especially the political and educational ones. Servitchen was also known as a writer and journalist. Notwithstanding all these activities and offices, he never ceased to practise medicine, offering treatment free of charge for the poor and supporting the Armenian hospital by providing financial support and by teaching there. For this commitment as well, Servitchen enjoyed great respect and popularity among the Armenians. Mihran Düz Bey Mihran Düz Bey (1817-1891) belonged to the great Düzian family, Armenian Catholic amiras and Ottoman court jewellers who had been in charge of the Ottoman mint for generations. Mihran’s father held the same position together with his brother, but they were both beheaded on Sept. 5, 1819, victims of a plot.22 About Mihran’s childhood and early education little is known.23 In 1847, he was appointed director of the mint, following his family’s tradition. In 1855, he was awarded the title of bey; one year later he was elected to the Reform Council (tanzimat meclisi), and, in May 1856, appointed to the newly established Supreme Council of Judicial Ordinances24; the year after that, he was promoted to the position of a Secretary of State (müsteşar) in the Educational Council (meclis-i maarif). On November 1, 1862, Sultan Abdülaziz made him chief financial administrator (sarraf) of the Sultan’s mother. On January 18, 1864, Mihran Düz became the first non-Muslim to attain a position in the Ministry of Justice. In 1867, he accompanied Abdülaziz on his trip to Paris, where he took part in an international financial congress as delegate of the Ottoman government. In 1870, he was awarded the highest decoration of the Ottoman state, becoming a member of the Council of State at the same time. Finally, on 17 March 1877, he was also appointed to the newly created Senate. He continued to serve in these various functions until 1880, when he moved to the Ministry of Finance, giving up all other posts. Apraham Paşa Yeramian Apraham Paşa Yeramian (1833-1918)25 most probably came to the Senate on January 20, 1880 to replace Mihran Düz, who had moved to the Ministry of Fi- 22 Çark, Ermeniler, 56-59, 66, 67 blames, among others, Kazaz Artin Bezdjian for initiating the plot, a view that is vehemently rejected by Maghakia Ormanian, Azkabadum, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Dbaran Srpots Hagopiants, 1927), 2363; Pascal Carmont, Les Amiras. Seigneurs de l’Arménie ottomane, 2nd ed. (Paris: Éd. Salvator 1999), 139, 135-137 mentions the plot, but without referring to Kazaz Artin; Zartarian, Hishadagaran, 315-316 gives a detailed discussion. 23 For the following biographical notes see Çark, Ermeniler, 62-63, 165. 24 Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856-1876, 2nd ed. (New York: Gordian, 1973), 93. 25 Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:115; Çark, Ermeniler, 285 (photograph). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 193 nance.26 His father, Kevork Aramian, was a sarraf from Eğin. Apraham was born in Istanbul, where he attended an Armenian school before obtaining his higher education in Egypt. There, he first served in the palace as secretary for Mehmed Ali’s son Ibrahim Paşa. In his function as sarraf for the Khedive Ismail, Apraham returned to Istanbul, where he later entered the service of the Ottoman sultan as minister. His excellent personal relationship to Sultan Abdülaziz allowed him to acquire vast landed properties in Istanbul.27 For a very short period, in April / May 1876, Apraham Paşa was made minister without portfolio.28 After the death of Artin Paşa Dadian in 1901, Apraham Yeramian took Dadian’s seat in the Council of State.29 Apraham Paşa was one of the three senators still alive when the Ottoman constitution and parliament were re-established in 1908. These three senators became members of the new senate. Alongside his political duties, Apraham Paşa conducted some studies in ethnography.30 Like many notables in comparably high positions, Apraham Paşa dedicated a portion of his wealth to his community, financing the construction of churches and schools.31 The Members of the Drafting Commission Krikor Odian Krikor Odian (1834-1887), jurist, writer, and politician, was without doubt the best known of the commission’s Armenian members.32 The discrepancy between the tendency to overestimate on the one hand and marginalise on the other is in no other case greater than in Krikor Odian’s. Armenian memory perceives Odian not only as the father of the Armenian millet-constitution but also as the author of the Ottoman constitution, for which the Armenian constitution served as in- 26 According to Devereux, The First Constitutional Period the exact date is January 20, 1880, according to Türk Parlamento Tarihi 2:115 it is January 21, 1880. 27 Cf. Çark, Ermeniler, 166, who rumours that Apraham Yeramian used to play tric trac with the Sultan. Cf. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 317. 28 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 316-317. 29 Çark, Ermeniler, 166, 147. 30 Index Bio-Bibliographicus Notorum Hominum, Sectio armeniaca, vol. 1-4, (Osnabrück: Dietrich 1982-1987) [henceforth IBNArm], vol. 2, art. “Eramean, Abraham.” 31 Mgrditch Bodurian, Hay hanrakidag (Bukarest 1938-1939), art. “Yeramian, Apraham Pasha.” 32 About him see among others: Minas Tcheraz, Gensakragan miusionner (Paris 1929), 17-26; Hrant (Giurdjian), “Krikor Odian,” in: Krikor Odian, Sahmanatragan khosker u djarer, tampanaganner maheru artiv krvadzner, ed. Mikayel Gazmararian (G.Bolis [Istanbul] 1910), 7-18; Hrant, “Krikor Odian – ir tere Azk. Sahmanatrutian metch,” in: ibid., 23-32; H. Ghazarian, art. "Odian, Kirkor Boghosi", in: Hay sovedagan hanrakidaran [Armenian Soviet Encyclopaedia], 12: 578; Arthur Beylérian, “Krikor Odian (1834-1887): Un haut fonctionnaire ottoman. Homme des missions secrètes,” Revue du monde arménien moderne et contemporain 1 (1994), 45-86. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 194 spiration and example.33 In contrast, Turkish, like European and American historiography mentions him with barely a few lines, recognizing his special relationship to Midhat Paşa but usually without stressing his possibly crucial role in elaborating Midhat’s constitution.34 Krikor Odian was born on December 9, 1834 in Üsküdar as Krikor Misag Odian. His father’s family originally came from Palu, later migrating to Kayseri. Odian’s father, Boghos Ağa, was a very well-educated man. By profession, he was the secretary of the palace architect Krikor Balian. At the same time, he worked as administrator (mütevelli) of a foundation for Armenian churches and schools he had himself founded. Krikor got his early schooling from his father, but soon Boghos Ağa left his son’s education to the brothers Kapriel and Khatchadur Bardizbanian. Later the young Odian attended the private school of the language reformer and future editor of the influential newspaper Masis, Garabed Ütüdjian, where he had the opportunity to perfect his knowledge of classical as well as modern written Armenian. At the same time, he consolidated his knowledge of Ottoman Turkish with Oksen Shahinian and learned French with Andon Pertev, later even taking lessons from a Frenchman named Gardet, who was also employed by Sultan Abdülmecid as his private teacher. All of Odian’s teachers noted his extraordinary talent. In the 1850s, Odian moved in the circles of the most important Armenian reformist intellectuals and politicians like Bardizbanian, Nigoghos Balian, Nahabed Rusinian, Parunag Bey, Krikor Aghaton and Mgrditch Beshigtashlian. Through these contacts he soon developed his own ideas for reform, cultural as well as political. His first works were related to the reform of the Armenian language. At the age of 17 he composed his first book, titled Aratchargutiun ashkharhapar lezvi vra (Suggestion for the modern Armenian language) and, together with Nahabed Rusinian, the bold outline of a modern Armenian grammar (Ughghakhosutiun). Intertwined with his interest for language reform were his ideas for reforms in the political sphere. Consequently, he took on different tasks and functions in the 1860s in the administration of the Armenian millet. But Krikor Odian’s greatest significance lies in the outstanding role he played in the process leading to the promulgation of the Armenian National [i.e. millet] Constitution of 1860/63. 33 See for example Tcheraz, Gensakragan miusionner, 22 et al. 34 See for example Stanford Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 vols. (Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 174-175. In their remarks on the Ottoman constitution the authors don’t mention Odian or the Armenian millet and its constitution at all; cf. François Georgeon, Abdülhamid II. Le sultan calife (1876- 1909) (Paris: Fayard, 2003), 62; Davison, however, discusses the significance of the Armenian millet constitution and Odian’s role for the Ottoman constitution; cf. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 115, 289-290, 369 and idem, “The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire,” in: Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2:319-337; see esp. 2:330. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 195 At the same time, Odian also worked on the Ottoman state level. At the age of 20, convinced that Armenia’s future lay only within the Muslim Ottoman Empire35, he entered Ottoman state service, quickly rising to the rank of mütemayiz (the civil equivalent of military colonel). He spent the years 1864-66 at the side of Midhat Paşa in Rusçuk, as his advisor. In his function as director of political affairs, he assumed in fact the duties of a “foreign minister” of the province.36 When Midhat became grand vizier, Odian remained in his service as counsellor and introduced him in his home to the most important Armenian reformers of his time, such as Servitchen, Dr. Kiatibian, who was also a physician, and Kevork Samandjian. In 1876, Krikor Odian was appointed to the State Council, now already with the rank of bala [the highest Ottoman civil rank]. When in 1877 the war with Russia broke out, Ottoman Armenians found themselves in a very precarious situation. During those difficult days, Odian acted as advisor to the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Nerses Varjabedian, while turning his house into a meeting place for the leading figures of Armenian politics, Servitchen, Kiatibian, Mgrditch Portukalian, Hovhannes Sakız and Kevork Samandjian among others. Odian is also the author of the memorandum the Armenian delegation presented at the Berlin Congress. After the Ottoman Constitution was suspended and especially after Midhat Paşa, with whose name his own political career was so closely connected, was deposed and banned, Krikor Odian feared his own persecution as well. In 1880 he fled the Ottoman capital settling in Paris, where he lived until his death. In his French exile, all too far from Ottoman politics, there was nothing else for him to do than follow French parliamentary debates, something he did with great interest. He also turned again to literature and contributed to the press, writing under the nom de plume of “Vahram.” Over the years, Sultan Abdülhamid II made several attempts through his ambassadors in Paris to induce Odian to return to the Ottoman Empire, but Odian himself could never overcome his suspicions of Abdülhamid’s government and remained in exile. He nevertheless kept close contact with his friends in Istanbul, above all Krikor Aghaton. They not only provided him with news and newspapers from his lost home but also helped Odian, who had never married, financially. On the 6th of August 1887 Odian died in Paris and was buried in Père Lachaise cemetery. 35 Tcheraz, Gensakragan miusionner, 21-22. His optimism regarding the fate of the Armenians under Ottoman rule changed radically after the great disappointment of 1878, when reforms were promised but never introduced by the Ottomans nor effectively guaranteed by the European powers; ibid., 23. 36 Davison, “The Millets as Agents of Change,” 327. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 196 Vahan Bey (Efendi) Vahan Bey (Efendi), originally Hovhannes Vahanian (1832-1891)37, lost his father at the early age of ten. His mother, Nazlı Vahan Arzumanian, was exceptionally well educated, compared to other women of her generation. Even more unusual for her time were her activities in the public sphere. She made every possible effort to guarantee her two children, Hovhannes and Srpuhi (the later novelist Srpuhi Düsap Paşa), a higher education. She sent Hovhannes to Paris in 1848, where he studied chemistry. After his return to Istanbul in 1853, he joined the Armenian Educational Council, which had been founded the same year. There he met most of the young men who later became the champions of Armenian language renewal as well as the main protagonists of the Armenian constitutional movement. In 1866, he became a member of the Mixed Administrative Council of the Armenian millet (called mixed council because it was composed of Armenian clerics and laymen). His posts within the Armenian community were soon followed by positions in the Ottoman administration. In 1860, he was appointed a member of the newly formed Commercial Court; four years later, he became the president of the Supreme Commercial Court. In 1868, he was appointed viceminister of Commerce; in 1869-71, he was a member of the Ahkam-ı Adliye (Council of Judicial Ordinances); from 1871 on, he was also an advisor in the Ministry of Education. In 1872, he was made director of the Galatasaray Mekteb-i Sultani.38 The same year he changed his task as an advisor in the Ministry of Education for a similar post in the Ministry of Public Works, and was the same time appointed to the Reform Commission. In 1873, he changed positions again, going once again to the Ministry of Justice. Two years later he became counsellor in the same Ministry, a position he held until the end of his life. In the same year, 1875, he was appointed to the Council of State. In 1876-77, he served as Minister of Justice. In his capacity as advisor to the president of the Ahkam-ı Adliye, a post he also acquired in 1876, he was sent to Europe to study legal codes of procedure, which might possibly serve as models for Ottoman use.39 Like Krikor Odian and Servitchen, Hovhannes Vahanian was one of those members of a new Armenian elite who rose to high positions thanks to education and who always kept close contacts with literary life, working as writers in their free time. 37 Teotig, Amenun Daretsuytse, vol. 21 (Paris, 1927), 566-568; cf. Art. Vahan êfênti in: IB- NArm., vol. 4. 38 Cf. Adnan Şişman, art. “Galatasaray Mekteb-i Sultani,“ in Türkiye Diyanet İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 13, (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1996), 323-326, here 325. 39 Cf. also the report in Masis, February 17, 1877, 2 about his journey. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 197 Tchamitch Ohannes Efendi Tchamitch Ohannes Efendi, finally, was a member of the Council of State and above all a high official in the Ministry of Finance40; later, he served also as Minister of Agriculture and Commerce41. He was apparently the initiator and one of the leading figures in founding the Ottoman Audit Office (muhasebat dairesi) in 1879. In 1881, he was appointed to the Advisory Committee for the Ottoman Public Debt Administration. An Armenian Catholic, he supported, like Mihran Düz, the anti-Hasun wing when it came to internal quarrels in the community over the question of Papal control.42 Appointed to the Drafting Commission for the Constitution in October 1876, he was a member of the commission’s most important committee, the Editing or Drafting Committee.43 The Mebusan (Members of Parliament) Although some of the Armenian mebusan were without any doubt leading notables of their towns or regions, we know less about them. We are comparatively well informed about the two Istanbul mebusan, who belonged to the old Armenian ruling elite of amiras44, who had established close relations with the sultans. Hovhannes Allahverdian (1823-1915), in other versions of his name Allahverdi, Hüdaverdi, Khudaverdi, Hüdaverdian or Hüdaverdizade, belonged – like Mihran Düz – to one of the important Istanbul Armenian-Catholic amira families. His father, Apraham Asdvadzadurian45 (in the Turkish translation of this name – Asdvadzadur means “the God-given” – he became “Allah verdi” or Allahverdian)46 (1793-1861), born in Erzurum, apparently moved to Istanbul as a child and followed in his father’s footsteps, becoming a banker. In this metier he rose to become one of the most successful and prominent financiers in Istanbul. In 1842, he helped found the Bank Society of Rumelia (one year later, a similar institution was created for Anatolia), which can be seen as the first sort of credit institute or bank proper. At the time, it combined credit allocation and tax-collection on behalf of the government. In 1853, together with Mihran Tchelebi Düz and other famous bankers, he founded the Ottoman Bank Society.47 Again together 40 Çark, Ermeniler, 207-208, 264. 41 Davison, The Millets as Agents of Change, 327. 42 Cf. Leon Arpee, The Armenian Awakening. A History of the Armenian Church, 1820-1860 (Chicago and London 1909), 58; Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 119 n 17. 43 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 370. 44 For a general overview of the Armenian amiras see: Hagop Barsoumian, “The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class within the Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet (1750-1850),” in: Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2:171-184. 45 For his biography see Yeprem Boghosian, Allahverdian kertasdane (Vienna 1957), 63-72. 46 Ibid., 15, and 64-65. 47 Cf. also Çark, Ermeniler, 242. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 198 with Mihran Tchelebi Düz, Apraham Amira Allahverdi was appointed in 1857 to the Ottoman Commission for the Collection of Taxes in Arrears. In the Armenian community, Apraham Amira is remembered above all, as a patron and sponsor of Armenian cultural life. His son, Hovhannes, was very thoroughly educated. He learned Turkish, Persian and French and, at an early age, was given the opportunity to expand his horizons in a long journey to Europe.48 As for his profession, he followed his famous father and entered the world of finance and banking. At the same time, however, he also followed another family tradition, namely, the silk trade. A considerable part of the family’s wealth had sprung from this business, based in Bilecik, as was the case with the Düzian family, part of whose business was taken over by the Allahverdians. Apart from these commercial activities Hovhannes Allahverdian entered Ottoman state service at an early age. In 1866, he rose to the rank of mütemayiz, a promotion orchestrated by the Armenian press of his time. In 1868, he was elected kethüda (headman or warden) of the Ottoman bankers. Later he was employed at the Audit Office and decorated with several medals. Obviously, he enjoyed special confidence at the Sultan’s palace, since it was at the Sultan’s instigation that Hovhannes Allahverdian was made vice-president of the new Ottoman parliament after having been elected as deputy in 1877.49 Like his father before him, Hovhannes Allahverdian made a name for himself in his millet, assuming offices in the millet administration and making generous donations to the communities in Istanbul and various provinces. When the Armenian- Catholic millet was temporarily divided over the question of Bishop Hasun and the extent of Papal influence, Allahverdian lent his support to the “radical” (Hasunian) faction, in opposition to the Düzians and Hovhannes Tchamitch, who represented the anti-Hasunist group, considered as moderate or conservative.50 Hagop Kazazian Efendi (Paşa) (1833-1891), who was elected to the second session of the parliament as deputy for Istanbul, also came from the circles of Armenian bankers in the capital. He was not, however, a member of one of the “noble,” well-established amira families, but came from a modest background.51 Without the benefit of higher education, he worked his way up in banking. His first position was that of a tax collector for the Armenian Patriarchate. Later he worked for the municipality of Galata, before he entered the Ottoman Bank. There, he started working as a translator and rose to the office of chief translator of the Ottoman Bank. In this capacity, he made his first contacts with the Palace 48 On Hovh. Allahverdian see Boghosian, Allahverdian kertasdane, 91-107; see also Çark, Ermeniler, 203, 113; a photograph is reproduced in Bodurian, Hay hanrakidag, 68. 49 See also Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 162-163, esp. 163. 50 Carmont, Les amiras, 141; Çark, Ermeniler, 264-265. 51 Çark, Ermeniler, 156-159 gives a biographical sketch (picture in ibid., 157), cf. Bodurian, Hay hanrakidag, 427-428, IBNArm, vol. 2, art. “Gazazean, Yakob” and art. “K’azazean, Yakob;” Georgeon, Abdülhamid, 165-166. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 199 and attracted the attention of Sultan Abdülhamid II, who employed him first – in January 1879 – as administrator of his private property, and five years later, transforming this post into a Ministry, as Minister of the Civil List with the rank and title of paşa. According to one source52, he was also a member of the Council of State. Like other Armenians who were high-ranking Ottoman officials, Hagop Paşa Kazazian, too, held different offices in the Armenian millet and was a member of the Armenian parliament.53 About the third of the Istanbuliot deputies, Sebuh Maksudian Efendi, we know little more than that he also seems to have been one of the leading notables of his city, and probably also came from a family of entrepreneurs or bankers54; at any rate, he seems to have held one or another position within the Armenian millet administration. In June 1877 he is mentioned as deputy of Yeni Kapı (an Istanbul neighbourhood) for the Armenian millet parliament.55 In general, little is known about the deputies who came from the provinces to the capital. About some of them, we learn that they were members of the administrative councils of their provinces, for example Manug Karadjian (1837-1917)56 from Aleppo, among his non-Armenian colleagues also known as Khatiba Shehir Kardja Zade Efendi, who served in the municipal council 1865-1870,57 as well as Khatchadur Der-Nersesian from Erzurum, Hagop Sbartalian from Smyrna, Hagop Kazandjian from Rusçuk (Tuna vilayeti), Hovhannes Kürekian Efendi from Trabzon, Sahag (Ishak Efendi) Yavrumian from Bursa (Hüdavendigar) and Mardinli Hovsep Kazazian Efendi 52 IBNArm, vol. 2, Art. K’azazean, Yakob. The same article gives his dates as 1831-ca. 1900, referring to Bodurian, p. 427-428, who, however, gives the dates 1831-1891. Cf. also the article “Gazazean, Yakob” in: IBNArm, vol. 2, which gives the dates 1833-1891, again referring to (among others) Bodurian, Hay hanrakidag. Bodurian has only the aforementioned single entry with the name Hagop Kazazian. 53 Bodurian, Hay hanrakidag, 428. 54 Çark, Ermeniler, 242 and 244 mentions him in the context of the foundation of the most important Ottoman credit institutes, in addition to Allahverdioğlu Hoca Apraham, a certain Hoca Maksud Sarimian or Maksud Amira and – on ibid, 243 – a man named Maksudzade Sebuh Efendi as a leading member of the Ottoman naval company Şirket-i Hayriye. It is not clear whether this person is identical to the deputy Sebuh Maksudian or is related to him. Ter Minassian mentions a wealthy merchant family from Smyrna with the same name who later gained fame because of its spectacular bankruptcy (Anahide Ter Minassian, “Les Arméniens: Le dynamisme d’une petite communauté,” in Smyrne, la ville oubliée? Mémoires d’un grand port ottoman. 1830-1930, ed. Marie-Carmen Smyrnelis (Paris: Éd. Autrement, 2006), 79-91; the remark is ibid, 82). According to Hayrenik (Istanbul) of August 11, 1918, the wife of the Izmir deputy Sdepan Hagop Sbartalian was also a member of a Maksudian family, being the daughter of Maksud Simon Bey (maybe the same Simon Bey Maksudian mentioned in Masis of February 17, 1877 as an Armenian notable from Istanbul). In all cases it proved impossible to establish whether there was any relation to the Istanbul deputy Maksudian. 55 Masis, June 2, 1877 56 Dates according to the register of deaths of the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Aleppo. 57 Minas Nurikhan, Jamanagagits Badmutiun, 19rt tar, (Venedig 1909). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 200 from the province of Diyarbekir58. About others, we have the information that they were state officials in various functions. Murad Bey from Varna, who was sent as deputy for the Danube vilayet to the second session, was according to Devereux, a tax collector.59 Others must have held high offices as well. Hagop Sbartalian Efendi from Izmir is mentioned as a “[long-time] member of the Grand Council [having] the rank of bala, or functionary of the first class.”60 About Hovsep Kazazian from Mardin and Hagop Shahinian from Sivas, we lack any detailed information about their position so far; there exist, however, two photographs showing them dressed in Ottoman honorary uniforms with several decorations, so one can assume that they held high-ranking offices in their provinces as well.61 For others, again, we know that they had considerable wealth. The newspaper Stamboul reports about Hagop Sbartalian from Izmir on 26 February 1877: “Agop is rich, very rich, and has properties worth several millions.”62 The same report indicates another feature that was characteristic not only of Sbartalian: “He [Hagop] was a great friend of the late Hüseyin Avni Paşa, who enjoyed hospitality, while he was governor of Aydin, in Agop’s luxurious house.”63 Similarly close relations to the Ottoman ruling elite as well as great wealth resulting from banking and international trade are mentioned in connection with the Erzurum deputy Hamazasb Ballarian64 and Krikor Bzdigian from Adana65. Manug Karadjian from Aleppo is also known as a merchant with a high reputation among the local authorities.66 About 58 Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, appendices B and C. 59 Ibid., appendix C; Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:19 lists Murad Bey without additional information not as Armenian but as Muslim. 60 Stamboul, February 26, 1877, quoted in Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 265. 61 See the photographs of Shahinian in Sarkis Boghosian, Iconographie Arménienne, vol. 2, (Paris 1998), 250-251. One of them shows the deputy in circa 1880 in Sivas. He is a man between 30 and 40 wearing the uniform of Ottoman officials of a certain rank with saber and fez, portrayed in an atelier with the typical background combining the symbols of tradition and modernity: the floor is covered with Oriental carpets, Shahinian sits on a European-style armchair, behind him stands a little table with a Turkish mocca set, beside him stands a clock, the object which, more than any other, symbolizes the new age in the Ottoman Empire. For the other photograph, taken in Sivas in 1898, the recently deceased patriarch of an extended family and important household was dressed for the last time in his honorary uniform and placed on a chair amidst his entire family and the personnel of his household. Yet another photograph of Shahinian, most probably taken in Istanbul during his tenure as deputy, is reproduced in Arsen Yarman, Osmanlı Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Ermeniler ve Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Tarihi (Istanbul: Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastansi Vakfı, 2001), 63. On the same page there is also a portrait of the Diyarbekir deputy Hovsep Kazazian also dressed in an Ottoman honorary uniform with four medals on his chest. 62 Quoted from Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 265. 63 Ibid. 64 Ghazar-Tcharık, Garinabadum. Hushamadian Partsr Hayki (Beirut 1957), 394; cf. ibid. 402 and 395 (photograph), and Mesrob K. Krikorian, Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire 1860-1908 (London, etc.: Routledge & Kegan, 1977), 44. 65 See his biography below. 66 Armenian Church Register, Aleppo, entry about Manug Karadjian; Haig Barigian and Hovnan Varjabedian, Badmutiun Surio Hay Dbaranneru (Aleppo 1973), 159. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 201 Rupen Yazidjian, the deputy from Edirne, finally, the newspaper Masis informs its readers of the rumour that his wife is the sister of the Armenian patriarch.67 For the time being, this is all the available information. Of a total of 21 Armenian deputies who were members of the Ottoman parliament throughout its existence, there still remain five about whom we know nothing beyond their names and confessions.68 Furthermore, our information about some of the others is too scanty to allow any significant conclusion. Yet a certain profile of the Armenian deputies to the first Ottoman parliament becomes apparent from the information we have. Some of them belonged to the well-established amira class, which emerged during the 18th century as the upper crust of Armenian society in the imperial capital. But the vast majority of the deputies came from circles which rose up as new elites as a result of the radical changes of the reform era. Most accumulated wealth through trade, especially long-distance and international trade, and banking, that is, through the very same professions that had made possible the rise of the amiras a century before. The high proportion of sarrafs and merchants among the Armenian deputies is striking. But, in addition, a new political career pattern based on thorough and modern education becomes visible (although this is much truer of the members of the drafting commission than of the mebusan or ayan). The second characteristic of the Armenian deputies of the first Ottoman parliament is the high percentage of those who were members of administrative bodies in their provinces of origin or had served as state officials before being elected to parliament; this was also a new career pattern that produced new elites over time. One reason for their over-representation lies in the election procedure in the provinces. It was the members of these new administrative bodies, not the populace, who exercised the right to vote; candidates, moreover, had to be elected with votes from all confessions.69 Bearing this background in mind, it seems all too natural that the attention of the electors was monopolized by those local notables who were visible not only to the people of their own millet, but in an Ottoman public sphere, first of all their own colleagues, members of the provincial administrative councils, Ottoman state officials, and finally those who stood out by virtue of their wealth. 67 Masis, January 23, 1877. 68 These were, from the deputies of the first session, Mikayel Altıntop from Ankara (Armenian-Apostolic), and from the deputies of the second session, Kevork Efendi from Sivas (Armenian Apostolic), Giragos Kazandjian Efendi from Erzurum (Armenian Apostolic), a certain Hagop Efendi from Kayseri (Armenian Apostolic) and Melkon Donelian (Doniloğlu) from Ankara (Armenian Apostolic). About Sebuh Maksudian Efendi, one can at least assume from some scattered hints that he may have been one of the leading notables of his community, about Taniel Kharadjian Efendi from Erzurum, we know from some notices in the newspaper with certainty that he was one of the important Armenian notables in his town (cf. Masis, March, 20, 1877, passim) 69 See above. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 202 In many cases, one can assume that wealth, reputation and public office were mutually dependent. It seems that, more often than not, public offices and honorary posts – in the Armenian community or Ottoman bodies – were offered to persons not because of their special qualifications or experience, but because of their wealth, especially to those among the rich who were known as generous donors to charitable institutions.70 It may well be that parliamentary seats were passed from one family member to another. At any rate, when the Ottoman parliament was re-opened in 1908, there was again a Melkon Donelian representing the Ankara province, as well as Sdepan Sbartalian (Istepan Spartalian), who was the son of 1877 deputy Hagop Sbartalian, representing the vilayet of Aydın.71 In Donelian’s case, however, his relation to his namesake of the same place of origin from the day of the first meşrutiyet has yet to be examined. Another important characteristic of the Armenian members of parliament was their good knowledge of Ottoman Turkish, a skill that also suggests a high degree of integration into Ottoman society at least of the Armenian elites, if not of the community as a whole. Their ability to master the official Ottoman language of state is often stressed in the description of the Armenian deputies.72 In many other cases, their language skills become obvious in their active contribution to parliamentary debates.73 With regard to the interrelation of the degree of integration into the Ottoman state and society and the assumption of public functions, the overrepresentation of Catholic Armenians in the Ottoman parliament is another significant fact. Of 21 Armenian deputies, at least three, if not more, were Catholic; among the three ayan, there is, again, one Catholic; and of the three members of the Drafting Commission for the Constitution, one is also Catholic.74 An ex- 70 See, for example, the obituary of Sdepan Sbartalian in Hayrenik (Istanbul), August 11, 1918. Generally speaking, it is striking to what extent donations to charitable institutions are stressed in biographical sketches and obituaries of notables. The discussion in the media about whether or not Sbartalian was to be buried inside the compound of the Armenian Hospital in Istanbul shows how much this kind of large-scale generosity was expected and explicitly demanded in return for symbolic honours and reputation within the community (Hayrenik, August 15, 1918, August 18, 1918, August 19, 1918). 71 About the latter cf. the short entry in Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:259. 72 See, for instance, Masis, March 24, 1877. Generally it should be mentioned in this context that, in the non-Turkish population of the Ottoman Empire, linguistic assimilation was obviously most advanced among the Armenians and Jews. Cf. Selçuk Akşin Somel, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire 1839-1908 (Leiden, etc.: Brill, 2001), 129; Carter V. Findley, “The Acid Test of Ottomanism: The Acceptance of Non-Muslims in the Late Ottoman Bureaucracy,” in: Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2:339-368, here 350; Suraiya Faroqhi, Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches (München: Beck, 2000), 107- 108. 73 Manug Karadjian, the Armenian deputy of Aleppo, provides a good example. Among the Armenians in parliament, he is one of the most active. Sebuh Maksudian of Istanbul should also be mentioned in this respect. 74 The Catholic mebusan were Hovsep Kazazian, Rupen Yazdjian and Hovhannes Allahverdian; the Catholic Armenian among the ayan was Mihran Düz while the Catholic member of the Drafting Commission was Hovhannes Tchamitch. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 203 planation may be the general attitude of the Armenian Catholic community towards the Ottoman state. In the situation of conflict and competition with the Armenian Apostolic Church, they tended to draw closer to the Ottoman state, which presumably resulted in an even higher degree of integration and assimilation. It may well be that the Porte and the palace preferred the Catholics to the Apostolic Armenians, just as they may have favoured the Armenians in general over the Greeks.75 But neither the Sultan nor the government were the ones to vote, and the voters in the capital as well as the electors in the provinces proved independent enough to vote for candidates critical of official politics, and even to re-elect them to the second session. Therefore, looking at the distribution of seats among the non-Muslim communities, apart from their degree of assimilation, the most decisive criterion was perhaps the extent to which a community was regarded as a political risk in a day of separatist nation-building processes. Moreover, the constant glance towards Europe that seems to have accompanied the whole process of drafting the constitution and parliamentary work may have been of some importance as well.76 What is obvious for the appointments to the senate, namely the preference for high-ranking personalities who were well known to palace and government and enjoyed their confidence, is likely to have played a certain role in the election of the deputies as well, if only indirectly. The indication of close contacts of many of the deputies with the highest representatives of the Ottoman provincial governments suggests this. The opening of the Ottoman state apparatus to non-Muslims was a new phenomenon in the period of the first meşrutiyet. Almost four decades after the beginning of the tanzimat-reforms, a growing number of non-Muslims, among them many Armenians, occupied administrative posts of lower rank. Non-Muslims also made their contribution to the newly created administrative councils in the towns and provinces. Yet only a very few non-Muslims had attained higher-ranking posts.77 When one studies the Armenians among these few high-ranking non- Muslims, one encounters the same handful of names time and again, already familiar to the reader: Hagop Paşa Kazazian, Vahan Efendi, Odian Efendi, Artin Paşa Dadian, and Portakal Paşa. Sultan Abdülhamid II, trying to defend himself 75 Cf. the heated debate in the newspapers about an alleged Turkish-Armenian plot against the Greeks during the poll for the Istanbul deputies which ultimately led to the appointment of the Armenian deputy Servitchen to the Senate and the election of another Greek deputy in his place. Masis devotes a whole series of long and often acerbic articles to this affair; cf. Masis, March 6, 1877, March 17, 1877, March 22, 1877, March 24, 1877, April, 7, 1877, April 14, 1877, etc. On the question of the replacement of Greeks in Ottoman service by Armenians in the second half of the nineteenth century, cf. Shaw and Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 200; Georgeon, Abdülhamid, 323. 76 For the latter point see Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 125, 141-143. 77 Georgeon, Abdulhamid II, 323; Findley, The Acid Test of Ottomanism; Krikorian, Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire; about the administrative reforms in general cf. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire; Carter V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire. The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 204 against allegations of his anti-Armenian prejudices, proudly mentioned these names in order to emphasize that there were also Armenians among his highranking officials.78 The very same handful of names have been repeated over and over again since – whenever there is a need to demonstrate the participation of non-Muslims in Ottoman politics. But the constant repetition of the same few names only shows the extent to which they remained an exception. These few confidants then often assumed not only one, but several positions, and finally they were appointed to the senate as well. Many of the Armenian deputies started their public service careers with posts in the Armenian millet-administration, moving up to Ottoman state service. Some of the Armenian deputies from the provinces were at the same time agents of the Istanbul Patriarchate. But they were not necessarily the leading figures of the Armenian community in their provinces as well. Many of those Armenian personalities who played a significant role for their millet, be it as important donors, founders of schools or charitable institutions such as orphanages, hospitals, etc., or be it as leading intellectuals, writers or teachers – in short, many of those who were later remembered as leaders of their community in whatever function – had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ottoman administration. The Armenian Ottoman deputies were, without doubt, among the wealthiest members of their community; most of them were engaged in businesses that required close ties to the Ottoman authorities. As such, they were part of the economic elite of their millets. But not all members of this economic elite dedicated their wealth – or at least a part of it – to the development of their community. With the little we generally know about the lives of the Armenian deputies from the provinces – in one case, however, that of Khatchadur Der-Nersesian from Erzurum, coincidence gives us a more detailed biography.79 Without any doubt, his multi-faceted career was exceptional in a way, yet many aspects of it seem paradigmatic for the career-pattern of the new elites which had come up with the modernizing reforms and now also formed a majority among the Armenian – and not only the Armenian – mebusan. Khatchadur Der-Nersesian Khan-Efendi was born in Bitlis in 1810. There is no indication about his family belonging to the local elite. In any case he owed his education not to the means of his family but to the patronage of the high-ranking cleric (and later patriarch) Hovhannes Movsesian, who supported him when he came to Istanbul together with his father at the age of 16. But instead of becoming a priest, Khatchadur Der-Nersesian devoted himself to trade, first moving to 78 Georgeon, Abdülhamid, 282-283. 79 Teotig, Amenun Daretsuytse vol. 6 (Istanbul, 1912), 404-405 (with photograph). It should be mentioned that Çark, Ermeniler,. 174, takes Der-Nersesian’s biography and photograph from Teotig, but wrongly attributes the photograph to a military doctor of the same name (ibid., 228). Also Krikorian, Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire, 44, obviously takes his summarized information on Der-Nersesian from Teotig. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 205 Alexandropol (today’s Giumri in the Republic of Armenia, called Leninagan during Soviet times), where he married the daughter of a local merchant. He then went to Erzurum, where he started cooperating with two merchant companies, expanding his trade to Persia. During a stay in Tavriz (Tabrīz in northwestern Iran), he apparently offered his services to the Persian government, eventually being awarded the title of khan. After he returned to Erzurum (Garin) successfully, he sought to move closer to the Ottoman authorities while pursuing his commercial activities, and soon entered Ottoman state service. He assumed the position of head of the customs office, first in Erzurum, and later in Van. For many years he was also a member of the administrative council of his province. He was one of the first non-Muslims to receive an Ottoman state award. But Der-Nersesian offered his services not only to the Persian and then the Ottoman government; ultimately, he also started working for the Russian Empire, acting as translator for the Russian consulate in Erzurum. Within the Armenian millet, too, he held various offices. He started as a member of the Church Council; after the inauguration of the Armenian constitution, he became a member of the Armenian Provincial Council and the Political Committee, acting also as chairman of the latter for some time. The Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople sent him to Aghtamar as its inspector. His election to the Ottoman parliament brought him back to Istanbul. After the Chamber of Deputies was closed, Der-Nersesian remained in the capital, where he again assumed office in the Political Committee of the central administration of the Armenian millet during the 1880s. After a long life, he died in Constantinople on March 15, 1895. Similarly, one can see the careers of the Izmir mebus, Hagop Sbartalian, and the deputy from Adana, Krikor Bzdigian, as exemplary for the type of Armenian deputy who gained wealth through trade – often international, large-scale trade – or banking, appeared in his own community as a generous donor and patron, and, as a result, was first invited to join the public service in his community, and, later, to assume functions also in Ottoman state service. Hagop Sbartalian came from a family of textile merchants from Izmir. The Sbartalians, or Spartali, were among the few wholesale merchants who were able to expand their business despite growing competition, and import their goods directly from Manchester, where a branch of the Spartali Company was opened in 1857.80 In his hometown Izmir, he and his brother Hovhannes were the principal donors for the Armenian schools and the Armenian hospital. Their statues stood in front of the hospital building.81 80 Ter Minassian, Les Arméniens: Le dynamisme d'une petite communauté, 82; George, Merchants in Exile, 23; cf. also Yarman, Osmanlı Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Ermeniler, 391. 81 Yarman, Osmanlı Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Ermeniler, 394 provides a photograph of the statues of the Sbartali brothers taken in 1866. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 206 Krikor Bzdigian was a member of one of the most influential Armenian families of Adana.82 The history of the Bzdigian family can be traced back to the beginning of the 17th century, when, after the Persian invasion of the Eastern Armenian lands, the five sons of the priest Bzdigents Der Harutiun Kahana resisted Shah Abbas’ famous deportation of the Nakhitchevan Armenians to Isfahan and were spread throughout the Ottoman lands. One of them, Arakel Bzdigian, came to Adana, where he was ordained as a priest like his father. He soon developed a close relationship with the local governor and thus gained a governmental position and wealth. His grandson, Avedik (or Avedis) Ağa Bzdigian (1751-1862), was the chief treasurer of Adana province. During the Egyptian occupation of Cilicia he gained the confidence of Ibrahim Paşa. Through his political influence his three brothers were appointed to various commercially important posts and consequently not only became very rich and accumulated vast land possessions but also lay the foundation for a very successful long distance trade with agricultural products, mainly tobacco. The only son of Avedik Ağa was Krikor Bzdigian, the Ottoman mebus. Krikor Bzdigian seems to have been one of those few who were critical of the Ottoman war against Russia in 1877/78 and advocated a peaceful solution instead. Puzant Yeghiayan, drawing mainly on the orally transmitted and written memoirs of a number of Armenians from Adana, reports that Krikor Bzdigian, initially having provoked the Sultan’s suspicion with his proposals, after the fall of Plevna was given an award and an honorary sabre for what was then considered political realism. Yeghiayan also informs us about Krikor Bzdigian’s especially close relationship to the Grand Vizier Mahmud Nedim Paşa. According to Yeghiayan, Mahmud Nedim Paşa received Bzdigian as his guest during the latter’s time in Istanbul and later visited Bzdigian at his private estate at Bahçeli-Dam, around three hours away from the city of Adana, during his term as governor of Adana province. Bzdigian’s pro-Russian political orientation may be seen in this context. Like many other Armenian deputies, Krikor Bzdigian was also known as “a pious Armenian loving his Church and his people,”83 a formulation that indicates his activity as donor for Armenian community institutions. About his private life we know that he was married to a certain Markrid, who was a member of a notable and very wealthy Greek family by the name of Nikoloğlu. After her marriage with Bzdigian, the whole family converted from the Greek Orthodox faith to the Armenian Apostolic Church, changing their name to Nigolian. Bzdigian had three sons, Bedros, Mgrditch and Mikayel, among whom especially Bedros seems to have played an important role in the Armenian community of Adana. 82 The following biographical sketch is based on the information given in Puzant Yeghiayan [Püzant Yeghiaian], Adanayi Hayots badmutiun (Antelias 1970), 923-924. 83 Yeghiayan, Adanayi Hayots badmutiun, 924. