12

 

CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION

In our mundane exposııre to watch the news broadcast on TV, we often observe how everyday-life is presented in tbeatrical forms such as public speeches, ceremonies or demonstrations, leading us to explore how theatrical politics and political tbeater may be intertwined. In the footsteps of scholars like Victor Tıırner, Erwin Goffman and Richard Bauman, this thesis tries to interpret the entangled relationship of tbese two different kinds of performances: The performance in everyday life and the staged performances in the historical context of tbe !ate nineteenth and early

twentietb centııries oftbe Ottoman world. Taking tbe works ofRefık Ahmet Sevengil and Metin And asa starting point ofthe historiography of 'Ottoman tbeater,' this tbesis aims to show how the development of the Ottoman tbeater can illustrate a different aspect of the Ottoman modernization experience. New Historicism, coined by Stephan Greenblatt, has offered here a valuable framework in examining theater as one of tbe best stages representing tbe political tensions and the intellectual movements of tbe era. Therefore, rethinking theater and politics in the !ate Ottoman Empire, tbis tbesis focuses on two fields: tbe theatricality of the political sphere and the political theater.

Witbin all aspects of modemization and their performances in tbe !ate

 

Ottoman world, what makes theater more attractive as a 'subject of history' is its political function. While some aspects of tbe social and cultural life were only transformed, tbeatre, adopted as a Westem institution, was marginalized and emerged as a newly discovered political space.

As historian Palmira Brummett puts it: "More tban any otber art form, tbeater was a symbol of social change for Ottoman satirists. In the Ottoman cartoon space,

the image of theatre, along with that of cafe, was used to embody the apparent sophistication of culture and entertainment that modem European societies enjoyed."¹ Theater, therefore, represented the complex relationship between different segments of the society such as the non-Muslim Ottoman bourgeoisie, Ottoman intellectuals, the Young Turks and the Sultan's entourage more than it staged the famous dramas oftheage.

This thesis intends, therefore, to review theater as a political space in the !ate Ottoman politics throughout the second half ofthe nineteenth century and the early twentieth century. I choose to focus on 'the long nineteenth century' since I strongly believe that the development ofa popular theater and the politicization of the repertoire were the outcomes ofa gradual transformation in the Ottoman society. The 'long nineteenth century' has been divided into distinct categories such as 'Tanzimat (1839-1876)' (the period or reform), 'İstibdad (1876-1908)' (the reign oftyranny), and 'Meşrutiyet (1908-1923)' (the constitutionalist period) eras both by the Ottoman historians and the Turkish theater historians. This classifıcation tends to oversimplify the complexities of social and cultural transformations, and underestimates the continuity between the popular forms of entertainment.

In the Ottoman society, Westem-style theater acquired a social and political signifıcance from its introduction through the ambassadorial soirees. However, I argue that theater became a 'political institution' reflecting a constructed image of Ottoman 'Westernization' via its incorporation in the Ottoman diplomacy. I trace the 'discovery oftheater asa political institution' to Sultan Abdülaziz's trip to Europe (1867) and to the return-visits ofthe European sovereigns in 1869. The incorporation ofWestem theater and opera performances in these imperial reception ceremonies

¹ Palmira Bruınmett, The Image and The Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press 1908-1911

(Albany: State University ofNew York Press, 2000), p. 205.

held in the Nanın Theater, attached new meanings to theatre which became a new facet for the Ottoman modemization by the !ate 1860s.

Theater, which was introduced within the discourse ofmodemization and Westemization, attracted the interest of the growing Ottoman intelligentsia by the 1870s, and became one of the most effective means to get in touch with the society for the Ottoman intellectuals. Therefore, theater became one of the most important aspects ofthe mass politics through the 1870s and 1880s, particularly through the Gedikpaşa Theater directed by Agop Vartovyan also known as Güllü Agop (1840- 1902). Gedikpaşa Theater developed into one of the prominent cultural centers where the Ottoman intellectuals met and used it to disseminate their ideas to the masses by the end ofthe nineteenth century. The Gedikpaşa Theater and its intellectual team, holding the monopoly of the Turkish theater in İstanbul, had a complex relationship with the Imperial Palace which monitored it. The Ottoman Sultan Abdülhamid II (1842-1918) encouraged and controlled the production and the consumption of theater plays in the Gedikpaşa Theater. On the other hand, he employed the playwrights (most ofwhom were political fıgures) in the Imperial Palace. This complex patronage certainly aimed to control theatre's power to create and to manipulate the public opinion in an age where spread of nationalism and ethnic upheavals were uncontrollable. However, the strict control ofthe Palace over the popular theater created its opposition with two 'incidents' that attributed a symbolic

importance to theater as a public space. The fırst was the 'Vatan Incident' (1873) upon which the 'intellectual team' ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater was exiled; and the second was the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater (1884) upon the performance of the play Çerkes Özden/eri (Circassians) in order to 'prevent a possible Circassian uprising'. These events were indeed the outcomes of gradual social transformations

and the rising nationalism in the Balkans which accelerated after the Crimean War (1853-1856) and reached an unınanageable point after the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. 1 believe that the emergence of an Ottoman theater which encouraged mass politics cannot be separated from these gradual social and political transformations, and therefore, should be historicized.

While the ideological currents of the age added a political tension to the theatrical performances, 1 believe that theater gained a particular signifıcance in mass politics only after the active participation of the audience (initiated with the Vatan Incident of 1873). Theater's role in forming and manipulating the public opinion developed together with the political events that brought the declaration ofthe Second Constitution known as the Ottoman Revolution of 1908. in the days following the revolution, the banned plays ofthe 'old regime' were staged as mass spectacles under the patronage ofthe Comrnittee ofUnion and Progress. These performances having their roots in the !ate nineteenth century were used to form the public opinion and to legitimize 'the reign' ofthe Comrnittee ofUnion and Progress. The theater frenzy that followed the declaration ofthe Second Constitution created a new market fora new genre: 'milli facia' (national tragedy) after the dethronement of the Sultan Abdülhamid il in 1909.

The politicization ofthe repertoire appeared only after 1908, and staged

 

politically loaded plays mostly after the dethronement of the Sultan Abdülhamid iL The transition from the politicization of the theater to the politicization of the repertoire was strongly connected with the radicalization ofthe Comrnittee ofUnion and Progress. On the other hand, these plays used the stage to judge the ancien regime and to recreate the Young Turk Revolution in the collective memory. The anti-Hamidian repertoire, just like the cartoon space, created harsh critics that also

influenced the historiography of the era. The scripts judging Abdülhamid II and his reign contributed to the dominant historiographical narrative which described the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II as 'tyranny' and the declaration of the Second Constitution as 'the establishment of freedom and democracy'.²

In order to study the transition from the politicization of the theater to the politicization of the repertoire, I worked on a number of primary and secondary sources. The richness of the primary sources allowed me to interpret them via the help of the historiographical schools that incorporate theater in the history writing. Moreover, the secondary literature both on the history of Westem theatre, and the Ottoman theatre did not only point out the way in which theatre history was studied, but also how some aspects were understudied and not historicized.

Besides the secondary sources, the research consists ofa number of primary sources such as memoirs of the actors and directors, newspapers, travel accounts, theatre joumals, and the scripts ofthe plays. Memoirs were probably the best sources when I had no idea about the performance of either the actors or the audience. For instance, memoirs ofthe famous actor and director ofthe period, Ahmet Fehim (1856-1930) helped me more than I could ever imagine to grasp the atmosphere of the period, the lives of the actors and the role of the theatre in the formation of the public opinion. In a similar way, the memoirs ofa leading actor ofthe age, Ibnür­ refik Ahmet Sekizinci (1874-1935); the memoirs of 'the father ofTurkish theatre and cinema,' Muhsin Ertuğrul (1892-1979); the memoirs ofNamık Kemal's son: Ali Ekrem Bolayır (1867-1937); and the memoirs of Leyla Saz Hanım (1845-1936), a

 

 

² The genre ofnational tragedy is revived after major social and political rites ofpassages like the First World War, the declaration ofthe Tnrkish Republic in 1923, and the fırst coup d'etat ofTnrkey in 1960, to reshape the public opinion.

dynasty member playing in the imperial women's fanfare helped me conceptualize the cultural and the political milieu of the epoch.

In a similar way, the newspapers and journals of the day were very important for me to realize the popular reception of the social and political aspects of the theatre events. Moreover, newspapers were also very valuable for my research since they reflected the Ottoman discourse ofWestemization and modemization within which theatre played a crucial role.

Another valuable source was Adolph Thalasso's article on the Ottoman Theatre, published in 1904, in La Revue Theatrale.³ This little pamphlet did not only inform me about the 'Ottoman Theater,' but also demonstrated an Ottoman intellectual's perception and his attempts of self-orientalizing through a discourse of modemization constructed on the consumption of theater.

Lastly, the scripts ofthe post-revolutionary theater, which were mostly staged after 1909, or written to be read rather than performed, introduced me to the 'fıctional' world of hate and pımishment. A number of scripts, which can be foımd in the National Library of Ankara, and in the National Library of İzmir, harshly judged the old regime and the dethroned Ottoman Sultan on the stage.

The thesis begins with a chapter elaborating the theoretical framework, and surveying the recent historiographical trends and their dialogues that made the study of theater an interesting fıeld of study for the discipline of history. This section discusses the rapprochement ofhistory, anthropology and theater studies which enable scholars to exarnine the complexities of representative forms. Subsequently, by touching upon the emergence and the development ofa historiographical school;

³ Adolphe Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc," La Revue Theatrale, no. 16 (1904), pp. 361-384. (See Appendix A.)

New Historicism, I argue that the fıeld ofliterary studies, and theater in particular, is not a marginal fıeld but a substantial part of politics.

While the fırst part shows the attempts of 'blurring genres'4, and incorporating theater studies in various branches of social sciences in Westem Iiterature, the second chapter touches upon the Turkish theater historiography. This section discusses the fırst and the second generations of the Turkish theater historians and their works. Whilst the fırst generation of theater historians introduced vast amount of sources and tried to historicize theater, their attempts to categorize and to periodize the Ottoman -Turkish theater oversimplifıed the complex and the gradual development of the theater. On the other hand, the following generation of theater historians inherited these categories and did not offer altemative approaches.

Having reviewed the Iiterature, the fourth chapter uses the term 'performance' with a broader meaning, and Iooks for different kinds of 'performances of Westemization' in the !ate Ottoman world. The chapter seeks to rethink theater's role in the 'Ottoman modemization paradigm' by observing the intemalization ofthe Westem performances in the Ottoman Palace and by touching upon the transformation of imperial rituals. The transformation of the imperial reception ceremonies and the incorporation of theater performances in these ceremonies after Sultan Abdülaziz's trip to Europe (1867) suggest that theater gained a political importance in the Ottoman diplomacy. While the Naum Theater became an imperial body through these reception ceremonies, theater became a political institution in the nineteenth century Ottoman world.

The fıfth chapter scrutinizes the development ofa complex relationship

 

between the Imperial Palace and the Ottoman popular theater in the !ate nineteenth

⁴ Refferring to Clifford Geertz, "Blurred Genres: Tue Reconfıgnratioıı of Social Thought," in The Performance Studies Reader, edited by Henry Bial (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 64-68.

century. The political tension between the popular theater and its imperial control allowed theater to be a 'social milieu' for the development ofthe intellectual and political ideologies of the Young Turks. This chapter touches upon two theater scandals, 'Vatan Incident' (1873), 'Gedikpaşa Incident' (1884) as well as the censorship policies in order to understand the Palace's agenda on the contaimnent of the popular theater. The chapter argues that the imperial policies on controlling the Ottoman theater with censorship did not politically sterilize theater, but on the contrary, the oppression raised a political tension by the 1880s, and 1890s.

The sixth chapter tries to examine the ways in which the banned scripts of the 'old regime' created theater frenzy after the proclamation ofthe Second Constitution. This section, situated between the 'old' and the 'new' regimes, aims to observe this period of transition through theater activities. It, therefore, tries to scrutinize the emergence ofmass politics and the formation (and the manipulation) ofthe public opinion through public performances under the patronage of the Committee of Union and Progress. This chapter fırst tries to historicize the 'Ottoman Revolutionary theatre' within the politics of its time, and then discusses the problem of periodization which tends to oversimplify the complex and the gradual development ofthe theater. While the majority ofthe theater historians dated the beginning ofthe 'revolutionary theater' to 1908, I argue that both the actors' memoirs, and the repertoire ofthe 'revolutionary theater' itself show a strong continuity with the previous era. Therefore, I claim that the Committee ofUnion and Progress and the Revolution of 1908 did not 'discover' or 'invent' a revolutionary theater asa means of political mobilization, but rather used an already established 'political institution': theater and its power to legitimize political agendas. I further argue that the 'revolutionary theater' does not end at some point, but is transformed. Theater of

post-1908 era established the tradition of 'political theater,' which does not only represent the historical and political situations, but also becomes apart of it in Turkey. This kind ofa theater was revived after major political events or Turkey's 'rites of passages', but did not lose its power to form the public opinion and influence the historiography of the age. This chapter fıırther takes a comparative approach and scrutinizes the exemplaries ofthe 'revolutionary theater' which created similar theatre frenzies after the French, Iranian, and the Russian Revolutions.

Observing the 'theatre epidemic' of the post-revolutionary days, I argue that the Ottoman Revolution created similar pageants with that ofthe French and the Russian ones. Examining the patronage patterns and the organization of these 'mass spectacles', I discuss that theater under the patronage ofthe Committee ofUnion and Progress was seen as a means of social and cultural development which served to legitimize the new regime and to form the public opinion.

The !ast chapter touches upon the creation ofa new market for the political theater and the politicization ofthe repertoire. Focusing on the period after the attempt ofa Counter- Revolution, known as 'The Incident of31 March' (1909), I argue that the repertoire of the popular theatre dramatically changed and the new geme of 'milli facia' (national tragedy) used the stage to judge the Hamidian period. The scripts written after 1908 and staged particularly after 1909 accused the old regime and judged it harshly on the stage. The plays did not only propagate the rule ofthe Committee ofUnion and Progress, but also aimed to recreate the 'İstibdad' (tyranny) era and the Revolution of 1908 in the collective memory. Therefore, I argue that these plays could have helped to construe the stereotypes which defıned the Hamidian era as 'tyranny' and the leading members ofthe Committee ofUnion

and Progress (CUP)5 as the 'heroes of freedom' that stili echo in the Turkish historiography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

⁵ Will be abbreviated as CUP.

CHAPTERII

 

HISTORY, THEATRE AND POLITICS: A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

 

 

I began with the desire to speak with the dead.

This desire is a familiar, ifunvoiced, motive in Iiterary studies, a motive organized, professionalized, buried beneath thick layers ofbureaucratic decorum: Iiterature professors are salaried, middle-class shamans. (... ) It is paradoxical, of course, to seek the Iiving will of the dead in fıctions, in places where there was no !ive bodily being to begin with. But those who Iove Iiterature tend to find more intensity in simulations-in the forma!, self conscious miming of Iife-than in any of the other textual traces left by the dead, for simulations are undertaken in full awareness of the absence of the life they contrive to represent, and hence they may skillfully anticipate and compensate for the vanishing of the actual life that has empowered them. Conventional in my tastes, I found the most satisfying intensity of ali in Shakespeare.⁶ (Stephen Greenblatt)

 

 

Can the historian speak with the dead? To what extent can we historicize Iiterature? In the following Iines, I will try to present an overview of the recent historiographical trends and their dialogues that made the study of the Iiterary culture an interesting fıeld ofhistory. My discussion will begin by mentioning the postrnodem challenges against the discipline of history in the light of its rapprochement with anthropology and literature. This rapprochement will then be discussed on the hasis of the main premises of new historicism which tumed scripts into archival materials for historians. Laying out a brief literature review on how theatre and history intersect, I will lastly try to comment on the Iiterature on the Middle Eastem theatre history and historiography.

 

 

 

 

 

 

⁶ Stephen Greenblatt, The Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation ofSocial Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Califomia Press, 1988), p. 1.

Removing the Borders:

 

The Rapprochement ofHistory, Anthropology, and Literature

 

 

 

1980s witnessed radical historiographical transformations and the revival ofnarrative which were strongly influenced by the postmodernist challenges of l 970s.⁷ Postmodemism, in the realm ofhistory, attacked the very foundations ofhistorical and scientifıc knowledge by questioning the objectivity of social sciences and the stability of language. Most postmodernist criticism can be traced back to the influences ofthe French social scientist Michael Foucault (1926-1984) and the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), then through them back to Nietzsche (1844-1900), who argued that knowledge is an invention, and to Heidegger (1889-1976), who attacked historicism.⁸

Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida worked on the effects oflanguage, emphasizing that language hides truths and become "reality" itself.⁹ As Georg Iggers informs us, like Foucault and Derrida, most postmodernist critics questioned the distinction between fact and fıction, history and poetry. They reviewed history as having no reference to a reality outside of its texts. Postmodernists' challenges broke the conviction that the historian must follow rational methods to gain truthful insights into the past. Subsequently, by 1980s new historiographical trends shifted

 

 

 

 

 

⁷ For fuıther information, see: Lawrence Stone, The Past and the Present Revisited (New York: Routledge, 1987), pp. 74-96.

⁸ Joyce Appelby, Lyun Hunt and Margaret Jacob, "Postrnodernism and the Crises ofModemity," in Telling the Truth About History, edited by Lyun Hunt, Margaret Jacob and Joyce Appelby (New York: Norton, 1995), pp. 200-205.

⁹ ibid., p. 215.

their center of gravity from structures and processes to cultures and the existential life experiences of common people. ¹⁰

Postmodem theories ofhistory and language went beyond the Foucauldian 'discourse' in later decades with what is called 'the linguistic tum' in historiography.11 The leading names ofthe fıeld, Roland Barthes (1915-1980) and Hayden White (b.1928) asserted that historiography does not differ from fıction but is a form of it. Hayden White argued that 'form and content cannot be separated in historical writing'. Moreover, he claims that historians have at their disposal a limited number of rhetorical possibilities that predetermine the format and the content oftheir accounts. Accordingly, 'historical narratives are verbal fıctions, the contents ofwhich are as much invented as found and the forms ofwhich have more in common with their counterparts in literature than they have with those in the sciences' .¹² Then, can we claim that the theatrical scripts are as important as the archival sources in the formation of the historical knowledge? This curiosity of mine will be answered by Stephen Greenblatt, known as the founder ofa new school of historiography: "New historicism" in the 1980s. Before discussing the new historicism, fırst I would lil::e to touch upon the rapprochement ofhistory, anthropology and theater which deeply influenced the founders of this historiographical school, and particularly its father: Stephen Greenblatt.

The linguistic tum, which describes historical narratives as verbal fıctions, and historical texts as literary artifacts seemed to be a threat for some historians.

 

 

¹⁰ Georg lggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2005), p. 100.

¹¹ Appelby, "Postmodernism and the Crises ofModemity," p. 206.

¹² Iggers, Historiography, pp. 118-119.

Consequently, it shifted the attention to cultural history and called for anthropological approaches.

In the !ate 1970s, the boundaries between the disciplines ofhistory, literature and anthropology got blurred in order to study "culture". The most signifıcant model came with Clifford Geertz's Interpretation ofCultures (1973).¹³ His 'thick description' was perhaps the most appealing model foran interdisciplinary study. In contrast to the linguistic turn which created an object of inquiry based on the idea that culture could be studied like a complex language-like system of signs, symbolic/interpretive anthropology shifted the focus from language models and their validity for cultural analysis to the meaning of what is said in language. The new emphasis was on the ways of analyzing meanings and their relationship to actor's models. As Moore and Sanders remind us in their article, the father of interpretive anthropology, Clifford Geertz perceived culture 'as a system of meanings and symbols within which actors interpret their experience and order their actions.' In his view, cultural meanings construct a model of reality and provide guidelines for action. In this sense, culture was public and could be analyzed by the observer without any need to 'get inside actors' heads'. Therefore, as Geertz argues, 'culture can and should be read, translated and interpreted.' ¹⁴ With this formulation, Geertz gave a relatively fıxed locus anda degree of objectivity to the elusive concept of culture.¹⁵ As Sherry Ortner argues, 'the focus on symbols was liberating both for the historians, and for the anthropologists, telling them where to fınd what they wanted

¹³ Clifford Geertz, Interpretation ofCultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973).

¹⁴ H. Moore aod T. Saoders, Anthropology in Theory: Issues of Epistemology (Maiden: Blackwell, 2006), p. 10.

¹⁵ Sherry Ortner, "Theory in Antlıropology Since the Sixties," in Culture/Power/History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory, edited by N. B. Dirks, G. Eley aod S. Ortner (Princetoıı: Princetoıı University Press, 1994), p. 374.

to study as vehicles ofmeanings'.¹⁶ Geertz, believing in Weber, uses ametaphoric definition, 'man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs and the analyses of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search oflaw but an interpretive one in search of meaning."¹⁷ According to Geertz, 'culture is nota power, something to which social events, behaviors, institutions or processes can be causally attributed, it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly-that is thickly- described' .¹⁸ Geertz's model has been severely criticized and found to be anti-disciplinary, sophisticated, and seductive by the following generations. However, his contribution to historiography can be considered 'groundbreaking', since it widened the horizons of anthropological theorizing and brought history and anthropology together in order to study 'the culture'.

The growing importance of cultural history did not only trigger the revival of histoire des mentalities by the fourth generation of the Annales School, but also helped remove the boundaries between the disciplines ofhistory, anthropology, literature and performance studies. A prominent name in this rapprochement is the cultural anthropologist Victor Turner. Turner's ground-breaking model of liminality has been very influential in the historiographical shift towards the study of drama.¹⁹ According to him, 'complex modem societies are unlikely to find much consensus on any social question, and the theatre can perhaps best serve them through open-ended

¹⁶ ibid.

¹⁷ Geertz, Interpretation o/Cultures, p. 5.

¹⁸ ibid., p. 14.

¹⁹ Victor Turner, An Anthropology of Performance (New York: PAJ Publications, 1988); Victor Turner, From Ritual to Theatre (New York: PAJ Publications, 1982); Victor Turner, "Liminality and Communitas," in The Performance Studies Reader, edited by Henry Bial, (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 79-88; Clifford Geertz, "Blurred Gemes: The Reconfıgmation ofSocial Thougbt," pp. 64- 68.

ıs

liminoid playfulness, providing a multitude of possible models and interpretive meanings for the typical events of the epoch.'²⁰ It is also very important to underline that this rapprochement is a mutual one. The more anthropology looked for dramaturgical interpretations, the more theatre studies got interested in social sciences for altemative perceptions.

Being in a dialogue with the anthropological model, Richard Schechner, a pioneering name in the modem theatre studies, explains in his co-authored book with Victor Tumer Between Theatre and Anthropology that he tumed to anthropology, not because it is a problem solving science but because he sensed a convergence of paradigms.²¹ Moreover, he claims that 'just as the theater is anthropologizing itself, so anthropology is being theatricalized". Accordingly, this convergence was a historical occasion for al! kinds of exchanges, which he calls "restored behavior".²² Schechner further argues in his article "Performance and the Social Sciences" (1973) that there are several points of contacts between the performance theory and the social sciences.²³

²⁰ Marvin Carlson, Theories of the Theatre A Critica/ Survey from the Greeks to the Present (Itlıaca; London: Comell University Press, 1984), p. 485.

²¹ Richard Schechner, Between Theater and Anthropology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), p. 33.

²² "The convergence of antlıropology and tlıeater is part ofa larger intellectual movement where tlıe understanding ofhuman behavior is changing from quantifıable differences between cause and effect, pas! and present, form and content, et cetera (and linear modes of analyses that explicate such a world view) to an emphasis on tlıe deconstruction/reconstruction of actualities: tlıe process of framing, editing and rehearsing, tlıe making and manipulating ofstrips ofbehavior-what I call "restored behavior."

ibid.

 

²³ "l) Performance in everyday life, including gatherings of every kind.

2)  The structure of sports, ritual, play, and public political behavior.

3)  Analysis ofvarious modes ofcommunication (other tlıan the written word: semiotics.

4)  Connections between human and animal behavior pattems witlı an emphasis on play and ritualized behavior.

5)  Aspects of psychotlıerapy that emphasize person-to-person interaction, acting out, and body

awareness.

6)  Ethnography and prehistory-both exotic and farniliar cultures.

7)  Construction ofunifıed theories ofperformances, which are in fact, theories ofbehavior."

Ali these achievements ended up in 'blurring genres' as Geertz calls it.²⁴ These rapprochements together with the influence of the linguistic turn helped the emergence ofa new historiographical school standing between history and literature: New historicism.

Puttiııg_ the Text in Its Historical Context: New Historicism

 

 

It would have been impossible to conceptualize a study of these minor writers, vaudeville actors, violent theatre riots, and long -forgotten revolutionary theatre criticism, in short, of the revolutionary theater itself and its relation to the French revolutionary politics, without the invention of the new historicism in literary studies. (... ) The new historicism meant not aestheticizing history, or devaluing masterpieces, but rather refıısing either to establish or to recognize a fıxed boundary between the literary and the historical.²⁵ (Susan Maslan)

 

New historicists, gathered around the journal Representations, brought several perspectives together such as Marxism, cultural materialism, postrnodernism, and interpretive anthropology; and offered alternative fıelds of study for the discipline of history. The new historicism is not only influenced by Foucault and Geertz, but also by the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, who claims that literature is one ofthe institutions which participate in making state power and ideology familiar and acceptable to the state's subjects.²⁶ As Veeser observes, the new historicism combated empty formalism by pulling historical considerations to the center stage of literary analysis, and by following Clifford Geertz, Victor Turner and other cultural anthropologists, the new historicists have evolved a method of describing culture in

Richard Schechner, "Performance and the Social Sciences," The Drama Review, no. 17 (1973), p. 3.

 

²⁴ Geertz, "Blurred Genres: The Reconfiguration ofSocial Thought," pp. 64-68.

²⁵ Susan Maslan, Revolutionary Acts: Theater, Democracy and the French Revolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005), p. 12.

²⁶ Louis Althusser, Essays on Ideo/ogy (London: Verso, 1984), p. 6.

action.²⁷ For the new historicism, the object of study is not the text and its context, nor literature and its history, but rather literature in history. In the eyes of new historicists, texts of ali kinds are political vehicles in so far as texts mediate the fabric of social, political and cultural formations. Therefore, one can interpret the new historicism as a mode of critical interpretation which privileges power relations as the most important context for texts of ali kinds. As John Brannigan claims the new historicism, as a critical practice, treats literary texts as a space where power relations are made visible. The way in which literary texts or forms can be co-opted to serve as tools in the construction of power is the central focus for new historicist work; and this focus is fırst visible in a clear and methodological manner in Greenblatt's works in 1980s. Greenblatt treats literary texts as symbolic formations which differ in no respect from other symbolic formations including historical events and trends.

Accordingly, history is nota background context, but the very subject and form in which literature is enmeshed. As Brannigan further argues that for the new historicists, literary texts are vehicles of power which act as useful objects of study in that they contain the same potential for power and subversion that generally exist in society.²⁸ In this way, literary texts become important foci for contemporary attempts to resist power as well. In other words, new historicism underlines that the discipline of literary studies is not removed from the sphere ofpolitics at ali.

Literary critique and historian Aram Veeser takes the metaphor of 'portmanteau' to define the new historicism, which in his terms 'brackets together literature, ethnography, anthropology, art history, and other disciplines.' As Veeser

²⁷Aram H. Veeser, Introduction to New Historicism, edited by Aranı Veeser (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. xii-xiii.

