Week 5/5. Hafta: Additional Questions

How would you explain Tanzimat writers’ understanding of western novel in relation to meddah stories? What would you make of Berna Moran’s comparison between “romans” and “meddah stories” as the universal form of narrations?

What do you make of Okay’s argument on how Ottoman intellectuals during the 19th century approach prose as merely an esthetic, whereas prose as scientific/reasoning tool?

Week 4/4. Hafta: Discussion

Ahmet Hamdi Tanpinar

XIX. Asir Turk Edebiyati Tarihi (19th century Turkish Literary History), Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayinlari, 2006.

Chapters:

“Garplilasma hareketine umumi bir bakis”

“XIX. asrin ilk yarisinda Turk edebiyati”

“Tanzimat Seneleri”

“Yeniligin Uc Buyuk Muharriri”

Outline:

1) A general outline of the Westernization movement

- This section is divided in three parts, the French Revolution (1789), the Kabakci Rebellion and the deposition of Selim III (1807) being the main historical divides. The period between 1807 and 1826 is left out without specified reason.

2) Turkish literature in the first half of the 19^th century (until the declaration of Tanzimat Edict in 1839)

- This section is divided into two main parts, namely “poetry” and “prose.” The “poetry” section, in its turn, contains two main sub-sections, “Divan poetry” and “folk poetry.” In the “prose” section, on the other hand, provides information on the changes in the state language, the emergence and development of journalism, history writing, autobiographies and finally, travel writings of Ottoman state officials.

3) Cultural and ideological transformation during the Tanzimat years (1839-1876)

- This section is again parted in two, the first sub-section covering the period from 1839 until the Islahat Edict, and the second until 1876. In addition to an evaluation of the nature of reform movements, Tanpinar talks about the tension between what he calls the “old” and the “new,” as well as the first European genres penetrating into the Ottoman literary circles.

4) Pioneers of change

- As the title tells it all, this section is dedicated to three Ottoman intellectuals, whom Tanpinar perceives to be at the root of the systemic cultural move towards the West; Ahmed Cevdet Pasa, Munif Pasa and Ibrahim Sinasi Efendi.

Summary:

Tanpinar starts off his account of the first Westernization movements by contrasting the nature of the relationship with Europe before and after the 18^th century. He argues that, prior to the rule of Ahmed III, interactions between the Ottoman Empire and European countries were mostly mercantile, and that any cultural/artistic traits that were almost accidentally imported along with commercial goods, quickly lost their identities, being assimilated within the “great and highly disciplined entity” called the “Islamic civilization and culture.” (52, my translation) In fact, as a historical background to the civilizational transition he will tell us about, Tanpinar makes the contrast between Europe and Ottoman Empire quite clearly at the very beginning of his narration.

“In short, at the beginning of the 18^th century, there was an Ottoman Empire, whose scientific life was stopped, whose economic power was completely ruined as a result of continuous wars and rebellions, an empire that had long forgotten the miracle of progress, in the face of a Europe that had broken free from the scholastic thought and embraced Renaissance values, and that multiplied its area of production with the discovery of America and the effective utilization of much of the old world.” (53)

Late 17^th and early 18^th centuries mark the beginnings of an emerging curiosity, among Ottomans, towards a much better-off Europe, with the travel writings of Evliya Celebi in the 17^th and Yirmisekiz Celebi Mehmed Efendi in the 18^th centuries. Consequently, French and European tastes started penetrating into the Ottoman capital.

On a more administrative level, Tanpinar points out that the first attempts of Westernization occurred on a military level during the reign of Selim III. This period is, according to him, the second phase of “our journey towards the West,” during which Westernization/Europeanization became a main concern in relation to state institutions. Going hand in hand with the further diffusion of European fashions among the wealthy Muslim families in Beyoglu, Bogazici and Tarabya, military clothing and appearance is also renovated. Tanpinar perceives this kind of imitation as a positive phenomenon that “resulted in the appropriation of a new mentality,” and that consequently “changed the lifestyle of the society.” (74) In his hopeful vision of shallow mimicry, change in the form/appearance would eventually lead to change in content/mentality.

Following the initial military reforms of Selim III period, Europeanization was officially declared as the main state agenda in 1839, as a further step, in Tanpinar’s words, towards “another civilizational circle.” That is also the period when the opinion of a religiously oriented people started becoming a matter of anxiety among the pro-reformation elite circles. The post-Tanzimat Edict period is also when the history of 19^th century Turkish literature starts, according to Tanpinar, who gives no information whatsoever on the literature of the previous decades. Nevertheless, the first half of the century witnessed a dissolving of the “old” rather than the creation of anything “new” in the literary world. Indeed, Tanpinar argues that literature lacked “the main idea that would organize its disorganized experience and that would redirect its movements.” Just like the idea of the imitation, however, Tanpinar recognizes the potential within the dissolution, and perceives it as “rich with the future possibilities.” It is in fact surprising to see that the longing for a non-existent future is as prevalent in Tanpinar as it is in Koprulu, who writes roughly three decades earlier in a pre-Republican setting.