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 207 A similar case is the biography of the Erzincan deputy, Giragos Kazandjian. A merchant, he expanded his business in the 1870s and 1880s to all over Cilicia and Western Armenia. The fact that he participated in and even presided over several meetings of the Provincial Council in Aleppo during his stay there in 1879-1880 indicates Kazandjian’s activity in the political field. But unlike the other merchant-politicians whose biographical sketches are given above, Kazandjian was also known as a journalist. From the various places he travelled, he regularly contributed to the Armenian press of Istanbul and Izmir. Later, he collected his articles and published them in a separate volume.84 * * * Further research will hopefully reveal more information about the Armenian deputies of the first constitutional period. Perhaps an obituary will be found in the Armenian newspapers of the day; some lines may have been written on the occasion of an award accorded to one of the deputies or an important donation he made. But the fact remains that there is – contrary to the biographies of the deputies of the second meşrutiyet, which we know, by and large – a striking gap both in historiography as well as in the sources. Turkish – and, generally, Ottomanist – historiography has only recently begun (for many reasons which cannot be discussed here in detail) to give more attention to the non-Turkish and non-Muslim groups of the Ottoman Empire. Within these communities, again, the Armenians are among those, which are particularly neglected. Present Turkish and Ottomanist research does not even know the complete names and dates of birth and death of the deputies discussed here.85 Even the Ottoman sources of the time (at least those accessible to date) know little about them. So far, no new information about the Armenian deputies of the first meşrutiyet has emerged from the Ottoman state archive. In future, this may change, since more and more documents are being made accessible, most notably the sicill-i ahval registers, which are already catalogued but have not been used in studies of the 1877 parliament yet86. Similarly, the Turkish (i.e. Turkish-language) newspapers of the period have not been studied systematically with respect to prosopographic data about the late-19th century Ottoman elites. Moreover, the Ottoman biographical encyclopaedias include entries on hardly any non- Muslims, whatever important positions in state or society they may have held. 84 Ghazandjian, Giragos S, Kharn namagner ughevorutian (Istanbul: M. G. Sarıian, 1886) 85 Cf. the data given in Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:4-5. The list printed there gives incomplete names and no dates of birth and death at all. The prosopographical part has entries on Servitchen and Apraham, but not on Mihran Düz. None of the Armenian mebusan are to be found there. 86 Looking through the sicill-i ahval catalogues available to date, I could not trace entries about any of the Armenian deputies so far. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 208 For instance, in the sicill-i osmani87 one searches in vain for anything about Krikor Odian, Hagop Paşa Kazazian, Mihran Düz (or any of his family or other amiras), Ohannes Tchamitch or Vahan Bey. That Turkish historiography, but above all contemporary Ottoman sources, pay so little attention to these men tells us more about the overall relationship between the majority or Turkish-Muslim ruling elite and the (not necessarily numerical, but sociological) minority of Armenians or non-Muslims in general than it tells us about the activities or significance of the non-Muslim notables. But since we have barely any account of many of the Muslim and even some of the Turkish deputies, this attitude cannot be the sole, and is perhaps not even the primary reason for our ignorance. Perhaps the short episode of the first Ottoman parliament was not regarded as having the same importance that we attribute to it now in the retrospective view. As for the available Armenian sources, one has to look first to the contemporary press. In the provinces there was no Armenian press in the period of the first constitution; not even the short-lived periodicals that had appeared before were still in existence.88 The only and, as such, all the more remarkable exception was Smyrna (Izmir), which in the period had one daily newspaper, the Arshaluys Araradian, and a weekly magazine with the title Arevelian mamul.89 The Armenian press in the capital, however, was plentiful. Since the 1830s, roughly one hundred Armenian newspapers and journals had been founded, not all of them of course continuing down to 1877. Around 1877 several daily newspapers and weekly political magazines were still being published, among them the weekly journals Puntch and Hayrenik as well as the daily papers Manzume-i efkar (published in Turkish written in the Armenian alphabet), Nor tar (published half in Armenian and half in Turkish in Armenian script), Lrakir, and finally, Masis, were the most important.90 Of these papers, Masis has been chosen for the purposes of the present study, since it was probably the single most representative and important newspaper of its time, because, to begin with, of the number of readers it had in the capital and many provinces. Almost no other paper was published without interruption under the conditions of a continuously stricter Ottoman censorship although this was the case with Masis; hardly any other paper contributed as much to the development of the modern (West-) Armenian literary language as did Masis; few journalists of the day enjoyed such a good reputation across the bounda- 87 Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i Osmani yahud tezkere-i meşahir-i osmaniye, 4 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i amire, 1308-1311), and the Turkish translation by Nuri Akbayar (ed. and transl.), Sicill-i Osmani yahud tezkere-i meşahir-i osmaniye, 6 vols. (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1996). 88 See A. Giragosian, Hay barperagan mamuli madenakrutiun (1794-1967) (Yerevan 1970), 552- 554. 89 Giragosian, Hay barperagan mamuli madenakrutiun, 58, 218 and 546; cf. also Vahé Oshagan, “Modern Armenian Literature and Intellectual History from 1700 to 1915,” in: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, 2:139-174, here 2:160. 90 Giragosian, Hay barperagan mamuli madenakrutiun, 546-547, cf. also 92, 121, 132, 144 and 182. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 209 ries of the various (Armenian) confessional groups as did its editor and chief contributor Garabed Ütüdjian as a balanced, though critical observer. At the same time, Masis functioned as the official gazette of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople and the organ of the Armenian millet-administration, for it was founded in 1852 as a successor to the official organ of the Patriarchate Hayasdan, which nevertheless had complete financial and journalistic independence from the Patriarchate and the National (millet) Assembly. Garabed Ütüdjian was considered to be a “progressive and liberal, but at the same time cautious and modest,” “semi-conservative,” someone who, “within the framework and limits of the law, defended the rights and well-being of the [Armenian] nation enthusiastically and advocated courageous ideas, yet with such adroitness,” that he was able to spare Masis over decades the fate of being repressed and closed.91 Masis carefully followed everything involving the new parliament. It covered the elections of the electors, and later, of the deputies in Istanbul. Again it commented on the appointment of the senators, and, finally, provided information about the election of the provincial deputies.92 When the chamber of deputies began its work, Masis reported regularly and extensively on the debates in parliament, paying especially close attention to the contributions of the Armenian members.93 Their participation in the debates was regarded as an honour for the whole Armenian people.94 “With satisfaction and, above all, pride, we see that, of the non-Muslim members of the Chamber, the Armenian deputies contribute 91 Zartarian, Hishadagaran, 85-89 (art. “Garabed Ütüdjian (1823-1904);” citation ibid., 86). Cf. Teotig, Amenun Daretsuytse (1921), 315; Oshagan, “Modern Armenian Literature,” 158, who characterizes Masis as “most influential daily of the [Armenian] community.” Cf. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 121. 92 Masis January 20, 1877 (preparation for the parliamentary elections); January 23, 1877 (elections in Edirne); January 30, 1877 (about the elections in Istanbul with an urgent appeal to take part in the elections and some strategic considerations concerning them); February 17, 1877 (elections in Yanya, vilayet Tuna, Selanik, Bosnia, Edirne, Scutari, Sivas and Erzurum); February 22, 1877 (elections in Istanbul and Aleppo); February 27, 1877 (elections in Istanbul and Izmir); March 1, 1877 (elections in Istanbul); March 3, 1877 (meeting of the electors in Istanbul and election of the deputies); March 6, 1877 (resignation of some); March 8, 1877 (again meeting of the Istanbul electors); March 13, 1877 (postponement of the opening of the parliament); March 20, 1877 (opening of the parliament, its work schedule, appointment of the senators, outcome of the elections in Diyarbekir and Erzurum); March 22, 1877 (meeting of the Istanbul electors); March 24, 1877 (on the deputies of Erzurum); March 29, 1877 (arrival of the deputies Kharadjian from Erzurum and Shahinian from Sivas in Istanbul); April 3, 1877 (appointment of Hovhannes Allahverdi as vice-president of the parliament, appointment of Kastro to the Senate and irritations about the Greek deputy Zoghrafou Efendi); April 7, 1877 (alleged resignation of Zoghrafos and arrival of Ballarian in Istanbul); April 12, 1877 (swearing in of the newly arrived deputies); April 17, 1877 (departure of Zoghrafos and election of his successor), etc. 93 Masis, March 22, 1877 and March 24, 1877 (the Sultan’s speech at the opening of the parliament, first sessions of chamber of deputies and senate); and the issues of March 27, March 29, March 31, April 3, April 7, April 12 of the same year, etc. (reports on the sessions of the Ottoman parliament). 94 Cf. for example the report on the Istanbul deputies in Masis, March 3, 1877. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 210 most to the discussions presenting ingeniously inspired ideas and useful suggestions,” Ütüdjian commented on their work.95 In his remark one can also see his delight over the fact that the Armenians were more progressive than any other Ottoman people in terms of political participation. In this sense, the editor of Masis had appealed previously to the Armenians, “the first constitutional people of Turkey,” to act accordingly and participate in Ottoman elections, procedures and institutions.96 Likewise, Masis reported with satisfaction and a touch of Ottoman national pride on the success of the Ottoman parliament and the positive impression it left on European observers, writing: “In Europe, the Ottoman parliamentary debates have made a profound impression [...], [because] people there believed that everything is passed without objection or opposition. Then they saw that this is not the case. In the Ottoman parliament real debates are taking place. The European newspapers approve the Muslim deputies above all.”97 The appeal to the Armenian voters to take the elections seriously as well as the appeal to the deputies to assume their duties even if that involved personal sacrifice also expresses the deep belief in the significance and utility of parliamentary work. Ütüdjian as well as a large segment of the Armenian elite optimistically hoped for Ottoman commitment and ability to reform. And they were convinced that, in this context, both the contribution of the Armenian deputies would be of some use for the Ottoman fatherland, and, their work in parliament would provide an important chance to improve the situation of the Armenians of the Empire and promote the cause of the Armenian nation. Therefore, the argument ran, the best and most qualified members of the community should be elected.98 A very telling example of this conviction is offered by the almost suppliant request to Servitchen not to resign from office because “his talent and education could be of great weight and he could consequently be of much use to the Ottoman [father]land and Armenian people.”99 The same attitude – optimism and enthusiasm for an indigenous Ottoman modernisation in which the creation of parliament and high esteem for its work played an important part – was also expressed in the strict rejection of any foreign intervention designed to further reform, for it was all too obvious that intervening in the name of much-needed reforms served more as a pretext for imperial ambitions than helping the Ottoman Christians.100 Beyond this basic consent, the Armenian deputies did not always share the same opinions, as, for example, the debate of March 26 shows, when it came to a dispute between Ohannes Allahverdi and other Armenian members of parlia- 95 Masis, March 29, 1877. 96 Masis, January 30, 1877. 97 Masis, April, 14, 1877. 98 Cf. for example Masis, March 6, 1877, March 8, 1877, etc. 99 Masis, March 6, 1877; previously rumours had come up about Servitchen’s possible resignation. 100 See below. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 211 ment.101 Often the Armenians in parliament also tried to mediate between the Muslim deputies and other Christians.102 None of these reports, however, provides much biographical information. The senators and Istanbul deputies were probably so well known to the readers of Masis as leading notables of the community that the paper did not deem it necessary to introduce them to its readership. About the provincial deputies, on the other hand, the paper itself did not know much at all. This ignorance shows through in vague remarks or in a footnote attributed to an uncertain source. Thus Masis reports on 23 January 1877: “The deputies for the province of Adrianople have already been chosen: four Turks, two Greeks one Armenian and one Bulgarian. The Armenian deputy is Rupen Efendi,” and adds, diffidently, in a footnote: “He is the Patriarch’s sister’s husband, people say.”103 After the results of the Diyarbekir poll became known, the newspaper could only reproduce the names without comment or contextualisation. “One Muslim with the name of Hadji Mesud Efendi” was elected as was “Hovsep Efendi Kazazian, of Armenian stock.”104 More indicative, however, is the information the paper gives about those deputies it knows well. “The two last-named Armenians are in every sense worthy persons, with their high education, enlightened views, and patriotism,” Masis tells its readers, for example, about the newly elected representatives of Erzurum Taniel Kharadjian and Hamazasb Efendi Ballarian on 20 March 1877, confirming this assessment four days later by means of a letter from Erzurum which states: “For the parliament that will be convened next March in Constantinople, Kharadjian Medz[abadiv] Taniel Efendi and Ballarian Hamazasb Efendi were elected as members by the Christians of this province. Both have profound knowledge of the Turkish language and, with their firm familiarity with the laws will undoubtedly be able to master the office bestowed on them.”105 A biographical summary, the profession, personal and social background, and even confession of the deputies appear irrelevant to the correspondent. However, it seems important to him to report on their educational level, Turkish language skills, knowledge of the Ottoman body politic and its laws, and, finally, integrity and reputation. Ütüdjian thus assures his readers even in the case of the sufficiently well-known Istanbul 101 Masis, March 29, 1877; cf. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 16-39. There is a certain incongruence between the coverage of Masis and the proceedings concerning date and content of the parliamentary debates. According to the proceedings, the date of the debate mentioned here was March 26; Masis summarizes not only the lengthy speech of Sebuh Maksudian, but also reports long contributions of Manug Karadjian and Rupen that the official proceedings as given by Us do not mention. 102 For instance, regarding the language dispute during the session of 28 March, but 31 March according to Masis, (Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 52-53; cf. also the report in Masis, April 3, 1877) or in the debate on the vilayet law of 1 April, where Manug Karadjian and Sebuh Maksudian offered compromise proposals (Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 66-70; Masis, April 7, 1877). 103 Masis, January 23, 1877. 104 Masis, March 20, 1877. 105 Masis, March 24, 1877. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 212 deputies: “We are glad that the Constantinople deputies are in every sense extraordinary and independent personalities who defend the true interests of the country and the just rights of the people with dignity, and, with their genius and free spirit bring honour to the Armenian nation.”106 However, foreign observers report on the Ottoman deputies in much the same vein. A British consular report from Trabzon, for instance, says nothing about the biography and background of the deputy Hovhannes Kürekian Efendi, mentioning only that he is “a man of sound judgement, who, with the knowledge of the wants of the populations in this province, might make suggestions of a very acceptable character.”107 Before examining contemporary newspapers and archives, one would of course be inclined to assume that research of this sort perhaps has been done by Armenian historians. Armenian historiography, however, mentions only the names of the Armenian deputies, if it mentions them at all.108 Some explanation for this is to be found in the specific conditions of Armenian historiography after World War I. Many Armenian reference works were not written by professional historians. Under the conditions of genocide – which had affected the intellectual elite above all – and dispersion, and without a state which could provide the necessary structure for professional research, the Armenians could hardly produce a welldeveloped historiography. Many history books were written by learned priests, physicians, or engineers and journalists. Most remarkable are the numerous memorial volumes about the lost land. These are often thick books written by survivors of the catastrophe out of a deep consciousness of irretrievable loss, filled with all the memories, stories and histories their authors were able to collect from various sources, beginning with their own memories, oral legends and testimony from their scattered surviving compatriots, and research in all sorts of contemporary written sources. They are compilations of local history, traditions, customs and dishes, songs, dialects, geographical, climatic and agricultural conditions, anecdotes, and biographies of notable or famous compatriots. They are elaborate and learned in some cases,109 simpler in many others. These books are in many ways real treasure-troves, yet they have never been systematically studied until now. Nevertheless, on the Armenian deputies to the first Ottoman parliament they hardly contain a line.110 The possibilities of Soviet Armenian historiography were 106 Masis, March 3, 1877. 107 Bilotti (Trabzon) to Derby, November 29, 1877, cited in Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 275. 108 For example H. Dj. Siruni, Bolis yev ir tere, vol. 3, (Antelias 1987), 492, and vol. 4, (Antelias 1988), 293. 109 Noteworthy above all are the works of Arshag Alboyadjian, who may be counted, indeed, as a professional historian. Among others, he published two volumes about Gesaria (Caeseraea / Kayseri) and another about Yevtogia (Tokat). Cf. Arshag Alboyadjian, Badmutiun Hay Gesario, 2 vols. (Cairo 1937); idem, Badmutiun Yevtogio Hayots (Cairo 1952). 110 Cf. Hagop Aghasian, Adrianubolso Hay kaghute (Plovdiv 1935); Hagop Kosian, Smürnio Hayere, 2 vols. (Vienna 1899); Artavazd Sürmeyan, Badmutiun Halebi Hayots, 3 vols. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 213 likewise very limited. In addition to the restrictions historians had to cope with in other socialist states as well, Armenian historians were for decades cut off from many of the non-Armenian sources relevant to the history of Western Armenia or Ottoman Armenians. Even more forbidding than the aforementioned obstacles may be the historical experience that induces a community to take an interest in certain periods of its past, to approach them critically or glorify them, and repress, forget, or even distort others. The historical experience of the Ottoman Armenians during the last years and the collapse of the empire could hardly be more drastic or profoundly unsettling. The genocide during the First World War meant the complete destruction of the Armenian millet. It meant, as well, the final shattering of any hope of a future within the Ottoman-Turkish state, which had been the hope of Armenians in Erzurum and Van, Muş and Bitlis, Izmir and Istanbul for generations. In the face of total extermination, that pious wish appeared as a deadly error. Many also saw it as treason. The continuing denial of the very fact or significance of the genocide, which in the final analysis implies nothing less than the continuation of the genocidal process itself – its last act, one might say – had an important share in cementing this reduced interpretation and holding the already sparse Armenian historiography hostage in the endless circle of an alleged need to prove the genocide. This dilemma becomes even clearer if we essay certain comparisons. Beginning in Bulgaria and Greece, but also in other countries in the Balkans, a critical reassessment of the local Ottoman past and, consequently, new research that also takes Ottoman documents and perspective into consideration has only recently begun.111 The same can be said about the Arab countries, which had long been under Ottoman rule.112 For obvious reasons, sketched above, Armenian society and historiography are even further from such a new approach to their own past. Against this background, it is also not surprising that very few of the Armenian chroniclers or professionally trained historians of our day choose Ottoman- Armenian history – more precisely, the Ottoman context of Western Armenian history – as their subject. Especially poorly studied are the Armenian members of the Ottoman elite, whose careers were more closely bound up with the Ottoman state than they were with the Armenian community – those who believed in an (Aleppo 1940-1950); Püzant Yeghiaian, Adanyi Hayots Badmutiun (Antelias 1970); Hagop Kosian, Partsr Hayk, 2 vols. (Vienna 1925), etc. 111 Cf. the overview articles of Maria Todorova, “Die Osmanenzeit in der bulgarischen Geschichtsschreibung seit der Unabhängigkeit,” in: Die Staaten Südosteuropas und die Osmanen, ed. Hans Georg Majer (Munich: Südosteuropa-Ges., 1989), 127-161 and Maria Todorova, “Bulgarian Historical Writings on the Ottoman Empire,” New Perspectives on Turkey 12 (Spring 1995). 112 Seminal works in this respect are among others the studies of Rifaat Abu El Haj, Abd ar- Rahman Abu Hussayn, Adnan Bakhit, Beshara Doumani and Ussama Makdisi, who make extensive use of Ottoman archival material in addition to local and European sources. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 214 Armenian future inside the Ottoman Empire and therefore hoped (and pushed) for reform, and modernisation in order to strengthen that fatherland, Ottoman patriots who were at pains to contribute to these modernizing efforts. It was, in the first place, the choice of means rather than the goal itself that distinguished them from the Armenian social revolutionaries of the 1890s who considered themselves later as the real attorneys for the Armenian nation. The Armenian revolutionaries, who were organized in political parties very much inspired by Russian models and under the leadership of predominantly Caucasian Armenians from the late 1880s onwards, hated the amiras as “conservatives” or even as henchmen of the “despotic Hamidian regime.” They considered the representatives of the new elites, reformers such as Krikor Odian, to be predecessors of the Armenian national movement, but at the same time condemned them for their strict opposition to anything resembling revolution and rebellion.113 In fact, this opposition to all forms of rebellion against the Ottoman authorities can be seen as the minimal common sense shared by all currents of Armenian political thought and all elite groups in the period of the first constitution, whether they were Turkophile (in the sense that they worked for Ottoman reform and could imagine an Armenian future only under Ottoman rule), Russophile (in the sense that they may have preferred Russian rule to Ottoman, or, at least, opted for Ottoman cooperation with the Russian empire without ever being disloyal to the state they lived in), Anglophile (in the sense that they hoped for British insistence on Ottoman reform), or, finally, Francophile or Italophile (as many Armenian Catholics were hoping for French or Italian pressure for reform).114 In evaluating the development of Armenian historiography and the place of high-ranking Armenian-Ottoman officials and representatives in it, one also has to take into consideration that this history was later essentially written by East Armenian intellectuals who were close to the revolutionary parties, most importantly Leo (Arakel Babakhanian)115 and Mikayel Varantian. In addition, a number of factors influenced contemporary discussions as well as later historiographical analysis. Schematically, they can be summarized as, first, a generational conflict 113 Paradigmatic for this view: Mikayel Varantian, Haygagan sharjman nakhabadmutiun, vol. 1 (Geneva 1912), 234, 246, 286, 290-91 and passim. Already telling is the fact that this book, whose title reads in translation “Introductory History of the Armenian Movement” (or “History of the Period Preceding the Armenian Movement”) and that covers the 1870s extensively, does not so much as mention the Ottoman Armenian deputies. On the revolutionary parties see Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement. The Development of Armenian Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1963). Varantian can be considered representative of the historiography of the revolutionary parties because of his outstanding position as a historian and an intellectual of the Tashnagtsutiun. His work is extensively used and quoted by most of the authors close to the political parties, although few of them mention their source. 114 Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, 27. 115 Leo’s multi-volume work is generally regarded as one of the most important reference works on Armenian history; Leo, Yergeri joghovadzu. Dase hadaorov, 10 vols. (Yerevan, 1966- ). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 215 between the amiras and the first representatives of the new elites (stemming primarily from the esnaf social stratum) as well as another generational conflict that followed the first, involving, this time the now well-established officials of the new type and the young revolutionaries; second, as a class struggle116; and, third, as a dichotomy or even conflict between the Armenians of the Ottoman West and those of the Russian East, with their different models, experiences and political ideas and options. Against this complex and multi-faceted background, the main political discussion of the day was conducted around the question as to which ways and means were the right ones to improve the situation of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Eastern provinces, which was steadily deteriorating as the crisis of the Empire came to a head. The Armenian members of the Ottoman parliament represented those Armenians who tried to bring about reforms within the limits of the present regime and its institutions and opposed any armed measures or revolt. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Hay heghapokhagan tashnagtsutiun, HHT), which was by virtue of its influence and numbers the most important of the revolutionary parties, went down much the same path. They, too, chose the Ottoman state and its institutions as the framework for their action. But, in their case, the element of revolutionary means was added. A generation after the “Young Ottoman” constitutionalists of the first meşrutiyet, an Ottoman revolutionary movement had emerged. It is usually summarized under the rubric of the “Young Turks.” The Young Turks’ aim was to pursue the reform programme of the Tanzimat politicians, but they were convinced that, after decades of Hamidian autocracy, political reform was only possible after the reinforcement of the constitution, to be achieved through a revolutionary act and the deposition of the Sultan.117 The Armenian revolutionaries joined this movement, working closely with the Young Turk leaders and, like them, opting for a putsch. Through the constitution, they hoped to achieve political reform and, consequently, greater equality for all Ottoman subjects and better protection for the Armenians in the provinces. However, it must be clearly stressed that this political programme was directed against the present regime and its functionaries, but not against the Ottoman State. Revolutionary conspiracy and violence were directed 116 This struggle is generally described as a struggle between amiras and esnafs, but one also has to take into consideration that the revolutionary parties appealed more to the young, modern educated intellectual elite on the one hand, and, on the other, to the lower strata of society, who cannot be subsumed under the esnafs. Another important feature is that the revolutionaries apparently recruited their followers among the rural population, whereas both amiras and esnafs are urban groups. A systematic examination of the social composition of the political parties, their leadership as well as their followers, would be of great interest in this context. 117 On the emergence and further development of the Young Turk opposition cf. the very detailed studies of Şükrü Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition (New York, etc.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995) and his Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks, 1902-1908 (Oxford, etc.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 216 against Sultan Abdülhamid II and the hatred of the Turkish and Armenian revolutionaries was focused on his spies. But the conviction that the Ottoman State was the framework for thought and action, the only one in which action made sense, was never questioned – neither by the Armenian revolutionaries nor by their Turkish comrades.118 The principal West-Armenian leaders of the Tashnagtsutiun, such as Vartkes Serengülian, or politicians close to that party, such as Krikor Zohrab (both deputies in the Second Ottoman Parliament), were Ottoman patriots who believed in the Ottoman State and its reformist rulers to the very end – even during the first phase of the First World War and the beginning of the mass deportations of Armenians, to which they ultimately fell victim themselves. Only post-genocide historiography, in one-sided, simplifying interpretation, has made the Tashnagtsutiun only the fighter for an independent Armenian nation-state of the kind that existed in 1918-20 under its rule, denying the role of the Tashnagtsutiun as an Ottoman political party. Meanwhile, the Armenian- Ottoman politicians of the previous generation, among them, prominently, the deputies of the first meşrutiyet, were simply blotted out of historical memory and, therefore historiography, that is, out of Western Armenian history. Those about whose life we know a little something have left traces on other fields, as doctors, writers, journalists, etc., and are paid tribute for that. For their work and achievements as Ottoman-Armenian politicians, they are neither appreciated nor even remembered. As politicians of that kind, they are not the heroes of a historiography whose ideal is the nation-state. It remains for a post-national, critical historiography to re-introduce such personalities into history, be it Armenian or Ottoman. Through the prism of their biographies, the Ottoman Empire appears as a state that many different nations considered theirs and, therefore, continued to stick to even when it was already falling apart. Whom, then, did these Armenian-Ottoman deputies blotted from the history books represent, and what did they stand for? What did they consider themselves to be? About their attitude to the Empire, their speeches in the parliament are telling. Especially the debate of April 25, 1877 over the Russian declaration of war offers insight into their convictions as well as the state of Ottoman domestic political affairs.119 First of all it is striking how many Armenian deputies contributed to this debate. Of 24 men who addressed the chamber during the debate, seven 118 This statement remains valid despite a certain amount of rhetoric about “throwing off the Turkish yoke.” Simplistic rhetoric and utopia are one thing, realistic political goals and programmes another. Yet it is a remarkable fact that, among the Young Turk revolutionaries, the Armenians were especially daring and ready for action. It is no coincidence that the attempt on Abdülhamid’s life in 1905 was conducted by Armenian revolutionaries. On the Tashnagtsutiun see Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement, 151-178; Hratch Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Dashnaktsutiun 1890/ 1924 (Milan: OEMME Ed., 1989). 119 Published in Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 170-180. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 217 were Armenian. The debate began with the reading of the Russian declaration of war and the Ottoman reply. First Hasan Fehmi Efendi, a Muslim deputy from Istanbul, commented on the declaration of war and, in this context, also addressed the topic of Russian claims to protecting Christian minorities, now no longer limited to the Balkan Slavs, but embracing all Ottoman Christian subjects. His words reflect the perceptions of the Muslim elites, and most probably of major portions of the Muslim population of the Empire as well: He portrays Russia as the eternal enemy of the Ottoman State and the whole civilized world, affirming that it had so far exerted influence only on the Slav segment of the Ottoman population, but was now trying to goad all Christians into staging uprisings.120 It is precisely this language which continuously runs through the administrative records of the Hamidian era, moving every Christian villager’s complaint about abuse, corruption or violence in the direction of rebellion, which foreign agents had probably even incited.121 The nationalist atmosphere dominating the debate was not produced by Hasan Fehmi’s speech, but had already emerged in the session of the previous day. During that session, there was a discussion about whether Christian religious leaders should be ex officio members of the Provincial Administrative Councils like the Muslim muftis. With this subject, the session provided one of the generally rather rare occasions on which the battle lines in parliament were drawn according to religious affiliation. At the end of the session, the news was announced that Russia had declared war on the Ottomans. Reacting to this breaking news, two Muslim deputies delivered spontaneous speeches. One was Nafi Efendi from Aleppo; the other was Hoca Mustafa Efendi from Kozan in the vilayet of Adana, who had already stirred up the discussion in the debate about the Montenegro Question more than any other member of parliament.122 They spoke about the unity of the people, the expected success of Ottoman arms “and inflamed all deputies with fiery patriotic zeal,” as the newspaper Masis put it, immediately adding: “The Christian members of the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies also univocally protested against the Russian action, declaring that the Christians of Turkey do not need Russian protection at all and that they [therefore] repudiate all claims of that sort.”123 One has to analyse the debate of 25 April 1877 against this background. The deputies already knew what the subject of the session was to be, and they also already knew that the atmosphere would be heated and nationalistic from the very 120 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 170-171. 121 This general impression and stereotype had become so common place that it even left its mark on children’s games; Somel, The Modernization of Public Education, 251-252. 122 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 53-60, in particular p. 57-58; cf. the critical analysis of this debate in Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 188-191. 123 Masis, April 26, 1877, 2. Strangely enough this last part of the debate was not included in the minutes. Information about what happened can only be gleaned from the newspapers of the day. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 218 outset, with the deputies striving to outstrip each other in patriotic statements. The Christians among them also knew that they would be summoned, not only as Ottomans, but, first and foremost, as Christians and potential traitors, to reject Russian protection and confirm their loyalty to and unity with the State and Ottoman nation. The need for such a statement was the more deeply felt the more a deputy or community had previously complained about excesses and violations and had pressed for reform and more effective protection of the Christian subjects. With this background in mind, the course of the debate of April 25 is not surprising. The observer is not surprised to see – after some introductory remarks by Hasan Fehmi – one Christian after the other standing up hastily rejecting Russian ambitions, and expressing his own loyalty and his community’s willingness to make sacrifices for the Ottoman State and its dynasty. It is also not surprising to see that the deputies from Bulgaria and the other predominantly Christian Balkan provinces in particular came well prepared and handed in written statements of their loyalty.124 Yet historians of the first meşrutiyet are right to state that it was not only subservience which motivated the Christians’ speeches in this debate.125 Despite the fear visible between the lines of the speeches, their comments also reflect an apparently honest and deeply felt Ottomanism and attachment to the Ottoman State that should not be neglected in historical analysis out of hand. Their attitude is, rather, the expression of their political realism, stemming from the conditions and political possibilities of their respective communities. Most of the Christian deputies who came to the fore in the April 25 debate belonged to communities for whom an independent state, that is to say, secession from the Ottoman Empire after the Greek or Bulgarian example, possibly with Russian or European help, was simply not a realistic perspective. Their communities, be they Christian Arabs or Armenians, were too scattered and not sufficiently homogenous in their home regions even to think seriously about delimiting a territorial unit as their nation state. This situation forced them to concentrate their hopes still more on the reforms in the Ottoman Empire, which would offer their communities safety, equality and the opportunity to participate in politics. This was all the more the case in that the Armenians, as residents of the ever troubled Eastern borderlands, fully contributed to the Ottoman reform process wherever they saw an opportunity to do so and appealed to the state to resume its functions in guaranteeing public order and security of all its subjects seriously and effectively. In their allegiance to the Ottoman State, however, there was also an 124 Two such declarations were submitted, the first one is signed by Karamihaloğlu Yorgi from Edirne, Misho Todori and Samakovlu [sic!] Zahari from Sofia, Istefanaki and Dimitraki from Tuna and Dimitri from Selanik. The second one is described as declaration of the Serbian deputies, but bears the signatures of one Greek from Trabzon, one Armenian from Sivas (Hagop Shahinian) and one Christian Syrian (Nawfal); Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:172-173. 125 Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 217; Enver Ziya Karal, “Non-Muslim Representatives in the First Constitiutional Assembly,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 387-400, see esp. ibid, 397. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 219 element of doubt about, or even rejection of, Russian rule. Armenians in the Ottoman Empire took careful note of the manifold oppressions to which non- Orthodox Christians were exposed in Russia; and the Russian state itself was plainly the author of the measures in question.126 On the other hand, the distress and violence which the Armenians on the Ottoman side of the border increasingly suffered could not be directly attributed to the state in the same way. It seemed, rather, that the deplorable situation of the Armenians was a consequence of the weakness of the state organs, so that strengthening the power of the central government would soon improve their condition. As long as the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire did not hold the Ottoman state responsible for their bitter lot, but rather “Kurds and Circassians,” without ever blaming the Central government for deliberately inciting the latter against the Armenian villages on purpose, and as long as the Ottoman Armenians put the misbehaviour of many officials mainly down to their corruption, not to orders or at least encouragement and toleration from the Istanbul government, they placed their hopes in the renewal of the Empire more than anything else.127 That Russian rule might prove more oppressive for them as non-Orthodox Christians than Ottoman-Islamic rule in its heyday was the theme of many speakers. Nawfal from Syria deduced Muslim tolerance for Christians from the Qur’an, and Nakkash, likewise from Syria, called on the Russians to show respect for the non-Orthodox Christians in their own country before rushing to offer protection to the subjects of other countries.128 The Armenian deputy from Erzurum, Hamazasb Ballarian, invoked his own family’s story to prove his anti- Russian outlook. His family, he said, had been among the approximately 100,000 Armenians who, in 1829, had believed Russian promises and emigrated to Russia.129 They were, however, soon disappointed and returned to their country; for this reason they now were among the most loyal and trustworthy Ottoman subjects, and could even better appreciate the security and order that the Armenian nation had enjoyed for more than 500 years of Ottoman rule; consequently, they rejected any Russian protection whatsoever.130 Accordingly, Armenian deputies were active in the parliamentary commission charged with collecting aid for the Muslim refugees and also donated considerable amounts.131 One can only speculate about their reasons for this specific commitment. It may be interpreted as a symbolic gesture meant to stress the strong bond with the Ottoman state. An- 126 Hrant Pasdermadjian, Histoire de l'Arménie depuis les origines jusqu'au traité de Lausanne, 4th ed. (Paris: Samuelian, 1986), 313-315. 127 This view is reflected in the aims and language of countless Armenian petitions and finally also entered into the wording of the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin. 128 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 173-174. On anti-Russian feelings among Armenians as well as Greeks, especially among their elites, cf. Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 218. 129 On this episode see Pastermadjian, Histoire, 310. 130 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 174-175; cf. also the report in Masis, April 28, 1877. 131 See for example Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 323, passim. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 220 other possible interpretation is that they hoped that, when the muhacirs’ needs were more fully met, the situation of the Armenian peasants, who were often victims of plundering landless immigrants, would also improve. Among the Christian speakers of the April 25 debate, it was most particularly the Armenians who went beyond mere pledges of loyalty and offers of financial support. They demanded the right to participate in the armed forces as well. The Istanbul deputy Maksudian appealed for immediate consideration of a law introducing military service for non-Muslims.132 The Erzurum deputies Ballarian and Kharadjian announced that in their home province, the Armenians had already taken up arms and organized in “National Units” together with the Muslims of the border region.133 It has been repeatedly stated that the Christian elites never again raised this question of integrating the non-Muslims into the armed forces and had not been seriously interested in recruitment among their communities.134 This argument neglects the fact that probably no community ever would press for recruitment in the middle of an ongoing war, especially in view of the prevailing deplorable conditions. This question would have to be negotiated and resolved in times of peace. At least there are many indications that one should not dismiss the demand of incorporation in the army, unambiguously put forward by the Armenian deputies, as mere rhetoric, but take it seriously in light of the particular situation of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. The commitment of the Armenian deputies of the second constitutional period – above all Krikor Zohrab – to a new law on recruitment which would include non-Muslims in the armed forces, is an important argument in favour of reconsidering this point. Facing the continuously insufficient protection against violent incursions, the wish to finally gain the right to carry arms, like the Muslims, constitutes another strong argument here.135 It has to be stressed as well, that there was dissent among the Armenian elite over this question already in 1877. In a long article, Ütüdjian advocated inclusion of the Armenians in the army, arguing that this was the best way to claim equal rights.136 The Armenian millet parliament voted likewise for Armenian military service in its session of December 7, 1877; then it was only the Grand Council of the Patriarchate who opposed this decision.137 132 Ibid., 173-174. 133 Ibid., 178. 134 See, for example, Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 221-225; Davison, “The Millets as Agents of Change,” 329, 332; Erik Jan Zürcher, “The Ottoman Conscription System in Theory and Practice,” in: Arming the State. Military Conscription in the Middle East and Central Asia, ed. idem, (London and New York: Tauris 1999), 79-94, here 88-89. 135 See, for example, the diaries of the Armenian prelate of Adana Bishop Mushegh Seropian, who explicitly elaborates this idea. Mushegh Srpazan Seropian, Inknagensakrutiun, vol. 4, January 1916 – May 1917, 947 (entry of March 25, 1917, quoting his diary of 1909), Archives of the Bibliothèque Nubar, Paris. 136 Masis, May 19, 1877. 137 Devereux, The First Constitutional Period, 224 n94. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE “LOYAL NATION” AND ITS DEPUTIES 221 It is not surprising to see that the exceptional atmosphere of the war debate and the question of Russian protection for the Christians of the Ottoman Empire forced the Christian deputies of the chamber to make statements as Christians, not as representatives of the region that had elected them. Only peacetime debates or debates on subjects not related to the war or explicitly religious concerns will shed light on the deputies’ perception of whom they represented. But, here again, in many debates, in the speeches and the wishes and arguments they reflected, as well as in the votes, it can be seen that the deputies of the Ottoman parliament, although elected as representatives of a region, were acting primarily as deputies of their religious community. Or, as Davison puts it: “[...] as deputies, the non- Muslim could not totally shed their sectarian identity, however much they might feel and act as Osmanlis. They had, in effect, a dual character, and in a sense they still represented their millets.”138 Thus we come back to our starting point. The Armenians in the first Ottoman parliament were certainly elected as deputies from a certain region, but they acted often, and perhaps primarily, as representatives of their community, although they did not forget the concerns of their region as a whole. Interestingly enough, however, the consciousness of ethno-lingual, secular “national” belonging overweighed the confessional millet identity. At any rate the press, here again exemplified by the Istanbul daily Masis, made no distinction between Catholics and Apostolic Armenians. Representatives of both groups were presented to the reader as “members of the Armenian nation” (hayazki), and the confessional affiliations of the Armenian deputies were not even mentioned in the paper.139 * * * The appearance and perception of the Armenian deputies in parliament as representatives of the Armenians does not necessarily mean that their views were representative of those of a majority of Ottoman Armenians of the time. If we put aside the fundamental question of how representative of a people elites can be, we have to confine ourselves to stating that in the period of the first Ottoman Constitution, there was no other organized current of Armenian politics. There then existed, besides the Armenian members of the Ottoman parliament and the Armenian members of the various Ottoman administrative bodies on different levels, only two, closely interconnected arenas of Armenian political representation. One was the Church as official representative of the Armenian millet (or Armenian Catholic or Armenian Protestant millet). The other was the National Assembly with its various committees, which had been established during the reform of the millets beginning in the mid-nineteenth century (especially with the Armenian constitution of 1860/63) to assist the patriarch in administering the 138 Davison, “The Millets as Agents of Change,” 329. 