²⁸ John Brannigan, New Historicism and Cultural Materia/ism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998),

pp. 3-6; pp. 57-59.

further explains, 'the new historicism scrutinizes the barbaric acts that sometimes underwrite high cultural purpose and asks that we do not blank away our

complicity.'²⁹ The theoretical books on the new historicism argue that there are some key assumptions that bind together the avowed practitioners and even some of their critics. According to Veeser, the fırst assumption is that every expressive act is embedded in a network of material practices, and that every act of urunasking, critique and opposition uses the tools it condemns and risks falling prey to the practice it exposes. A fıırther assumption is that literary and non literary "texts" circulate inseparably, and that no discourse, imaginative or archival, gives access to unchanging truths nor expresses inalterable human nature. üne further assumption is that a critical method and a language adequate to describe culture under capitalism participate in the economy they describe.³⁰ On the other hand, Greenblatt summarizes the basic premise of the new historicism by stating that 'the works of art, however intensely marked by the creative intelligence and private obsessions of individuals, are the products of collective negotiation and exchange.'³¹ In his The Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation oJSocial Energy in Renaissance England, Greenblatt argues for taking the collective production ofliterary pleasure more seriously, 'since the moment of inscription, is itself a social moment.' In his groundbreaking book, Greenblatt describes that many ofShakespeare's works, particularly in theatre, visibly represent power plays and political corruption within a monarchic system, and spectacularly represent the poisoning ofa king, the madness ofa king, the murder of monarchs in their beds. üne of Greenblatt' s departure points

to observe the cultural milieu ofthe epoch is his assumption of 'social energy' that

²⁹ Veeser, Introduction to New Historicism, p. xii.

³⁰ ibid.

³¹ Greenblatt, The Shakespearean Negotiations, p. vii.

circulates through theatre. According to hirn, 'through its representational means, each play caries charges of social energy onto the stage, and the stage in its turn revises that energy and returns it to the audience'. He then argues that 'each individual may be said to make a small contribution to the general store of social energy possessed by the theater and hence to the sustained claim that the theatre can make on its real and potential audience'.³² Stephen Greenblatt argues that social energy is inherent in a cultural practice for a number of reasons. According to Greenblatt, there can be no appeals to genius as the sole origin of the energies of great art; there can be no motiveless creation; there can be no transcendent or timeless or unchanging representation; there can be no expression without an origin andan object, a form anda for; there can be no autonomous artifacts, and therefore there can be no spontaneous generation of social energy.³³The model offered by Stephan Greenblatt became an appealing model for many social scientists from different disciplines. It did not only revive the existing literature on the theatre history, but also accelerated the publications ofa latent literature on theater history and historiography. Drama and history were the two disciplines that profited the most from the influence ofthe new historicism. However, the disciplines of anthropology and sociology benefited from the model as well.

Indeed, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed a similar approach with that of the new historicism. Whereas the new historicism focused on textual analyses, Bourdieu took the theatre as a cultural institution to observe class structures.³⁴ He analyzes the opposing principles ofthe nineteenth century literary

³² ibid., p. 14.

³³ ibid., p. 12.

³⁴ "Nothing more clearly shows than does the theatre, which can only work on the hasis of total connivance between the author and the audience (thls is why the correspondence between the categories oftheatres and divisions ofthe dominant class id so close and visible), that the manning

fıeld through the opposition between bourgeois arts (and notably the theatre), social art and art for art's sake. Social art occupies a thoroughly ambiguous position in relation to the other two in that it appeals to extemal functions (like bourgeois art) while at the same time rejecting (like art for art's sake) the dominant principle of hierarchy in the fıeld of power.³⁵ Bourdieu takes the consumption of drama as a cultural capital and observes class structures through the politics ofthe theatre.

Bourdieu particularly looks at the bourgeois discourses on theatre to see the consolidation ofthe bourgeoisie and their self-representation. Both Bourdieu's interest in 'theatre', and the new perspectives introduced by the new historicism challenged the traditional narratives on the theatre history. Furthermore, they encouraged a review the relationship of the historian with the fıeld of the theatre studies.³⁶ While new historicism is widely used for the study ofRenaissance and early modem European theatre, it is not yet widely practiced in the study of modem and contemporary theatre.³⁷

On the other hand, a similar transformation can be seen in the theatre studies, and especially in the theater history which turned towards the new historicism.³⁸

 

and value ofwords (aod especially jokes) depends on the market in which they are uttered, that the same sentences can take an opposite meaoing when addressed to groups with opposite presuppositions."

Pierre Bourdieu, The Field ofCultural Production, edited by Randa! Johnson, (Carnbridge: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 93.

 

³⁵ibid., p. 16.

³⁶ See: Living Theater a Histoıy. edited by Edwin Wilson and Alvin Goldfarb, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2000), pp. 12-22; Susan Leigh Foster, Introduction to Choreographing Histoıy, edited by Susan Leigh Foster, (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiaoa University Press, 1995), pp. 3-25; Hayden White, "Bodies and Their Plots," In Choreographing Histoıy, edited by Susan Leigh Foster, (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995), pp. 229-234.

³⁷ See: Ivo Kamps, Historiography and ldeo/ogy in Stuart Drama (Cambridge: Carnbridge University Press, 1996); Tristan Marshall, Theatre and Empire: Great Britain on the Landon Stages under James VI and 1 (Manchester; New York: Maochester University Press, 2000).

³⁸ "Theater history, a small and recently emergent field, has experienced disciplinary changes. (...) New approaches argue that ali cultural material is ideologically charged.- the texts themselves, the

Theatre historians seem to appreciate the growing interest of historians in the field of the theatre history. A pioneering name in the theatre history, Marvin Carlson mentions that the field ofthe theatre history is not equipped well enough to explain social and cultural contexts and salutes the growing sensibility of historians towards the theatre history.³⁹

The new historicism is used as a model to remove the barriers between the disciplines by a number of scholars working on the theatre and the theatre history.⁴⁰ It is also used for the narration of different loca! experiences, and altemative approaches.⁴¹

contexts built upon these texts, and the mental world ofthe researcher who selects and relates these

texts and contexts to each other and ta his or her own concems."

Marvin Carlson, "The Theory ofHistory," in The Peiformance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 272-275.

 

³⁹ "Traditional theater history developed in the shadow ofEuropean high culture ofthe !ate nineteenth century and almost universally accepted the values ofthat culture. Theater history was by no means considered a study ofthe phenomenon oftheater in al! periods and cultures, but a study ofthe production conditions ofthe already acknowledged major periods and accepted canon ofthe European literary drama. The Greek and the Shakespearean theater were thus considered favored topics for historical investigation (as they stili are), while the rich tradition of popular and/or spectacle theater, even in Europe, were ignored as undistinguished, decadent, or generally unworthy of critical attention. The growing interest in popular culture in recent years and, even more recently, an attention to the traditionally excluded theater ofwomen, nonwhites, and various culturally marginalized groups have alerted the discipline to the ideological biases hidden in the traditional topics considered proper for scholarly investigation. (...) The researcher influenced by New Historicism or by various versions of 1:lıe history of menta!ities in France may welcome. precisely those texts that seem most clearly to reveal ideological presuppositions, since the attempted reconstruction ofthe mental processes of another era is the goal sought. The historian involved in cultural studies or ethnohistory, seemingly closer to the traditional goal of interpreting theater in its cultural "context," now sees !hat context as a complex and not necessarily consistent interplay of ideological forces affecting both the production and the interpretation of any artifact or document being studied."

ibid., p. 276.

 

⁴⁰ "N ew historicism, in its capacity to lead us to deteet previously unsuspected dynarnics within society, allows the historian to account for the complexity of the theatrical transactions and to determine to a great extent !han has so far been possible, the impact oftheater upon society and vice versa."

Simon Williarns, "The Challenge to Professional Training and Development," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt ( Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), p. 243.

 

⁴¹"New Historicism suggests strategies for such a critique and mandates altemative foundations for the construction ofnew histories of American theater and drama. More theoretically and ideologically self-reflexive than traditional historians of artistic practice, the New Historicists recognize that they cannot employ value-free procedures for investigating historical subjects. Opposed to what Terry Eagleton has termed "the ideology ofthe aesthetic", New Historicists seek to understand the ways in

 

Whilst the new historicism and the rapprochement of the theatre and history encouraged historians to historicize works of arts in their age, the very nature of performance and drama casts doubts about the reliability of the scripts. Tristan Marshall touches upon the shortcomings of the new historicism and underlines that "we might genuinely believe a playwright to be sincerely trying to convey one image, while ali the time the manner in which it is performed might voice exactly the opposite opinion."⁴² Furthermore, he argues that historians can sometimes be too zealous in trying to fit plays into convenient boxes in response to literary criticism's attempts either to fit square pegs into round historical holes or ignore potential aspects oftopicality altogether. Marshall further claims that even though the relationship between the disciplines ofhistory and literature is complementary⁴³, both the historian and the literary critic can fail if they attempt to do a reductionist decoding of any script, or if they are prepared to read the text in a particular light.

Believing that scripts and their performance are two separate fıelds of study, I agree

 

which producing and enjoying works of art can both subjugate and liberale individuals and social groups. Tuis leads them to examine closely the power relations implicit in historically generated concepts of difference regarding race, gender, ethnicity, and class and to question the ideological assumptions underlying such innocent-sounding terıns as "entertainment", 11style", "dramatic art", and "culture". Suspicious ofunivocal and teleological histories, new historicists deconstruct the conventions which structure such narratives and urge the consideration of new contexts within which to understand the cultural experiences ofthe pas!."

Bruce A. McConachie, "New Historicism and American Theater History: Toward an Interdisciplinary Paradigrn For Scholarship," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt ( lowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), p. 267.

 

⁴² "Any production on stage, for example, authority, such as royal policy and its rarnifications, could be interpreted by an audience asa potential altemative view to the motivations and principles ofthe hierarchy under which they !ive. At the same time, it is important to admit the problems inherent in taking a piece of stagecraft, conveyed in print, at face value. We might genuinely believe a playwright to be sincerely trying to convey one image, while ali the time the mauner in which it is performed might voice exactly the opposite opinion."

Marshall, Theatre and Empire, p. 4.

 

⁴³ "Tue relationship between the disciplines ofhistory and literature is complementary: History puts literature in perspective while public theatre is an intrinsic part ofthe recording ofthe pası which illustrates the thinking ofa group of individuals writing not just for the entertainment of the literate, but far those who might not otherwise be able to leave a record far themselves."

ibid., p.5.

with Marshall in his warnings about the dangers of misinterpretation of the plays by historians. Furthermore, I think that the fıeld of the theatre studies is more sensible regarding the performativity of texts, and produced opulent works in recent decades. Journals such as The Drama Review, Theatre Survey, Theatre Journal and Theatre Research International, and study groups like International Federation for Theatre Research, American Society for Theatre Research, and Association for Theatre in Higher Education, have been very influential in the growth of the fıeld.

 

Rethinking the Theatrical Approach to History

 

 

To start the overview ofrecent literature where history and the theatre intersect, one should refer to three important volumes bringing political theatre, theatrical discourse, politics and history together. The fırst ofthese is The Performance of Power edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (1991). Departing from the assumption that "power is spectacle"⁴⁴, twenty scholars working in the fıeld published this volume 'to demonstrate that the distinctions between history and theory are no longer tenable and that the dialogue between theorists and historians is not only useful but also unavoidable, given the necessity of historicizing theory and theorizing history."⁴⁵ The second book is Imperialism and Theatre edited by J. Ellen Gainor (1995), which examines the theatre asa site ofresistance to imperialism.⁴⁶

 

⁴⁴ "Theatricality as metaphor, or analogy, accommodates tlıe materialist perception tlıat tlıere is a "playing out" of power relations, a "making" of authority, and a 1'scenario" of events. In other words, power is spectacle."

Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, Introduction to The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), p.

X.

 

⁴⁵ ibid., p. xi.

⁴⁶ "This voluıne will present examinations ofa range of imperial and colonial events and periods, focusing on tlıe unique nexus oftlıeatrical performance asa site for tlıe representation of, but also tlıe resistance to imperialism."

The authors depart from their claim that the 'theatre has always been a locus of political force', and address to the questions; why the theatre was selected within a culture or by an artist for the depiction of imperial and colonial concerns, and how the theatre was utilized as the disseminator ofa dominant ideology and/or the place for colonized revolt.⁴⁷ The third volume is Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (1998). The articles in the volume 'weave a narrative about the theatre's relevance to the social sphere, asa forum for public debate, a gauge of national inspirations, an enactrnent of social critique, and a space for imagining alternatives.'⁴⁸ These volumes particularly helped me to understand the ways in which anthropology, comparative literature, history and politics intermingle in the fıeld of the theater studies, and the ways in which the discipline ofhistory can benefıt from the 'theatre'. Besides these three volumes, I benefıted from the books I could fınd on Western theatre, its history and

historiography. In the following pages, I would like to touch upon this literature and

 

the way in which they are used in the fıeld of history and its sister disciplines.

 

As far as I could observe, this rapprochement becomes signifıcant in revisiting the Renaissance studies; in offering alternative approaches to early modem and modern European history; in studying imperialism and colonialism; in rethinking nationalism and revolutions; and in observing resistance against political struggles. It also offers altemative approaches to the studies of gender, race, memory, and semiotics.

Ellen Gainor, Introduction to lmperia/ism and Theatre, Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor ( Landon: New York: Routledge, 1995), p. xiii.

 

⁴⁷ ibid., p. xiv.

⁴⁸ Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer, Introduction to Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 9-10.

To start with, I can argue that the field which benefited the most both from the new historicism and from the rapprochement ofliterary studies and history was the Renaissance studies.⁴⁹

In a similar !ine with the Renaissance studies, the theatre is used to reinterpret the tensions between the absolutist monarchs and their subjects in early modern Europe, especially in England.⁵⁰ Ivo Kamp's work is particularly important in this field, since it tries 'to unfold the intricate negotiations between the genres of historiography and historical drama in the early years ofthe seventeenth century, and to relate those negotiations, whenever possible, to the representation of monarchs (and rulers) in the plays.'⁵¹ Likewise, the tension between the theater and the empire is widely studied through Elizabethan-Jacobean drama in order to understand the popular culture of the era and the regulations on the theater.⁵² Through the realm of drama and theatrical representations, these books semtinize political and social struggles as well as the cultural tissue ofthe relevant periods. Taking stage asa

 

 

 

⁴⁹ See: Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Stephen Greenblatt, The Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation ofSocial Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Califomia Press, 1988); Stephen Greenblatt, The Greenblatt Reader, edited by Michael Payne (Maiden: Blackwell Publications, 2005); Stephen Greenblatt, "Toward a Universal Language of Motion: Reflections on a Seventeenth-Century Muscle Man," in Choreographing History, edited by Susan Leigb Foster (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995), pp. 25-32; Frederic Kiefer, Writing on the Renaissance Stage (Newark: University ofDelaware Press, 1996); Greg Walker, The Po/ities of Performance in Early Renaissance Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

⁵⁰ See: Huston Diehl, Staging Reform, Reforming Stage: Protestantism and Popular Theatre in Ear/y Modern England (Ithaca, London, Comell University Press, 1997); Marc Baer, Theatre and Disorder in Lale Georgian Landon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Joseph Roach, "The Artificial Eye: Augustan Theater and the Empire ofthe Visible," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University of lowa Press, 1991), pp. 131-145.

⁵¹ Kamps, Historiography and Jdeology in Stuart Drama, p. 1.

⁵² G. Blaknıore Evans, Elizabethan-Jacobean Drama (London: A&C Black, 1987); T.B. Tomlinson,

A Study of Elizabethan and Jacobean Tragedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964).

microcosm, these authors tried to observe the expectations ofthe audience, and the ideological currents of the age.⁵³

Again, a number ofbooks focused on the governınent's attempts to

 

monopolize and to control the theatre. These works mainly focus on the eighteenth and nineteenth century England, France and Germany by touching upon the questions: How and why did these governınents try to regulate the theatre production? To what extent could !hey succeed? And, how did the audience respond to the restrictions?⁵⁴ These works emphasize the satirical nature ofthe theatre--which bothered the politicians--and the imperial control on the theatre. In a parallel way, but for a different time frarne, a group of modem scholars study the contemporary regulations towards political theatre, and governınents' restrictions on political representations.⁵⁵

With its critical and satirical nature, theatre acted as a battleground in politics,

 

especially in times of crises and revolutions. The theatre, as a means of political

 

⁵³ For an example, see: Theodore Ziolkowski, Scandal On Stage (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

⁵⁴ Nina Auerbach, "Victorian Players and Stages," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 183-198; Living Theater a History, pp. 290-294; Janice Carlisle, "Spectacle as Government: Dickens and the Working Class Audience," in The Performance of Power, Theatrica/ Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 163-182; Theodore Ziolkowski, Scandal On Stage (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Gay Gibson Cima, "Conferring Power in Theater" in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1991), pp. 255-264; Thomas Dickinson, The Theatre in a Changing Europe, (New York: Henry Holt, 1937); Margaret B. Wilkerson, "Demographics and the Academy," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 238-242; Barry B. Witham, "The Playhouse and the Committee," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Po/itics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt, (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 272-280.

⁵⁵ Tam Burvill, "Playing the Fault Lines: Two Political Theater interventions in the Australian Bicentenary Year 1988," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 229-246; Zygmunt Hubner, Theater and Politics, translated and edited by Jadwiga Kosicka (Evanston: NorthWestem University Press, 1992); Janelle Reinelt, "Theorizing Utopia: Edward Bond's War Plays," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 221-241.

mobilization, is used for the dissemination of nationalism in the nineteenth century

Europe. A recent scholarship focused on the construction of the nationalist ideology though the theatre, and concluded that the theater was indeed very influential in the

consol·ı aat•ıon of nat•ıonaı·ısın.⁵⁶

 

Similarly, during the !ast two decades, the revolutionary theaters becanıe a subject ofhistorical inquiry and encouraged, especially historians ofthe French Revolution, to study the effects of the revolution through its representation.⁵⁷ While these studies followed different paths in analyzing political performances, they ali canıe up with interesting historical information on the mass politics and on the formation of public opinion. For instance, Gralıanı Rodmell examines seven plays performed during and after the French Revolution in his book: French Drama ofthe Revolutionary Years, and observes the tension between the boulevard theatres which choose to keep their 'traditional' repertoire and the street theatres which played an important role in the dissemination ofthe revolutionary ideas.⁵⁸ Taking a different approach, Sherly Kroen looks at the legacy ofthe French Revolution through the performances ofMoliere's seventieth century comedy: Tartuffe in her book: Politics

 

 

⁵⁶ Tristan Marshall, Theatre and Empire: Great Britain on the Landon Stages under James VJ and I (Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 2000); Loren Knıger, "Attending (to) the National Spectacle: Institııting National (Popular) Theater in England and France," in Macropolitics ofNineteenth-Century Literature: Nationalism, Exoticism, lmperialism, edited by Jonathan Arac and Harriet Ritvo, (Durhanı, London: Duke University Press, 1995), pp. 243-267.

⁵⁷ For the literature on French Revolutionary theatre, see: Paul Friedlaud, Political Actors: Representative Bodies and Theatricality in the Age of the French Revolution (Comell University Press, 2002); Sheryl Kroen, Politics and Theater, The Crises of Legitimacy in Restoration France 1815-1830, (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Califomia Press, 2000); Susan Maslan, Revolutionary Acts: Theater, Democracy and the French Revolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005); Grahanı E Rodmell, French Drama ofthe Revolutionary Years, (London, New York: Routledge, 1990); Gillliau Russell, The Theatres ofWar: Pe,formance, Politics, and Society, 1793-1815. (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1995); Marvin Carlson, Performance: A Critica/ Introduction, (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 97.

⁵⁸ Graham E Rodmell, French Drama of the Revo/utionary Years, (London, New York: Routledge, 1990).

and Theater, The Crises of Legitimacy in Restoration France 1815-1830.⁵⁹ On the other hand, Susan Maslan, in her book Revolutionary Acts: Theater, Democracy and the French Revolution, examines the birth of mass politics through a close observation of the dramatic events in the age of Revolution and argues that a new genre "domestic surveillance", linking the politics in the household with the politics in the public sphere was invented through the Revolutionary theatre.⁶⁰ Lastly, I would like to mention historian Paul Friedland and his book: Political Actors: Representative Bodies and Theatricality in the Age of the French Revolution.

Friedland looks at the French Revolutionary theatre and concludes that it was actually very similar to the ways in which manners in the national assembly were conducted. Tirrough a comparison between the stage and the general assembly, he observes the creation of public opinion in the revolutionary years.⁶¹

On the other hand, when we survey the Russian theatre literature, where again theatre played a crucial role in the dissemination of the revolutionary ideologies, we cannot fınd many sources.⁶² However, the sources that I could reach show that we can speak ofa 'theatre epidemic ' in the days following the Russian Revolution of 1917.⁶³ In the Russian case, the revolutionary drama and the mass spectacles

⁵⁹ Sheryl Kroen, Po/ities and Theater, The Crises of Legitimacy in Restoration France 1815-1830,

(Berkeley, Las Angeles: University of California Press, 2000).

⁶⁰ Susan Maslan, Revolutionary Acts: Theater, Democracy and the French Revo/ution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005).

⁶¹ Paul Friedland, Political Actors: Representative Bodies and Theatricality in the Age ofthe French Revolution (Comell University Press, 2002).

⁶² It is indeed worse in the case ofthe lranian Revolution. Again, although we know that theatre was strongly influential in mobilizing the masses after the revolution, I could find a fıne literature on the subject.

⁶³ For the literature on the Russian Revolutionary theatre, see: Robert Russell, Russian Drama of the Revolutionary Period (London: Macınillian, 1988); Robert Leach, Revolutionary Theatre (London, New York: Routledge, 1994); Murray Fraıne, The St. Petersburg Imperial Theaters, Stage and State in Imperial Russia, 1900-1920 (Jefferson, North Carolina, London: McFarland & Coınpany !ne.

Publishers, 2000); Carlson, Performance: A Critical lntroduction, pp. 95-98.

consolidated themselves asa means of social intervention.⁶⁴ Theatre historians working on the subject looked at the post revolutionary Russian theatre from different perspectives. For instance, while Robert Leach looked at the mass movements through a draruaturgical perspective, historian Murray Frarue took a Marxist approach and tried to understand the transformation of the social classes via the transformation of the imperial theaters.⁶⁵

While the revolutions of the nineteenth and the twentieth century perceived the theatre as a social event, the political currents of the twentieth century politicized the repertoire. In modem political drarua, the most prominent fıgure of the early twentieth century was probably Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) who established the tradition of "political theatre" with his model of 'epic drarua'. Being different from ali the references I mentioned, and ali the literature intersecting history and theatre, works focusing on Brecht and epic theatre produced a huge literature in the twentieth century.⁶⁶ According to Brecht, 'the aim ofthe epic drarua was to achieve the reverse: a political transformation through performance of the theatre as a social and cultural institution.'⁶⁷ Brecht and his model has been a milestone in the modem theatre historiography.

⁶⁴ Leach, Revolutionary Theatre, pp. 49-51.

⁶⁵ See, Robert Leach, Revolutionary Theatre (London, New York: Routledge, 1994); Murray Frame, The St. Petersburg lmperial Theaters, Stage and State in Imperial Russia, 1900-1920 (Jefferson, North Carolina, London: McFarland & Company Inc. Publishers, 2000).

⁶⁶ Carlson, Theories ofthe Theatre, pp.382-383; Elaine Brousseau, "Personalizing !he Political in !he Noam Chomsky Lectures," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 246-264; Saralı Bryant-Bertail, "The Good Soldier Schwejk as Dialectical Theater," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Jowa: University of Jowa Press, 1991), pp. 19-41; Lionel Pilkington, "Irish Theater Historiography and Political Resistance," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny

S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 13-30; David Savran, "Revolution...History...Theater: The Politics ofthe Wooster Group's Second Trilogy," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Jowa: University oflowaPress, 1991), pp. 41-45.

⁶⁷ Pilkington, "Irish Theater Historiography and Political Resistance," p. 16.

1960s and 1970s witnessed mass political movements ali around the world. However, the ones who influenced the political theatre and its historiography the most were the post-war (especially Vietnam War and Cold War) theatres. ⁶⁸ The following decade witnessed the production ofthe guerilla performances and avant­ garde theatres, which spread ali around the world.⁶⁹ A group of them developed in the United States and were pioneered by Richard Schechner.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, with the rise ofnew 'sister disciplines' and especially with the development of subaltem and gender studies, a new interest in theatre asa 'site ofresistance' gained importance. The rise ofthe post colonial theory brought other perspectives on the cultural and political dimensions of performance, as performance came to be recognized not only in the operations of hegemonic political powers, but perhaps more importantly in resistance to those powers.⁷⁰ The most influential name in the post colonial drama was Homi Bhabha with his book The Location ofCulture (1994)⁷¹. In the 1990s and 2000s, a number of scholars worked on the functioning of the colonial theatre as a popular form of opposition

 

 

⁶⁸ See: Carlson, Performance: A Critical Introduction, pp. 194-197; Nora M. Alter, "Vietnarnese Theatre ofResistance: Thich Nhat Hanh's Metaphysical Sortie on the Margins," in lmperialism and Theatre: Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 1-19; Spencer Golup, "Charlie Chaplin, Soviet Icon," in The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 199-220; John Beli, "Beyond the Cold War: Bread and Puppet and the New World Order," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Po/itica/ Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Arın Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 31-53.

⁶⁹ See: Carlson, Performance: A Critical Introduction, p. 180; Richard Schechner, "Guerilla Theatre: May 1970," The Drama Review, no. 14/3 (1970), pp. 163-168; Michale Quinn, "Statellite Drama: Imperialism, Slovakia and the Case of Peter Karvas," in Imperialism and Theatre: Essays on Wor/d Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995),

pp. 214-230; Lisa Jo. Epstein, "Flexing Images, Changing Vision: The Visions: The Twin Poles of Contemporary French Political Theater," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Arın Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 54-73.

7°Carlson, Performance: A Critica/ Introduction, p. 198.

⁷¹ Horni Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 1994).

towards imperialism.⁷² The postcolonial perspective in the theatre triggered race studies as well. The struggles between the politics of cultural assirnilation and black consciousness are publicly staged both in the colonial lands and in the metropolitan centers and became subjects ofhistorical inquiry.⁷³

In a parallel !ine with the subaltem studies, gender studies and memory studies, disciplines consolidating themselves in the second half ofthe twentieth century were interested in theatrical representation. Gender studies were not only

 

 

 

 

 

⁷² See: Alan Filewood, "Erect Sons and Dutiful Daughters: Imperialism, Empires and Canadian Theatre," in /mperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by

J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 56-71; Sue Ellen Case, "The Eurocolonial Reception of Sanskrit Poetics," In The Performance of Power, Theatrical Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1991), pp. 111-131; Sudipto Chatterjee, "Mise en (Colonial) Scene: The Theatre oftlıe Bengal Renaissance," in lmperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 19-38; Robert Kavanagh, Theatre and Cultural Struggle in South Africa (London: Zed Books, 1985); Mary Karen Dahi, "Postcolonial British Theatre: Black Voices at the Center," inlmperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 38-56; Carlson, Performance: A Critical lntroduction, pp. 198-205; Donald Frishmann, "Contemporary Mayan Theatre and Etlınic Conflict: The Recovery and (RE) Interpretation ofHistory," in /mperialism and Theatre. Essays on Wor/d Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 71-85; Gainor, Introduction to lmperialism and Theatre, pp. xiii-xv; Michael Hays, "Representing Empire: Class, Culture, and tlıe Popular Theatre in tlıe Nineteentlı Century," in lmperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by

J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 132-148; Loren Kruger, ""That Fluctuating Movement ofNational Consciousness": Protest, Publicity, and Postcolonial Theatre in South Africa," inlmperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 148-164; Robert Erle Livingston, "Decolonizing the Theatre: Cesaire, Serreau and the Drama ofNegritude," in Imperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performaoce, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 182-199; Julie Stone Peters, "Intercultural Performance, Theatre Antlıropology, and tlıe Imperialist Critique: Identities, Inheritances, and Neo-Orthodoxies," in lmperia/ism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 199-214; Elaine Savory "Strategies for Survival: Anti-Imperialist Theatrical Forms in tlıe Anglophone Caribbean," in lmperialism and Theatre. Essays on World Theatre, Drama and Performance, edited by J. Ellen Gainor (London, New York:

Routledge, 1995), pp. 243-257.

