58

 Ottoman Spectators:Morality and Conservatism in 19th Century Ottoman

Humor Magazines, a Case Study of Latife and Tiyatro

An Abstract of the thesis by Elif Kiraz, for the degree of Master of Arts in

History

to be taken from the Institute of Social Sciences on September 2012

Title: Ottoman Spectators: Morality and Conservatism in 19th Century Ottoman Humor

Magazines, a Case Study of Latife and Tiyatro

This study focuses on a specificperiod of humor press between 1870- 1877, that is the period

fromthe emergence to the banning of humor magazines.Studies on the content of Ottoman

humor periodicals, usually takes them as a discourse of a subversive or radical voice and more

generally as a reaction to westernization. Secondly, through the history of Ottoman humor

press, there is not a clear differentiation made in terms of literary categorization of humor

magazines between the periods. However, this specific period has peculiarities which

distinguish Ottoman humor magazines of the first period from the ones belonging to

subsequent periods in many points.

Conservatism and communitarianism as dominant ideologies of the period, and continuing

patronage relationships, government policies and censorship, heritage of verbal humor

traditions, current humor understanding, and intellectual movement in relationship with

modernization process,all played their parts in shaping of Ottoman humor magazines in this

period. This thesis argues that nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines of the first

period,which had been generally defined as “humor magazines,”were actually moral

weekliessimilar to British moral weeklies of eighteenth century, represented by The Spectator

Magazine (1711-14).

Moral weeklies are also known as comic weeklies or as the publications of wit. Typical

characteristics are that they employ wit rather than satire to instruct the audience; therefore they

mean to be corrective rather than subversive. The discourse of Ottoman humor magazines in

this period was not generallythat ofwesternization, but it was actually a discourse of morality.

Humorists intervened in the modernization process, in order to establish morality over

economic, social and cultural spheres and to close the widening gap between upper and lower

classes by censuring vices of both. In this point, extending forms of humor requiring more

intellectual activity such as wit, to the folk humor through humor press, was not incidental.

iv

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü’nde Tarih Yüksek Lisans Derecesi için Elif Kiraz

Tarafından Eylül 2012’de teslim edilen tezin özeti

Başlık: Osmanlı “Spectator”ları: 19. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Mizah Dergilerinde Ahlakçılık ve

Muhafazakârlık, Latife ve Tiyatro Örnekleri

Bu çalışma Osmanlı mizah basınının 1870 – 1877 yıllarını kapsayan belirli bir dönemini, başka

bir deyişle, mizah dergilerinin ortaya çıkış ve yasaklanış tarihiarasındaki dönemi üzerinde

durmaktadır. Osmanlı mizah dergileri üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, içeriği genellikle yıkıcı veya

radikal bir söylem ve de batılılaşma tepkisi olarak yorumlarlar.Ayrıca, mizah basını tarihi

boyunca mizah dergilerinin edebi olarak sınıflandırılması amacıyla dönemler arası belirgin bir

ayrım yapılmaz. Fakat mizah dergilerinin bu döneminin, onları sonraki dönemlere ait

dergilerden ayıran belli özellikleri vardır.

Dönemin hâkim ideolojileri olarak muhafazakârlık ve cemaatçilik, süreklilik gösteren patronaj

ilişkileri, devlet politikaları ve sansür, sözlü mizah geleneğinin mirası, mevcut mizah anlayışıve

de modernleşme sürecine ilişkin düşünsel yönelim gibi faktörler bu döneme ait mizah

dergilerinin şekillenmesinde etkili oldu. Bu çalışmada on dokuzuncu yüzyılın ilk dönemine ait

olan ve genel olarak “mizah dergileri” olaraktanımlanan yayınlarınaslındaon sekizinci yüzyıl

İngiliz ahlak dergilerine benzer biçimde ahlak dergileri olduğu öne sürülmektedir. Bunların en

tipik örneği Spectator ( 1711-14 ) dergisidir.

Ahlak dergileri aynı zamanda güldürü ve nüktedergileri olarak da bilinirler. En tipik özellikleri

okuyucuyu eğitmek amacıyla mizah türü olarak hicivden çok nükteye başvurmalarıdır. Bu

nedenle yıkıcı olmayı değil, ıslah etmeyi amaçlarlar. Bu döneme ait mizah dergilerinin söylemi

aslında genel olarak bir batılılaşma söylemi değil, ahlak söylemidir. Mizah yazarları ekonomik,

sosyal ve kültürel alanların ahlaki yönünü düzenlemek amacıyla ve de üst sınıflar ile alt sınıflar

arasında büyümekte olan farklılığı azaltmak amacıyla her iki sınıfa ait kusurlarıeleştirerek

modernleşme sürecine müdahale ettiler. Bu noktada, nükte gibi daha fazla zihinsel faaliyet

gerektiren mizah formlarının sözlü halk mizahıyla karıştırılarak ve mizah basını aracılığıyla

halka sunulması rastlantısal değildi.

v

Acknowledgements

First of all, I am grateful to my thesis advisor, Christoph Neumann not only for his guidance,

andtime he reserved to me, but also for acquainting me with a further understanding of history

writing.

Secondly, I thank M. Erdem Kabadayı and Jale Parla for theiradvices and support.

Lastly, I would like to thank Turgut Çeviker, Kevork Bardakjian, Zakarya Mildanoğlu, and

Tobias Heinzelmann for replyingmy e-mail inquiriesabout humor press, Armenian humor

press,and sources in Armenian language.

vi

CONTENTS

PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………………………….viii

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………...............1

I. EMERGENCE OF OTTOMAN HUMOR MAGAZINES………………………………..................4

I.I.From Witticism to Bergson …… ………………………………………………………...................4

Ottoman Humor Understanding………………………………………………………………..18

I.II.“Ottoman Spectators” or “Istanbul Charivari”?..........……………………….................................32

Eighteenth Century British Humor Press……………………………………………………….33

Ottoman Humor Press………………………………………………………………………….34

II. HUMOR MAGAZINES AS LITERARY FORMS………………………………………………..53

II.I. Interrelations between Literature and Press………………………………………..............53

II.II. Muhavere: Pragmatic Analysis……………………………………………………….......60

III.DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: A CASE STUDY OF LATIFE and TIYATRO……………………...63

III.I.Historical Background……………………………………………………………………..63

Modernity and its Satire…………………………………………………………………….......68

III.II.Content: Stumbling Runners, Social Deviators and Self-Ignorant Fops………….............72

Economic Westernization: Moral Economy…...……………………………………….............76

Urban Modernization Failed?.......................................................................................................84

Public or “Private” Transportation?…………………………………………………..................85

Order of City and Municipal Services………………………………………………..................92

Cultural Westernization ……………………………………………………………...................97

Flamboyance and Fashion: Şıllıks and Şıks…………………………………………………….100

Etiquette, Leisure, Entertainment……………………………………………………………....105

Journalism……………………………………………………………………………................114

IV.CONCLUSION: WHOSE VOICE ADDRESSED TO WHOM?………………………………...116

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………….129

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………..................139

vii

Appendix I: Selected Romanized Texts from Latife and Tiyatro…………………………………139

Appendix II: Tiyatro:.…………………………………………………………………..................150

Appendix III: Latife………………………………………………………………………………151

Appendix IV: The Spectator…………………………………………………………...................152

viii

PREFACE

History of Ottoman humor press can be divided into three main periods: 1870-77 as the

first period, 1877-1908 second, and from 1908 to the Republican Era as the third period. In this

study, first period of Ottoman Humor Magazines falling between 1870 –77 and among which,

the ones edited by members of non-Muslim Communities, and published in Ottoman Turkish

and addressed to Turkish speaking Ottoman Community in general, are considered. As two

examples of those, Tiyatro (1874-76)and Latife (1874-76) magazines, which are respectively

published by Hagop Baronian and Zakarya Beykozluyan, are taken for a case study. There are

reasonable excuses for such exclusion and periodization. First, is the language inability in this

research to cover humor magazines published in languages spoken in Ottoman Empire other

than Turkish. Secondly, Ottoman humor press is held to have been started by 1870 in the sense

that publications which are in both Ottoman Turkish and Ottoman Alphabet, and first to

acquire government permission to be released for the whole Ottoman public, appeared by 1870.

Therefore, such exclusion is a methodological need to cover magazines published for Ottoman

Community in general to attain a general picture. Besides, it is neither humor magazines

published by Turkish Muslim editors appealing to Turkish Muslim community in particular,

nor the ones published by members of non-Muslim communities and addressing exclusively to

their own community, could be a reasonable choice. Last, is an attempt for establishing links

between Ottoman government ideology and humor press as the former is rather reflected in

Humor Magazines which are deemed to be appealing to the whole Ottoman Community.

It is aimed to be a discourse study based on the cases of Tiyatro and Latife.To that end, I

have romanized most content of Tiyatro and Latifeand some of the romanized textshave been

included in Appendix I. I studied on the contents together with the cartoons published for each

issue. Additionally, other magazines published in all three periods are reviewed; as well as

some issues of Spectatormagazine, which were published between 1711- 14 in Britain are

investigated for comparison. Here it is not aimed to present all the contents of related

magazines. Instead, main lines of content are attempted to be mapped to establish their links

ix

tothe discourse and to integrate them into the general context. Besides, only humor magazines

which are published in Istanbul are considered. Accordingly, content is in particular related

with Istanbul and inhabitants of Istanbul, thus, this study focuses on which.

Within the limits of research, content of Latife magazine is not studied before. As for

Tiyatro, major contribution is Kevork Bardakjian’s Doctoral Dissertation on “Baronian’s

political and social satire” which among all literary works of Baronian treats Tiyatro magazine

as well. However, his focus is not exclusively on Tiyatro and his approach and chosen topic

differs from this study. Another contribution is Metin And’s work on Ottoman Theatre, which

makes some small references to the contents of Tiyatro as well, but limited to the content which

is related with Ottoman Theatre and Güllü Agop.

1

“ Bundan böyle Latife’mizde

ıslah-ı efkâr ve tenvir –i ahlak mucibince

lazım olan bazı fıkralar

ve eğlenceli tefrika ve

sair mevadd -ı mütenevvia neşr

olunacaktır”1

INTRODUCTION

Humor or Laughter is a cultural, political, and as emphasized by Bergson for the

first time, a social phenomenon. Historical investigation of humor also reveals that

depending on the periods and geography, humor changes literarily, philosophically

and in terms of its reception and aimed functions. For that reason, an in-depth

treatment of humor requires a multifaceted approach involving various areas ranging

from literature, linguistics to philosophy, sociology and politics. Accordingly, this

work, limitedly attempts at a an interdisciplinary consideration of the nineteenth

century Ottoman Humor Magazines in the framework of philosophy, literature and

politics in comparison with eighteenth century British press.

Ottoman Humor Magazines emerged around mid- nineteenth century along with

the press, relatively late when compared to Europe, but still certain parallelisms and

interactions with European humor press can be established. The period from the

release of first Ottoman Turkish humor magazines by 1870 under government

sanctioning, to the banning of humor press in 1877, would be accepted as the first

period of humor press. Following the ban between the years 1877 and 1908, that is

during the strict censorship and autocratic rule of Abdülhamid II, Ottoman humor

press continued abroad as the second period, in characteristic of political satire. The

period when humor press is freed again with the abolishing of ban in 1908, was the

third period which continued under a much more liberal atmosphere, looser

1Latife, issue 1,March 22,1875.Opening words for the first issue of Latife Magazine when it started to

be republished. That reminds of introductory words by comic weekly Spectator describing its aim as

“to enliven morality with wit “The Spectator, no. 10, 1711,p.1.

2

censorship, and with changed patronage relationships when compared to the first

period.

Humor magazines considered in this study, are the ones belonging to the first

period, thus they differ from the publications of the subsequent periods in many

points. In the first place, first period was a transition period, that is, it was when the

humor press emerged and was being formed. Therefore, this study is also aimed to

question under what conditions first Ottoman humor magazines emerged and which

elements were decisive in their formation. Such an analysis might enable outlining

the general characteristics, aimed functions and ideology of first humor magazines

distinguishing them from Ottoman humor magazines of later periods. The case study

of Latife and Tiyatro, seeks to answer the question what are ideology, aimed

functions and characteristics of the nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines of

first period, within the framework of philosophy, history of press and literature, in

comparison to eighteenth century British press. Aim of this study is, thereof, to

define the ideology of nineteenth Ottoman century humor magazines of first period

with a discourse analysis of Latife and Tiyatro. Given the fact that contemporary

humor publications in Ottomans included the similar content with similar voice,2

Latife and Tiyatro could be considered as reflecting the common discourse.

As a result, first two chapters treat the emergence and formation of Ottoman

humor magazines in the context of philosophy of humor, history of press, and

literature, in comparison with the eighteenth century British humor press, in

particular with comic weekly The Spectator Magazine (1711-14). Comparative

history requires an extensive research, and which has not been attempted to the full

in this study. Nevertheless, when the emergence of Ottoman Humor Periodicals is

considered, it is indispensable to take similar cases in European counterpart for

comparison, such as Britain as one of the forerunners of humor press and humor

philosophy in Europe. The reason why such a comparative approach in terms of

humor philosophy and press would prove reasonable is also attempted to be clarified

in the first chapter.

2 This point is derived from secondary literature. For Diyojen and Çaylak, see: Hamdi Özdiş, Osmanlı

mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 1870‐1877: Diyojen ve Çaylak üzerinde bir araştırma

(İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010).

3

Logic behind investigating humor papers in the context of theories and

philosophy of humor is twofold. Firstly, it is to define the parallelism between humor

philosophy and humor press that is the parallelism between theory and praxis if there

is any. Second is a further attempt to explain the case of Ottoman humor magazines

of the nineteenth century, in terms of philosophy and humor understanding so as to

outline the evolution of Ottoman humor and to find out which theory of humor is

useful in analysis of Ottoman case. Philosophical approaches to humor are in

parallelism with the nature, style and ideologies of humor publications. In other

words, what functions for humor magazines are aimed by the editors and the tone of

discourse are in relation with humor philosophy to some degree.

Such a parallelism between philosophy and humor press could be more apparent in

the following part on press. Apart from the interaction with humor philosophy, what

and how other factors shaped humor press shall be explained in the second part.