139 Cf. Masis, March 3, 1877; March 20, 1877, etc. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ELKE HARTMANN 222 community. Despite their internal conflicts over a number of other questions, both followed the same political strategy concerning the Ottoman state and the place and role of Armenians within it: advocating improvement of the living conditions of the Armenians, especially those living in the Eastern provinces, not outside the Ottoman State and its institutions, but in the framework of, and in constant reference to the Ottoman state. The sole means to be used were countless petitions and requests, which appealed to the duties and self-conception of the Ottoman State. The Armenian-Ottoman deputies, like the Armenian members of administrative councils or Armenian state officials, pursued the same goal, choosing as their means the active contribution to those Ottoman administrative or representative organs to which the Patriarchate appealed. On an informal level, some intellectuals aired other views, which found expression in the journals. They drafted utopian dreams of an “independent Armenia,” while, remarkably, never concretely defining the borders of this land and, even more remarkably, writing off its multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition.140 They inspired the Armenian revolutionary movement, which emerged later in the century. At the time of the first Ottoman parliament, no political parties yet existed. They all were founded later: in 1885, the Armenagan Party in Van; in 1887, the Hntchagian Party in Geneva (Switzerland), and in 1890, the Hay Heghapakhagan Tashnagtsutiun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) in Tiflis (Caucasus). Their history will one day have to be re-examined with regard to the real political goals they pursued concretely on the ground, beyond revolutionary rhetoric and utopia. It will be equally important to examine the differences between the projections of the predominantly Caucasian-Armenian leadership of the two revolutionary parties (Hntchag and Tashnagtsutiun) and the expectations of their Ottoman-Armenian members. In this context it will be also imperative to estimate, at least roughly, the size of the revolutionary movement, so as to gain some notion of the percentage of the Ottoman Armenian population that it represented. 140 See for example “Vartan’s dream” in Raffi’s best-selling novel “Khente” [The Fool]. In this utopian Armenia set 200 years in the future, the Kurds have simply disappeared, having been assimilated into the Armenian population. Raffi, The Fool. Events From the Last Russo- Turkish War (1877-78), transl. Donald Abcarian (Princeton: Gomidas Inst. 2000), 206-217, esp. 210-211. Raffi (Hagop Melik-Hagopian, 1835-1888) was probably the most influential Armenian novelist of his generation. Although he worked and published in the Russian part of Armenia, his novels were also widely spread among Ottoman Armenians. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Towards a Prosopography of the Deputies from Bosnia-Herzegovina in the First Ottoman Parliament Philippe Gelez Introduction After the publication of the electoral regulations, on the 29th of October 1876, Ottoman local authorities prepared the elections in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian vilayets by proclaiming and commenting the regulations. As a matter of fact, Herzegovina had formed an independent province since the end of 1875, and therefore had to send its own representatives to the parliament in Istanbul. It has to be noted, too, that at that time, Bosnia included the area known by the name Sandjak of Novi Pazar. Because of the close political and cultural relationship between the two provinces historically, on several occasions representatives from Herzegovina were designated as if they came from Bosnia. This fact illustrates that on the administrative level the two regions seemed to be considered as a single entity. While this seems convincing at first glance, things look quite different on closer scrutiny. Devereux in his classic work made the same mistake.1 “Democratic proportional elections” (1 deputy for 50,000 inhabitants) formed only theoretically the basis for representation in the Ottoman parliament; in practice the electoral process in these two provinces followed a “confessional key” that was based on a numeric equilibrium between Muslims and Non-Muslims: in Bosnia, three Muslims and three non-Muslims (2 Christians and 1 Jew representing the Sarajevo Sephardic community); in Herzegovina, two of each group (2 Muslims and 2 Christians). Such a balance could have raised problems because of questions of proportionality between Catholics and Orthodox within the Christian category. However, the Metropolitan of Sarajevo, Anthimos, demanded that only the proportion between Christians and Muslims be altered — according to what he said was the existing Bosnian confessional balance, which would have resulted in four Christian and two Muslim representatives. The French consul of Sarajevo put forward figures that also indicated numerical superiority of Christians (4 out of 7) over Muslims (3 out of 7). Similarly, the vice-consul of Mostar wrote a polemical request, assessing the number of people from the major communities in Herzegovina as 37.5% Muslims, 34.5% Orthodox and 24.5% Catho- 1 Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 224 lics out of a total population of about 260,000 persons. But none of them succeeded in their requests, and the principle of equality between Muslim and Non- Muslim representatives was preserved. The Ottoman constitution was translated in the spring of the following year into “Slavonic” and published in Bosnia, the official provincial newspaper appearing in Sarajevo. This considerable delay is one indicator among others that may serve to illustrate that the population did not show much interest in this latest political novelty. In Herzegovina, the official Herzegovinian provincial newspaper published in Mostar, the text was published in Turkish although very few there knew this language; the vali of Herzegovina did not expect any official translation from Istanbul and had commanded it to the editor of Herzegovina (probably Mehmed Hulusi), who had no qualification for this task. We do not know if this translation was ever published. This lack of interest is understandable. First, from 1864 on, the population had faced many changes and was not interested in this announcement of theoretical improvements which were not expected to lead to any concrete changes in daily life. On the other hand, the area was in the very midst of warfare, which had begun in Herzegovina the year before and was dragging on because of Serbian and Montenegrin interference since July 1876. Furthermore, “representation” was an almost totally alien political concept, and widely considered as an Austro- Hungarian battering ram intended to conquer the vilayet. So, when at the end of November 1876, Bosnia published the decree establishing the General Council of the Empire, next to no one understood or reacted. The vote had to be indirect in one ballot. Each kaymakamlık council (meclis-i idare), stemming from a joint appointment between the “popular vote” (i.e. local notables) and the provincial authorities, was supposed to designate four of its members in order to dispatch their propositions to the sancak council, which was, in turn, responsible for sending them to Sarajevo. Each member (about 190 in total) had to write down and put into an envelope the name of the six men he wanted to be elected. These envelopes were to be opened in the presence of a control committee formed of fifteen persons. One observer noted ironically that counting the votes must have been a difficult task because although the number of electors was very low, the process of counting lasted more than one week. As a matter of fact, the viziers exerted a decisive influence on the elections, particularly in Bosnia, where the governor Mehmed Nazif Paşa (from July 7, 1876 to April 24, 1877) had submitted to the simple approval of kaymakamlık councils the nominations prepared by the provincial administration. Moreover, in this province, only 35 persons enjoyed the right of passive vote because of the restrictive conditions for eligibility. One of them excluded those who did not know the Ottoman language from the right to be designated, and at that time only a handful of otherwise eligible men in Bosnia and Herzegovina were sufficiently proficient in Ottoman Turkish. The electoral process in Herzegovina was similar. The © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 225 meclis-i idare of the vilayet sent to the kaymakamlık councils a proposal they had to approve without any question. Thus, the elections took place during the war against Montenegro and with a totally indifferent population, which furthermore had no real idea of the representative system and imagined this parliament to be as powerless as the local councils. The eligible too, appointed rather than elected by these councils, and without any experience concerning elections and election campaigns, remained politically unconcerned. There were no political fights behind the scenes because there was no scene — and because the Organic Statute stipulated a voting process largely without publicity. However, the perspective of the honors the office might bring with it and the remuneration (announced as 300 piasters per month) provoked a kind of competition among the local notability. Elections for the second session did not mark any change or improvement in the population’s political sensibility. Russian victories over the Ottoman army were forming the main interest of public discussion at that time. Moreover, whatever results the first session might have brought about, they remained invisible and unknown. The only noticeable difference was that Herzegovina had meanwhile been reintegrated into the administrative framework of Bosnia (February 2, 1877) and that there were now four Muslim and four non-Muslim deputies instead of five respectively — thus, contrary to the British vice-consul’s assertion, Muslim and Christian representation underwent modifications, as detailed below. Furthermore, there was no longer an Orthodox deputy because the one elected declined his election. Lastly, two Jewish deputies were appointed to participate to the second session, perhaps because a certain number of men in this community knew Turkish and more probably because they had relations to the local government. For the second session each kaymakamlık council was supposed to indicate eight names to the vali, and the latter had to choose. It seems that this time the process was quicker than before. Moreover, there is an indication of at least a certain amount of “democratic” process because sources indicate that Bašagić, for the second session, was elected and not nominated; but in his precise case, we must also emphasize that he belonged to the group of close friends of the new vali, Ahmed Mazhar Paşa (Üsküdar 1834-Istanbul, March 3, 1891), who governed Bosnia from April 25, 1877 to July 12, 1878. As was required of the elected representatives, they were equipped with certificates of good character and solvency by the City Council and the kadıs, on whose jurisdiction they depended. Thereafter, elected persons had the benefit of traveling cost defrayals for Sarajevo and Istanbul. They were ordered to wear a black coat and trousers of the same color.2 They would also receive a monthly amount 2 AHM OC 1326, 20 X. 1293 /November 1, 1877; AHM OC 1261, 28 L 1294 /November 4, 1877; AHM OC 1338, 23 X. 1293 /November 4, 1877; AHM OC 1322, 27 XI. 1293 / December 9, 1877; Cat Esih 250, 24 XII. 1293 /November 3, 1877; Cat Esih 170, 25 X. 1276 (date error: more probably 1293) / January 6, 1878). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 226 of money, though this information appears only in Us’ collection and not in the local archival material.3 At the Parliament, Bosnian and Herzegovinian representatives spoke little. The only occasion when they broke their silence was when the Ottomans surrendered the town of Nikšić to the Russian army4 in the spring of 1877: then they discussed in many words the Herzegovinian-Montenegran conflict, which had been vigorous since 1852 or even before. However, the case of Ibrahim Bey Bašagić, who does not appear much in Us’ collection although he was designated as parliamentary secretary for the second session, proves that a parliamentarian’s political significance cannot be solely measured by the length and frequency of his speeches. In the evenings, Bosnian and Herzegovinian deputies in Istanbul spent their time together commenting the latest events and sharing news from their provinces. They also entertained themselves with Bosnian folkloric songs. One day, Fehim Đumišić, who hosted a native Sarajevo woman famous in Istanbul for her voice, organized an evening gathering with the leading classical divan poet in Istanbul, Hikmet, alias Arif Bey Rizvanbegović (1839-1903). The latter was the son of a powerful Herzegovinian ayan, who, after his father’s murder in 1850, was exiled to the capital. Hikmet’s enthusiasm grew the more he listened to the arias and songs, and he exclaimed at the end: “My people are the greatest poets!” Such glorification of language and culture may serve as an indication of how the national idea began, slowly but surely, to impregnate Muslim elites at the end of the Empire. The deputies’ stay in the capital also offered the opportunity for political negotiations with the central government: during the first session, Herzegovinian deputies asked for the preservation of the special administrative status of their vilayet — they wanted to be ruled directly from Constantinople, and not by the Bosnian vali. They were ready to accept that the head of the administration at Mostar would bear only the title of a mutasarrıf. At the same time, the Bosnian deputation argued to get rid of the vali Nazif Paşa. Being successful in this, they got Mazhar Paşa, the above-mentioned alla franca-educated Istanbuliot vali, who was not the best of friends to them. According to the French consul, the deputies were totally unimportant people, and at first he refused to provide any biographical information about them although he had certain ties with some of them; he regretted that no Muslim candidate proposed by the Government (read: no progressive Muslim, as he saw it) had succeeded in being designated by the local meclis. The historian Milorad Ek- 3 Hakkı Tarik Us, Meclis-i meb’usân 1293 = 1877, 2 vols. (Istanbul, Vakıt, 1940-54), 154-155. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period does not mention it. Deputies from Bosnia-Herzegovina were paid as following (in kuruş): Mehmed Muhyi Bey (Kapetanović): 500; Salamon Efendi (Salom): 1000; Mustafa Sıtkı Efendi (Karabeg): 800; Yâver Efendi (Baruh): 500; Maroşik Pozo Efendi (Marošić): 500; Pero Efendi (Sahačija): 500; Ibrahim Bey (Bašagić): 500; Fehim Efendi (Đumišić): 1500. Variations do not find any clear explanation. 4 AHM OC 1314, 31 Mart 1293/ April 12, 1877. Nothing of this discussion appears in Us. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 227 mečić (1928-) shares this point of view; he asserts that all the deputies from Bosnia and Herzegovina were rich and conservative, but he does not support this assumption with any details about each person. Actually, as the prosopographic analysis shows, “conservative” must be qualified as a category which encompasses relatively similar fates until 1878, but will diverge after this date. First session: Bosnia Group a b Elected, first round Definitively elected Jews 1 Baruh Baruh Catholics - ǂ Marušić Orthodox 3 1 Petrović Petrović 1 Fadilpašić ǂ Osmanpašić 2 Korkut ǂ Hafizadić 3 Đumišić Đumišić 4 Osmanpašić Muslims 3 5 Hafizadić First session: Herzegovina Group a b Elected, first round Definitively elected Jews Catholics Grabovac Grabovac Orthodox 2 ? (a trader) ǂ Bilić 1 Karabeg ǂ ? Muslims 2 ? Bašagić Second session: Bosnia and Herzegovina Group a Elected, first round Definitively elected Baruh Baruh Jews Salom Salom Marušić or Marinović Marušić or Marinović Catholics (Petrović) Sahačija Orthodox 4 Petrović ǂ (Sahačija) Kapetanović Kapetanović Karabeg Karabeg Đumišić Đumišić Muslims 4 Hafizadić ǂ Bašagić Legend: a: number of deputies b: rank according to vote ǂ: resignation © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 228 Sources Archival Archives of Herzegovina in Mostar (AHM), Ottoman Collection (OC) — Documents of Bašagić Family Regesta of Ottoman Family Documents at Mrs. Enisa Bašagić Knežić’s home, Sarajevo, catalogue compounded by Ivan Esih (Cat Esih) Center of Diplomatic Archives of Nantes (CADN), Series Constantinople Ambassade, D/Mostar no. 2, Dozon to the Ambassade, Mostar: January 12, 1877; January 30, 1877; March 16, 1877; November 3, 1877; series Sarajevo, vol. 3, February 15, 1872 and May 10, 1872; Constantinople (ambassade), D/Bosnia-Seraï no.5, May 10, 1872; series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 126: Bosnia-Seraï, December 1, 1876; no. 138, March 16, 1877; no. 156, May 4, 1877. Ministère des Affaires étrangères (MAE), Paris, Consular and Commercial Correspondence, Bosnia-Seraï (Serajevo), vol. 3 (1875-1878), February 2, 1877. National Federal Archive in Sarajevo, Austro-ugarski konzulati, vice-konzulat Mostar and Trebinje. Others Bosnia [official vilayet newspaper]: “Privremeno uputstvo,” Bosnia, no. 544 (10 ZA 1293/ November 15 and 27, 1877), 1-2; “Objava novoga ustava (iz carigradskijeh novina),” Bosnia, no. 550 (23 Z 1293/ December 27, 1876 – January 8, 1877), 1; “Vilajetske vjesti,” Bosnia, no. 556 (5 S 1294/ February 6 and 18, 1877), 1; “Ustav,” from no. 570 [not consulted] to no. 593 [between these two issues, many others do not provide any information about the constitution]; “Zvanično,” Bosniai, no. 596 (1 ZA 1294/ October 26 and November 7, 1877), 1. Safvet-beg Bašagić, “Arifi-Hikmet beg Rizvanbegović Stočević,” Nada (Sarajevo) 9.16 (1903), 211-3. id., Bošnjaci i Hercegovci u islamskoj književnosti [19121] (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1986). Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1963). Milorad Ekmečić, Ustanak u Bosni 1875-1878, Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 19732 [19601]. François Georgeon, Abdülhamid II. Le sultan calife (1876-1909), Paris, Fayard, 2003. Hasan Kayalı, “Elections and the Electoral Process in the Ottoman Empire,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 27 (1995), 265-286. Obzor [Croatian newspaper]: issue of January 15, 1877 [and perhaps other ones]. Mirza Safvet, “Crtice iz života Ali paše Rizvanbegovića,” Vienac 26 (June 30, 1894), 409. Vladislav Skarić, Sarajevo i njegova okolina od najstarijih vremena do austro-ugarske okupacije [1st ed. 1937], first volume of Milorad Ekmečić (ed.), Vladislav Skarić. Izabrana djela, 3 vols. (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1985). Mehmed Spaho, “Izborni falzifikati prije rata,” Narodna uzdanica 3 (1935), 43-56. Hakkı Tarık Us, Meclis-i meb’usân 1293 = 1877, 2 vols. (Istanbul, Vakıt, 1940-54). “Zastava” o Bosni i Hercegovini 1876-1878, vol. 4 (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1956), 179 (footnote 20) and 181 (footnote 28). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 229 Biographical Section Jews Javer Salamon Baruh (Sarajevo, 1843-Sarajevo, June 1, 1902) Javer Salamon Baruh was a deputy to the two sessions. With Salomon Salom and Moše Atijas (known as Zeki Efendi Rafajlović, a civil servant and the first historian of the Bosnian Jewish Community), he was the most influential Jew in Bosnia at the time of his election. All three were great turcophiles. A descendant of the first rabbi in Sarajevo, who came there from Salonika in the first half of the 17th century, Baruh belonged to one of the most influential Sarajevo Jewish families in the 19th century, several members of which had obtained fame as stockbrokers and traders. A manuscript written by a literate member of the family tells the origins of Baruh’s prosperity, but there must have been an error in his identity because these semi-tales recount the discussion between Baruh and a governor of Bosnia in 1832, at a time when the former could not have been a mature person as shown in the story. Probably these stories relate to his father: in this case, Baruh would have been the protégé of an army supplier and bazarbaşı of Sarajevo, who became with time the richest citizen in the town thanks to the goodwill of local Ottoman heads. He also owned large estates in the province. Baruh himself began his education at the time the very first attempts of cultural modernization in Bosnia were being made: he went to the rüşdiye of Sarajevo, a type of reformed school for the training of civil servants in a more modern fashion. There he acquired an excellent knowledge of the Ottoman language. He then worked as a customs secretary until 1873, when he became director of the vilayet printing shop and chief editor of Bosnia, the official newspaper of the province. He occupied this strategic post until 1875; after a two-year disappearance from the historical record, we find him again at his election to the Istanbul Parliament. Following the French consul’s statement, generally critical towards deputies, Baruh was elected by means of schemes and lost his reputation even among his coreligionists. Although Hakkı Tarik Us does not quote any of his discourses in parliament, we find in Bosnia (no. 612 of February 28, 1878, not consulted) a talk Baruh held about the reestablishment of kaime (coupons) after devaluation due to the war. After the Austro-Hungarian occupation (1878), he did not want to take any distinguished service in the Landesregierung and lived as a landowner and pensioner until his death. Sources MAE Paris, Consular and Commercial Correspondence, Bosnia-Seraï (Serajevo), vol. 3 (1875- 1878), February 2, 1877. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 230 Levy Moritz, Sefardi u Bosni. Prilog historiji Jevreja na balkanskom poluotoku ([Klagenfurt]: [Bosnische Bibliothek], [1996]) [complete translation of Die Sephardim in Bosnien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden auf der Balkanhalbinsel (Sarajevo: Daniel A. Kajon, [1911]), also reprinted in 1996 in Klagenfurt]. Hamdija Kreševljaković, Sarajevo u doba okupacije [1st ed. 1937], fourth volume of Avdo Sućeska & Enes Pelidija (eds), Hamdija Kreševljaković. Izabrana djela (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1991). Vladislav Skarić, “Sarajevo i njegova okolina od najstarijih vremena do austro-ugarske okupacije [1st ed. 1937], in Izabrana djela, vol. 1 (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1985) [see the reference above]. Samuel Kamhi (ed.), Spomenica 400 godina od dolaska Jevreja u Bosnu i Hercegovinu 1566-1966 (Sarajevo, Odbor za proslavu, 1966). [Especially Haim Kamhi, “Jevreji u privredi Bosne i Hercegovine,” in ibid., 55-70]. Vojka Besarović, “Pogled na istoriju bosanskohercegovačkih Jevreja u periodima osmanske i austrougarske vladavine,” Prilozi Instituta za istoriju 15 (1979), 205-216. Muhamed Hadžijahić, “O manjinskim skupama u Bosni i Hercegovini u XVIII i XIX stoljeću, do okupacije 1878,” Prilozi Instituta za istoriju 18 (1981), 203-220. Muhamed Nezirović et al., Sefarad '92. Zbornik radova Sarajevo, 11.09.-14.09.92 (Sarajevo, Institut za istoriju/Jevrejska zajednica BiH, 1995). Samija Sarić, Jevrejeska kulturna i druga društva u Bosni i Hercegovini 1885.-1945. Regesta (Sarajevo, Državni arhiv Bosne i Hercegovine, 1995). Muhamed Nezirović, “Historija bosanskih Jevreja Moše (Rafaela) Atijasa — Zeki efendije,” Prilozi Instituta za istoriju 29 (2000), 245-260. Isaković Salomon see Salom Salomon Salom Salomon (Sarajevo, 1845-Sarajevo, January 30, 1911) He was a Jewish deputy to the second session and most influential. He was also named Isaković after his father Isak (1806-1874); his surname is alternately Salamon or Salomon. Leaving Padua, Salom’s ancestors settled in Sarajevo probably in the first half of the 18th century. At that time, Bosnian Jews had commercial ties with the Jews of Padua and Venice (among others). In the family there were famous stockbrokers. Salom’s grandfather (d. 1842) was a medical doctor, as was his father. The latter studied medicine in Padua and enjoyed a great reputation in all communities in Sarajevo. Following the reforms of 1856, Salom’s father was designated as the Jewish member of the meclis-i idare. As did Baruh’s father, he sent his son Ziver, and probably also his other son Salomon, to the rüşdiye. Ziver later became a kaymakam in Damascus. When his father emigrated to Jerusalem during the latter part of his life, Salomon succeeded him at the meclis-i idare, and was always a confidant of governors. Sent to the Parliament, Salomon was received in audience by Sultan Abdülhamid and was awarded by the Order of the Mecidiye. When Bosnia-Herzegovinian deputies returned to their homeland, he was designated (together with Kapetanović, Petrović and Sahačija) by Sarajevo Ottoman © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 231 authorities to form a committee for fighting the increasing violence in the country and in the capital. At the end of June 1878, Salom and such men as Kapetanović and Petrović participated in the so-called “National Committee” in Sarajevo with Hadji Lojo at its head. Salom even offered a horse to Lojo, a gesture which made him famous, and agreed to the creation of a local government which was to fill the power vacuum left by the Ottomans; he also wrote against the resolution of the Berlin Congress. However, the Jews did not join the Muslims in the organized armed resistance to the Austro-Hungarian troops. Thereafter, Salom participated in the creation of “La Benevolencia,” a Jewish association that strove to educate the community’s youth; he also was active in the foundation of the first local bank with Kapetanović and Bašagić, and for more than thirty years, he was president of the Sarajevo Jewish Community. Sources: see Baruh Javer Salamon, except archival material. Yaver Disraeli see Baruh Javer Salamon Catholics Grabovac Stevan (dates unknown) Grabovac Stevan was elected in Herzegovina to the first session of parliament. He was an ex-member of the Herzegovinian council, and the Franciscans denounced him as “a man of the Turks” — however, he did not write in Turkish. Public opinion did not credit him with a very high morality. It is most probable that he was a brother or a parent of Stojan Grabovac from Mostar, a friend of the political leader of the Franciscan order in Bosnia (see also Kapetanović). In November 1875, Stojan (nicknamed Jaşar Paşa) had been designated to be the commanding major (binbaşı) of the new Gacko sancack (Eastern Herzegovina) and had close ties with Kostan Efendi, an Armenian who was at the head of this sancack. Stojan fled with Kostan Efendi to Istanbul on February 2, 1877, when the situation in the vilayet became increasingly worryisome. Sources CADN, Series Constantinople ambassade, D, Mostar, vol. 2, Louis Dozon to the Ambassade no. 67: Mostar, January 30, 1877. Grga Martić, Zapamćenja (1829.-1878.). Po kazivanju autorovom zabilježio Janko Koharić, za tisak priredio Ferdo Šišić (Zagreb: Gjuro Trpinec, 1906). Vladislav Skarić, Sarajevo I njegova okolina od najstarijih vremena do austro-ugarske okupacije [1st ed. 1937], in Izabrana djela vol. 1 (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1985) [see the reference above]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 232 Marinović (surname and dates unknown) Following the French consul’s statement, a certain Marinović from Zvornik was elected to the second session before the resignation of Petrović (see respective entry for this name); in this case, Marušić (see respective entry) was a representative only at the first one, as it is quite certain that Petrović gave his mandate to Saha- čija. However, no document corroborates this singular testimony of Marinović’s existence. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, t. 6, Louis Patin to the Ministry no. 22: Bosnia-Seraï, November, 8 1877. Marošić Jozo (dates unknown) Marošić Jozo was elected to both sessions (at the first Session for Bosnia). In Us, his name is mangled to Marovshik Boyou Agha; in other documents, one finds Marušić. His family was one of the wealthiest in the Bosnia of the mid-19th century. When in 1851 the Tanzimat reforms were applied there by Ömer Paşa to the leasing and tax-farming business, a relative of Marošić purchased the provincial customs for 100,000 piasters and invested also in agricultural tax-farming together with two other Christian traders. A Catholic from Travnik, Marošić himself was a trader in furs; at the time of his first election, he was reputed to be the wealthiest man of his community, astute and prepared to act in accordance with governmental decisions. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 138: Bosnia-Seraï, March 16, 1877. Galib Šljivo, Bosnia i Hercegovina 1849-1853 (Banjaluka: Institut za istoriju, 1990). Sahačija Pero (dates unknown) Sahačija Pero was designated for the second session. He received his mandate because of Petrović’s resignation (see respective entry). Therefore, there were no more Orthodox deputies from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Probably a watchmaker, as indicated by his surname, Sahačija was living in Sarajevo. With Kapetanović, Petrović and Salom (see respective entries), among others, he took part in the committee formed by the Sarajevo Ottoman authorities on June 8, 1878 to fight against increasing violence in the countryside and in the main town of the region. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 233 Sources Vladislav Skarić, “Sarajevo i njegova okolina od najstarijih vremena do austro-ugarske okupacije [1st ed. 1937],” in Izabrana djela, vol 1. (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1985) [see the reference above]. Nothing in Đaković Luka, Političke organizacije bosanskohercegovačkih katolika Hrvata (do otvaranja Sabora 1910.), Zagreb, Gobus, 1985. Orthodox Bilić Sava (dates unknown) Bilić Sava was elected in Herzegovina to the first session of parliament. The newspaper Stamboul rendered his name as Yelyij Efendi,5 but “Yelyij”does not look like a Bosnian Christian name unless we accept the reading “Jelić,” which is quite improbable. Bilić was a grocer in Mostar. According to the French consul’s assessment, he belonged to the few traders in Mostar who were at the same time landowners and had farmers on their estates, thanks to the disintegration of the domains of the famous Herzegovinian pasha, Ali Paşa Rizvanbegović (1783- 1851). Traveling from time to time to Triest for the sugar and coffee trade, he was also a stockbrocker. Very careful in his political position, he feared the Muslims but disliked any rapprochement with Montenegro or Serbia, mostly because he profited from the Ottoman régime. He spoke Turkish but was not literate in this language. After the Austro-Hungarian occupation, in the 1880s, Bilić was Mostar’s vicemayor and tried to juggle loyalty to the new authorities with leadership in Orthodox political opposition against them. For example, as president of the Mostar Orthodox parish, he signed a protest against the implementation of the Austro- Hungarian conscription in Bosnia-Herzegovina on December 10, 1881, but was not sentenced to exile or imprisonment; and two years later, while vice-mayor, he begged for his son Vladislav to receive admission to Vienna’s famous Theresianum. He was partly unsuccessful, as his son only attended Löwenberg boarding school, a less famous establishment of the Monarchy for the sons of high-ranking representatives. At the same time, he was organizing demonstrations against Austro- Hungaria. Sources CADN, Series Constantinople ambassade, D, Mostar, vol. 2, Louis Dozon to the Ambassade no. 67: Mostar, January 30, 1877. ABH GFM BH 1883/425, 1883/5173, 1883/6225 and 1883/6795. Vladimir Ćorović, “Mostar i njegova srpska pravolsavna opština [first 1933],” in Mostar (Banja Luka/Beograd: Glas srpski/Ars libri, 1999). 5 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 262 and 266 n. 19. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 234 Petrović Petro (Korçë (Albania), 1833-Sarajevo, December 25, 1906) Petrović Petro was elected to the two sessions. Better known as Petraki Efendi, he declined his re-election and made this known by wiring from Vienna, where he was conducting business at the time, giving his mandate to the Catholic Pero Sahačija (see the respective entry). As a child in the 1830s, Petrović Petro came to Sarajevo with his father Konstantin, an “Albanian” (thus Ekrem Bey Vlora in his memoirs), or “Vlach” (Tsintsar, as he was identified in Bosnia) trader from Korçë. Konstantin kept a shop and pursued army supplying in the Banja Luka, Zvornik and Travnik sancaks, succeeding in this way in becoming one of the wealthiest men in Sarajevo and the whole province. From February 1, 1869 to April 30, 1871, he was the appointed bursar of the provincial government. After his father’s death, Petro took over his business. Constantly enjoying the confidence of high-ranking Ottoman officials, he had close ties with the vali Şerif Osman Paşa, who ruled in Bosnia from 1861 to 1869: for example, he was sent to Istanbul to convey large amounts of money. He was also a very close friend of Mustafa Paşa Vlora when the latter was vice-governor of Bosnia (1875-1878). Several times elected to the meclis-i idare, he was renowned throughout the province and therefore was entrusted to appease the Herzegovinian peasant rebellion in the summer of 1875, before it expanded into Bosnia — unsuccessfully, however, since the peasants refused to lay down their arms. He did belong, like Bašagić and Kapetanović (see the respective entries), to the Reform Commission in the spring of 1876, which did not work very concretely; at that time, he was well known for being astute and involved in government trade. He was elected to the first session, and apparently did not contribute much to parliamentary debate. After he resigned from his second mandate, Ottoman officials were aware of his autonomist aspirations. He returned from an absence of several months (almost all spent in Vienna) at the end of 1877 and demonstrated his ambition to become the head of the province in case the Powers would let the population determine it. This made him suspicious to Belgrade, where any project excluding Serbia was opposed, and consequently the Principality sent, according to the French consul’s reports, a special agent to keep an eye on him. With Kapetanović, Sahačija and Salom (see respective entries), he was chosen by Sarajevo officials in the spring of 1878 to form a national committee which had the task to organize measures against increasing violence. Later he agreed with Hadji Lojo’s activities, even though he did not really become involved in his organization. A close friend of Kostan Efendi’s, an Armenian who had been in service in Bosnia for years and who was the head of the Herzegovinian vilayet during its one-year life, Petrović helped him get out of Bosnia in July. After the occupation of 1878, he still enjoyed the confidence of Austro- Hungarian authorities and the Sarajevo Orthodox. At the municipal elections of © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 235 1884 and until 1890 (except in 1887), he largely forestalled his rivals. In 1890, he became Sarajevo vice-mayor, a post he held up until his death. With Kapetanović, Bašagić and Salom (see the respective entries), he took part in the foundation of a bank with local seed capital and belonged for years to its staff. He tried to establish a theater in his town and was the president of the Sarajevo Orthodox commune for a short period. The Landesregierung wanted to present him as a positive example to his co-religionists when they began to protest against Austro- Hungarian interference in their religious affairs, but he hesitated to let himself be brought into a situation of possible confrontation. After a consular post in Vlorë from 1898 until 1902, where he showed a great knowledge of the Albanian language and customs, his son Aristotel would be the first mayor of Sarajevo after the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, from 1918 to 1920. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 96: Bosnia-Seraï, April 21, 1876; vol. 6, Louis Patin to the Ministry no. 24: Bosnia-Seraï, November 30, 1877. Salih Sidki Hadžihuseinović (Muvekkit), Povijest Bosne [written as a manuscript in 1880], 2 vols. (Sarajevo, El-Kalem/Gazi Husrev-begova Biblioteka, 1999) vol. 2. Sarajevski list 7, no. 29 (March 13, 1884), 3 and no. 30 (March 15, 1884), 2; Sarajevski list 10, no. 31 (March 18, 1997), 3; “Osnova (Prospekt) ‘Bosansko-hercegovačke nar. dioničke banke,’” Sarajvski list 11 , no. 59 (May 20, 1888), 2-3; Sarajevski list 16 (1893), 30 (March 15, 1893), 1; Sarajevski list 19 (1896), no. 36 (March 25, 1896), 3. Martin Đurđević, Memoari sa Balkana (Sarajevo: M. Gjurgjević, 1910). Skarić Vladislav, “Sarajevo i njegova okolina od najstarijih vremena do austro-ugarske okupacije [1st ed. 1937],” in Izabrana djela, vol. 1 (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1985) [see the reference above]. Vlora Ekrem Bey, Lebenserinerungen. Band I (1885 bis 1912) (München: Oldenbourg, 1968), 227 [I thank Nathalie Clayer for pointing me to this reference; but there is probably a confusion between the deputy Petraki Efendi and his father in these memoirs]. Hamdija Kreševljaković, “Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878-1918) [1st ed. 1969],” in Izabrana djela vol. 4 (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1991) [see the reference above]. Risto Besarović, Iz kulturnog života u Sarajevu pod austrougarskom upravom (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1974), 43-67. Muhamed Hadžijahić, “O manjinskim skupama u Bosni i Hercegovini u XVIII i XIX stoljeću, do okupacije 1878,” Prilozi Instituta za istoriju 18 (1981), 203-220. Tomislav Kraljačić, Kalajev režim u Bosni I Hercegovini (1882-1903) (Sarajevo: Veselin Masleša, 1987). Galib Šljivo, “Gračanica u vrijeme nemira u zvorničkom sandžaku,” Gračanički glasnik 5 (2000), no. 10 (nov.) — Internet version at: http://glasnik.gracanica.net/arhiva/broj10/ Gracanica.htm [Accessed April 7, 2008]. Vedad Biščević, Bosanski namjesnici Osmanskog doba (1463-1878) (Sarajevo: Connectum, 2006). [Anonymous], Dr. Nikola Mandić i Privilegovana agrarna banka u Sarajevu (Mostar, Tiskara Gjure Džamonje, 1909). Petraki Efendi see Petrović Petro © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 236 Muslims Ali Bey (dates unknown) He seems to have been deputy of Herzegovina to the first session instead of Tanović (see respective entry). More information could not be obtained. Sources Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore, The John Hopkins Press, 1963). Us Hakkı Tarık, Meclis-i meb’usân 1293 = 1877, 2 vols.(Istanbul, Vakıt, 1940-54). Bašagić Ibrahim Bey (Nevesinje (Herzegovina), September 5, 1841-Sarajevo, November 8, 1902) Bašagić Ibrahim Bey was deputy to the two sessions (at first for Herzegovina). For the second session, he was elected after Hafizadić’s (see respective entry) resignation. Bašagić belonged to a Herzegovinian beylical family which appeared on the political-military scene of this region at the end of the 17th century, during the War of Moreus (1683-1699), under the name of Redžepašić. They probably descended from South-Herzegovinian military notables, even if their last name at the time, Šehić (Şeh-zade), seems to indicate that they had ties with sheikhs. The name Bašagić comes from Ibrahim Bey’s father, who was başağa in Herzegovina. Born in 1841 in Nevesinje, 40 km east of Mostar, Bašagić had a troubled childhood because of the unrest that was evolving in the Bosnian eyalet and that culminated in the military expedition of Latas Ömer Paşa (1850-2). At his father’s death (1851), he was soon sent to Travnik in order to pursue the education he had first received in the mekteb of his native village. During his seven-year stay (1853- 1859), he followed Derviş Mehmed Korkut’s lessons. The latter was a famous Bosnian alim, müderris and mufti of Travnik. Thanks to him, he became trained as a lawyer and a poet: he learned Arabic and Persian, and spoke Turkish as if it were his mother tongue. In the field of poetry, his mahlas from this time was “Edhem;” he was also a calligrapher and copied religious manuscripts. As Korkut was a Naqshibendi sheikh, we can assume that he initiated him into the order. It has to be mentioned that Korkut was one of the few ulemas who sided with Istanbul when the majority of the Bosnian eyalet’s population opposed the Tanzimat. This orientation would stand out in Bašagić’s entire career. In 1859 or 1860, the young man went back to Nevesinje, where the struggle against Montenegro was now raging. After some low administrative posts, he became kaymakam representative in Nevesinje in 1863 or 1864 and married a daughter of the Čengić family in 1868. These two events show that he was an important personage both in the eyalet’s Tanzimat administration and in local Herzegovinian © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 237 life (as the Čengić family was one of the most powerful in the sancak after 1851). Perhaps, he took part, too, in the literary magazine that a young Bosnian Muslim launched in Sarajevo in 1869, and in that way would have been in contact with Young Ottomans in Istanbul or in Sarajevo (via Ziya Tevfik). On February 9, 1870 he was made kaymakam of Piva, an area now in Montenegro. Its inhabitants lived in near autarky and were convinced by Montenegro to reject Ottoman authority. Furthermore, it seems that the local Muslims were opposed to the Ottoman reforms. Bašagić handed in his resignation one month after his nomination, and as it was refused, he reiterated it two times until July 1875, when he was moved to the head of the Foča kaymakamlık. But by then the insurrection of 1875-8 had already broken up in Herzegovina. Afterwards, Bašagić was appointed an expert in the pacification commission led by Ahmed Muhtar Paşa (see also Kapetanović and Petrović), and was on this occasion described by the French consul as a “non fanatic ulema.” He also took part in the commission that was in charge of the evaluation of the war damages. In December of 1876, he entered the administration of the new Herzegovinian vilayet, and was designated kaymakam of Ljubuški when Herzegovina was administratively reintegrated into the province of Bosnia. In the meantime he was elected by the majority of the Herzegovinian council to the first session of the parliament. He must have been of some importance among the members of the parliament, as is indicated by his designation as secretary of the “Rumeli club,” a parliamentary group. In addition he became a member of a parliamentary commission working on reform. Unfortunately, no consulted document or article gives details about these two parliamentary groups. Contrary to his compatriots, during this first session, he spoke little about the Ottoman surrender of Montenegro and Nikšić (which finally occurred on September 7, 1877). When he returned to Ljubuški in July, he was worried about the transfer of refugees from Nikšić in his kaymakamlık. At first, he was not elected to the second session; but Hafizadić (see the respective entry) resigned, and the Bosnian vilayet council had to hold a new vote: Bašagić received 14 votes from Herzegovina, 2 from Travnik, 1 from Banja Luka and 1 from Sarajevo, and was therefore sent to Istanbul. Here he was again secretary of the Rumeli club and one of the three secretaries of the parliament. In these functions, he held a legalist point of view against deputies’ contestations on parliamentary work and stood by General Şevket Mehmed Paşa when the latter was accused of atrocities he had allegedly committed in Bulgaria. However, he accused the government of shunning any responsibility in the Nikšić affair on February 12, 1878. The day after, the parliament was closed. After he went back to Herzegovina, he was active among Mostar officials and adhered to the instructions from Istanbul that ordered the local population to keep quiet after the Congress of Berlin. However, the town council, and Bašagić © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 238 with it, sent a telegram to Vienna stating that, in order to prevent any trouble, they would not tolerate any military intervention from Austro-Hungry while it was taking possession of the two provinces. Bašagić belonged to a group of Muslims who were plainly faithful to Ottoman administration in the province. With other men of the same orientation, he was called on by the vali Ahmed Mazhar Paşa in Sarajevo to give him advice in the chaotic situation. In the main town, Hadji Lojo had seized effective power and forbidden the wearing of western clothing, which meant that men like Bašagić, who did not give up their alla franca clothes, were threatened by the mob. After brief and fruitless negotiations with the rebels, he came back to Mostar were Karabeg (see respective entry) and other officials had been murdered, and then fled to Nevesinje. Probably thanks to Kapetanović (see respective entry), he quickly established contacts with the Austro-Hungarian military staff and was designated to head the Stolac kaymakamlık in September. After a few months, when the definitive Austro-Hungarian administrative frame was installed, Bašagić was moved to the same functions in Konjic and decorated with the Knight’s Cross of the Franz-Joseph Order on the May 16, 1879. The government was satisfied with his involvement in supporting the local Islamic community in a loyalist way, but his financial direction seems to have failed. Some of the duties he took most seriously were his paternal ones: he educated in Oriental languages, poetry and local history his eldest child, Safvet-beg (1870-1934), who would later become the father of Muslim nationalism in Bosnia-Herzegovina. He also gave a very pious direction to this education and did not hesitate to write (in Ottoman) religious advice to his son even when the latter was 25. His son, while young, learned Ziya Paşa’s Terkib-i bend, a famous piece of Ottoman revivalism from the late 1860s. Namık Kemal’s perceptible influence on the first articles written by Safvet-beg are most probably the result of his father’s tutelage. In winter 1881/82, Herzegovina revolted once again; Bašagić went up to Sarajevo by invitation of the new Common Minister of Finance, Béni von Kállay (1839-1903). At 40 years of age, he finally emerged from his semi-anonymous career and took over the control of the vakf organization in the whole province. On March 13, 1883 he was appointed müfettiş in the Vakf Commission set up by Kállay, and was tasked with taking inventory and sorting out the finances of all the establishments in Bosnia-Herzegovina. On November 22, 1893 he became director of the same institution and remained so until his death. Bašagić met in Sarajevo a prominent historian of the province, Salih Sidki Hadžihuseinović, called Muvekkit. Under his influence he began to write biographies of Ottoman men of letters and power native to Bosnia and Herzegovina. This activity covered the years 1883-1886. He also launched (in collaboration) a newspaper in Ottoman, Vatan (Homeland), supported by the Austro-Hungarian authorities in order to wheedle the Muslim population and divert it from emigrat- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 239 ing to Ottoman regions. Bašagić published a few poetic pieces and probably more lead articles (unfortunately unsigned). Publication stopped in 1896, but the newspaper had no success from the beginning because of the low number of people in Bosnia-Herzegovina who were literate in Ottoman. Unlike Kapetanović (see respective entry), Bašagić was not an ideologist. In his concern for nationalism, he kept close ties with Young-Ottoman ideas until the end of his life, and dreamed for instance about sending his son to study in Istanbul. When he collaborated with Kapetanović in 1888 on opening a Muslim reading room in Sarajevo, it was certainly with different intentions, i. e., to cultivate oriental literary taste. However, he was not anti-western, and he gave his permission when his son Safvet-beg insisted on attending the Obergymnasium in Sarajevo. One can define his political position as a moderate one. He was a good patriot and good poet, a good Muslim and convinced modernist, and always refused to join any form of Serbian or Croatian nationalism. In accord with these qualities, he collected epic songs together with Kapetanović and wrote historical articles on local events (the Ottoman conquest and Bosnian “heroes” of the 17th century). In another area, he participated with Kapetanović in the foundation of a bank with local seed capital in 1888. His liberal attitude and the jealous rivalry of less favored Muslims gave rise to rumors and covert opposition from 1886 on. In 1895 he and Kapetanović were openly criticized, but this attempt was unsuccessful. In 1899 the heads of the protest movement against Austro-Hungarian interference in Muslim community affairs accused him publicly. Bašagić was ill at that time and he offered his resignation in the middle of 1901. His resignation was well received by the government because his personality was an obstacle to the negotiations with the protesters; however, Kállay always appreciated him because of his constant loyalty. Today, Bašagić is famous in Bosnia-Herzegovina because of his son, but a detailed study of this Ottoman province in the 19th century should demonstrate his significance for his own sake. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 96: Bosnia-Seraï, April 21, 1876; vol. 6, Louis Patin to the Ministry no. 22: Bosnia-Seraï, November 8, 1877. AHM OC — Documents of the Bašagić family. Cat Esih [Most important titles: none, only dispatched articles and necrologies. Complete bibliography in Philippe Gelez, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934). Aux racines intellectuelles de la pensée nationale chez les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine (Louvain: Peeters, 2010) [in print]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 240 Đumišić Fehim (dates unknown) Đumišić Fehim was elected to both sessions (in the first election for Bosnia, he received the third highest number of votes). Although he was a famous Muslim leader at the end of Ottoman rule in Bosnia-Herzegovina, only scarce information about him can be collected. His grandfather Hacı Nazim Ağa had been assassinated by the vizier of Bosnia at the end of the 1830s. His father was then exiled, and Fehim accompanied him. Once they returned to Bosnia, his father was called as a representative of Banja Luka to the provincial meclis in Sarajevo. After his arrival in this town, the authorities kept him there for diverse reasons, and he died in this situation. Fehim Đumišić was a nephew of Teskeredžić (see respective entry) on his mother’s side. He had a reputation for astuteness but was accused of backwardness and hostility to the idea of Muslim-Christian equality. Ill-famed for his corruption among the officials of the vilayet, and nick-named “the famous oppressor from Banja Luka” by the Croatian press, Đumišić, as a distinguished citizen of Banja Luka, was nevertheless appointed to a commission, active between the second half of May and September 1875, whose task it was to delimitate the boundary with Austria-Hungary in the northern area of Bosnia. This work had to be interrupted because of the peasant insurrection of the same year. At the end of summer 1877, he took part in the repression against this insurrection in the area south-west of Banja Luka. By the end of 1877, his losses in burned harvests, stolen cattle, etc. were estimated at 100,000 francs. His activity in the parliament is not known. We can only guess that he had good accommodations in Istanbul since he was able to host evening events for the other deputies (see introduction). He led the active resistance against the Austro-Hungarian army during the summer of 1878 and emigrated to Istanbul after the definitive victory of his enemies. In the Ottoman capital, during the 1880s, he was considered the leader of the emigre group of Bosno-Herzegovinian landowners, and the Austrians called him a “most dangerous agitator,” because he stayed in contact with other Bosnian opponents (both Muslimand Orthodox) to the new regime. This does not mean, however, that the Austrian authorities in Sarajevo sought any occasion to cause him financial trouble: although he was not on his estates, they forced Đumišić’s peasants to give him the hak (agricultural contribution in the sharecropping system) they had not paid between 1879 and 1882. However, from the 1890s, his house in Istanbul became a meeting place of opponents to Austrian rule in his homeland, which resulted in two protestations at the Porte at the end of 1894. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 62: Bosnia-Seraï, December, 29, 1876; no. 138, March 16, 1877; Charles de Vienne to the Ambassade no. 156: Bosnia-Seraï, May 4, 1877. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 241 Salih Sidki Hadžihuseinović (Muvekkit), Povijest Bosne [1880], (Sarajevo: El-Kalem/Gazi Husrev-begova Biblioteka, 1999), vol. 2. [see the reference above] “Zastava” o Bosni i Hercegovini 1876-1878, 4 vols. (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1953), 2:121-124. Hamdija Kreševljaković, “Sarajevo u doba okupacije [1st ed. 1937],” in Izabrana djela, vol 4 (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1991). [see the reference above] Nikola Babić (ed.), Banja Luka u novijoj istoriji (1878-1945). Zbornik radova s naučnog skupa održanog u Banjoj Luci od 18-20. novembra 1976. godine (Sarajevo, Institut za istoriju, 1978) [especially Mustafa Imamović, “Banja Luka u doba okupacije,” and Dragutin Pavličević, “Hrvatsko novinstvo o Bosni s posebnim osvrtom na Bosansku krajinu i Banju Luku u doba okupacije 1878. godine.” Vojislav Bogićević (ed.), Građa o počecima radničkog pokreta u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1878-1905 (Dokumenta iz austrougarskih arhiva) (Sarajevo, Državni arhiv NR BiH, n.d.). Hamdija Kapidžić, “Agrarno pitanje u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878-1918),” Radovi ANUBiH 49.16 (1973), 93-117. Robert J. Donia, Islam under the Double Eagle. The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1878-1914 (New York, Columbia University Press, 1981). Husnija Kamberović, Begovski zemljišni posjedi u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1878. do 1918. godine (Zagreb – Sarajevo: Hrvatski institut za povijest/Institut za istoriju, 2003) [2nd ed. 2005]. Galib Šljivo, Bosnia i Hercegovina 1861-1869 (Tešanj: Planjax, 2005), 59. Philippe Gelez, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934). Aux racines intellectuelles de la pensée nationale chez les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine (Louvain: Peeters, 2010) [in print]. Fadilpašić Mustafa Bey (1834-December 6, 1892) Fadilpašić Mustafa Bey was elected for Bosnia to the first session with a great majority. He then resigned — the French consul reports that the reason for this behavior was that public opinion in Bosnia reprehended Ottoman politics in the province; furthermore, Fadilpašić disliked appearing in a deputation that was attacked by the Croatian newspaper Obzor. It was also said that he did not want to participate in debates with Baruh (see respective entry) at his side. Osmanpašić (see respective entry) was then elected instead of him. Since he did not come to Istanbul, we will not give any further details about him, except that he was most probably the richest and most powerful man in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of his election. Bibliographical complements CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 135: Bosnia-Seraï, February 23,1877; no. 138, March 16, 1877. See also the Ottoman Collection of Historical Archives of Sarajevo (Istorijski Arhiv Sarajevo). [Anonymous], “Mustafa beg Fadilpašić,” Sarajevski list 15 , no. 147 (December 7, 1892),1. Hamdija Kreševljaković, “Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave (1878-1918),” in Izabrana djela vol. 4 (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1991). [see the reference above] Fehim Nametak, Fadil-paša Šerifović, pjesnik i epigrafičar Bosne (Sarajevo: OIS, 1980). Husnija Kamberović, Begovski zemljišni posjedi u Bosni i Hercegovini od 1878. do 1918. godine (Zagreb/Sarajevo: Hrvatski institut za povijest/Institut za istoriju, 2003 [2nd ed.2005]). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 242 Philippe Gelez, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934). Aux racines intellectuelles de la pensée nationale chez les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine (Louvain: Peeters, 2010) [in print]. Hafizadić-Naimefendić Mehmed Bey (dates unknown) Hafizadić-Naimefendić Mehmed Bey was elected to both sessions; he went to Istanbul only for the first (representing Bosnia), replacing Korkut, who had refused his election. He is also designated as Naimzade (quoted in this way by Devereux). He resigned from his second mandate, and Bašagić (see respective entry) took his place. He lived in Travnik, which was the eyalet’s center from the end of the 17th century to 1850, where he had great influence. After the promulgation of the Hatt-i hümayun, officially read in Sarajevo on March 13, 1856, he was one of the rare Muslim leaders who took an active part in supporting the reforms. He appealed for equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, defending the local kaymakam Şevki Efendi against the town’s conservative party (see also Teskeredžić). Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 138: Bosnia-Seraï; March 16, 1877; vol. 6, Louis Patin to the Ministry no. 22: Bosnia-Seraï, November 8, 1877. Hajrudin Ćurić, Prilozi bosansko-hercegovačkoj istoriji XIX vijeka (Sarajevo: ANUBiH, 1960), 110- 111 and 116-117. Hamdija Kreševljaković and Derviš Mehmed Korkut, Travnik u prošlosti 1464-1878 (naročito kao glavni grad Bosne 1699-1850) (Travnik: Zavičajni muzej Travnik, 1961). Ibrahim Edhem: makhlas of Bašagić Ibrahim Bey Kapetanović Mehmed Beg (Vitina, December 19, 1839-Sarajevo,July 28, 1902) Kapetanović Mehmed Beg was a deputy to the second session. As for Karabeg and Bašagić (see respective entries), the fact that he was an appointed official was not detrimental to his election, and he retained his functions even after going to Istanbul. A most influential Bosnian Muslim in his time, Kapetanović was born to a family of beys who occupied the post of kapudan and, later, of müsellim in Ljubuški (West Herzegovina), a little town 15 km from their estates in Vitina. As a polemic uncovered in 1892 shows, they stemmed from a Croatian common family from Vrgorac, the Puzdrić, islamized in the 18th century. This fact is very important in order to understand the paradoxes of this complex personality. His mother was a member of a Herzegovinian beylical family glorified by epic popular songs. He completed his education in a Mostar mekteb and returned to Ljubuški in order to listen to the teachings of a famous hoca, Mustafa Efendi Krehić. He ac- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 243 quired a good knowledge of the Ottoman, Arabic and Persian languages. Thanks to his qualities and to what was considered as an extended course of religious studies, he was rapidly celebrated as a great scholar. He had a rapidly ascending public career in Herzegovina. When he was 22 years old, he became a member of the meclis-i idare of Ljubuški and participated in a pacification commission in Nevesinje. When Ahmed Cevdet Paşa (1822-1885) came to pacify the provinces, Kapetanović was his advisor for Herzegovina (June- December 1863), and was decorated with the Order of the Mecidiye. Going to war against Montenegro in 1864, he distinguished himself and advanced to the rank of a kapıcıbaşı on December 9, 1864. Six months later, on June 5, 1865, he obtained a post as kaymakam in Stolac, where he governed until November 9, 1867, when he moved to the kaymakamat in Ljubuški. The same year, he advanced to the rank of colonel. In 1869, he decided to go on a tour of Europe. This indicates a sense of curiosity which set him apart from most of his compatriots. Before him, only one other Muslim from his home region is reported to have traveled around Western Europe (see also Teskeredžić). Trieste, Venice, Padua and Verona were his first visits, followed by Vienna and Pest after passing through Tyrol and Salzburg. He continued in the Mediterranean area: Corfu, Egypt, Izmir, Istanbul. He finished with Rumelia (Varna, Ruşçuk, Bucharest, and then continued along the Danube and Sava to Bosnia). We do not know what exactly he did on his voyage nor how his experiences altered his views of the world; but doubtlessly his future political decisions were influenced by these travels. He resumed his kaymakam functions by moving to Stolac again on November 27, 1871. From there, he went to Foča (February 5, 1874), but he could not bear the atmosphere of the town, and on March 30, 1874, he became kaymakam of Trebinje. This last post played a great role in his life because he met there Vuk Vrčević (1811-1882), a famous Montenegrin collector of folk art and an Austro- Hungarian vice-consul (since 1869). Unfortunately, the records Vrčević sent to his superiors, always compiled in Italian, do not describe anything but military operations in the Trebinje surroundings. We know that Vrčević gave Kapetanović some books in Croatian or Serbian, especially those regarding Muslims (Gundulić, Njegoš), and was in return educated by the bey in Oriental matters, including basic skills in Ottoman. At this time, Kapetanović began to publish little occasional poems in Bosnia, the official newspaper of Sarajevo.6 When, in the spring of 1875, the great Herzegovinian uprising took place in his kaymakamlık, Kapetanović understood very quickly that there was nothing to do and that the Ottoman Empire would never find any solution to the prevailing social problems. He went to Sarajevo, married there the daughter of a very influential bey, Mustaj Paşa Babić, and tried to take an advantageous place in the politi- 6 “Vilajetske vjesti,” Bosnia no. 450 (1 M 1292/ January 27 and February 8. 1875), 1. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 244 cal circles of the vilayet center. He succeeded in being designated on April 15, 1876 as a member of the reform commission that was set up after Andrássy’s note of December 1875 (see also Bašagić and Petrović). However, the commission only stated that any action would be in vain. Thanks to his promotion, Kapetanović was placed at the head of the Sarajevo belediye with an appointment of 1,200 piasters a month. Ambitious by nature and by his social position, Kapetanović wanted to obtain the post of vali. The new vali Ahmed Mazhar Paşa (d. 1891), an alla franca educated reformist, formally recommended his candidature but did not really support it. The Porte refused to promote Kapetanović probably because his austrophilia was suspicious. Indeed, the mayor was acquainted with consuls, especially the Austro-Hungarian ones; he confided to a French consul that, according to the deputies of the first session, the parliament was “a pure comedy.” Nevertheless, whether because of his high position, or whether in order to get him away from Bosnia and Austria-Hungary, Ahmed Mazhar Paşa sent him as a deputy to Istanbul for the second parliamentary session. He seems to have been unaware of this new appointment until the last moment. On this occasion, the British consul Freeman praised him as “a most enlightened and liberal Muslim,” as the French consul had done two years before, as had the French vice-consul in Mostar at the end of 1877, who had added this reservation to his judgment: “astute and enlightened, for the country.” While in Istanbul, he was corresponding with the political leader of the Franciscan order in Bosnia, and did not hide the fact that he expected no salvation except from Austria-Hungary. He did not speak at the Parliament. This attitude explains his involvements during the months after his return from Istanbul. It was during the time when the Great Powers were preparing for the Berlin Congress, which began on June 13, 1878. The inhabitants of Bosnia- Herzegovina, feeling powerless, did not show any activity but waited for the international verdict. During this time, moderate Sarajevo Muslims, of whom Kapetanović was a member, joined a group of more radical elements, and agreed to form a national committee. Kapetanović probably did not feel concerned and anticipated an Austro-Hungarian intervention. Yet, how deep the cultural abyss between the two groups actually was can be gathered from their different attitudes about the kind of clothing suitable for a good Muslim. The radical group ordered that everybody had to be dressed in traditional clothes, while men like Kapetanović or Bašagić wore the same type of clothes as Istanbul reformists, alla franca. As a French traveler in 1880 remarked, Kapetanović (who happened to have a double-chin) was in every way a European. When, at the beginning of August 1878, the arrival of the Austro-Hungarian forces was announced, he fled from Bosnia, afraid of the possible Muslim reprisals against him, and joined General Jovanović’s army (1828-1885) in Dalmatia. He claimed his loyalty to the new overlords and promised no resistance from the Ljubuški population. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 245 Henceforth, he was always in close contact with Austro-Hungarian heads, who trusted him. After being designated for the deputation which went to Vienna to greet Franz Joseph for the occupation, he was chosen on December 7, 1878, for the municipal council, with a yearly remuneration of 1,200 forints, and then on August 11, 1879 became honorary governmental counselor. He participated in the election of a new Muslim religious head in 1881, was sent to Herzegovina by the government when rebellion lurked at the end of 1881, and was nominated member of a vakf commission on March 29, 1883, then member of the commission for laws and decrees implementation on January 16, 1884, and member of the commission for tapu delivery on forest estates (one of the most strategic functions in the provincial economy) on May 31, 1884. Not only did he receive honors with pleasure (3rd st. Iron Crown on April 19, 1879), but he also sought them out as is shown by his demand to be given the title of Graf on August 28, 1880. Officials estimated that there was no aristocracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the sense of Austrian or Hungarian nobility, and gave him the exclusive right to carry the name “of Vitina” three years later (August 24, 1883). At any rate, in the society gossip column of the Sarajevski list (“Sarajevo Journal”), the official newspaper, his name appears frequently, and he considered himself the cultural and political leader of Bosnia-Herzegovinian Muslims. On these grounds, he published a polemic article in 1879 and two booklets in 1886 and 1893 where he defended the idea of a possible westernization of Muslims and their right to constitute a proper nation in face of Croatian and Serbian nationalisms. In another article (1879), he criticized Istanbul newspapers that painted the Austro- Hungarian occupation in dark colors. According to him, Bosnia-Herzegovina would never return to the Ottoman Empire and benefited, under the European legacy of the Habsburg Empire, from religious freedom. There was, he wrote, consequently no reason for Muslims to emigrate (one major phenomenon among the Muslim population in the years following 1878). This stance resulted in his coreligionists’ strong opposition to his person, because they judged that Austria- Hungary was a Catholic power and not really neutral in religious affairs. Kapetanović’s nationalism oscillated between a narrow and a broad definition, i. e. sometimes it included all the religious communities of the province under the same label, while at other times it comprised only the Muslims. Kapetanović was never clear on this topic, as is demonstrated by his activities as a publicist. His patriotism and love for belles-lettres led him to initiate, in 1883, a wide collection of epic songs and popular sayings among local Muslims, which was published in 1887 under the title Narodno blago (“Popular Treasure”) and was hailed by scholars as a great literary event. Only the Serbs criticized him for printing in Latin script, and he published the book again in Cyrillic one year later. In July of 1888, with Bašagić (among others), he founded a Muslim reading room in Sarajevo, to develop literacy among his co-religionists, following the example of Orthodox Bosnians. Until then, his writings had appeared in different magazines (Catholic or © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 246 Orthodox), but now, since the cultural organization of Muslims had been set up, he wanted to launch another weekly, both cultural and political (broadly speaking). Bošnjak (“The Bosniak”) developed a nationalist discourse against Serbs and Croats in various poems, essays, editorials, letters, historical studies, etc. However, Kapetanović and his group were united by their common friendship with Catholic Bosnians and Croats, this being the reason for their sympathies with Croatian nationalism. For example, at the same time when he argued against Croats in Bošnjak, Kapetanović openly spoke of the Croatian roots of Bosnia-Herzegovinian beys. It has to be noted that Kapetanović pretended to write in his private correspondence in a Bosnian variety of Cyrillic, the so-called Bosančica, which allegedly had been preserved by the beys (supposedly a former Slavic nobility) since the Middle Ages. Such allegations are not supported by historical evidence; for example, a man like Bašagić, who was a native of an older family than Kapetanović, never used Bosančica in his entire life but exclusively the Arabic script and Ottoman language, even in correspondence with his son. These were the unclear beginnings of Muslim nationalism in Bosnia- Herzegovina. In 1893, Kapetanović succeeded in being elected mayor of Sarajevo and had to withdraw from Bošnjak. The election figures show a slow but regular popularity increase among Sarajevo voters (about one thousand). He held this position for seven years, then resigned, probably because of the beginning of Muslim political contestation of Austro-Hungarian rule. Tensions between “Ottoman” and “Austrian” parties among Muslims had begun years before, but now Bašagić and Kapetanović were both in a tricky position, because they were blamed for benefiting economically from their political positions. Actually, as their participation in the foundation of a bank with local seed capital in 1888 indicates, they were probably far wealthier than many of the beys. Kapetanović finished his literary production with an anthology of texts and proverbs translated from oriental languages, entitled Istočno blago (“Oriental Treasure”), in 1896 and 1897. He was the first Bosnia-Herzegovinian Muslim to write only in his mother tongue, both when writing his own texts and when translating from foreign languages. Sources Complete bibliography in Philippe Gelez, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934). Aux racines intellectuelles de la pensée nationale chez les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine (Louvain: Peeters, 2010) [in print]. CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 96: Bosnia-Seraï, April 21, 1876. CADN, Series Constantinople Ambassade, D/Mostar no. 2, Dozon to the Ambassade, Mostar: November 3, 1877; November 8, 1877. Vladimir Ćorović, Mehmed beg Kapetanović. Književna slika (Sarajevo: Institut za proučavanje Balkana, 1911). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 247 Munib Maglajlić (ed.), Zbornik radova o Mehmed-begu Kapetanoviću Ljubušaku (Sarajevo, Institut za književnost, 1992) [especially Munib Maglajlić, “Mehmed-beg Kapetanović Ljubušak — jedan pogled na život i djelo,” 13-18]. Grga Martić, Zapamćenja (1829.-1878.). Po kazivanju autorovom zabilježio Janko Koharić, za tisak priredio Ferdo Šišić (Zagreb, Gjuro Trpinec, 1906). Muhsin Rizvić, Književno stvaranje muslimanskih pisaca u Bosni i Hercegovini u doba autrougarske vladavine, 2 vols. (Sarajevo, ANUBiH, 1973). Karabeg Mustafa Sidki (Mostar, 1833/4-Mostar, August 2, 1878) Karabeg Mustafa Sidki was a deputy to the second session. Balić says that he was also sent to the first session, but if we positively know that he was elected, we also are aware that he resigned because Ali Paşa, then vali of Herzegovina, enforced the statute stipulating that any civil servant, if elected, had to resign from his position. This resignation was not noticed by the majority of his contemporaries.7 Karabeg preferred his functions of mufti, which he kept during the second session although the statute was still applicable: actually, the new vali of Bosnia, Ahmed Mazhar Paşa, did not strictly apply this law. Bašagić (see respective entry) was another example of this laissez-faire practice in the second session. The Karabeg family dates back at least to the middle of the 17th century, when they settled in Mostar and the surrounding region, where they were sipahis and administered large estates. However, Mustafa Sidki Karabeg had a spiritual vocation and was not destined to be a landlord. Born in 1832, he left Mostar, his native town, at the age of 19 (in November 1851) in order to complete in Istanbul the education he had received in Herzegovina. Before his departure, he had frequented the local medrese and had achieved a good command of the Arabic language. Once in the imperial capital, he was curious about all branches of religious and profane science. What is most important, he was taught by Mevla Halil, a future Şeyhülislam. The latter would play a very important role in his lifebecause the political importance of Mevla Halil allowed Karabeg to have a certain audience at the Divan. Very studious during the four years of his residence in Istanbul, Karabeg was taken ill because of mental fatigue. On doctors’ orders, he left the capital at the end of 1855 for a healthier life in Mostar. In the sancak center, the mufti position had become vacant when the previous mufti died while returning from Mecca. Since 1852, Mostar Muslims had been looking for a mufti in vain, and when Karabeg came, despite the fact he was not a mature man yet, they offered him this position. Karabeg had planned to continue his studies, but on his father’s ad- 7 See the British vice-consul’s assessment in Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 137 and 270; and the Bosnia issue of 29 April (Bosnia no. 566, 16 R 1294/ April 17 and 29, 1877), 1). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 248 vice, he accepted the position of mufti in 1857 and fulfilled these duties until his death in 1878. Perhaps the best way to present his personality is to begin with his conviction about scholars, which was reported by his pupil Riđanović: for Karabeg, scholars were divided into two groups — researchers and good men. Used to describing only the good sides of people about whom he spoke, we must see that he was a thoroughly positive man and, in general, an isolated one. Because of his originality, Karabeg is considered to have initiated a new Islamic reform period in Herzegovina, which can – up to a certain point – be termed as an “Islamic revival.” He belonged to the few Bosnian and Herzegovinian Muslim ulema that adhered to the Tanzimat, and therefore promulgated a number of fatwas. He preached in rural areas and gave advised on what he believed to be an inevitable adaptation of Islamic customs to the challenges of the modern world. At the same time he aspired to a purer faith. He wrote a few works, the most outstanding of which is a commentary of Molla Hüsrev (the third şeyhülislam, d. 1480), composed in good Arabic according to Hazim Šabanović. Thanks to his cleverness and brainpower, Karabeg “specialized” in politics: for long years, he incessantly criticized civil servants (mostly from Istanbul) because they did not look after their responsibilities in the right way, neglecting the people’s welfare. He assisted local müsellims in their work, paradoxically professing a certain secularist vision of political life. In this activity, he certainly entered in contact with Bašagić (see respective entry). The reform of 1864, which instituted local and provincial councils, automatically made him the president of the meclis-i idare in Mostar. At these functions, he always showed a great sense of justice. He did not hesitate when he learned that the Herzegovinian mutasarrıf had been unfair in one of his judgments and fought him until he prevailed. Karabeg possessed a certain charisma. Of average height, he had an emaciated face with a little beard; he walked and moved with measured dignity. He possessed high personal authority because he was a very strict Muslim in his private life. It is generally stated that the fluency of his speech struck those who approached him. He was successful as a teacher: he taught religious topics in Mostar and Arabic literature at the Karađoz medrese. From 1866 on, he was also included in the staff of the newly opened rüsdiye of Mostar. Finally, he officiated as an imam and hatib in the mosque of the quarter where he lived, and used his paternal influence to lead his sons in this religious way. The tolerance with which his biographer Riđanović emphatically credits him has to be re-contextualized. Karabeg was a zealous protector of the Ottoman Empire’s integrity and participated in the war against “unfaithful” Montenegro in 1862 on Lovçeli İbrahim Derviş Paşa’s side. His bravery persuaded Lovçeli to solicit a decoration for him, and he obtained the rang of mevla and was decorated with Mecidiye and İftihar. He was deeply convinced that the Empire had to be ruled according to the Sharia. This explains his attitude in summer 1875, when the insur- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 249 rection began in Herzegovina: he accused civil servants of weakness and poor education and of lacking firmness in face of the uprising. Therefore he regarded them as one of the main reasons for the rebellion. Anotherconviction he held was that the Christian insurgents had to be castigated. He explained his point of view to Lovçeli, who had been appointed Bosnian governor in the meantime, but the latter did not comply with these views, instead asking the Porte to exile Karabeg. Forced to go to Istanbul, Karabeg learned from Mevla Halil that Cevdet Paşa needed Lovçeli’s presence in Bosnia at this time. According to the şeyhülislam, Cevdet Paşa had had no choice but to get Karabeg out of the province in order to let Lovçeli realize his mission without obstruction--although Cevdet was personally convinced of Karabeg’s merits. After an interlocution with the grand vizier and the şeyhülislam on the current war and its causes, Karabeg was permitted to go to Mecca for the second time. Unfortunately, the date of his first hajj has not been recorded. Returning to Mostar in the autumn of 1876, he did not accept his election to the first session and instead fought against Montenegro in 1877 at the side of müşir Süleyman Paşa. Elected to the second session, he embodied, as did Bašagić (see respective entry), the role of an advocate of the Islamic character of the state and, to the same extent, of tolerance. He was convinced of the necessity of a desperate resistance against Russia (whose armies were dangerously approaching Istanbul) for the sake of state unity, even if that meant the government had to retreat to the inner territory of Anatolia. He is reported to have said in this context: “Death is better than the constraints of occupation.” He also accused the Ottoman officials of weakness. Actually, he fell into depression after the signing of the San Stefano Treaty, and read aloud the Koranic surah traditionally recited in condolences to the family of the deceased. Back in Mostar, after this three-month stay in Istanbul, he abandoned all public action and devoted himself to scholarship. When the Austro- Hungarian army arrived, he conformed his attitude to the orders coming from Istanbul. An official telegram from Istanbul explicitly stated that the Double Monarchy did “not come as an enemy.” Unfortunately, the Muslim people of Mostar prepared an armed resistance, and its leaders solicited Karabeg to issue a fatwa calling to Holy War. He refused. A hostile crowd that was told that Karabeg, when elected to the Ottoman Parliament, had not gone to Istanbul but to Vienna and had sold out Bosnia-Herzegovina to Austria-Hungary entered the hall where the mufti was in discussion with other officials of the town, and savagely killed him on August 2, 1879. Two days later, the town surrendered without any battle because the self-proclaimed leaders of the resistance were too fearful of Austrian repression. Karabeg’s biography was composed in Arabic by one of his pupils and personal secretary, Hacı Abdullah Efendi Riđanović (1844-after 1917), who later became mufti of Mostar himself. It has been translated into Bosnian by Nakičević. Fi- © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 250 nally, it has to be noted that there exists a literary description of the mufti written in Bosnian by Ibrišimović. Sources CADN, Series Constantinople Ambassade, D/Mostar no. 2, Dozon to the Ambassade, Mostar: March 16, 1877; November 3, 1877. Omer A. Balić, “Život i djelovanje muftije Karabega,” Novi Behar 5.15 (1931-32), 210-214. Muhamed Hadžijahić, “Preporoditelj Hercegovine Omer ef. Humo i njegove hrvatske pjesme,” Muslimanska svijest 1.12 (1936), 3. Hamdija Mulić, “Vjesnici naprednijeg tumačenja islamske nauke u nas,” Narodna uzdanica 11 (1943), 102-108. Hivzija Hasandedić, Mustafa-Sidki ef. Karabeg. Mostarski muftija od 1857. do 1878. godine i okupacija Mostara (Sarajevo, El-Hidaja, 1944). [Anonymous], “Karabeg Hadži Mustafa ef (1832–2. 8. 1878 u Mostaru),” Bosanski pogledi 2 (1961), 183. Nedžad Ibrišimović, Karabeg. Priča, roman, drama [1st ed. 1971] (Sarajevo, El-Kalem, 1996). Zejnil Fajić, “‘Mala historija događaja u Hercegovini.’ Iz Bračkovićeva autografa u Gazi Husrev-begovoj biblioteci, Anali Gazi Husrevbegove biblioteke 2-3 (1974), 97-108. Fikret Karčić, “Odnos bosanske uleme prema reformama u osmanskoj carevini u XIX vijeku,” Anali Gazi Husrevbegove biblioteke 17-18 (1996), 221-231. Hivzija Hasandedić, “Karabezi,” Anali Gazi Husrev-begove biblioteke 17-18 (1996), 313-322. Omer Nakičević, Karabeg (Sarajevo, Fakultet islamskih nauka, 2001). Philippe Gelez, Safvet-beg Bašagić (1870-1934). Aux racines intellectuelles de la pensée nationale chez les musulmans de Bosnie-Herzégovine (Louvain: Peeters, 2010) [in print]. Korkut Mola Efendi (dates unknown) Korkut Mola Efendi was elected to the first session (for Bosnia); he resigned, as did Fadilpašić (see respective entry), although he held the second rank in the votes. Hafizadić-Naimefendić (see respective entry), who had reached fifth place in the voting, went to Istanbul instead of him. The French consul designates him only by his first name and adds that he was the son of the Travnik mufti, who was at that time one Korkut; however, with the single exception of this consular document, the literature does not note the existence of any Korkut Mola Efendi. He was a conservative. Sources CADN, Series Sarajevo, vol. 5, Charles de Vienne to the Ministry no. 138: Bosnia-Seraï, March 16, 1877. Alija Bejtić, Derviš M. Korkut kao kulturni i javni radnik (Sarajevo, Biblioteka pokopnog društva “Bakije,” 1974). Mehmed Muhyi mahlas of Kapetanović Mehmed Beg © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 251 Naimzade see Hafizadić-Naimefendić Mehmed Bey Osmanpašić Murad Bey (dates unknown) Osmanpašić Murad Bey was elected to the first session for Bosnia, achieving fourth place in the voting; he went to Istanbul instead of Fadilpašić (see respective entry). A son of Osman Nuri Paşa (1832-1900), the famous victor at the Siege of Pleven in 1877, he lived in Novi Pazar. At that time, Osman Nuri Paşa was the military commander of Bosnia and battled against Serbia when it went to war against the Ottoman Empire in 1876. This might be the most prominent reason for Murad Bey’s election, since available sources do not mention him; it has to be noted that he was not elected to the second session, during the months when his father withstood the siege (July-December 1877). He was the only deputy for Bosnia-Herzegovina who was not a native of these provinces. Redžepašić Ibrahim Bey see Bašagić Ibrahim Bey Riza Efendi (dates unknown) According to Us, he was deputy for Bosnia to the first session but he is not mentioned anywhere else. Sources Us Hakkı Tarık, Meclis-i meb’usân 1293 = 1877, 2 vols. (Istanbul, Vakıt, 1940-54). Selimović Fehim see Đumišić Fehim Simić Fehim see Đumišić Fehim Tanović Mula Ago (Ključ (Herzegovina), 1823- ?) Tanović Mula Ago seems to have been a deputy to the first session: but his name does not appear in all sources. His name seems to appear first in Kreševljaković, probably on the evidence of Safvet-beg Bašagić, whose father was himself a deputy (cf. Bašagić). It is most probable that other authors, for example Kapidžić and Balić, depend on him. A contemporary descendant of Tanović has written the history of his family, but does not provide any further information than do these authors. According to Kreševljaković, Tanović was present at the second session (Kapidžić erroneously speaks of 1876). However, there is no mention of Tanović either in Us nor in Devereux. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul PHILIPPE GELEZ 252 What seems probable is that Tanović was elected to the first session but did not go to Istanbul. French consular archives certify that he was designated at the end of January 1877, but his name was not published in the official newspaper. If this is the case, he may have been replaced by a certain Ali Bey, the second Herzegovinian deputy to the first session whose name is mentioned in the works of Us and Devereux. Born in Zagraci near Ključ, district of Gacko, Herzegovina, M. A. Tanović partly completed his education in Sarajevo. A document dating from October 6, 1840, proves that he was a student in the Kurşumlı medrese of the Gazi Husrev Bey Mosque in this town. He was sent there with the agreement of his father Bešo Tanović (d. October 7, 1840), by the famous İsmail Ağa Čengić (1778- September 23/24, 1840) with the intention of setting him on a career as a kadi of local origin in the kadılık of Gacko-Cernica. He pursued his studies in Istanbul in the Harıcı medrese, where he learned Arabic and Turkish. He had the reputation of being well versed in the hadith and the Sharia. Once kadı in Cernica at 28 years of age, he belonged since 1864 to the vilayet council in Sarajevo, where he represented the Herzegovinian Muslims along with Hakija Resulbegović from Trebinje, a member of a well-known family in this sancak. After the Austro-Hungarian occupation (1878), Tanović moved to Mostar and sided with the Muslims favorable to the new regime. He is said to have enjoyed the confidence of local Christian farmers. His three sons settled down in Turkey at the end of 19th century, and their descendants still live there. Sources CADN, Series Constantinople ambassade, D, Mostar, vol. 2, Louis Dozon to the Ambassade no. 67: Mostar, January 30, 1877. Hamdija Kreševljaković, “Dr. Safvet beg Bašagić-Redžepašić,” in Spomenica na proslavu 55godišnjice rođenja dra Safvetbega Bašagića (Mirza Safveta) i 30-godišnjice njegova pjesničkog i naučnog rada spojena sa proslavom 20-godišnjice Musl. zanatl. udruženja ‘Ittihad’ u Mostaru (Mostar: Ittihad, 1926), 14-21. Omer A. Balić, “Život i djelovanje muftije Karabega,” Novi Behar 5.15 (1931-32), 210-214. Hamdija Kapidžić, Prilozi za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovine u XIX vijeku (Sarajevo: ND NRBiH, 1956), 96 n. 84. Tahir Dž. Tanović, Ključka kapetanija u Hercegovini i porodica Tanović (Sarajevo: Udruženje građana istočne Hercegovine, 2000). Teskeredžić Derviš Bey (Travnik, ?-Istanbul, 1878) According to Kreševljaković and Korkut, Teskeredžić died in 1878 as a Bosnian deputy in Istanbul. However, it is improbable that he was officially elected and except these authors, no other source mentions him. Perhaps he accompanied the other parliamentarians from the region to Istanbul because he was an influential bey of Travnik and a curious man, the first of the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Muslims © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul TOWARDS A PROSOPOGRAPHY OF THE DEPUTIES FROM BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA 253 who had gone abroad in 1857 and 1859 not for trade but just to “see the world” (Osijek, Vienna, Pest, London, Paris), at a time when he was still young. He seems to have been impressed by what he saw and built a “European” house in Travnik in 1858. Although he has sometimes been identified as opposing Ottoman centralization, Ottoman authorities trusted him on different occasions, and he himself took on the defense of Şevki Efendi, a reformist kaymakam appointed in 1852 in Travnik who wanted to implement the Hatt-ı hümayun in the town but collided with local notables. Naimefendić (see respective entry) belonged to the group led by him. Sources Aleksandar Giljferding, Putovanje po Hercegovini, Bosni i Staroj Srbiji. S ruskog preveo, komentare i bilješke napisao Branko Čulić [1st ed. 1859] (Sarajevo, Veselin Masleša, 1972). Hamdija Kreševljaković and Derviš Mehmed Korkut, Travnik u prošlosti 1464-1878 (naročito kao glavni grad Bosne 1699-1850) (Travnik: Zavičajni muzej Travnik, 1961), 34-35. Galib Šljivo, Bosnia I Hercegovina 1849-1853 (Banja Luka: Institut za istoriju, 1990). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul The First Ottoman Parliamentary Elections on Crete and the Cretan Deputies to the Meclis-i Mebusan1 Johannes Zimmermann Among the events leading to the opening of the first Ottoman parliament in Istanbul in March 1877, the Cretan provincial parliamentary elections represent a particularly interesting case, since the island’s non-Muslim population – enjoying special privileges since 1868 – uncompromisingly refused any participation in the electoral process. The Cretan reaction to the Sublime Porte’s attempts to hold parliamentary elections on the island was certainly one of the strongest and most open resistance movements against the elections in the Empire. While Robert Devereux dedicated about three pages to the discussion of the Cretan case (mainly on the basis of consular reports), other comprehensive studies of the first Ottoman parliamentary period, especially those of Turkish origin (such as İlhan Güneş’s contribution to Türk Parlamento Tarihi), tend to omit the reaction of the Cretan non- Muslims as well as the election’s results and sometimes do not even mention the non-Muslim deputy elected on the island at all. In return, Greek nationalist historians dealing with the 1877 events on Crete tend to overemphasize the role of “their” candidate who finally refused to accept his seat in the Meclis-i mebusan. Until today, no detailed study of the two Cretan deputies’ lives and careers has been published. While both Western and Turkish studies dealing with the 1877 elections tend to focus on the political, social and legal conditions under which the provincial elections were held on the island, a considerable number of similar Greek publications show a tendency to interpret the Ottoman elections as a mere trigger for the following Cretan uprisings. If these studies mention the elected deputies at all, biographical “hard facts” only play a subordinate role. If biographical sketches of the Greeks involved in the electoral process are part of these studies, they mostly represent attempts to depict the electors as well as the deputy himself as upright fighters for Greek and Cretan independence. This lack of detailed and unbiased information both on the electoral process and the elected Cretan deputies serves as the starting-point for this article. It aims equally at establishing a chronology of the Cretan events of January – March 1 The author is highly indebted to Kalliopi Shismenu and Syryla Merkata for their invaluable help and linguistic advice in regard to the Greek sources used in this study. Further, the author would like to express his special thanks to Joseph M. Zane for reading and correcting this article before its publication. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 256 1877, extending the narrative offered by Devereux, and at compiling usable biographical data on the two Cretan deputies, one of whom never undertook the journey to Istanbul. Towards the Elections: 19th Century Crete When in March 18212 the Greek rebellion broke out in the Peloponnese, the seed of uprising soon spread beyond the borders of the Greek “mainland” to the islands of the Aegean.3 A few months later, it already reached the shores of the island of Crete,4 where agents of the Philiki Etairea had already tried to prepare the ground for a revolutionary movement of the local Greek population.5 These uprisings were to be the beginning of the end of a long period of political and social stability on Crete, whose Greek population had remained relatively untouched by nationalist ideas until the end of the 18th/beginning of the 19th century.6 An uprising of the Cretan Christians was far more difficult to organize than similar revolutionary movements on the mainland. Revolutionary and nationalist ideas had only recently arrived on the island, and the experience of several decades of relative political tranquillity and coexistence still proved to be a vital factor in intercommunal relations.7 Further, it was a difficult task to transport weapons and 2 For an overview of the events that led to the Greek revolt of 1821 and of the general intellectual climate among the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 19th century, cf. Richard Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992), 29-47. 3 Cf. Cemal Tukin, “Girit,” in: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi, 1988ff) [henceforth TDVİA]; vol. 14 (1996), 85- 93, here: 89. 4 Cf. ibid., 89 and Leonidas Kallivretakis,“A Century of Revolutions: The Cretan Question Between European and Near Eastern Politics,” in: Paschalis M. Kitromilides (ed.), Eleftherios Venizelos: The Trials of Statesmanship (Edinburgh 2006 [Repr.]), 11-36, here 11. 5 Members of the Philiki Etairea who were of Cretan origin, such as Emmanouil Bernardos, who became a member of the society in September 1816, periodically travelled to Crete under various pretexts in order to get an impression of the political and social circumstances on the island and to spread revolutionary ideas. A short overview of the prerevolutionary activities of the Philiki Etairea in Crete is given in Θεοχάρη Δετοράκη: Ιστορία της Κρήτης (Ηράκλειο, 1990), 298 passim – a work characterized by its sometimes rather disturbing Greek nationalist tone. 6 As Molly Greene has convincingly shown in her study A Shared World: Christians and Muslims in the Early Modern Mediterranean (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000), the interpretation of Muslim-Christian relations in the Mediterranean up to the 19th century as a continuous series of mutual hostilities in the framework of a nationalist liberation struggle of the non-Muslim populations must be revised. She stresses, with special regard to the circumstances on Crete, the high degree of permeability of the different religious communities, intensified through the exceptionally strong conversion movements and their linguistic consequences (cf. especially 39-44). Cf. also Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:89. 7 Cf. e.g. Greene, A Shared World, 206-209. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 257 additional troops to the island without being noticed and intercepted by Ottoman naval forces.8 However, the uprisings that broke out at the end of Ramazan 1236 (July 1821) were of such violence that Mahmud II saw himself forced to summon the governor of Egypt, Mehmed Ali Paşa, to restore order on the island.9 For almost a decade, Crete now was the scene of a series of repeated revolts, mutual hostilities and atrocities which led to great losses on both sides. When in 1830 the European Powers decided not to include Crete in the newly founded Greek state, new revolts broke out on the island.10 After another intervention by Egyptian troops, the island was finally put under Ottoman suzerainty, but from now on was administered by Egypt. In order to stabilize the political situation on the island, Mehmed Ali Paşa made certain concessions to the Christian population, such as installing mixed assemblies of Muslims and Non-Muslims to deal with local affairs in the island’s major cities (Iraklion, Chania, Rethymno).11 This policy resulted also in an alteration of the island’s settlement structures, as the Muslim population now concentrated itself even more than before in the hinterland of the costal towns where Ottoman military and administrative infrastructure was especially well developed.12 Mehmed Ali remained ruler of the island until 1841, when the Treaty of London explicitly forbade him to make any claims on Crete.13 Only a short time later, in February 1841,14 new revolts broke out on the island, incited and supported by Cretan nationalist leaders expatriated in 1830 as well as nationalist propagandists from Greece.15 From this first uprising until the union of the island with the kingdom of Greece, 19th century Cretan history presents itself as a series of periodic uprisings of the local Greek population against Ottoman rule and the local Muslim minority. The ideological ground for this chain of rebellions which aimed to unite Crete with Greece16 was paved mainly by Greek nationalists.17 After another series of upheavals had shattered the island in 1858, it was finally in the year 1866 that a long series of intermittent uprisings occurred that had con- 8 Δετοράκη, Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 301. 