⁷³ See: Dahi, "Postcolonial British Theatre: Black Voices at tlıe Center," pp. 38-56; Livingston, "Decolonizing tlıe Theatre: Cesaire, Serreau and tlıe Drama ofNegritude," pp. 182-199, Kim F. Hali, "Sexual Politics aod Cultural Identity in The Masque ofBlackness," in The Performance of Power, Theatrica/ Discourse and Politics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case aod Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1991), pp. 3-19.

interested in gendered representations⁷4,but also intersected with a different genre of drama, feminist theatre.

Recent scholarship on memory studies have been interested in the theater studies as well.⁷⁵ Since 'memory is socially and culturally constructed through different kinds of representations', and since 'it acts as a storage of visual images', some scholars sought for alternative approaches in the theatre history.⁷⁶

Before concluding this section, I would like to mention that history of art and architecture and semiotics also benefit from the theatre and theatre history in developing their works.⁷⁷

My little survey in the field convinced me that I can never know exactly where the disciplines of history and the theater intersected since they don't really have borders. Therefore, even though I tried to touch upon the works intersecting the theatre and history, I recognized that they are actually much more numerous than I can ever imagine. Consequently, I want to conclude this part with saluting the new historicism which reminded scholars that the fıelds ofliterature and history are extremely entangled.

⁷⁴ See: Marcia Blumberg, "Re-staging Resistance, Re-Viewing Women: 1990s Productions of Fugard's Hello and Goodbye and Boesman and Lena," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 122-145; Josephine Lee, "Pity and Terror as Public Acts: Reading Feminist Politics in the Plays ofMaria !rene Fomes," in Staging Resistance, Essays on Political Theater, edited by Jeanne Colleran and Jenny S. Spencer (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1998), pp. 166-185; Reinelt, "Theorizing Utopia: Edward Bond's War Plays," pp. 221-241.

⁷⁵ See: Jeffrey Mason, "The Politics ofMetamora," in The Performance of Power, Theatrica/ Discourse and Po/itics, edited by Sue-Ellen Case and Janelle Reinelt (Iowa: University oflowa Press, 1991), pp. 92-111; Marvin Carlson, The Haunted Stage: The Theatre asa Memory Machine (Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press, 2003); Adrienne Kaeppler, "Memory and Knowledge in the Production ofDance," in Images of Memory, on Remembering and Representation, edited by Susanne Küchler and Walter Melion (Washington, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), pp. 109-120.

⁷⁶ Walter Melion and Susanne Küclıler, Introduction to Images of Memory, on Remembering and Representation, edited by Susanne Küchler and Walter Melion (Washington, London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), pp. 4-7.

⁷⁷ See: Marvin Carlson, Places of Performance (Ithaca, London: Comell University Press, 1993).

 

 

Situating the Ottoman Theater Within the Middle Eastem Context

 

 

In the previous sections, I tried to give an overview of the Westem literature on the theatre history and altemative approaches of history which take the theatre, scripts, and performances as sources ofhistorical research. Consequently, I realized that the theatre history is not only apart ofthe European early modem and modem history, but also a developing field of history since 1980s. On the other hand, my survey also showed that the literature of the Middle Eastem theatre history is extremely limited. Even though we can find some sources on the traditional performances such as puppetry⁷⁸, we cannot find enough sources on staged performances. üne reason of this limitation lies in the very nature of the theatre, which was bom and grew as a 'Westem style' cultural form. It always kept its reputation as an 'elitist' form of art. Moreover, since the European social structures and the Middle Eastem ones are not similar, theoretical frarneworks like that ofBourdieu cannot be applied to the Middle Eastem context. I believe that using the theoretical frameworks of the Westem theatre historiography in the Middle Eastem context would produce Eurocentric analyses and underestimate the peculiarities ofthe theatre in these geographies.

Another reason is the restrictions oflslam on the body. Even though the recent scholarship challenges this view, the Middle East is generally considered to be 'without drama'. When we exarnine the general literature on the Middle Eastem theatre⁷⁹, we can see that it is actually very much under the influence of the Ottoman theatre. Europeanization ofthe Arab theater, for instance, was influenced by the

⁷⁸ See: Nicholas Martinovitch, The Turkish Theater (New York: Theatre Arts Inc., 1933).

⁷⁹ Jacob M. Landau, Studies in the Arab Theater and Cinema (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1958); Samuel Moreh, Live Theatre and Dramatic Literature in the Medieval Arab World (Edinburg: Edinburg University Press, 1993); Arlette Roth, Le Theatre Algerien de la Langue Dialectale 1926-1954, (Paris: François Maspero, 1967).

Ottoman modernization and was led by Marun Al- Naqqash (1817-1855) who introduced the modem theater to Egypt. Al-Naqqash had knowledge of the French and Italian theatres, and he introduced Moliere's plays to his audience. Soon Al­ Naqqash held the monopoly ofthe theatre in Egypt.⁸⁰ Al-Naqqash was also very influential in the introduction ofthe modem theatre into the North African peninsula.⁸¹ Samuel Moreh informs us that the Westem style theatre became so popular in Egypt that "men paid ali their eamings to attend it, leaving their families hungry."⁸² While Jacob Landau published the first seminal works in the field in the 1950s, the recent scholarship on the Middle Eastem theater led by Philip Sadgrove and Masud Hamdan introduced social perspectives and historical analyses in the political development of the theater. Sadgrove surveys the development of the Westem theater in Egypt under the French and the British occupations first by scrutinizing the attempts of founding a modem Arab theater in the 1870s and then by examining the projects of the national theatre.⁸³ Hamdan, on the other hand, perceives theater as an aesthetic medium ofmass communication that combines art and politics in the Arabic society by scrutinizing a later time period.⁸⁴ The theatre developed incredibly in these lands via the inevitable interaction with the European powers. For instance, the North African and especially Algerian theatre emerged after the First World War both with the emergence ofa national consciousness and

⁸⁰ Landau, Studies in the Arab Theater and Cinema, p. 57.

⁸¹ See: Arlette Roth, Le Theatre Algerien de la Langue Dialectale 1926-1954, (Paris: François Maspero, 1967).

⁸² Moreh, Live Theatre and Dramatic Literature in the Medieval Arab World, p. 161.

⁸³ Philip Sadgrove, The Egyptian Theatre in theNineteenth Century (1799-1882) (Oxford: Ithaca Press, 1996).

 

⁸⁴ Mas'ud Hamdan, Poetics, Politics and Protest in Arab Theatre (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2006).

with Westem interactions.⁸⁵ While these territories which were parts of the Ottoman Empire or which were highly influenced by the Ottoman theatre developed their own political repertoire after the First World War, Iran--or to put it more correctly, Persia­

-seems to be one of the few models in the political uses of the theatre for the Ottomans in the early twentieth century. It is very interesting that the Iranian Constitutionalist Revolution of 1905 paved the way for the Iranian theater troupes and Tehran public playhouses.⁸⁶ As Willem Floor's The History ofTheater in Iran informs us the constitutionalist regime perceived the theater as a vehicle to diffuse the reformist ideas among the public, and therefore, encouraged its consumption.⁸⁷

The literature on the Middle Eastem theatre, its development and its historiography is a developing field. This literature takes its cue by the Ottoman theatre historiography, which produced a number ofworks even though some have problematic aspects, as will be discussed in the following chapter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

⁸⁵ Rotlı, Le Theatre Algerien de la Langue Dialectale 1926-1954, p. 22.

⁸⁶ Bruınınett, The Image and The Imperialism, p. 206.

⁸⁷ Willem Floor, The History ofTheater in Iran (Washington, DC: Mage Pııblishers, 2005), p. 222.

CHAPTERIII

 

OTTOMAN THEATRE HISTORIOGRAPHY

 

 

The Literary and Historical Approaches

 

 

 

Unlike Westem literature, Ottoman and Turkish theatre history did not attract the attention ofhistorians ofthe !ate Ottoman history, even though it has been one ofthe main domains of Ottoman social life reflecting the political tension. Although the history of modem Turkish theatre, which takes the declaration of the Turkish Republic (1923) asa starting point, has been widely studied by the discipline of modem theatre studies, Ottoman theatre history remained as an understudied field.⁸⁸ üne reason ofthis neglect can be the problem oflanguage. Studying Ottoman theatre history does not only require the knowledge of Ottoman script, but also those of Armenian and French, since the very nature ofthe Ottoman theatre is multilingual.

As popular theatre activities were held by the Armenian community in İstanbul, Armenian sources are very important to interpret the development of the Ottoman theater. On the other hand, since a number of the plays were translated from French, or staged in French both in the palace theatres and in the theaters of Pera, knowledge of French is also necessary in examining the repertoire.

The Ottoman theatre is studied mainly from two perspectives. The first one is the approach ofliterature, which evaluates theatre with its 'literary value'; and the second one is the approach which tries to take social and political aspects into account. While the first approach remained in the purview of literary analyses, the second one led Metin And (1927-2008) and Refik Ahmet Sevengil (1903- 1970)

⁸⁸ See the works of Sevda Şener, Mehmet Fuat, Zehra İpşiroğlu, Ôzdemir Nutku, Metin And, and Ergun Sav.

created seminal works on the history of the Ottoman Theater. Throughout this section, I will focus on the second approach which developed in the works of two generations.

 

 

Constructing a Historiography ofthe Late Ottoman Theater in the Works of Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil

 

 

The scholars of the first generation consist of Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Metin And, Özdemir Nutku (b.1931) and Niyazi Akı (1912-1992). While none ofthese leading names is a historian, Refik Ahmet Sevengil and Metin And can be considered as the two fathers ofthe Ottoman theatre history and lıistoriography.

The first one of these scholars, Niyazi Akı takes the approach ofliterature arıd works on the nineteenth century dramatic literature. Niyazi Akı published two books on the subject. In the first one; 19. Yüzyıl Türk Tiyatrosu Tarihi8⁹ (1963) (History of the Nineteenth Century Turkish Theatre), he tried to categorize the plays according to their genres, and grouped them under categories tike 'comedy', 'tragedy', 'historical dramas', 'romantic dramas', 'melodramas', arıd 'folk dramas' without

touching upon cultural, social or political aspects of the plays. In his second work,

 

19. Yüzyıl Türk Tiyatrosunda Devrin Hayat ve İnsanı. Sosyopsikolojik Deneme⁹⁰ (1974) (Lives and People ofthe Epoch in the Nineteenth Century Turkish Theatre: A Socio-Psychological Approach), he chose a more problematic categorization, and regrouped the plays according to the themes he selected, such as 'love', 'ideologies',

 

⁸⁹ Niyazi Akı, 19. Yüzyıl Türk Tiyatrosu Tarihi (Erzurum: Ankara Ünversitesi Basıınevi, 1963).

 

⁹⁰ Niyazi Akı, 19. Yüzyıl Türk Tiyatrosunda Devrin Hayat ve lnsanı. Sosyopsikolojik Deneme,

(Erzurum: Atatürk Ünversitesi Basıınevi, 1974).

'life', 'characters', and 'belief ete. This approach did not only oversimplify the themes of the plays, but alsa depoliticized them.

The second influential name in the Ottoman theatre historiography and a pioneering scholar in the theatre studies is Özdemir Nutku. Most of his works such as Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi (The World Theatre History); Dram Sanatı (Art of Drama); Gösterim Sanatı Terimleri Sözlüğü (Dictionary of Performing Arts), Oyunculuk Tarihi (History of Acting); Tiyatro ve Yazar (The Theatre and The Playwright)⁹¹ can be considered as 'reference books'. Although Nutku conceptualized most of his works within the traditional domains of the discipline of the theatre, he was

interested in the Ottoman theatre history and devoted a chapter in his work Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi (The World Theatre History) to the Ottoman theatre and classified the plays staged in the second half of the nineteenth century according to their playwrights.⁹² Niyazi Akı and Özdemir Nutku's works on the nineteenth and early twentieth century theatre Iiterature offers a brief insight to the world of the theater in the !ate Ottoman era, but do nott include social and political analyses on the !ate Ottoman theatre.

The fist attempts of historicizing theatre, and 'putting ali the information together' came from the two fathers of the Turkish theatre history: Refik Ahmet Sevengil and Metin And. Even though their works have some problematic aspects, batlı Sevengil and And introduced vast amount of sources, and tried to historicize the Ottoman and the Turkish theatres.

⁹¹ Özdemir Nutku, Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi, (İstanbul: Remzi, 1993); Özdemir Nutku, Dram Sanatı: Tiyatroya Giriş, (İstanbul : Kabalcı Yaymevi, 1998); Özdemir Nutku, Gösterim Sanatı Terimleri Sözlüğü, (Anlma: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1983); Özdemir Nutku, Modern Tiyatro Akımları: 19. Yüzyıl Tiyarosıı, (Ankara : Dost Yayınları, 1963); Özdemir Nutku, Oyunculuk Tarihi, (Ankara : Dost Kitabevi, 2002); Özdemir Nutku, Tiyatro ve Yazar, (Ankara: Giru Yayınları, 1960).

 

⁹² See: Özdemir Nutku, Dünya Tiyatrosu Tarihi (İstanbul: Remzi, 1993).

Refik Ahmet Sevengil's Türk Tiyatro Tarihi (Turkish Theatre History), published in 1934, can be considered the first attempt to write a history ofthe Ottoman theater. Refik Ahmet Sevengil started his career as a joumalist, then was nominated asa deputy in 1930 and played an influential role in the Turkish National Assembly later in his life. On the other hand, as a theater-lover, he departed with a modest daim and produced the first and the most important books on the Turkish theatre history. ⁹³ In his introduction, he mentions that since there is not even a single work on the Westem-style theater, he asa theater-lover wanted to share his knowledge and his little research by publishing the book as a 'first attempt'. His personal connections with the previous generation who produced most of the first play scripts of the Turkish theatre, the accessibility of the sources, and his memoirs made his narrative very fluent. In his first work, he did not intend to do any social, cultural or political analyses, but narrated a history of his own as ifhe was telling his memoirs. In the following years, Refik Ahmet Sevengil decided to do an inclusive monograph, comprising five volumes on the Turkish theatre history. The fırst of these volumes was published in 1959 under the title of Eski Türklerde Dram Sanatı (The Art of Drama in Ancient Turks).⁹⁴ Being influenced by the historiographical currents ofthe 1930s and 1940s, this study looked for the roots of drama in the Turkish societies. His second volume Opera Sanatı İle İlk Temaslarımız (First Contacts with the Art of Opera) was published the same year, 1959.⁹⁵ Sevengil narrated a 'history' on the introduction ofthe opera in the Ottoman court. Again, his narrative was similar to that ofa memoir. He did not give many references other than some newspaper articles, or did not intend to make any comments or analyses on the

⁹³ Rerık Ahmet Sevengil, Türk Tiyatrosu (İstanbul: Kanaat Kütüphanesi, 1934), pp. 9-10.

 

⁹⁴ Rerık Ahmet SevengiL Eski Türklerde Dram Sanatı (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi, 1959).

 

⁹⁵ Rerık Ahmet Sevengil, Opera Sanatı ile İlk Temaslarımız (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basun Evi, 1959).

subject. The third volııme; Tanzimat Tiyatrosu (Tanzimat⁹⁶ Theatre) was published in 1961.⁹⁷ The book attempted to docııment the theatre activities of the Ottoman intellectuals, and mainly consisted ofthese chapters: 'Şinasi and Theatre', 'Güllü Agop and the Gedikpaşa Theatre', 'Ahmet Vefik Paşa and Theatre', 'Ziya Paşa and Theatre', 'Namık Kemal and Theatre'. Starting from his third volııme, Sevengil's narrative gained a more historical and more docıımentary manner. Even though he historicized theatre in a certain intellectual milieu, he chose to form his narrative on the 'important' names, and left many others out.⁹⁸ Although Sevengil used a highly selective method, the way he formed his narratives and the sources he used constructed a solid material on the complex relationship of the Ottoman intellectuals (most ofwhom were politicians) with the popular theatre. His fourth volııme: Saray Tiyatrosu (Palace Theatre) examining the imperial theatre under four successive sultans during the nineteenth century was published in 1962. Sevengil, in a way, strengthened the division between the imperial theatre which was under the patronage ofthe Ottoman sultan and the popular theatre which was under the patronage ofthe Ottoman intellectuals. His third volume Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, and his fourth volume Saray Tiyatrosu were both on the nineteenth century, but narrated two separate theatre histories, and therefore drew a !ine between the theatre activities held under the patronage of the sultan and the theatre activities held under the patronage ofthe Ottoman intellectuals. According to Sevengil, the theatre activities in İstanbul

 

⁹⁶ 'Tanzimat' means 'reorganization' and refers to the era between 1839-1876. The era began with the declaration oftlıe lmperial Rescript ofthe Rose Chamber in 1839, and ended with tlıe First Constitııtional era in 1876. Starting from 1839, a nmnber ofreforms on administration are undertaken. This era did witness to the vast movements ofbureaucratization, secularization and modernization.

 

⁹⁷ Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi, 1961).

 

⁹⁸ Some ofthese narnes will be included in the works of Metin And.

were 'enclosed within the walls ofthe Palace' .⁹⁹ I believe that this twosome image is misleading since it does not reflect the complex relationship between the imperial and the popular theatre.

In his !ast volume: Meşrutiyer⁰⁰Tiyatrosu (Theatre ofthe Constitutional

 

Monarchy), published in 1968, he observed the popular theatre activities via scrutinizing the popular theatre troupes.¹⁰¹The book consisted ofthe analyses ofthe theater troupes such as 'The Troupe ofMınakyan', ' The Troupe of Ahmet Fehim', 'The Troupe of Burhaneddin', 'The Troupe ofBenemeciyan', 'The Troupe of Mürebbi- Hissiyat', 'Troupes of Muhsin Ertugrul', 'The Troupe ofthe Navy', 'State Conservatory' ete. In brief, he composed his narrative upon the study of the theatre companies and actors. Differing from other works on the theatre of the constitutional era, the book included Sevengil's personal conversations with the playwrights of the era like Kazım Nami Duru.¹⁰² His personal connection to the era did not only make his narrative stronger but also helped to conceptualize Sevengil's perception and political ideas for the reader. On the other hand, Sevengil's narrative had one serious shortcoming. He wrote his books within a strong historical discourse inherited from the 1930s. Sevengil's narrative was problematically in the same !ine with the narrative ofthe post-revolutionary theatre scripts glorifying the regime ofthe Unionists and condemning the 'tyranny' ofthe Sultan Abdülhamid II. He neither criticized these plays, nor evaluated them.

 

 

⁹⁹ Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Saray Tiyatrosu (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi, 1962), p. 1.

 

¹⁰⁰ 'Meşrutiyet' means 'constitutional monarchy', and refers to the period between 1908; known as the 'Revolution of 1908', and 1923; the declaration ofthe Turkish Republic.

 

¹⁰¹ Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi, 1968).

 

¹⁰² ibid., p. 10.

The second father of the Turkish theatre history; Metin And criticized Refik Ahmet Sevengil for being very selective.¹⁰³ Metin And argues that Sevengil just touched upon some main theatre troupes, and left many relatively small theater groups behind. üne can consider Refik Ahmet Sevengil as the initiator of the Turkish Theater Historiography, and Metin And as the father ofthe Turkish Theatre history as a discipline. Metin And is the only scholar who conducted research in a number of languages, and he is the only one who introduced Turkish theatre history to many different academic circles and languages. As I will discuss later, Metin And's narrative is the dominant narrative in the field.

Although Metin And cites Sevengil in his bibliography, he specifically underlines that he did not receive help from anyone and that almost ali the sources he used were his own.¹⁰⁴ Metin And states that he prepared his four volumes on the Turkish theatre history as reference books. He mentioned that his methodology is 'to put everything into these volumes without any attempt to choose or to evaluate', and legitimized the most problematic aspect of his work: 'putting everything together without analyzing!' ¹⁰⁵ Although Metin And's scholarship has some shortcomings, the vast information he introduced formed the body of the discipline and succeeded in becoming 'the reference books' he aimed them to be. On the other hand, Metin And's volumes alsa introduced two important challenges in the field: The problem of periodization and the problem of categorization.¹⁰⁶ Metin And divided the Turkish

¹⁰³ Metin And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1971), p. 9.

 

¹⁰⁴ ibid., p. 8.

 

¹⁰⁵ ibid., p. 7.

 

¹⁰⁶ "Türk Tiyatrosu tarihini artık kesin olarak dört dönemde inceliyoruz. Bunlardan ilki gerek köylerde, gerek kentlerde yüzyıllar boyunca Türk halkının yabancı etkilerden uzak, kendi yaratıcı gücüyle geliştirdiği özgün Geleneksel Türk Tiyatrosu. Bundan sonraki üç dönemin ortak kaynağı Batı tiyatrosu ve kültrüdür. Bunların ilki Tanzimat ve İstibdat'ta Türk Tiyatrosu (1839-1908). Üçüncü

theater history into four distinct periods. Unlike Refik Ahmet Sevengil's organization of his five volumes, Metin And's volumes are defined with concrete dates. The first volume Geleneksel Türk Tiyatrosu¹⁰⁷ (The Traditional Turkish Theatre), published in 1969, narrated 'the creative Turkish performances that were formed without foreign influences, but via the Turkish creative minds.' ıos The second volume Tanzimat ve İstibdat'ta Türk Tiyatrosu (1839-1908) (The Turkish Theater ofI'anzimat and İstibdat¹⁰⁹), published in 1972, provides concrete historical dates such as the declaration ofthe Imperial Rescript ofthe Rose Chamber (1839) as the beginning, and the declaration of the Second Constitution in 1908 as the ending point of an era.¹¹⁰ Similarly, the third volume; Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu (1908- 1923) (The Turkish Theater in the Constitutionalist Era 1908-1923), published in 1971, takes the declaration ofthe Second Constitution (1908) as the beginning, and the declaration of the modem Turkish Republic as the closure of another era. This volume, drawing some parallels between the French and Ottoman Revolutionary theatres, shows some tendencies to historicize the revolutionary theatre of the Ottoman Empire witlıin a comparative perspective.¹¹¹ The !ast volume; Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Tiyatrosu (The Theatre ofthe Turkish Republic), published in 1973,

 

 

 

 

dönem ise bu kitabın konusu olan Meşrutiyet'te Türk Tiyatrosu (1908-1923)'dıır. Dördüncü ve sonuncusu ise Cumhııriyet'in 50. Yıldönümünde yaymlamnasmı umduğum Cumhuriyet'te Türk Tiyatrosu (1923-1973)'dıır." ibid.

 

¹⁰⁷ Metin And, Geleneksel Türk Tiyatrosu (Ankara: Bilgi Yaymevi, 1969).

 

¹⁰⁸ And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 7.

¹⁰⁹ İstibdad means 'tyranny' and refers to the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II.

 

¹¹⁰ Metin And, Tanzimat ve istibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, (Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, Ankara, 1972).

 

¹¹¹ And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 9.

took 1908 as the starting point ofa new distinct era. ¹¹² Consequently, I can claim that his narrative emphasized the historical ruptures rather than continuities between these four periods. The second problem in Metin And's narrative is the problem of categorization. Metin And used the very same classifıcations in his !ast three books for three different time periods. While the problem of periodization created a disconnected, static image ofhistory, the problem of classifıcation/categorization made his volumes even more problematic. He classifıed the theater of Tanzimat (the Reformation period), Meşrutiyet (The Constitutionalist period) and Cumhuriyet (the Republican era) with the same schemes without regarding the particularities of each period. Metin And scrutinized 'the history oftheatre' mainly under three chapters: 'Stage and Acting', 'Overview ofthe Dramatic Literature', and 'the Plays' in ali three periods. These classifıcations ended up with the inevitable oversimplifıcation of the complex plays and entangled politics. Moreover, since it is very hard to classify one play under one single category, or one playwright who produced scripts of different genres, under one single geme, this problem created repetitions in the narrative. After discussing the problems of periodization and classifıcation in Metin And's works, I should also ask the question: Was it possible not to periodize or not to categorize? When I looked for an answer in the Westem literature on theatre studies, I recognized that although they challenged the periodization paradigms in the !ate 1980s, and argued for the practice of 'history of mentalities' in the theatre studies, none ofthe theorists could fınd 'the best way to periodize'.¹¹³ For instance, the literary critic Thomas Postlewait challenged the tendency of periodization by stating

 

¹¹² Metin And, Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk Tiyatrosu, 1923-1983, (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1983).

 

¹¹³ See: Thomas Postlewait, "The Criteria for Periodization in Theatre History." Theatre Journal, no.

40 (1998), pp. 299-318.

that: "Whatever our method we must recognize that the current evasive practice of making "time charts", with theatre events in one section and political events in another, tells us almost nothing!" But again, he concluded by arguing that he could

not find a way to blend the political events with the theatrical ones. 114 If one recalls

 

that Metin And prepared his works in the 1960s, before the rise of the cultural and narrative turns in the Westem historiography, one can admit that these were groundbreaking works, making a whole latent theatre literature available for researchers.

Sevengil and And, the two fathers of the Turkish theatre history constructed the backbone of the field, and offered extensive sources and references for the study of the Ottoman theatre. However, both Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil did not consider the role of the audience and the impact of the performances which can indeed reverse the message of the script depending on how it was performed in their works. On the other hand, even though they worked through the texts, they did not intend to do textual analyses. üne other problem is their concentration on the dominant theatre troupes. Although Metin And criticized Sevengil of being too elitist, he did not include the arnateur groups and small groups of performers in his analyses, either. Besides these problematic aspects, I think that the main three problems challenging the narratives are, as I mentioned before, the problem of periodization, the problem of categorization, and the problem ofhistorical bias. Even though the !arter problem is more obvious in Sevengil's narratives, both authors caries a historical bias towards the old regime, and a tendency to glorify the reign of the Committee ofUnion and Progress, and subsequently the victory ofthe new

 

 

¹¹⁴ ibid., p. 31O.

Turkish Republic. The Republican historical discourses also prevented the historicization of the plays within the dynarnics of their own eras.