Accordingly, it will be investigated within the framework of historical

circumstances, government ideology, patronage relationships, and some other factors

which defined nature, tone and aimed functions of first humor magazines. Besides,

the fact that Ottoman humor press was introduced after western humor press might

have an impact on the formation of Ottoman humor magazines. In support of such an

assumption there are some evidences. For instance, a short lived Ottoman humor

magazine, Şarivari-i Medeniyet, published by Mehmet Arif Efendi in 18743, seems

to have been named after satirical magazines London Charivari 1841, or Le

Charivari 1832, as the name implies. Such an assumption is not the claim of this

study, instead it is an attempt to show that both British and Ottoman philosophical

speculations on the effects of humor within the context of morality was a reflection

of zeitgeist, which would again be reflected on humor press, in the form of aimed

functions and the nature of humor publications. Therefore, comparison with British

press might provide a better understanding of Ottoman case.

In the second chapter, interrelations between literature and humor press, will be

treated as a part of the larger attempt to outline the discourse and ideology, in the

light of previous chapter. In this way, main argument of this thesis is sought to be

supported within the context of philosophy, press and literature. Eventually, in the

3Turgut Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü: Tanzimat ve İstibdat Dönemi,1867‐1878 / 1878‐

1908 ( İstanbul: Adam Yayınları, 1986 ),p. 127.

4

third chapter, arguments of first two chapters are integrated into discourse of

nineteenth century humor magazines with a case study of Latife and Tiyatro

magazines (1874-76).

I. Emergence of Ottoman Humor Magazines

I.I. From Witticism to Bergson

Pertaining to the concern for explaining Ottoman case in terms of humor

philosophy, there are two approaches which more fit into and explain the case of the

nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines, as will be detailed throughout this

part. First is eighteenth century English incongruity theorists, with their emphasis on

wit, believed that ridicule had a disciplinary, morality effect. Another is Henri

Bergson’s theory that laughter emerges from ludicrous of inelasticity which is

turning out to be unsociable. Accordingly, he proposed that humor had a social

function as it serves to get rid of unsociability in society. Such philosophical

approaches would also be found in Ottoman understanding of humor. Additionally, it

will be explained that wit and satire, having been shaped by Roman rhetoric

tradition, have a corrective structure. In the same vain, moral weeklies of the

eighteenth century England, and the nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines,

which were constituted by wit and gentle satire, also had a didactic tone.

Accordingly, it is an attempt to support main argument of this study in philosophical

terms through historical investigation of humor philosophy. The argument is that in

terms of form, style and aimed functions, first Ottoman humor magazines, similar to

some eighteenth century British comic weeklies, were moral weeklies aimed at

serving as didactic or disciplinary tools with a conservative tendency and morality

concern for correcting incongruity, unsociability, vices and imperfections observed

in society. That is, Ottoman humor magazines of the first period were moral

weeklies. Further, it is an attempt to show that at nineteenth century Ottoman humor

understanding evolved from rather an entertainment oriented humor to a more

intellectual humor involving the audience in social and limitedly political criticism;

as a result that intellectual humor had gained public though introduction of humor

press and by intermingling of folk and court literature.

5

Before starting with an historical account of humor philosophy in the west and

touching roughly on major theories, it is worth noting that it was the eighteen century

Britain when and where philosophical speculations on humor and laughter were most

densely held.4 It is also seen that there is a parallelism between the aspects of these

speculations and the content and style of humor press in Britain. While the moral

issues were the concern in this period, philosophy also evolved around moral,

aesthetic and functional aspects of humor. Reaching to its peak in eighteenth century,

humor philosophy dates back to the Antiquity. Accordingly, before Bergson’s social

theory of humor emerges in the beginning of twentieth century in France; there have

been chronologically, three écoles represented: Superiority, Incongruity and Relief.

Western philosophy of humor is considered to have started with Plato who was also

to lay the foundations of the superiority theory which is chronologically deemed to

be the first theory of humor. As it is the case for all periods, again there is a

parallelism between humor philosophy and humor culture of antiquity. In city of

Athens, humor culture was reflected by Aristophanes’ comedies which were

performed in festivals of Dionysia and Lenea. Accordingly, humor was based on

buffoonery and mockery, that is, comic was originating from inferiority of character.

Further, humor was regarded as a need for amusement and relaxation, besides, it

should be performed as refined and with propriety.5All these components of

inferiority and propriety constituting Athenian humor culture also found in

superiority theory of Antiquity as will be underlined.

Western Philosophy of Humor

In his Socratic dialogs, Philebus, Plato defined laughter as amusement at

ridiculous which emerged from self –ignorance of those who are relatively weaker.

Accordingly, man imagines himself wealthier or more handsome or wiser than he

actually is, so becomes ridiculous in the eyes of those who laugh at that self-ignorant

subject because they perceive it to be inferior to what it claims itself to be.6As

evident throughout many dialogs, Plato depicted laughter as something negative and

4 Michael Billig, Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humor (California: Sage

Publications, 2005), p.57.

5 Jan Bremmer, ”Jokes, Jokers and Jokebooks in Ancient Greek Culture,” in A Cultural History of

Humor, ed. Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg (Cambridge, Polity Press, 1997), pp.11‐28.

6 Plato, The Dialogues of Plato.Translated by B. Jowet M.A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1920),

vol.II, Chapter: PHILEBUS, pp.383‐384.

6

as a means of refutation.7 Aristotle, as the second representative of superiority

theory, supported Plato that laughter originates from inferiority of others. In Poetics,

he explains that “…Comedy is…an imitation of relatively worthless characters… ”

and that “… laughable is some mistake or piece of ugliness…”8 Significant is

Aristotle’s moral consideration of humor. He objected to the excess of humor, in that

vein, he makes a difference between the witty and buffoon. Witty was tactful in their

jokes, whereas buffoons carried humor to excess by lacking propriety and causing

pain in the subject of their humor.9 Further, Cicero was on the same line with

Aristotle in many points and supported that disappointed expectation led to laughter.

His contribution is also in relation with humor production because he makes a

distinction between two kinds of jokes, one emerging from language used, another

resulting from the idea used.10It was a distinction to be made also by the eighteenth

century writers with regard to higher and lower forms of wit as will be mentioned.

It was with Thomas Hobbes that superiority theory was elaborated. In Leviathan,

he defines laughter as a passion, as a sudden glory in response to finding out defects

in others, and as applause of our superiority to others. He links this idea to the moral

side of laughter stating that those who are aware of their own defects cannot help

watching out for the defects of others to make themselves feel better, whereas great

minds help the weaker to get freed from being subject to ridicule, and they compared

themselves only with powerful.11 According to Descartes, two reasons of laughter are

hatred and wonder.12 He also explained laughter as the joy of finding defects in a

person, who is the subject of derision, on the condition that we consider that person

to deserve that defect, and when we perceive it unexpectedly. Therefore, he is

grouped among superiority theorists, but gets closer to incongruity with his emphasis

7 Plato, The Dialogues of Plato. Translated into English with Analyses and Introductions by B. Jowett,

M.A. in Five Volumes. 3rd edition revised and corrected (Oxford University Press, 1892).Chapter:

Gorgias.p.473‐4. Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/766/93703on 2012‐04‐07.

8 Aristotle, Poetics, c.h5, 49a32‐b9, in Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Edited by Gerald F.Else,

(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963), 49a32 p.183.

9 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Christopher Rowe (Oxford: Oxford Unibersity Press,

2002),Book IV, Ch.8. pp. 156‐157.

10 Cicero, On the Orator: Book II, Ch.63 in, John Morreal, ed., The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor

(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp.17‐8.

11 Thomas Hobbes, Hobbes’s Leviathan reprinted from the edition of 1651 with an Essay by the Late

W.G. Pogson Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909),Chapter: CHAP. VI.: Of the Interiour Beg

Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/869/208751 on 2012‐04‐07.

12René Descartes, The Passions of the Soul.Translated by Stephen H. Voss (Cambridge: Hackett

Publishing Company, 1989) ,articles 126‐127, pp.85‐86.

7

on surprise aspect. He also emphasized the function of ridicule that as a way of

showing disapproval of the vices, it was useful to make them seem ridiculous

through jokes.13 Laughter as serving to indicate disapproval of a vice is in parallelism

with Ottoman humor understanding. Further superiority theory in general also

applies to Ottoman context. Laughter at westernized fops was rather of this kind and

similarly the function was to show disapproval. Superiority theory, thereby,

attempted to explain humor and laughter in terms of its emotional and personal

motives and this was going to be challenged mainly by eighteenth century British

philosophers through Incongruity theory which is being the second major movement

in philosophy of humor. Unlike superiority theorists, Incongruity theorists treated

humor not merely as a psychological phenomenon but rather as a cognitive process

and so as a social matter, even if not to the same extent with Bergson’s theory. Social

consideration of humor was again in parallelism with economic and political

circumstances of the time.

As will be detailed below, what is significant about incongruity theory for the

present study is Francis Hutcheson’s emphasis on humor in the form of ridicule and

wit, and which could be used as a teaching strategy or as a disciplinary method for

correction of imperfections. Secondly, incongruity theorists like classical thinkers,

investigated moral side of laughter and they distinguished between higher and lower

quality wit. It was as in origin a theory of wit which was also a common genre

applied in British comic weeklies at the time. Actually, such centrality of wit dates

back to Aristotle, as above mentioned, he emphasized word play and tactfulness of

witty as crucial for humor production. Present day, the term humor is used in a wider

sense. However, eighteenth century writers, like in classical thought, did not use the

term in today’s meaning. Accordingly, wit was originating from playing with ideas

or words whereas humor lied in a character subject to laughter. Also, the word

ridiculous referred to the various things leading to laughter.14

Incongruity theory emerged as a reaction to Hobbes’ account in particular and

was based on Locke’s approach. Locke discussed wit in terms of its relation to

judgment and he proposed that if scientific judgment is based on distinguishing

between two different things, then wit was based on the reverse process that is,

13 Morreal, The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor, 1987:pp.21‐5.

14 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 2005: pp.61‐62.

8

bringing incongruities together.15 Besides, similar to Cicero’s distinction between

two kinds of joke stated above, a distinction is underlined by some supporters of

incongruity. For instance, English essayist Joseph Addison who was the editor of

Spectator, basing his view on Locke’s emphasis on ideas, remarked that, wit

emerging from the resemblance of ideas was a true wit and it was superior and of a

higher quality than the wit produced by the resemblance of word sounds such as

pun.16 Accordingly, this theory approached humor as grasping or organizing of

incongruities, which entailed a cognitive process. Therefore, main question this

theory sought to answer is what mental process is required by the witty or for the

perception of incongruities so thus, for the perception of wit by the audience. Yet,

given the approach by Hutcheson and some men of letters, British philosophers

treated laughter from rather a sociological perspective, as a matter of morality and

here the function of ridicule is implied.17 In this point, incongruity has a share with

Hobbes and Descartes who respectively implied and underlined the effect of ridicule

for the correction of what is ridiculous, as already mentioned. In the same vein,

Hutcheson and some writers of the same period underlined that ridicule of

incongruities provided social congruity and served as device for correcting

imperfections. That is why the theory of incongruity is covered in the scope of

aesthetics. Congruities are seen as beautiful or proper things while the incongruities

are deformed and so were subject to ridicule.18 This aesthetic sense as a required

element for laughter was also pointed to by Aristotle in Poetics as already

mentioned. Further, this theory also explains Ottoman Şarivari context of laughter at

the nineteenth century, as Şarivari also originated from incorporation of new

elements into default order, which formed an incongruity and looked deformed, as

will be further clarified.

Francis Hutcheson outlined the moral effect of ridicule as a correction device,

when he scrutinized laughter in detail in his work Reflections upon Laughter. He is

placed at the beginning of incongruity theory because, first of all, he criticized

Hobbes by supposing that laughter does not necessarily involve a feeling of

superiority, which was also not sufficient for laughter to emerge. Instead, like the

15 Ibid.,pp. 62‐ 63.

16 Joseph Addison, The Spectator, 1965, edn: 17, cited in Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 2005:p.69.

17 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 2005: p. 74.

18 Ibid., pp. 65‐78.

9

other incongruity theorists, he made an emphasis on wit and ability to create comic.

He states that in some cases, we just laugh at the allusions made by the witty and not

necessarily because we feel superior to something, on the contrary we admire the

witty person’s ability. His explanation bringing him closer to Incongruity theory is

that laughter was generally caused by the bringing of contrary ideas together.

Laughter also possibly emerges when we bring the resemblances together to which

wit pushes us. It could either be resemblance of ideas, or in the case of pun, it would

be resemblance of the word sounds.19Like Aristotle, Hobbes and Descartes, also

Hutcheson had sayings regarding use and abuse of ridicule. He states that ridicule by

wise men would serve to good ends while ridicule by fools would be harmful.

Regarding the effects of ridicule, Hutcheson believed that for the correction of vices,

ridicule can be used as long as good intention behind ridicule is showed to the

ridiculed.20This was also an element found in Ottoman understanding of humor at

nineteenth century, to make the ridicule to serve good ends, Ottomans also urged for

propriety of humor as will be detailed. Such an understanding of humor, so, forms

the essence of ethical humor aiming at instruction or correction.

Similar to Hutcheson, as already stated, eighteenth century British writers and

some other philosophers also signified the social use of laughter towards morality.

As an instance of parallelism between theory and praxis, Joseph Addison, of whom

speculations on humor mentioned above, also applied wit as a device for morality

concerns, and which was going to be reflected in The Spectator (1711-14) he

published with the aim of sustaining morality, as it is quoted from the magazine “I

shall endeavor to enliven morality with wit and temper wit with morality.”21 Thus,

wit’s centrality to Addison’s magazine, was in line with incongruity theory which

was in particular a theory of wit, as an intellectual form of humor, or as incongruity

involved a mental or intellectual process. Wit will be central to first Ottoman humor

magazines of the nineteenth century as well. To continue with incongruity theorists,

Hutcheson’s speculations about humor as close to incongruity were to be followed

by later philosophers, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Kierkegaard who are considered as

the main representatives of Incongruity, but with some difference among their

19 Francis Hutcheson, Reflections upon Laughter (Glasgow, 1750) in Morreal, The Philosophy of

Laughter and Humor, 1987:pp.26‐32.

20Morreal, The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor, 1987:p. 40.

21 Joseph Addison, The Spectator, no 10, Monday, March 12 1711.Edited with an Introduction by

Donald F. Bond, vol I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), p.44.

10

formulations of theory. Further unlike Hutcheson, they did not touch on the social or

moral effects of humor.

Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Judgment, asserts that laughter is an effect

involving something absurd, which trough playing of ideas emerges as incongruous

to the expectation which had been set. Also, that he defines humor requiring

involvement in a process of unusual way of judgment, reminds of Locke’s reverse

process of judgment for bringing incongruities together. He defines the person who

has the talent of this judgment as the one who has a sense of humor, or “to have

humours” in Kant’s words. Whereas, the person, who assume this process

voluntarily, or in other words, the person who intentionally provokes laughter

through forming contrasts, is defined as humorous. Further, Kant supposes that

enjoyment here is not something caused by “the representation” (or let’s say joke or

wit), as our expectation is disappointed, but the resulting laughter is the influence of

representation on our body which produces laughter as a reflex of “gratification” for

health.22 In Kant’s approach, it is again seen that like the other incongruity theorists,

wit, or playing with the ideas, is taken as central in explanation of humor

As another major representative of the theory, Arthur Schopenhauer’s

explanations are also significant in that he makes a theoretical differentiation

between the terms such as joke, irony, humor and buffoon. Hence, he sheds light on

the usage of and what was understood by the word humor in eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries Germany. Schopenhauer explains that laughter is caused by a

sudden perception of incongruity between a concept in our mind, and the real object

as corresponding to that concept presented us through our senses. In the explanation

of laughter he develops a theory of ludicrous originating from incongruity. Then, he

divides ludicrous into two as wit and folly. In the case of wit, different objects are

brought under one concept which embraces them all. In the case of folly, a given

concept is attempted to match to reality, or match to different objects so treating

them as if they correspond to that concept. Therefore, folly is of a lower quality than

wit.23Then, he makes a definition of pun or calembourg as a kind of wit. Pun is the

play of words in which different concepts are brought together under one word,

22 Immanuel W. Kant, Critique of Judgment. Translated by Nicholas Meredith and James Creed

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 161‐164.

23 Arthur Schopenhauer, “Supplements to the First Book: On the Theory of Ludicrous” The World As

Will and Idea, vol II (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1948), pp. 270‐273.

11

whereas in witticism, different objects are brought together under one concept. In

other words, in wit, objects are different but the same concept referring to both

applies, whereas in pun, concepts used are different but the referred objects are

identical. Just as folly is unintentional incongruity and witticism is an intentional

one, so the misunderstanding was unintentional whereas pun is intentional involving

playing with words. Therefore, just as he ascribes a highness and quality to witticism

when compared to folly, the same highness is attributed to pun when compared to

inferior comedy using misunderstandings or quid pro quo to provoke laughter.24It

was in other words, a distinction between witty and buffoon. In the cases of folly and

buffoon, there is a total incongruity between the object perceived and the concept,

therefore it is a lower form and only uneducated people or children could laugh at

such a thing. As for the joke, it is the intentional ludicrous that is, an attempt of

creating incongruity between the conceptions and reality by reorganizing one of

them. If the joke is concealed behind seriousness, then it was called irony. If

seriousness is concealed behind the joke, then it was humor. Humor, Schopenhauer

states, is incongruities between concepts and realities thought through those

concepts, as a result of the apprehension of external world through the same

conceptions by a subjective and a sublime mood. Humor referred to such peculiar

form of ludicrous. 25

He adds that, the word humor passed from English into German language, to

correspond to such sublime kind of humor and first coined by sublime to stand it for

such species of ludicrous. The word humor was not intended to be used for all kinds

of jokes and buffoonery. Here, he means that word humor, before his time (before

the nineteenth century), denoted higher forms of humor which was peculiar to

sublime. Nevertheless, in his time, the word humor came to mean lower forms of

humor as well because the form of ludicrous that the term humor originally or

previously referred to would be too complex for the public. So now the person, who

is called humorist, would be called buffoon previously.26 From his words, the idea

might be drawn that there is a shift from “humor for high culture” to “humor for

24 Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea.Translated by R.B. Haldane and John Kemp, 6th

edition (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1907‐1909 ), Book I,ch.13, in Morreal, Philosophy of

Laughter and Humor, 1987:pp.51‐54..

25 Arthur Shopenhauer, Supplements to the First Book: On the Theory of Ludicrous (London: Rouledge

& Kegan Paul: 1948), pp.281‐282.

26 Ibid,pp.283‐284.

12

popular culture.” As it has already been stated above, also in the eighteenth century

Great Britain the word humor was not used in today’s meaning, in eighteen century

higher form of humor is defined as wit. This can be linked to change in the

patronage relationships in literature, or in literary comic. This was the case also valid

for Britain and Ottomans, which will be scrutinized in the second chapter on humor

press in the context of literature. Besides, as it has already been underlined

previously, such higher and serious or, as Schopenhauer puts it, sublime forms of

humor including witticism, more suited to the ideological concerns of English humor

writers of eighteenth century and of Ottoman writers of nineteenth century as well.

As the third and the last major representative of theory to be mentioned in this

study, is Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, who formulates a different version of incongruity

theory stating that comic emerges from contradiction.27 Following examples by him,

further explains his idea of how contradiction becomes comical: “When a woman

seeks permission to establish herself as a public prostitute, this is comical. We

properly feel that it is difficult to become something respectable…but to be refused

permission to become something despicable is a contradiction…” Also contradiction

could arise from something which is not ridiculous itself: “When a man goes dressed

in a strange manner for everyday use, but then once in a while appears elegantly

dressed, we laugh at this, because we remember the other.”28 He takes irony and

humor as the sub-categories of comic. Difference between the two was that, humor

was sympathetic and gentler whereas irony was more proud and self – assertive.29

Up to this point, it was to show that incongruity theory attaches significance and

centrality to wit as a form of humor; and one of the representatives of theory,

Hutcheson considered wit as a disciplinary device; and that as it has already been

detailed, such approach to humor is found in comic periodicals of eighteenth century

Britain and of nineteenth century Ottomans as well, as will be detailed. Yet,

disciplinary or social function of humor was not much central to incongruity theory

or this theory did not propose such an aspect of humor in complete terms. Such a

social theory of humor would only be developed to the full and proposed for the first

27 Morrreall, The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor,1987:p.83.

28 Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postcript. Translated by David F. Swanson

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941),pp. 459‐468, in Morreal The Philosophy of Laughter and

Humor,1987: pp.86‐87.

29 John Lippitt, Humour and Irony in Kierkegaard’s Thought ( London: MAC Millan Press, 2000 ),p. 63

13

time by Henri Bergson. Beforehand, the next theory to be covered is relief theory

which could be deemed to be noteworthy in that it was contemporary of humor

magazines which are under consideration. Relief theory explained laughter in

physiological terms as the “release of nervous energy.”

To begin with the first of relief theorists, Francis Bain opposed to incongruity

theorists that, incongruity did not necessarily provoke laughter. He also criticized

superiority theory that laughing at someone did not necessarily involve a feeling of

superiority to that person, but it entailed a feeling of degrading. According to Billig,

this view of laughter by Bain was in parallelism with Victorian England which was

based on constraint. Therefore, ridicule or degrading of realities of the time such as

vanity and coxcombry attributed to upper classes, which are also associated by the

bodies imposing constraint, provided a feeling of release or freedom. Laughter

served as a rebellion against strain.30 Some parallelism might also be established with

the case of the nineteenth century Ottomans, as the vanity, coxcombry and luxury

spending were usually ridiculed as the most common theme of humor periodicals, as

well as the literature. In the nineteenth century humor magazines, ridiculed class with

their coxcomb lifestyle was upper class of civilian bureaucracy and commercial

bourgeoisie; both had a superior position in Ottoman society. This also gives some

clues on whose voice might be Ottoman humor magazines, as it would the voice of a

different segment of society which laughs out of the degrading of privileged

segments. In the context of Ottomans, strain might be interpreted as the economic

and political dominance of upper class and commercial bourgeoisie over society.

This point will be detailed in last chapter.

Spencer sided with Bain that theory of incongruity was not in itself explaining

laughter. He also opposed superiority theories as he thought that feeling of elevations

did not necessarily result in laughter. His theory differed from that of Bain in two

points. First, according to Spencer, humiliations on others or feeling of elevation did

not result in laughter whereas Bain supported the feeling of degrading. Secondly,

Unlike Bain, he supposed that release from constraint could not be cause of laughter.

Instead, he saw the “descending incongruity”, which is transference of consciousness

from great things to small things, as the provocateur behind the release of nervous

30 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 2005: pp. 92‐7.

14

energy which finally caused laughter.31 Bain’s perception of laughter as a relief from

constrain, can also be found in Punch, English humor periodical which is published

contemporary to Bain’s theory. First issues of Punch were reserved to be the voice of

the oppressed32 that is, the voice of dominated classes. Nonetheless, relief theory

does not totally fit into or explain the laughter in the case of first Ottoman humor

magazines and eighteenth century moral weeklies of Britain which were rather of a

conservative, instructive voice and try to establish morality and control over society

to sustain traditional society, instead of revolutionary voice. Further, they employed

wit rather than political satire and therefore relief theory applied more to the case of

Punch, as a satirical magazine.

As outlined, relief theorists treated laughter in physiological terms, so paying

little attention to the social aspects except for a feeling of relief from oppression or

serving as a social protest. However, when it comes to twentieth century, the picture

would change together with Bergson’s social theory of humor. Henri Bergson’s

theory is also of much significance for this study, as incongruity theory is. It is not

because as the first social theory of humor but also as it proves useful in the

analysis of function of humor which has been argued for the nineteenth century

Ottoman Humor Periodicals in this study as a whole. For the first time term

“function” used by Bergson, to signify “social function of humor” and by that it

locates disciplinary and accordingly social functions of humor in the center of his

theory. Therefore, Bergson’s theory is considered as the first social theory of humor

in full sense.33

Bergson argues that some members of society, proves unsociable in that they are

not adaptable to the changing circumstances of society owing to their rigidity,

automatism or inelasticity. This unsociability originating from inelasticity looks

ludicrous and so becomes subject to ridicule. In this point, laughter emerges as “a

social gesture” and here “rigidity is the comic, and the laughter or ridicule is its

corrective.”34 He further argues that:

31 Herbert Spencer, “The Physiology of Laughter,” Macmillan's Magazine, ISSN 1751‐9047, Vol. 1,

(11/1859) pp. 395‐402.

32 Richard Geoffrey George Price, A History of Punch (London: Collins, 1957), p. 46.

33 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 2005:p.111.

34 Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. Translated by Cloudesly Brereton

and Fred Rorthwell (n.p.: Temple of Earth Publishing, n.d.), p.9a.

15

“Every small society that forms within the larger is thus impelled, by a vague kind of

instinct, to devise some method of discipline or "breaking in," so as to deal with the

rigidity of habits that have been formed elsewhere and have now to undergo a partial

modification.”35 Thus, laughter is a “…social gesture…”, “... pursues a utilitarian aim of

general improvement.”36

By means of laughter, society tries to get rid of that inelasticity and rigidity to

sustain sociability or adaptability to society. Therefore, it serves as a disciplinary tool

to ensure that one gets rid of habits they are not in accord with the social situation,

and one behaves in compliance with society. In nineteenth century, Ottoman Empire,

which was going through increased westernization, was introduced with many new

elements from the west and the coexistence of western or the new with the

conventional or the local was in the form of a clashing. This clashing created

unsociability and this is where the ludicrous, so the comic emerged through the

ridicule of unsociable westernizers by conservatives.

Further, Bergson illustrates his theory with the case of a runner which can also be

assumed for the case of the nineteenth century Ottomans. Accordingly, a man while

running does not notice the obstacle on the road, and so does not change his speed; as

a result he stumbles and falls. Here the comic is not that he falls, but his inelasticity

and automatism which finally leads to his falling. That is, out of rigidity, his muscles

continued to perform the same way, not adapting to the changing circumstances and

resulted in fall.37 This example Bergson gives, also explains Ottoman case.

Accordingly, throughout all the humor periodicals of the nineteenth century,

Ottoman Istanbul and residents are depicted as the runner who stumbles and most of

the time falls, as they are unsuccessful in adapting to changing circumstances which

were brought about by westernization and modernization. The same applied not only

to individuals but also to the city itself including municipal services which all

represented stumbling runners. “A mechanical element introduced into nature and an

automatic regulation of society, such, then, are the two types of laughable effects”38

This is observable such as in unsuccessful adaption of western way of transportation,

and as a result was evident in deficient working or disfunctioning of public

transportation services. Further, it was manifest in passenger’s rigidity and

35 Ibid., p.42a.

36 Ibid., p.9a.

37 Ibid.,p.5b.

38 Ibid., p. 6a, 16b.

16

inelasticity in getting used to benefit from new transportation services appropriately.

Such automatism of people can be illustrated by the situation depicted in humor

magazine Latife, where comic emerges when passengers miss the train, as they are

still acting in accordance with the old time system not being able to adapt to newly

introduced á la franga saat or western time system.39In another instance, Ottomans

find the westernized clock towers ridiculous as shown below cartoon published in

Latife and depicting a man with a field glass trying to check the time on the clock

tower:

40

Similar arguments were also made by Georgeon, stating that Ottoman humor in

magazines of the nineteenth century was based on three elements: clashing of

traditional with the new, malfunctioning or disfunctioning of new adaptations, and

the mechanical behaviors.41 Though Bergson’s theory proves useful in analysis of

Ottoman case, it bears some questions in mind. First of all, in Ottoman’s case, humor

periodicals were the voice rather of a conservative tendency, which was for the most

of the time directed against the unsociable novelties. Nonetheless, Bergson

formulated his theory to show that ridicule’s target was rigidity, inability in adapting

to new, and against maintaining old habits which are not consistent with

39 Latife, issue 10, September 21, 1874, pp.3‐4.

40 Latife, issue 36, June 23, 1291/ 1875, p. 140.

41 François Georgeon, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gülmek Mi? : Doğu’da Mizah ( İstanbul: Yapı Kredi

Yayınları, 2007 ),p.92.