9 Cf. Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:89. 10 Cf. Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 16. 11 Cf. R. Mantran, “Ikrītish: Ottoman Period“, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. 12 vols. [henceforth EI2], 3:1086-1087, here 1086. 12 Cf. Robert Holland and Diana Markides, The British and the Hellenes: Struggles for Mastery in the Eastern Mediterranean 1850-1960 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006), 82. 13 Cf. Mantran, “Ikrītish: Ottoman Period“, EI2, 3:1086. 14 Cf. Δετοράκη, Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 334. 15 Cf. Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:89; Δετοράκη: Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 334 passim and Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 17. 16 For a concise overview of these uprisings cf. Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:89 passim and Clogg, A Concise History of Greece, 69. 17 Cf. Holland/Markides, The British and the Hellenes, 83-84. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 258 siderable influence on its political and administrative structure.18 When the Cretan rebels, once again supported by Greek troops, realized that the Ottoman government was not able or not willing to meet their claims,19 they proclaimed the enosis (union) of the “Great Island” with the kingdom of Greece and installed an independent intermediary government on September 2, 1866. The idea of a union of the island with Greece, as propagated by the Cretan rebels, received open support from Greece, Russia and France. The “Cretan Question” had finally become – in every respect – an international problem, part of the greater “Eastern Question.” The long chain of uprisings with which the Ottoman state obviously was not able to cope provoked a series of interventions by the Great Powers in the strained relations between the local population and the Ottoman Porte.20 The unrests of the following years and the intermittent European interventions in Cretan affairs finally led, in 1868, to a fundamental modification of the island’s administrative system, granting its Christian population far-reaching privileges.21 Local responsibilities were, from now on, more equally shared between Christians and Muslims and an administrative council (meclis-i idare-i vilayet) comprising five Christian and five Muslim members was installed on the vilayet level in order to assist the governor. In addition, all official posts from now on were to be shared equally between the two religious communities.22 This reorganization brought a certain détente to the more than tense relations between the local religious communities, but was insufficient to provide a final solution to the island’s social and political troubles. Mutual mistrust, encouraged in the ensuing years by the ongoing agitation of Greek nationalist propagandists among the local population, along with the unwillingness of the European Powers to unify Crete with the kingdom of Greece, were the two major factors stressing Christian-Muslim relations on the island. Also, large parts of the Christian population were still unsatisfied with the results of the 1868 administrative reforms, primarily emphasizing that Greek Christians were still underrepresented in the local political bodies and that therefore at least the governor of Crete should be a Christian.23 18 Cf. Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 19-20. 19 The Cretan rebels demanded inter alia considerable tax reductions as well as far-reaching educational reforms on the island and a fundamental modification of its administrative system. Cf. Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:89. 20 Cf. Mantran, “Ikrītish: Ottoman Period“, EI2, 3:1086. 21 On Crete’s organic law of 1868 cf. Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 21-22. 22 The island was divided into five sancaks (Hanya, İsfakya, Resmo, Kandiye and Laşid). The mutasarrıfs of İsfakya and Laşid were to be Christians. Those of the sancaks of Kandiye and Resmo, however, were Muslims. Each mutasarrıf saw himself assigned an assistant belonging to the opposite faith. Furthermore, each mutasarrıf had to deal with a newly composed meclis-i idare composed of three Muslim and three Christian members elected by the local population. The posts of the kaza kaimakamları were from now on to be allocated according to the religion of the local population majority. Cf. Tukin, “Girit,” TDVİA, 14:90. 23 From the very beginning of the Cretan resistance to Ottoman rule, the Christians put special emphasis on the fact that although they represented the vast majority of the island’s © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 259 The Elections It was this climate of tense exhaustion and subliminal mutual mistrust in which the first Ottoman parliamentary elections were announced, planned and carried out during the first months of 1877.24 Several articles published in The Times during this period clearly illustrate the extent to which Christian-Muslim relations on Crete were strained and the extent to which they worsened as the plans for the parliamentary election became more concrete.25 The general conditions under which the first Ottoman parliamentary elections were held in the provinces were not favourable to the already tense atmosphere on Crete either. After the promulgation of the Kanun-i esasi in 1876, the Ottoman government wanted the first parliamentary elections to be held as soon as possible in order to prove Ottoman goodwill to the European Powers.26 The first Provisional Electoral Regulation, already drafted during summer 1876 by a subcommittee of the constitutional Drafting Commission, was, however, rejected by the sultan. A new committee – this time consisting of only four members – revised the draft, taking into consideration the sultan’s objections which mainly concerned the ratio of Muslims and non-Muslims to be elected in the different provinces of the Empire. The new draft, comprising seven articles, differed only slightly from the first version and was officially promulgated on October 28, 1876, then sent immediately to the governors of the Empire’s provinces. Yet, several of its articles contained regulations that were not received with great enthusiasm by the majority of Crete’s Christian inhabitants.27 Their objections especially concerned article 2 of the new regulation, which stipulated that the deputies to the new parliament should not be elected directly population, they were denied adequate participation in local political affairs. They in fact represented about two thirds of the island’s total population. According to Şemseddin Sami in his Kamusu 'l-a‛lam, the total population of the island numbered 294,192 inhabitants towards the end of the 19th century, of which only 88,487 were Muslim. Apart from negligible minorities of Protestants, Catholics and some 650 Jews, the remaining 204,781 inhabitants of the island were Orthodox Christians (cf. “Girid” in: Şemseddin Sami, Kamusu 'l-a‛lam, 6 vols. (Istanbul: Mihran Matbaası, 1306-1312), 5:3851-3857, here 3852). For a detailed overview of the demography of Crete and the demographic developments on the island from the 17th to the 20th century, cf. Emile Y. Kolodny, “La Crète: Mutations et évolution d’une population insulaire grecque,” in: Journal de géographie de Lyon 43,3 (1968), 227-290, for the period from 1870 to 1881 cf. especially 253-264. The 1881 census established a total population of 277,768 inhabitants of whom 204,156 (73.5%) were Christians, while only 72,691 (26.2%) were Muslim (cf. ibid., 262); cf. also: Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 13 passim on conversion movements and Christian land acquisitions. 24 Cf. Holland/Markides, The British and the Hellenes, p. 84. 25 Cf. e.g. The Times (London), January 20, 1877, 5; January 22, 1877, 5; January 30, 1877, 5; February 12, 1877, 5; February 13, 1877, 3; March 5, 1877, 12. 26 Cf. Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period: A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), 123. 27 Cf. ibid., 124. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 260 by the local population, but by the members of the different administrative councils in the provincial capitals and the various sancaks and kazas.28 The underlying idea was that these assemblies had already been elected by popular suffrage and that their decisions therefore had “the same value as that which the direct suffrage of the nation imparts.”29 Along with article 2, another part of the October 28 regulation was a major obstacle for a regular implementation of the electoral process on Crete: according to article 4, it was to be the Sublime Porte who held the exclusive right to determine the number of deputies to be elected in each province. This fixed number of deputies was to be communicated to the provincial governors (in the case of Crete Ahmed Muhtar Paşa (January – February 1877), followed by Hasan Samih Paşa (March 1877))30 who were supposed to inform the local councils while indicating at the same time how the total number of deputies was to be distributed to the different religious communities.31 It was mainly these two articles that caused great discontent among the Cretan non-Muslim population. The Christians not only considered themselves deprived of their direct participation in the electoral process, but also attacked the ratio of Muslim versus non-Muslim deputies as fixed by the provincial governor by emphasizing that, as Christians represented about two-thirds of the local population, this ratio did not at all reflect the island’s actual demography32. In a formal protest addressed not only to the governor, but also to the Cretan consuls of the European Powers, the Christians strongly rejected the fixed ratio and demanded that the Christian population be allowed to send more than one representative to the assembly in Istanbul. As the text of the protest to Thomas Backhouse Sandwith (British consul to Crete in Chania from 1870 to 1885)33 clearly shows, the rejection of the two mentioned articles of the provisional electoral regulation was certainly not the only factor leading to the strong resentments of the Cretan Christians against the elections in general. Although demographic questions occupied a prominent place in the dissenters’ line of argument, the fear of loss of 28 Cf. ibid. and İhsan Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi: Meşrutiyete Geçiş Süreci: I. Ve II. Meşrutiyet, vol. 1 (Ankara: Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi Vakfı Yayınları, 1998), 76-77. 29 Quoted according to Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 124. 30 Cf. Sinan Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839-1922): Prosopografik Rehber (Istanbul: Isis 1999), 31. For a concise summary of Hasan Samih Paşa’s biography and career, cf. İbrahim Alâettin Gövsa, Meşhur Adamlar: Hayatları – Eserleri, 4 vols. (Istanbul: Simavi 1933-1936), 4:1419. 31 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 124 and Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 1:76-77. 32 Cf. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (3rd series), vol. 233 (March 16, 1877 – April 26, 1877), 551, where the objections of the Christian protesters are summarized in an answer by M.P. Bourke. 33 For a short summary of Thomas Backhouse Sandwith’s (1831-1900) biography and career cf. Who was Who. Containing the Biographies of Those Who Died During the Decade [1897-1916] (London: Black 1920). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 261 privileges achieved through the organic law becomes obvious on various occasions.34 Many Christians feared that the Ottoman government could use the fact that, as a result of the new constitution, the religious minorities were now represented in parliament to argue that from now on local privileges, such as those achieved by the Cretans through their charter of autonomy, would become obsolete. This argument resulted in the total rejection of the Sublime Porte’s right to order any kind of parliamentary election on Crete, since the island, in the eyes of the non-Muslim protesters, was no longer an integral part of the Ottoman Empire.35 The Cretans’ criticism of the Constitution was certainly one of the most open opposition reactions to the new order embodied in the electoral process and the parliament itself.36 It is interesting to note that, although the Cretan Greeks had for years rigidly opposed the organic law as insufficient and unjust, the same organic law served throughout the course of the electoral quarrels as a positive counter-image to the new, and in the eyes of the Cretan Greeks even more inequitable order: the parliamentary regime. In January 1877, when it became obvious that the Cretan opposition to the electoral process was fundamental, the Sublime Porte replaced Mehmed Rauf Paşa37 (governor since January 1876) as governor of Crete and appointed Ahmed Muhtar Paşa38 who arrived on the island some days before February 10, 1877.39 Shortly after his arrival, he ordered “two battalions of infantry, with some Artillery, to Sphakiá and Apocorona”40, where about 4000 Greek nationalist volunteers had begun to gather. In doing so, he carried out his explicit mission to ensure that the elections would be held without any further disturbances. The appointment of Ahmed Muhtar Paşa, who was considered a “hardliner” in “minority questions” and thus enjoyed a doubtful reputation among the Cretan population, did not help to ease the tensions between the two religious communities. Rather it made things worse: “Affairs looked threatening when the dreaded Mukhtar Pasha, although appointed to a command in Asia, arrived as Governor-General. The object of his visit soon became 34 Cf. Great Britain, House of Commons: Accounts and Papers 91 (1877): Turkey no. 25 (1877): Further Correspondence Respecting the Affaires of Turkey, 15. 35 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 129 and Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, March 22, 1877, 3. 36 Cf. e.g. The Times (London), March 5, 1877, 12. 37 Cf. Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839-1922), 31. For a short summary of Mehmed Rauf Paşa’s biography and career, cf. Gövsa, Meşhur Adamlar, 4:1316-1317. 38 For detailed information on the life and career of Ahmed Muhtar Paşa, cf. Feroz Ahmad, “Mukhtār Pasha,” in: EI2, 7:525-526; İbnülemin Mahmud Kemal İnal, Osmanlı Devrinde Son Sadrıazamlar, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaası, 1940) 3:1805-1868 and M. Cavid Baysun, “Muhtar Paşa,” in: İslâm Ansiklopedisi. İslâm Âlemi, Tarih, Coğrafya, Etnografya ve Bibliografya Lugati. 16 vols. (Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1950-1986), 8:516-532. 39 Cf. The Times (London), February 12, 1877, 5; Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, February 12, 1877, 1 and Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839-1922), 31. 40 The Times (London), February 13, 1877, 3. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 262 known. He has gone there to conduct the elections for the Parliament of the Empire granted by the ‘Constitution’. In a moment, the sentiments of the mountaineers were changed, they forgot the evils of the organic law, and now are ready to fight for its maintenance rather than submit to the institutions of the new charter.”41 As a direct answer to the objections of the Christians, the Grand Vizier himself sent a letter to the protesting members of the administrative councils in the first days of February 1877 in which he explained that the local privileges stipulated in the island’s organic law would remain untouched by the election of parliamentary representatives and that a boycott of the electoral process would rather carry a number of considerable disadvantages for the Christian population of the island:42 “L’élection des représentants à l’Assemblée générale de Constantinople ne saurait porter la moindre atteinte aux règlements existants. Au contraire, le régime représentatif augmentera pour les sujets du Sultan les bienfaits de la liberté. […] L’idée de ne pas se faire représenter est mauvaise. Faites donc des représentations à qui de droit. Quant au mode d’élection, comme il n’est pas nécessaire, d’après l’article 4 du règlement provisoire sur l’élection des députés, de faire une distinction entre les nationalités, chaque membre doit élire un chrétien et un musulman.”43 However, the attempts of the Grand Vizier to scatter the doubts concerning the election were not successful. In their direct reply to the Grand Vizier’s dispatch dated February 12, 1877 and presented first to the provincial governor who then communicated it to Istanbul, the Christian members of the administrative councils once more refused to take part in the elections as ordered by the Ottoman government: “Excellence, Ayant pris connaissance du circulaire véziréelle qui nous charge du soin d’élire des députés au Parlement qui vu se réunir prochainement à Constantinople, nous vous répondons que la loi organique en vertu de laquelle nous avons été élus conseillers administratifs ne nous confère nullement ce droit. Aussi nous trouvons nous dans la nécessité de refuser le mandat qu’on veut nous confier, dans la crainte de nous heurter aux dispositions de la loi organique de notre île. Nous croyons devoir vous faire observer en outre que le mode d’élection n’est pas basé sur l’égalité proclamée, mais sur des préférences religieuses. […]”44 41 Report of the Athenian correspondent (dated February 25, 1877) in: The Times (London), March 5, 1877, 12; cf. The Times (London), February 12, 1877, 5: “Mukhtar Pasha has arrived in Crete. A certain amount of political excitement prevails among the Christian inhabitants of the island […].” A French version of the same report is contained in Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, February 12, 1877, 1: “Mukhtar Pacha est arrivé en Crète. On annonce une certaine agitation parmi les Crétois chrétiens […].” 42 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 129. 43 Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, March 22, 1877, 3. 44 Journal des débats politiques et littéraires, March 22, 1877, 3. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 263 Despite the general opposition of the Christian council members to the elections,45 the Porte and the provincial governor decided to pursue the elections as planned, setting March 10, 1877 as election day.46 While the 51 Muslim members of the administrative councils unanimously participated in the elections, the provincial authorities – although they exerted massive pressure on the Christian voters – only succeeded in bringing six out of 58 Christian council members to the ballots.47 The result of this electoral round (i.e. the election of one Christian and one Muslim deputy as intended by the Ottoman government) was promptly contested by the local Christian population, who called into question the election’s legitimacy48 by pointing to the fact that almost half of the council members entitled to vote had chosen not to attend the election.49 Finally, the Christians ended up refusing openly even to send the elected non-Muslim deputy to Istanbul, an attitude that only intensified the intercommunal tensions on the island. On March 24, 1877, The Times published a short report on the worsening political climate in the Cretan towns: “The inhabitants of Crete persist in refusing to send a Deputy to the Parliament at Constantinople on the ground that they possess special privileges. In consequence of this attitude much excitement exists among the Turkish population of the island, as they entertain apprehensions of impending insurrection.”50 In the days and weeks following the contested ballot, the division lines between Christians and Muslims quickly became more and more apparent as nationalist tendencies among the Greek Christians of the island grew rapidly stronger.51 Both sides took measures to prepare for an eventual escalation of the conflict. According to European observers, “[…] the mountaineers, to the number of some thousands, have sanctified an oath of fealty to the cause of independence with the sacred rites of the Church and have expressed its import by war cries and salvoes of musketry. This they have done under the guidance of their priests, to whom alone, in temporal as well as spiritual matters, they pay willing obedience. The Christian peasants, anxious for their future, have retained 45 Cf. The Times (London), February 26, 1877, 6. 46 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 129. 47 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 130 (numbers based on: Sandwith to Derby, March 31, 1877 in: Great Britain, House of Commons: Accounts and Papers 91 (1877): Turkey no. 25 (1877): Further Correspondence Respecting the Affaires of Turkey, p. 15). According to a Greek pamphlet distributed in Athens during March 1877 (published in The Times in English translation), the number of Christian voters participating in the elections was seven (cf. The Times (London), March 31, 1877, 7). 48 Cf. The Times (London), March 17, 1877, 7. 49 Cf. Sandwith to Derby, March 31, 1877 in: Great Britain, House of Commons: Accounts and Papers 91 (1877): Turkey no. 25 (1877): Further Correspondence Respecting the Affaires of Turkey, 16. 50 Cf. The Times (London), March 24, 1877, 7. 51 Cf. Leonard Courtney, “Our Eastern Policy,” in: Fortnightly Review 21.125 (May 1, 1877), 604-626, here 606. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 264 their seed-corn for the wants of war rather than sow it, perhaps, for the enemy. The Mussulmans, their apostate fellow-countrymen, have begun to take refuge within the castles […]”52 The preparations for an uprising were morally and materially supported by Greece.53 On the political level, the relations of the Cretan Christians to the Sublime Porte remained strained and grew worse from day to day. Meanwhile the debates among the Cretan Christians adopted a more and more nationalistic tone.54 After the election of the two Cretan deputies, both Cretan and Greek nationalist circles started to put the elected non-Muslim deputy under massive pressure,55 boldly refusing at the same time to send a representative to the Meclis-i mebusan in Istanbul.56 The tensions caused by the parliamentary elections and intensified by the political reactions of the Ottoman government to the Cretan boycott of both the electoral process and the Parliament finally culminated – in the context of the beginning of the Russian-Ottoman war57 – in the outbreak of the well known Cretan unrests of 1877/78, which altered the administrative system and political status of the island once more.58 The Deputies: a Bio-bibliographical Approach The two deputies elected on Crete were for the Muslim community Halil Rami Efendi and for the Christians Stephanos Nikolaides.59 The following section is an attempt to compile both scholarly literature and historical sources mentioning Halil Rami Efendi and his Christian counterpart as well as to retrieve basic biographical data on the two Cretan deputies and – to the extent that it is possible – to retrace, based on these findings, their political biographies. This bio-bibliographical approach, which does not primarily seek to establish a complete bio- 52 The Times (London), March 31, 1877, 7. 53 According to a report published by The Times (London) on March 19, 1877, 5: revolutionaries stationed in Athens sent circulars containing nationalist propaganda to revolutionary committees in Iraklion, Rethymno and Sphakia “reminding the patriots that nothing can be obtained without sacrifice.” 54 Cf. e.g. the protest of the Cretan Christians to the governor as given in: Sandwith to Derby, March 31, 1877 in: Great Britain, House of Commons: Accounts and Papers 91 (1877): Turkey no. 25 (1877): Further Correspondence Respecting the Affaires of Turkey, 15. 55 Cf. The Times (London), March 31, 1877, 7 and Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 130. 56 Cf. The Times (London), March 17, 1877, 7: “It seems quite obvious, meanwhile, that Crete will send no Deputies to the Chamber. The disaffection in this island is said to be very general, and more than 200 families have been reported as lately emigrating to Greece.” 57 Cf. Δετοράκη, Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 360. 58 Cf. ibid., pp. 360 passim and Mantran, “Ikrītish: Ottoman Period“, EI2, 3:1087. 59 Names mentioned e.g. in: The Times (London), March 31, 1877, 7; Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i meb’usan 1293=1877 Zabıt Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakit Matbaası, 1939-1954), 2:18; Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 129-130; Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:12. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 265 graphical narrative of the two deputies’ lives, seems to be the only way to cope with the various problems and difficulties posed by Ottoman biographical and prosopographical research. The major difficulties that researchers experience in the field of Ottoman biography and prosopography have already been outlined by Sinan Kuneralp in the introductory chapter to his Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali.60 As the author shows, even basic questions of a biographical nature such as “when did a certain person hold what office?” or “who held the office of governor in a certain province at a certain time?” cannot always be answered clearly because the scholarly literature as well as the Ottoman sources themselves frequently contain contradictory or ambivalent information.61 These difficulties – not to mention the general lack of sources of a more individual and personal character such as private letters or diaries that would allow insights into the author’s inner world62 – do not only occur when considering minor historical personalities. Even the biographical data concerning major statesmen of the Ottoman Empire or major provincial notables are frequently unreliable. Thus it is not especially astonishing that very little biographical data are available concerning Halil Rami Efendi, the Muslim deputy. It initially seems paradoxical that biographical sources are to a much larger extent available in the case of Stephanos Nikolaides, who did not even undertake the journey to Istanbul. This paradox becomes less striking, however, if we take into consideration the observations made by Michael Ursinus, who states in his discussion of the general lack of autobiographical sources originating from Muslim authors in the Ottoman Empire up to the 19th century: “Die Betonung liegt hier auf ‘muslimisch’. Denn es ist beim derzeitigen Forschungsstand noch keineswegs abschließend geklärt, wieweit dies auch für die nichtmuslimischen Parallelgesellschaften des Osmanischen Reiches gegolten hat, allen voran die der armenischen und der orthodoxen Christen. Wahrscheinlich ist es jedoch kein Zufall, daß Zeugnisse autobiographischen Charakters aus der Feder christlicher Autoren […] so deutlich selbst für das IX. Jahrhundert [sic] noch gegenüber entsprechenden Beispielen von muslimischer Hand überwiegen […].“63 Yet, not one of the comprehensive studies dealing with the first Ottoman constitutional period mentions much more than the names of the two Cretan deputies.64 The lack of detailed information in this very special case cannot be explained by the general state of Ottoman biographical research alone. That very little is known, 60 Cf. Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839-1922), XI-XXXV. 61 Cf. ibid., XI-XIV. 62 This is at least true up to the 19th century. Cf. Michael Ursinus, “Osmanische Autobiographien vor dem XIX. Jahrhundert: ‘the most Interesting Books Never Written?’,” in: Walter Berschin and Wolfgang Schamoni (eds.): Biographie – “So der Westen wie der Osten”? Zwölf Studien (Heidelberg: Mattes, 2003), 93-111. 63 Michael Ursinus, “Osmanische Autobiographien vor dem XIX. Jahrhundert,” 95-96. 64 Cf. e.g. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 129-130 and Güneş, Türk Parlamento Tarihi, 2:12 (where the Christian deputy’s name has been omitted). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 266 especially about the life of Halil Rami Efendi, can also be explained by the general tendency among Greek historians dealing with 19th century Cretan history (who were most likely to have taken notice of the persons in question) to overemphasize other aspects in the course of events during the years 1877/78 and to characterize the Ottoman parliamentary election as a phenomenon of only secondary importance – a mere trigger for yet another stage in Crete’s legitimate struggle for independence. If Greek historians refer to the first Ottoman parliamentary elections on Crete at all, they usually emphasize the general Christian boycott of the election as well as the fact that the Christian deputy decided to renounce his mandate.65 Likewise, most Western studies and sources – in the case of this study, consular reports, parliamentary minutes and periodicals – only casually mention the elected deputies and focus rather on the general relations between the two religious communities through the course and aftermath of the elections. Halil Rami Efendi In the case of Halil Rami Efendi, the Muslim deputy, biographical information other than that concerning his activities as a member of the Meclis-i mebusan is especially scarce. An initial clue to his life story is provided by a short article published in the March 31, 1877 issue of The Times. In this report, the newspaper’s Athenian correspondent dealing with the general situation on Crete after the parliamentary elections mentions the coastal town of Canea (Chania) as Halil Rami Efendi’s “constituency.” We can therefore conclude with considerable certainty that Halil Rami Efendi had already been a resident of Chania for a rather long period, for the Provisional Electoral Regulation according to which the provincial elections were carried out stipulated that the deputies had to be elected from among the local population possessing the qualifications for election. These qualifications were: Candidates had to 1. enjoy a certain public esteem, 2. prove a certain proficiency in the official language of the Empire, 3. be at least 25 years old, 4. enjoy full civil and political rights and 5. possess tax-paying property.66 Although we cannot be certain that Halil Rami Efendi held public office in the province’s administration prior to his election, the first and the last prerequisite for election mentioned suggest that Halil Rami Efendi was at least as a member of that group of provincial propertied notables enjoying large public recognition that Kemal H. Karpat describes in his discussion of the social significance of the 1877 elections.67 If it is taken into consideration that, although the Provisional Electoral Regulation 65 Cf. Δετοράκη, Ιστορία της Κρήτης, 359. 66 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 125, 145, passim. 67 Cf. Kemal H. Karpat, “The Ottoman Parliament of 1877 and its Social Significance,” in: id., Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays, (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 75-89, here 76-80. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 267 stipulated that the deputies were to be elected from the local population in general, the provincial governors often intervened in the selection of the candidates prior to the election, and that in the last instance a large number of provincial deputies were chosen from among the members of the administrative councils of their vilayet, it is possible to identify Halil Rami Efendi by consulting the contemporary Salnames. And indeed, the 1293/1876 Salname-i Vilayet-i Girid lists a Halil Efendi among the elected members of the meclis-i idare-i vilayet, which at that time assembled in Chania.68 That this Halil Efendi is indeed the same person is supported by the fact that on March 21, 187769 Halil Rami Efendi was elected along with three other deputies,70 katib-i sani (second secretary) of the Meclis-i mebusan, an office which was filled by rather highly educated deputies who already possessed a certain familiarity with administrative procedures and who were experienced in the field of public speaking.71 As one of the four second secretaries of the assembly, his duties were, according to the Internal Parliamentary Regulation, to “maintain[…] the register of deputies who had indicated a desire to speak on a certain topic, [to] edit[…] the minutes, and [to] read[…] at each sitting the minutes of the preceding sitting.”72 The minutes and summaries of the parliamentary sessions compiled in the Zabıt Ceridesi show him more than once carrying out this office.73 Unfortunately, the Zabıt Ceridesi does not contain any concrete evidence of Halil Rami Efendi’s other political activities (such as transcripts of his contributions to political debates) which would enable the reconstruction of his concrete political standings and viewpoints on certain questions. Further, due to the political developments in Crete in the aftermath of the elections, Halil Rami Efendi was not a member of parliament during the second session, so the second volume of the Zabıt Ceridesi does not provide any further material. Stephanos Nikolaides Efendi In regard to Stephanos Nikolaides Efendi, the Christian deputy, considerably more sources are available providing rather detailed insights in the deputy’s life and career. This may mainly be due to the fact that his open rejection of the parliamentary mandate in 1877 made him an object worthy of closer interest not only for contemporary European observers of the 1877 events, but also for later Greek nationalist historians – although both groups tend to focus on the wider political and 68 Salname-i Vilayet-i Girid Sene 1293, def ’a 2, (Hanya: Girid Vilayet Matba’ası, 1293 [1876]), 39. 69 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 164. 70 The other three second secretaries of the first session were: Hasan Fehmi (Istanbul), Nafi’ Efendi (Aleppo) and Sebuh Efendi (Istanbul), cf. ibid., 164. 71 Cf. Us (ed.), Meclis-i meb’usan 1293=1877 Zabıt Ceridesi, 1:24. 72 Cf. Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 164. 73 Cf. Us (ed.), Meclis-i meb’usan 1293=1877 Zabıt Ceridesi, 1:90, 105, 116, 269 and 303. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 268 social implications of the Christian reaction to the elections rather than on the individuals involved in the historical process. The sources in question consist not only of contemporary European consular reports and newspaper articles as well as, to a far lesser extent, Ottoman periodicals, but also the “Historical and Biographical Notes” (Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα) of Stephanos Nikolaides himself – a series of autobiographical notes in chronological order covering the years 1821 to 1893. These notes, although only fragmentarily preserved, have been edited by Menelaos G. Parlamas in Kretika Chronika, vol. 3 (1949), together with a short biographical introduction by the editor.74 Stephanos Nikolaides, appearing in Ottoman sources (e.g. the journal Müsavat) as İstefanos Efendi, was born in the village of Agies Paraskies (Άγιες Παρασ‐  κιές),75 located in proximity to Iraklion, in 1817.76 The son of Nikolaos Trochalakes and Adriana Nikoletakes, who was the sister of Meletios Nikoletakes, metropolite of Crete between 1830 and 183477, and of Georgios Nikoletakes, medical doctor and renowned editor of several ancient Greek manuscripts,78 Stephanos grew up both in his native village and the town of Iraklion, where he received his (primary) education during the 1820s and early 1830s.79 His family held large estates around Agies Paraskies80 and belonged to the educated and wealthy stratum of 19th century Cretan society. From the very beginning of his childhood, his uncle, member of the highly educated class of the local Orthodox clergy, fostered his education wherever possible and encouraged him to pursue his vivid interest in fine arts. Due to the political instability of those years, however, Nikolaides was 74 Cf. Μ. Γ. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα του ̃Στεφανου Νικολαϊ‐ δου,” in: Κρητικά Χρονικά 3 (1949), 293-350. The original manuscripts of Stephanos Nikolaides’ notes are preserved in the library of the Iraklion museum as codices no. 23 and 64. M. G. Parlamas refers to them as A (no. 23) and B (no. 64). No. 23 is a small booklet of 42 pages containing Nikolaides’ “Historical and Biographical Notes,” a title chosen by S. Chanthoudides, who collected the remains of the author’s belongings scattered during the Cretan revolution. While Nikolaides’ notes concerning the years 1821-1860 partly rely on oral accounts of other Cretans and chronological order is not always respected, the notes concerning the period after 1860 exclusively derive from Nikolaides’ own experiences and have been collected much more systematically. (For a more detailed description of the manuscripts cf. ibid., 293-297. In this article, Nikolaides’ notes are cited according to Parlamas’ edition. First, the number (A1 to A42 or B1 to B4) of the note in question is given followed by the page number of the edition in brackets.) 75 Today, Agies Paraskies is part of the municipality of Nikos Kazantzakis (Νίκος Καζαντζάκης) in the prefecture of Herakleion (about 900 inhabitants). 76 Since no written documents have been preserved indicating the exact birth date of Stephanos Nikolaides, we mainly rely on oral information from his father contained in his uncle’s writings. Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 298, n. 18. 77 Cf. Theocharis Detorakis, “Brief Historical Review of the Holy Archdiocese of Crete” accessible via www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/detorakis_brief_ historical_review.htm. 78 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” p. 297-298 and A25 (p. 333). 79 Cf. ibid., 298. 80 Cf. ibid., 303. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 269 unable to attend school on a regular basis, and thus had to become self taught. During this period, his uncle, the above-mentioned Meletios Nikoletakes, acted as the young boy’s teacher, introducing him not only to Ancient Greek and arithmetic, but also familiarizing him with the tradition of Byzantine sacred music.81 At the same time, he gained a certain proficiency in Turkish and began to learn French.82 Other persons temporarily involved in Stephanos Nikolaides’ education were the local teachers Gregorios Megalovrysanos and Nikolaos Parasyris.83 Around 1833, after he decided that his primary education was complete, Nikolaides devoted his further educational efforts entirely to the art of iconography, with Michael Polychronides as his first teacher.84 His vivid interest in music, painting and other fine arts (e.g. literature) was, according to his own literary selfportrait as well as to different members of his family, one of the most dominant traits of his character.85 Furthermore, Nikolaides also showed a certain interest in botany, collecting and cultivating different varieties of trees on the estate of his family.86 His self-image as a learned and cultured artist of sophisticated manners87 is very well reflected in his biographical notes, where he states that he had decided to change his family name – which he considered to be far too “ordinary” for a person of his educational rank and talent – from Trochalakes to Nikolaides, using the diminutive form of his father’s name.88 During the following years – and up until his death in May 1907 – Nikolaides made his living as an iconographer and teacher.89 Some of his works can still be seen in the churches of Agios Minas, Agios Titos and Agia Zoni in his native village.90 In his artistic work, Nikolaides tried to combine the style of traditional Orthodox iconography with contemporary European influences. Sometimes he even added an almost political dimension to his works by including certain details and scenes taken from the political life of 19th century Crete in his paintings in order to indirectly criticize certain Ottoman administrative practices.91 In other do- 81 From 1836 onwards, Nikolaides composed sacred music (e.g. his 1836 mass). Cf. ibid., 300. 82 Cf. ibid., 298-299. 83 Cf. ibid., 299-300. 84 Cf. ibid., 300 and A7, 317. 85 Cf. ibid., 300-301. 86 Cf. ibid., 303. 87 Cf. his self-portrait reproduced in: ibid., plate between pp. 304 and 305 showing him as a cultured man with dark hair, a neat moustache and fine clothing. According to other members of his family, Nikolaides belonged to “the best looking men in Iraklion” and enjoyed “high esteem among the educated circles of the town” (cf. ibid., 307). 88 Cf. ibid., 297. 89 According to contemporary Cretan observers, Nikolaides’ paintings were very popular during his lifetime and assured him a considerable income. Cf. ibid., 300. 90 Cf. Stergios Spanakis, Crete: A Guide to Travel, History and Archaeology, Iraklion [ca. 1965], 80. 91 Cf. e.g. the reproduction of Nikolaides’ painting Παρη̃λθεν η̉ σκιὰ του ̃νόμου (Arrival of the shadow of the law) in the Agios Titos church in Iraklion containing the portrayal of a © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 270 mains of interest, Nikolaides’ sympathy for certain (cultural) aspects of Greek nationalism also shows through: On his family’s estate, Nikolaides is said to have arranged the trees, which he had imported from abroad, in long rows lining paths and roads. These “avenues” he named later on after famous figures of ancient and modern Greek history.92 Despite these perhaps rather cultural than political attitudes, Nikolaides never became an active fighter for the Cretan nationalist cause. According to his own testimony, it was mostly the fact that a rebel’s life in the mountains was hard and full of privation which “prevented” him from taking an active part in the Cretan resistance movement. A certain fundamental conservatism – which he also ascribes to himself – may also have contributed to his somewhat passivist attitude and to the fact that, at various moments of his career, he even openly opposed the armed resistance of his compatriots.93 Nonetheless, Nikolaides actively took part in the political processes of the island, especially during the first half of his life. As early as the 1840s he had negotiated several times with the local Ottoman authorities on behalf of the Christian population and of several churches in the district of Iraklion.94 In September 1858 (one of the most active years of his political career), he was elected member of the local meclis-i idare95 and was sent, some days later, to Chania to represent the local council before the provincial assembly and the island’s governor.96 Both in 1856 and 1858, Nikolaides undertook extensive journeys to Istanbul and to different Greek cities in order to broaden his horizon (and, according to his autobiographical writings, to gain a broader and deeper understanding of the “Greek nation”).97 During his first journey, after having spent some time in Istanbul, he visited the cities of Athens, Izmir and Patras. In October 1856, he returned to Iraklion.98 His second journey to Istanbul as a representative of Crete lasted from November 1858 to July 1860.99 Shortly after his return to his native island, Nikolaides was elected supervisor of the Christian schools in the sancak of Iraklion, an office that he held until 1865, when İsmail Paşa (governor from May 1861 until December 1867)100 suspended him because of certain decisions he had taken in the course of the conflict between the district of Iraklion and the local member of the Muslim ulema (reproduced in Παρλαμα:̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” plates between pp. 296 and 297). 92 Cf. ibid., 303. He is furthermore said to have imported different varieties of trees (up to that time unknown on the island) to Crete. 93 Cf. his own statements regarding his character in: ibid, p. 304 and A11 and A12, 320-321. 94 Cf. ibid., 302. These political actions seem to have contributed to his popularity among the local Christian population (cf. ibid., 302) who – after he had been arrested in May 1845 – liberated him from prison (cf. ibid., 302). 95 Cf. ibid., 303. 96 Cf. ibid., 303. 97 Cf. ibid., 302 and A7, 316-317. 98 Cf. ibid., p. 302 and A7, 316-317. 99 Cf. ibid., p. 303 and A9, 318-319. 100 Cf. Sinan Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali, 31. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 271 Orthodox monasteries regarding the distribution of revenues in the educational sector.101 As official reason for Nikolaides’ disposal, the Ottoman administration emphasized the fact that he was still unmarried and therefore not fit for such a high-ranking office. Nikolaides, despite his close relationship to religious and clerical circles, had supported the local administration against the claims of the Orthodox monasteries, a conflict which finally culminated in the dissolution of the local administrative council.102 Nonetheless, Nikolaides had to leave the island in the aftermath of the 1865 events to avoid further prosecution. He took refuge first in Istanbul, then in various Greek cities such as Athens. He returned to Crete only on June 16, 1869103 after the insurrections had come to an end. The most evident sign of open resistance to the Ottoman administration of the island in Nikolaides’ career is certainly the fact that he refused to accept his mandate as representative of the island in the 1877 Meclis-i mebusan. The precise circumstances under which he refused his election, however, are somehow unclear. At least, different accounts of the incident exist, each of which differently evaluates the role patriotic feelings and nationalist adherences played in Nikolaides’ decision: While the correspondence of Thomas Backhouse Sandwith dated March 1877 (one of the more detailed sources on the events in question) suggests that Nikolaides resigned under the immense pressure of Cretan nationalist circles rather than out of his own conviction, other sources, such as a pamphlet distributed by Greek nationalists in the streets of Athens and some Cretan towns a few days after the elections, depict him as a more passionate fighter for Cretan independence and claim that he voluntarily chose not to accept his mandate out of national consciousness. This last version corresponds to the image later Greek nationalist historiography has preserved of Stefanos Nikolaides. The fact is that Nikolaides was made candidate of the non-Muslim population of the island by the provincial governor at the end of January/beginning of February 1877.104 Sandwith’s report dated March 31, 1877 contains the text of a protest made by the islanders in which not only the six (seven) Christian members of the administrative councils who voted in the election are depicted as traitors of the national cause, but in which the protesters openly express their hope that the “deputy, so illegally chosen”105 would refuse his mandate106 – a decision obviously not yet made by the elected candidate. The mere fact that Cretan national- 101 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 302 and 304 and A11 and A12, 320-321. 102 Cf. ibid., 304-305 and A11 and A12, 320-321. 103 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 305. 104 Cf. ibid., p. 305. 105 Sandwith to Derby, March 31, 1877 in: Great Britain, House of Commons: Accounts and Papers 91 (1877): Turkey no. 25 (1877): Further Correspondence Respecting the Affaires of Turkey, 15-16. 106 ibid., p. 15-16. Extracts from the protest made by the Christian Cretans have also been published in: Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 130, n. 18. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 272 ists still had to “express their hope” may hint at the fact that Nikolaides was not an entirely convinced partisan of “national liberation” or, as the autobiographical sources suggest, that he put his trust in other forms of “resistance” rather than in open and armed rebellion. In slight contrast to this description stands the “Protest made by the Greeks of Heraclion in Crete”107 published in the March 31, 1877 issue of The Times. According this report, the protesters’ manifesto was sold in the streets of Athens the weeks following the elections. Although its authenticity can be contested (the correspondent himself suggests that it was “an Athenian fiction”), the mere fact that it provides us with a (slightly) different perspective on Stephanos Nikolaides’ motives makes it worth being taken into consideration. The passage concerned with the Cretan deputies runs as follows: “[…] But our just remonstrances were not attended to, and two Deputies were elected – namely, Haleel Effendi, of Canea, and Stephanos Nikolaides, a Christian, of Heracleion, who, as he has formerly shown sufficient proofs of sincere patriotism, will not, we believe, accept an honour by which the freedom of his Fatherland is destroyed.”108 Although the pamphlet’s authors could obviously not yet be sure of Nikolaides’ final decision in regard to his mandate, they mention nonetheless certain “proofs of sincere patriotism” and, by this means, construct an undefined nimbus of national consciousness around “their” unwanted candidate. Finally, the August 7, 1908 issue of the Cretan newspaper Elpis published – in memory of Nikolaides’ death – a reproduction both of the Ottoman administration’s telegram to Stephanos Nikolaides informing him of his election, as well as a copy of his response to the island’s governor.109 The official letter dated February 28, 1877110 and addressed to Stephanos Nikolaides Efendi, not only informs its recipient that he had obtained a clear majority in the ballot, but also that he was supposed to travel first to Chania for a preparatory meeting with the provincial governor, then to Istanbul to take his seat in the new parliament. All travel expenditures, the telegram further states, would be covered by the provincial government in order to ensure the deputy’s immediate departure.111 Nikolaides’ response – suspiciously short and dry – is undated, but clearly expresses his feeling that he could not accept a mandate entrusted to him against the will of the ma- 107 The Times (London), March 31, 1877, 7. 