While the books of Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil can be considered 'bibles' for the researcher, another reference source Tiyatro Bibliografyası (1856- 1928) (Bibliography ofThe Theatre 1856-1928), published in 1967, is as important as the previously mentioned books for scholars. Tiyatro Bibliografyası (1856-1928) is prepared by two librarians who 'loved the theatre': Türkan Poyraz and Nurnisa Tuğrul.¹¹⁵ I think that this work is extremely important since it is the only bibliographical source accomplishing a detailed analysis in the main libraries and archives of İstanbul and Ankara. On the other hand, since the authors did not conduct the research in the small or provincial libraries such as the National Library of İzmir, which is indeed very rich in the field ofthe theater, the bibliography can be considered 'incomplete'.

 

In the Footsteps of the First Generation: Revisiting the Late Qttoman Theater

 

 

The second generation theatre historians and literary critics chose to stand closer to the approach of literature, which tries to evaluate the theatre with its 'literary value' rather than historicizing it. 'The second generation' mainly consists ofthree narnes; Efdal Sevinçli, Alemdar Yalçın and Enver Töre; professors currently teaching in the departments ofliterature and performing arts in different universities of Turkey. The second generation did not intend to historicize the theatre scripts or to include historical and social analyses. Being highly influenced by the first generation, the

 

 

 

 

¹¹⁵ Türkan Poyraz, and Nurisa Tuğrul. Tiyatro Bibliyografyası (1859-1928). (Ankara: Milli Eğitim Matbaası, 1967), p. viii.

works ofthe second generation revisited Metin And's and Refik Ahmet Sevengil's research.

I would like to start by discussing the works of Efdal Sevinçli, which formed

 

around two axes; the theatre activities held in İzmir, and the life of Muhsin Ertugrul (1892-1979), a pioneering name in the development ofthe modem Turkish theatre and cinema. In his work on the theatre activities held in İzmir¹¹⁶, Sevinçli did not use a chronological narrative, but rather chose to transliterate some articles on the theatre activities held in İzmir between the years 1839-1923. While he initiated 'a loca! history ofthe theatre', the book did not historicize the Ottoman theater. On the other hand, in his works on the biography of Muhsin Ertugrul, he analyzed the mental and the professional worlds of Muhsin Ertuğrul and historicized his life within the politics ofthe !ate Ottoman and early Republican history. ıı⁷

The second pioneering name in the second generation; Alemdar Yalçın claims to accomplish 'a work not only on the literature ofthe Constitutionalist era, but also on the social and cultural history of the era.' ııs He worked on the plays staged after the Revolution of 1908, and organized them into five thematic categories such as 'the scripts themed on the old regime', 'political ideologies', 'education', 'city life', and 'family'. His categorization is reminiscent ofthe categorization of Metin And and Niyazi Akı. His classification underestimated the links between these scripts, and made the historicization of the plays harder. Yalçın gives the abstracts of some scripts but doesn't get involved in textual analyses. On the other hand, he

 

"' Efdal Sevinçli, İzmir "de Tiyatro (İzmir: Ege Yayıncılık, 1994).

 

¹¹⁷ Efdal Sevinçli, Meşrutiyetten Cumhuriyet'e Sinemadan Tiyatroya Muhsin Ertuğrul (İstanbul: Broy Yayınları, 1987); Efdal Sevinçli, Görüşleriyle, Uygulamalarıyla Muhsin Etuğrul (İstanbul: Arba Yayınları, 1990).

 

ııs Alemdar Yalçın, II Meşrutiyette Tiyatro Edebiyatı Tarihi (Arıkara: Akçağ Basın Yayın, 2002), p. 7.

prepares a very detailed list of the plays that were staged or annoıınced to be staged by scrutinizing the works of the first generation theatre historians.

The !ast name ofthe third generation is Enver Töre, who remained ıınder the influence ofMetinAnd and Alemdar Yalçın, who was also his thesis advisor. In his work İkinci Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu, Yazarlar-Piyesler¹¹⁹ (The Theater of the Constitutionalist Era, Playwrights and Scripts), published in 2006, Töre classifies the plays according to their playwrights. Enver Töre's book is a collection of bibliographies where he gives brief bibliographical information on the author and his works. His second book is on the theatre and women.¹²⁰ He took 'women' as a distinctly separate category, and focused on 'the women' in the world theatre history without regarding their nationalities, professions, and ethnic backgrounds. In his third book, Töre transliterates a selective collection of articles published by an Ottoman literary critic, Müfit Ratip.¹²¹ In a similar way, he transliterated and published some works of two Ottoman playwrights, Şemsettin Sami and Cenap Şahabettin with an introduction in the !arter years.¹²²

Ali in ali, I can argue that the second generation followed the footsteps of the first one and revisited the works of Metin And, Niyazi Akı, and Refik Ahmet Sevengil.

While the second generation did not produce groundbreaking works on the

 

theatre history, some articles and unpublished dissertations attempt to approach the

 

 

¹¹⁹ Enver Töre, llcinci Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu Yazarlar- Piyesler (İstanbul: DUYAP, 2006).

 

¹²⁰ Enver Töre, Hayattan Sahneye Kadınlar (İstanbul: DUYAP, 2006).

 

¹²¹ Enver Töre, Fecr-i Atinin Kurucularından Müfit Ratip Makaleleri (İstanbul: MVT Yayıncılık, 2005).

 

¹²² Enver Töre, Cenap Şahabeddin'in Tiyatroları (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 2005); Enver Töre, Şemseddin Sami'inin Tiyatroları (İstanbul: ASOS, 2008).

subject from a more historical perspective. Ilham Khuri Makdisi's dissertation "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914" is a groundbreaking stndy scrutinizing the articulation of radicalism in and between Beirut, Cairo and Alexandra in the !ate nineteenth and early twentieth centnry.¹²³ Makdisi's thesis also links radicalism to the rise of the press and the theater, and offers new approaches to interpret 'theater' within the politics of its time. Although the dissertation is not on the role of the theater in the !ate Ottoman politics or on the theatre history per se, the second chapter "Theater and Radical Politics in Beirut, Cairo and Alexandria 1860- 1914", examines the intellectnal networks through the theater, and historicizes theater within the social and political dynamics of its age as an important agent for the radicalization. Therefore, I believe that her work offers a solid theoretical and historical example in the field. I should also note two other theses working on the theatre history: The first one is the dissertation of Özlem Nemutlu on the theatre activities in İzmir between 1908-1923.¹²⁴ Completing her doctorate in the literature department of Ege University, Nemutlu did not focus on the historical aspects ofthe plays, but rather chose to take both the methodology and the classifications of Alemdar Yalçın and Metin And. The second thesis I want to emphasize is that of Bilge Seçkin. Enitled 'Staging the Revolution', her master's thesis touches upon three plays; Vatan, Besa and Sabah-ı Hürriyet to interpret the role of the theater in the Ottoman society.¹²⁵

123 Ilhaın Khııri Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Fonnulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914" (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2003).

¹²⁴ Özlem Nemutlu, "!!. Meşrutiyetten Cumhuriyetin İlanına Kadar İ=ir'de Tiyatro Faaliyetleri," (PhD diss., Ege University, 2005).

 

¹²⁵ Bilge Seçkin, "Staging the Revolution," (Master's Thesis, Bogaziçi University, 2007).

There are also some articles attempting to aeeomplish a social and historieal

analysis through examining the polities ofthe theater. First ofthem is Mete Çetik's short article on the theater aetivities held a:fter 1908.126 Even though the article resembles an ordinary ehapter of Metin And's Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu, the very attempt

itself is remarkable. The seeond article whieh historieizes the theatre within polities

of eensorship is that of Fatmagül Demirel.127 Another work of this kind is Fatih Altuğ's article diseussing the power stmggles of the Ottoman elites through reading

the seripts ofNam1k Kemal.128

 

Ali in ali, I thiuk that the fıeld of theatre studies is an understudied fıeld by the seholars of tlıe !ate Ottoman Empire. Having reviewed both the Western theatre historiography and the Ottoman theatre historiography, I will try to historieize the Ottoman theater within the dynamies of its age in the following parts. By arguing that the Ottoman theatre staged the politieal tensions from its very introduetion to the Ottoman polities in the seeond half ofthe nineteenth eentury, I will try to semtinize what Greenblatt ealls 'social energy' that was ereated via theatre before and after the declaration of the Seeond Constitution in 1908. In trying to do so, I will also look at the theatre seripts written in the following days of the Revolution, and semtinize not only the representation of the ancien regime through theatre but also the formation of publie opinion through publie theatres.

 

 

 

 

126      Mete Çelik, "Siyasi Tiyatroda İttihad Terakki ve 1908 Devrimi." Tarih ve Toplum, no. 145 (1996), pp.4-11.

127     Fatmagül Demirel, "II Abdülhamid Dönemi Tiyatro Sansürü ... ve Perdeler Sansürle Ac1ldı,"

Toplumsal Tarih, no. 63 (1999), pp. 36-43.

128      Fatih Altuğ, ""Eksik Olma Kemal": Namık Kemal'iıı Temsillerinde Örtük İktidar," Kritik, no.l (2008), pp. 35-88.

CHAPTERIV

 

PERFORMANCE AS POLITICS OF MODERNIZATION IN THE LATE OTTOMAN WORLD

 

 

Performing modernization becomes one of the most irnportant aspects of the Late Ottoman politics. Both the Ottoman sultans and the Ottoman intellectuals made efforts to reconstruct a new iconography for the modernization. The new imperial representation was centered on the performance of 'Westemization' which was one of the main political agendas of the Ottoman intelligentsia from the second half of the eighteenth century. Ottoman Westemization had to be visible in the public space in order to be intemalized by the masses. Within these currents, theatrical aspects of the Ottoman modernization were over-emphasized. I believe that different domains of performances offer us one complete image ofa gradual transformation and should be considered together. Consequently, I take the term performance with its broader meaning, and argue that different 'performances ofWestemization' are indeed very much entangled.

12 ,

I presume that the alteration of rituals, performances and body politics starting from the eighteenth century, like the containment of Ottoman traditional dances of köçek, rakkas and tavşan ⁹ the increasing visibility of Ottoman women as a performer, the attempts of establishing a "modem theater audience", and the emergence of hybrid forms of theatricality like the Tuluat Theater (a satirical geme in-between Westem drama and Ottoman traditional shadow theater), can indeed stage the spirit of the social and cultural transformations.¹³⁰ On the other hand, when

129 They are traditional Ottoman dance forms performed by male dancers dressed as women. For further information, see: Dorit Klebe, "Effeminate Professional Musicians in Sources of Ottoman­ Turkish Coıırt Poetry and the Music ofthe Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centııries," Music in Art, no. 30 (2005), pp. 97-116.

¹³⁰ It may be also described as the indoor aod staged version of Orta Oyunu.

considered together with the modifications of the Ottoman courtly performances, suclı as the incorporation of Western music and drama into the imperial ceremonies, the formation ofwomen's fanfare in the imperial harem, and the emerging popular genres of hybrid performances can offer an alternative field to study the, so-called, "modemization" experience of the Ottoman society. Believing in the benefits of this kind ofa perspective, I will try to touch upon an understudied field, history of Ottoman performance (tlıeatre in particular), and aim to observe the transformation of tlıe Ottoman diplomatic relations, the emergence of tlıe public opinion and mass politics througlı tlıe manipulation of theater.

In tlıe !ate Ottoman world, many aspects of modernization gain theatricality

 

in order to be represented botlı to the domestic and the foreign audiences. üne of tlıe first initiators of 'modern European lives' in tlıe Ottoman capital were tlıe travel accounts of the Ottoman ambassadors, a genre called sefaretname. These narratives did not only give detailed descriptions of everyday performances, public spaces and cultural lives of the places visited, but also displayed tlıe perception of Europe by the Ottoman ambassadors. A special focus of these sefaretnames was tlıe staged performances. Being influenced by these accounts, tlıe Ottoman authorities emphasized the theatrical aspects of tlıe modemization like the use of public gardens, the representation of 'Ottomans' in world fairs, and the transformation ofthe courtly rituals. Within ali tlıese aspects of modemization and their performances, what makes theater more attractive asa 'subject ofhistory' for me is its political function. While most aspects of the social and cultural life were only transformed, theatre - adopted as a Westem institution- marginalized and emerged as a newly discovered political space. This chapter will try to touch upon the new kinds of theatricalities in order to historicize tlıe development of theater witlıin the Ottoman political agenda.

In the following lines, I will try to examine the entrance ofWestem music and drama into the Ottoman politics, first by touching upon different realms of performances such as world fairs and imperial celebrations, and second by observing the intemalization of the Westem performances in the Ottoman Palace, and lastly by scrutinizing the transformation ofthe Naum Theater into a political institution.

 

 

Ottoman Aspirations for Westem Forms: New Kinds ofTheatricalities

 

 

The transformation of the public spaces, the vanishing forms of traditional performances, the construction ofa new Ottoman image in the world fairs, and the theatricalization of some imperial rituals are indeed very much entangled and developed gradually within the Ottoman concept ofWestemization. The discovery of performance as a political and diplomatic means can be traced back to the travel accounts of Ottoman ambassadors visiting Europe. The Ottoman observation of Europe and European ways oflife, in these sefaretnames introduced new perceptions of performance, theater in particular.

These narratives, which in their own turn were as performative as the events they narrated, gave detailed information on the European everyday performances such as the use of the promenade spaces, the cafe theaters and leisure activities.

These sefaretnames show clearly that the Ottoman court had indeed followed the developments in the European opera and drama since the !ate seventeenth century. Ahmet Refik Sevengil, gives us a detailed list of Ottoman ambassadors who in their sefaretnames mentioned their European theater experiences.¹³¹ Among this corpus of

¹³¹ For the translation ofthe related texts, see: Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, pp. 85-87.

travel narratives, a very rich travel account is that of Yirmizsekiz Çelebi Mehmet Efendi (d. 1732), who went to France in 1719, and published his travel account in 1737 in the fırst Ottoman printing house: İbrahim Müteferrika Matbaası.¹³² Yirmizsekiz Çelebi Mehmet Efendi was particularly intrigued by the European operas.¹³³ Describing in detail the architecture of the Opera of Paris, and the Opera of Palais Royale, like in the surname geme, he also informed his readers about the sitting order ofthe king and his entourage, the surrounding decorative elements, the indoor stage, the instruments and the plays. Siınilarly, Mustafa Hatti Efendi (ca.

1860-1760) reported on the opera and the theater performances he watched in his travel account on the Habsburgs in 1748. Likewise, Ahmet Resmi (d. 1783), in his account gave detailed descriptions of the opera and drama performances he participated in the Habsburg Empire. In a parallel !ine, the Ottoman aınbassadors in the Russian and Prussian states, like Abdülkerim Paşa, Ahmet Azmi Efendi, Mustafa Rasih Paşa reported on the plays and the librettos.¹³⁴ These accounts did not only inform Ottoman authorities on staged performances but also included details on everyday performances. The European public and promenade spaces, the cafe culture, and the visibility of women in the public spaces were reported in great detail. Indeed, the spatial transformation of the Ottoman capital İstanbul, in the !ate eighteenth century, shows a similar pattern with that reported by the Ottornan aınbassadors. As the art historian Slırine Haınadeh mentions the emergence of new spaces and forms of sociability, the participation of the ordinary people in the

making ofthe city, its spaces, its architecture, and its leisure arenas such as taverns

¹³² ibid., p. 8.

¹³³ For fıırther information, see: Fatma Müge Göçek, East Encounters West (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

¹³⁴ For further inforrnation, see: Ahmet Refik Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, pp. 8-15; Metin And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 30-37.

and coffeehouses show not only the transformation of the public sphere but also the transformation of everyday performances and practices.¹³⁵ Taking these observations into consideration, one can exarnine the efforts of Westernization in the urban sphere

by the end ofthe eighteenth century. In the nineteenth century, fS art historian

1

Zeynep Çelik underlines, a new definition ofpublic space based on 'pleasure' emerged and developed. Taksim Garden becarne the "promenade favorite" ofthe Pera community where music played and visiting French and Italian groups performed plays and operettas.¹³⁶

Traditional Ottoman performances were subject to change as well. As the patronage ofWestem dance and drama dominated the Palace's repertoire, the traditional Ottoman dances performed by rakkas, köçek, and tavşan were forbidden in 1857.¹³⁷ The prohibition of traditional forms of Ottoman dance was followed by the increasing visibility of Ottoman women as performers.¹³⁸ While this banishment signifies a transition in the dance pattems, it also signifies a transformation in gender definitions and body politics in the Ottoman society.

A similar representation can be observed in world fairs, where the Ottoman State was represented to the intemational community. Within this representation, performance, theatre, music and dance in "exclusively ethnic character" becarne indispensable attractions at every fair. For instance, in the World's Columbian Exposition in 1893, the Ottoman Empire participated with a tearn of sixty-five

¹³⁵ For further information, see: Shrine Hamadeh, The City's Pleasures: İstanbul in the Eighteenth Century (Seattle; Landon: University of Washington Press, 2008).

¹³⁶ Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of İstanbul. Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century

(Seattle; Landon: University of Washington Press, 1986), p. 69.

¹³⁷ Dorit Klebe, "Effeminate Professional Musicians in Sources of Ottoman-Turkish Court Poetry and the Music ofthe Eiglıteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," Music in Art, no. 30 (2005), p. 108.

¹³⁸ Far further information, see the works ofHasmik Khalapyan and Fahriye Dinçer on the first Ottoman female performers.

performers and staged eight plays.¹³⁹ Again, Zeynep Çelik gives an account ofa theater performance at the world fair held in Paris in 1900 by the Ottoman Armenian actors.¹⁴⁰ There, the group produced "operettas" based on the Turkish daily life and customs, while Italianizing the performances by using Italian music. In these world fairs, theater became one ofthe new facets ofthe Ottoman modemization. Hence, I can argue that even in the fairs, the Ottoman theater gained a political meaning.

Ironically, as the Ottoman interest in the West increased, the Westem demand for the Ottoman culture was stili only focused on its Eastem aspects. While the Ottoman state saw these fairs as a 'modem' performance, for the West, the Ottoman pavilion was yet another aspect ofthe East. While the Ottoman state aspired fora modem Westem display in the world fairs mainly for the foreign audience, it followed a siınilar trend for the domestic audience in the imperial ceremonies, and particularly in the Friday processions.

Within the politics of modemization, imperial celebrations, which can be considered the best means of 'self-representation,' were transformed. Some of the imperial celebrations like Friday processions and the imperial reception ceremonies were not only 'Westemized' through the incorporation ofsome European elements, but were also 'politicized' through the incorporation ofWestem music and drama as diplomatic features. Interestingly, the court ritual which adopted more Westem elements !han others seems to be the most religious one. Friday procession, which was not considered to be an offıcial 'imperial celebration' until the nineteenth century became a public ceremony by the second half ofthe nineteenth century, and

¹³⁹ Cafer Sarıkaya, "1893 Şikago Sergisi'nde Osmanlı Tiyatrosu", Toplumsal Tarih, no. 146 (2006),

pp. 66-71; Cafer Sarıkaya, ""Celebrating Difference: "Turkish Theatre" in the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition of 1893," (Master's Thesis, Bogaziçi University, 2010).

¹⁴⁰ Zeynep Çelik, Displaying the Orient (Berkeley; Los Angeles; Oxford: University of California Press, 1992), p. 24.

incorporated European military music. As historian Hakan Karateke mentions, until the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (1785-1839), the Friday processions were not regularized. However, starting with the reign of the Sultan Mahmud II, the Friday processions becarne public manifestations of 'Westernization' in the imperial ideologies. ¹⁴¹ Moreover, as Karateke argues, Friday processions turned out to be public performances including non-Muslims and European visitors. Special lodges were placed for the foreign audiences around the Friday rnosques. Before the Sultan arrived, women of the imperial harem got there and waited for him. Imperial orchestra announced the arrival of the Sultan by playing a song or a march. It is also noteworthy that the imperial band played operas from Mozart and Rossini in the Friday prayers.¹⁴² In a similar !ine, as will be mentioned in the following part, the imperial reception ceremonies held for the European sovereigns incorporated Western performances in the Ottoman diplornatic language.

Ali these aspects of social and cultural transformations are formulated within a language expressed through different forms of performances. Consequently, it would not be wrong to argue that performance, with a broader defınition, gained a fundarnental importance in the !ate Ottoman politics and was used to display the new iconography ofthe Ottoman Empire both to the foreign and domestic audiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁴¹ Hakan Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa! Osmanlı Devletinin Son Yüz Yılında Merasimler (İstanbul:

Kitabevi, 2004), p. 105.

¹⁴² ibid., pp. 105-106.

The Ottoman Incomorııtiıınof'W_esterııPerformances: The Palace Context

The consumption ofEuropean music and drama was introduced and grew within a political agenda in the Ottoman Palace. Among all aspects of reformation and Westemization, the patronage ofEuropean music, opera and drama stood at the very core ofthe Ottoman modernization paradigm. Perceiving theater as the symbol ofthe European high culture, the Ottoman elites attributed a fundamental importance to the patronage of European musicians and performers in the Palace. Incorporation of Westem art became one ofthe main components ofthe modem Ottoman identity.

I think the fırst attempts of inheriting Westems art forms as a component of the new self description can be seen after the maturation ofthe political agenda of Westemization, which declared itself with the abolition of the janissary corps.

Mehterhane was replaced with a Westem style band, and the brother ofthe famous ltalian musician Gaetano Donizetti (1797-1848), Giuseppe Donizetti (1788-1856) was employed as the court musician from 1828 until his death in 1856.¹⁴³ As historian Selim Deringil emphasizes, the selection of the maestro was highly symbolic. Giuseppe Donizetti, had previously served as amaestro in the court of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), and he was the brother ofGaetano Donizetti, who served as the maestro of the imperial court in Vienna. Donizetti composed the Mahmudiye March, which established a pattem. Donizetti then composed the Mecidiye March and chose a number of talented boys and trained them as the new imperial band.¹⁴⁴ Some travel accounts touches upon the transformation ofthe

¹⁴³ Fora detailed biographical account, see: Emre Aracı, Donizetti Paşa: Osmanlı Sarayının İtalyan Maestrosu (İstanbul: YKY, 2006).

¹⁴⁴ Selim Deringil, "Invention of Tradition as Public hnage in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908," Comparative Studies in Society and History, no. 35(1993), pp. 3-23.

courtly music and show that from the times of Sultan Mahmud II (1785-1839), Westem music was practiced and developed within the military circles ofthe Ottoman court. For instance, Charles MacFarlane (1799-1858), a British traveler narrated that the Turkish band progressed under the Italian maestro: Donizetti.¹⁴⁵ Likewise, Sir Adolphus Slade (1804-1877), the British admiral visiting Constantinople between the years 1829-1831 reported that he was amazed when he heard Rossini's songs played by the new imperial band.¹⁴⁶ With the reign of Sultan Abdülmecid (1823-1861), the consumption ofEuropean music and drama spread out from the military domain and extended under the patronage of elites and paşas in the Ottoman Empire. This era did not only witness the consumption ofEuropean music and drama, but also showed the first attempts of intemalizing Westem forms of music and drama in the court. Moreover, the Sultan 'Ottomanized' the performers by presenting them with imperial orders and medallions.

The consumption ofEuropean opera and drama in the Palace offered a context where Westem performances were intemalized and hybrid forms of

¹⁴⁵ "We shot along the beautifııl port, and soon landed below Pera, at the Melt-iskellesi scale. Between the arsenal and Galata. Not far from the waterside we passed an open square, where some tacticoes were drilling, anda large barrack, where the band ofthe regiment was practicing a march from Rossini, under the direction ofan old purblind Italian.[...] An old Italiaıı charged with the instruction of one ofthe bands, told me however, that the Turks themselves had not much aptitude far leaming it, and that most ofthe musicians were Armenian rayas. The sultan afterwards placed a few ofthe younger ichoglans ar pages, under the maestro's instructions, and these were making some progress when I left Stamboul, as they were docile and could be kept ta work like mere schoolboys as !hey were. The love far music will do much; far with the Turks, the great diffıculty is ta awaken an interest in their minds for any art or science."

Charles MacFarlane, Constantinople in 1828 (Landon, 1829), p. 517, quoted in: Emre Aracı, "Donizetti at the Ottoman Court: A Levantine Life," The Musica/ Times, na. 143 (2002), p. 52.

¹⁴⁶ "Presently, the songs ofa party of Greek boatrnen, which had enlivened our dessert, gave way ta the strains ofa military band, and, unexpected treat ta me on the banks ofthe Bosporns, we heard Rossini's music, executed in a manner very creditable ta Professor Signor Donizetti. We rose and went down ta the palace quay, on which the band was playing. I was surprised at the youth ofthe perfarmers and the familiarity with which they addressed Calosso, calling him Rustam; and stili more surprised on finding that they were the raya! pages, thus instructed far the Sultan's amusement. Their aptitude in learning, which Donizetti infarmed me would have been remarkable even in Italy, showed

!hat the Turks are naturally musical."

Sir Adolphus Slade, Records ofTravels in Turkey, Greece & Co., and ofa Cruise in the Black Sea with the Capitan Pasha in the Years 1829, 1830 and 1831 (Philadelphia; Baltimore: Carey& Hart, 1833), pp. 77-78.

performances combining eastem and Westem elements appeared. I can argue that the Palace had mainly two different pattems of patronage: the patronage of theater groups performing Westem dramas and operas, and the patronage of famous maestros and musicians. The patronage of first European groups shows similarities with the previous centuries. Connoting the performance pattems described in the surnames¹⁴⁷, the invited performers were dominantly magicians, jugglers and acrobats.¹⁴⁸ Two famous groups of acrobats were very influential in the foundation of the Ottoman theater: the group of the Italian illusionist Bosco (which was later transformed and appeared as the famous Naum Theater), and the circus of M. Soulie (which later tumed into the Gedikpaşa Theater). Sultan Malunud II invited the Cirque ofM. Soulie to İstanbul and put them on salary. He gave them a gift box covered with jewelry when he watched and liked their spectacle. In the following decade, when Sultan Abdülmecid, his son watched the same group and liked their performance, he the cirque 'imperial' and gifted them with an imperial order.¹⁴⁹ Actually, the way the two Sultans granted gifts to the French group of performers also reflects the changing imperial policies. In contrast to his father, Sultan Abdülmecid, as he did for many other important artists, honored them with an imperial order and in a way 'Ottomanized' the group. As Adolphe Thalasso points out, this circus was then bought by the Ottoman elites and tumed into a Westem style theater (the Gedikpaşa Theater).¹⁵⁰ Entitling Cirque de Soulie as 'imperial', and

¹⁴⁷ The books narrating and picturing the Ottoman imperial festivities.

¹⁴⁸ For further information, see: And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 53-56.

¹⁴⁹ And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 26.

¹⁵⁰ "Entre temps, M. Soulie, un ecuyer français debarquait a Coustantinople avec quelques acrobats et faisait coutruire, a Guedik-Pacha, un hippodrome pour sa troupe. Au depart de cette troupe, des uotables musuhnans acheterent le cirque et le convertirent en theatre. Ne pouvant ce pendant pas engager comme actrices des femmes, ils se trouverent dans l' obligation de recourir a un home de paille et de faire figurer comme directeur-proprietaire de leur theatre un Armenien, Vartov, dit Agop­ Gulli Efendi."

turning it into a prominent theater show the newly emerging currents of internalizing the Western performances.