17

requirements of society. On the other hand, according to this theory, laughter

functions as a disciplinary tool which corrects the behaviors which are socially

inappropriate and constitute an incongruity to social circumstances. Therefore, as

Billig puts it, Bergson’ theory has a tension in itself, the tension between

conservatism and radicalism.42 Besides, Bergson in his theory does not support

obedience to all the social circumstances. For instance, he thinks that vanity, even if

it was a natural product of social life was an obstacle in society, and which could be

resolved through laughter.43 Further, even if Bergson never used the term

conservatism and his theory did not seem to propose a kind of laughter which

promotes conservatism, his theory can still be interpreted as involving conservatism

as well. First of all, he implies that unsociable is regarded as “unsociable” with

reference to established norms of society, for example, when stating that comic has

to “…bring itself into accord with society.”44Therefore, overcoming unsociability

might also mean not acting in violation of established rules of society. Rigidity of

individuals to conform to the values and norms of society turns unsociable and

provokes laughter in conservative interpretation of Bergson’s theory.

To conclude, his theory cannot be taken, as treating laughter in a position

completely serving as the voice of social innovation defenders or of radicals only,

neither of conservatism. Yet it could be interpreted as conservative theory in

Ottoman context. As Billig well describes that Bergson’s theory in general involves

conservatism in that society needs to impose its codes and rules on the individuals in

order to provide social coherence, and so adults transfer those codes and rules to next

generations. Hence, laughter conservatively functions in the point that it prevents

violations of codes and rules in society which may results in unsociability.45 Besides,

as it will be discussed during the content analysis of Ottoman humor magazines,

some novelties were under criticism in that they were deficiently implemented and

novelty was sometimes supported if only implemented correctly. On the other hand,

some implementations of novelties were opposed in that; they were not in accord

with the society, thus constituting incongruity to the society. In such cases, ridicule

promoted maintenance of old ways at the expense of new implementations. Ridicule

42 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule,2005: p. 131.

43 Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic,n.d:p. 53b.

44 Ibid.,p.43.a.

45 Billig, Laughter and Ridicule,2005:p.132.

18

which is found in humor magazines under question, and which is with such

corrective or instructive objectives, also involved satire or hiciv blended with wit.

Above mentioned theories of humor have some parallelism and relation with those of

satire in the same periods, besides satire involves wit. Therefore, it needs to be

treated separately which would also support disciplinary or didactic functions humor

periodicals.

Even if polemical it is supposed that the word satire derives from both Greek Satyr

and Roman phrase lanx satura which means “full platter of mixed fruits and nuts”

and which refers to the satire as miscellany without a specific form. Satura referred

to Roman verse satire of such a kind. On the other hand, there was Greek tradition of

Satyr, which was referred by Elizabeth theorists to a wilder kind of satire. Yet, as

Dustin Griffin puts it, there was a misunderstanding on the nature of Greek Satyr and

Satyr Plays. It was not Greek but the Romans depicted satyr as half human and half

goat. Besides, Greek Satyr Play was not that wild or bitter but it was based on comic

and parody.46 Additionally, as Graf quotes, Cicero perceived Roman satire as wittier

than Athenian wit and in support of which Roman philosopher Quintilian contends

that it was Romans who invented satire.47

If the etymology is set aside, significant aspect of classical theories of satire for

the present study is Roman heritage of emphasis on satire’s moral function. To begin

with, Classical theory on Satire represented by Lucilius, Horace, Quintilian, Persius,

and Juvenal who were the most noticeable Roman satirists and theorists of classical

world and they perceived satire as a tool of morality. Horace defined satire as

laughing at follies of man and focused on moral satire or censure of abuses.48 Roman

Grammarian Diomedes also defined satire as a “carp at human vices.”49Accordingly,

both Quintilian and Cicero urged for the limits of wit to make it socially acceptable.

It is linked with Cicero’s idea that function of wit is to correct deformity originating

from social deviation which can be corrected via a socially acceptable wit.50 Again

there is the same urge for humor with propriety as to make it efficient as a correction

46 Dustin Griffin, “Theories of Satire in Polemical Context,” Satire: A Critical Reintroduction (Kentucky:

Western University Press of Kentucky, 1994), pp.7‐11.

47 Fritz Graf, “Cicero, Plautus and Roman Laughter,” in A Cultural History of Humour, ed., Jan

Bremmer and Herman Roodenburgh (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), p.29.

48 Griffin, Theories of Satire: 1994: p.7.

49 Ibid, p.9.

50 Graf, Cicero, Plautus and Roman Laughter, 1997:p.31.

19

device and which is in parallelism with Ottoman humor understanding of the

nineteenth century as already repeated before. Also there is the emphasis on wit as

constituting satire, which shows gentle character of Roman satire as rather in the

form of wit and does with propriety and aimed at instruction. Further, influence of

Roman satire tradition in Spectator is also manifest in that Addison and Steele

included verses by Horace and Juvenal in magazine’s first pages. This further

supports that moral concern of wit and satire was central to Addison’s Spectator,

similar to first Ottoman humor magazines.

The next theory which is also significant is Dryden’s theory of satire. Dryden’s

novelty is that he questioned how satire should be and accordingly he set the rules for

“true satire.” Asserting that satire as an art only can be found in Romans whereas

Greek satire was in its nature or rude form, so the satire followed a progressive line.

One of the rules he set for true satire is that he added a didactic function to satire.

Accordingly, he argued for a satire through which satirist should teach the readers

moral virtue and urged them against vices. As shown in eighteenth century Britain

reflections on satire also included moral and didactic concerns. When it comes to

twentieth century, significant contribution was the model developed by Mary Claire

Randolph that satire consisted of two parts; Part A included satirist’s rebuke of vice,

whereas Part B presented an urge for opposite virtue. This idea dated back to Dryden

and the model suited to verse satire, and not to all the other types. In addition it

shows that the didactic aspect was confirmed by this theory.51

Hence, didactic function was intrinsic to satire through classical times, even if

with the advance of modernity satire changes its nature as will be explained in the

following chapter. Not extending the account into more current theories of humor

and satire, it is worth summarizing the major points so far treated. Through the

historical investigation of humor philosophy some parallelisms between theory and

praxis are established. First, roughly speaking, superiority theorists take ugliness or

inferiority as the subject of humor and explain laughter as a pleasure arising from the

feeling of superiority, which might in some way apply to laughter at westernized

fops, or imitators of west in Ottoman context. However, superiority did not touch on

the moral functions or social uses of humor, except for a way of showing

51 Griffin, Theories of Satire,1994:pp.6‐34.

20

disapproval. In the case of incongruity theory, the fact that laughter emerged from

incongruity and that some theorists in particular Hutcheson, touched on moral

effects of humor, specifically those of wit and ridicule in correcting incongruities,

reflect the spirit of the time and in parallelism with the eighteenth century English

comic papers, in terms of their style, form and functions. By similar grounds,

incongruity theory also fits into the context of Ottoman humor magazines of the first

period. As well as incongruity, Bergson’s theory is the most relevant one for

consideration as it proposed a social use of humor as a disciplinary tool from a

conservative point of view. Therefore, both theories are helpful in explaining the

laughter in nineteenth century humor magazines.

When Ottoman humor understanding is also incorporated into analysis, its

parallelisms with the western philosophy of humor might be apparent. Besides,

parallelisms between British humor magazines and Ottoman ones could be

established in terms of their aimed functions in support of the contention that first

Ottoman humor magazines of nineteenth century were moral weeklies which were

aimed to be didactic tools, shaped by morality and conservatism. With respect to

Ottoman understanding of humor in detail, it is worth starting with terminology.

“What did the nineteenth century Ottomans understand from the terms humor and

satire?” and “how and through what sub-terms did they categorize humor?” Besides,

it will be shown that definition of category, into which to locate Ottoman periodicals

under question is a problematic one, which leads to further problems when if

translation into English is the case.

Ottoman Humor Understanding

In contemporary Turkish, mizah is the term corresponding to humor, and thus

similar to humor, mizah is also used in a wider sense today. Though, in line with that

humor had a different meaning at the eighteenth century English, mizah was also

corresponded by different terms in nineteenth century Ottoman Turkish. As stated

before, the fact that at eighteenth century English writers used humor to refer only to

comic originating from the character, and whereas wit originated from playing with

the words, is also evident in Redhouse’s Ottoman Turkish to English/ English to

Ottoman Turkish dictionary dated 1882. For the definition of humor Redhouse lists

following words: khuy, khulk, tabi’at, all of which refers to character in meaning.

21

Same applies to an additional entry for humor which is hılt or halt in modern

Turkish.52 Hılt means mess, and refers to a specific kind of humor in which comic

situation emerges from the person or the character itself who is the creator of comic

at the same time, as the creator of mess, as different from other types of mizah.53 Yet,

as for the English definition of the word mizah (or müzah originally) listed terms are

fun, a joke, a jest.54 For the definition of wit in Ottoman Turkish, entry given is

letāfet, or clever saying55 and witty is defined as nükteli.56 Similarly, Şemsettin Sami,

leading Ottoman Turkish lexicographer also recorded the entries for mizah as şaka,

latife, eğlence,57 all of which respectively correspond to the terms joke, wit,

amusement, which are consistent with Redhouse’s lexical entry. All shows that,

today’s corresponding terms of mizah and humor were not overlapping in meaning

when translated at the nineteenth century. Further, it is shown that at the nineteenth

century Ottoman lexical definitions, wit corresponded to mizah. In parallelism with

British definitions in eighteenth century, Ottomans also distinguished between wit

and humor. Similarly, in Ottoman definition humor originated from the comic

character, whereas in wit, or nükte comic emerged from clever sayings through

playing of ideas and words. This also supports the argument that Ottoman humor

magazines of nineteenth century were not the publications of satire or humor but of

wit like The Spectator magazine. Lexical definitions are supported by the fact that

today’s term mizah in Ottomans corresponded by the terms “Hezliyat, Şathiyat,

mizah.” These three words in modern Turkish corresponded to joke; jest; raillery;

unserious saying; a type of literary writing fancied with wit, banter, and antithesis;

and comic anecdotes.58 In Ottoman Turkish dictionary by Şemseddin Sami, the terms

Hezliyat and Şathiyat (pl.) are given as synonyms, and defined as “poems, stories or

sayings involving joke and mizah.59

52J. W. Redhouse, Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary: In Two Parts, English and Turkish, Turkish and

English, 2nd Edition. Edited by Charles Wells (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1882), p.153.

53 Ferit Öngören, Cumhuriyet’in 75. Yılında Türk Mizahı ve Hicvi, 5. Baskı ( Ankara, Türkiye İs Bankası

Kültür Yayınları, 1998 ), p.31.

54 Redhouse, 1882: p. 783.

55 Ibid, p. 376.

56 Ibid, p.377.

57 Şemseddin Sami, Kamus‐i Türki, (Dersaadet/ İstanbul: İkdam Matbaası, 1318/1902),p. 1330.

58 Cemal Kutay, Nelere Gülerlerdi ( İstanbul: Aksoy Yayıncılık, 1998 ), p.9.

59 Şemseddin Sami, 1902:p.1508.

22

The term satire corresponds to hiciv (hijv) in today’s Turkish. Hiciv derives from

Arabic term Hidjā which means invective or insult or satire in prose or verse.60

As for Redhouse’s definition at nineteenth century; English term satire again

corresponded to hijv (hiciv) in Turkish.61 Regarding the definition of hijv in English,

Redhouse again provided the same entry, satire and additionally “to satirize” as the

act of satirizing. Also, for hijviyyat (plural form of hijv), listed corresponding terms

are satires, lampoons, and satirical pieces of poetry.62 Further, in the same dictionary,

definition given for the word lampoon is hijv.63 That yields two results: first, satire

and lampoon were distinguished in their English meaning, whereas both terms

corresponded to a single word, hijv in Ottoman Turkish.

In conclusion, in nineteenth century Ottomans, as well as today, satire and hijv had

the same meaning and they can be taken as referring to a single genre both in English

and Turkish. Definition of the word wit was also overlapping with Ottoman

definition as nükte or latife. However, the same does not apply today’s corresponding

words mizah and humor. Accordingly, as complexness of vocabulary implies,

categorizing of periodicals under consideration is problematic. Another question is

whether the categorization should be based on today’s terminology or on historical

one that is, the terminology contemporary to nineteenth century? The problem gets

more complicated, if translation of the terms into English to refer to genre is the case.

Resulting polemical point is pertaining to whether to label them as satirical gazettes,

or as humor magazines.

In Ottoman humor magazines under question, satire or hiciv was also applied as

blended with wit, and with a gentle tone, and was aimed at social or limitedly

political criticism. Besides, as already mentioned, nineteenth century lexical

definitions of the term mizah or humor did not cover satire or hijv but joke and wit.

The same applies to today’s dictionary definitions that is mizah and hijv are given as

separate genres. So as to overcome difficulty in categorizing magazines, also literary

definitions should be considered. Contrary to dictionary entries, in today’s literary

definition, hijv or satire, even if taken as a separate form, is covered under mizah as it

60 "Hidjā"Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Brill Online, 2012. Reference. Bogazici

University. 06 May 2012 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia‐of‐islam‐

2/hidja‐COM_0284>

61 Redhouse, 1882: p.278.

62 Ibid.,p.859.

63 Ibid.,p.172.

23

is employed as blended with other forms of humor. The same applies to Ottoman

genre definition as well. In support of this, according to Hilmi Yücebaş, Ottoman

mizah meant various forms such as hicv, şathiyat, zevkiyat, mutayebat, mudhike,

fıkra, nükte, latife, espri64 which included both satire and wit. Therefore, whether a

certain literary piece can be considered as satire or humor is not distinguishable, and

in many cases such an attempt to distinguish makes no sense. In Ottoman humor

periodicals which had emerged by 1850s, anything of which, it is possible to make a

ridicule of, is covered in subject scope of mizah. Further, in modern Turkish literary

definition also, mizah again covers all forms of humor and satire. Therefore, based

on both today’s and Ottoman’s literary definition, it is appropriate to refer also to

satirical pieces generally as forms of mizah. Within the limits of this research, it is

not known when mizah acquired such embracing literary meaning also to include hijv

or satire. Still, an assumption based Schopenhauer’s contention could be made that,

upon the emergence of press in nineteenth century, with the intermingling of court

and folk literature in humor magazines also as parallel to Ottoman intellectual’s

attempt to meet little and elite culture, mizah might have come to mean hicv or satire

as well.

Accordingly, in many researches, nineteenth century Ottoman Periodicals under

question were usually labeled as humor magazines or as Mizah Mecmuaları in

general. Such a labeling is also in compliance with historical categorization of

magazines. First of all, in the case of Tiyatro (1874 – 57) and Latife (1875- 76), on

the top of both gazettes, there appears the statement haftada iki defa neşr olunur

eğlence gazetesidir which means “twice weekly published amusement gazette”. This

statement is found in many periodicals of the identical genre of nineteenth century.