108 ibid., 7. 109 Cf. Έλπὶς no. 193, August 7, 1908. Also given in: Παρλαμα:̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 306. 110 The date of this letter only seemingly contradicts Devereux’s dating of the Cretan elections (March 10, 1877), since the telegram to Nikolaides in its Greek version is dated according to the Julian calendar. A conversion of the Julian date (February 28, 1877) results in the Gregorian date March 12, 1877. 111 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 306. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ON CRETE 273 jority of his compatriots.112 Yet his answer lacks all sign of passion and displays throughout a conspicuously sober tone. It may therefore be possible that Sandwith’s vision of the candidate’s refusal is to be preferred when it comes time to deciding to what extent Nikolaides was motivated by “sincere patriotic feelings.” Especially if the autobiographical evidence of Nikolaides’ political strategies and his general conservative attitude combined with his “respect for the law” are taken into consideration, it may be concluded that – at least – his decisions cannot simply be reduced to patriotic resistance. In the years following the Cretan insurrection of 1878, Stephanos Nikolaides did not take part anymore in the political affairs of the island as he had before.113 Becoming a follower of the conservative Karavanades-party,114 he concentrated from now on mainly on his artistic work.115 In 1897 he fled the island once more and took refuge in Greece during the Cretan revolution. On his return, he found his house and estate destroyed, his large collection of manuscripts and books scattered.116 On May 23, 1907, Stephanos Nikolaides died in Iraklion at the age of 90.117 Conclusion As has been shown above, the 1877 parliamentary elections on Crete were held in an extremely tense and unstable atmosphere. It was mainly the clear and fundamental rejection of the parliamentary elections by the local Greek population which posed major problems to the Ottoman administration on the island. It is therefore not surprising that the Sublime Porte’s reaction to the Cretans’ rejection of the ballot was exceptionally strong. Nonetheless, a closer look at the events of February/March 1877 also shows that things were much more complicated than the established historical narratives of the events suggest. Notably, the role of the elected Christian deputy seems to have been a rather ambivalent one. Nominated – despite the already existing tensions and certainly not without reason – by the 112 The Greek text of his rejection as given in Έλπὶς no. 193 (August 7, 1908) and runs as follows: “Σεβαστὴν Νομαρχίαν Κρήτης – Χανιά. Ελαβον ε̉πίσημον τηλεγράφημα περὶ ε̉κλογη̃ς μου ώς βουλευτου ̃ Κρήτης. Λυπου̃μαι μὴ δυνάμενος α̉ποδεχθη̃ναι τὴν ε̉κλογὴν ταύτην, ὴ̉ν απ̉εποιήθησαν ε̉κ των̃ προτέρων οι ̉ χριστιανοὶ συμπατριωτ̃αι μου διὰ λόγους τοὺς ο̉ποιὸυς πληρέστατα συμμερίζομαι. Διατελω ̃ μετὰ του ̃ προσήκοντος σεβασμου ̃– Στέφανος Νικολαΐδης.” 113 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 309. 114 Cf. Kallivretakis, “A Century of Revolutions,” 25 passim. His affiliation with the Karavanades group, a political faction rather composed of those influential circles of society profiting from the status quo, suggests once again that Nikolaides certainly was not a militant partisan of subversive nationalist movements. 115 Cf. Παρλαμα,̃ “Ίστορικὰ καὶ βιογραφικὰ σημειώματα,” 309-310. 116 Cf. ibid., 309-310. 117 Cf. ibid., 311. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN 274 island’s Ottoman governor, Stephanos Nikolaides apparently was not a passionate adherent to the local population’s revolutionary ideas and the armed resistance movements. As a member of a propertied, educated and rather influential local family and already disposing of certain administrative skills acquired while holding different official posts within the provincial administration, the profile of Stephanos Nikolaides corresponds to a large extent to the general set of characteristics established by Kemal H. Karpat in his study on the social implications of the 1877 elections and confirmed by other case studies in this volume. Furthermore, Nikolaides, who entertained close relations to Orthodox clerical circles as well, represented a group among the local notables not primarily interested in a total restructuring of the island’s political status and administrative structure. These political viewpoints equally fit into the general picture of the first Ottoman parliamentary deputies, who to a large extent were nominated by members of the local administration (if not by the provincial governor himself), who had no great interest in the election of truly “independent” candidates (although, as can be stated, many deputies later on proved to be much more independent than expected). In any case, the vision that Cretan nationalist historians have developed of Nikolaides as a passionate fighter for Cretan independence must be at least partly revised. Although the available biographical and autobiographical material has been able to establish a rather detailed picture of the non-Muslim deputy, almost no valuable information could be retrieved regarding Halil Rami Efendi, who represented the Cretan Muslims during the first session of the Ottoman parliament in 1877. This illustrates once more the fundamental difficulties faced by researchers in the field of Ottoman biography and the extent to which Ottoman biographical and prosopographical research remains a veritable Sisyphean task, often rewarded with only modest success. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Some Notes about the Members of Parliament from the Province of Baghdad Christoph Herzog In 1877 the region of today’s Iraq was administratively speaking divided into two vilayets, that of Baghdad and that of Basra, which had been detached from the province of Baghdad in 1875, while Mosul remained a sancak of Baghdad until 1879.1 The vilayet of Baghdad in 1877 consisted of seven sancaks2, which, as in the other provinces, were forming the constituencies for the parliamentary election. The French consul in Baghdad who in 1877 wrote an report about the election in the province claimed that the enthusiasm for the constitution was rather limited in Baghdad as most people would fail to understand its meaning and its implications, so that the Ottoman governor Abdürrahman Nureddin Paşa was confronted with difficulties in finding suitable men willing to do the job. The French consul’s report also hinted that it was the governor of the province rather than the provincial meclis who had the most important share in determining the outcome of the election.3 While the vilayet of Baghdad, however, finally sent three deputies, the vilayet of Basra did not. The reason for this irregularity may be that Basra was not really considered a vilayet but something of a special case.4 As a matter of fact, since the Ottoman military expedition to East Arabia under the governorship of Midhat in 1871, the sancaks of Ḥasā, Naǧd – at least nominally – formed part of the imperial domains.5 Another reason for the non-representation of the province of Basra in the Ottoman parliament might be found in the fact that in addition to being largely a tribal area this province was predominantly Shiite. Neither Ottoman infrastructural power nor Ottoman legitimacy effectively extended to this area, which remained to form a sort of an annex to the empire. 1 Cf. Christoph Herzog, "Osmanische Herrschaft und Modernisierung im Irak", unpubl. Habilitation thesis (Univ. of Heidelberg, 2004), 44-45. 2 These sancaks were Mosul, Sulaymāniyya, Shahrizūr, Baghdad, Ḥilla, ʿAmāra and Karbalā. 3 Archive Diplomatique de Nantes (ADN), Bagdad (consulat) A 46, no. 75, March 31, 1877, Destrées to de Mouy . 4 The terminology in the Ottoman imperial almanacs nos. 31 of 1291H and 32 (1292H) used in the description of the status of the province of Basra is different from that used for other provinces. 5 Cf. Frederick F. Anscombe, The Ottoman Gulf. The Creation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) and Zekeriya Kurşun, Necid ve Ahsa’da Osmanlı Hâkimiyeti. Vehhabî Hareketi ve Suud Devleti’nin Ortaya Çıkışı (Ankara: TTK, 1998 ). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CHRISTOPH HERZOG 276 All deputies from the province of Baghdad were of some local standing. Their social status might be meaningfully described using the well-known concept of notables.6 They were landowners and/or tax-farmers and local bureaucrats occupying seats in the newly established local Ottoman Tanzimat assemblies and courts. Thus, they had both knowledge about at least certain aspects of the functioning and a certain closeness to the Ottoman imperial administration. They were not theologians (ulema or rabbis). The Muslims among them were Sunnis, the Shiite element not being represented. In contrast to the Jewish community, Christians were demographically unimportant in Baghdad and its vicinities. Menahim Salih Efendi Menāḥīm b. Ṣāliḥ Dānyāl, in Ottoman sources simply named Menahim Salih Efendi, was born in Baghdad in 1846, the offspring of a wealthy Jewish family. The Dānyāl family belonged to the most prominent Jewish families of Baghdad.7 Obviously he received an excellent education including the study of Turkish at the hands of private teachers. At a rather young age he was appointed member of the meclis-i idare of the province in 1869 before he became an elected member of the Ottoman parliament and was sent off to Istanbul. Following the dissolution of the chamber in 1878, he extensively travelled in Europe and returned to Baghdad only in 1880. A second journey to Europe, probably via Anatolia, started in 1904. This time his journey lasted four years. After his return he tried to introduce modern agrarian technology to his estates in the Ḥilla district. Menahim Salih Efendi was one of the founders of the Red Crescent in Iraq and became its vice president. In 1910 be built a kindergarten and a primary school in Baghdad, which bore his name and were financed by endowments. Both existed until being nationalized by the Iraqi government in 1976. In 1928 he also sponsored the building of an orphanage for Muslim children, receiving praise for that act from the famous Iraqi poet Maʿrūf ar-Ruṣāfī. In 1924 he became a deputy for Baghdad in the constitutional assembly but resigned after a short period. After that he was appointed member of the senate (majlis al-aʿyān) in July 1925. He held this position until he retired in 1932 because of his old age and his ill health. He died in 19408 and was buried in prox- 6 Hourani, Albert, “Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables,” in Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, ed. W.R. Polk and R.L. Chambers (Chicago 1968), 41-65 and Philip S. Khoury, “The Urban Notables Paradigm Revisited,” Revue du Monde Musulman et du Méditerannée, 55-56 (1990), 215-228. 7 Elie Kedourie, “The Jews of Babylon and Baghdad,” in Sylvia Kedourie (ed.), Elie Kedourie, CBE, FBA 1926-1992. History, Philosophy, Politics (London: Frank Cass, 1998), 15. 8 Mīr Başrī, Aʿlām al-Yahūd fī l-ʿIrāq al-ḥadīth (Jerusalem 1983), 25-29. Photographs of him in Yūsuf Rizqallāh Ġanīma, Nuzhat al-mushtāq fī taʾrīkh Yahūd al-ʿIrāq. Maʿa mulḥaq bi-tārīkh Yahūd al-ʿIrāq fī l-qarn al-ʿashrīn bi-qalam Mīr Baṣrī, 2nd. ed. (London: Al-Warrak, 1997), 199 and 272. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SOME NOTES ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 277 imity to the sepulchre of Ezekiel in Kifl near Ḥilla. The family had been the guardians of the sepulchre.9 It would appear that Menahim Salih Efendi was the son of a leading Baghdadi Jewish merchant family with strong international connections. His father had already travelled to Europe. There is evidence that they took sides in one of the communal struggles which divided the Jewish community of Baghdad at the end of the 19th century.10 Given their obviously close European contacts, one may speculate that on the ideological level of these intra-communal struggles the Dānyāls rather did not side with the traditionalists. Members of the family (probably his father and uncle) had played a prominent role in large scale tax-farming earlier in the century.11 The family owned large estates in the region of Ḥilla.12 Menahim Efendi himself has been said to have had close relations to the Ottoman Governor.13 Perhaps owing to his comparatively young age, Menahim Efendi belonged to the less active members of parliament. In the minutes of the parliamentary debates offered to us by Hakkı Tarik Us, there is only cursory evidence of his presence.14 Şerifzade Abdürrahman Vasfı Bey ʿAbdarraḥmān Waṣfī Āl Sharīf, called Şerifzade Abdürrahman Vasfı Bey in Ottoman Turkish sources, originated from Mosul, where he was born in 1247H (beg. June 12, 1831).15 Besides Arabic and Turkish, he knew Persian and Kurdish. At the age of 21 he held his first government post in the muhasebe kalemi in Mosul from which he drew an income of 400 kuruş. In 1856 he became an unpaid member of the meclis-i kebir in Mosul. The following year he was transferred to the meclis-i tedkik. A year later we find him as a director of the kaza of Zībār that formed part of the central sancak of the province of Mosul, and then as arazi memuru in Shahrizūr. Consequently he became kaimmakam of the Hindiyya district at the Euphra- 9 Kedourie, “The Jews,” 15. 10 David S. Sassoon, History of the Jews in Bagdad (New York: AMS Press, 1982), 159. 11 ADN, Constantinople D (Bagdad 1859-1868), no. 132, October 12, 1859, Tastu to Thouvenel. 12 Kedourie, “The Jews,” 15. 13 ʿAlī Āl Bāzargān, Al-waqāʾiʿ al-ḥaqīqiyya fī th-thawra al-ʿirāqiyya (Bagdad: Maṭbaʿat Asʿad, 1954), 23. 14 Hakkı Tarık Us (ed.), Meclis-i Mebusan 1293 Zabıt Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakıt Matbaası, 1940-1954), 2:48 for his only two words I was able to find in the records compiled by H.T. Us. 15 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:415, “Düzeltmeler ve ilâveler” and ʿAbbās al-ʿAzzāwī, Tārīkh al- ʿIrāq bayn iḥtilālayn, 8 vols. (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat Baġdād, 1935-1956), 8:33. For most of the following see his sicill in the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Istanbul [henceforth BOA], DH.SAİD 3.584. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CHRISTOPH HERZOG 278 tes, vice mutasarrıf of the Muntafiq sancak, acting mutasarrıf in Shahrizūr, and several times kaimmakam of the district of Samāwa in Iraq until on February 13, 1876 he was appointed to the court of appeal (mahkeme-i temyiz) in Baghdad.16 Obviously Abdürrahman Efendi was present in the parliament’s first session only while in the second session he was replaced by Rifʿat Bey.17 Abdürrahman Bey was an active but not overly frequent contributor to the debates of the parliament’s first session, where he made three more elaborate contributions, all of them referring to Iraq.18 After his mission as a representative to the parliament in Istanbul had ended, he acted as president of the criminal section (ceza dairesi) of the bidayet mahkemesi in Kirkūk and later was appointed kaimmakam of the ʿAmāra district in Iraq. He died on July 25, 1885. He came from a family of some local standing; his son, Ḍiyāʾ Āl Sharīf, later became a member of parliament in independent Iraq.19 Rifʿat Bey Rifʿat Bey was born in Baghdad in July or August 1833.20 He was the son of Aḥmad Ağa, the founder of the house of Shawkat, former commander of the Janissaries in Baghdad, and grandfather of Nāǧī Shawkat, who from November 1932 to March 1933 was prime minister of Iraq. The family was of Circassian origin descending from the leading Mamluk elite in Baghdad and belonging to, as the eminent historian of modern Iraq, Hanna Batatu, put it, a “class of upper bureaucrat-landowners.”21 Rifʿat Bey went to a traditional boys’ school (sıbyan mektebi) in Baghdad. It may be assumed that he also received private tuition, although this is not mentioned in his sicill, which states that he had reading and writing abilities in Arabic, Persian and Turkish. In the second half of 1858, at 26 years of age he became an unpaid member of the meclis-i tahkik in the province of Baghdad. Nearly ten years had to pass until in 1285H (beg. April 4, 1268), he was appointed member of the criminal court, receiving one thousand kuruş a month. A little later he became kaimmakam of the Qūrna kaza at the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, a post that paid 3,500 kuruş. During Midhat Paşa’s governorship in Iraq he took part in the military campaign in Eastern Arabia and became vice mutasarrıf 16 See also ADN, Bagdad (consulat) A 46, no. 75, March 31, 1877, Destrées to de Mouy . 17 Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), 261 and 269 and Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:415 (“Düzeltmeler ve ilâveler”). 18 Cf. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:176-177, 210, 344-345. 19 ʿAbbās al-ʿAzzāwī, Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq bayn iḥtilālayn (Bagdad: Maṭbaʿat Baġdād, 1935-1956), 8:33. 20 Cf. his sicill in BOA: DH.SAİD 10/493 and Al-ʿAzzāwī, Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 8:138. 21 Batatu, Hanna, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq. A Study of Iraq’s Old Landed and Commercial Classes and of its Communists, Baʿthists, and Free Officers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 181. See also ibid, 213. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SOME NOTES ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 279 (mutasarrıf muavini) of the newly founded sancak (or liva) of Necd (Najd), which gave him an income of 5,000 kuruş. However, in March or April of 1873 he resigned from this post and consequently became kaimmakam first of the district of Arbīl and later of that of Jāf in northern Iraq, which reduced his salary to 2,500 and 3,500 kuruş respectively. He resigned from the latter post as well. In 1877 he was given the task of inspecting several fortresses the Iranians had built close to the border of the kazas of Kūt al-Amāra and Mandalī. After that he was elected to the second session of the Ottoman parliament, a post which was remunerated with 5,000 kuruş. After the dissolution of the parliament, he first became kaimmakam in Yanbūʿ al-Baḥr in the province of Hijaz (earning now merely 2,500 kuruş) before becoming mutasarrıf of the central sancak of the same province. This time his income was increased again to 5,000 kuruş. But in spring 1882 this assignment was ended, and he had to wait almost a year before being given the post of kaimmakam for 2,500 kuruş in October 1883 in Khurasān, which belonged to the province of Baghdad. It seems that at this point he was dismissed from office and brought to court because of his conduct during some of his official appointments. Only in February 1887 was he reinstalled as kaimmakam, this time in Dulaym for 2,500 kuruş but was dismissed only a year later and subsequently became kaimmakam in Shāmiyya. In 1892 he was appointed mutasarrıf of the sancak of ʿAmāra. His salary was once again set for at 5,000 kuruş. However, not long after this appointment he again resigned on October 21, 1893. After that time he does not seem to have held another official appointment.22 Rifʿat Bey died on April 17, 1900 after a prolonged illness.23 Abdürrezzak Efendi Shaykh ʿAbdarrazzāq ash-Shaykh Qādir was a member of the Baghdadi ash- Shaykh Qādir family. In the Ottoman sources he is simply named Abdürrezzak Efendi.24 The family’s founding father, ash-Shaykh Qādir (d. 1278H, beg. July 9, 1861) is said to have been of Kurdish origin and to have been affiliated with the highly influential Qādiriyya in Baghdad.25 His son Şaykh ʿAbdarrazzāq is reported to have been a member of the local temyiz mahkemesi.26 After his return from Istanbul following the dissolution of the 22 BOA: DH.SAİD 10/493. 23 Al-ʿAzzāwī, Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 8:138. 24 Cf. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:16. 25 Ibrāhīm ad-Durūbī, Al-Baġdādiyyūn. Akhbāruhum wa maǧālisuhum (Bagdad: Rābiṭa, 1958), 192. 26 ADN: Bagdad (consulat) A 46, no. 75, March 31, 1877, Destrées to de Mouy. This would appear to be consistent with the information given in Bağdad salnamesi 1 (1292H), 58 where one Abdürrezzak Efendi is mentioned as member of the divan-i temyiz-i vilayet. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CHRISTOPH HERZOG 280 parliament he became mayor of the second district’s municipality of Baghdad27 in 1296H (beg. December 26, 1878), a post he held until his death in 1312H (beg. July 5, 1894).28 Obviously he was a landowner or rather a holder of tax farms.29 Abdürrezzak seems to have been one of the more frequent contributors to the parliamentary debates, especially during the second session. However, his contributions then were mostly concerned with formal issues concerning the procedure or parliamentary work. He regularly admonished his colleagues not to waste too much time with fruitless discussion and made proposals for more efficient parliamentary work. Thus, he criticized that it took the parliament several sittings to formulate its response to the opening address of the sultan while the country was in a desperate war with Russia.30 No information could be obtained about the size and importance of Abdürrezak’s tax-farming business. We might, however, consult the table listing the donations by members of parliament for the refugees of the war against Russia31 to get an, admittedly very tentative idea of the relative level of wealth held by the various members of parliament. In doing so, we assume that the members had an approximate idea of the wealth and status of their colleagues and felt obliged – within certain limits – to correspond to this scale when determining their own contribution. Inferring from the rather average amount of his donation (600 kuruş), one might assume that Abdürrezzak was not one of the top-income contractors. Thus, it would appear that Abdürrezzak was an interesting example of the "notables-concept," even if he clearly was not one of the top notables in Baghdad either in terms of wealth or in terms of power or prestige. His father must have been a newcomer to the city. It can be safely assumed that his adherence to the mighty Qadiriyya order – which we may also suppose for his son – helped him greatly to advance his affairs in Baghdad. Under these circumstances the assumption would not appear too far-fetched that Abdürrezzak Efendi’s election for parliament was on the ticket of the head of the order, the naqīb of Baghdad, who traditionally was one of the most influential men in the city. Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi Mention should finally be made of the member of the meclis-i ayan, Muḥammad Amīn az-Zand, who is referred to in Ottoman sources as Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin 27 Al-ʿAzzāwī, Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 8:45; Bağdad salnamesi 4 (1300H), 114. 28 Ad-Durūbī: Al-Baġdādiyyūn, 193. 29 Cf. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:338, where he alludes to his “having quite an amount of corn in the fields” in the province of Baghdad. 30 Cf. Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:54-59. 31 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 2:154f. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SOME NOTES ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 281 Efendi.32 He was born on May 4, 1819 in Baghdad into a family of originally tribal origins that had settled in the city already in the first half of the 18th century. Mehmed Emin received a religious education from local ulema. At the age of 28 he became naib at the court in Baghdad and later in addition a member of the meclis-i kebir-i eyalet. He then succeeded33 the famous Abū l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd Shihābaddīn al-Ālūsī as the mufti of Baghdad, a post he held until 1855. During the second governorship of Mehmed Namık Paşa (1862-1868) in Baghdad, he became kahya, an office that he held – with a short interruption – for five years. In 1868 he was called to Istanbul to become a member of the şura-yi devlet. It would not seem improbable that he was a protégé of Namık Paşa, who around the same time was recalled to Istanbul to become serasker. Henceforth Mehmed Emin’s career unfolded in Istanbul. While proceeding in the hierarchy of İlmiyye degrees to that of İstanbul payesi in 1876, he became a member in numerous commissions, one of them being the drafting commission of the famous Mecelle. In March 1877 he became an appointed member of the Ottoman senate, where he worked for six months as a member of the Teşkil-i vilayet komisyonu. Later he was a member of the İntihab-i memurin komisyonu. After the dissolution of the parliament he obviously held no further official appointment but remained in Istanbul. Finally, four months before his death on February 14, 1892, he received the İlmiyye title of Anadolu kazaskerliği. An Example of Local Engagement in Parliament: the Proposal For the Reform of Taxes in Iraq by Abdürrahman Efendi During the first session of the parliament at one of the meetings in early June 1877, the deputy from Baghdad Abdürrahman Efendi demanded the forming of a commission whose task it would have been to work out a proposal for the reorganisation of the whole taxation system in Iraq (hıtta-i Irakiyye).34 The proposal that was printed in the newspaper Basiret was made the context of the chamber’s deliberations on a forced loan that was recommended by a special committee of the chamber as the best means to cover additional war expenses.35 Abdürrahman Efendi was not only highly critical of the forced loan, which he regarded as a “second tax,” but also of the overall performance of the Ottoman administration concerning taxation in Iraq. He pointed out that except in the regions of Mosul, Kirkūk and Sulaymāniyya not all land in Iraq was originally of 32 The following factual information is based on the article by Ali Birinci, “Mecelle Cemiyeti Âzasından Bağdatlı Mehmed Emin Efendi,” in id., Tarihin Gölgesinde. Meşâhir-i Meçhûleden Birkaç Zât (Istanbul: Dergâh, 2001), 13-16. 33 Al-ʿAzzāwī: Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 7:286. 34 Us, Meclis-i Mebusan, 1:344-346. 35 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 205. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CHRISTOPH HERZOG 282 the miri-type. Large tracts of land had remained in the hands of the original owners after the Muslim conquest of the country. However, over the course of time, many of these landowners had died without heirs, and their land therefore had been transferred to the state. This kind of land was called haraciyye, said Abdürrahman Efendi, and it was farmed out at very different rates. As this land was farmed out on a yearly term, Abdürrahman Efendi insisted that it was to be determined whether the former or the current tenant was liable for the forced loan. In either case the amount of the loan should be specified in a just manner. It was true, he continued, that in recent years some of the land of the haraciyye type had been transferred to property by issuing title deeds. But although this should have meant that the land now came under the tithing obligation, in reality it was still taxed differently according to its fertility and water supply. Here again, Abdürrahman Efendi was rather skeptical about the lawful and just applicability of a forced loan if its amount did not take into account the difference in taxation. He saw more unresolved problems in the financial treatment of pious foundations and of the urban population who made their livelihood from trade and commerce. Concerning the administrative districts of Mosul, Kirkūk and Sulaimaniyya, he somewhat vaguely but unmistakably declared that through “the tyranny of the influential and the indecision of the government” taxation was targeting exclusively the poor, who were therefore unable to cover even their most basic needs. In addition, the taxation of date growing in Baghdad and its adjoining districts was generally excessive and unjust. Under the prevailing conditions, Abdürrahman Efendi seemed to suggest, it was impossible to raise a forced loan in Iraq without a fundamental reorganization of taxation in the country. To achieve this end, he demanded the installation of a commission. He included the names of its members in his proposal. Not surprisingly all of his recommendations had close relations with the province of Baghdad: Mehmed Namık Paşa, currently a member of the Ottoman Senate, had been there as vali twice from 1851 to 1852 and from 1862 to 1868. He was to preside over the commission. Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi, another member of the Senate, had been in Istanbul only for a couple of years. Mansur Paşa (d. 1883) from the Saʿdūn family, now a member of the şura-yi devlet, was a former shaykh of the Muntafiqconfederation on the lower Euphrates who had been sponsored by Midhat Paşa.36 İbrahim Fasih Efendi (1820/21 – December 16, 1882)37 at that time was a member 36 Al-ʿAzzāwī: Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 8:78; ADN: Bagdad (consulat) A 45, no. 12, December 15, 1872, to Comte Vogué; Mehmed Süreyya: Sicill-i Osmanî, ed. Nuri Akbayar. 6 vols (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1996), 931. The more well-known Saʿdūn shaykh who was member of the şura-i devlet was Nasır Paşa; on him cf. ibid, 1228. 37 On him cf. Yūnus ash-Shaykh Ibrāhīm as-Sāmarrāʾī, Tārīkh ʿulamāʾ Baghdād fī’l-qarn arrābiʿ ʿashar al-hidjrī. (Baghdad: Maṭbaʿat wizārat al-awqāf wa shuʾūn ad-dīniyya, 1978 / 1398), 11-13. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul SOME NOTES ABOUT THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 283 of the meclis-i maarif and belonged to the famous Ḥaydarī-family in Baghdad, while Derviş Efendi had been the former accountant of the endowments (evkaf muhasebeci) in Baghdad and was currently like Mansur Paşa a member of the şura-yi devlet. Finally Abdürrahman Efendi proposed that his two colleagues Abdürrahman and Menahim Efendi (modestly omitting himself) should act as the representatives of the chamber in the commission. The commission itself was to prepare a sort of memorandum that would form the basis of further legislative deliberations. As still little is known about late Ottoman prosopography, it is impossible to tell the exact political implications the personal composition of that commission may have had. Namık Paşa is known to have been a tough, emphatically conservative and authoritarian but thoroughly honest administrator who was little loved in Europe but generally highly respected by the Ottoman political elite. Mansur Paşa, on the other hand, had caused the Ottoman administration considerable trouble by repeatedly rebelling against the governor in Baghdad. He was at once a prominent victim and beneficiary of the Ottoman politics of divide-and-rule in Iraqi tribal affairs. It is interesting to note that Namık Paşa and Mansur Paşa had in fact clashed in May 1864, when the former unseated the latter from the shaykhhood of the Muntafiqs.38 Only in 1866 was Mansur granted an amnesty by Namık Paşa and was able to return to Baghdad.39 We must not, however, assume that Mansur was a tribal warrior, unacquainted with the more subtle and bureaucratically working Ottoman provincial administration. As he had been a member of the meclis-i idare in Baghdad40, he had sufficient insight into the intricacy of Ottoman provincial policies at the time of the Tanzimat. Nevertheless, a proposal arranging for Mansur and Namık Paşas to sit in one and the same commission on tax reform in the province of Baghdad would have brought together two basically different types of pashas, embodying and representing in their very personal history the Ottoman centre and periphery. Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi on the other hand was a member of the drafting commission of the Mecelle, reputed for his intimate knowledge of religious law.41 Fasih Efendi, who was to be the other ʿālim in the commission, may have been somewhat more controversial.42 All in all the focus of the proposal was undoubtedly on a purely local reform of taxation based on the local knowledge of local notables who had become officials of the central Ottoman administration yet including at its head a prominent figure with local knowledge but without any indigenous roots. While it is not clear how Abdürrahman Efendi’s proposal was received in the chamber, serious 38 Al-ʿAzzāwī: Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 7:143-149. For the resulting military action cf. PRO: FO 195/803A, no. 25, May 4, 1864, Kemball to Erskine. 39 PRO: FO 195/803A, no. 26, June 27, 1866, Kemball to Lyons. 40 Al-ʿAzzāwī: Tārīkh al-ʿIrāq, 7:143. 41 Birinci, “Mecelle Cemiyeti Âzasından,” 15. 42 Cf. the judgement made by Mehmed Süreyya, Sicill-i osmani yahud tezkere-i meşahir-i osmaniyye. 4 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i amire, 1308-1311), 4: 21. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul CHRISTOPH HERZOG 284 administrative reform achieved some prominence on the agenda of the early Hamidian regime even after the dissolution of the parliament, before apparently falling into oblivion for two and a half decades.43 43 Cf. Gökhan Çetinsaya, Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1890-1908 (London – New York: Routledge, 2006), 24-48. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A Portrait of Syrian Deputies in the First Ottoman Parliament Malek Sharif “The discussions upon these points [the internal organisation of the parliament] have been conducted with considerable ability and animation; and several of the Arabian and Syrian Delegates have been conspicuous for the energy they have displayed in opposing any measure of the government which appeared to them an infringement of Parliamentary privilege.”1 The following article attempts a prosopographical study of seven “Arabian-Syrian” delegates described by the British ambassador Nassau Jocelyn as energetic in defending the privileges of the parliament. The prosopographical portraits are presented in the first part of this article. Sicill-i ahval entries, the official biographies of Ottoman bureaucrats kept and updated at the Ministry of the Interior, constitute a major source of information for this first part. They are complemented with biographies and available studies on these parliamentarians. The seven deputies under study in this article are a selection of those who represented Syria in the two sessions of the first Ottoman parliament. They shared a common trait in that they all came from middle and upper stratum families of an urban background, were especially interested in urban developments, and served in the local administration.2 Two of them were mayors, Yusuf Diya’ al-Khalidi and Manuk Karaca were mayors of Jerusalem and Aleppo respectively. Husain Beyhum and ʿAbd al-Rahim Badran were members of the municipal counsel of Beirut. Niqula al-Naqqash and Niqula Nawfal were especially interested in the efficacy and feasibility of implementing the municipal law in the provincial cities. Husni Baqi established a number of urban amenities in Iskenderun, Haifa and Antakya, for example, and he commissioned statistical information on two of these cities. In order to keep this article within a reasonable scope and size, the parliamentary debates of Husain Beyhum and Niqula al-Naqqash only will be utilised as an example for this group. Their repeated attempts to amend the draft municipal law are examined. A selective interpretation of the parliamentary proceedings constitutes the second part of this article. An edited version of the parliamentary debates has been published in the official gazette of the Ottoman Empire (Takvim-i vekayi). The contributions of the members of the lower house of parliament (meclis-i meb’usan), who discussed and tried to amend a number of draft laws, shed 1 Public Record Office, London, henceforth PRO, PRO/FO 424/51, p. 57. In a letter dated April 3, 1877, from the British ambassador in Istanbul Nassau Jocelyn to the Earl of Derby. 2 For a study on urban administration in the Ottoman provinces, see: Malek Sharif, Imperial Norms and Local Realities (Hamburg: EB-Verlag, 2010). © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 286 some light on their political views, aspirations and perspectives. The reports in Takvim-i vekayi were meticulously compiled by Hakki Tarik Us and published in two volumes in 1939 and 1953. However, how reliable is this source? It seems that a certain measure of caution while using it is necessary. For it presents us with two problems: First, we are certain that some deputies in the second parliamentary session protested that their contributions to the debates were not honestly reported in it.3 Second, the names of some deputies were, most probably, deliberately ignored, and the paper reported their discussions under “bir meb‘us” or “bir meb‘us didi.” But it is also certain that we cannot afford to dismiss this published material as being totally dishonest and irrelevant. For in spite of its limitations and the doctoring inflicted on some of its substance, it does still provide us, to our pleasant surprise, with some of the most critical voices in the debates, which were not edited out, as one would have expected. Due to the paucity of material on the meclis-i meb‘usan and on the legal process in the Ottoman Empire, this source remains very important and informative concerning the parliament, the parliamentarians, legal thinking, intellectual history and the negotiation of power in 1876-1878. Niqula al-Naqqash The Beiruti Niqula al-Naqqash served as a representative of Syria in the two sessions of the first Ottoman parliament. His biography stands as an example for the politically engaged and public-spirited emerging upper stratum in the urban centres of the Ottoman Empire. The biographical information on al-Naqqash is derived mainly from the history of the press and a literary history of Syria in the nineteenth century.4 Niqula al-Naqqash published newspaper articles including his political programme and his activities in the meclis-i mebʿusan. He also compiled and published four plays and a number of poems written by his elder brother Marun. The introduction to this compilation includes information on the literary writings of Niqula al-Naqqash.5 Niqula al-Naqqash was born to Maronite parents in Beirut in 1825. His family originated from Sidon, but his father Elias, seeking a better opportunity for promoting his career, moved with his family to Beirut just before the birth of his son. Elias occupied the post of dragoman at the French general consulate in his new hometown. In 1850 he was a member of the grand administrative council of the 3 Robert Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period. A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), 182. 4 Philippe Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa al-ʿarabiyya (Beiurt: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Adabiyya, 1913), 2:121– 124, and Louis Cheikho, al-Ādāb al-ʿarabiyya fī al-qarn al-tāsiʿ ʿashar, 2nd ed. (Beirut 1926), 2:151–153. 5 Niqula al-Naqqash, ed., Arzat Lubnān (Beirut 1869). In the introduction Niqula writes about his own plays and his philanthropic activities. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 287 province of Sidon/Beirut.6 His elder son Marun was a member of the commercial court in the city of Beirut and requested to build a state theatre in the city carrying the Sultan’s monogram (tuğra).7 Along with his employment in the administrative council of the province, Elias was granted the right to farm some taxes in the province of Saida/Beirut on behalf of the Ottoman treasury. Between 1849 and 1852 Elias Naqqash, in partnership with Naʿʿūm Kabbabe, was granted the concession of farming the tobacco custom’s revenue in the province of Saida. For that concession they paid the sum of 6,590 kise.8 The state treasury must have deemed the financial situation of Elias al-Naqqash secure and stable, for he was granted these tax farms without a guarantor, but, in 1869 Elias al-Naqqash passed away bankrupt and owing the state treasury the sum of 8,000 kuruş.9 Niqula started learning Arabic and Syriac at the very young age of four years. After mastering both these languages he learnt Italian, the language of commerce at the time.10 His elder brother Marun (1817–1855) taught him Ottoman Turkish, French and bookkeeping “according to the European method.”11 His knowledge of Ottoman Turkish and foreign languages qualified him to occupy the post of chief secretary (baş katib) of the customs house in Beirut. He occupied this post for many years. In the meantime he independently improved his Turkish and studied Arabic further with some of the most prominent scholars in Beirut, such as Ibrahim al-Ahdab and Yusuf al-Fakhuri. His diligent studies enabled him “to write eloquent prose and elegant poetry.” During his tenure in the customs house he developed special interest in Ottoman laws and, hence, started studying them. He also studied the Islamic inheritance law with Yusuf al-Asir.12 Niqula al-Naqqash’s knowledge of foreign languages and bookkeeping encouraged him to establish his own trade house in 1852, but he gave it up after a short period of time to work first as a bookkeeper, then as a manager for the commercial affairs of Antoun Bey al-Masri. Antoun Bey was a major tax farmer in Syria and the owner of Khan Antoun Bey, the largest real estate in Beirut at the time. In 1859 al-Naqqash established a bank in partnership with Naʿʿūm Qiqano, under the name Qiqano-Naqqash & Co. This remarkably quick financial promotion enabled Niqula al-Naqqash to claim a place in the financial upper stratum of Beiruti society. Capitalising on his financial success, he became acquainted with the highest Ottoman bureaucrats in his hometown. This must have paved the way for him to a number of administrative offices. He was a member of the administrative coun- 6 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi, Istanbul, henceforth BOA, İrade-i Meclis-i Vâlâ, 5976. 7 BOA, İrade-i Meclis-i Vâlâ, 5976. 8 BOA, İrade-i Dahiliye, 10349. 9 BOA, İrade-i Dahiliye, 41793. 10 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:121–122. 11 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 9; Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:122. 12 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:122. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 288 cil for the district of Beirut for the period of one year, 1868–69. Between 1869 and 1876 he was a member of the administrative council of the province of Syria. From 1869 al-Naqqash also worked as a lawyer in Beirut. He was one of the very first lawyers practising at the recently established courts. During this period of time he translated the following newly promulgated Ottoman laws into Arabic: The Land Code, The Penal Code, The Commercial Code, The Construction Law, The Court Organisation Law and The Legal Procedure Law.13 He did not only translate these laws, but also wrote commentaries on all of them.14 According to Tarrazi and Cheikho his translations and commentaries became standard legal reference works already during his lifetime,15 and were used in the Arabic-speaking “provinces of Syria, Beirut, Aleppo, the Mutasarrifate of Mount Lebanon, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem.”16 Naqqash’s translation of an array of Ottoman laws was acknowledged and rewarded by the Ottoman state.17 The state was interested in spreading the knowledge of the latest laws throughout its provinces and among its non-Turkish speaking subjects.18 The Ottoman central authorities encouraged Naqqash by awarding him the fourth rank of the Mecidi-decoration. Each time he translated a new law, he was promoted in rank, 19 finally reaching the second rank in June 1874.20 One can observe in the biography of al-Naqqash rapid financial advancement accompanied by political office and official Ottoman sanction, a growth in wealth, power and influence. Niqula’s brother Marun, the first playwright in Beirut and the founder of the pioneer theatre in Syria, translated Molière’s work L’Avare into Arabic in 1848. It did not take Niqula long to develop a passion for theatre and to follow in his elder brother’s steps. In 1849, at the young age of 25, Niqula al-Naqqash translated Molière’s play Le Misanthrope, which he gave the Arabic title al-Shaykh al-jāhil. In 1851 he wrote and staged a tragedy called Rabīʿa, and al-Muwaṣṣiyy. All his plays were staged at the theatre of his elder brother Marun.21 Naqqash also staged plays for charitable purposes, donating the revenue to philanthropic organisations.22 He had close relations with the Maronite bishop of Beirut, Yusuf al-Dibs,23 who was a 13 See Niqula al-Naqqash, Min al-dustūr al-jadīd (Beirut 1873). 14 For example, Niqula al-Naqqash, Sharh ̣ qanūn uṣūl al-muh ̣ākamāt al-jazāʾiyya al-muʾaqqat (Beirut 1886). 15 Cheikho, al-Ādāb al-ʿarabiyya, 2:151. 16 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:123. 17 BOA, İrade-i Dahiliye, 47923. 18 For the translation of Ottoman laws into the different languages spoken in the empire see Johann Strauss’s article in this volume. 19 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:123. 20 BOA, İrade-i Dahiliye, 47923. 21 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 5. 22 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 2. 23 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:33. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 289 man of letters as well and the founder of the Maronite college called al-Ḥikma (the wisdom). For his social engagement in his community, pope Pius IX granted al- Naqqash the rank of cavalier of the order of St. Gregory.24 In 1872 al-Naqqash became editor-in-chief of the Beiruti newspaper al-Najāḥ. He was aware of the important role of the press in forming public opinion. While serving as a deputy of Syria in the Ottoman parliament (1877–78), he made perfect use of this organ. He corresponded with the Beiruti newspapers al-Bashīr and Ḥadīqat al-akhbār, where he published his longer talks and summaries of his different interventions in parliament.25 One of his articles was translated into English and published in the English newspaper of Istanbul, the Levant Herald.26 He published his electioneering programme in preparation for the second elections to the Ottoman Parliament that took place towards the end of 1877.27 In 1880 he established his own newspaper, al-Miṣbāḥ, which was to become one of the leading Maronite newspapers in Beirut, and the mouthpiece of the bishop Yusuf al-Dibs.28 The articles which al-Naqqash published in the Beiruti newspapers make it possible to piece together his political stance. He described himself as someone who excessively loved his state, i.e. the Ottoman Empire, “farṭ maḥabbatī li-aldawla,” and that he “sought the unity and the harmony of its peoples.” He added that the state and the people (al-umma) were the same and that the interests of the first could not be separated from those of the second; thus, from his point of view, the wealth of the state derived from the well being of its people. Therefore, he saw it as his obligation “to undermine the unfair taxes collected in Syria.”29 He claimed that he “did not lean either to the right or to the left,” and that he “followed a middle path, with moderate ideas, desiring wholeheartedly the welfare of the state and the people.”30 He was aware of the urgent need for reformations in the Empire, and he believed in a “gradual reform process,”31 criticizing those who called for a radical change in “the whole Ottoman state from the top to the bottom.” He added that it had taken Europe two hundred years to undertake the necessary reforms, and that the Ottoman Empire could not be restructured in forty years. He called for firm but moderate questioning of the Ottoman cabinet when necessary. 