The consuınption of the Western performances was diverse, and the

 

rewarding patterns depended on the sultan's favor. The imperial palace, especially starting with the reign of Sultan Abdülmecid, hosted several Italian and French theater groups performing the classics and the contemporary plays. These groups performed both in the Palace and outside ofthe Palace usually in the Italian Theater, in the French Theater, and in the Nauın Theater all located at the Pera district. The performances were dominantly in Italian and French. As far as I could observe, none ofthese troupes received an imperial order. On the other hand, famous maestros and musicians were usually awarded with imperial orders and titles upon their services. Composing marches for the sultan was prestigious both for the sultan for whom the march was composed for, and for the one who composed the march and presented it to the sultan. As Selim Deringil reminds us, the 'invented' or 'imported' tradition of having a national anthem was an important change, which continued after Sultan Abdülmecid.¹⁵¹ These composers would also be awarded with 'the nineteenth century commemorative feature': Medallion. For instance, the Ottoman maestro Donizetti was awarded with one ofthe most prestigious medallions; 'Tuğra Nişanı' in 1831 before he became a colonel in 1853 and brigadier general in 1856.¹⁵² But besides these medallions, he was titled as 'Paşa'; a high ranking 'Ottoman' official. His titles are noteworthy since they show the Ottoman policy towards incorporating European artists into the sultan's entourage. What Donizetti initiated continued in

Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc," p. 372.

 

¹⁵¹ See: Selim Deringil, "Invention of Tradition as Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908," Comparative Studies in Society and Histoıy, na. 35 (January, 1993), pp. 3-23.

¹⁵² Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, pp. 84-86.

later ages. In the reigns of Sultan Abdülaziz and Sultan Abdülhamid II, the patronage of the European maestros and the production of imperial anthems-as an important constituent ofthe new representation ofthe 'Ottomans'-becarne one ofthe major elements ofthe 'Ottoman courtly culture'.

Sultan Abdülmecit' s court welcomed a number of famous European musicians. These European perforrners were rewarded in an 'Ottoman way': with imperial orders, titles and medallions. When we observe the patronage patterns of these musicians, we see the developing interest of internalizing these perforrnances. For instance, when the renowned musician ofthe age, Geatano Donizetti, the brother of Giuseppe Donizetti composed a military march, Grand Marcia Militare Imperiale for Sultan Abdülmecid in 1841, the Ottoman Sultan rewarded him with a 'Nişan-i İftihar'.¹⁵³ In a similar way, when Franz Liszt (1811-1886), another prorninent musician of the age, visited the Ottoman court in 1847, he received a 'Dördüncü Numaradan Kıt'a Nişan '.¹⁵⁴ Likewise, when Hemi Vieuxtemps (1820-1881) visited the Ottoman court and composed a particular march for Sultan Abdülmecid, he was rewarded with 20,000 kuruş and a Murassa Medallion covered with diarnonds.¹⁵⁵ Again, another leading musician of the epoch, Rossini also composed marches for the Sultan Abdülmecid. Emre Aracı mentions that Rossini actually composed two anthems and received one 'Nişan-i İftihar' and one "Dördüncü Dereceden Mecidiye Nişanı '.¹⁵⁶ Besides the ones rewarded with imperial orders, there were also a nurnber of musicians visiting the imperial court, perforrning at Naum Theater or at the Palace

¹⁵³ ibid., pp. 100-101.

¹⁵⁴ Sevengil, Saray Tiyatrosu, pp. 27-28.

¹⁵⁵ J. Thedor Radoux, Viextemps, Sa Vie, Ses Oeuvres (Liege: 1891), pp. 71-77, quoted in: Bülent Aksoy, Avrupalı Gezginlerin Gözüyle Osmanlılarda Musıki (İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1994), pp. 103- 104.

¹⁵⁶ Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, pp. 102-108.

theater, like Leopold de Meyer (1816-1883), Eugene Vivier (1811-1872), Murio Celli (d.1900), and August d' Adelburg (1830-1873).¹⁵⁷

The extensive consumption ofWestem music and drama in the Palace led not only to the intemalization ofthese Westem forms ofperformances, but also facilitated the 'Westernization' ofOttomanperformances such as Orta Oyunu.

Westem-style performances, which initially grew in the Ottoman Palace and in the European embassies, were so much incorporated into the new Ottoman self­ description that they produced the hybrid performance forms of the nineteenth century. Three forms are particularly worth mentioning: The emergence ofthe Tuluat Theater, the organization ofwomen's fanfare, and the construction ofthe Dolmabahçe and Naum Theater buildings.

üne of the first hybrid forms was the genre of Tuluat Theater, which carried the Ottoman Orta Oyunu to indoor stages. The scripts adopting Moliere's plays to traditional Ottoman shadow theater show the emergence ofhybrid genres of performances that incorporated both Ottoman and Westem elements.¹⁵⁸

A second 'hybrid form' displaying the intemalization ofWestem forms of music and performance is the orgauization ofa Westem-style women's fanfare and hallet group in the Palace under the reign of Sultan Abdülmecid. Leyla Saz Hanım (1850-1936), the daughter of Hekim İsmail Paşa (1812-1871), informs us about the women's fanfare, which was composed ofmore than ninety girls ofthe imperial harem. Her memoirs demonstrate the transformation of everyday performances and the growing importance ofWestem style performances in the imperial harem.

At the old Çırağan Palace and at Dolmabahçe, the part of the rez de chussee on the side ofthe men's apartment was set aside for music

¹⁵⁷ Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, pp. 102-108.

¹⁵⁸ For the adaptation ofMoliere's Tartujfe, see: Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc," pp. 372-378.

classes. The professors were al! men. The musicians who were Kalfas came in their everyday dress, simply throwing over their heads two meters of yaşmak or veil of gauze which they pulled behind their heads and pinned to their hair, while throwing the two ends on to their shoulders or behind, down their back. The dancers came without any veil whatsoever, it was permitted, it seems, for these slaves to show themselves to men without being veiled. The Eunuchs who escorted the professors and the girls of service who accompanied the musicians and the dancers always attended these lessons. The orchestra for Westem music and the brass band practiced together two times a week and the orchestra ofTurkish music only one time: Friday; which is the day of rest for Moslems, was always aday off. For dancing lessons, there was a special room, but on the days of general rehearsal, the corps de hallet and the orchestra were joined in the great hail ofhonor where the festivities took place. ¹⁵⁹

Moreover, her narrative shows some kind ofa competition between the women's orchestra and the imperial band. Leyla Saz Hanım also informs us about the Western style education on music and dance in the Palace. In her narrative, she underlined that 'both the musicians and dancers of the Palace were in normal services and performed diverse functions', and in a way, illustrated the Ottoman concem on keeping the traditional division oflabor within the Palace.

All of the female musicians and their orchestras in the imperial harem were wonderfully accomplished. These female musicians of the Serail played just as the imperial Orchestra which, in itself, was quite remarkable. (... ) At the Palace of the Sultan, there never were brass bands in the sense of military music, but only orchestras with instruments both for Western music and forTurkishmusic. The sultans also had corps de hallet for European dances and one for dances in the Turkish Style but most of the latter are forgotten today, such as the one called Dance of the Rabbit. The sultans also organized music classes, more or less along the lines of those in the imperial harem. It should be remarked that ali the musicians and the dancers of the Serail, both in the imperial Harem, as well as in the courts of the sultans were in normal services and performed diverse functions just like all the others. They were chosen among most talented girls of the Serail and then were sent to music class on specifıc days and at specifıc hours, over and beyond their ordinary duties. When they were well trained, they took their place in orchestras of the imperial Harem or of the

 

 

¹⁵⁹ Leyla Saz, The Imperial Harem ofthe Sultans, translated by Landon Thomas (İstanbul: Hil Yayınlan, 1999), pp. 53-54

sultanes where they played when required, while ali the remaining time fulfılling their nominal duties.¹⁶⁰

 

Leyla Saz adds that the performers mostly performed the operas; La Gillome Teli and La Traviata.¹⁶¹ Her narrative on the women's fanfare demonstrates both the consumption ofEuropean and Ottoman music in the Palace, and offers an example on the formations ofhybrid forms ofperformances. Moreover, her words on the 'dance of the rabbit' demonstrates that Leyla Saz Hanım seems to be confused about how to emotionally approach the traditional court dancers like tavşans and the köçeks. While on the one hand, she is drawn to the memory of 'old times', her narrative also displays an orientalist tone ofa new courtier committed to Western aesthetics.

Another strong signifıer of 'internalizing the Western forms' is the construction

 

ofthe theater buildings. After the imperial rescript ofthe Rose Chamber in 1839, the sultans encouraged the construction of public theaters. Starting from the reign of Sultan Abdülmecit, sultans ordered the construction of theater buildings in the Palaces. Sevengil mentions that these theaters were planned to be similar to the European Palace theaters, namely to that ofVersailles'.¹⁶² Theater ofDolmabahçe Palace grew out ofthis project. Later, Yıldız Theater was constructed in the Yıldız Palace under the reign of Sultan Abdülhamid II, and witnessed a number ofbanned plays which were not allowed to be performed in public theaters but only in the Palace theater. The fırst Palace theater: Dolmabahçe Theater was very much associated with the French counterparts both by the Frenchjournals ofthe day and

¹⁶⁰ Saz, The Imperial Harem ofthe Sultans, pp. 55-59.

¹⁶¹ Sevengil, Saray Tiyatrosu, pp. 13-14.

¹⁶² "The desire to keep the palace of İstanbul on an equal footing with the Eııropean palaces may have been among the reasons why this theater was established; this way, !here would not only be a theater in the pa]ace of the Ottoman sultan similar to those present in the palaces of the Eııropean kings, but theater and opera as fıne arts would gain a novel irnpetus in oıır country."

ibid., p. 19.

by the Turkish newspapers.¹⁶³ The theater building was constructed by tbe French architects and designers, and reflected not the traditional Ottoman style, but that of the 'orientalized' favor ofLouis XIV.¹⁶⁴ Moreover, it can be considered the architectural form of the internalization of the Western performances. In the 'Western-style' Palace theaters, sultan's lodge was the most glorious part ofthe building.

Similarly, the theater ofNaum was reconstructed in Pera after the fire of Beyoğlu under the patronage of Sultan Abdülmecid, and reflected the glory and the prestige ofthe Ottoman sultan with its omamented sultan's lodge. Theater ofNaum can be considered an extension ofthe Theatre ofDolmabal3çe both politically and financially. As Sevengil narrates, when Naum asked for financial support ofthe sultan for the reconstruction, the grand vizier Mustafa Reşit Paşa advised Sultan Abdülmecid to give the required financial support (60,000 kuruş) 'in order to please Europeans and the foreign ambassadors.'¹⁶⁵ This statement of Mustafa Reşit Paşa summarizes how political the patronage of theater was. This agreement also shows that theater and the politics of theater were used in intemational politics.

Later in 1852, Naum asked for the monopoly of staging theater and opera performances for ten years. Upon the sultan's acceptance, Naum gained the

¹⁶³ Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, p. 63.

¹⁶⁴Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, p. 123.

¹⁶⁵ "Grand vizier Mustafa Reşit Paşa (in response to tlıe letter of Sultan Abdülmecid) declared tlıat it would be convenient to help Naum. In tlıe vizierate note addressed to tlıe palace it is indicated tlıat tlıeaters and operas as such exist in most European countries, tlıat it would be good to have similar ones also in İstanbul and tlıat tlıe wooden building which was early on allotted to Naum for his performances -thinking Europeans would !ilce it- is burnt down during the Beyoğlu fire and tlıus now has to be rebuilt witlı bricks. As an addition it is stated that tlıe foreign embassies will provide help to tlıe owner ofthe note. Ifthe sultan also provides help, it will be a good and courteous act with regard to these ambassadors; despite the facı!hat Naum is an Ottoman subject, if no aid is granted by tlıe sultan, whereas it has been provided by the foreigners, the act will be inappropriate for the glorious name ofthe empire. Both to please tlıe foreign embassies and to delight the owner ofthe note, it would be appropriate to grant approximately sixty tlıousand kuruş, however it is commanded and seen proper to act according to the wishes oftlıe sultan no matter what."

Sevengil, Saray Tiyatrosu, p. 18.

monopoly of staging Italian and French dramas, operas and ballets. In 1862, Nanın asked for the same privilege once more. This time, the Palace granted a fıve-year privilege with the condition of 'acting according to the imperial rules and orders'.¹⁶⁶ The monopoly oftheater, fırst granted to Naum, then to Güllü Agop, made the control ofthis 'newly discovered political institution' easier.

Theater, from its very introduction to the Ottoman Empire, was recognized as a new space combining politics and literature. Although theatres, and particularly Nanın, represented the transformation ofthe Ottoman politics of culture during the reign of Sultan Abdülmecid, theatre became 'a political institution' in the reign ofthe Sultan Abdülaziz. Even though the Westem-style theater was incorporated into the Ottoman courtly culture by the mid-nineteenth century, it was particularly after Sultan Abdülaziz's trip to Europe (1867) that it became apart ofthe political life.

 

 

Abdülaziz Era and the Nıının Theater

 

 

 

Within ali these theatricalities that gained particular importance in the !ate Ottoman politics, the ones used in the diplomacy aimed to reconstruct the Ottoman identity vis a vis Europe. Similar to the 'Ottoman image' represented in world fairs, the imperial rituals performed in front ofthe Ottoman audience offer an interesting 'performance' for the researcher.

Sultan Abdülaziz, as the fırst Ottoman Sultan visiting Europe, and his visit as the fırst diplomatic trip (1867), represent a turning point in the Ottoman intemational politics. The account of his trip offers a rich material to study the transformation of the Ottoman identity. However, what made his trip more interesting were the retum-

¹⁶⁶ ibid, pp. 16-19.

visits of the European sovereigns in 1869, a matter which may be expressed as 'the discovery oftheater asa political space'. Upon his return, Sultan Abdülaziz transformed the centuries-old Ottoman reception ceremonies and incorporated opera performances in these ceremonies. Therefore, one can observe that Sultan Abdülaziz' trip to Europe (1867) was linked to the transformation of the imperial reception ceremonies (1869), which made the Naum Theatre emerge as a political institution.

Until the eighteenth century, the reception ceremonies held for the European ambassadors kept more or less the same format. The ambassador was first invited to a lunch with the grand vizier, and was then offered rose extract anda tobacco pipe. ünce he offered his gifts, he was dressed in a khilhat and was escorted to the sultan's audience Hal!.¹⁶⁷ During the eighteenth century, the importance ofthe ambassadors increased; and the nineteenth century-the so called 'age ofthe ambassadors' - wituessed a number of modifıcations in the reception ceremonies. This signifıed the importance attributed to the sultan's visibility in intemational relations. Especially after his visit to Europe, Sultan Abdülaziz developed a diplomatic language portraying Ottoman Westernization. Intrigued by the European social and cultural life, he transformed the traditional image of the Ottoman sultan, accepting the compatibility ofEurope. Articles appearing in the joumals ofthe day evaluated the trip asa turning point in the Ottoman politics and ideologies.¹⁶⁸ Ali Kemali Aksüt, who published an account on this trip in 1944, examines a number of newspapers and mentions that both the Ottoman and the European newspapers attributed a

 

 

 

 

¹⁶⁷ Karateke, Padişahım Çok Yaşa!, pp. 123-124.

¹⁶⁸ Ali Kemali Aksüt, Sultan Abdülaziz 'in Mısır ve Avrupa Seyahati (İstanbul: Ahmet Sait Oğlu Kitabevi, 1944), pp. 86-95.

fundamental importance to the trip since 'the sultan, at the end, recognized the superiority of Europe', and that 'he will carry back what he observed there."¹⁶⁹

Sultan Abdülaziz's arrival to Toulon was celebrated with greatjoy; anda number of festivities organized by Napoleon III.¹⁷⁰ üne of the most important aspects of his trip appeared to be his active participation in the European cultural life, particularly the European performances recounted in his travel account. Sultan Abdülaziz participated both in the performances organized as part of the official reception program and the informal public performances. On 5July 1867, Sultan Abdülaziz and his entourage watched an opera performance in Paris in the opera situated on the Boulevard des Capucines.¹⁷¹ Sultan Abdülaziz participated in different performances both in the Palace theater and in the Opera of Paris during his stay in France. When he went on to London on the 15 July, the bands ofQueen Victoria welcomed him with the Aziziye March composed by Guatelli.¹⁷² The same night, he participated in a great performance of two thousand singers in the Crystal Palace organized to 'welcome' him.¹⁷³ The next evening, Sultan Abdülaziz participated in another performance and was reported to be 'amazed' by the performance ofthe Italian group.¹⁷⁴ It was also noteworthy that 'the Sultan Abdülaziz was seated in the emperor's lodge alone' and watched Auber's Asaniello.¹⁷⁵ As narrated by Ali Kemali Aksüt, before the sultan's departure from

¹⁶⁹ ibid., pp. 87-89.

¹⁷⁰ ibid., pp. 118-127.

¹⁷¹ ibid., pp. 134-135.

¹⁷² Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, p.93.

¹⁷³ The Levanı Herald [The Daily Bul/etin],19 July 1867.

¹⁷⁴ Aracı, Donizetti Paşa, p. 161.

¹⁷⁵ ibid., p. 161.

England, an 'official' concert anda bal! were held in the Guildhall by the British sovereign.¹⁷⁶ Lastly, he participated in the banquet given in his honor in the Office of India. ¹⁷⁷ Aksüt further informs us that Sultan Abdülaziz financially helped some of these opera groups during his stay. In the following days, he went to Belgium and then to Vienna, where again the performance ofa hallet; La Biche au Bois was incoıporated into the program ofthe reception. From there, he returned back to İstanbul, where the Ottoman navy welcomed him and his entourage with music and banquets.¹⁷⁸ His trip, needless to mention, demonstrated the new cultural and political orientation of the Ottoman Empire. Aftermath his return, he reorganized the imperial band, appointing Guatelli as the head of the band.¹⁷⁹ Sultan Abdülaziz incoıporated opera and drama performances in the imperial reception ceremonies upon his return. When the European sovereigns visited in 1867 paid return-visits to the Ottoman capital in 1869, they were welcomed with a reception program similar to theirs. The reception ceremonies held for the European sovereigns were remarkable since they attempted to construct a new diplomatic language by using Westem performances via frequent visits to the Naum Theater.

Ahmet Refik Sevengil informs us about three different occasions like that: the visit of Prince of Wales, the visit of Freneh Empress Eugenie, and the visits of the

Austrı•an K"ıngF rançoı•sJ oseph .1so

 

When the Prince of Wales and his wife arrived in İstanbul on 31 March 1869, the performers ofNaum Theater were about the leave. However, tlıe govemment

¹⁷⁶ Referring to the theatrical perforınance organized for the forma! reception ceremony.

¹⁷⁷ Aksüt, Sultan Abdülaziz 'in Mısır ve Avrupa Seyahati, pp. 170-173.

¹⁷⁸ ibid., pp. 206-207.

¹⁷⁹ Mahmut Gazimihal, Türk Askeri Muzıkaları Tarihi (İstanbul: Maarif Basım Evi, 1955), p. 69.

¹⁸⁰ Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, p. 41.

asked them to stay since Sultan Abdülaziz wanted to include one or two opera performances in the program ofthe reception. Just like on Sultan Abdülaziz's trip, some ofthese opera and theater performances were part ofthe official program and some were not. The first performance hosting the Prince and his wife held on 2 April 1869 was an informal meeting. The Sultan Abdülaziz, foreseeing the popular demand on 'participating in the same performance with the sultan', tried to prevent the !ast minute black market and paid two thousands liras to Naum in advance. This non­ official opera, organized in honor of Prince ofWales, was a 'performance' both for the domestic audience and for the foreign audience. The displayed image of the Turkish sovereign watching an Italian opera with his people was unusual for the European sovereign. Likewise, the image ofa sultan watching a public opera with the European prince was an atypical image for the general public. Hence, this organization may be interpreted as the visual manifestation of change and Westemization both for the foreign and for the domestic audiences. The Prince went to the Naum Theater and watched a second 'informal' opera on 5 April. Two days later, an 'official' opera performance took place with a ceremony as part ofthe imperial reception ceremony in the Naum Theater. Just like on Sultan Abdülaziz's visit ofEngland in 1867, the emperor's lodge in the Naum Theater was reserved for the Prince ofWales and his wife. The daily Terakki gives us an account on the performance.¹⁸¹ The article informs us about the protocol and seating order in the sultan's lodge 'where the Prince and the Princess ofWales, Sultan Abdülaziz and his vizier Mustafa Fazıl Paşa watched the performance together'. Furthermore, the article also mentions that the sultan and his visitors were welcomed with great

 

 

¹⁸¹ Terakki, 8 April 1869.

'public love and demonstrations' in the Beyoğlu district as they entered into the theater building.

Again Sevengil informs us that a similar reception ceremony was organized for the visit ofthe French Empress Eugenie. The French empress visited the imperial capital İstanbul on September 1869. Again, the Sultan Abdülaziz asked Naum to call the performers earlier than the usual since some opera performances were to be integrated into her reception program. Eugenie was welcomed by the imperial band directed by Guatelli. Since the program of reception included an opera performance in the Theater ofNaum, the sultan's lodge was arranged for the empress. However, due to a !ast minute change, she could not watch the opera.¹⁸²

A third program of the reception, repeating the same pattem of the one Sultan Abdülaziz observed on his trip was the one prepared for the visit of the Austrian king François Joseph.¹⁸³

These three reception ceremonies, held for the European sovereigns reflected the reception ceremonies held for Sultan Abdülaziz in Europe in 1867. Through the incorporation of the Westem opera and drama into the imperial ceremonies, Sultan Abdülaziz attributed a political signifıcance to the theater. The Naum Theater became an imperial body hosting opera performances where political figures met and spent their time together, and represented the changing ideologies ofthe Ottoman Empire. The theater became a political institution and entered into the political life through these ceremonies. The subsequent Ottoman sultan, Sultan Abdülhamid II used theater as a ritualistic space for the welcoming receptions, as well. The Naum and Yıldız Theaters were used for Sultan Abdülhamid II' s reception ceremonies.

"2 Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, p. 42.

¹⁸³ ibid.

 

Refik Ahmet Sevengil informs us about these reception ceremonies, and argues that a special performance took place for each European sovereign's and ambassador's

visit to İstanbul.¹⁸⁴

 

In conclusion, one can state that the Naum Theater acquired a particular political importance after Sultan Abdülaziz II's retum from his trip to Europe (1867). Upon his retum, the incorporation of opera and drama performances in the Ottoman imperial reception ceremonies loaded the Ottoman stage with some kind ofa

political tension; hence he discovered the theater's potential to become a political institution. Even though the performances were not political at ali, the very act of staging performances for diplomatic reasons introduced, -and to a certain extent legitimized-, theater's power asa political space both to the Ottoman intelligentsia and to the Ottoman masses that would use it for political purposes in the subsequent decades.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹⁸⁴ "Traditionally an opera performance would take place as part ofthe reception festivities planned with regard to the official visits of foreign sovereigns. During the reign of Abdühnecid, foreign ministers and high officials who visited İstanbul were invited to Naum's Theater in Beyoglu to watch an opera performance. Also during the reign of Abdülhamit II, Italian opera groups were performing in Beyoglu; however, Abdülhamit II was taking security measures at great extents to ward offhis paranoia, disabling him from participating in out-of-palace entertainment. it is very probable that he decided to construct a theater inside the palace grounds while hosting Wilhehn to make sure that they do not have to leave for Beyoğlu theaters. The fact that the date ofWilhehn's visit to İstanbul and the date ofthe construction ofthe Yıldız Theater coincides gives plausibility to this thought. By constructing this theater, the sultan was at the same time proving to the German emperor that the Turkish palace hada little theater inside as is the case with European palaces and that the sultan was fond ofthese kinds offıne arts. Asa matter offact, the visiting members offoreign dynasties have always been invited to the Theater ofthe Yıldız Palace."

Sevengil Saray Tiyatrosu, p.120.

CHAPTERV

 

THE RISE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF THE POPULAR THEATRE: THE VATAN AND THE GEDİKPAŞA INCIDENTS

 

 

As theater was introduced to the Ottoman society via the imperial rituals and the ambassadorial soirees,_ it was perceived as a sign of progress and reform. By the second half ofthe nineteenth century, when theater began to be spread out ofthe imperial domains, mostly under the patronage ofthe Italian, French and the Armenian community of the Pera, it was kept under strict imperial control.

Throughout the nineteenth century, theater did not only create its ethnically mixed community, but also made transnational networks of artists under the sultan's patronage. The popularization ofthe theater, especially among the Ottoman intelligentsia and the Ottoman bourgeoisie shows a highly complex relationship between popular theatre and its imperial control. Even though popular theatre created a new public space, it could not develop outside the theater monopolies which were under strict control of the Palace until the declaration of the Second Constitution known as the Ottoman Revolution of 1908. The reformists had 'experienced' theater's political power as 'a maker of the society', or as 'an educator of the masses', and also as 'a generator ofthe public space' from the examples ofthe French and Russian Revolutions.

By the second half ofthe nineteenth century, the Naum Theater, having the monopoly of staging theatre and opera performances, acted both as an imperial body and as a popular theater for the public of İstanbul who were indeed not very familiar with the genre ofthe Westem theater. Performances in the Naum Theater became the new 'luxury' entertainment ofthe Ottoman bourgeoisie where they could watch famous European operas with the Ottoman govemors, paşas, dynasty members and

even the sultan himself. The newspapers inform us about the frequent visits of the Ottoman Sultan Abdülaziz to the Naum Theater in the !ate 1860s.¹⁸⁵ The sultan's participation in the popular performances helped, on the one hand, the popularization ofthe theater, while on the other, gave ita political character.

The popularization ofthe theater asa public space was not 'an easy process' for the public. By the !ate nineteenth century, the theater became the new space for discussions among the audience. Metin And's studies on the newspapers ofthe era, helps us to understand the nature of these disputes.¹⁸⁶ As it appears, the government tried to establish order, and teach 'how to be an audience' through the press. An article in the newspaper Ruzname-i Ceride-i Havadis shows that the İstanbulite audience was extremely 'active' during the performances and disputed with the offıcers during the performances.¹⁸⁷ The newspapers of the period explained that eating during the performance, shouting, laughing, smoking, standing up during the performance, throwing something onto the stage, wearing big hats that would bother others' viewpoint, ete. were ali causes of such debates. The 1870s and 1880s witnessed the process of' educating masses on how to behave in the theater'. The

¹⁸⁵ Sevengil, Opera Sanatı, p. 37.

 

¹⁸⁶ And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 84-86.

¹⁸⁷"Last Tnesday night, a conflict has occurred between the offıcers and the audience at the theater house which is situated in Beyoğlu. According to what we have heard, the director ofthe theater sided with the audience and inconvenient acts took place, hence this Wednesday night the theater house was temporarily shut down by the above mentioned offıcers."

Ruzname-i Ceridei Havadis, 1277, no.56;

 

"Because some ofthe people at the above mentioned theater (Naum Theater) started to engage in immoral acts such as blowing whistles of dislike and shouting which caused other members ofthe audience great disturbance, from this moment on, if such inappropriate behaviors and acts are ever to be repeated, it has been announced by the administrative offıcers that the responsibles will be expulsed irnmediately and maybe punished. A specifıc offıcer has been assigned to this case." Ceride-i Havadis, 1275, no. 930;

 

"To protect the audience from any misfortune that might disturb their comfort and entertainment, it is forbidden for the audience to carry sharp objects and sticks. It is declared that in case such objects are found, the situation should be reported to the government offıcials."

Ceride-i Havadis, 1268, no. 554, quoted in: And, Tanzimat ve lstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 85.

govemment frequently issued special rules on 'how to be an audience'. Accordingly, smoking, shouting, carrying guns, sticks and umbrellas, eating and walking in the theater building were prohibited.¹⁸⁸ Theater also aimed to widen the audience's knowledge on French and Italian dramas.