That in lexical definition mizah meant wit and amusement and that mizah as a

literary form, also covered satire and all sorts of humor which can be categorized

under amusement might explain why publishers chose to describe the publication as

amusement.

Another explanation might be the censorship and strict control of the

government over the press. Both Ottoman government and traditions approved such

magazines provided that they are published with just amusement and didactic aims

64 Hilmi Yücebaş, Türk Mizahçıları, Nüktedanlar ve Şairler (İstanbul: Ahmet Halit Kitabevi: 1958 ), p.3.;

Öngören, Türk Mizahı ve Hicvi, 1998: p.31.

24

and with propriety. Thus, satire, in particular the political satire, was not allowed and

to include political satire usually ended up with jail or the banning of magazine.

Accordingly, for the publishers, labeling their content “as amusement gazettes” could

be a way of escaping censorship, or a way of legitimizing the content so that they

could also include satirical elements under mask of amusement. In addition,

“amusement” label provides another hint for defining the sort of satire employed in

these periodicals that is, a type of satire which does not involve much insult or injury

and is blended with other forms of humor. First Ottoman humor magazines employed

rather Roman rhetorical satire. As already explained roman satirists regarded satire

as a moral tool. Eventually, Quintilian as well Cicero urged for the limits of satire in

order to make it socially acceptable. Besides, Spectator as a moral weekly was also

influenced by Roman satire as sated before. Another significant conclusion, that

these gazettes were labeled as mizah gazettes, supports the main argument of this

study that first humor magazines were moral weeklies like publications of wit such

as The Spectator. First of all, as already shown Ottoman dictionary definition of

mizah corresponded to wit, amusement and joke, not to satire. Given that publishers

coined them as “amusement gazette” and mizah meant amusement as well as wit in

its historical lexical definition; and that these gazettes did not include a harsh satire

but limitedly Roman rhetorical satire, and rather based on wit; besides mizah also

covered satire as a literary form at present as well as at the nineteenth century; it is

appropriate to coin first Ottoman humor magazines as “mizah periodicals”, or “mizah

magazines” in general.

As for the translation of Mizah Magazine into English, it is again more

appropriate to label them as humor magazines. In contemporary English, humor and

satire are definitely two separate literary forms. Satire at present is defined as a

dramatic form, which censured follies, vices and other shortcomings through

ridicule, derision and irony.65 As for humor, it is generally defined as any stimulation

which causes laughter.66 Further, because satire is also applied in Ottoman mizah

magazines, in some studies, these periodicals were translated as “Satirical Gazettes.”

As one of them, Palmira Brummet translates mizah magazines as satirical periodicals

in her study; along with her acknowledgement that mizah as a literary form is

65 “Satire“, Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2012,Web

66 “Humour”Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.,

2012,Web.

25

sometimes identified by wit or amusement. She explains why she chooses the term

satire and calls related periodicals as satirical gazettes, in three points. First,

periodicals she focused on belonged to Revolutionary Press. That is published in the

climate of 1908 Revolution, content was political, so should be translated as satirical.

Secondly, wit and amusement were lighter forms which did not involve political

criticism. Lastly, as she focused on the images, narratives and cartoons which are

satirical, she deliberately used the term satirical.67

Nevertheless, first period of humor press, differ from Revolutionary Press in

many points. First humor magazines were under strict censorship, and rather

abstained from politics and focused on social vices instead with a didactic tone.

Besides they are not published in the atmosphere of revolution. Therefore, as already

been mentioned, the form of satire found in first humor magazines of nineteenth

century were rather gentle, as it is blended with wit and joke, and with propriety as

moral and didactic concern of first Ottoman humor magazines requires it to rather to

be based on wit. Even if satire is applied, it was tempered with wit. All contributes to

the idea that first Ottoman humor magazines were moral weeklies, that is,

publications of wit, as in the same line with Spectator. Further, as stated before, in

today’s definition humor and satire are separate and former has an embracing

meaning. Thereof, it is better to call them humor magazines, not as satirical pieces.

Accordingly, this study is based on the term humor and here any form causing

laughter is generally referred as humor.

Up to this point, lexical and genre definitions were investigated. Similar to

English philosophical speculations on humor, Ottoman writers also investigated

humor or mizah in philosophical terms. Though, compared to western philosophy, in

Ottomans or in Turkish literature, humor is little speculated in philosophical terms.

Based on limits and the findings of this research, it could be contended that, a limited

number of Ottoman writers treated humor without developing any certain theories.

Besides, it should be noted that this observation is made only based on the available

literature in Ottoman Turkish. Considering the fact that, humor magazines were

initiated in Ottoman lands by Armenians, and there is a considerable body of

literature in other languages by non-muslim millets of Ottomans, there should be

67 Palmira Brummett, Image and Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press: 1908‐1911 (New

York: 2000), pp.17‐8.

26

works about humor understanding in those languages which also needs investigation.

Nonetheless, owing to the language inabilities, those sources could not be covered

under this research.

Leading Ottoman satirists and humor writers who contributed to the content of

nineteenth century Humor periodicals are Hagop Baronian, Teodor Kasap, Namık

Kemal, Mehmet Tevfik, Ebuzziya Tevfik, and Ali Bey. Hagop Baronian was both

the publisher and the writer of articles published in Tiyatro which is one of the

periodicals this study focused on. Baronian was at the same time the editor of

Meghu, which is the first Humor Periodical published in Ottomans. Hagop Baronian

was also a leading satirist of both Armenian community and Ottomans in general.

Thus, his approaches to humor shed light on Ottoman understanding of humor

governing both Armenian communities in particular, and Ottomans in general.

Regarding humor understanding, considered issues were what humor was; what

should be true humor; what are the functions, effects or objective of humor in the

context of humor press. As it is underlined when discussing western humor

philosophy before, there is a parallelism between approaches in humor philosophy

and the circumstances of the period. Second parallelism was the one between theory

and praxis. As quoted before eighteenth century British philosophers’ and writers’

reflections on moral effects of humor, and their perception of humor as a disciplinary

tool was parallel to the morality concerns in humor press, as in the case of Spectator.

In the case of Ottomans, circumstances shaping ideology and so humor

understanding can be defined as the state of şarivari or le charivari which is defined

in French to Turkish dictionaries as 1. Showing discontent through playing tin cans

or by booing in front of someone’s house. 2. Rumpus. 3. Discord of sounds.68 In the

context of Ottoman humor periodicals, it was also defined as yuhalama,69 that is

booing. However, the third definition as discordance also applies to Ottoman context,

as the discord originating from coexistence of traditional and the new which were

brought together in modernization process. Also an Ottoman humor magazine was

named Şarivari-i Medeniyet,70 which could be translated as the state of Şarivari as a

68 Mehmet Ali Ağakay, Fransızca ‐Türkçe Sözlük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi,1962),p.116.

69 Kutay, Nelere Gülerlerdi, 1998: p. 67.

70 Mehmet Ârif Efendi, ed., Şarivar‐i Medeniyet, 1874, published issues 1‐5. See :Hasan Duman,

Başlangıcından harf devrimine kadar Osmanlı‐Türk süreli yayınlar ve gazeteler bibliyografyası ve

toplu kataloğu, 1828‐1928 (Ankara : Enformasyon ve Dökümantasyon Hizmetleri Vakfı, 2000 ).

27

bringing of social and cultural westernization in nineteenth century Ottomans.

Circumstances of the period also shape humor understanding and contribute to

considering moral or disciplinary function of humor.

First of all, in line with Aristotle, Hobbes, Descartes, Hutcheson, and

Schopenhauer, Ottoman writers also signified propriety of humor and thereof they

distinguished between buffoon and witty in terms of tactfulness. From among writers

of later period, Refi Cevad Ulunay (1890- 1968), defined humor as wit and

tactfulness which annoys but at the same time amuses the butt of humor. Similarly,

Refik Halit Karay (1888 – 1965) pointed to the moral side of humor production

stating that mizah should have propriety not to cause too much pain in the butt of

mizah.71Cenap Şahabettin (1870- 1934) in his article titled Mizah Felsefesi

“Philosophy of Humor” underlined that humor writer should not overdo humor. That

is, humor writers should produce humor with morality, propriety, tactfulness and

they should avoid extreme buffoon, or boor. As well as urging for appropriate

humor writing, he also urged for appropriate caricatures. Caricatures should correctly

depict what it tries to depict in order not to exceed the limits of morality.72 Such

emphasis of writers on propriety of humor production is interrelated with their

ideological viewpoints. As quoted before, Hutcheson believed that for the correction

of vices, ridicule can be used as long as good intention behind ridicule is showed to

the ridiculed.

This emphasis on true humor carries the discussion to the other point of

consideration within Ottoman philosophy of humor, which is what should be the

functions of humor. Ottoman writers did not use the “term” function, but they meant

it when discussing the effects or objectives of humor and laughter. In parallelism

with eighteenth century British humorists, Ottoman humor writers perceived humor

and caricature as an instructive or corrective tool. Accordingly, it is stated that humor

writers should always watch out for the vices in society and show them to the

audience by censuring for their correction. Therefore, they urged for the elements

required for humor as to make it an effective device. For a humor writing or

71 Yücebaş, Türk Mizahçıları, 1958: p.6.

72 Cenap Şahabettin “Mizah Felsefesi,” in Yücebaş, Türk Mizahçıları,1958: p. 122.

28

caricature to be effective, it should be articulated with propriety and tactfulness, so

not causing hatred but a kind encouragement towards the good.73

The fact that, Ottoman Humor philosophy as such which is emphasizing

propriety elements and moral aspects of humor and tasking it with a duty of

instruction, was also shaped by Islamic tradition and the Ottoman rules of etiquette

or Adab-ı Muaşeret. In Islam, jokes, laughing are welcomed provided that they serve

to good ends such as amusement and mirth. On the other hand, the kind of laughing

originating from humiliating and mocking and the mockery itself were banned.

Similarly, Ottoman Etiquette rules are against excess of humor, and distinguish

between mizah and istihza,74 that is between humor and mockery because former

creates friendship while the latter leads to hatred and hostility. The fact that Islam

welcomed humor with good ends, paved the way for the formation and popularity of

a humor tradition in Islamic culture. This tradition included various forms, all aimed

at both relaxation and “instruction towards morality” as Georgeon also underlines.75

Such a humor understanding of Ottomans putting humorists in an observer’s

position, and tasking humor with the duty of moral instruction, is also evident in the

minutes of Ottoman Assembly, when the censorship over Ottoman humor press is

discussed. In this session, humor press was described as a tool for instruction for

morals, and criticizing of vices through wit.76 It shows that Ottoman humor

understanding as such, with emphasis on wit and moral instruction, has a share with

incongruity theory and with eighteen century British humor understanding found in

The Spectator Magazine.

In Ottoman case, one of the Ottoman humorists in spectator position was Tiyatro’s

editor, Hagop Baronian. Kevork B. Bardakjian, in his work titled “Baronian’s

political and social satire” studied on Baronian’s satirical works to outline the social

and political ideas of Baronian. It is evident from Baronian’s literary works that he

was rather considered with social and political issues. His perception that Armenian

community in particular and Ottoman community in general was in decline as a

73 Ibid., p. 88‐92.

74 M. Said. ( 1297/1882 ),Ahlak‐ı Hamide, İstanbul.” Adab‐ı Zarafat‐i Şarkiye or Muaşeret‐i Fazıla‐ı

Osmaniye”. Malumat, no:1‐14,1895. İn François Georgeon, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gülmek Mi?.

Doğu’da Mizah ( Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları), 2007.pp.89‐90.

75 Georgeon, Doğuda Mizah,2007:p.90.

76 Hakkı Tarık Us,ed., Meclis‐i Mebusan 1293:1877 Zabıt Ceridesi v:1, i:25 ( İstanbul: Gazete Matbaa

Kütüphane, 1939 ), p.212.

29

result of westernization77shaped his philosophy of humor. This was reflected in

Tiyatro magazine through which he made a social criticism about over

westernization and conveyed his idea that Ottoman public needed reform.78 Similar

content and ideology is found in Latife and all other humor periodicals of the

nineteenth century Ottomans. This also supports the idea that with the introduction of

humor press, Ottoman humor tradition evolved towards a more criticism oriented

humor.79

With the increased influence of westernization, Ottoman society was experiencing

the new in many spheres of life, such as newly introduced urban habits, public

transportation, fashion, theatre, and press. New and the conventional ways

constituted incongruity to one another. Therefore, as it has been detailed before,

theory of incongruity well explains humorous context of Ottomans. In such a

context, humorists as spectators sought to correct incongruities to manage social

congruity. Ottoman context of humor understanding as such again reminds of

Bergson’s theory that:

“Every small society that forms within the larger is thus impelled, by a vague kind

of instinct, to devise some method of discipline or "breaking in," so as to deal with

the rigidity of habits that have been formed elsewhere and have now to undergo a

partial modification. Society, properly so-called, proceeds inexactly the same way.

Each member must be ever attentive to his social surroundings; he must model

himself on his environment…”80

Bergson explains humor as unsociability, which the society was laughing at, and

here the ridicule served as a way of interruption to correct the imperfection. On the

other hand, Bergson’s theory is generally interpreted as of an innovational or radical

voice. That is, for many times he emphasizes the rigidity, automatism, and

mechanical inelasticity in adapting to new required ways as the cause of

unsociability and so the laughter. However, as explained before, his theory can also

be interpreted as involving conservatism too, as it is evident in above given quotation

that it was rather the failure of individuals in modeling themselves on their social

77Kevork B. Bardakjian; “Hagop Baronian’s Political and Social Satire”(Ph.D .diss., Oxford University,

1978 ),pp.236 ‐238.