32 His political views show a liberal patriotic nuance. With his biography and successful career Niqula al-Naqqash epitomises the Zeitgeist of the Tanzimat. Firstly, he single-handedly translated a significant num- 24 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:123. 25 H ̣adīqat al-akhbār, May 11, 1877; al-Bashīr, May 11, 1877, July 6, 1877, January 9, 1878, and February 22, 1878. 26 Levant Herald, May 23, 1877. Cited in Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 166. 27 Al-Bashīr, March 9, 1877, November 9, 1877, October 19, 1877, and November 16, 1877. 28 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2: 33-35. 29 Al-Bashīr, October 19, 1877. 30 Al-Bashīr, February 1, 1878. 31 Al-Bashīr, February 22, 1878. 32 Al-Bashīr, February 1, 1878. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 290 ber of the Tanzimat laws and worked as a lawyer in the new court system. Secondly, he became a member of the administrative council of Syria as a representative of his Maronite community.33 This was a new representation right granted to the non-Muslim Ottomans. This prerogative was enshrined in the provincial code of 1864. Thirdly, he was a journalist, editor-in-chief and founder of a newspaper, another innovation of the Tanzimat period. Fourthly, he was elected to the Ottoman parliament, the institution which crowned all of the Tanzimat reforms. His success and the story of his social mobility can only be regarded as remarkable. Niqula al-Naqqash set out as the son of a new immigrant to Beirut and advanced to being an official representative of this city in parliament, in the capital of the empire Istanbul. His elder brother Marun wrote a petition to Sultan Abd- ülmecid, asking for the Sultan’s patronage and sponsorship for his theatre, but the Sultan declined.34 In 1877 al-Naqqash presented petitions to the cabinet of Sultan Abdülhamid II on behalf of his electorate. As a member of the parliament he attended the most illustrious inauguration ceremony of the meclis-i meb’usan in the palace of Dolmabahçe. This ceremony was presided over by Sultan Abdülhamid II himself, where a speech on his behalf was delivered to the members of the parliament and the Council of State (şura-yı devlet). The British Consul-General in Beirut expressed serious doubt concerning the financial position and political independence of al-Naqqash. The image of al- Naqqash in the short report of Consul Eldridge differs from that derived from the local biographical sources. He wrote the following on Niqula al-Naqqash at the occasion of his election to the first session of the Ottoman parliament: “Nicholas Effendi Naccache, Maronite, Notable of Beyrout, and an ex-member of the Administrative Council of the Vilayet [...] Nicolas Effendi Naccache, in many ways resembles Naufal [Niqula Nawfal, another elected deputy], but more moderate in his temper, and even subservient in his demeanour towards his superiors. He has had much experience in the public service, and is about sixty years of age; unfortunately his pecuniary circumstances are necessitous, and he is generally accused of accepting bribes.”35 After the parliament was prorogued, Niqula al-Naqqash continued to translate different Ottoman laws. The frontispiece of two laws translated by Naqqash presents us with his belief in the legislative function of the parliament. He was of the conviction that it would reconvene in order to amend and discuss the Ottoman laws. In June 1879, 16 months after the parliament was suspended, al-Naqqash published a new translation of the ‘Penal Code’ and its amendments in which he 33 The 1864 provincial code emphatically and repeatedly reiterated that the administrative council of the vilayet and kaza should consist of an equal number of Muslim and non- Muslim members. For an Arabic translation of the articles of the 1864 provincial code, governing the selection, function, rights and religious affiliations of the members of the provincial administrative council, see al-Dustūr, 1:383–386. 34 BOA, İrade-i Meclis-i Vâlâ, 5976. 35 PRO/FO 424/50, p. 144. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 291 wrote that this law was temporary pending final legalisation in the parliament.36 After ten years, in 1889, the title of the 8th edition of his translation of the ‘Legal Procedure Law’ states that this law was only temporary pending the final approval of the parliament when it reconvened.37 Niqula al-Naqqash died in Beirut on December 4, 1894. A large number of journalists and intellectuals of the city wrote obituaries recalling his intellectual qualities, and some lamented his death in poignant poems.38 Al-Hajj Husain Beyhum Husain Beyhum served as the deputy of Syria in the first session of the first Ottoman parliament. Initially he was not elected to that post, but the resignation of Emin Efendi al-Jundi of Damascus qualified him to occupy that seat since he had acquired the second highest number of votes.39 The British Consul-General in Beirut also states that he was elected for the second session; however, “he has declined to accept the charge to which he has been elected.”40 No other source mentions this fact or speaks about his resignation. The most elaborate biography on Husain Beyhum is available in Tarrazi’s history of the Arab press. The following is a summery of that entry.41 Husain Beyhum, the son of Umar the son of Husain was born in Beirut in 1833 (1249 H.). He belonged to a family that “combined noble descent and extensive wealth known for its philanthropic activities.” From his youth he was especially fond of acquiring knowledge. He studied with the most prominent Shaykhs of Beirut ʿAbd Allah Khalid and Muhammad al-Hut. He worked for a short period of time in the family business, but he decided to relinquish commerce and dedicated himself to the promotion of education.42 He wrote poetry and was known for improvising in that art. Beyhum collected an extensive library and made it accessible to interested scholars. He was sharp, known for his quick wit and learned in politics. He was well known for his piety and supported the 36 Niqula Naqqash, translator, Majmūʿat al-qawānīn al-ʿadliyya (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿUmūmiyya, n.d.) frontispiece of the Criminal law. 37 Naqqash, translator, Majmūʿat al-qawānīn al-ʿadliyya, frontispiece of the Legal Procedure Law. 38 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa, 2:125-126. 39 PRO/FO 424/50, p. 143. 40 PRO/FO 424/62, p. 148. 41 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa , 1:117–119. For other biographies see: Cheikho, al-Ādāb al- ʿarabiyya, 2:21–23; Jurji Zaidan, Tārīkh ādāb al-lugha al-ʿarabiyya, reprint (Beirut: Manshūrāt Dār Maktaba al-Ḥayāt, 1992), 2:581–582; Khalil Mardam Bey, Aʿyān al-qarn al-thālith ʿashar (Beirut 1971), 233–234. For the role of Husain Beyhum’s family in the trade of Beirut see Leila Fawaz, Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth-Century Beirut (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983), 96–98. 42 Zaidan, Tārīkh ādāb, 2:581. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 292 learned from the different religious affiliations in his city. He occupied different posts in the local administration. He was a member of the grand administrative council of the province of Sidon/Beirut, member of the court of appeal, a member of the municipal council of Beirut and a member of the administrative council of the province of Syria. In 1869 he became president of the Syrian Scientific Society, and aided in publishing its journal Majmūʿat al-ʿulūm (The Collection of Knowledge). He showed his special capabilities as a deputy of Syria in Istanbul. There he was warmly welcomed by the ministers and high-ranking bureaucrats.43 After returning to Beirut he relinquished all official posts and dedicated himself to performing philanthropic work and reading literature. As a reward for his public engagement and interest in the common good, he received an Ottoman order of the Izmir rank. He was one of the founding members of the Maqāṣid association in Beirut in 1878. The aim of that association was to establish schools teaching modern curricula and to promote the education of girls. His social standing and connections facilitated the establishment of that educational association. He died in Beirut on January 24, 1881, and he was buried amidst a public scene of grief as a sign of his noble character and his broad acquaintances.44 A concise introduction of the Syrian Scientific Society is imperative. It was established in Beirut in 1868. Its aim was to promote and spread general knowledge, science and literature. It was a forum for the discussion of scientific papers, literary works and even for staging theatre. Husain Beyhum was one of its founding members, and in its second year he was elected as its president. Another Beiruti deputy to the first Ottoman parliament, ʿAbd al-Rahim Badran, became a member of its administrative committee. The society collected a library, and it subscribed to a large number of French and Arabic newspapers from Egypt, Beirut and Istanbul. It also published the proceedings of its meetings in 1868 and 1869 in sixteen fascicules. One of the expressed aims of the society was to deal with “pure scientific works avoiding religious and political subjects.” One of their hopes was that through the spread of knowledge harmony and unity would prevail among the different members of society. In its second year, the society had 116 members, most of them well-known intellectuals and public figures of their time.45 The legacy of Husain Beyhum is a divan of poetry and a theatre play. In a poem that he wrote especially for the inauguration of the Syrian Scientific Society he expressed his pride in the Arab contribution to the sciences, human knowledge and civilisation. He stated that “the Arabs were known for their sharp wit that resembled swords. However, these swords need to be polished every now and then” and that this was the function of the Syrian Scientific Society. 46 Husain Beyhum pub- 43 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa , 1:118. 44 Tarrazi, Tārīkh al-s ̣aḥāfa , 1:118. 45 Yūsuf Quzmā Khūrī, Aʿmāl al-jamʿiyya al-ʿilmiyya as-Sūriyya 1868-1869 (Beirut 1990). 46 Khūrī, Aʿmāl al-jamʿiyya al-ʿilmiyya, 14. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 293 lished a number of his poems in the Arabic newspaper of Istanbul al-Jawāʾib.47 Some of his poetry was collected in a divan printed in Beirut, and he also wrote a play with a clear patriotic message. Thus, the Ottoman authorities encouraged its staging a number of times at public places during national celebrations.48 Theatre played an important role in the Syrian Scientific Society and fascinated Niqula al-Naqqash. The admiration of theatre was not peculiar to these deputies alone; Ahmet Vefik Pasha (1823–1891),49 the speaker of the Ottoman parliament, adopted sixteen comedies by Molière and produced them on stage in Bursa.50 The primary significance of the plays is that they enabled the playwrights to deliver their earnest messages to the illiterate public in a subtle entertaining manner. Naqqash, Beyhum and Ahmet Vefik Pasha’s aim was to educate the populace by means of their plays. Naqqash clearly stated his objective by writing that “this art contributes to the success and the benefit of the general public.”51 Hence, it would show them the way to “progress,”52 because the plays “include advice and instructions to the public.”53 They “are rife with moral lessons, wisdom and social criticism; they educate the people and refine their character… as well as informing them about the affairs of the wide world.”54 Furthermore, “the plays call for truthfulness and righteousness, and they can lead enthroned kings to the right ruling policies.”55 This shows the commitment of members of the upper stratum and their selfconfidence in assuming an enlightening, educating and leading role in society. Such a social commitment was common to a number of members of the urban upper stratum who were elected to the first Ottoman parliament. Niqula Bey Nawfal Niqula Bey Nawfal was one of the deputies of Syria in the first Ottoman parliament’s first session. A biography of Niqula Bey Nawfal is available in a bio- 47 Salim Shidyaq, compiler, Kanz al-raghāʾib fī muntakhabāt al-jawāʾib (Istanbul 1875) 4:2, 70 and 106 for example. 48 Zaidan, Tārīkh ādāb, 2:581; Mardam Bey, Aʿyān, 233. 49 For the most recent and most detailed biography see B. Çeri, “Ahmed Vefik Paşa,” in Türk dünyası edebiyatçıları ansiklopedisi (Ankara 2002), 184–190. See also Atilla Özkırımlı, Türk edebiyatı ansiklopedisi, 4th ed. (Istanbul 1987), 64–65; Recep Toparlı, ed., Ahmet Vefik Paşa. Lehce-i Osmânî (Ankara 2000), xi–xiii; Seyit Kemal Karaalioğlu, Türk edebiyatı tarihi. Tanzimat’tan cumhuriyete, 2nd ed. (Istanbul 1982), 141–145; Türk dili ve edebiyatı ansiklopedisi (Istanbul 1977), 1:76–77; J. Deny, “Aḥmad Wafīḳ Pasha,” in EI2, 1:298; Ismaʿil Habip, Türk teceddüt edebiyatı tarihi (Ankara 1339/1921), 408–413. 50 Deny, “Aḥmad Wafīḳ Pasha,” 298. 51 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 7. 52 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 7. 53 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 10. 54 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 18. 55 Al-Naqqash, Arzat Lubnān, 16. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 294 graphical dictionary on the learned men of Tripoli compiled by his first cousin once removed, ʿAbd Allah Habib Nawfal, and published in Tripoli in 1929.56 A relatively elaborate entry of half a ledger’s page is available on him in Sicill-i ahval.57 A synthesis of both entries will provide a fairly developed picture of this parliamentarian. Niqula Bey, the son of Luṭf Allah, the son of Girgis Nawfal was born in 1817 in Tripoli into an established Greek-Orthodox family, since generations serving in the Ottoman administration.58 His father and all of his three uncles were in the service of the Ottoman and later Ibrahim Pasha’s administration of Syria. Upon the withdrawal of the Egyptians from Syria in 1840, they returned to the service of the Ottoman state.59 Niqula Bey started his education at elementary schools (kuttāb) in his native city. Later, he studied Arabic, Turkish and Persian grammar with private tutors. After mastering these languages, he learned French and Italian. In 1840 (1256 H.), immediately after the return of Syria to the Ottoman Empire, he occupied at age 23 his first official post in the office of provisioning the army (sevkıyat) in Maʿarrat al- Nuʿmān in Northern Syria, earning a monthly salary of 1,200 kuruş per month. In the same year he was moved to Sidon to act as secretary of the governor, earning the same salary. Later, he occupied the same post, but for a lesser salary, in his home town Tripoli and later in Beirut. At the beginning of 1857 (mid 1273 H.), now 40 years old, he became the translator at the accounting bureau in Sidon, earning 1,250 kuruş. In the middle of 1859 (end of 1275 H.) he was earning 2,000 kuruş and moved to Tripoli. In 1864-65 (1281 H.) he left that post and in 1865-66 (1282 H.) he represented the Greek-Orthodox in the administrative council of Mount Lebanon. Later, he became the deputy governor, (kaimmakam) of the kaza of Kura until 1867-68 (1284 H.). In that year he occupied secretarial offices in Tripoli and Hama until 1876 (1293 H.). In 1877 (1294 H.) he was elected as a member to the Ottoman parliament, earning a salary of 5,000 kuruş. In 1878 (1295 H.) he worked as the honorary president of the refugee relief commission in Tripoli. In March-April 1880 (Rabīʿ II 1297 H.), he became the president of the commercial court of Tripoli, earning a salary of 1,000 kuruş a month. In March-April 1884 (Jumāda II 1301 H.) he was still occupying the same post, the last date concerning a public post mentioned in the Sicill-i ahval document. The sub-governor (mutasarrıf) of Tripoli, Mehmet Yusuf Pasha, the inspector of justice in Syria and the governor of Syria, Hamdi Pasha, testify in this document that he was fulfilling all his tasks with energy and perseverance, in spite of 56 Habīb Nawfal, Tarājim ʿulamāʾ Ṭarāblus wa udabāʾihā (Tripoli 1929), 91-94. 57 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 4, p. 950 B. 58 Nawfal, Tarājim, 91. His entry in Sicill-i ahval states that he was born in 1235 H. which corresponds to 1819. 59 Nawfal, Tarājim, 52-53 and 63-64. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 295 the fact that he was known for his sharp temper (hiddet-i mizaj), and that during his tenure he was never accused or convicted of any crime. He carried the decoration of the second order and in 1887-88 (1305 H.) he was promoted to the distinguished second order rank (mutamayiz). He also received the Russian decoration of St. Stanislas of the third rank. The information provided above is derived mainly from the document in the Sicill-i ahval.60 The British consul general in Beirut, Jackson Eldridge, wrote on March 3, 1877 to the ambassador in Istanbul, Mr. Jocelyn, the following concerning Niqula Nawfal: “Nicholas Bey Nauphal, Orthodox, Notable of Tripoli. Nicholas Bey Nauphal, with whom I am not personally acquainted, is represented as about fifty years of age, and belongs to a highly respectable, though not wealthy, family of Orthodox Christians of Tripoli, he is said to be intelligent and energetic, with a fair amount of instruction and considerable experience in the public service, he is very eloquent, though a little quick in temper.”61 Niqula Bey’s biography written by his first cousin once removed provides us with further information. In 1860 he worked as a translator to the delegate of Russia negotiating with Fuad Pasha the protocol of Mount Lebanon. In 1878, a few months after the parliament was suspended, he invited Midhat Pasha to feast at his place in Tripoli. On this occasion he recited a poem he had composed celebrating a toast in honor of Midhat Pasha and describing the ceremony as “a sacrament for Midhat Pasha, the god of the sword and the pen.” As a former deputy he was not reluctant to invite Midhat Pasha after his return from his exile and to praise his drives for reform. Niqula Bey’s literary legacy is a book of poetry and an apologetic work for the Greek-Orthodox faith which was printed in Beirut. He died aged 88 in 1895, and his burial procession was crowded with a large number of eulogies read in his honor.62 He was succeeded by four sons and four daughters. His eldest son, Luṭf Allāh, followed in the footsteps of his father as a civil servant. In April-May 1864 (Dhu l-Qaʿda 1280 H.) he joined the first regiment of the Ottoman household cavalry (silâhşoran). In 1866-67 (1283 H.) upon dissolving that corps, he received the fourth rank and returned to his native city Tripoli. In April-May 1869 (Muḥarram 1286 H.) he returned to Istanbul and was appointed as a captain (yüzbaşı) and prepared to become one of the aides-de-camp (yaver) of Sultan Abdülaziz. He remained in Istanbul until July 1870 (Rabīʿ II 1287 H.). Between 1877 (1294 H.) and 1885-86 (1303 H.) he occupied different posts in Syria, earning between 1,300 and 1,500 kuruş per month.63 60 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 4, p. 950 B. 61 PRO/FO 424/50, p. 143-144. 62 Nawfal, Tarājim, 91-94. 63 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 26, p. 207. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 296 The cousins of Niqula Bey Nawfal were spread from Saint Petersburg to Alexandria and were involved in the translation and revival of Arabic classical literature. His cousin Salim Nawfal (1828-1902), for example, worked as a translator in the Romanov court in St. Petersburg. He was a very prolific author and published in Arabic and French, writing in several of the newly established newspapers of Beirut and Cairo. Before his departure to Russia, he was a member of the Syrian Scientific Society.64 Another cousin of his is Nawfal Nawfal (1811-1887), who worked as a civil servant and later as a dragoman in the German consulate in Tripoli. This cousin as well was a member of the Syrian Scientific Society and a prolific author. He translated Ottoman laws into Arabic and wrote a large number of books, one about the history of Arab culture, and an Ottoman-Arabic dictionary.65 ʿAbd Allah Ibn Mikhail Nawfal (1815-1889), a third cousin and the brotherin-law of Niqula Nawfal, also worked for a long while as a civil servant in Mount Lebanon. He emigrated to Alexandria and supported two of his sons in establishing newspapers there.66 His nephew Nasīm Nawfal (1846-1903) in Alexandria was the first in the Middle East to publish a women’s magazine.67 He was related through marriage to the rich Bustrus family of Beirut, the Debbane family of Sidon, Khalil al-Khuri, the founder of Ḥadiqat al-Akhbār newspaper in Beirut, as well as to the Kestaflis family, who served as consuls of Russia in Tripoli. Manuk Karaca Efendi, Son of Krikor Manuk Karaca was a deputy of Aleppo in both sessions of the first Ottoman parliament. Our information on this deputy and his son Levon Karaca is restricted to their entries in Sicill-i ahval. A summary of these official biographies is provided here.68 Manuk Efendi was born in Aleppo in 1843 (1259 H.) and started studying in the elementary school of Aleppo. Later he learned Arabic, Turkish, French and Armenian in Istanbul. In 1872 (1289 H.), aged 30, he became an honorary member of the commercial court of Aleppo, and in 1874 (1291 H.) he became a member of the city’s court of appeal for three years, earning a salary of 1,000 kuruş. In 1877 (1294 H.) he was elected to parliament, earning a salary of 5,000 kuruş for 4 months. In 1878 (1295 H.) he was reelected, earning the same salary for the same period of time. 64 Nawfal, Tarājim, 114-121. 65 Nawfal, Tarājim, 76-77. 66 Nawfal, Tarājim, 81-82. 67 Nawfal, Tarājim, 90-91. 68 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 283-284 and BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 60, p. 401 B. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 297 In the beginning of 1879 (beginning of 1296 H.) he was appointed mayor of the municipality of Aleppo, earning 2,000 kuruş a month. He remained in this post for three years. In 1884-85 (1302 H.) he became a public attorney in the province of Trabzon. One year later he was moved back to Aleppo to work at the court of first instance. In July-August 1890 (Dhu al-Hijja 1307 H.) he was removed from his post when he lost a case brought against him accusing him of corruption and embezzlement. In 1892-93 (1310 H.) he became the president of the commercial court of Tripoli, earning 1,200 kuruş. In December 1895-January 1896 (Rajab 1313 H.) he was appointed president of the commercial court of Yanya, with a salary of 1,000 kuruş, but he refused this position, which caused his dismissal from office. He was appointed inspector of the collection of agricultural taxation in the province of Aydin and inspector of the collection of taxes in the capital Istanbul. He held this office from 1897-98 (1315 H.) until April 14, 1908 (April 1, 1324 maliye). His salary ranged from 1,300 to 2,000 kuruş.69 We do not know when he died. During his tenure as deputy, he received a decoration of the second order second rank. His son Levon was born in Aleppo in 1868-69 (1285 H.). After studying in the Armenian school of Aleppo, he went to Istanbul where he joined the school affiliated to the Armenian hospital, following its regular curriculum and earning a certificate from it. He read and wrote Arabic, Turkish, French, English and Armenian and spoke Italian. He occupied his first official position in 1886-87 (1304 H.) in the accounting office of the imperial properties (emlaki humayun) and remained in this same bureau until August-September 1908 (August 1324 maliye). His initial salary was 200 kuruş , and his final salary was 500 kuruş. On December 14, 1909 (December 1, 1325 maliye), he was appointed to the telegraph office of Aleppo with a monthly salary of 700 kuruş.70 ʿAbd al-Rahim Badran Efendi Abd al-Rahim Badran was one of the deputies of Syria in the second session of the first parliament. There exists no known biography of Badran; therefore the information provided by the entry available on him in Sicill-i ahval gains special importance. The following is a summary of this official biography.71 He was born in Beirut on April 19, 1840 (16th of Ṣafar, 1256 H.), the son of Husain Badran, a sheikh of the Saʿdiyya mystic order and a merchant. In the schools of Beirut he studied Arabic language and grammar, as well as logic and French. He spoke and wrote Arabic and Turkish. He was also very well acquainted with French, mathematics, history and geography. At the end of 1860 69 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 283-284. 70 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 60, p. 401 B. 71 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 201. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 298 or beginning of 1861 (in mid 1277 H.), at the age of 21 years, he was appointed to the kontrato bureau of Beirut, with a salary of 500 kuruş. In July 1867 (Rabīʿ I 1284 H.) he was appointed to the defter nufus. In March-April 1871 (Ṣafar 1288 H.) he resigned and went to Diyarbekir, where he was appointed to the accounting office of that province. During that year he taught the employees of that bureau the principles of accounting and decimal mathematics. On April 23, 1872 (13th of Ṣafar 1289 H.) he was appointed kaimmakam of the kaza of Kâhta in Ma’muretülaziz with a salary of 1,350 kuruş. In October-November 1873 (Ramaḍān 1290 H.) he was transferred to Eğin, with a salary of 1,800 kuruş. In April-May 1875 (Rabīʿ I 1292 H.) he left that post. In January-February 1877 (Muḥarram 1294 H.) he was appointed to the court of appeal in al-Balqa, with a salary of 380 kuruş. On November 9, 1877 (3rd of Dhu al-Qaʿda 1294 H.) he was elected deputy of Syria with a salary of 5,000 kuruş. In July 1878 (Rajab 1295 H.) he was elected as a member of the municipal council of Beirut with a salary of 950 kuruş, and he also served as a member of the commercial court of that city. In November-December 1878 (Dhu al-Hijja 1295 H.) he was appointed president of the commercial court of Beirut with a salary of 4,000 kuruş. In July-August 1880 (Shaʿbān 1297 H.) he was transferred to Damascus. In January 1881 (Ṣafar 1298 H.) while in office he received the decoration of the second distinguished rank. The minister of justice, Server Pasha, and Nashid Pasha, the governor of Syria, testified in July-August 1886 (July 1302 maliye) that Badran was very capable and enthusiastic for his work and that he was also famous for his integrity. In March-April 1888 (Rajab 1305 H.) he was transferred to the court of appeal in Damascus where he became its public attorney with a salary of 3,000 kuruş.72 Badran was a member of the Syrian Scientific Society since its establishment; he was an active member in the inaugural year of that association. On 20 January 1869 he was elected as a member of its administrative committee, and Husain Beyhum was elected association president.73 In one of the early meetings of the society, March 21, 1868, Badran delivered a study on Arabic grammar and syntax. In his detailed talk he proudly praised the beauty, brevity and precision of that language as well as the elegance and eloquence of its speakers. He called for reviving the study of Arabic syntax since it was the noblest of all languages. His talk was published in the fourth fascicule of the proceedings of the Syrian society.74 He also wrote an article on the history of the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid and presented it to the society.75 Badran spoke in the parliament of the necessity of equity between the different peoples of the empire. He demanded equality for the Syrians, asking why they 72 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 201. 73 Khūrī, Aʿmāl al-jamʿiyya al-ʿilmiyya, introduction, the letter Kaf. 74 Khūrī, Aʿmāl al-jamʿiyya al-ʿilmiyya, 55-58. 75 Khūrī, Aʿmāl al-jamʿiyya al-ʿilmiyya, 185-189. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 299 had never occupied an important post in the Ottoman administration for the last “600 years.”76 He was stopped from proceeding in his argument, but he insisted that his speech should be included in the minutes of the parliamentary debates.77 Jackson Eldridge, the British Consul General in Beirut, wrote in a letter that he sent to Mr. Layard the ambassador in Istanbul, the following about him: “Abd-ul-Rahim Effendi, Mussulman, belonging to a highly-respected family of Beyrout;…Abd-ul-Rahim Effendi is well known to me, and I have the highest opinion of his capacity and integrity. He has filled with credit various subordinate posts in the Ottoman services. He was for about five years kaimkam of various places in the Vilayet of Diarbekir; and has during the last five months filled the post of Musullman member of the Medjlis Temeez [court of appeal] of Beyrout, where his acuteness and honesty have gained him a high reputation among all classes, as he is a sworn enemy of injustice, abuses and corruption. As a Mussulman he is most liberal in his ideas, tolerant and conciliant towards Christians; and during the last two years of difficulty, his influence has always been exercised to prevent any excesses and fanatical demonstrations on the part of his coreligionists. He is thoroughly convinced of the necessity of reforms in the Ottoman Administration in general, and especially in the equal distribution and impartial collection of the taxes, in the administration of justice, and the organization of the police. Unfortunately for himself, he is by no means a man of wealth; in fact I believe he has no other resources than the salary he receives from the Government, which makes his proverbial integrity the more remarkable; but as he is firm in his convictions and eloquent in expressing them, I hope, for the sake of the public good, that his opinions will meet with the consideration they deserve, although they are not backed by the influence of wealth.”78 After this very positive note on Badran, Eldridge even went further, giving an upbeat opinion on Badran’s native city and its educated strata stating the following: “The fact that the four deputies who were at the head of the poll are natives of Beyrout, …, has been somewhat commented upon; but I consider it as a proof that the other districts of the vilayet appreciate the exceptional educational advantages offered by this town, which places its inhabitants in the van of civilization in Syria.”79 Yusuf Diya’ al-Khalidi Yusuf Diya’ al-Khalidi was the deputy of the mutasarrıflık of Jerusalem in both sessions of the first Ottoman parliament. Thanks to the works of Alexander Schölch80 and Rashid Khalidi81 we have a detailed picture of Yusuf al-Khalidi and his activi- 76 Hakkı Tarık Us, ed., Meclis-i Meb’usan 1293=1877, Zabıt Ceridesi, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Vakıt Matbaası, 1939-1954), 2:222-223. 77 Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 182-183. 78 PRO/FO 424/62, pp. 148-149. 79 PRO/FO 424/62, p.149. 80 Schölch, Alexander, “Ein palästinischer Repräsentant der Tanzimat-Periode: Yūsuf Ḍiyāʾaddīn al-Ḫālidī (1842-1906),” in: Der Islam 57, 2 (1980), 311-322. 81 Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity. The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 69-76. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 300 ties as a parliamentarian. Both of these important works on the deputy of Jerusalem did not use the entry on him in Sicill-i ahval.82 Comparing this document from the archives with the biographies mentioned above reveals differences, which will be discussed below after presenting a summary of the official entry. Yusuf Diya’ Efendi, the son of Muhammad, a descendant of Khalid ibn al- Walid, the companion of the prophet, was born 1841 (1257 H.) in Jerusalem. He acquired the principles of religious education. After that he visited the Fakhriyya school in Jerusalem to study jurisprudence, logic and Arabic language and grammar. Later he was in an English school in Malta, and the American Robert College in Istanbul, where he studied geography, mathematics, Greek, French and English. He spoke Greek, French and English and wrote Turkish. He worked in the sharia court in Jerusalem from 1859-60 (1276 H.). Later he came to Istanbul and stayed for one year in the translation office of the foreign ministry. As of August-September 1867 (Jumāda I 1284 H.) he became mayor of Jerusalem with a salary of 700 kuruş, until July-August 1870 (Jumāda I 1287 H.), when he resigned. With a salary of 1,000 kuruş he was appointed inspector of the lands, but the post was cancelled after 6 months, and in January-February 1871 (Dhu al-Qaʿda 1287 H.) he became acting kaimmakam of Jaffa with a salary of 2,100 kuruş. In April-May 1871 (Ṣafar 1288 H.) he was reappointed mayor of Jerusalem with a salary of 1,000 kuruş. A year and 11 months later he resigned. In March 1873 (Muḥarram 1290 H.) he returned to Istanbul to work at the translation office of the foreign office. In March-April 1874 ( 26 Ṣafar 1291 H.) he was appointed consul in Poti with a salary of approximately 3,000 kuruş; he resigned repeatedly from this post due to an illness and returned on March 9, 1875 ( 1 Ṣafar 1292 H.) to Jerusalem to serve as mayor for a monthly salary of 1,000 kuruş. On March 9, 1876 (12th of Ṣafar 1293 H.) [sic.]83 he was elected deputy of Jerusalem [to the Ottoman parliament] with a salary of 3,000 kuruş. He served for three months in this capacity. In July-August 1876 (Rajab 1293 H.) he returned to Jerusalem and was reelected as mayor. In April-May 1877 (Rabīʿ II 1294 H.) [sic.] he was reelected as deputy of Jerusalem [to the Ottoman parliament]. He returned to Istanbul where he served for three months with a salary of 3,000 kuruş. In January-February 1878 (Muḥarram 1295 H.) he returned to serve as mayor of Jerusalem. In October-November 1880 (Dhu al-Qaʿda 1297 H.) he was appointed acting kaimmakam of Gaza with a salary of 850 kuruş. He served in this post for four and a half months. In February-March 1881 (Rabīʿ I 1298 H.) he was appointed kaimmakam of Jaffa, and in December 1881-January 1882 (Ṣafar 1299 H.) he became kaimmakam of Gaza with a salary of 1,750 kuruş. He occupied this 82 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 4, p.382. 83 For a discussion of this date see below. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 301 last post until May-June 1883 (Rajab 1300 H.), when it was deemed unsuitable for him to occupy a post on the Egyptian borders after the British occupation of that country. He was summoned to Istanbul where he remained without an official post until 1887-88 (1305 H.). During this period of time he wrote to the division of interior affairs in şura-yı devlet defending himself and asking for a post that would suit his accomplishments and previous career as a civil servant. In November-December 1885 (Ṣafar 1303 H.) the division of interior affairs in şura-yı devlet acquitted him of all accusations and deemed it unjust to deprive him of office. In November- December 1887 (Rabīʿ I 1305 H.) he was appointed kaimmakam of Balqa with a salary of 1,750 kuruş. In December 1889-January 1890 (Jumāda I 1307 H.) he was promoted to the rank of Mirmiran and appointed kaimmakam of Mutiki in the province of Bitlis with a salary of 2,500 kuruş. He resigned from this post in December 1891-January 1892 (Jumāda I 1309 H.). In April-May 1893 (Shawwāl 1310 H.) he was appointed kaimmakam of Hasbayya, his salary being 1,750 kuruş. He was transferred in September-October 1893 (Rabīʿ I 1311 H.) to Jabal al-Duruz with a salary of 1,250 kuruş and occupied this post until October-November 1894 (Jumāda I 1312 H.). This is the last entry in his official biography. 84 After Yusuf Efendi’s resignation from Poti, his official biography diverges from the more recent biographies. One might tend to accept the information in the official biography as being more authentic due to its nature and the fact that it is contemporary to the career and life of Yusuf al-Khalidi. However, it appears that the dates in this document are not precise and that perhaps an attempt to cover a gap of almost one year was systematically undertaken. In other words, the document reveals that it might have been doctored or altered in order to cover an embarrassing or an incriminating act. Hence, a discussion and a comparison between the official biography and the later ones are imperative. Rashid al-Khalidi who used the private papers, letters and publications of Yusuf al-Khalidi, was able to show that Yusuf Efendi, after resigning from Poti, embarked on a trip through Russia to Vienna, where he worked as a professor of oriental languages.85 The entry in Sicilli-i ahval would not be expected to cover this trip ending in a post since the record deals only with tenures that are paid for by the Ottoman treasury. However, it completely ignores it and claims that al- Khalidi returned from Poti to Jerusalem to act as a mayor of his native city. This created a gap of a full year in the document which was not altered; thus we see that al-Khalidi, according to the Sicilli-i ahval entry, was elected deputy to the Ottoman parliament even before the constitution was proclaimed. The entry in Sicill-i ahval reveals important information concerning suspicions about al-Khalidi. The division of interior affairs in şura-yı devlet discussed reports 84 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 4, p.382. 85 Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, 73. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 302 written by an anonymous informer claiming that in Vienna al-Khalidi committed the grave crime of treason. The accusation was dismissed, but these reports were kept in al-Khalidi’s file. The investigation commission in the şura-yı devlet recommended caution and special attention in granting al-Khalidi any future public office. The document informs us that al-Khalidi was himself aware of these reports and their effects, a fact which urged him to address the division of interior affairs in şura-yı devlet in order to refute these allegations and assert his loyalty to the state. Yusuf Diya’ al-Khalidi along with ʿAbd al-Rahim Badran and Manuk Karaca were deported from Istanbul immediately after the parliament was prorogued.86 Yusuf al-Khalidi, while in Vienna in 1880, edited and published the divan of Labid, one of the most famous pre-Islamic poets. In 1893 he published a Kurdish- Arabic dictionary.87 Husni Baqi Zade Bey He was the deputy of Aleppo in the first session of the first Ottoman parliament. The biography of Husni Baqi Zade in Sicilli-i ahval is very detailed and contains all the posts he occupied in his long career.88 A summary of this official entry is presented below and followed by information from his biography in the history of Aleppo by Rāghib al-Tabbākh.89 Husni Baqi Zade was born in Aleppo on January 8, 1844 (17 Dhu l-Hijja 1259 H.).90 He studied Arabic, Persian and Turkish. After that he learned Italian, French, geography, history and logic in the Terra Santa school in Aleppo. He trained in different departments of the administrative council of Aleppo. In February-March 1858 (Rajab 1274 H.), at the age of 15, he was appointed to the investigation bureau of the Zabtiyye.91 In January-February 1871 (Dhu al-Qaʿda 1287 H.) he became the kaimmakam of Birecek, where he was paid a salary of 3,500 kuruş. In the beginning of 1873 (beginning of 1290 H.) he became governor of Antakya. In 1876 and 1877 (1293 and 1294 H.) he was entrusted with investigating complaints and riots in Urfa, Iskenderun, Antakya and Bilan. For this kind of work, he received a per diem and travel expenses. In mid-1877 (mid 1294 H.) he was elected to the parliament, 86 Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 247; Schölch, “Palästinischer Repräsentant,” 316 and Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, 73. 87 Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, 73. 88 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, pp. 277-278. 89 Rāghib al-Tabbākh, Iʿlām an-nubalāʾ bi-tārīkh Ḥalab al-shahbāʾ (Aleppo: al-Maṭbaʿa al- ʿIlmiyya, 1345/1926), 547-551. 90 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 277. His biography in al-Tabbākh, Iʿlām an-nubalāʾ indicates the 15th Dhu al-Hijja 1259 H. as his birthday. 91 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 277. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 303 earning a salary of 5,000 kuruş and 6,000 kuruş to cover his travel expenses. After 5 to 6 month in this post he returned to the province of Aleppo. Between 1878 and 1892-93 (between 1295 and 1310 H.) he was appointed as acting kaimmakam of Ayntab, then kaimmakam of Antakya, Iskenderun, Zeytun and Elbistan. During this period his salary ranged between 2,300 and 2,500 kuruş. In 1892-93 (1310 H.) he was dismissed from office due to a complaint brought against him claiming that he occupied all these posts without having been selected by the special commission for the appointment of civil servants. In 1892-93 (1310 H.) his retirement salary was determined to be 1,250 kuruş. But in May-June 1894 (Dhu al-Qaʿda 1311 H.) he was appointed kaimmakam of Haifa, and dismissed from this office in May-June 1895 (Dhu al-Hijja 1312 H.) due to a complaint filed by the governor of Beirut claiming that Husni Bey had insulted the officials and caused the people to hate the state. During his tenure in Haifa he exerted special efforts and established two public schools. His entry speaks about his achievements in different public projects in the province of Aleppo, building bridges at his own expense, helping in establishing schools and orphanages, as well as contributing to the development of the network of roads between Aleppo, Iskenderun and Ayntab. Kamil Pasha wrote Husni Bey personally in 1880-81 (1298 H.) thanking him for his engagement and personal interest in public works.92 The biography of Husni Bey by al-Tabbākh highlights this interest especially during his tenure in the parliament. Al-Tabbākh attributes the municipal law of 1877 to the efforts of Husni Bey.93 During his tenure as kaimmakam of Iskenderun and Haifa he commissioned studies on the statistics of these cities, the availability of water and agricultural potential. Both studies were presented to the Sultan’s court. He was also interested in introducing new agricultural methods in his estate in Iskenderun. Husni Bey was an avid collector of books, and he had a large private library. He himself wrote in Arabic and Turkish. He composed a book in Arabic on the early Arab history including the pre-Islamic period, which remains as a manuscript, and a number of works in Turkish, one of which was printed under the title Mersin’de iki düǧün, in which he criticizes the ruinous spendthrift habits of the Ottoman people and calls for a more reasonable, spartan way of life. He also prepared a report on the early Zionist activities in Palestine and presented it to the Sultan’s court. Husni Bey died in 1907-08 (1325 H.) on his estate in Iskenderun. 92 BOA, DH. SAİD, Sicill-i ahval, 10, p. 278. 93 Al-Tabbākh, Iʿlām an-nubalāʾ, 547. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 304 Discussions in Parliament During the discussions in parliament, the representatives of Syria were especially active as the British ambassador to Istanbul testified.94 They were interested in the rights of the parliament, the reform of the empire in general and urban reforms in particular. The affairs of Syria did occupy a considerable part of their interest. This fact sometimes irritated Ahmet Vefik Pasha,95 the speaker of the house. During the deliberations on the press code (Matbuat Kanunu), for example, the latter clearly became irritated, telling the Syrian deputies: “Her taraf Suriye değildir.” (Syria is not all the districts [of the Empire]).96 Sometimes the debates took on the form of bargaining, as each representative tried to secure special privileges for his region. This practice was particularly characteristic of the Beiruti representatives; for example, Niqula al-Naqqash tried to introduce amendments to the provincial law, bringing advantageous to Beirut at the expense of Damascus.97 In 1864, the latter city had been designated as the capital of the province of Syria to the great dismay of a large number of Beiruti citizens. Ahmed Vefik Pasha furiously dismissed al-Naqqash’s reasoning in favour of his home town with the words “Kanunlar, ya şöyle olsun, ya böyle olsun… Muhayyer olmaz. Kat’î olmalı.” (The laws should be either in this manner or in that manner…they can not be perplexing. They should be definitive).98 Naqqash’s argument for a special clause in the provincial law granting Beirut a privileged status as the seat of the administrative council of the province of Syria was rebuffed in the parliamentary meeting of April 1, 1877.99 However, some Syr- 94 PRO, PRO/FO 424/51, p. 57. In a letter dated April 3, 1877, from the British ambassador in Istanbul Nassau Jocelyn to the Earl of Derby: “The discussions upon these points [the internal organisation of the parliament] have been conducted with considerable ability and animation; and several of the Arabian and Syrian Delegates have been conspicuous for the energy they have displayed in opposing any measure of the government which appeared to them an infringement of Parliamentary privilege.” 95 J. Deny wrote the following on the personality and character of Ahmed Vefik Pasha: “A strong personality, he was an energetic, honest and conscientious man, frank to the point of rudeness; at the same time he was whimsical and an eccentric, and possessed a dry wit.” See Deny, “Aḥmad Wafīḳ Pasha,” 298. Ismaʿil Habip described him as “One of the most eccentric personalities of the Tanzimat period. His life and character were full of strangeness and awkwardness.” See Habip, Türk teceddüt edebiyatı tarihi, 408. In one of the meetings he did not hesitate to silence a deputy by saying “Sus, eşek!” which translates as ‘Shut up, donkey!’, cited in Devereux, First Ottoman Constitutional Period, 158, and in Karpat, Kemal, “The Ottoman Parliament of 1877 and its Social Significance,” in Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History (Leiden 2002), 82. 96 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:227. 97 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:70: “Nakkaş Efendi (Suriye) – Vilâyet meclis-i umumîlerinin merkez-i vilâyette içtima edecekleri gösterilmiyor. Fakat, valinin münasib gördüğü yerde, diye tasrih edilse, münasib olur. Suriye için söylüyorum. Cemi, (Cemi’) sancaklar Şama gidecek olursa, Beyruta geleceklerdir. Onun için sebkat eden meclisler Beyrutta oldu.” 98 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:70. 99 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:70. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 305 ian notables were not easily deterred; they rekindled such schemes for Beirut during the second session of the parliament. Notables from the Syrian coastal towns persisted in their demand to turn parts of the Syrian coast into a province independent of Damascus. In January 1878, twenty notables from the port cities of Beirut, Tripoli and Acre held a meeting in Beirut and wired a collective petition to the Grand Vizier and the speaker of the house, asking for the separation of the Syrian coast from the province of Syria.100 They stated that such a new provincial division could only bring “great benefit” to the region.101 The deputies of Beirut and Jerusalem in the Ottoman parliament seconded the petition and the demand put forward by members of their electorate. In the meeting of January 12, 1878, four Syrian deputies presented an official memorandum (lâyiha) demanding the division of the province. This memorandum was signed by Niqula al-Naqqash, ʿAbd al-Rahim Badran, Yusuf Diya’ al-Khalidi and Khalil Ghanem. It was read by al- Naqqash in that meeting and included in the minutes. According to proper procedure and in order not to be stopped from reading the memorandum in the assembly, al-Naqqash had deposited the memorandum on January 9 in the secretariat of the parliament.102 The discussion of Article 24 of the provincial code on April 12, 1877 provoked disagreement among the deputies.103 This article provided that the mufti was to be ex officio a member of the district administrative council. It seems that the parliamentarians were divided along religious lines. The representative of Beirut, al-Hajj Husain Beyhum, proposed a compromise. He considered that the presence of the mufti in each and every meeting of the council, where sometimes a large number of business transactions were to be inspected, would only delay the business of the people. He argued that whenever a transaction concerned the affairs of the Muslim community, then the mufti should be invited; accordingly, a transaction concerning the affairs of the Christian community should be dealt with in the presence of their religious headmen.104 Husain Beyhum proposed a pragmatic solution to the problem. In his proposal he did not seek to preserve the long-standing privileged position of the mufti or the ʿulamāʾ, but he did put them on equal footing with non-Muslim religious headmen. Such a stance by Beyhum 100 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 2:252. 