The anxieties of dissolution, “l'angoisse du néant,” as Tanpinar would put it in his inclination to overuse French terms, mark the Divan poetry of this period, some of the significant examples being Akif Pasa’s “Adem Kasidesi,” (Ode to Nihility) and Izzet Molla’s “Mihnet-i Kesan” (The Misery of Kesan). As a matter of fact, these literary works are the manifestations of the crisis brought along by the “birth of the individual,” who wants to break free from the figurative constraints of the classical poetry. On the other hand, the folk poetry, also exhausted from its centuries-old imagery, was employing elements of the former in an attempt of self-renovation. It can therefore easily be argued that Tanpinar sees the two poetic genres converging towards each other to escape an unavoidable fate.

Unlike poetry, which carries with itself a loaded baggage of cultural obsoleteness, prose was the domain of innovation. As Tanpinar argues, the simplification of the Turkish language occurs within prose, i,e, first in the administrative language, and then, the language of the newspaper, a medium of utmost importance for Ottoman modernization. With the foundation of Tercume Odasi (the Bureau of Translation) and the first publication of Takvim-i Vekayi (Calendar of Events – the first Ottoman official gazette) in 1832, the general inclination towards the West was strengthened by expanding its scope towards the community. This expansion would later change the nature of the Westernization movement by shifting the center of power from the elite circles towards the people, the very much feared “public opinion” (efkar-i umumiye). The didactic tone rooted in the textual production of those institutions would characterize the general attitude of much of the Tanzimat literature.

Historical texts are mentioned as another significant type of prose writing during this time. However, according to Tanpinar, their importance stems from their accurate representation of “a very local reaction against certain serious events.” (111) He asserts that “the conception of history is no different than before.” (113) As for the personal memoirs, they seem to join others in reflecting and replicating the predominant aura of dissolution (e.g. Abdulhak Molla, Tarih-i Liva; Akif Pasa, Tabsira) In fact, it is only when the falling apart becomes emergent that a more meaningful shift seems to have occurred on the textual level. The emergency of the situation, as presented by Tanpinar, is reflected in Sadik Rifat Pasa’s style of looking at Europe in “Avrupa Ahvaline Dair Risale” (A Treatise on the Conditions in Europe).

“He is not any more the traveler who brings his naïve admiration in everywhere he goes, and who neglects the very essence of the things. To the contrary, he looks for the underlying systems and secrets behind the energy that gives direction and conscience to this life, in a way to see beyond the immediate appearances.” (119)

The gradual systemization of the “urge” to change does in fact form the general framework of Tanpinar’s view of the 19^th century. He clearly associates the progress of modernization with the creation and improvement of a well-organized/systematic approach rather than random efforts to alter certain aspects of society. That is also why the Tanzimat Edict of 1839 and the Islahat Edict of 1856 both have a central place in his narrative, as clearly defined agendas for transformation that are to be disseminated through newspapers, literary text, and other types of textual medium. As Mustafa Sami Efendi remarks, writing becomes a crucial way to do public good during this period, equaling if not surpassing the construction of, say, new mosques and bridges.

As apparent from the very beginning of this narrative, this radical transition is not without problems. The methods of transcending the old, namely criticism and comparison, inevitably lead to the creation of a tense duality between the old and the new, which, according to Tanpinar, determines the fate of Tanzimat. The optimism towards imitation as a behavioral pattern during the preliminary interactions with Europe leaves its place to a rather gloomy view of the shallowness still prevalent a few decades later. The creative source of life was dried up. However, as mentioned earlier, a gradual systemization of the political, social and cultural movement towards the West was also taking place. Tanpinar mentions three names as the main pioneers who took big steps towards laying the foundation of a certain intellectual condiition necessary to keep following the track of Westernization, namely Ahmed Cevdet Pasa (b.1822), Mehmed Munif Pasa (b.1828) and Ibrahim Sinasi Efendi (b.1826). A common trait to all three of them is to have, within their educational past, both what Tanpinar calls the old and the new. Another one, in line with the former, is an apparent lack of talent, or rather a self-sacrificial giving up of the poetic beauty for intellectual depth. Sinasi, in particular, is praised for his innovative approach to language, utilization of realist traits and rejection of the old system of imagination, “at the expense of seeming primitive and poor in style.” (182) In other words, despite the lack of aesthetics, his oeuvre is given a prominent position within a Turkish literature that did not exist prior to the 19^th century. Indeed, Tanpinar clearly puts that “prose begins with him,” overlooking his own rejection of everything that came before.