78 Ibid, pp.300‐6.

79 Georgeon, Doğuda Mizah, 2007: p. 92.

80 Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic,n.d: p.42.a

30

environment. Further, his statement that “man must live in society, and consequently

submit to the rules” in support of his theory, is a further clue for a conservative

interpretation. Additionally, Bergson’s theory can be applied to Ottoman context

both as a conservative and innovational theory, depending on the topics. For

instance, in the case of public transportation, sticking to conventional habits was

ludicrous. For instance, passengers’ failure in adapting to ticket system and, their

suggesting conventional payment methods were ridiculed. However, with respect to

the topic of fashion, there was a conservative implication behind the comic. Still,

Bergson’s theory proves useful in explaining Ottoman case by supporting the idea

that Ottoman humor periodicals served as a control mechanism, trying to correct and

discipline the imperfections. As a matter of fact, an adaptation of Bergson’s theory

into Ottoman case was also previously actualized by Mustafa Şekib in 1921. In work

titled Gülmek nedir ve kime gülüyoruz?, he discussed the power and the role of

laughter in social control.81

All in all, Ottoman humor philosophy similar to European counterparts had been

evolving and this evolution appeared as rather like a shift from carnival laughter of

Rabelais, to intellectual humor of incongruity theory. To make it clear, in the case of

previous humor traditions, such as Orta Oyunu, Shadow Theatre of Karagöz and

Hacivat, comic were rather originating from parodies, word plays and rather from the

character. Humor as such was rather aimed at amusement even if not limited to

which. Thus, previously Ottomans, through theatrical traditions of humor, were

rather laughing as a result of what superiority theorists explained as originating from

the feeling of superiority, or the inferiority of the comic character. Though, such

elements which can be explained through superiority theory still can be found in

nineteenth century humor periodicals, such as in the common theme of westernized

fop. Though, with the coming of humor press literature gained public and owing to

the growing social problems in modernization process, comic originating from

playing of ideas and wit gained significance. Elements of criticism, and

consciousness were incorporated into the humor. It was in parallelism with

eighteenth century Britain where wit had priority. Also as shown, the wit originating

from the playing of ideas was considered more significant when compared to one

81 Mustafa ( Tunç ) Şekib, [ 1337/1921 ] , Gülmek Nedir ve Kime Gülüyoruz? ( İstanbul: n.p. n.d.), cited

in Georgeon, Doğuda Mizah: 2007, p. 98.

31

formed by playing with the words. Hence, it was in connection with morality and

instructive concerns of humor in British counterpart as well. The fact that Ottoman

public humor was evolved from such less elaborate forms of humor into a higher

form of humor in literary terms, also reminds of Schopenhauer’s description of the

case in Germany. Whereas previously satire or hijv and wit as the higher literary

forms of humor were rather associated with divan literature or the court, now such

elaborate humor was extended into public through being incorporated into the public

forms of humor. As a result, satire or hijv, in its form combined with folk humor, had

lost its complexity, in order to be received by general audience. It was like a shift

from “humor for high culture” to “humor for popular culture.” This shift was linked

with the ideological concerns of English humor writers of eighteenth century and

Ottoman writers of nineteenth century as well.

To summarize, in line with the ideological concerns, nineteenth century Ottoman

humor understanding was shaped by conservatism and morality concern, especially

in the face of a clash between the conventional and the new. Therefore, first Ottoman

humor magazines’ laughter can be explained rather by the theories of incongruity

and Bergson’s theory of unsociability. Accordingly, wit was employed, rather than

satire to make magazines serve to good ends, to manage their instructive and didactic

aims. Ideology of traditional society brought ethical humor to the fore. That was, in

some way as explained by Adorno, a result of dominant class’ or old strata’s reaction

against pre –modern conditions, through the theme of moral decay. As Adorno

further signifies that “up to Voltaire, satire was always on the side of stronger

party,”82 so did the first generation of Ottoman humor magazines by channelizing

dominant class’s ideology of conservatism with a discourse of moral decay.

Therefore, similar to humor understanding in British moral or comic weeklies of the

eighteenth century, Ottoman humor philosophy up to the nineteenth century favored

witticism and didactic humor which was reflected in humor press similarly appearing

with instructive tone. Such parallelism with Europe, together with the influence of

humor philosophy on humor press might be more apparent in the next part dealing

with the humor magazines within the larger frame of press.

82 Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (London, Verso: 2005), pp. 209‐

10.

32

I.II. “Ottoman Spectators” or “Istanbul Charivari”?

Emergence of Ottoman humor periodicals in the context of press is worth an

investigation in politics, public sphere, economic and social dimensions. Such an

approach would reveal that ideology, censorship, westernization, and emergence of

press as a part of a new public sphere all contributed to the role of press in

channeling didactic conservative ideologies of nineteenth century through humor

magazines. Thus, humor press was shaped by a new humor understanding which was

in evolution towards social criticism, accordingly addressing and necessitating a

more conscious and critical audience.

In the analysis of humor press, starting question could be what conditions

prepared the emergence of press? When compared to European counterpart, as the

forerunners of press and humor press in particular, there is some parallelism with, so

such a comparison would be reasonable in better understanding of Ottoman case. In

this chapter it is sought to reveal that Ottoman humor periodicals of the nineteenth

century, were rather moral weeklies in parallelism with eighteenth century British

ones, and the most typical and a prominent of which was Spectator ( 1711 ),edited

by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele. Not long after the first moral weekly, a triweekly

Tatler in 1709 and flowingly daily Spectator in 1711 published in London,

other moral weeklies which are modeled on Spectator, released in France and

Germany, respectively, Spectateur français (1722), and Vernunftler (1713).83 In

Ottomans, it would wait until the nineteenth century when the first humor magazine

or Ottoman Spectators would be published. The first one, Meghu published in 1856

was at the same time a morality magazine, but its successor Tiyatro, and other humor

magazines of the first period were much typical of Spectator. In that vein, Meghu can

be compared to the first years of Tatler, which similarly included topics related with

commerce, politics as well as literature and amusement.84

Tanzimat novels were instructive because writers took the role of public mentor

when public was in need of such a guide during sublime port’s involving in

83James Van Horn Melton, Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe (New Approaches to European

History: 22), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001),p. 96.

84For more information about Tatler’s topics, see: Richmond P. Bond, Tatler: The Making of a

Literary Journal (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971).

33

westernizing reforms.85 Ottoman humor magazines emerged under the same

conditions. Similarly, moral weeklies in Britain rose at a time when the cultural

influence of the court had been diminished.86 Again in Germany, moral weeklies had

appeared in cities free from princely residence. In France, moral weeklies emerged

when court’s decisive role in cultural sphere had decreased. In the aftermath of

restoration, Addison sought to “upheld religion and morality against unbelief and

libertinism, attacked drunkenness and infidelity, and Puritan condemnation of

Restoration morals” and intended to instruct its readers over the matters involving

private realm.87 Ottoman humor magazines or better to be called moral weeklies of

Tanzimat period, included similar topics about private realm, sought at instruction

through criticism, as which will be shown with cases of Tiyatro and Latife

magazines. Thus, ideology was the first factor, and secondly public sphere and

patronage relationships need to be considered regarding the emergence of moral

weeklies. Even if a new public sphere had emerged as a part of press, traditional

patronage relations continued. First Ottoman humor magazines, similar to eighteenth

century British comic weeklies, abstained from political satire and rather included

topics relating to literature and arts, as well as social issues, as they were still under

the patronage of traditional ideology. Ottoman humor magazines which would be

satirical in full sense, more emancipated from state control and so relatively free

floating as a public commodity could only be emerged after 1908 with second

constitution. So the argument of this study is that first Ottoman humor magazines of

the nineteenth century were rather moral and amusement oriented publications

similar to British comic weeklies of eighteenth century.

Eighteenth Century British Humor Press

To start with European case, emergence of press in Britain and France dates back

to seventeenth century. In the case of Britain, market economy providing physical

links between London and provinces; higher literacy, growing prosperity among

lower level of elites in society, print culture, all prepared the conditions for the

emergence of press. First publications were newspapers which could rise after 1695

85Jale Parla, Babalar ve Oğullar: Tanzimat Romanının Epistemolojik Temelleri (İstanbul: İletişim,

2010),pp.13‐15.

86 Melton, Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe, 2001:p. 97.

87 Ibid, p. 96.

34

when the censorship was abolished.88 Bob Harris mentions that the rise of news press

in England is linked to the politics. It was during the intense political crisis in

England at seventeenth century, in other words, it was when the political control is

weak to prevent the appearance of newspapers. Postal service provided the

distribution of newspapers in provinces. Similar to the case of the Ottomans, high

cost was a restriction on the development of newspaper market. Purchaser would

probably be middle class including merchants, shopkeepers, tradesman,

manufacturers, and professionals and so majority of the populations probably could

not afford to buy.89 Therefore, as it was in Ottoman state, partly owing to

affordability, in eighteenth century England newspapers were read out aloud in

coffee houses which hosted a mixed society from various social ranks.90 Similar to

English history of press in France also starts as a news press, in 1631 when Gazette

de France is founded. As for the readership, subscribers were nobility, bureaucrats

and middle rank. Like in Britain growth and circulation of press and newspapers in

France was enabled by the growth of middle class population and populations in

towns. Interests and concerns of middle class shaped the content of

newspapers.91This argument is usually linked with Habermas’ theory on the

formation of bourgeois public sphere which is subject to a separate discussion.

Habermas articulated the idea that public changed its meaning with the

introduction of mass media. Previously, meaning of public was limited to usages

such as “public” which means “open to all people”; or “public building” which

means a building embodying state institutions.92 Accordingly, the first public was

constituted by town and court. Around the middle of seventeenth century, first coffee

house was opened in England which increased the dominance of town to constitute

public sphere. Coffee houses were at the beginning, critics of art and literature. With

the introduction of mass media which enabled a public communication, publicity

emerged together with a new kind of public functioning as critics of politics. That is,

to the discussions about arts and literature, later added were discussions about

88Bob Harris, Historical Connections: Politics and the rise of the press, Britain and France, 1620‐1800

(London: Routlage, 1996), pp.6‐9.

89Black, 1987a, pp.106‐7, cited in Harris, Historical Connections, 1996.

90 Harris, Historical Connections, 1996: p. 17.

91 Ibid, pp. 60‐108.

92 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of

bourgeoisie society, trans., Thomas Burger, with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge,

Mass: MIT Press, 1991), p.2.

35

economy and politics.93 He links this development to bourgeois interests. It was the

institutionalization of a “bourgeois public sphere” through press, thus the owners of

commodities and involvers of commodity exchange sought for their political rights

through publicity. The aim was to debate in “public” over the rules governing

“private” world of commodity exchange.94 Habermas saw the emergence of press in

seventeenth century Britain and France as a pre-condition for the formation of public

space so for the formation of public opinion. However, what is significant for the

present study is the relation of humor press to the new public sphere. It should also

be noted that, here it is not intended to discuss when or to what extent a public sphere

as independent from the state in meaning is actualized in the eighteenth century

Britain or in the nineteenth century Ottomans when the press rose. There have been

discussions pointing to “the normative idealness” of “public sphere” as a concept and

arguing that appropriation of concept in historiography is a phantasy.95 Yet,

corrective character of papers and the continuing patronage relations supports the

argument that this public sphere was under the domination of conservative ideology

both in eighteenth century Britain and nineteenth century Ottomans. Further, for the

Ottoman case, it has been showed that Ottoman public sphere was not independent

from government control.96 Habermas’s conception here is taken as a public sphere

in the sense that a new sphere formed by the press for public intellectual

involvement. Here it is also argued that this public sphere was governed by

conservative ideology.

To start with, following the news press, humor press in Britain appeared in the

form of comic papers, or moral weeklies, an early example of which is tri-weekly

Tatler and daily Spectator, first issue of which was published by Joseph Addison in

1711.97 Spectator, as stated before, was rather a work of wit. The fact that they were

didactic publications addressing to public, was interrelated with the formation of a

new public sphere. In the realm of reading, patronage of the court aristocracy in

93 Ibid, p. 32‐3.

94 Ibid, pp.1‐56.

95 Cengiz Kırlı, "Surveillance and Constituting the Public in the Ottoman Empire," in Publics, Politics

and Participation: Locating the Public Sphere in the Middle East and North Africa.Edited by Seteney

Shami (New York: SSRC, 2009), pp. 177‐180.

96 Cengiz Kırlı, “Struggle Over Space: Coffee Houses of Ottoman: Istanbul, 1780‐1845” (Ph.D .diss,

Binghamton University, 2001).

97 “The Spectator,”Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.,

2012, Web.

36

literary production was taken over by the publisher in eighteenth century which made

possible emergence of a serious reading by an interested public.98 Writers were not

anymore much depended on the aristocracy to finance their works nor did they have

to write for the taste of aristocracy because with the introduction of the press,

subscription formed the new basis of finance for the writers, so the new patrons

become the publishers and the writers. Further through the press, literature was

gaining public.99Public was emerging as a critical authority in the realm of literature

as literature was emancipated from court or church control, which Habermas calls lay

judgment. It was only with critical absorption of philosophy; literature and art that

public could be enlightened through moral or comic weeklies, which were an

important part of coffee house discussions. That the articles published in these

weekly journals was written in conversational form aimed at being proximate to real

conversation.100 Habermas defined this situation as public holding up mirror to itself

and coming to a self-understanding through entering into the literature as an object.

Editor of Spectator, Addison considered himself as censure of manners and morals.

Addison’s essays, for instance, discussed charities and schools for the poor,

improvement of education, and civilized forms of conduct, polemics against vices of

gambling, fanaticism, emancipation of civic morality from moral theology, and

emancipation of practical wisdom from the philosophy of scholars. 101 Didactic tone

was common to many weeklies of eighteenth century England. According to Jeremy

Black, one important feature of eighteenth century English periodicals was that, they

were instructive. He further supports that comic weeklies such as Spectator, had a

didactic tone which aimed at instruction of morals and social manners through

literature.102 Such ideological stances of comic weeklies are in parallelism with

eighteenth century British humor philosophers, writers and incongruity theorists such

as Francis Hutcheson as stated before. Joseph Addison was also a humor thinker and

published philosophical discussions on humor in Spectator as well. Further the fact

that wit constituted the major form of humor writing in comic weeklies was also

98 A.Hauser, the Social History of Art, 2:548 in Habermas, Jürgen, trans.Thomas Burger, with the

assistance of Frederick Lawrence. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into

a category of bourgeoisie society (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1991), p. 38.

99 Dustin, Griffin, Literary Patronage in England, 1650‐1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1996), pp.10‐11.

100 Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 1991: p. 42.

101 Ibid.,p.43.

102 Jeremy Black,”English Enlightenment or Fillers? Improvement, Morality and Religion,” The English

Press in the Eighteenth Century (London: Croom Helm, 1987), pp. 245‐276.

37

interrelated with the views of incongruity theorists, who considered wit as a higher

form of humor writing which could serve to didactic ends.