101 Al-Bashīr, February 8, 1878. 102 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 2:132. 103 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:90–98. 104 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:91. The discussion translates as: “Al-Hajj Husayn Beyhoum Efendi ([Beirut] Syria) – In these councils three or four property transfer transactions come forth everyday. It is delayed longer [than necessary] because the Mufti has to be called for each and every transaction. The business of the people is interrupted. The presence of the Mufti and the judge in the council does not cause damages. Accordingly, when a transaction belongs to the affairs of Muslim clerics then the ulema, the learned and the sheikhs must be invited, likewise when a transaction belongs to the affairs of the Christian clerics then the [Christian] religious headmen could also be invited.” © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 306 portrays the struggle of the emerging Muslim upper stratum to establish for themselves a political role independent of the previously privileged ʿulamāʾ class. During the early days of the war with Russia, Niqula al-Naqqash asked permission to deliver a speech in parliament. In his long speech he emphasised his loyalty and that of his electorate to the Ottoman state. However, he did not hesitate to remind his colleagues and the Ottoman cabinet that this loyalty should not be taken for granted because the Syrians deemed themselves overtaxed. His speech included a long digression about tax collection in Syria, which he deemed to be unfair and he repeatedly used the word “mağduriyet” (unjust treatment), and the phrase “pek çok mağduriyet” (excessively unjust), in order to stress his point. He called for the reduction of land and property taxes in his province and for the application of a fairer system of tax evaluation and land registration. He argued that the value of land in Syria was systematically overestimated upon the registration of property in the tahrir-i emlâk (land register). The inflated land value in Syria led to higher taxes, while other provinces were paying much less, a fact which, so he held, could weaken the loyalty of the Ottoman Syrians. He ended his speech by quoting excerpts from a petition from Tyre by a plantation owner, complaining about the unfair overestimation of the tithe he had to pay. This petition was immediately referred to the cabinet for a prompt reply.105 The speeches of al-Naqqash concerning the taxation system were translated into Arabic and published in the Beiruti newspaper al-Bashīr, which shows that he was interested in informing his electorate about his endeavour to “undermine the unfair taxation system in Syria,” as he had put it. In an open letter to al-Bashīr he assessed his achievements during the first session of the parliament; he attributed his failure in a few points regarding the reduction of taxation to the lack of consistency and persistence by his electorate, especially the upper stratum of real property and landowners.106 He expected them to declare a civil disobedience by abstaining from paying the due taxes for that fiscal year, pending the publication of a favourable law. Such a radical action would have aided him in his negotiation and argumentation for reducing the property tax.107 In another speech on the same subject al-Naqqash demanded that the provincial municipalities should play a greater role in assessing and collecting the property tax and the tithe. He urged that the municipalities should retain a certain amount of the collected taxes in order to invest it in a public benefit fund (ṣandūq al-manāfiʿ al-ʿumūmiyya). The main purpose of this municipal public benefit fund, according to al-Naqqash, was to cover the tax arrears in the case of drought and crop failures; in other words, to guarantee a stable income for the state treasury and at the same time relieve property owners from dire financial straits and persecution. 108 105 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:184–185. 106 Al-Bashīr, May 20, 1877, and February 1, 1878. 107 Al-Bashīr, October 19, 1877. 108 Al-Bashīr, February 22, 1878. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 307 The representatives of Syria were especially concerned with urban affairs and the impact of the drafted municipal code on its development. Niqula al-Naqqash and Husain Beyhum took turns in discussions concerning article 47 of the Municipal Code. This article provided that one clerk (katib) in the municipal council should be responsible for population census and land registry, tahrir-i nüfus ve emlâk. Al-Naqqash and Beyhum argued that a single clerk could not manage such a task.109 The Beiruti representatives had ample experience with the municipal institution in their home town. The first mayor of Beirut, al-Hajj ʿAbd Allah Beyhum, was Husain’s uncle, and in 1877 Husain’s brother, Muhyi al-Din Beyhum, was the mayor of the city.110 In their argumentation with Midhat Bey Efendi, the representative member of the Council of State, they stressed their concern for the efficiency of the municipal council. Article 47, as finally published, provided for the establishment of a department called kalem-i tahrir-i nüfus ve emlâk without specifying the exact number of its clerks.111 In order to ensure the efficiency of the municipal council, appropriate revenue was to be allocated to it. The discussions concerning articles 16 and 39, governing the municipal finances and expenses, were especially heated. Al-Naqqash complained that in Beirut a tax on fish was currently collected, which did not correspond to the practice in other Ottoman cities. It became apparent that the taxation system was not uniform throughout the Empire, and that revenues granted to the provincial municipalities were lower than those granted to the municipality of Istanbul, a fact which made one parliamentarian evoke the Constitution and 109 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:280–281. The discussions translate as: [Niqula] Naqqash Efendi ([Beirut] Syria) – As I have presented earlier, one secretary or clerk (katib) managing these tasks is not possible. They [The lawmakers] gave one secretary, only; and they assign (to him) an infinite amount of work (dünya kadar). This is not the work of one katib. Hamazasb Efendi (Erzurum) – No need to repeat the same. Lately, this subject was passed in the municipal law of Istanbul. The speaker of the house [Ahmed Vefik Pasha] – Indeed, at that time such a discussion took place… Therefore this is not the place to examine (this article once more). Mithat Beyefendi (Şura-yı Devlet âzası) –This means one should know the functions of the registration department which belong to the municipality and the works relevant to it, which are to be found in this paragraph. At the right time the respectable members will see the proposed law which belongs to the reform at hand (derdest-i tanzim bulunan). Al-Hajj Husain Beyhum Efendi ([Beirut] Syria) – This could not be understood: Here, it says this item will be momentary (muvakkat olacak) when it is only valid for a momentary period, let it be, but when it will be valid in a permanent form then the municipal registration of the people and property is not necessary. The expenses are too high (masarif çok olur). The revenue of the municipality is not sufficient [for such a costly task]. Mithat Beyefendi (Şura-yı Devlet âzası) –The revenue of the municipality is directly related to the expenses. The speaker of the house [Ahmed Vefik Pasha] – This is the first discussion. The committee has listened to your views. We will have another discussion. Sometimes it is beneficial to spend a lot of money. 110 Thamrāt al-funūn, May 24, 1877. 111 Article 47, in Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i umûr-ı belediyye (Istanbul 1995), 4:1666. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 308 state: “Since the Constitution considers all the cities as equal to Istanbul, therefore all the provinces must resemble Istanbul.”112 Article 16 of the drafted law provided for the municipality to spend ten per cent of its income on the salaries of all its employees. A large number of parliamentarians deemed it too low and restrictive. Some of them argued that ten per cent of the revenue would not cover the salaries of all employees, taking into consideration that well-paid professionals like medical doctors, engineers and veterinarians were also on the payroll of the municipality. A long debate on this matter with the speaker of the house and the representative of the Council of State ensued. A vote by the majority insisted on allowing the municipalities to spend twenty per cent of their income on salaries. Their requests were acknowledged, the result of the vote was included in the minutes, and the demanded changes were put forward to the approval of the upper chamber (meclis-i a‘yan) for final ratification.113 The proposed changes were accepted and they were integrated in the final Imperial Sanction (irade-i seniye), which proclaimed this municipal law for the provinces.114 The law stated that the permission to spend up to twenty per cent on salaries was temporary; however, it did not specify for how long. This indefinite wording of the law made it more suitable for a heterogeneous empire with different levels of urban development on its territories. The reasoning and the courage of some parliamentarians during the parliamentary debates is remarkable. For example, Niqula al-Naqqash was against “restricting the freedom” of a large number of his electorate to nominate themselves to the municipal council simply because they did not know Ottoman Turkish.115 Such an objection by al-Nakkash reflects great self-confidence and a willingness to defend what he saw as the rights of his Arabic-speaking people. It was well know 112 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:314: “Bir Meb’us – Mademki kanun-i esasî her memleketi İstanbul ile bir tutuyor; taşraların dahi İstanbula benzemesi lâzımdır.” 113 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:312–313. 114 Article 16 of the municipal law for the provinces was published as follows: “Onaltıncı madde: Belediye memurları maaşiyla hâne kirası ve mühimmât-ı kırtâsiyye ve mahrûkât-bahâ ile masârif-i müteferrika-i sâire herhalde vâridât-ı belediyyenin öşrünü ve nihayet muvakkaten humsunu tecavüz etmeyecektir.” Nuri Ergin, Mecelle-i umûr-ı belediyye, 4:1661. 115 Us, Meclis-i meb’usan, 1:313. The discussion translates as follows: Nicola Naqqash Efendi ([Beirut] Syria) – Here, the diction [of the law] is about speaking Turkish; this will limit the freedom of some people. For example, a large number of people in Beirut do not know Turkish. The speaker of the house [Ahmet Vefik Pasha] – In four years, the intelligent should learn Turkish. A member – What harm is there in the lack of knowing Turkish? The speaker of the house [Ahmet Vefik Pasha] – This hinders the unity [of the Empire]. God willing they accept my advice and learn Turkish. Sebuh Efendi (Constantinople) – We did not assign the knowledge of Turkish to other councils, why do we assign it to the municipal administration? Ahmed Muhtar Efendi (Erzurum) – We did not assign the knowledge of Turkish to the administrative council, [but] we assigned the reading ability of Turkish [to this council]. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 309 that Ahmet Vefik Pasha, the father of Turkic studies in the Ottoman Empire, was uncompromising when it came to this matter, i.e. the Turkish language.116 The speaker of the house condescendingly answered that the intelligent would learn Ottoman Turkish within four years; otherwise they would be hindering the unity of the Empire. This implied that those who did not learn Turkish even to occupy a minor communal post in a provincial municipality, were either akılsız (foolish) or intentionally endangering the unity of the Empire. This was a very serious accusation, given that the state was at war with its Balkan dependencies seeking independence, and with Russia which supported their national aspirations. The representatives of Syria benefited from their long experience with the municipal institution. They also enjoyed a close knowledge of their electorate, which they tried to keep up-to-date concerning parliamentary activities by publishing their debates and contributions in parliament in the press. They were directly in contact with their electorate; the parliamentarians received and forwarded petitions on behalf of Syrians, making their complaints and demands public in parliament. The general picture that could be drawn from the contributions of the Syrian deputies is that they were earnestly involved in the law-making process, and that they sought pragmatic solutions for some chronic administrative problems. This is a testimony that they were not apathetic to the new laws and regulations, and that they did not need the coercion of an especially reforming governor to push them towards a reform, as has so far been assumed. On the contrary, they had vested interests in the new laws; these laws would in the final analysis acknowledge their improved status in society and establish them as pioneers and political representatives of their ethnic and religious communities. They were particularly interested in the efficiency of the new institutions, especially in urban affairs, and, as a consequence, they did not hesitate to criticise the Ottoman provincial officialdom for their shortcomings. Conclusion The varied regional experiences of the members of the meclis-i meb‘usan played an important role in their contribution to the process of law writing and decision making within the Empire. The parliamentary debates as a primary source for the study of the political views of the representatives of Syria and their attitude to the proposed urban reforms showed that they were seriously involved in the reform process and that they attempted to improve the efficiency of the laws and institutions. Aided by the biographical knowledge of their education, social and eco- 116 Ahmet Vefik Pasha “made an impressive contribution to the Turkish purist movement.” In 1876, a year before the parliament sat in Istanbul, his Turkish/Turkish dictionary Lehce-i Osmânî was published. See Deny, “Aḥmad Wafīk ̣ Pasha,” 298. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul MALEK SHARIF 310 nomic standing as well as their careers, one might safely state that they epitomised a new emerging upper stratum in Ottoman society, and that they attended to the specific interests of this social group. It is imperative to describe some of the laws published in 1877 as innovations or developments, but it is also essential to reconstruct how and why these changes took place. Following this path we can show that ideas of the Tanzimat were more widespread than so far assumed. Protagonists of the peaceful gradual reform in the empire hailed not only from the elite of the capital, but from far away provincial urban centres as well. The deputies of Syria had high expectations from the new laws regulating the affairs of the provincial institutions. They expected them to play a major role in transforming Ottoman society. The novelty of the laws promulgated in 1877-78 manifests itself clearly in the willingness to share the assessment and the experiences concerning these laws with the representatives of the provinces in parliament. Thus, for the first time, the amendments were not proposed by, or based upon a report prepared by, an Istanbul bureaucrat, or a governor appointed from Istanbul, but by members of a new emerging social stratum within the various provinces of the empire. A considerable number of the parliamentarians, as the various articles in this volume have shown, were public-spirited tradesmen, high-ranking bureaucrats and large property owners who were at the same time intellectuals, politically and in many cases socially engaged in their immediate surroundings. They were aware of the prevailing social, economic and political conditions in the empire as a whole. This group regarded the laws in question as an opportunity to express its aspirations, extend its influence, and create institutions that might also increase its political influence and power. However, these aspirations were not in many cases contradictory to the common public interest. For, the parliamentarians were especially concerned with urban, social, political, educational and economic developments through modernised institutions. Such developments would reflect positively on their own economic and commercial interests, and simultaneously bring about the needed amenities and projects for the different cities of the empire. The careers and biographies of a large number of the 45 deputies studied in this book show that they were interested in the transmission of knowledge in word and deed. They were active in establishing schools, reforming education, and organising scientific societies. They shared a belief that the spread of knowledge was the prime guarantor of the reform and survival of the empire. Many of them wrote books themselves that could be described as modern or secular in their subjects. They were interested in history, literature and politics. The nascent press of the time was supported by some of them and used as a new mean to spread their ideas. The press which they utilised as a vector to spread their ideas and political convictions was not written in the official language of the empire. Many of the non-Turkish-speaking deputies paid special attention to reviving and promoting their regional languages, believing that they would thus reach a broader public in © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul A PORTRAIT OF SYRIAN DEPUTIES IN THE FIRST OTTOMAN PARLIAMENT 311 their own communities. Theatre was another new medium that was expected to teach lessons in moral earnestness, which was also sponsored and practised by a number of these deputies including the speaker of the house himself. Their regional languages occupied a considerable part of their attention. In spite of the fact that they mastered Ottoman, a large number of the deputies wrote books in their own languages or made translations from Ottoman. Classical works and manuscripts were also edited and revived by some of them, highlighting their individual heritage. Attention to the various languages used in the empire was not necessarily an attempt at secession, but it was an efficient means to democratise and spread knowledge among the largest possible number of people. Therefore, the unity and reform of the Ottoman Empire was called for not only in Ottoman, but in a large number of languages through lectures, books, newspapers, plays and associations. Many deputies worked for a tax reform in the empire for the sake of equity and equality. They believed that a clear taxation scheme would reduce corruption and ensure the loyalty of the taxpayers. Most of these parliamentarians were also engaged in philanthropic activities aimed at fighting poverty and spreading education to the least-privileged of their communities. They strongly believed that education and knowledge were the best remedies for the social and political malaise on both the communal and the imperial levels. They can be considered as bona fide active protagonists of the Tanzimat, who were also able to spread its ideas and impact to the different corners of the empire. It is now evident that in order to achieve some of their aims these parliamentarians enjoyed and used all liberties and means available to them during the first Ottoman experiment in democracy. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Appendix Photographs showing 103 parlamentarians of the 1294-parliament. Source: Resimli Kitab 4 (Kanun-i evvel 1324), 317-321. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 315 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 316 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 317 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 318 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 319 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 320 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 321 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 322 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 323 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul APPENDIX 324 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul Index of Personal Names Abbas, Shah 206 ʿAbdarrazzāq al-Shaykh Qādir → Abdürrezzak Efendi Abdül Bey Fraşeri (Yanya) 152, 153-163, 165, 166, 167, 176, 177, → Abdullah Hüsnü Bey Abdülaziz, Sultan 13, 57, 131, 192, 193, 295 Abdülhamid II. 13, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 94, 95, 98, 99, 108, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 129, 132, 133, 145, 146, 151, 195, 199, 203, 216, 290 and passim Abdullah Hüsnü Bey 153, → Abdül Bey Fra- şeri Abdülmecid, Sultan 86, 290 Abdürrahim Bedran Efendi → Badran, ʿAbd al-Rahim Abdurrahman Nureddin Paşa 275 Abdurrahman Şeref 64 Abdurrahman Vasfı Bey (Baghdad) 277-278, 281, 282, 317 Abdürrezzak Efendi (Baghdad) 279-280, 318 Abidin Paşa Dino 175 Agop → Hagop Ahdab, Ibrahim al- 287 Ahmed Ağa (Shawkat) 278 Ahmed Cevdet Paşa 74, 243, 249 Ahmed Efendi (Astarcılar Kethüdası) → Astarcılar Kethüdası Ahmed Efendi Ahmed Faris Efendi 25, → Shidyāq, Fāris al- Ahmed Hamdi Paşa 84 Ahmed Mazhar Paşa 225, 226, 238, 244, 247 Ahmed Midhat 53-65, 83n, 115, 139, 148, 168 Ahmed Muhtar Paşa (Gazi) 160, 237, 260, 261 Ahmed Myfid 164 Ahmed Paşa Dino 175 Ahmed Vefik Paşa 69, 81, 84, 293, 304, 309 Ahmed Zeki 118 Ahmed, Hacı (Yenişehirlizade) → Yenişehirlizade Hacı Ahmed Akalın, Besim 174 Āl Sharīf, Ḍiyāʾ 278 Āl Sharīf, ʿAbdarraḥmān Waṣfī → Abdürrahman Vasfı Bey Aleksandër Bonati 151 Algivyadi Lambi (Yanya) 151, 167 Ali (brother of Ömer Şevki Efendi) 172 Ali Bey (Herzegovina) 236, 252 Ali Bey Toptani 165 Ali Kemal 64 Ali Naki Bey Libohova (Yanya) 156, 163- 164, 320 Ali Nuhi 171 Âli Paşa 191 Ali Paşa Rizvanbegović (1783-1851) 233 Ali Rıza Paşa İbrahimov 113, 114, 116, 128 Ali Suavi 116 Allahverdioğlu Hoca Apraham 199n Ālūsī, Abū l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd Shihābaddīn al- 281 Andon Pertev 194 Andrássy, Gyula 244 Angeli Efendi (İşkodra) 151, 317, → Ejll Paloka Anthimos (Metropolitan of Sarajevo) 223 Antoun Bey al-Masri 287 Apraham Asdvadzadurian (or: Allahverdian) 197 Apraham Paşa Yeramian (senator) 190, 192- 193, 207n Arakel Babakhanian 214 Arakel Bzdigian 206 Argiri Kantarji (Yanya) 151, 167, 322 Arif Bey Rizvanbegović 226 → Hikmet Aristarchi, Grégoire 27 Aristotel (son of Petrović Petro) 235 Arnaoudov, Christo S. 31 Artin Paşa Dadian 193, 203 Asir, Yusuf al- 287 Astarcılar Kethüdası Ahmed Efendi (Istanbul) 85, 87, 315 Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal 93, 99, 100, 101 Ataullah Bayezitoff 53n Avedik Ağa Bzdigian 206 Avlonyalı Ebubekir Bey 168, → Bekir Bey Ayşe (daughter of Ömer Şevki Efendi) 174 Baba Aluşi 154 Backhouse Sandwith, Thomas 260, 271 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 326 Badran, Husain 297 Badran, ʿAbd al-Rahim (Syria) 145n, 285, 292, 297-299, 302, 305, → Abdürrahim Bedran Efendi, → Bedran Efendi Baftiu, Enver 174 Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi 280-281 Baghtchebanoglou, Takvor 28 Bahaeddin, Şeyh (Bursa) 82, 318 Balić, Omer A. 247, 251 Balkız (wife of Abdül Bey Fraşeri) 154, 162 Ballarian Efendi 190n → Hamazasb Ballarian Efendi Baqi Zade, Husni (Aleppo) 285, 302-303, 319 Baruh → Yaver Salamon Baruh Bašagić İbrahim Bey (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 226, 227, 231, 234, 235, 236-239, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, → İbrahim Edhem, → Redžepašić İbrahim Bey, → Şehzade (or: Šehić) İbrahim Bey Batatu, Hanna 278 Bedran Efendi → Badran, ʿAbd al-Rahim Bedros (son of Krikos Bzdigian)206 Behixhe Hamza (wife of Ali Naki Bey Libohova) 164 Bekir Bey (father of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 168, → Avlonyalı Ebubekir Bey Belin, François 30 Beratlı Mehmed Ali Bey 165, → Mehmed Ali Bey Vrioni Bereketzade İsmail Hakkı 148 Bešo Tanović (father of Tanović) 252 Beyhum, al-Hajj Husain (Syria) 285, 291- 293, 298, 305, 307, 318 Beyhum, al-Hajj ʿAbd Allah 307 Beyhum, Husain (grandfather) 291 Beyhum, Muhyi al-Din 307 Beyhum, Umar 291 Bilić Sava (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 227, 233, 319 Blakeney, C. A. 176 Boghos Ağa 194 Bzdigents Der Harutiun Kahana 206 Celal Bey (son of Toptanzade Sami Bey) 175 Chandler, Lord 139 Cheikho, Louis 288 Crispi, Francesco 162 Dānyāl, Menạ̄hīm b. Ṣāliḥ → Menahim Salih Efendi Danyel Karacyan 190n, → Taniel Kharadjian Efendi Davicho (or: Daviçon) Levi (Yanya) 78, 151 Davison, Roderic 221 del Médico, Moïse 24 → Moiz Bey Dalmediko Derviş Efendi (member of the şura-yi devlet) 282, 283 Derviş Paşa 162, 173 Devereux, Robert 14, 18, 19, 70, 75, 76, 79, 143, 145, 151, 169, 175, 176, 178, 187, 189, 200, 223, 242, 251, 252, 255, 256 Dibs, Yusuf al- 288, 289 Dimitraki, Teodorov (Tuna) 218n, 324 Dimitri Efendi (Selanik) 218n Đumišić Fehim (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 226, 227, 240-241, 318, → Selimović Fehim, → Simić Fehim Dwight, Henry Otis Ebüzziya Tevfik 148, 237 Edhem Ruhi 124, 125, 126, 128 Ejll Paloka 151, → Angeli Efendi Ekmečić, Milorad 226 Ekrem Bey Vlora 234 Eldridge, Jackson 290, 291, 295, 299 Emin Efendi (Aydın) 145n Emine (mother of Abdül Bey Fraşeri) 154 Emine Klisura (wife of Mehmed Ali Vrioni) 166 Emine Veliye (wife of Şemseddin Sami Fra- şeri) 162 Engelhardt, Edouard Philippe 80 Eşref Mustafa Paşa 142 Fadilpašić Mustafa Bey (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 227, 241-242, 250, 251, Fakhuri, Yusuf al- 287 Fasih Efendi 283 → İbrahim Fasih Efendi (al- Ḥaydarī) Fatime (wife of Ömer Şevki Efendi) 174 Fehim Efendi → Đumišić Fehim Ferdinand I of Bulgaria 126 Feyzi Efendi (Yanya) 176, 321 Filip Ağa Rosto (İşkodra) 164, 317, → Filip Risto Vuçković Filip Efendi 164 → Filip Ağa Rosto Filip Risto Vuçković 164 → Filip Ağa Rosto Findley, Carter V. 54 Fluku, Vehbi 174 Foucault, Michel 89, 90 Franz Joseph I of Austria 245 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 327 Fraşeri, Abdül → Abdül Bey Fraşeri Frashëri, Kristo 155, 156 Freeman (British consul) 244 Fresco, David 25 Fuad Paşa 23, 26, 191, 295 Gabay, Yehezkel 24 Garabed Ütüdjiyan 194, 209, 210, 211, 220 Gardet (French teacher) 194 Gatteschi, Domenico 27 General Jovanović 244 Ghanem, Khalil (Syria) 145n, 305 → Halil Ganem Efendi Giragos Kazandjian Efendi (Erzurum) 190, 201n, 207 Gökalp, Ziya 101 Golemi, Yusuf 173 Grabovac Stevan (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 227, 231 Grabovac Stojan 231 Güneş, İlhan 255 Hacaduryan Efendi 190n → Khatchadur Der-Nersesian Haci Mesud Efendi 211 Hacı Nazım Ağa 240 Hadji Lojo 231, 234, 238 Hafizadić-Naimefendić Mehmed Bey (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 242, 250, → Naimzade Hagop → Agop Hagop Efendi (Kayseri) 190, 201n Hagop Kazandjian (Rusçuk) 190, 199 Hagop Kazazian Efendi (later Paşa) (Istanbul) 190, 198, 199n, 203, 208 Hagop Sbartalian Efendi (Izmir) 189, 190, 199, 200, 202, 205 Hagop Shahinian Efendi (Sivas) 190, 200, 209n, 218n, 321 Haig Barigian 200n Hakija Resulbegović 252 Halid Bey Fraşeri 153 Halil Ganem Efendi 145n → Ghanem, Khalil Halil Rami Efendi (Crete) 264, 265, 266- 267, 272, 273, 274 Halil Rifat Paşa 131 Hallacian Efendi 190n, → Hamazasb Ballarian Efendi Hamazasb Ballarian Efendi (Erzurum) 190, 200, 209n, 211, 219, 220, 316, → Hallacian Efendi, → Ballarian Efendi, → Kallacyan Efendi Hamdi Paşa 294 Hanioğlu, Şükrü 54, 55, 123 Harito Efendi 167 →Mihail Harito Efendi Harito, Petro (son of Mihail Harito Efendi) 168 Harun al-Rashid 298 Hasan Fehmi Efendi (Istanbul) 71, 217 Hasan Samih Paşa 260 Hasun (Bishop) 197, 199 Ḥaydarī, Ibrāhīm Faṣīḥ al- → İbrahim Fasih Efendi (al-Ḥaydarī) Hikmet → 226, Arif Bey Rizvanbegović Hiristo Efendi 166 → Mihail Harito Efendi Hoca Maksud Sarimian 199n Hoca Mustafa Efendi (Adana) 217 Hovhannes → Ohannes Hovhannes Allahverdian Efendi (Istanbul) 82, 197-198, 209n, 210, 315 Hovhannes Hüdaverdian → Hovhannes Allahverdian Efendi Hovhannes Kürekian Efendi (Trabzon) 190, 199, 212 Hovhannes Movsesian 204 Hovhannes Sakız 195 Hovhannes Vahanian (or Vahan) Efendi (Bey) 190, 196, 203, 208 Hovnan Varcabedian 200n Hovsep → Osep Hovsep Kazazian 189 → Mardinli Hovsep Kazazian Efendi Hüdaverdizade Hovhannes → Hovhannes Allahverdian Efendi Hulagu 138 Hüseyin Avni Paşa 200 Hüseyin Efendi (Beyhum) → Beyhum, al- Hajj Husain Hüseyin Paşa 165 Hüsni Bey (Bakizade) → Baqi Zade, Husni Hüsniye Vokopola (wife of Mehmed Ali Vrioni) 166 Hüsrev Bey Radovişi 130 Hut, Muhammad al-291 İbrahim (son of Selim Ağa Göriz) 174 İbrahim Bey → Bašagić İbrahim Bey İbrahim Edhem 242, → Bašagić İbrahim Bey İbrahim Edhem Paşa 84 İbrahim Fasih Efendi (al-Ḥaydarī) 282, 283 İbrahim Paşa 193, 206 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 328 İbrahim Paşa 294 İbrahim Rustem Efendi Uruçi 177 İbrahim Şinasi 146 İlyas Bey Vrioni 166 İlyas Paşa Debre 160 İmrahor İlyas Bey 154 Isak (father of Salom Salomon Efendi) 230 Isaković Salomon 230, → Salom Salomon Efendi İshak Efendi 190 → Sahag Yavrumian Efendi İskender Mahmudov 117, 124, 128 İsmail Ağa Čengić 252 İsmail Paşa 270 İsmail, Khedive 193 Ispartalıoğlu Agop 189n → Hagop Sbartalian Efendi Istefanaki Efendi (Tuna) 218n, 322 İstefanos Efendi → Stephanos Nikolaides Istepan Spartalian → Sdepan Spartalian 202 Javer Salamon Baruh (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 226n, 227, 229-230, 318 Jelić Efendi 233, → Bilić Sava Jundi, Emin al- 291 Kabbabe, Naʿʿūm 287 Kadri Efendi (Aleppo) 82 Kaleshi, Hasan 158, 159 Kallacyan Efendi 190n → Hamazasb Ballarian Efendi Kállay, Béni von 238, 239 Kamil Pasha 303 Kapetanović Mehmed Bey (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 226n, 227, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 242-247, → Mehmed Muhyi Bey Kapidžić, Hamdija 251 Kapriel Bardizbanian 194 Kara Kemal 99 Kara, İsmail 58 Karabeg Mustafa Sıtkı (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 226n, 227, 238, 242, 247- 250 Karaca, Levon 296, 297 Karaca, Manuk (or Manok) → Manug Karadjian Efendi Karacyan Efendi → Taniel Kharadjian Efendi Karal, Enver Ziya 14 Karamihaloğlu Yorgi (Edirne) 218n, 316 Karpat, Kemal H. 274 Kasbar Sinabian 191 Katchadur Bardizbanian 194 Kaufmann, Konstantin Petrovich von 139 Kazaz Artin Bezdjian 191, 192n Kazazian Efendi 189 → Mardinli Hovsep Kazazian Efendi Kevork Aramian 193 Kevork Efendi (Sivas) 190, 201n Kevork Samandjian 195 Khalid ibn al-Walid 300 Khalid, ʿAbd Allah 291 Khalidi, Rashid 299, 301 Khalidi, Yusuf Diya’ al- 285, 299-302, 305, → Yusuf Ziya Khatchadur Der-Nersesian (Erzurum) 190, 199, 204-205, → Hacaduryan Efendi Khatiba Şehir Karca Zade Efendi 199, → Manug Karadjian Efendi Khazez Sarrafoğlu Ağa Vitchen → Sarrafoğlu Bey Vitchen Khūrī, Khalīl al- 26 Khuri, Khalil al- 296 Kiatibian, Dr. 195 Kiragos Kazandjian → Giragos Kazandjian Efendi Kirkor → Krikor Kondi, Petro 167 Konstantin (father of Petraki Efendi) 234 Korkut Mola Efendi 227, 242, 250 Korkut, Derviş Mehmed 236, 252 Kostan Efendi 231 Krikor (Misag) Odian Efendi 190, 193-195, 196, 203, 208, 214 Krikor → Kirkor Krikor Aghaton 194, 195 Krikor Balian 194 Krikor Bzdigian (or: Bzdigoğlu) Efendi (Adana) 189, 200, 205, 206 Krikor Zohrab 216, 220 Labid 302 Latas Ömer [Lütfi] Paşa 232, 236 Layard, Henry 68, 173, 176, 177, 299 Lebhovalı Ali Naki Bey → Ali Naki Bey Libohova Leo 214 → Arakel Babakhanian Lovçeli İbrahim Derviş Paşa 248, 249 Mahmud II 26, 86, 90, 91, 257 Mahmud Nedim Paşa 206 Mahmud Nedim Paşa 85, 144 Mahmut Ekrem Bey 164 Maiorcas, Marco 25 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 329 Maksud Amira 199n → Hoca Maksud Sarimian Maksud Simon Bey 199n Maksudyan Efendi 220 → Sebuh Maksudian Efendi Malet, Edward 176 Malik Naili Paşa 163 Mandić, Miloš 23n Mansur Paşa (al-Saʿdūn) 282, 283 Manug Karadjian Efendi (Aleppo) 145n, 189, 190, 199, 200, 200n, 202n, 211n, 285, 296-297, 302, 319, → Manuk Efendi, → Karaca Manuk (or: Manok), → Khatiba Şehir Karca Zade Efendi Manuk Efendi → Manug Karadjian Efendi Mardin, Şerif 54 Mardinli Hovsep Kazazian Efendi (Diyarbekir) 189, 190, 199, 202n, 211 Marinović 227, 232 Markrid Nikoloğlu (wife of Krikor Bzdigian) 206 Marošić (or: Marušić) Jozo (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 227, 232 Maroşik Pozo 226, → Marošić Jozo Martin, David 106 Megalovrysanos, Gregorios 269 Mehmed Ali Berati 164, → Mehmed Ali Bey Vrioni Mehmed Ali Bey Vrioni (Yanya) 152, 156, 158, 160, 161, 164-166, 167, 176, 177, → Beratlı Mehmed Ali Bey, → Mehmed Ali Berati Mehmed Ali Paşa 159, 257 Mehmed Emin Efendi → Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi Mehmed Ferid Paşa (son of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora, grand vizier) 170 Mehmed Fraşeri 154 Mehmed Hulusi 224 Mehmed Muhyi Bey 250, → Kapetanović Mehmed Bey Mehmed Namık Paşa 281, 282 Mehmed Nazif Paşa 224, 226 Mehmed Rauf Paşa 145, 261 Mehmed Said Paşa (minister of the Navy) 145 Mehmed Şakir 134n Mehmed Salim 134n Mehmed Süreyya 130 Mehmet Yusuf Paşa 294 Melek (daughter of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Melkon Donelian (or: Doniloğlu) Efendi (Ankara) 190, 201n, 202 Menahim Salih Efendi (Baghdad) 276-277, 317 Mevla Halil Efendi 247 Mgrditch (son of Krikos Bzdigian) 206 Midhat (son of Abdül Bey Fraşeri) 162, 163 Midhat Bey (member of the council of state) 76 Midhat Bey 307 Midhat Paşa 54, 67, 68, 70, 95, 107, 127, 131, 194, 195, 275, 278, 282, 295 Mihail Harito Efendi (Yanya) 166-168 Mihail Hiristo Efendi 166 → Mihail Harito Efendi Mihal Kristo 166 → Mihail Harito Efendi Mihaliki Efendi (Selanik) 175 Mihran Düz Bey (senator) 190, 192, 197, 202n, 207n, 208 Mihran Tchelebi Düz 197, 198 Mihri (wife of Mehmed Ali Vrioni) 166 Mikael Altıntop Efendi (Ankara) 189, 201n, 317 Mikayel (son of Krikos Bzdigian) 206 Mikayel Varantian 214 Misho Todori (Sofia) 218n, 321 (as Petko Efendi) Molière, Jean-Baptiste 288, 293 Molla Hüsrev 248 Moše Atijas 229, → Zeki Efendi Rafajlović 229 Mousourus, Yanko 22n, Muallim Naci 63 Muamelecizade Emin Ağa 118 Muhamet (son of Selim Ağa Göriz) 174 Muḥammad Amīn al-Zand 280, → Bağdadlı Mehmed Emin Efendi Münif Paşa 133 Murad Bey (Tuna) 190, 200 Murad Bey → Osmanpašić Murad Bey Murad V 13, 131 Müslim Ağa Vasjari 156 Mustafa Bey Radovişi (Selanik) 76, 77n, 129-149 Mustafa bin Mollazade Hüsrev Radovişi 129, → Mustafa Bey Radovişi Mustafa Efendi Krehić 242 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 330 Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora (Yanya) 145n, 156, 167, 168-170, 323, → Yanyalı Ahmed Paşazade Mustafa Bey Mustafa Paşa Vlora 234 Mustafa Ragıb 118 Mustafa Reşid Paşa 191 Mustafa Sıtkı Efendi → Karabeg Mustafa Sıtkı Mustafa Tevfik Bey 135 Mustaj Pasa Babić 243 Muvekkit → Salih Sidki Hadžihuseinović Nafi Efendi (Aleppo) 76, 145n, 217, 319 Nahabed Rusinian 194 Naile Yanina (wife of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Naim Fraşeri 153, 154 Naimzade 251, → Hafizadić-Naimefendić Mehmed Bey Namık Bey (son of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Namık Kemal 57, 132, 134, 146, 147, 148, 238 Namık Paşa → Mehmed Namık Paşa Naqqāš, Nicolas → Nikola Efendi Nakkaş Naqqash, Elias al- 286, 287 Naqqash, Marun al- 287, 288, 290 Naqqash, Niqula al- → Nikola Efendi Nakkaş Nardalı Ömer Şevki → Ömer Şevki Efendi Nashid Paşa 298 Nasib (daughter of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Nassau, Jocelyn 285, 295 Nawfal, Girgis 294 Nawfal, Nasīm 296 Nawfal, Luṭf Allah (son of Niqula) 295 Nawfal, Luṭf Allah 294 Nawfal, Nawfal 296 Nawfal, Niqula (Syria) 218n, 285, 290, 293- 296 Nawfal, Salim 296 Nawfal, ʿAbd Allah Habib 294 Nawfal, ʿAbd Allah Ibn Mikhail 296 Nazlı Vahan Arzumanian 196 Nefise (sister of Abdül Bey Fraşeri) 154 Neki Bey → Ali Naki Bey Libohova Nerses Varjabedian 195 Neşet Paşa (son of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Nicolaides, Demetrius 28, 29, 30, 31 Nigoghos Balian 194 Nikola Efendi (Nawfal) → Nawfal, Niqula Nikola Efendi Nakkaş (Syria) 24, 219, 285, 286-291, 293, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 321, → Naqqash, Niqula al-, → Naqqāš, Nicolas Nikolaides, Stephanos → Stephanos Nikolaides Nikolas Chanaka (Yanya) 151, 323 Nikoletakes, Adriana 268 Nikoletakes, Georgios 268 Nikoletakes, Meletios 268, 269 Ohannes → Hovhannes Oksen Shahinian 194 Ömer Paşa → Latas Ömer [Lütfi] Paşa Ömer Paşa 165 Ömer Prizreni 170-171, → Ömer Şevki Efendi Ömer Şevki Efendi (Kosova) 151, 170-174, 323, → Nardalı Ömer Şevki, → Ömer Prizreni Ortaylı, İlber 70 Osep → Hovsep Osman (brother of Ömer Şevki Efendi) 172 Osman Nuri Paşa (Gazi) 251 Osman Paşa (Gazi) 162 Osman Şerif Paşa 234 Osmanpašić Murad Bey (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 227, 241, 251 Parasyris, Nikolaos 269 Parunag Bey 194 Pears, Edwin 86 Pero Efendi → Sahačija Pero Petraki Efendi (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 234- 235, Petrović Petro Petrović Petro 236, → Petraki Efendi Photiades, Constantine 31 32 Pius IX 289 Podgoriçeli Yusuf Ziyaeddin 177, → Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi Polychronides, Michael 269 Portakal Paşa 203 Portukalian, M. 195 Puzant Yeghiayan 206 Qiqano, Naʿʿūm 287 Rado, Şevket 129 Rasim Bey (Edirne) 145n, 316 Redžepašić İbrahim Bey → Bašagić İbrahim Bey Rhazes, D. 30 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 331 Riđanović, Hacı Abdullah Efendi 248, 249 Rifʿat Bey (Shawkat) (Baghdad) 278-279 Riza Efendi (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 251 Rizaj, Skender 177 Rupen Yazıdjiyan Efendi (Edirne) 190, 201, 202n, 211, 316 Rupen Zasioğlu 190n → Rupen Yazıdjiyan Efendi Ruṣāfī, Maʿrūf al- 276 Rüstem Paşa Leskoviku 156 Šabanović, Hazim 248 Sabuş Toptani (mother of Mehmed Ali Vrioni) 165 Sadık Rifat Paşa 24 Sahačija Pero (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 232- 233, 234, 226n Sahag Yavrumian Efendi (Bursa) 190, 199, 318, → İshak Efendi Şahnişa (sister of Abdül Bey Fraşeri) 154 Said Paşa (Küçük) 120 Salih Sidki Hadžihuseinović 238, → Muvekkit Saliha Dino 175 Salom → Salom Salomon Efendi Salomon Salom Efendi (Bosnia- Herzegovina) 226n, 227, 229, 230-231, → Isaković Salomon Sami Bey → Toptanzade Sami Bey Sarrafoğlu Bey Vitchen 191, → Khazez Sarrafoğlu Ağa Vitchen Savfet-Beg (son of Bašagić) 238, 239, 251 Saʿdūn, Mansur al- (Paşa) → Mansur Paşa (al-Saʿdūn) Schölch, Alexander 299 Sdepan Spartalian 202 Sebuh Maksudian Efendi (Istanbul) 190, 199, 201n, 202n, 211n, 220, 315 Şehzade (or Šehić) İbrahim Bey → Bašagić İbrahim Bey Selim Ağa Göriz (İşkodra) 174-175 Selim Efendi → Selim Ağa Göriz Selim III 90, 91 Selim Paşa (local governor of Gjirokastër) 168 Selimović Fehim 251, → Đumišić Fehim Şemseddin Sami Fraşeri 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 162, 176 Şemsi Efendi 136 Şerif Fraşeri 154 Şerifzade Abdurrahman Vasfi Bey → Abdürrahman Vasfı Bey Serovpe Vitchenian 191, → Servitchen Efendi Server Paşa 298 Servitchen Efendi (senator) 190, 191-192, 195, 196, 203n, 207n, 210 Şevket Mehmed Paşa 237 Şevki Efendi (kaymakam in Bosnia- Herzegovina) 242 Seyfeddin Efendi 96, 97 Shawkat, Nājī 278 Shawkat, Rifʿat → Rifʿat Bey (Shawkat) Shaykh Qādir, Shaykh ʿAbdarrazzāq → Abdürrezzak Efendi Shaykh ʿAbdarrazzāq Shaykh Qādir → Abdürrezzak Efendi Shehu, Neil 169 Shidyāq, Fāris al- 25 → Ahmed Faris Efendi Shuvalov, Count 140 Simić Fehim 251, → Đumišić Fehim Sinapian, G. 28 Sophronios (Metropolitan of Chio) 22n Srpuhi Düsap Paşa 196 Stambolov, Stefan 112 Starova, İbrahim 154 Stephanos Nikolaides (Crete) 264, 265, 267-273, → İstefanos Efendi Süleyman Efendi Zgatari 171 Süleyman Hüsnü Paşa 145, 148 Süleyman Paşa 249 Süreyya Bey (son of Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora) 170 Tabbakh, Raghib al- 302, 303 Tahsin Fraşeri 154 Tamerlane 138 Taniel Kharadjian Efendi (Erzurum) 190, 201n, 209n, 211, 220, 316, → Danyel Karacyan Tanović Mula Ago 236, 251-252 Tarrazi, Philippe 288, 291 Tchamitch Hovhannes Efendi 190, 197, 198, 202n, 208 Teodor Kasap 55, 58, 64n, 139 Tepedelenli Ali Paşa 163, 165 Teskeredžić Derviš Bey 240, 242, 243, 252- 253 Toptanzade Sami Bey (İşkodra) 175, 317, → Toydanzade Sami Toydanzade Sami → Toptanzade Sami Bey Trochalakes, Nikolaos 268 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES 332 Ursinus, Michael 265 Us, Hakkı Tarık 14, 15, 18, 19, 151, 165, 171, 226, 229, 232, 251, 252, 277, 286 Vartkes Serengülian 216 Veysel Bey Dino (Yanya) 161, 166, 175-177, 319 Vithynos, Yanko 32 Vladislav (son of Bilić Sava) 234 Vrčević, Vuk 243 Vuçković, Filip Risto → Filip Ağa Rosto Weber, Max 98 Whitman, Sidney 55 Yanko Resmi 134n Yanyalı Ahmed Paşazade Mustafa Bey 168, → Mustafa Nuri Bey Vlora Yaver Baruh Salomon → Javer Salomon Baruh Yaver Disraeli 231, → Javer Salomon Baruh Yelyij Efendi 233, → Bilić Sava Yenişehirlizade Hacı Ahmed (Aydın) 76, 82, 145n, 175, 316 Yusuf Oruçi (or: Uruçi) → Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi Yusuf Vrioni 166 Yusuf Ziya (Jerusalem) 76, 81, 87, 145n, 285, 299-302, 305, 322, → Khalidi, Yusuf Diya’ al- Yusuf Ziyaeddin Efendi (İşkodra) 177-178, 317, → Yusuf Oruçi (or: Uruçi), → Podgoriçeli Yusuf Ziyaeddin Zahari Efendi (Sofia) 218n, 322 Zeki Efendi Rafajlović 229 Zeynelabidin Efendi (Kosova) 151 Ziya Paşa 21, 24, 148 Zoghrafou Efendi (Greek member of Parliament) 209n Zogu, Ahmet 175 Zoidhi Efendi 167 © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul ORIENT-INSTITUT ISTANBUL _________________ ISTANBULER TEXTE UND STUDIEN 1. Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Sigrid Kleinmichel (Hrsg.), Mīr ʿAlīšīr Nawāʾī. Akten des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 560. Geburtstages und des 500. Jahres des Todes von Mīr ʿAlīšīr Nawāʾī am 23. April 2001. Würzburg 2003. 2. Bernard Heyberger, Silvia Naef (Eds.), La multiplication des images en pays d’Islam. De l’estampe à la télévision (17e-21e siècle). Actes du colloque Images : fonctions et langages. L’incursion de l’image moderne dans l’Orient musulman et sa périphérie. Istanbul, Université du Bosphore (Boğaziçi Üniversitesi), 25 – 27 mars 1999. Würzburg 2003. 3. Maurice Cerasi with the collaboration of Emiliano Bugatti and Sabrina D’Agostiono, The Istanbul Divanyolu. A Case Study in Ottoman Urbanity and Architecture. Würzburg 2004. 4. Angelika Neuwirth, Michael Hess, Judith Pfeiffer, Börte Sagaster (Eds.), Ghazal as World Literature II: From a Literary Genre to a Great Tradition. The Ottoman Gazel in Context. Würzburg 2006. 5. Alihan Töre Şagunî, Kutlukhan-Edikut Şakirov, Oğuz Doğan (Çevirmenler), Kutlukhan-Edikut Şakirov (Editör), Türkistan Kaygısı. Würzburg 2006. 6. Olcay Akyıldız, Halim Kara, Börte Sagaster (Eds.), Autobiographical Themes in Turkish Literature: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Würzburg 2007. 7. Filiz Kıral, Barbara Pusch, Claus Schönig, Arus Yumul (Eds.), Cultural Changes in the Turkic World. Würzburg 2007. 8. Ildikó Bellér-Hann (Ed.), The Past as Resource in the Turkic Speaking World. Würzburg 2008. 9. Brigitte Heuer, Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Claus Schönig (Hrsg.), „Die Wunder der Schöpfung“. Mensch und Natur in der türksprachigen Welt. Würzburg 2012. 10. Christoph Herzog, Barbara Pusch (Eds.), Groups, Ideologies and Discourses: Glimpses of the Turkic Speaking World. Würzburg 2008. 11. D. G. Tor, Violent Order: Religious Warfare, Chivalry, and the ʿAyyār Phenomenon in the Medieval Islamic World. Würzburg 2007. 12. Christopher Kubaseck, Günter Seufert (Hrsg.), Deutsche Wissenschaftler im türkischen Exil: Die Wissenschaftsmigration in die Türkei 1933-1945. Würzburg 2008. 13. Barbara Pusch, Tomas Wilkoszewski (Hrsg.), Facetten internationaler Migration in die Türkei: Gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen und persönliche Lebenswelten. Würzburg 2008. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul 14. Kutlukhan-Edikut Şakirov (Ed.), Türkistan Kaygısı. Faksimile. In Vorbereitung. 15. Camilla Adang, Sabine Schmidtke, David Sklare (Eds.), A Common Rationality: Muʿtazilism in Islam and Judaism. Würzburg 2007. 16. Edward Badeen, Sunnitische Theologie in osmanischer Zeit. Würzburg 2008. 17. Claudia Ulbrich, Richard Wittmann (Eds.): Fashioning the Self in Transcultural Settings: The Uses and Significance of Dress in Self-Narrative. Würzburg 2015. 18. Christoph Herzog, Malek Sharif (Eds.), The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy. Würzburg 2010. 19. Dorothée Guillemarre-Acet, Impérialisme et nationalisme. L’Allemagne, l’Empire ottoman et la Turquie (1908 –1933). Würzburg 2009. 20. Marcel Geser, Zwischen Missionierung und „Stärkung des Deutschtums“: Der Deutsche Kindergarten in Konstantinopel von seinen Anfängen bis 1918. Würzburg 2010. 21. Camilla Adang, Sabine Schmidtke (Eds.), Contacts and Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern Iran. Würzburg 2010. 22. Barbara Pusch, Uğur Tekin (Hrsg.), Migration und Türkei. Neue Bewegungen am Rande der Europäischen Union. Würzburg 2011. 23. Tülay Gürler, Jude sein in der Türkei. Erinnerungen des Ehrenvorsitzenden der Jüdischen Gemeinde der Türkei Bensiyon Pinto. Herausgegeben von Richard Wittmann. Würzburg 2010. 24. Stefan Leder (Ed.), Crossroads between Latin Europe and the Near East: Corollaries of the Frankish Presence in the Eastern Mediterranean (12th – 14th centuries). Würzburg 2011. 25. Börte Sagaster, Karin Schweißgut, Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Claus Schönig (Hrsg.), Hoşsohbet: Erika Glassen zu Ehren. Würzburg 2011. 26. Arnd-Michael Nohl, Barbara Pusch (Hrsg.), Bildung und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in der Türkei. Historische und aktuelle Aspekte. Würzburg 2011. 27. Malte Fuhrmann, M. Erdem Kabadayı, Jürgen Mittag (Eds.), Urban Landscapes of Modernity: Istanbul and the Ruhr. In Vorbereitung. 28. Kyriakos Kalaitzidis, Post-Byzantine Music Manuscripts as a Source for Oriental Secular Music (15th to Early 19th Century). Würzburg 2012. 29. Hüseyin Ağuiçenoğlu, Zwischen Bindung und Abnabelung. Das „Mutterland“ in der Presse der Dobrudscha und der türkischen Zyprioten in postosmanischer Zeit. Würzburg 2012. 30. Bekim Agai, Olcay Akyıldız, Caspar Hillebrand (Eds.), Venturing Beyond Borders – Reflections on Genre, Function and Boundaries in Middle Eastern Travel Writing. Würzburg 2013. 31. Jens Peter Laut (Hrsg.), Literatur und Gesellschaft. Kleine Schriften von Erika Glassen zur türkischen Literaturgeschichte und zum Kulturwandel in der modernen Türkei. Würzburg 2014. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul 32 Tobias Heinzelmann, Populäre religiöse Literatur und Buchkultur im Osmanischen Reich. Eine Studie zur Nutzung der Werke der Brüder Yazıcıoġlı. In Vorbereitung. 33. Martin Greve (Ed.), Writing the History of “Ottoman Music”. Würzburg 2015. © 2016 Orient-Institut Istanbul

Abstract

Johann Strauss: A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire. Translations of the Kanun-i Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages // Abdulhamit Kırmızı: Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism Combined: Ahmed Midhat Efendi Between the Sultan and the Kanun-ı Esasi // A. Teyfur Erdoğdu: The Administrative and Judicial Status of the First Ottoman Parliament According to the 1876 Constitution // Nurullah Ardıç: Islam, Modernity and the 1876 Constitution // Milena B. Methodieva: The Debate on Parliamentarism in the Muslim Press of Bulgaria, 1895-1908// Selçuk Akşin Somel: Mustafa Bey of Radoviş (1843-1893): Bureaucrat, Journalist and Deputy of Salonica to the First Ottoman Parliament // Bülent Bilmez / Nathalie Clayer: A Prosopographic Study on some ‘Albanian’ Deputies to the First Ottoman Parliament // Elke Hartmann: The “Loyal Nation” and Its Deputies. The Armenians in the First Ottoman Parliament // Philippe Gelez: Towards a Prosopography of the Deputies from BosniaHerzegovina in the First Ottoman Parliament // Johannes Zimmermann: The First Ottoman Parliamentary Elections on Crete and the Cretan Deputies to the Meclis-i Mebusan // Christoph Herzog: Some Notes About the Members of Parliament from the Province of Baghdad // Malek Sharif: A Portrait of Syrian Deputies in the First Ottoman Parliament

References

Abstract

Johann Strauss: A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire. Translations of the Kanun-i Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages // Abdulhamit Kırmızı: Authoritarianism and Constitutionalism Combined: Ahmed Midhat Efendi Between the Sultan and the Kanun-ı Esasi // A. Teyfur Erdoğdu: The Administrative and Judicial Status of the First Ottoman Parliament According to the 1876 Constitution // Nurullah Ardıç: Islam, Modernity and the 1876 Constitution // Milena B. Methodieva: The Debate on Parliamentarism in the Muslim Press of Bulgaria, 1895-1908// Selçuk Akşin Somel: Mustafa Bey of Radoviş (1843-1893): Bureaucrat, Journalist and Deputy of Salonica to the First Ottoman Parliament // Bülent Bilmez / Nathalie Clayer: A Prosopographic Study on some ‘Albanian’ Deputies to the First Ottoman Parliament // Elke Hartmann: The “Loyal Nation” and Its Deputies. The Armenians in the First Ottoman Parliament // Philippe Gelez: Towards a Prosopography of the Deputies from BosniaHerzegovina in the First Ottoman Parliament // Johannes Zimmermann: The First Ottoman Parliamentary Elections on Crete and the Cretan Deputies to the Meclis-i Mebusan // Christoph Herzog: Some Notes About the Members of Parliament from the Province of Baghdad // Malek Sharif: A Portrait of Syrian Deputies in the First Ottoman Parliament