On the other hand, theater provided a space for the Ottoman intellectuals to form their ideologies, allowing them to diffuse their ideas and gather popular support. This fed the government' s concem to control, to regulate access and to monitor the repertoire ofthe theater. Murray Frame's work shows that a similar trend was also observed in the Russian Empire, which also monitored and regulated the popular theatre.¹⁸⁹ In 1852, the Ottoman govemment granted a ten-year monopoly of staging theater and opera performances to Naum. The agreement was renewed in 1862, but this time, the palace granted a fıve-year privilege with the condition of 'acting according to the imperial rules and orders'. When the Naum Theater was ruined after a big fire in 1869, destroying apart ofthe Beyoğlu area, the palace granted a ten-year monopoly of staging theater (particularly in Turkish) to Güllü Agop and his Gedikpaşa Theater.¹⁹⁰ The aim was twofold: Firstly, the govemment would encourage the development and the popularization of the Turkish theater, and secondly, the government would regulate it.

However, the development ofthe Turkish theater and the discovery ofits political power by the Ottoman intellectuals went beyond what the Ottoman Sultan could imagine. In a couple ofyears, the Gedikpaşa Theater became one ofthe main intellectual centers of the imperial capital. Since the publications of the Ottoman

¹⁸⁸ ibid., p. 86.

 

¹⁸⁹ Frame, The St. Petersburg lmperial Theaters, p. 12.

 

¹⁹⁰ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 64.

intellectuals (among whom the Young Ottomans played a crucial role) were under strict control, the theater became an altemative space for these intellectuals to spread their ideologies.¹⁹¹

This chapter will try to semtinize the complex relationship between the

 

popular theater and the imperial control in order to observe the transformation of the theater from an imperial institution hosting European sovereigns into a public space staging the political tension between the Ottoman sultan, Ottoman intellectuals and the general public.

In the following lines, I will fırst try to touch upon the development of the

 

ideological currents opposing the govemment, and their reflection on the stage by observing the 'Vatan Incident' (1873), which I believe symbolizes the politicization of the popular theatre. Subsequently, I will try to mention Sultan Abdülhamid II' s policy of censorship towards the theater and touch upon the complex relationship between the popular theatre and the imperial control by scrutinizing the 'Gedikpaşa Incident' (1884).

 

 

The Radicalization ofthe Ottoman Intellectuals and the "Vatan Incident"

 

 

 

üne of the most important theater scandals staging the political tension between the masses and the authority was the 'Vatan Incident' that tookplace in 1873. This 'incident' loaded a symbolic meaning to this particular play, and singled out Namık Kemal as a prominent ideologue within the Young Ottomans. The 'Vatan incident' did not only help to the creation ofthe public opinion tlırough the theater, but also

portrayed Namık Kemal as the national hero in the post-revolutionary theater.

¹⁹¹ Some ofthese names are Namık Kemal, Ebüzziya Tevfik, Ahmet Mithat, Şemseddin Sami, Ahmed Fehim. Sevengil, Türk Tiyatrosu Tarihi, p. 24.

Following the imperial rescript ofthe Rose Chaınber in 1839, a series of bureaucratic reforms took place, giving leading positions to Ottoman statesmen and intellectuals educated in Europe. This era ofreformation perceived 'Westemization' as a political agenda, which eventually empowered those Ottoman intellectuals trained abroad. Soon, the Ottoman reformation created its own opposition and opposing political groups like the Young Ottomans within the imperial circles. The ideological development ofthe Young Turks is best exaınined in ŞerifMardin's seminal book The Genesis ofYoung Ottoman Thought. As Mardin argues, the Young Ottomans were 'at one and the saıne time the first men to make the ideas ofthe Enlightenment part of the intellectual equipment of the Turkish reading public and the first thinkers to try to work out a synthesis between these ideas and Islam.'¹⁹² Accordingly, what united these young intellectuals was a common knowledge of European civilization and a growing concem about the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.¹⁹³ In his analysis of Ottoman history, Erik J. Zürcher also examines the roots of the ideological movement. He mentions that according to Young Turks, the solution to reunite the Empire !ay in the introduction ofa representative, constitutional and parliaınentarian govemment in the empire, thus instilling a true feeling of citizenship and loyalty to the state aınong ali Ottoman subjects, Muslims and non-Muslirns.¹⁹⁴ These intellectuals irnproved and disseminated their ideologies throughjoumals which were published in Europe and reached the empire either via the post offices operated by the Europeans in the Ottoman Empire, or through the

agency of tradesmen. As historian Erik Zürcher argues, 'they can be regarded as the

¹⁹² Şerif Mardin, The Genesis o/Young Ottoman Thought (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000), p. 4.

¹⁹³ ibid., p. 11.

¹⁹⁴ Erik J. Z!!rcher, Turkey: A Modern History (Landon: New York; l.B. Taurus & Co Ltd. Publishers, 1998), p. 71.

fırst modern ideological movement among the Ottoman elite of the empire, and they were the fırst who, through their writings, consciously tried to create and influence public opinion, the term for which (ejkar-ı umumiye) was also oftheir making.'¹⁹⁵ Without getting into the intricacies ofthis complex era, !et us try to situate Namık Kemal as a leading fıgure and as a passionate Young Ottoman who had a tremendous impact. For Namık Kemal, hürriyet (liberty) and vatan (the nation) were key ideals. Zürcher describes the ideas of Kemal as 'a defense ofliberal values with Islamic arguments.' ¹⁹⁶ In his publications, Kemal emphasized emotions rather than reason and called for mass politics. Şerif Mardin defınes Namık Kemal as an ideologist manipulating symbols, and underlines that 'as much as the word "hürriyet" İs an invention of Kemal, it is to him too that is credited the fırst extensive use of the word "vatan" in the sense of "fatherland" in Turkish literature.¹⁹⁷ Besides his political identity, Namık Kemal was a playwright, a poet anda novelist. By looking at his works, I can argue that he wrote in a number of gemes in order to reach a larger public and disseminate the Young Turk ideologies. His works aimed the formation of the public opinion that favored to merge the European ideals and the Islamic tradition. Since one ofthe most influential ways to reach a larger audience was theater, he wrote a number ofplay scripts that, in a way, formed public opinion.

Even though we do not know whether the Ottoman intellectuals were influenced, or they were in touch with the Nahda intellectuals ofEgypt or not, Ilham Khuri Makdisi's thesis shows striking ideological similarities between the Young Turks and Nahda intellectuals, who perceived theater as a central institution for the

¹⁹⁵ ibid., p. 74.

 

¹⁹⁶ Zürclıer, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 71.

 

¹⁹⁷ Mardin. The Genesis ofYoung Ottoman Thought. p. 326.

advancement of civilization.¹⁹⁸ Just like Namık Kemal, Egyptian intellectual Salim Naqqash associated theater with progress and civilization.¹⁹⁹ 'Progress would be achieved both individually and socially thanks to the theater; individually, through the spectator's heightened moral consciousness, and socially, through the gathering of individuals in front ofa stage and their common shared experience of performance. ,ıoo Makdisi argues that this interaction between individuals who shared space and spectacle was itself a form of collaboration which made the individual transcend the self, "push away that which divided" him from his fellow spectators, and forma social body.²⁰¹ Salim Naqqash and Namık Kemal show interesting similarities not only in their perception ofthe theater, 'which helps the development of the society', but also in their usage ofvocabulary. To expound his ideas to Ottoman public, Kemal created a new vocabulary in which old words were given new meanings corresponding to the terminology of the nineteenth century liberalism. 'Vatan', the Arabic word denoting one's birth place became the equivalent ofthe

French 'patrie ', 'hürriyet' (being a free man) !hat of 'liberte ', 'millet' (community)

 

that of 'nation' in a broad sense.²⁰² In a similar !ine, Naqqash attributed a new definition to 'al watan '. Naqqash's homeland was not "the nation", but rather a land that welcomed foreigners and integrated them into his homeland.²⁰³ As Makdisi

¹⁹⁸ Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p. 111.

 

¹⁹⁹ Also see: Philip Sadgrove, The Egyptian Theatre in the Nineteenth Centuıy (1799-1882) (Oxford:

!!haca Press, 1996).

 

²⁰⁰ Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p.l 08.

 

²⁰¹ ibid., p. 108.

 

²⁰² Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern Histoıy, p. 72.

 

²⁰³ Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p. JI0.

mentions, the love for one's homeland implied recognizing what was good for it, including welcoming and supporting those whose work contributed to the creation of a social body, especially through the theatre. Furthermore, Makdisi underlines that Naqqash had managed to argue that he, a Syrian, would contribute, through the theater, to leading Egypt on the patlı of civilization by increasing the Egyptians' love for their country and the creation ofa social body.²⁰⁴ Moreover, he insisted that the

theatre's benefıts for the Egyptian society would only materialize ifthe performances

 

were ı•nA

rab.ıc.20s

 

Considering these similarities, one can argue that the use of theater as a means to create public opinion was not particular to Namık Kemal, or to the Istambulites. It was rather the growing radicalism which invented the use of performance to attract both the literate and the illiterate masses in different parts of the Empire. Namık Kemal's new terminology, which was created via theater and press, became the new ideological exemplary for later generations of Muslim liberals and nationalists.

Namık Kemal's Vatan hada groundbreaking impact on the transformation of the theater from an elitist form of art into a public spectacle. There, the Gedikpaşa Theater, with its monopoly of staging Tıırkish theater, played a crucial role by attracting many Tıırkish intellectuals and politicians of the age. Some of these names were Namık Kemal, Ebüzziya Tevfik (1849-1913), Ahmet Mithat (1844-1912), Şemseddin Sami (1850-1904), and Ahmed Fehim (1856-1930).²⁰⁶

 

 

²⁰⁴ ibid., p. 110.

 

²⁰' ibid., p. 111.

 

²⁰⁶ Sevengil, Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 24- 36.

Namık Kemal wrote his famous play Vatan Yahud Silistre (Fatherland or Silistra) in 1873. The play compared the love ofthe fatherland with that ofa lover.²⁰⁷ When, Vatan Yahud Silistre (Fatherland or Silistra) was premiered in the Gedikpaşa Theater on !April 1873, the theater was filled with an enthusiastic audience. Some political names like Mısırlı Mustafa Fazıl Paşa (1829-1875) and Bereketzade Ismail Hakkı Bey were among the audience. Even though theater historians Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil mention that this premiere did not aim to create a political tension, there are narratives and memoirs which show that Namık Kemal had an intention to mobilize the masses through his play. Since most of his publications were censored by the government, theater, according to Kemal, would serve to disserninate his ideas to a larger audience.²⁰⁸ Ahmet Refik Sevengil informs us that from the very first scene of the performance, the audience participated by applauding and shouting as "Long !ive Kemal!"²⁰⁹ Namık Kemal's son narrates that by the end ofthe play, ovations reached a peak anda group ofthe audience wanted to congratulate Namık Kemal in person. However, the playwright had already left the theater before it ended. This enthusiastic group insisted on congratulating him in person, and walked to the building ofthe newspaper İbret, co-directed by Namık

 

'""Abstract: Zekiye lives in a Rumelian city with her wet mırse. She meets İslam Bey, who has volunteered for the army, and falls in love with him. İslam Bey leaves Zekiye in order to fıght on the battlefıeld, saying "those who love me should follow." Zekiye puts on men clothes and follows him under the name of Adem. In the second act, in Silistra castle İslam Bey is wounded and Zekiye takes care ofhim. The commander ofthe castle, Sıtkı Bey, is away from home because ofhe lost his reputation in the army before. He enters the army under another name and becomes a commander.

Silstra castle is under a siege. İslam Bey, Abdullah Çavuş and Zekiye volunteer for a mission to blow up the enemy's arsenal and succeed. As a resul! the castle is saved. İslam Bey explains Zekiye's genuine identity and Sıtkı Bey by asking some questions learns that Zekiye is his own daughter. The story ends with preparations for the wedding of İslam and Zekiye."

Seçkin, "Staging the Revolution," p. 149.

 

²⁰⁸ "See: Ali Ekrem, Namık Kemal (İstanbul: Devlet Matbaası, 1930), p. 49; Sahadettin Nüzhet, Namık Kemal (İstanbul: Yeni Şark Kitaphanesi, 1933), pp. 62-63.

 

²⁰⁹ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 178; Ekrem, Namık Kemal, p. 49.

Kemal.²¹⁰ However, Namık Kemal was not there either.²¹¹ Then, the audience left a note commending the play Vatan and supporting Namık Kemal's efforts to revive patrie, freedom and nationhood, and left it with the co-director and publisher ofthe journal İbret, Aleksan Sarrafyan.²¹² The next day, both this note, and the comments on the performance were published in the newspaper İbret. The newspaper also informed the audience that Vatan would be staged a second time the following evening because of popular demand.²¹³ Ahmet Refik Sevengil informs us that, the

 

²¹⁰ "The previously mentioned play titled "Fatherland or Silistra" was performed in Gedikpaşa Theater. People were so moved by the play that they let out cries of"yaşasın Kemali Millet" (translated literally as "long !ive the wise nation" but Kemal alsa connotes the playwright Namık Kemal). The author was called on stage several times and applauded fora very long time. in the streets, hundreds ofpeople with torches at hand were searching for Kemal who had left the theater as if tleeing and returned his home with acar. The palace could not remain indifferent to such a manifestation. The newspaper İbret was shut down."

Ekrem, Namık Kemal, pp. 49-50.

 

²¹¹ "Just as the newspaper was being printed, around fifty notables came in front of our publishing house and woke me up with shouts of"Long !ive the maturity ofthe nation" and informed us that in the Ottoman Toeater where Vatan ofNamık Kemal was performed tlıey asked for the playwright and learned that he was in his publishing house. They had arrived to thank him, but when they could not find the playwright, they wrote a note ofthanks immediately and left. Because !here was not enough time, I had to refuse their requests for publishing the note, postponing it to tomorrow's newspaper." İbret Gazetesi, 2 April 1873, quoted in: Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 179.

 

²¹² "This is the copy ofthe 'thank you' notice we received yesterday night: Long !ive !he 'maturity' (emphasis on!he word Kemal) ofthe Nation!

Even though !he fact that drama ranks as !he brightest and the most beneficial form in literature is proved by !he high ideas contained in the judgments of famous writers whose piles ofbooks fili libraries and is experienced by !he real theater performances we have seen, !his night, !he nation has invigorated before our eyes how sublime theater is and how spiritual its effects can be.

Long !ive the nation!

It is a facı that theater is !he spiril ofliterature, the brightest par! of it, a unique beauty which infatuates hearts.

Theater, with its spiritual power, makes people cry, laugh: opens !he conscience and illuminates.

Long !ive the nation!

Although we do not have the words and !he power to thank the playwright and to appreciate him and his piece which is worth tlıe whole world, with !he fervor of national sovereignty and national attachment, we could not lay back from expressing our conscientious emotions. We are sure that we will be excused for our insolence on!his subject."

İbret Gazetesi, 3 April 1873, quoted in: Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 179.

 

²¹³ "The drama titled Vatan yahut Silistre, written by !he editor ofour newspaper Mr. Kemal, was staged in the Ottoman Theater the other night. As !he audience has conceded, !he abovementioned play depicted the yearning ofthe Ottomans for courage and their other pleasant chatacteristics. The applause and !he demands forced everyone to ask for another performance ofthe play. Besides the wishes ofthe precious people who after the performance arrived at our publishing house at midnight,

!he wishes alsa ofthe people who could not be present in the theater the other night has led us to gel permission for another performance tonight. Vatan will be staged again tonight and it will be

same night, upon the publication ofthese articles, and the political movements emerging around the newspaper İbret, the govemment abolished the publication of the newspaper. The !ast issue ofthe newspaper announced that the govemrnent closed down the newspaper since 'it tried to divitle the comrnunity' and since 'it published articles that were 'harmful' for the country.'²¹⁴ The literary cornrnittee of the Gedikpaşa Theater, led by Namık Kemal, was now 'suspects', and 'potential­ criminals' for the Ottoman govemrnent. Namık Kemal and his friends whose articles and books were frequently censored probably knew that their performance would create a political tension from the very begiuning. Indeed, Namık Kemal's son Ali Ekrem mentions that his father wrote theater pieces when he realized that he could not disseminate his ideas otherwise.²¹⁵ Consequently, it would not be wrong to argue that the premier of Vatan and the following events were consciously incorporated into a political agenda, which would -once more- portray Namık Kemal not only as a 'lover of fatherland', but also as an Ottoman reformist fighting against the 'sultan's tyranny'.

The following night, a group of policemen 'visited' the Gedikpaşa Theater

 

and arrested the literary committee which included Namık Kemal, Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Mustafa Nuri (1824-1890), Ebüzziya Tevfik Bey and Hakkı Efendi.²¹⁶ These intellectuals were exiled separately.²¹⁷ Ahmet Mithat and Ebüzziya Tevfik Bey were

performed on behalf ofKarakaşyan Yeranuhi Hanım, one ofthe first actresses oftlıe tlıeater, who helped tlıe staging ofthe play tlıe otlıer night."

ibret Gazetesi, 3 April 1873, no. 130, quoted in: Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 179.

 

²¹⁴ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 182.

 

²¹⁵ Ekrem, Namık Kemal, pp. 49-50.

 

²¹⁶ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 182.

217 "( ... ) Mr. Kemal, Mr. Nuri, Mitlıat Efendi and Fatihli HakKı Efendi, - tlıe journalists ofthe newspaper İbret which was shut down tlıe otlıer day-, and Mr. Tevfik, tlıe owner oftlıe newspaper Siraç, were present at the theater of Agop which is situated in Gedikpaşa ]ast Sunday night, and hence

sent to the island Rhodes. Mustafa Nuri and Hakkı Efendi were exiled to Acre, and Namık Kemal was sent to Cyprus (and stayed in the fortress ofFamagusta until the dethronement ofthe sultan).²¹⁸

There are different narratives on the reasons why these intellectuals were arrested. Some of these narratives belong to Mustafa Nuri Bey (an author in the daily İbret), Sadettin Nüzhet (an early Republican literary critic), Ali Ekrem (Namık Kemal's son), and Midhat Cemal Kuntay (a Turkish writer, poet and lawyer). ²¹⁹ The narratives of Ali Ekrem and Sadettin Nüzhet argue that Namık Kemal and his audience promoted the dethronement ofthe sultan. Accordingly, after the fırst performance of Vatan, a large group of audience invited Namık Kemal to the stage. ünce they recognized that he was not there, they headed to the newspaper İbret. And on the way, they shouted as: "Long !ive Kemal! Long !ive fatherland! This is our wish! May God grant our wish!" (The word 'wish' was 'murad' in Turkish; it was alsa the name of the crown prince (veliaht) on whom progressives had pinned their hopes).²²⁰ Sadettin Nüzhet argues that the masses invoked Sultan Murad, who was alsa a friend of Namık Kemal.²²¹ The Sultan, threatened by the politicization ofthe theater, closed down the newspaper İbret which promoted constitutionalism, and 'politically sterilized' the Gedikpaşa Theater by sending the political fıgures to exile.

were arrested by the police force and put in pnblic jail. That night, even the owner ofthe above mentioned newspaper, Aleksan Efendi, was arrested, but he was released the next day. Today, it is being told lhat the above mentioned journalists will be exiled to Cyprus, Rhodes and Akka. Because the reasons oflheir arrest are unknown and !here is no offıcial declaration with regard to their situation, we did not dare get into the details."

Basiret Gazetesi, 9 April 1873, quoted in Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 185.

 

²¹⁸ See: And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 102-103; Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, pp. 184-185; Nermin Menemencioğlu, "The Ottoman Theater 1839-1923," Bul/etin (British Society far Midd/e Eastern Studies), no. 1 (1983), p. 53.

 

²¹⁹ Fora tlıe discussion on ofthe narratives, see: Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, pp. 178-206.

 

²²⁰ Menemencioğlu, "The Ottoman Theater 1839-1923," p. 53.

 

²²¹ Nüzhet, Namık Kemal, pp. 62-63.

The 'Vatan Incident' became a tuming point not only in the popularization of the Ottoman theater, but also in changing the nature ofthe theater activities. As we leam from the newspaper La Turquie, the govemment decided to control each and

every theater play and censored the 'dangerous elements' that could cause social

unrest in these scripts.222 On the other hand, Namık Kemal's plays gained an incredible popularity. Gedikpaşa Theater continued to stage the plays of the exiled playwright. From his Cypriot fortress, Kemal sent two plays: Zavallı Çocuk (Poor Child), andAkifBey. Güllü Agop, the director ofthe theater, produced and staged these plays although the name ofthe author was discretely omitted from the program.223

Vatan yahut Silistre and the 'Vatan Incident' are associated with the ideological currents of the Ottoman intelligentsia through the 1870s. Soon the play Vatan gained additional meanings such as the love of the fatherland, Ottomanism and

the pursuit ofliberty. For instance, Adolphe Thalasso, discussed 'how extraordinary

Vatan was' in his article on the Turkish theater published in 1904.224He did not only

 

quote the dialogues reflecting the love ofthe patrie, but also described how strongly he felt this love offatherland throughout these dialogues.225Moreover, he informed

us about the current politics of the govemment towards the theater and condernned the Ottoman govemment since it exiled these intellectuals.226

 

²²² La Turquie, 12 April 1873.

 

²²³ Menemencioğlu, "The Ottoman Theater 1839-1923," p. 54.

 

²²⁴ Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc,", p. 373.

 

²²⁵ ibid., p. 373.

 

²²⁶ "Kemal et Ahmed Mithat comprirent que suivre cette voie c'etait etouffer au berceau le theatre turc. Aussi, reagirent- ils avec autant de vigueur que de courage, mais, helas! Ces vertus, comme nous le verrons dans la suite, furent payees par l'exil et l'interdiction sur !es tlıeatres ottomans de toutes !es pieces dont le sujet, de pres on le loin, se rattachait a des idees reforrnatrices on portrait nne atteinte, - si petite fut-elle, au texte du livre saint. Aujourd'hui encore l'interdiction qui pese sur Vatan n'a pu

The exiled writers retumed to İstanbul when a group of leading Ottoman politicians carried out a coup d'etat deposing Sultan Abdülaziz on 30 May 1876. Prince Murat, who was close to the Young Ottomans and who had been in touch with Mithat Paşa, Namık Kemal and Ziya Paşa, was crowned.²²⁷ Namık Kemal and Ziya Paşa were appointed as Palace secretaries.²²⁸ Three months later, Sultan Murat was dethroned on the hasis of some mental illness, leaving his place to Sultan Abdülhamid II, who would become one ofthe most controversial figures ofthe Ottoman history.²²⁹ Crowned in 1876, Sultan Abdülhamid II was both a modemist and Islamist who would develop an even more complex relationship with the Ottoman intelligentsia and the opposing political groups. Following a period of Euphoria (both for the Ottoman intelligentsia and for the Ottoman theatre) after the promulgation ofthe First Constitution of 1876, Sultan Abdülhamid II dissolved the chamber of deputies two years later to begin his reign which would be a 'tyranny' for the Ottoman intelligentsia.²³⁰ The reign of Sultan Abdülhamit II was marked with censorship for the Ottoman theater, which -to a certain extent- had created its own public in the 'Vatan incident'. Sultan Abdülhamid II's policies of censorship reached its peak with the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater in 1884.

 

 

 

etre levee soit a cause d'une tacite concession diplomatique faite ala Russie, soit surtout parce que l'idee de Patrie ne peut pas, ne doit pas exister chez le turc de façon abstraite, mais dans une forme tangible."

Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc," p. 376.

 

²²⁷ Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 77.

 

²²⁸ ibid., p. 77.

 

²²⁹ For furtlıer discussion on Sultan Abdülhamid II's character, see: Yavuz Selim Karakışla, "Il. Abdülhamid'in Saltanatı (1876-1909): Kızıl Sultan mı? Ulu Hakan mı?" Toplumsal Tarih, no. 103 (2002), pp. 10-19.

 

²³⁰ Menemencioğlu, "The Ottoman Theater 1839-1923," p. 54.

Censorship and the Destruction ofthe GedikpasaTh at

 

 

 

The containment of popular theatre during the reign of the Sultan Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909) and the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater in 1884 provide some very important clues to understand both the political and the cultural atmosphere ofthat era. First, ruining ofa major theater just because of one play's possible potential to politicize the masses shows that the Ottoman public was indeed very susceptible to political unrest. Second, it clearly shows that by the mid 1880s, theater became a political arena and a means to mobilize the masses. Third, the later patronage of the Gedikpaşa team in the Ottoman Palace under Sultan Abdülhamit II shows the complex relationship between the Palace and the popular theater.

The Hamidian era was in fact a stage for the complex relationship between

 

the popular theatre and the government; a relationship based on fear and censorship. The epitome of Sultan Abdülhamid II' s policy of censorship was undoubtedly the destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theater, which led the Palace towards a patronage of the 'interdict', and shifting its policies towards controlling the public opinion. The irony of this saga was that Sultan Abdülhamid II actually loved the theater. He ordered the construction ofa theater in the Yıldız Palace. His vizier Talısin Paşa informs us in his memoirs that Sultan Abdülhamid II did not only use Yıldız Theater for the reception ceremonies of the European sovereigns and ambassadors, but also asa place where he spent time and discussed daily issues.²³ı On the other hand, his love for the theater did not change his policy of censorship towards it or the press.

Ali the literary and artistic activities of the period were under strict control of censorship, which could manifest itself in absurd implementations.

²³¹ Tahsin Paşa, AbdülhamitYıldız Hatıraları (İstanbul: Milliyet Matbaası, 1931), p. 17.

The analysis ofthe complexities ofthe Hamidian era would be an overwhelming endeavor at this point. Both the domestic and international dynamics of the era in which he reigned and his life-story portraying him as a cmious and a modem young prince in the Ottoman court have been explored in great detail in the works of Selim Deringil, François Gergeon, Yavuz Selim Karakışla and in many memoirs, including those of his daughter Ayşe Osmanoğlu and his vizier Tahsin Paşa. What is relevant for our study is his paradoxical stance vis a vis modern cultural forms. As historian Selim Deringil argues, in the Hamidian era, Ottoman statesmen became obsessed with reciprocity which could be procured through representation, and sought to project the image in Europe that 'we are like you'.²³² Given the political atmosphere of the time when his uncle Sultan Abdülaziz was murdered, and the Balkan states were dissolved, Sultan Abdülhamid II developed paranoia in the midst ofa 'decline' paradigm. As international political tension escalated, and secret anti-Hamidian organizations were founded, Sultan Abdülhamid II came to rely more and more on the espionage system he built up. Historian Yavuz Selim Karakışla gives detailed information on the 'institution of espionage', and

argues that Sultan Abdülhamid II drew the Ottoman society into a collective paranoia by employing spies in each and every aspect of the social and political life.²³³ üne of the greatest fears of Abdülhamid II was the growth of an opponent public opinion, which started to take shape by the !ate 1870s. He was well aware of the public influence the theater had, which made him control each and every play after the 'Vatan Incident' of 1873. İbn-ürRefikAhmetNuri Sekizinci (1874-1935), the

232 Selim Deringil, The We/1 Protected Domains. Jdeology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909 (Landon; New York: I.B. Tauris, 1999), p. 15.

²³³ Yavuz Se!iın Karakışla, "II. Abdüllıarnid'in İstibdat Döneminde Jurnalciliğin Boyutları,"

Toplumsal Tarih, no. 120 (2003), pp. 24-29.