Criticism:

1) In his book entitled “History of Turkish Literature in the 19^th Century,” Tanpinar talks about literature only in relation to the post-1839 period. Events prior to this date are in turn presented as occurrences that merely led to the creation of a literature from scratch. One thus may conclude that Tanpinar rejects the inherent qualities of the textual production before Westernization, denying it its literariness.

2) Tanpinar’s approach towards Sinasi clearly illustrates the duality in his own psyche towards the literature of this period: He attributes to him the title of the “founding father” for Turkish literature, yet, at the same time, denies him all literary talent. A similar inconsistency can be observed in his evaluation of Divan poetry: He simultaneously argues that it is organically connected to people/life (181) and that it is impossible to talk about the presence of people in literature prior to Sinasi. (201) Trying to promote the Westernization in form and content, he cannot entirely give up the enjoyment he takes from Divan literature. Old poetry therefore becomes his guilty pleasure and a factor that undermines the coherence of his argumentation.

3) Another inconsistent argument in his analysis has to do with the issue of imitation. Tanpinar asserts that gradual progress towards the West can be triggered by mere imitation. It is therefore not a negative phenomenon, at least in the beginning of the process, since it will eventually lead to the creation of an intellectual basis for that imitation. However, he also claims that “Western civilization” is in its current state as a result of the ways in which it has been evolving for centuries with its own dynamics, without an abrupt and artificial interruption from elsewhere. The contrast between Europe and the Ottoman Empire, which Tanpinar himself points to at the beginning of his book, seems to weaken the imitation argument.

4) On a more structural level, the abundance of subsections and the repetition of the same historical events in relation to different aspects of his argument weaken the general organization, making the text highly difficult to follow. However, it is undeniable that those chapters provide invaluable bibliographic source for the “rookies of the field.”

Week 4/4. Hafta: Questions: Answers

Here are my answers two of the questions that Zeynep raised.

What do you make of Tanpinar’s conceptualization of the change in question? Is imitation seen as a defective response to Western influence or a necessary step to attain a new (and ideal) condition? Or neither of those, for that matter?

I would argue that Tanpinar’s conceptualization of change is a “necessary” step for the condition of Western “modernization” that leads to an imitation of the West, which is defected because of the ambiguity of the West and East duality. The condition of Eastern intellectual under Westernization (or in colonialization), is disrupted by his own ambivalence between the ghost of the past and the unforeseeable future. The past is not only dead but also its content is emptied and what is left for the “modernizing” intellectual to figure out is to how to make it possible to transform from that past into a future. That is how the intellectual that is indeed the Orientalist while facing his own Oriental past barrows the language of the West. “In the Eastern Islamic civilization, the person does not change, he shrinks among the values, which loses their liveliness.” (p 82) says Tanpinar while cheering for Tanzimat intellectuals who breaks this “fixity” of unchanging pattern. However, Tanpinar neglects pre-Tanzimat conditions in terms of change in the empire. He limits his arguments of pre Tanzimat period and the mode of change (implying change towards modernization/westernization) in Tanpinar’s case is the commercial relationship with the west. On the other hand, he does not underline how political and social changes in Europe are reflected in the Ottoman Empire before this period due to the fact that such an argument would not fit in his claims on “unchangeable” Eastern subject of the west. When he starts arguing about the 19th century Turkish literature he is determined to show this “unchanging” mentality exhausted the old literature, the need for change in order to recover from this decline is the “mission” of Tanzimat intellectuals. The cure for Tanpinar comes from the West, imitation of it. But how to imitate West will be the biggest problem of Tanzimat writers who are torn apart between the East and the West.

What do you make those chapters in terms of their relation to the discipline of literary history? Do they occasionally seem to be a history of Ottoman Empire in the 19th century rather than a history of Turkish literature? Should the shift towards literature for the post-1856 period tell us something about Tanpinar’s underlying assumptions?

The period before 1856 appears to be a history of Ottoman Empire rather than literary history due to the fact that Tanpinar argues that the literary movement up until this point as a part of a dead object of old literature. The references he makes show the examples of old literature’s decaying. That is why Tanpinar’s argument regarding pre-Tanzimat period is limited to the relationships with the west and its political and military dimension. Tanpinar’s historical approach to the connections between Ottoman Empire with the West pre-1856 is limited with commercial relationships, yet there are travel books and memories of high rank officials who are enslaved during the 17th and 18th century, which reflects the observations of Europe back in time. However, Tanpinar does not necessarily take these into account because they belong to a past time where he wants to draw a line with today and the problem is that past haunts today; that is why Tanpinar’s underlying assumptions of that past is stabilized through such a discourse, which would not let his readers have such access. Tanpinar’s selection of people to exemplify his claims seems to reflect what he wants to prove accordingly to the way he views the old literature. As a result he makes generalizations out of small examples.

M.