So the comic weeklies in the form of moral weeklies constituted the first phases

of new public sphere which was still under traditional patronage. Even if Habermas

underlines the change in the patronage relationships at the eighteenth century, it was

a relative change and patronage system was still similar to the one at the seventeenth

century as Griffin signifies.103 Yet, when it comes to nineteenth century, with the

political liberation of press, and when publishers could finance themselves through

subscriptions to a greater extent and when advertisement funds were added by

bourgeoisie, traditional patronage could be replaced as both financially and

politically. Such a change in patronage relationships would make possible the

formation of satirical periodicals in full sense, raising their voice freer than before,

making critics which are not limited to literature and art as it was previously. That

is, comic or moral weeklies like Tatler or daily Spectator were not prototype of

humor magazines or satirical papers and neither did they include caricature which is

considered to be a visual satire. Emergence of such a paper would be possible by the

emergence of Punch Magazine on July 17th, 1841.104 Creation of Punch grew out of

an idea that a new work of wit including caricatures shall be published and be called

Punch or the London Charivari”.105 As the name also implies that the idea of the

publication was inspired by and named after French comic paper Le Charivari which

had been published in 1832 and included caricatures. Accordingly, Punch would

include satire on politics which was evident from the opening article of Mark Lemon,

the publisher of Punch. It says that magazine aimed at laughter and attacking butts of

radicals. Hence, first issues until 1857, was defined as the voice of oppressed against

monarchy.106

To conclude, in eighteenth century Britain, with the emergence of press;

formation of a new public sphere and of a critical public; and with a slight change in

the patronage relationships, humorists could gain a new public. It was rather like an

attempt to engage public with sublime humor in Schopenhauer’s terms. Further, in

philosophical terms, it was also a beginning of a transition from incongruity theory to

103 Griffin, Literary Patronage in England,1996: p.10.

104 Price, A History of Punch,1957: p.19.

105 Ibid.,p. 354.

106 Ibid.,pp. 19 ‐46.

38

Bergson’s social humor. In terms of press, it was a beginning of a shift from

Addison’s Spectator to Punch magazine. All made possible the evolution of humor

towards a social and political criticism as embodied in newly emerged humor

magazines addressing to a conscious and critical public. As for the first Ottoman

humor magazines at nineteenth century, they were rather somewhere in between

Spectator and Punch, but still typical of Spectator.

Ottoman Humor Press

To the analysis of Ottoman Humor Periodicals, it is worth starting with the

emergence of Ottoman press in general and then later narrowing down the topic to

include humor press in particular. Similar to English case, in Ottomans preconditions

which prepared the emergence of press, were politics, growth of wealth

and populations in Istanbul, improved communications, increased level of literacy

etc. Still, Habermas’s theory of bourgeoisie public does not completely fit into the

case of Ottomans. Definitely, press involved a new public sphere which involved a

more consciousness and critical public towards social, cultural and political issues.

Nonetheless, to what extent it was a bourgeoisie public sphere and if through which

press served as a device for the bourgeoisie interests is questionable and which is not

attempted to be treated here. Nevertheless, other observations included under

Habermas’s theory prove much useful in the explanation of Ottoman case which will

be treated later in this part.

Before the emergence of Ottoman press, there were already some newspapers

published in Istanbul such as Gazette Française de Constantinople (1798) and

Bulletin de Nouvelles (1795), both published by French Embassy.107 Additionally,

Protestant missionaries and foreigners were also among the initiators of press in

Ottoman Empire. In 1824, in İzmir, first French paper Le Symrnéen was published.

108 However, earlier again a French gazette named La Spectateur Oriental was

published by Charles Tricon in 1821109 which is probably the earliest gazette

published in the Empire unless there is new finding. Those foreign gazettes, were

107 Orhan Koloğlu, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Basın ( İletişim Yayınları: İstanbul, 1992), p.11.

108 Johann Strauss “Who read what in Ottomans (19th and 20th centuries)?”Arabic Middle Eastern

Literatures 6, no.1 (2003),p. 43.

109Orhan Koloğlu, Osmanlı’dan 21. Yüzyıla Basın Tarihi ( İstanbul: Pozitif Yayınları, 2006), p.22.

39

bound to Ottoman Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so they need to get permission from

the ministry for publication.110

To begin with political analysis of Ottoman humor press, state ideology is the

first element. Emergence of Ottoman press at nineteenth century also coincided with

a period when Ottomans were carrying out reforms for modernization and adapting

some ways from the west. Introduction of Ottoman press, as a government initiative

can be considered as a part of this process. It was also evident that first Ottoman

Turkish gazette was an official gazette published by the government. As Terakki or

Progress was a decisive ideology of nineteenth century, within the scope of which,

Europe’s progress had been taken as a model in particular with respect to technical

issues. Accordingly, press was one of progress oriented elements introduced into the

empire in this period. The same applies to the humor press as well, which was

evident in the discussion held in Assembly on May 8, 1877, regarding humor press.

During the session, some of the deputies who were the proponents of the

continuation of humor press based their arguments on the fact that humor periodicals

existed in Europe, so they should in Ottomans too. Further, some of them suggested

that Ottomans could get closer to the progress level of Europe, partly thanks to the

press, so humor periodicals was a part of that progress.111 Not surprisingly, the first

Turkish Ottoman humor gazette supplement published in 1868 was titled Terakki.112

Thus, the emergence of humor magazines might be considered to be a part of

modernization.

Accordingly, as a part of government ideology, Ottoman Muslim Turkish press

was introduced as a government initiative when Ottoman official gazette Takvim-i

Vakayi published in 1831. Before Takvim-i Vakayi, single domestic gazette

publication in Ottoman Empire to include Turkish language as half in Turkish, half

in Arabic was Vekayi-i Mısıriye which was published in Cairo on November,

1828.113 As for the non-Muslim’s communities’ press, Greek press started with

publication of Filos Ton Neon in İzmir in 1831. First gazette of Armenians is

İştemeran Bidani Kidelyas which was published in Izmir in 1839. First Jewish

110 Server İskit, Türkiye’de Matbuat İdareleri ve Politikaları ( Başvekâlet Basın ve Yayın Umum

Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1943 ),p.4.

111 Us, Meclis‐i Mebusan, 1939:p.212.

112 Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü, 1986 :p.21.

113 Ibid.,p. 24.

40

gazette was published in İzmir in 1842. First Bulgarian gazette Ljuboslowije was also

published in İzmir in 1842 which started the history of Bulgarian Press. Armenian

press was centered in Istanbul, accordingly, % 80 of the publications was made in

Istanbul, and remaining per cent was published in provinces.114In 1850s press gained

more activity in Istanbul thanks to the private publishing houses. Press which had

been started as a government initiative, could only be turned into a property of public

sphere through a private press, in that and in the development of humor press,

Tanzimat Decree had a decisive role.

So, Tanzimat Decree constitutes another milestone in political analysis of humor

press. Declared in 1839, this Firman of reforms provided the opportunity for the

formation of a private press and humor press in particular by securing the life and

property of individuals. As Şerif Mardin, well defines the situation “to have one’s

head securely fixed on one’s shoulders with no fears that an imperial order would

make it roll, to have one’s property protected by the laws of the land” 115 was a new

bringing into the life of Ottomans. Thereby, to run a humor press or satirical press to

involve in social and political criticism was now definitely more secure when

compared to the period pre-Tanzimat Decree. Though, a restriction had already been

brought on humor press with 1838 Penal Code banishing publication of satirical

content which would be against the common rules of society, or “insolent

illustrations shall be fined up to five mecidiyes in gold or confinement from twentyfour

hours to one week.”116

Accordingly, legislation relates the discussion to another element of political

analysis in explaining the case of humor periodicals, which is censorship. First

period of Ottoman humor press coincides to a period when magazines were

published under strict censorship. It is here argued that censorship was decisive both

in the emergence and the formation of humor magazines. With respect to former,

censorship does not only have a restrictive role but also has a triggering effect in the

114 Ibid,, p. 39‐ 43.

115 Şerif Mardin, "Super Westernization in Urban Life in the Ottoman Empire in the Last quarter of

the nineteenth Century", in Turkey: Geographical and Social Perspectives, éd. P. Benedict, E.

Tümertekin, F. Mansur, (Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 407.

116Düstur, Tertib‐i Evvel 1, İstanbul, 1289/1872, p.568 in Strauss, Johann, “Notes on the First Satirical

Journals in the Ottoman Empire,“ in Amtsblatt, vilayet gazetesi und unabhängiges Journal: die

Anfänge der Presse im Nahen Osten, ed. Anja Pistor‐Hatam, Lang, Frankfurt a.M. (etc.) (Heidelberger

Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Modernen Vorderen Orients; 27), pp. 123.

41

rise of humor press. Humor is favorable as a form of writing, as it allows implied or

indirect expression when there is a restriction on freedom of expression and a

religious or a political autocracy which is also valid for the rise of picaresque novel

in Europe, as well as for the case of Don Quixote or Rabelais’ work. Just as Parla,

describes the situation for the case of Rabelais, with reference to Bakhtin’s work that

it is like covering oneself with the armour of humor.117It is also not surprising that

Akabi Hikayesi, the first modern novel in Turkish to be published in Ottomans in

1851, was a comic novel and based on the ridicule of realities of society.118This links

the discussion again to ideology which additionally explains why comic genre

featured the literature as well as the press in this period, as will be clarified below.

The nineteenth century when humor magazines emerged, was a period of change or

change towards westernization. Every period can be counted as a period of change;

however Tanzimat Period or the nineteenth century had a peculiarity. By

contemporaries, it was defined as Şarivari, connotation of which, translates itself in

Ottoman context as the incongruities in society through increased westernization, as

stated before. Thus, similar to other moral weeklies such as Spectator, Ottoman

humor press emerged to manage incongruities. Therefore and secondly, it was a

period witnessing “changing of change”119 that is, intellectuals and writers intervened

in that change, and attempted to give a direction to it in various spheres from

literature to theatre. Such an attitude among intellectuals, added an ideological

dimension to the literature of this period, problematic of which was

westernization.120 This also applies to humor magazines of the period. Such a

parallelism between literature and humor press is also present in the eighteenth

century Britain.

Further, emergence of a commercial society with the westernization of economy

and incorporation of western elements next to the local ones, and their resulting

coexistence as an incongruity made plenty of material available to be ridiculed which

117 Jale Parla, Don Kişot’tan Bugüne Roman (İstanbul: İletişim, 2000), p.61.

118 See: Hovsep Vartanian, Akabi Hikâyesi: İlk Türkçe Roman. Edited by Andreas Tietze (İstanbul:

Eren Yayınları, 1991).

119İlber Ortaylı, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı (İstanbul: iletişim, 1999),p. 14 in Jale Parla, “Tanzimat

Edebiyatı’nda Siyasi Fikirler”, Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düşünce: Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce

Mirası Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet'in Birikimi, vol 1. Edited by Murat Gültekingil, Tanıl Bora,

( İstanbul: İletişim, 2004),p. 223.

120 Parla, “Tanzimat Edebiyatı’nda Siyasi Fikirler,”2004:p.223.

42

made humor a favorable form of writing. Accordingly, following general or news

gazettes, humor periodicals outweighed the number of periodicals of other types.

That also explains the domination of comic genre in literature as well. Incorporating

the comic elements of folk literature, represented by Ottoman traditions of scenes,

Meddah and Orta Oyunu, literature reaches to the public to convey ideologies. It was

what Şinasi and Ahmed Midhat did,121 and which also applies to Beykozluyan’s and

Baronian’s cases. It was made possible by the fact that literature had gained public

with the introduction of press, as it was in the case of eighteenth century Britain.

Censorship, together with government ideology had also a decisive role in

defining the nature of humor magazines, through an interrelation with state ideology.

Such a role of censorship supports the main argument of this study that humor

periodicals of nineteenth century were didactic publications with a conservative

tendency in parallelism with British moral weeklies of the eighteenth century. Major

evidence is the discussion held in the Assembly on May 8, 1877 on the question of

banning humor periodicals as quoted before. It is evident throughout the discussion

that wing of opposition to the banning of humor periodicals based their arguments

mainly on its educatory role. Further, as an evidence for the priority of humor

periodicals among other gazettes, it is stated that many people prefer reading humor

gazettes to serious ones.122 Satire should be avoided and caricatures and humor

writings should have propriety. Even the inclusion of caricature in humor magazines

was not much favored as caricature is satirical in character.123Government policy had

a play in that first Ottoman Turkish humor magazine Diyojen (1870-73) did not

include caricature except for three issues of magazine.124 As for other magazines

including Tiyatro and Latife, they published one cartoon per issue but it was close to

picture rather than caricature. Further, humor magazines were defined as publications

instructing people through “wit.”125 Government tasked humorists with moral

instruction, and formed Ottoman humor magazines into moral weeklies, or

publications of wit like Spectator, instead of satirical papers.

121 Parla, 2004: pp. 225‐226.

122 Us, Meclis‐i Mebusan, 1939: pp.214‐215.

123 Ibid., pp.212‐214.

124 Hamdi Özdiş, Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 1870‐1877: Diyojen ve Çaylak

üzerinde bir araştırma (Istanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010),p85.

125 Ibid, p.212.

43

Thus, it shows that state ideology supported and allowed the publication of humor

magazines provided that they serve as didactic tools to discipline society. In

accordance with, humor periodicals, which were published during this period, were

formed as didactic or instructive publications to get the consent of the government

and so they emphasized such aims in the first pages of periodicals. Additionally,

majority of humor magazines at nineteenth century, as stated before, put the

statement of eğlence gazetesidir/amusement gazette on the first page, usually

sometimes beneath the title,126 probably to escape the censorship, and to imply that

their publications do not carry any harmful aims to the benefit of both state and

society. To illustrate, on the introduction page of Meddah, duty of the gazette is

defined as amusement and it is stated that they will use a language which will not

lead to censorship by government.127 So as to exemplify the emphasis on disciplinary

aims by publishers, in the introduction of Dijoyen, aim of the gazette is explained as

sustaining morality and in that to serve to the high aims of government.128 Another

example is, on the first issue of Latife dated 1292/1876 when it started to published

for the third time, there appears the statement as the description of publication:

ibretamiz129 which means “exemplary instructive.”

It was to show that censorship and state ideology had shaped not only the

Ottoman understanding of humor but also the literary form, and aimed functions of

first humor magazines of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, ideology was

channelized through humor periodicals in the form of morality and conservatism.