 

famous actor, translator and the playwright of the day informs us that Sultan Abdülhamid II feared the theatre's potential to 'awaken' tlıe masses, and that tlıerefore he withdrew Namık Kemal's Vatan fi-om circulation and banned any national play.²³⁴ A number ofwords like 'yıldız' (star), 'burun' (nose), or 'mecnun' (lover) were prohibited because oftheir implications ofthe sultan or the palace, having a potential to cause a public unrest.²³⁵ Furthermore Sekizinci narrates how absurd were these controls, and how he suffered fi-om censorship.²³⁶

Sultan Abdülhamid II did not only censor Turkish plays. He alsa censored European plays that would be staged in İstanbul. Furthermore, he prohibited the performances of foreign actors, and censored some plays that could implicate the Ottoman Empire and its sultan in Europe.²³⁷ For instance, when one oftlıe famous actors ofthe age, Saralı Bemardt (1844-1923) visited İstanbul in 1888, Sultan Abdülhamid ff did not want her to perform since she could perform 'death' so realistically.²³⁸ Similarly, tlıe famous actor Emesto Rossi (1897-1967) and his group could not perform Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, Louis XIV or Neron, since these plays could represent tlıe dethronement ofa king.²³⁹ The govemment alsa censored

²³⁴ "İbnirrefik Ahmed Nuri Sekizinci'nin Hayatı ve Eserleri," Türk Tiyatrosu, no. 151 (1946), p. 7.

 

²³⁵ "in the plays !hat were performed back !hen, it was forbidden to use the words Efendi (Sir) and Kadın (Woman). Because the word Efendi could be misunderstood by the princes while the word Kadın by the wife ofthe sultan. Particularly the words Yıldız because it relates to the Yıldız Palace, Burun (Nose) because it might refer to the big nose of Sultan Hamid and Mecnun (Mad) because it disturbs Sultan Murad which was dethroned, were never mentioned."

Mehmed Rebii Hatemi Baraz, İbn-ür Refik Ahmet Nuri Sekizinci (1866-1935) (Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayımlan, 2001), pp. 18-19.

²³⁶ "Back !hen, I was interrogated because of the one-act comedy I translated, titled "Anatolun İzdivacı" (The Marriage of Anatol). Because the wordAnatol resembles the word Anatolia. (... ) I struggled very hard to explain !hat I translated !his piece from French and !hat it had no connection to Anatolia."

ibid., p. 19.

 

²³⁷ Demirel, "II Abdülhamid Dönemi Tiyatro Sansürü ... ve Perdeler Sansürle Acıldı,", p. 40.

 

²³⁸ And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 247.

 

²³⁹ ibici, pp. 247-248.

 

the intemational theater groups who travelled to İstanbul 'just to perforın'.²⁴⁰ When they were censored, however, these intemational groups stil! got paid since the Ottornan sultan did not want to 'damage' his intemational relations.²⁴¹ Sultan Abdülhamid II' s censorship reached beyond the borders of the Empire as well. He banned sorne theater perforınances staged in Europe. For instance, Sultan Abdülhamid II asked the FrenchPresident Sadi Camot (1834-1894) and Queen Victoria (1837-1901) to ban the play 'Muhammed', which could create a negative irnpression about Islam and its prophet Muhammed.²⁴² But yet, these rneasures were not enough for hirn. Upon the 'inadequacy ofthe control', Sultan Abdülhamid II ordered the preparation ofa docurnent for the regulation of the theater. In the Ministry of Education, a cornrnittee of ninety-two people gathered and prepared sorne legislation for censorship.²⁴³ However, this legislation did not suffıciently regulate the censorship craze either. The officers continued to ban plays that did not violate the law.

Within the ernpire, censorship and the 'fear ofthe theatre' reached its peak

 

with the destruction ofa rnajor theatre; Gedikpaşa Theater in 1884. Ahmet Midhat's plays Çerkes Özden/eri (The Circassians) and Çengi (Dancer) were staged on Tuesdays and Thursdays at Gedikpaşa Theater. Upon a rurnor arguing that the play Circassians prornoted a Circassian rebellion, the theatre was surrounded by four hundred rnunicipal workers who disrnantled it in one night.²⁴⁴ In his rnernoirs, Ahmet

²⁴⁰ ibid.

²⁴¹ Demirel, "II Abdülhamid Dönemi Tiyatro Sansfuii ... ve Perdeler Sansürle Acıldı," Toplumsal Tarih, no. 63 (1999), pp. 40-41.

242 1'b1'd., p. 41.

243 For further information, see: Aod, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 249.

 

244 "The plays Çerkez Özden/eri and Çengi being ordered by his holiness Ahmet Mithat Efendi are against propriety and morality and as a matter of form, contradictory to Islamic tokens; since the mis-

Fehim narrates the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, 'the temple ofthe Turkish theater' because of Sultan Abdülhamid II' s groundless fears, and condenms the regime.²⁴⁵ On the other hand, the famous actor ofthe day; İbn-ür Refik Ahmet Nuri Sekizinci argues that Sultan Abdülhamid II ordered the destruction of the theater since he received some news that 'the emerging opposition called 'the Young Turks' were very much influenced by the Gedikpaşa Theater, and were organized through this institution'.²⁴⁶ Alunet Fehim informs us that after the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, the Ministry ofEducation sent a notice to the theaters informing that each and every play staged without the approval ofthe govemment would face a similar punislunent.²⁴⁷ Subsequently, the fear precluded theater activities in İstanbul

fora while. Moreover, after the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, a law

en-scene ofthese plays are not appropriate, that the previously mentioned plays should never be performed again and that the officers that were called yesterday be informed about this requirement ordered by his Holiness Şehremini Devletlü Paşa, the minister of police affairs, his highness." Tarik, 23 November 1884.

²⁴⁵ "in this period there (in the Gedikpaşa Theater) we performed a lot ofplays: fırstly we performed Gaye, Seyyid Yahya, Resa, -which we had performed in the First Gedikpaşa-, and later Çerkes Özden/eri, the !ast play ofMithat Efendi (1884). However, this !ast play caused a !ot of gossip among the spies and the media. There were many criticisms. in the end, all of this affected the Palace differently. it was said:

"A Circassian issue is being created, better said, they want Circassians to be given half-sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Murat Bey and others write a history ofthe Circassians secretly. This is flagrantly a preparation foran attempt at rebellion against the Ottoman state and the Ottoman dynasty. The play must b_e barmed and its creators arrested." üne night Hamdi Bey, Mithat Efend and me - in the house ofMithat Efendi's mistress- were having fun. Toere was a knock on the door. They askedfor Mithat Efendi. He got up and left. We spent the whole night in great terror and depression. in the morning, I went to the theater. As I was walking down to Gedikpaşa slowly, I saw that the front ofthe theater was crowded by white belted Municipality sergeants. "The end" was corning... I realized the danger imınediately, went back, and found myself near my mother in Üsküdar. From then on, at this old corner ofthe Anatolian side, we were waiting for news ofthe events that were about to take place in the little theater house hiddeu in the domed silhouette of İstanbul. At !ast, we heard that the theater was abolished upon Sultan Hamid's groundless fears. The hands that destroyed that place... They know that the place they destroyed is the fırst temple ofTurkish theater."

Ahmet Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene. (İstanbul: Mitos Boyut Yayınları, 2002), p. 21.

 

²⁴⁶ "Back in those days, Jeune Turcs were springing up in Europe. The Gedikpaşa Theater was abolished in one night upon the orders of Sultan Hamid who believed that these Jeune Turcs were mused by the above-mentioned theater. After that (the Ottoman Theater) did performances in Bağlarbaşı, in Kac\ıköy and in Şabzadebaşı during Ramadan under the sweet custody ofa violent censorship."

"İbnirre:fik Ahmed Nuri Sekizinci'nin Hayatı ve Eserleri,", p. 6.

²⁴⁷ Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 32.

prohibited the perforınance of any Turkish play, leaving the stage only to translated plays.24s

Ahmet Fehim inforıns us that the officers commissioned to censor the scripts 'were uncultured, simple-minded and bigoted' and that they banned whatever they found 'dangerous' including translated scripts which were not political.²⁴⁹ Fehim also

narrates that the censurers were dominantly radical islamists, and they tried to ban some plays in the month ofRamadan.250 Ahmet Fehim's memoirs can be considered

one of the best sources narrating the government' s fears, paranoia and measures to control. In another narrative, he explained how the govermnent tried to ban some

words like 'yıldız' (the world 'star' connoting the imperial palace) even ifthey were direct translations from French.251Again, Fehim's memoirs on Çaprastiyan's efforts

to open a workshop on dance, and the government' s insistence on seeing his

²⁴⁸ Far further information, see: Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 32; And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp, 243-247; Demirel, "II Abdülhamid Dönemi Tiyatro Sansürü,.. ve Perdeler Sansürle Acıldı,", pp, 36-43.

 

²⁴⁹ "! cannot move on without telliog my concems and what I had to endure during that period, On the one hand turbaned basket heads, on the other hand corrupt gerdermaries and in the end censorship, These three ignorant powers have constantly punched theater and art and knocked them down, Far example, I go to the provioces. I gel prepared, On my fırst night, a police offıcer and one or two turbaned people stand io front ofme and said: "Ramadan is a month ofworship. Plays are sioful" and they ban the plays, Or they say: "Did you come here to briog draught and infertility to our country!" and they sack you out immediately. ,, In İstanbul on the other hand, the Police Force does not give permission for Ramadan. On top ofthat, a trouble maker such as Arap Abdullah who levies tributes on Şehzadebaşı comes into the scene, He robs us... What about censor? This is the scariest one! Either the Ministry of Education, or the police or the media! A censor committee consistiog of ignorants, just to look nice to the Palace, harms you without understandiog or knowing the details ofthe plays.

üne day, I never forget, I brought to the committee a play io translation, Anyway it was forbidden to play native dramas after the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater. Only plays in translation could be performed. üne ofthe members ofthe committee, a representative ofthe Üsküdar Prefacture, a bearded bigot turned towards me and said: "Y ou should take out ali the Arabic words from the sentences oftlıe priest io this play. Qu'ran is given in Arabic and thus Arabic words are illicit to non­ Muslim tongues," I was stuck frozen. Fortunately, one or two members did not attend to tlıe advice of tlıis bigot."

Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, pp. 31-32.

 

²⁵⁰ ibid., pp. 31-32,

 

²⁵¹ "üne night I was perforrniog a translated comedy, I said "Your eyes shine like astar" to the woman across me. Immediately a couple of policemen dropped io. They called me. Looking straight at my face, they said: "So it is like the Star (Yıldız)!" I showed !hem the play and said "This is approved, Censorship has not deleted tlıis sentence," Then tlıey vamoosed."

ibid,, p, 32.

 

approval notice also show that the regime and its policy of censorship were so narrow-minded that they could not imagine any other kind of performance other than the performance of the censored plays.²⁵² By the 1900s, the municipality of İstanbul banned ali popular theater activities in İstanbul.²⁵³ Ali these censorship policies discouraged the theater, and created not only unemployment, but also a rivalry among performers. The destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theater, the ban on Turkish plays, censorship and the strict measures of the govermnent tried to make the theater 'a politically sterilized domain' through 1884-1908. However, Fehim's memoirs portray that destroying the Gedikpaşa Theater building made the popular theater and the performers even more 'political'.²⁵⁴ This censorship did not diminish but multiplied the popular theater activities. Considering the theater historian Marvin Carlson's statement that 'every play and its performance connotes its previous performances, and acts asa 'memory machine", one can see that Vatan and the Çerkes Özden/eri became symbols of opposition and revolution in the following decades. ²⁵⁵

²⁵² "From the actors, poor Çapra.stiyan, who was lef! alone, appeals to the Üsküdar Prefactnre with a petition to give dance coıırses in a saloon above the VakıfClub. He asks forpermission to do foot plays. The district governor calls for Çaprastiyan and says:

"Do you have the approved version ofthis play? Ifyou have, I will give permission, if you do not I will not Jet you do it" Çaprastiyan is surprised: "Sir", he says, "tlıis is a foot play. There is no approval for this."

The district governor insists and says: "Bring it so we shall see." Poor Çapra.stiyan starts to dance in front ofthe governor. Governor starts to shout taking tlıis act as an insult.

He says: "Bring the approved version! There is an order! I cannot give pennission to you. Come on,

go away!" and refuses tlıe petition.

These events show tlıe ideas and values oftlıe administrators during tlıat period. I anı full ofrage against tlıese people. When the time comes, I do not even want to remember tlıeir corpses with good intentions!"

ibid., p. 32.

 

²⁵³ ibid.

²⁵⁴ "It was only a building which wa.s tom down by four hundred people with tlıe order ofthe Palace. To tlıe contrary, tlıeater, was rooted and settled in tlıe spirits and minds more tlıan ever. We, the actors, started to be more influental during tlıis period."

ibid., p. 22.

 

²⁵⁵ Carlson, The Haunted Stage, p. 2.

Although the popular theaters were 'politically sterilized', aud lost the political power they gained with the 'Vatan Incident', once the Gec:likpaşa Theater was destroyed, the 'imperial control' took over all the theater activities. The day after the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, Sultau Abdülhamid II employed 'the Gedikpaşa team' in the Palace. The playwright Ahmet Mithad was appointed as the secretary ofthe quarautine in the Palace.²⁵⁶ The director ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, Güllü Agop was appointed as the director of the Yıldız Theater. Moreover, he converted to Islam, took the name 'Y akup Efendi', aud acquired a military rauk in the Palace.²⁵⁷ üne ofthe prominent actors ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, Mınakyau Efendi was appointed as the stage mauager of the Palace theatre.²⁵⁸ Unlike Agop Vartoviyan (Güllü Agop), Mınakyau Efendi refused to convert to Islam.²⁵⁹

Sultau Abdülhamid II' s policy toward the containment of the popular theatre was a complicated one. He saw theater as a central institution of 'progress aud civilization', so he ordered the construction ofa theater in the Palace, aud he frequently used this theater for diplomatic purposes. On the other haud, the 'Vatan Incident' aud the 'political dauger' of the theater scared him; therefore, he wauted to limit the theater within the borders of the imperial palace. Destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theater, the main stage ofİstaubul, aud his later appropriation ofthe Gec:likpaşa team in the Palace illustrate his paradoxical policies towards theater.

A very interesting aspect ofthe 'censored era' was Ahmet VefıkPaşa's patronage ofthe theater in Bursa.²⁶⁰ Ahmet Vefik Paşa was a theatre lover, aud

²⁵⁶ Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 22.

 

²⁵⁷ Sevengil, Türk Tiyatrosu Tarihi, p. 46.

 

²⁵⁸ ibid, p. 47.

 

²⁵⁹ Demirel, "II Abdülhamid Dönemi Tiyatro Sansürü ... ve Perdeler Sansürle Acıldı,", p. 38.

 

²⁶⁰ Ahmet Vefik Paşa was the govemor of Bursa between tlıe years 1878-1882.

translated thirty-four plays ofMoliere into Turkish.²⁶¹ Some ofthe performers suffering from the irrational censorship in İstanbul took refuge in Bursa in the theater constructed by Ahmet Vefik Paşa. Ahmet Vefik Paşa was both a representative of the government and a reformist Ottoman intellectual. His stance promoting the theatre in Bursa showed, in a way, that there was also a growing opposition to the sultan's policies in his own entourage. Ahmet Vefik Paşa's encouragement of the theater did not !ast long, however. In 1882, Ahmet Vefik Paşa was removed from office with an imperial degree and was given another position in the Palace.²⁶²

A Ieading Ottoman intellectual and playwright ofthe era, Namık Kemal also suffered from a similar policy of exile. When Sultan Abdülhamid II heard a rumor arguing that Namık Kemal was trying to dethrone him, he ordered the grand vizier Midhat Paşa to exile Namık Kemal. However, Midhat Paşa did not obey the order. Subsequently, Sultan Abdülhamid II exiled Midhat Paşa on 5 February 1877, and imprisoned Namık Kemal on 9 February 1877.²⁶³ Especially these !ast two intellectual figures became 'heroes' in post-revolutionary theater scripts. As will be discussed later, these two figures were portrayed as heroic fighters against Sultan Abdülhamid II's 'tyranny' in the post-revolutionary theater.

Again, a comparable theater patronage was that ofthe govemor of Adana, Ziya Paşa (1825-1880). Ziya Paşa, a Iover of theatre, ordered the construction ofa theater anda theater troupe in Adana in 1880.²⁶⁴ However, he died after a short while and managed to remain 'untouched' by Sultan Abdülhamid II's exile policies.

²⁶¹ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 133; Sevengil, Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 10.

 

²⁶² Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, pp. 127-132.

 

²⁶³ Thalasso, "Le Theatre Turc,", p. 376 ; Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, pp. 234-239.

 

²⁶⁴ Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, p. 144.

When we consider Sultan Abdülhamid II' s policies towards the patrons and performers ofthe popular theater, it would not be wrong to argue that he either distanced them from İstanbul, or employed them in the imperial Palace.

Ali in ali, I can argue that the strict censorship policies towards the theater, the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater by the Ottoman government, and the employment of its team in the Palace demonstrate the importance attributed to the control of the theater in order to keep the social order. Furthermore, demolishing the theater (on the premise that 'it can create a Circassian upheaval') displays the strong conviction that the theater was influential in shaping the public opinion. The 'Vatan incident', the censorship policies, and the destruction ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, in other words, the containment of the popular theatre demonstrate that the Ottoman theater was able to cause political tension by the 1880s and 1890s. This observation challenges the traditional narratives of the two masters of the theatre history, Metin And and Refik Ahmet Sevengil who date the 'politicization of the theater' to 1908, that is, to the declaration of the Second Constitution. Although it is true that the political theater was consolidated in the constitutionalist era, it gained a symbolic importance for the politics of opposition with these two theater 'incidents' ofthe 1870s and 1880s. Moreover, the narratives ofthe performers showthat Sultan Abdülhamid II' s policies of oppression created a feeling of 'revengefulness' towards the regime.²⁶⁵ After the Young Turk Revolution of 1908, theatre -which was already politicized- blossomed under the patronage ofthe Committee ofUnion and Progress and became one of the fundamental institutions to disseminate the ideologies of the revolutionaries.

²⁶⁵ "I am full of rage against these people. When the time comes, I do not even want to remember their corpses with good intentions!"

Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 32.

Namık Kemal, his plays, the 'Vatan Incident' and the 'Gedikpaşa Incident' then became symbols of oppression and resistance in the popular Ottoman theater.

CHAPTER VI

 

LEGITIMIZING THE NEW REGIME:

OLD REPERTOIRES, NEW FORMS OF SPECTACLES

 

The history of revolutionary theatre was a complex story of shifting relations to representation, micro-contests over interpretation, struggles over authority, and constructions and deconstructions of political and cultural identities. (...) And theatre, perhaps more than any other cultural institution, illuminates the contingency, rather than the historical necessity or coherence, of the revolution and of its effects and thus the degree to which its participants were shaped by events even as they shaped them.²⁶⁶ (Susan Maslan)

 

 

To understand how "Ottoman Revolutionary theatre" was situated within the politics of its time, one should begin by exploring the historical milieu of the declaration of the Second Constitution (23 July 1908) known as 'the Ottoman Revolution of 1908' or 'the Young Turk Revolution'. A briefreview ofthe historiography on the Ottoman Revolutionary theater shows that the strict periodization laid out so far by scholars like Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Metin And, Enver Töre, and Alemdar Yalçın tends to oversimplify its complex and gradual development. Taking a comparative perspective based on exemplaries of other similar and contemporaneous 'revolutionary theaters', this chapter will try to show how similar 'theatre epidemics' were created and experienced in France, Russia and Iran. This comparative perspective was useful in situating the Ottoman experience into its own historical context which embraced the masses under the patronage ofthe CUP. The memoirs of the actors, and the accounts of daily newspapers clearly show the growth of popular interest in the 'pageants' of Vatan and Besa.

 

 

 

²⁶⁶ Maslan, Revolutionary Acts, pp. 7-8.

The Historical Milieu of the Young Turk Revolution

 

 

 

The history of the Hamidian and Young Turk eras has been the two rnost influential political experiences of the turn of the nineteenth century in terms of showing the reception ofmodemity by both state and society. The cornplexities ofthese eras had many dirnensions including Sultan Abdülhamid II' s oppression which could be felt in each and every aspect of the social life, the spread of the nationalist feelings around the Empire, and the changing intemational power relations. As thoroughly analyzed by historian Feroz Ahmad, the deterioration of Ottornan politics and economy rapidly found expression in the formation ofa secret political organization in 1889 known as the Committee ofUnion and Progress.²⁶⁷ Junior officers and civil servants who joined this anti-Harnidian rnovement aimed at overthrowing the Hamidian autocracy and restore the constitution shelved in 1878. However, this was only intended as a prelude to a social revolution designed to place the lower rniddle class, to which most Young Turks belonged, in a position of power and influence within the new regirne. Indeed, as Ahmad further argues they differed frorn the senior officers, who, like the high bureaucrats, wanted only a constitutional rnonarchy and had no desire to see Turkish society undergo a social revolution.²⁶⁸

During these decades, theater did not only reflect the progressive rnarginalization of Ottornan intellectuals and enable thern to disserninate their ideas and gather support, but also provided a rneans of expression and a space for the formation ofthe Unionist ideology.²⁶⁹ When on 23 July 1908, the Cornrnittee of

²⁶⁷ Feroz Alıınad, The Maldng of Modern Turkey (London, New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 30.

 

²⁶⁸ ı"bı"d., pp. 5-6.

 

²⁶⁹ Alsa see: Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," pp. 96-176.

Union and Progress succeeded to 'persuade' Sultan Abdülhamid II to promulgate the constitution for the second time, public reaction in İstanbul was one of tremendous joy and relief, leading people from all walks of life to celebrate in the streets. As Feroz Ahmad reminds us, once the censorship was lifted, newspapers and magazines representing ali the communities of the empire and a wide assortrnent of opinions flooded the market to satisfy the curiosity of an eager public.²⁷⁰ In many places, including the capital, people targeted the representatives ofthe old regime, forcing the dismissal of officials and hunting down known members ofthe espionage system.²⁷¹ The political exiles also began to retum to the capital.

Young Turks rapidly adopted an agenda of social reform after the Revolution of 1908. As Feroz Ahmad puts it, "the Young Turks experimented with virtually every sphere oflife, hardly anything was left untouched."²⁷² They not only changed the political system but also attempted to refashion society by borrowing more freely from the West than ever before. The Young Turk movement, however, composed of joined forces to overthrow the Hamidian regime, was itself divided. Ottoman historians usually divitle the ideological movement into two principal groups, the Liberals and the Unionists. In Feroz Ahmad's terms, the liberals generally belonged to the upper classes of the Ottoman society: 'they were well educated, Westemized, cosmopolitan and comfortable with a foreign language and culture, usually French.'²⁷³ As supporters of the constitutional monarchy, their ideology was Ottomanism, a dynastic patriotism to which ali religious and ethnic communities

²⁷⁰ Alımad, The Making of Modern Turkey, p. 31.

 

²⁷¹ Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, p. 93

 

²⁷² Alımad, The Making of Modern Turkey, p.32.

 

²⁷³ ibid., p. 34.

could owe allegiance without sacrificing their own narrower aims and aspirations. On the other hand, the Unionist members of the CUP were also constitutionalists and supported a political regime similar to the one envisaged by the liberals. But in contrast to the liberals, the Unionists came from what might be described in Westem term as the 'lower middle class', the class which had suffered the consequences of progressive integration into the world market due to the erosion of the indigenous economy. Indeed, the power relations and the ideological struggles ofthese different groups were more complex than I could explain above. Feroz Ahmad's words thoroughly summarizes the issue: "In the transitional period which began in July 1908, there was a latent struggle for power between the sultan, supported by conservatives and reactionaries, the high bureaucrats, supported by the liberals, and the Unionists who relied on their organizational strength in the army and society at large." 274

 

 

Rethinking the Periodization of the Ottoman Revolutionary Theıı,tl'!f

 

 

 

 

Pioneers ofthe Turkish theater history, like Metin And and Ahmet Refik Sevengil periodize the history of the Ottoman 'Westem-style theater' under two distinct categories: 'Theater ofthe Tanzimat Era'²⁷⁵ (Tanzimat Tiyatrosu) and 'Theater ofthe Constitutionalist Era' (Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu).²⁷⁶ While Sevengil chooses to focus on

²⁷⁴ ibid., p. 35.

 

²⁷⁵ Refik Ahmet Sevengil, Tanzimat Tiyatrosu, (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basnn Evi, 1961), Metin And, Tanzimat ve İstibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, (Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınlan, Ankara, 1972).

 

²⁷⁶ Refik Alıınet Sevengil, Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu, (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basnn Evi, 1968), Metin And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, (Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1971).

theater troupes rather thau a chronological !ine, Metin And's narrative was constructed with classifications aud periodizations. According to Metin And, the 'revolutionary theater' started with the declaration of the Second Constitution in 1908, and ended with the declaration ofthe Turkish Republic in 1923.²⁷⁷ In a more recent historical review, Alemdar Yalçın alsa follows Metin And's periodization for the Constitutionalist theater as (1908-1923), but rather focuses on the literary sides of the plays written between 1908-1914.²⁷⁸ Another theater historiau Enver Töre alsa respects Metin And's periodization, but rather focuses on the bibliographies produced by playwrights who wrote plays between 1908-1923.²⁷⁹ Bilge Seçkin's ınaster's thesis, however, periodize the 'revolutionary theater' between the declaration ofthe Second Constitution (23 July 1908), aud the Counter-Revolution (13 April 1909) known as the '31 March Incident'.²⁸⁰

In the light of new research, it is now possible to revisit the established periodization ofthe so-called 'Ottoman revolutionary theater' ofthe Constitutionalist era. An analysis of the newspapers, memoirs and play-scripts shows that a strict periodization of the era underestimates the gradual formation of the Ottoman popular and political theater. To date the beginning of 'the revolutionary theater' to 1908 was problematic mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the memoirs ofthe actors and playwrights clearly document au increasing public interest in popular theatre with political themes prior to 1908. Secondly, as mauy ofthe plays staged after 1908 belonged to the Tanzimat era, making a strict division between the Tanzimat theater

²⁷⁷ And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 1O..

 

²⁷⁸ Alemdar Yalçın, il Meşrutiyette Tiyatro Edebiyatı Tarihi (Ankara: Akçağ Basın Yayın, 2002).

 

²⁷⁹ Enver Töre, İkinci Meşrutiyet Tiyatrosu Yazarlar - Piyesler (İstanbul : DUYAP, 2006).

 

²⁸⁰ See: Bilge Seçkin, "Staging the Revolution," (Master's Thesis, Bogaziçi University, 2007).

and Revolutionary theater would be rather misleading. To date the end of 'revolutionary theater' to 1909, to 1914, or to 1923 also proves to be problematic, since these dates did not 'end' the revolutionary theater but rather changed its nature. Therefore, the following lines will touch upon this methodological problem, and argue that the transformation of theater was a gradual process, underlining the fact that the ear!ier periodizations oversimplify the complex development of theater in the

!ate Ottoman world.

 

While 'whether the declaration of the Second Constitution was a 'revolution' or not' is a subject of debate, one can easily state that there was indeed a revolution in the domain of theater very similar to the theatrical responses to the French and the Russian Revolutions.

Indeed, as mentioned in the previous chapters, theater had already become a political institution in the reign of Sultan Abdülaziz. In the subsequent decades, theater developed as a public sphere, parallel to the development of the coffeehouses.²⁸¹ Both the coffeehouse culture, and the shadow theater culture, which was based on political satire, helped the theater to gain its power to influence public opinion. Considering al! these cultural and social factors, one cannot claim that the revolution 'created a political theater'. However, what the Revolution of 1908 accomplished was to use the popular theater to mobilize the masses as a means of propaganda. Therefore, we can speak ofa 'revolutionary theater', which was used by the CUP to persuade the masses, especially the illiterate, on the righteousness of the new regime. On the other hand, the politicization of the repertoire and the creation of

 

²⁸¹ For further information on the coffeehouses, see: Ralph Hattox, Coffee and Cofeehouses: The Origins ofa Social Beverage in the Medieval Near East (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995).

a new geme of theater representing the 'tyranny of Sultan Abdülhamid II' could only emerge after the dethronement of the Sultan Abdülhamid II in 1909.

In his memoirs, Ahmet Fehim comments on the effects ofthe destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theater. He underlines that the strict censorship policies did not only create unemployment, but also triggered a sense of revenge among the actors who took refuge in other towns to fınd jobs and establish theaters.

What four hundred people, with the order ofthe Palace, destroyed and tore down was only one building (Gedikpaşa Theater). Theater, on the contrary, was rooted in souls and in brains. We, the thespian people, became more influential in this period. (... ) They had destroyed our theatre, our home, as well. We scattered everywhere and enlightened the most desolate places ofthe country with the torches oftheater.²⁸²

 

The destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theater brought a change in the organization of theater groups based in İstanbul. As Ahmet Fehim's memoirs show, these troupes began to tour in different cities ofthe Ottoman Empire. For instance, Ahmet Fehim and a group of actors formed a traveling troupe and went fırst to Salonika, then passed to Edime where they helped the establishment ofa theater.²⁸³ Later, they also performed in Trabzon, Ordu and Samsun. Financial conflicts often divided their troupes. Ahmet Fehim and some ofthe remaining actors travelled to Çanakkale, Bozcaada, and Midilli, yet again suffering from fınancial diffıculties, they joined Fasulyeciyan once more in Tekirdağ, and continued to perform in Çorlu and in Kırklareli. Afterwards, Ahmet Fehim decided to take a new turn and went to Ankara in search of new jobs. He fırst worked in the Kocamanoğlu Theater, then in the Cenderecioğlu Theater. Subsequently, another period of unemployment followed: Ahmet Fehim took a tour in the Black Sea region and performed fırst in Samsun,

²⁸² Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 22.

 

²⁸³ They were; Fasulyeciyan, Hiranuş Hanım, Sofi, Kör Mari and Binemeciyan. Fehim, Sahnede Elli Sene, p. 22.

then in Ünye, and later in Giresun. After this tour, he joined the theater troupe of Minakyan Efendi, and visited the Aegean region. This time, they performed in İzmir, Salonika, İskeçe, and Kavala. The mobility ofthe theater troupes around different towns and cities ofthe Empire was certainly an outcome ofthe fail ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater. What came out ofthis transition, however, was the formation ofa 'theater culture' in provincial capitals and towns, which, in a way, simulated the 'coffee­ house culture' asa new entertainment platform. The rising popularity of these troupes helped the emergence ofa new marketplace for the consumption of the theater around 1900s. Ahmet Fehim, for instance, returned to İstanbul and founded his own group: 'Ahmet Fehim Topluluğu (Ahmet Fehim's Troupe).²⁸⁴

Ahmet Fehim's memoirs clearly demonstrate that after the devastation ofthe Gedikpaşa Theater, which staged a political tension if not a political script, theater became a new sphere for the formation of public opinion. Moreover, his narrative shows that theater troupes had played almost a 'missionary' role in spreading a certain tradition of' going to the theater', which was perceived in the provinces as a Western and modern behavior. Despite the obvious fınancial interest, these troupes also gave public training to the general audience, and contributed a great deal to the establishment ofa new public space which functioned in a very similar way to the one formed via the coffee-houses.

Ahmet Fehim's memoirs offer usa narrative which illustrates how theater troupes prior to 1908 travelled ali around the country, disseminated the ideas of Ottomanism and Westernization through the theater, particularly through staging the play scripts of Namık Kemal, and created an audience that would support them.

Therefore, I argue that the Committee ofUnion and Progress, and the Revolution of

²⁸⁴ ibid., pp.24 -120.

1908 did not 'discover' or 'invent' a revolutionary theater asa means ofpolitical mobilization, but rather used an already established institution: Theater and its potential power to legitimize ideologies.

In her dissertation The Levantine Trajectories, Ilham Khuri Makdisi illustrates how theater becomes a new kind of popular entertaimnent by the 1900s in the Ottoman world. Looking at the development of theater in Beirut, Cairo and Alexandria, Makdisi makes the following comments:

The number of plays written or translated by intellectuals and 'regular' bourgeois alike, the quest, by average citizens, for rehearsal space, the sheer volume of pages devoted to discussing theatrical matters in the press or in municipal reports, al! these aspects give a sense of the theater's importance and ubiquity in the lives of elites and non-elites at the beginninş of the twentieth century in Beirut, Cairo and Alexandria.^{2 5}

 

It was also important to remember that the plays staged after the declaration of the Second Constitution were literary products ofthe Tanzimat era, suppressed in the Harnidian period. The plays ofNarmk Kemal gained a particular symbolic meaning during this era, even though their contents were 'politically sterilized' under the censorship. The joy of the revolution was reflected on the stage with the famous plays written during the reign ofthe martial law. Besides Namık Kemal, plays written by Şemseddin Sami (1850-1904) and Abdülhak Hamit (1852-1937) were also among the most popular ones.²⁸⁶ Needless to mention, Namık Kemal's plays dominated the repertoire ofthe 'revolutionary theater'. The play: Vatan yahud Silistre (Fatherland or Slistra) which premiered with the 'Vatan Incident' of 1873 was soon staged by different troupes in a number of places, and became the symbol

ofthe revolution. Other plays that Namık Kemal wrote while on exile (Gülnihal, Akif

²⁸⁵ Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p. 104.

 

²⁸⁶ And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 115-120.

Bey, Celalettin Hazemşah, and Zavallı Çocuk (The Poor Child) became extremely popular in the days that followed the Revolution.²⁸⁷

Namık Kemal's plays did not only dominate the repertoire of the 'revolutionary theater', but also shaped the structures ofthe post-revolutionary scripts.²⁸⁸ For instance, the phrase "Will the heli break loose?" that Abdullah Çavuş, a main character in Vatan repeats after each sentence set a pattem for other revolutionary plays. Selecting a phrase and repeating it after each sentence was thus copied by a nunıber of scripts written after Vatan. Again, the fact that Zekiye,

Vatan 's heroine, was dressed like aman to accompany his lover in the battle front also set a trend for 'masculinization for the love of the nation.' Yet again, in the Zavallı Çocuk (The Poor Child), two lovers die before uniting, and this pattem becomes a literary element for a number of plays.²⁸⁹ Another legacy of Vatan yahud Silistre can be seen in the titles of the scripts written after the declaration of the Second Constitution. Most of the theater scripts written after the Revolution of 1908 adopted the word 'yahud' (or) in their titles to allude to Vatan yahud Silistre (Fatherland or Slistra).²⁹⁰ The names ofthe plays written after the Revolution of 1908 used the word 'or' to add an additiona! title to the plays. The second title usually explains 'the theme' ofthe play, and aims to fıırther inform the audience about its thematic content before the performance.²⁹¹

²⁸⁷ ibid., pp. 116-118.

 

²⁸⁸ For further infonnation, see: Didem Ardalı Büyükamıan, "Türk Tiyatro Edebiyatında Vatan Kavramı (1860-1940)," (Phd Diss. Marmara University, 2007).

 

²⁸⁹ For further infonnation, see: And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, pp. 116-119.

29°For further infonnation, see: Cem Şems Tümer, "19. Yüzyıl Metinlerinde Geleneksel Bir Tercih: "Yabut"lu Başlık Kalıplaşması," Turkish Studies, no. 3 (2008), pp. 380-398.

 

²⁹¹ Some examples are: "İstibdatın Vahşetleri Yahut Bir Fedainin Ölümü", "Bir HafryeAilesi Yahut Mazlume-i İstibdat", "Genç Zabit Yahut İstibdat Zulümleri", "İstibdatzn Son Günü Yahut Zavallı Valide", "Cemiyet-i Hafrye İşkenceleri Yahut Bir Següzeşt-i Hunin ", "Hafiye Darbesi Yahut Bir Kızın

The majority of plays written after 1909 represented 'the tyranny of the ancien regime, and glorifıed the CUP. Although these plays which condemned the old regime were numerous, it is diffıcult to say that they reached a large audience. üne can state, however, !hat the plays, novels, histories and newspapers ofthe age were ali very influential in the formation of public opinion about the tyranny of the ancien regime.²⁹² On the other hand, Namık Kemal's plays were not the only ones reflecting 'the joy ofthe revolution'. Şemseddin Sami's Besa Yahut Ahde Vefa (Pledge or the Oath ofFidelity), and Gave ile Seydi Yahya (Gave and Seydi Yahya,); Mehmet Rıfat's Pakdamen, and Ya Gazi Ya Şehid (Veteran or Martyr); Ebuzziya Tevfık's Ecel-i Kaza (The Time ofDeath); and Ahmet Mithat Efendi's Çengi (Dancer) were ali written in the second half of the nineteenth century and staged after the Revolution of 1908.²⁹³

It is also important to remember that the repertoire of the plays staged right in the aftermath ofthe Young Turk Revolution did not display such an anti-Hamidian stance. Ironically, the 'joy ofthe revolution' was celebrated with the plays ofthe old regime. The main difference, however, was the emphasis put on certain terminology. Words like 'nationalism,' 'Ottomanism' and 'constitutionalism' censored before the

 

 

 

 

İntikamı", "Hırs-ı Saltanat Yahut İntikam-ı Meşru-ı Millet", "Bekir Ağa Bölüğü Faciaları Yahut Serair-i İstibdattan Bir Nebze", "Sevda-yı Medfon Yahut Safahat-, İstibdat" ete... Tümer, "19. Yüzyıl Metinlerinde Geleneksel Bir Tercih," pp. 380-398.

 

²⁹² This public opinion was so strong that it stili echoes today, and shapes the historiography of the

!ate Ottoman Empire. I believe !hat the public opinion created via the performances and the publications which defınes the old regirne as a 'tyranny' shaped the historical discourse which shows the irnperial rule (and particularly the rule of Sultan Abdülhamid il) as 'oppression and tyranny', and the reign ofthe CUP as 'freedom, and democracy'.

 

²⁹³ For fıırther information, see: And, Meşrutiyet Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, p. 118.

revolution were now overemphasized after the revolution, a fact that makes it diffıcult to date 'revolutionary theater' to 1908.²⁹⁴

The popularity of Vatan after the declaration of the Second Constitution created a new market for the political theater, and set a trend for the politicization of the repertoire. In this milieu, the post-revolutionary scripts judging the old regime, and the popular culture which produces them introduced the new theater genre of "milli facia" (national tragedy). The politicization ofthe repertoire did not end ata certain point but got transformed within the political events shaping the atrnosphere ofthe day. In the eve ofthe First World War, for instance, the repertoire changed in such a way that the plays encouraged people to fıght by staging the previous military successes. After the First World War in 1918, the sarne genre targeted the CUP leaders on stage, framing them as responsible for the loss ofWar. Again, after the declaration ofthe Turkish Republic in 1923, theater was used to construct a historical discourse glorifying the national leader, Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938), and representing the Ottoman history as a history of oppression and corruption.

Therefore, it would be misleading to 'end' the 'revolutionary theater' in 1914, 1918, or 1923. The politicization of the repertoire did not end at a certain point but got transformed within the political events shaping the atmosphere ofthe day.²⁹⁵ Ali in ali, I believe that the incorporation of theater into the politics was a gradual process.

The 'revolutionary theater' had its own organization and political power before the

²⁹⁴ As !here was no 'beginning' ofthe revolutionary theater, !here was also no 'ending'. Toe theater of post-1908 era established the tradition ofa 'political theater' which does not only represent the historical and political situations, but also becomes apart ofit in Turkey. This kind oftheater was revived after the major political events Iike the First World War, the declaration ofthe Republic in 1923, and the fırst coup d'etat of 1960.

 

²⁹⁵ The theater activities following the fırst coup d'etat of 1960 also resembles the ones following the Revolution of 1908. After the coup of 1960, theater was used asa public space where the workers strike and unionizatiou found its first organizations. Between the fırst two coup d'etats, hence between the years 1960- 1971, the theater, asa public space, wituessed the radicalism ofboth Ieftist and rightist politics.

declaration of the Second Constitution. The repertoire of the revolutionary theater itself clearly demonstrates that this was nota new genre. On the other hand, what the revolution accomplished was the invention of mass spectacles and philanthropic organizations that would legitimize the rule ofthe CUP. This new market produced its own genre after 1909.

Putting Ottoman Revolutionary Theater in a Comparative Perspective:

 

The Çaf,es ofFrnnch, Russian and Iranian Revolutionary Theaters

 

In the days following the Revolution of 1908, the stage actually served to legitimize the new regime by the Unionist intellectuals. This effort ofthe intellectuals (most of whom were francophone) came precisely through an intemalization ofthe French Revolution. They also happened to be the main participants of the revolution process as playwrights, actors and spectators. As historian Makdisi stated, 'in the first years ofthe twentieth century, the French Revolution and Marseillaise had been appropriated to the loca! stage.' Indeed, when we look at the performances of Vatan, after the declaration of the Second Constitution, we can see that most of the performances were introduced with Marseillaise. Makdisi further argued that thanks to theatre, radicals and aspiring revolutionaries throughout the Ottoman Empire began to engage in role-playing on stage, assigning themselves the roles of Saint­ Just, Danton, and Robespierre. Accordingly, 'the stage did not only serve to disseminate these concepts to a larger audience, but it also allowed the masses to leam from their past in the Revolution, and rehearse their roles as the revolutionary crowd'.²⁹⁶ Therefore, Makdisi stated that 'theater was pivotal in allowing radicals and masses to imagine, to rehearse, to !ive and to glorify the revolution':

²⁹⁶ Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofR.adical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p. 148.

If these thinkers could only fantasize about their own revolution in the fırst few years ofthe twentieth century, by 1908 the drearn had become reality. The Young Turk Revolution brought with ita constitution, general euphoria, and a series of plays celebrating it onto the Egyptian and Syrian markets.²⁹⁷

 

In the post-revolutionary Oitoman theater, just like it had been in the French revolutionary theater, "regular" people were recruited beforehand to act in the role of the revolutionary crowd or people's army in these plays.²⁹⁸ Considering these similarities, one can argue that the Ottoman Revolution did not only take the mottos ofthe French Revolution: "Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite", but also its model ofthe post-revolutionary theater.

When we exarnine the post-revolutionary theater in France, we can see that theatre was affected tremendously by the social turbulence ofthe decade ofthe French Revolution. Graharn Rodmell, working on the French Revolution, reminds us that it was a period of frantic drarnatic activity as new drama numbered in the thousands and new theatres in the hundreds.²⁹⁹ As historian Paul Friedland puts it, 'The theatricality in the French society during the Revolution was remarkable. The increase in the nurnber of theatres alone was astonishing: in two years from 1789- 1791, the nurnber oftheatres in Paris tripled.'³⁰⁰ Similarly, historian and literary critic Susan Maslan reminds us that 'at least one thousand new plays were written and performed, approximately fıfty new theatres opened, and there were roughly twenty fıve theatrical performances every day in Paris during the Revolutionary

²⁹⁷ ibid., p. 150.

 

²⁹⁸ See the mass perfonnances of Vatan İn the following part, Also see: Makdisi, "The Levantine Trajectories: The Formulation and Dissemination ofRadical Ideas in and between Beirut, Cairo, and Alexandria, 1860-1914," p. 151

 

²⁹⁹ Rodmell, French Drama of the Revolutionary Years, p. l.

30°Friedland, Political Actors, p.1.

decade.'³⁰¹ Just like it has been in France, the theater boomed after the Ottoman Revolution of 1908, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. But, besides the 'theater epidemic' that major revolutions created, a radical transformation in the nature ofthe theatre was also experienced through the French Revolution. As Friedland mentioned, 'with the French Revolution, the worlds of theater and politics intermingled'. The rules seemed to have changed almost overnight with the Revolution. Dramatic actors who only a few months before had been social and political outcasts in an old regime that offıcially regarded their crafts as profane were elected to powerful military positions.³⁰² Friedland further argued that 'while politicians were being unmasked as actors, dramatic actors were themselves being denounced by both the political left and right as being secret agents of the other.

Moreover, his work informs us that during the Reign ofTerror, suspicions about actors' political allegiances led to large-scale imprisonment of actors in Paris as well as in the provinces.

A very important aspect ofthe revolutionary theater both in the Ottoman and in the French cases was their similarities in the 'theatricality oftheir political life' during the Revolutionary era. In both cases, the parliament itself operated asa 'stage' with its political actors giving speeches and its audiences applauding their oratory performance. Another theatrical aspect ofthe political ground was undoubtedly the ways in which these revolutions were celebrated. In the Ottoman case, when Resneli Niyazi had left the Sultan's army to go up to the mountains, this had become the symbol ofthe Young Turk Revolution. Resneli Niyazi also hada domestic deer, following him wherever he went. Both his leaving for the mountains and strolling

³⁰¹ Maslan, Revolutionary Acts, p.15.

 

³⁰² Friedland, Political Actors, p. 2

around with his faınous deer were extravagant acts embodying theatrical elements. The Revolution of 1908 in Macedonia was also highly 'theatrical'. In the French case, as Friedland argues the most striking exaınple ofthe theatricalization ofpolitics was the way the debates in the National Assembly were 'staged'. There, the Assembly building was organized in such a way that the audience attended the sessions with the nation's representatives. Even before the National Assembly had officially come into existence, the deputies of the Third Estate had distinguished themselves from the deputies of the first two estates by breaking with tradition and allowing an audience to witness their debates.³⁰³ In both cases, the revolution changed the form in which political representation was practiced. For the Ottoman intellectuals, and for the ruling group (Young Turks and their political organization, the Committee of Union and Progress), the French Revolutionary theatre represented the exaınple of creating a public space where the mass culture and the mass politics could interact.

The experience of pageants and mass performances of the French Revolution were not only adopted by the Ottoman Revolution, but also by the Russian Revolution in the early twentieth century. Just like the Ottoman and the French Revolutions, the Russian Revolution was followed with a 'theatre epideınic'. In his book Revolutionary Theater on Russian theatre, Robert Leach explains this concepts as follows: 'In conditions of enormous hardship, of starvation and cold, during the dislocation of society and the dangers of lawlessness, the demand for plays and for dramatic activity was almost insatiable.'³⁰⁴ Like in the Ottoman post-revolutionary theater, the typical drama ofthe Russian 'theatre epidemic' was geared to

³⁰³ Friedland, Po/itical Actors, p. 180.

 

³⁰⁴ Leach, Revolutionary Theatre, p. 36.

propaganda purposes. As Leach stated, these plays lacked intellectual talent and art, and used on stage mostly peasants and workers. Again, most of the plays were staged as mass spectacles, which clarifıed several elements of the revolutionary theatre:

In terms of content, political tendentiousness was now not only acceptable but becarne a generating force, especially in its use of popular heroes. The spatial distinction between performance area and auditorium was typically blurred. Furthermore, the mass spectacles convinced many theatre workers that they could contribute to the building of the new society through their profession. ³⁰⁵

 

Taking these factors into consideration, Leach argues that the theatre's potential for social intervention was established.³⁰⁶ One of the most farnous exarnples of the Russian pageants was the performance ofNikolai Evreinoffs The Storming ofthe Winter Palace İn 1920. It involved more than eight thousand participants, army units, armored cars and trucks, even a battleship, and was played before an audience of more than a hundred thousand.³⁰⁷ These mass spectacles actually reflected the transformation ofthe Russian society. Indeed, what distanced theaters from their conrtly status and turned them into mass spectacles was this transformation.³⁰⁸ After Lenin's death (1924), the revolutionary period was symbolically at an end. Even though the revolutionary theatre did not disappear, it eventually faded from 1924 onwards.

Besides the Russian and French Revolutions, which were followed by a 'theater epidemic', another model for the Ottoman revolutionary theater was the theater activities held during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution which took place

 

³⁰⁵ ibid., p. 50.

 

³⁰⁶ ibid.,p. 50.

 

³⁰⁷ Carlson, Performance: A Critical Introduction, p. 97.

 

³⁰⁸ For further infonnation, see: Frame, The St. Petersburg Imperial Theaters, p. 17.

between 1905 and 1911.³⁰⁹ This revolution which led to the establishment ofa parliament and eventually to the dissolution ofthe Qajar dynasty carried important political resemblances to the Ottoman case. In other words, the Iranian Constitutional Revolution no doubt was a 'source of influence' for the Ottomans, especially in the political uses of the theatre. In his book The History ofTheater in Iran, Willem Floor calls attention to the new boost to the modem theater. Floor argues that the power of the theater had grabbed the imagination of many deputies so that the draft law for the newly established municipalities had as one ofits aims to create theaters.³¹⁰

In Iran, it was strongly believed that the theater was one of the vehicles to diffuse the reformist and the constitutionalist ideas among the population at large. The reformists wanted to express their desire for political freedom and their other ideals via theater. When compared to the French, Ottoman and Russian Revolutions, however, the post-revolutionary theater in Iran could not grow stronger and lost its original zeal. Another important difference !ay in the fact that the Iranian theater could not create its own political repertoire, and mostly adopted foreign plays.

Namık Kemal's Vatan yahud Silistre hada particular importance among these

 

adaptations. The popular performances of Vatan between 1908-1914 in Iran showed the strength ofthe newly developed Ottoman popular theatre.311

Ali these four revolutionary theatres had one common aim: to create public

 

opinion! The theatre became one of the main platforms where public opinion took

³⁰⁹ Fara detailed historical review on Iran's Constitutional Revolution, see: Mangal Bayat, Iran's First Revolution: Shi'ism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 -1909 (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Edward G. Browne, The Persian Revolution of 1905-1909 (Washington: Mage Publishers, 1995); Janet Afary, The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906- 1911" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

31°Floor, The History ofTheater in Iran, p. 222.

 

³¹¹ It had been translated into Persian by Malekzadeh-ye Tabrizi, and staged by the Hey'at-e Kheyriyeh-ye Vataniyeh on November 17, 1910. For fıırtlıer information, see: Floor, The History of Theater in Iran, p. 224.

shape, was expressed and shared. The relationship between the theater and politics was indeed strongly connected to the rise of mass politics. Since revolutions needed mass politics, the "theatre epidemic" was not an ıınexpected, but rather a natura! aspect of the revolutionary periods.

Theater provided a space for the expression of ideas. As one of the fırst scholars to consider theater as 'one ofthe institutions ofthe public sphere,' Jürgen Habermas argues that public opinion developed initially with respect to the arts, theater and literature, and only later came to assert itselfin the political realm.³¹² Habermas' observation linking public sphere and theater, and consequently linking theater with the formation of public opinion is/ and has been a very important assumption in studying the formation of the public space.

In the Ottoman case, a public sphere where performances satirized the regime was already very present. Scholars who studied the public sphere in the !ate Ottoman world often underlined the role of the coffeehouses and the new literary and artistic genres of the satirical press. The use of Karagöz shadow theater as a means of political critique and the rise of caricatures in the press were important cultural forms in constructing public opinion in the urban space.³¹³ What the revolutionary theater achieved, however, was the fact that it was able to mobilize the masses.

 

³¹² For further information, see: Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation ofthe Public Sphere: An lnquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Studies in Contemporary German Social 11ıought (Caınbridge: MIT Press, 1991).

 

³¹³ See: Helene Desmet-Gregoire, Doğu'da Kahve ve Kahvehaneler, edited by Helene Desmet­ Gregoire, François Georgeon, translated by Meltem Atik, Esra Özdoğan {İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, 1999); Cengiz Kırlı, "Surveillance and Constituting the Public in the Ottoman Empire," in Publics, Po/itics and Participation: Locating the Pub/ic Sphere in the Middle East and NorthAfrica (New York: SSRC, 2009), pp. 282-305; Cengiz Kırlı, Sultan ve Kamuoyu: Osmanlı Modernleşme Sürecinde Havadis Jurnalleri (İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009); Palmira Johnson Brmnmett, lmage and lmperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press, 1908-1911 (Albany: SUNY Press, 2000).

The Public Catharsis of the Revolutionary Era: "The Theatre Epidemic"

 

 

 

The days following the declaration ofthe Second Constitution witnessed greatest spectacles of ali kinds. The Revolution was celebrated with popular manifestations, boycotts, parades, and cartoons. As historian Palmira Brummett argues, the Revolution brought an interregnum both in terms of freedom of press and in terms of the functioning ofa new Ottoman regime. For Ottomanjoumalists, 1908 was a year of euphoria and of disillusionment. Using cartoons, satirists created an Ottoman cartoon space where the crisis of the revolution could be played out. There, the merging ofthe real and the imagined was natural and inevitable.³¹⁴ Actually, the newspapers of the age observed a very similar development in the theater. For instance, according to Hüseyin Fehmi, writing in the newspaper Hizmet, the fırst agitation was in the press and the second one was in the theatre.³¹⁵ The boom of theater after the revolution, referred as the 'theater epidemic'³¹⁶ or as 'stage incursion'³¹⁷ ('sahneye hücum') introduced Ottoman public to the idea of performance and consumption ofthe theater. Hence, it introduced topics which were previously limited only to certain political and intellectual circles via the popular theater. The plays that were prohibited after the Gedikpaşa and Vatan incidents were

 

 

 

314 Brumınett, The Image and The Imperialism, p. 3.

315 "Meşrutiyet, hürriyet-i nat1ka-i milleti iade edince ilk galeyan matbuatta, ikinci tuğyan da temaşada kendini gösterdi." Hüseyin Fehmi, "Sanayi-i Nefise-İnk1lab-1 Temaşa," Hizmet, 4 February 1909.

316 The phrase used for the theater activities following the French and the Russian Revolutions. It was also adopted by the Turkish theater historians like Metin And.

317 The term is used by Muhsin Ertuğrul. Muhsin Ertuğrul, Benden Sonra Tufan Olmasın (İstanbul: Remzi, 2007), p. 84.

staged for the crowds and rapidly became symbols of the Revolution.³¹⁸ Especially two ofthem, Şemseddin Sami's Besa Yahud Ahde Vefa (Pledge or Oath ofFidelity) and Namık Kemal's Vatan yahud Silistre (Fatherland or Slistra) dominated the repertoire ofthe 'national theater'. These plays staged as mass spectacles or pageants aimed to reach illiterate people to form public opinion and to legitimize the rule of the CUP. While the theater was used to legitimize the new regime, it did not develop as an independent or 'protest' art form. Rather, it developed under the patronage of the CUP, and served their political agenda. During the period following the Revolution of 1908, the CUP entered the realm ofthe theatre mainly in three ways: First, as the 'new patrons of art', they used performances as a means of political propaganda. Second, they stood at the backstage as playwrights.³¹⁹ And third, the CUP members were symbolically presented on stage as the 'heroes of freedom'.