That was evident in Teodor Kasap’s introductory note on Diyojen stating that the aim

of periodical was, “...as the voice of the government, to ridicule elements which are

foreign to our country…”130 This argument has been already made for Ottoman

Turkish literature by Jale Parla. Accordingly, she revealed a significant feature of the

nineteenth century Ottoman Turkish novels that they were intended by authors to

serve for sustaining and protecting Ottoman traditions and values. In that, authors

had taken over the role of the state.131 In this study, it is argued that the same applies

126 See: Latife ( 1874‐5 ), Tiyatro ( 1874‐ 75 ), Meddah ( 1876 ).

127 Meddah, 10 Muharrem 1292 / 1875, issue 1.

128 Çapanoğlu: 1970, p.10.

129 Latife, issue 1, September 1, 1292/1876.

130 Çapanoğlu.,p.10.

131 Jale Parla, Babalar ve Oğullar: Tanzimat Romanı’nın Epistemolojik Temelleri ( İstanbul: İletişim:

1990 ).

44

to humor periodicals of the nineteenth century. This also relates the discussion to

another topic that “humor periodicals were whose voice and to whom they were

addressed” which will be detailed in the last chapter.

Yet, for consideration of this part, matter of ideology incorporates another frame

of analysis into the topic, which is literary patronage in relation to the public sphere.

In the case of Europe, and in particular the Great Britain, Habermas linked the

change in patronage relationships to the rise of the press and the formation of a new

public sphere as already mentioned. Yet, till the end of the eighteenth century it was

a slight change as Griffin states, and as quoted before. Therefore, literature had

gained public, but press was still under the previous patronage to a considerable

degree. As a result, magazines published in this period, in particular the comic

weeklies as The Spectator focused on instruction through literature for morality with

a conservative stance as a reflection of government ideology. In other words,

periodicals of the eighteenth century still continued to be the voice of conservatives

and moralists. That full change in patronage relationships would be possible through

further rise of press at the nineteenth century along with the rise of bourgeoisie as a

governing class next to the aristocracy, and with the formation of bourgeoisie public

sphere. That would be reflected in the publication of satirical magazine Punch, as

radical’s voice against the conservatives.

The same applies to nineteenth century Ottomans. İnalcık showed that before the

introduction of printing, artists and literary men were ideologically under the

domination of court and governing class in their works.132 Still, as it was in the case

of Britain, patronage relationships in Ottomans also did not completely change as

soon as the press launches at the nineteenth century, when humor periodicals also

emerged. Literary patronage changed in that literature gained public through the

press. Writers and publishers took over the role of the government to channelize state

ideology, which was the maintenance of Ottomans traditions, conventions, and

values against the foreign elements which now had invaded the empire. Habermas’

new public sphere was also valid in the case of Ottomans only to some extent. First

of all, introduction of press meant the formation of a new public sphere next to the

132 Halil İnalcık, Şair ve Patron: Patrimonyal Devlet ve Sanat Üzerinde Sosyolojik Bir İnceleme, (Ankara:

Doğu Batı Yayınları, 2003 ).

45

coffee houses which existed since sixteenth century.133 Though, as it is quoted

before, public sphere as embodied by coffee houses did not meant a public sphere

independent from state control. The same applies to new public sphere which is

constituted by the press. Further, at nineteenth century Ottomans it was not yet a

bourgeoisie public sphere in Habermas’s terms, and so press did not serve to the

interests of newly forming bourgeoisie but to the interests of government. Therefore,

in this period, previous governing class continued to dominate the public sphere.

Besides, similar to British case, press meant a new public sphere, which is critical,

conscious and now being channelized through the press. Thus, with a particular

change in literary patronage, sublime forms of humor literature could be extended to

the public as Schopenhauer describes. In that way, as stated before, humor could

evolve from being a rather amusement oriented humor to a more intellectual humor

requiring social criticism and more involvement on the part of the audience.

In consequence, censorship, government ideology, unchanged patronage

relationships, and availability of material for ridicule such as the elements of

modernization shaped the character of humor magazines. Traditional governing class

dominating the public sphere directed the humor press to channelize their ideology in

the form of conservatism as it is supported before with regard to censorship. As a

result, in parallelism with eighteenth century British comic weeklies, nineteenth

century Ottoman humor periodicals emerged as moral weeklies, intended to instruct

the public with morality concerns. As Habermas states, inclusion of more political

criticism and subversive approach instead of corrective in humor press would only be

possible at a later stage after 1908 which is considered to be the second phase of

Ottoman humor press, when satirical papers similar to Punch could emerge. The

last, but not the least factor in the popularity of humor press, could be considered as

the demand on the part of public as stated before. It could also be argued that it was

also in line with the level of literacy, which makes humor periodicals much more

preferable addressing to general audience and including cartoons which illiterate can

also make a sense of.

Profit motive is another factor contributed to the expansion of humor press

especially after 1980. With the opening of private publishing houses, some

133 Ralph S. Hattox, Coffee and Coffeehouses: the Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near

East, (Seattle: Distributed by University of Washington Press, c1985).

46

publishers also took advantage of popularity of humor periodicals with a profit

motive which has been linked by Shick to print capitalism.134 Until humor magazines

are banned in 1877,135 periodicals and gazettes outweighed the number of book

publication. Among other periodicals, number of humor magazines was considerable

for the first phase of humor press. Accordingly, apart from the ones published in

other languages, and supplements, between 1870 and 1877, 19 magazines in

Ottoman Turkish were published, which with their starting date of publication, are

Terakki ( 1870 ), Diyojen ( 1870 ), Asır’ın Eğlence Nüshası ( 1870 ), Letaif-i Âsar

(1871 ), Kamer (1873), Şarivari ( 1872 ), Çıngıraklı Tatar ( 1873 ), Hayal ( 1873 ),

İbretnüma-yu Âlem (1873 ), Latife (1874), Şarivari-i Medeniyet ( 1874 ), Şafak

(1874), Tiyatro ( 1874 ) Letâif-i Asar, ( 1875 ), Kahkaha ( 1875 ), Kara Sinan

(1875), Geveze ( 1875 ), Çaylak ( 1876 ), Meddah ( 1876 ).136 Publishing gazettes

and periodicals had become so popular that sometimes, the idea grew out of profit

motives. As such they lacked necessary qualifications required for a gazette. Partly

because of that, critic of contemporary gazettes was a common theme in humor

periodicals. For instance, in Latife, for many times, those who published gazettes to

make money were attacked.137 In an article published in Latife, other gazettes, in

particular Hayal and Ceride-i Havadis were attacked in that, everyone without

carrying necessary qualifications to become a writer, had turned out to be a writer,138

taking the opportunity out of privatization of press. Accordingly, in another issue,

publishers with profit motive were satirized in a caricature, depicting a man

frequenting households to form a market for their gazette:

134Irvin C. Schick,”Print Capitalism and Women’s Sexual Agency in the Late Ottoman

Empire,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 31,no. 1 (2011), 196–216.

135 Us, Meclis‐i Mebusan,1939: pp. 216‐217.

136 Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü,1986:pp.21‐24. For the catalog of publications, see:

Hasan Duman,2000.

137 Latife, 10 August 1874, Thursday, issue 2, p. 4. B.D.K.Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection.

138 “Muharrirlik“, Latife, 22 August 1874.Thursday, issue 4, p.1.

- Sir, b

Privat

sphere, so

Now pub

eighteenth

until 1877

as quoted

Ottom

magazine

under the

Adem whi

139 Latife, 21

140Harutyun

Muratyan(1

writer at Ag

; Մեղու>>

Magazine) (

ecause I am

tization of p

o that literary

blic could

h century Br

7, would ser

before.

man humor

in Ottoman

editorship

ich was wri

1 September 1

Sıvacıyan (

863), Hagop B

os Gazette, A

հանդեսի (

1856‐18659)

“- Who

m going to p

press was a

y forms of h

involve in

ritish comic

rve to that a

press was

ns Meghu w

of Harutyu

itten by Arm

1874, issue 10

1856‐1862,

Baronyan (18

rmenian Histo

1856‐1865) մ

Yeravan, 200

47

o is that? Wh

publish a ga

significant

humor coul

criticism

c weeklies,

as Haberma

s started b

which mean

un Sıvacıya

menian auth

0, p.3.

1865, 1870‐

72‐1874) ,eds

ory of Printing

մատենագիտ

3; Haygagan,

7

hat do you w

azette, I am

element in

ld gain publ

through es

Ottoman hu

as puts it “p

y Armenia

ns Bee, publ

an.140As a m

hor Vartan P

1872), Hovha

s., Meghu ( 18

g and Press an

տություն, Ե.

Hanrakidaran

want?

looking for

n the format

lic and reac

ssays and

umor period

public holdi

ans. Accord

lished on S

matter of f

Paşa and pu

annes Hovvıy

856 – 1874 ),

nd Periodicals,

2003: (B

n, “Meghu”, A

subscribers

ion of a new

ch a wider a

stories. Sim

dicals in thi

ing mirror t

dingly, first

eptember 1

fact, Boşbo

ublished in

yan (1863),

in Zakarya M

, unpublished

Bibliography o

rmenian Ency

s.”139

w public

audience.

milar to

is period

to itself”

t humor

5, 1856,

oğaz Bir

1852, is

Apraham

ildanoğlud

research.

of Meghu

yclopedia.

48

also regarded by Çeviker as the first humor magazine attempt as it included

caricatures.141 Nevertheless, it is rather a kind of booklet, a story about what bad

results come out of gossip. In other words, it is a didactic paper which tries to

instruct the readers to avoid gossip.142 Thus, similar to humor magazines, this

supplement was also written with morality concern and didactic aims. Further, the

first novel in Turkish by the same author, Story of Akabi was a satirical story and

which also included a character named Rupenig, a kind of weternized fob or western

imitator, which would be the common theme of Turkish novels published in this

period.143 That first modern novel published by an Armenian author in Ottomans,

provides a hint for answering the question of why was it Ottoman Armenians, who

initiated humor press in Ottomans?

First of all, long before Ottoman government’s sanctioning the establishment of

Ottoman Turkish printing house and printing of the first Turkish book in Ottoman

lands in 1727, establishment of printing houses and publications by foreigners and

non-Muslim communities had already been allowed. Accordingly, it was Jews who

opened the first printing house in Istanbul in 1483 by the initiative of Raffi Gerson.

Second printing house in Istanbul was opened by Armenian Apkar Tıbir in 1567,

which is also the first printing house of Ottoman Armenians. That was followed by

the opening of other Armenian printing houses in both Istanbul and provinces.

Accordingly, between 1567-1923 Armenian printing houses, 131 of which are

founded in Istanbul and 63 founded in provinces, published totally 598 gazette and

periodicals including Turkish ones written in Armenian alphabet.144 That Ottoman

Armenians, had become the forerunners of press and made a great contribution to

flourishing of the printing and press in Ottoman lands, can be considered one

significant factor paving the way to the initiation of humor press again by Ottoman

Armenians. However, this does not in itself answer the question why Ottoman

Armenians were also the first to write and publish the first modern novel in Turkish

in Ottomans, and again to publish first humor periodical. One major answer is

141 Çeviker,Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü,1998: p.131.

142 Hosvep Vartanian, Boşboğaz Bir Adem. Edited by Turgut Kut ( unpublished work ). Summary of

the book was included in Selin Tunçboyacı, “19th Century Ottoman Modernization in Respect to the

Novels: Akab‐i Hikayesi, Boşboğaz bir Adem and Temaşa‐i Dünya” (MA Thesis, Boğaziçi

University,2001), pp. 57‐59.

143 Mardin, 1974: pp.406‐412.

144 Pars Tuğlacı, “Osmanlı Türkiye’sinde Ermeni Matbaacılığı ve Ermenilerin Türk Matbaasına Katkısı”,

Tarih ve Toplum XV, no. 16 (1991 ), pp.48‐57.

49

Mekhitarists of Vienna, the Catholic Armenians and in general Armenian’s close

connections with European literature and press through religious ties. Thus, the first

Armenian press had been brought to Istanbul from Venice, by Apkar. Beforehand, he

had published the first book in Armenian in Venice and presented it to Pope.145

Mekhitarists had been the protagonists of revival in Armenian literary activities

which is referred as Armenian Renaissance. Accordingly, between 1825- 1850, they

made translations from European literature numbering 130 volumes. These

translations included works from antiquity as well as Italian and French classics and

romances.146 So, to a great extent thanks to the contribution of Mekhitarists,

Armenians could import elements from Europe including literature as well as press.

Hovsep Vartanian, who was the writer of Akabi Hikayesi or Story of Akabi as quoted

before, was also trained by Mekhitatists of Vienna.147 Between 1816 and 1850s,

novels from European pre-romanticism such as those of Saint Pierre de Bernardin,

had already been translated.148 When it comes to 1874, Baronian would include a

conversational story, as a similar version of Bernardin’s Paul et Virgine in Tiyatro, to

satirize western influence on Ottoman conservative family structures.149 Theme of

conservative fathers and families causing to the breakup of lovers suited to Ottoman

context of the time, governed by the clashing of conservatives and western elements.

Didactic tone of humor magazines of nineteenth century was in parallelism with

novels of the period. In the same vein, novels were the continuation of the same

ideology, that is, a conservative morality concern to protect society from

degeneration.

Notwithstanding Boşboğaz Bir Adem, first Ottoman humor magazine Meghu

started to be published on September 15, 1852. It is defined as gazette of “morality,

philology, literature, economy, commerce and amusement” in its first issue.150 It

shows that, morality was the concern of Meghu as well. In the first period, under

145Ibid, p.49.

146 Richard G. Hovanissian,ed.,Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, volume II Foreign

Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to Twentieth Century, (New York: Macmillan,

2004),pp.156‐157.

147Strauss, Johann, “Notes on the First Satirical Journals in the Ottoman Empire.“ In: Amtsblatt,

vilayet gazetesi und unabhängiges Journal: die Anfänge der Presse im Nahen Osten, ed. Anja Pistor‐

Hatam, Lang, Frankfurt a.M. (etc.) Heidelberger Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Modernen

Vorderen Orients 27 ( 2001), p.122.

148 Hovanisian, Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, 2004:p.156.

149 Tiyatro, April 8, 1874. İssue 3, pp.1‐2.

150 Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü, 1986 :,p.33.

50

editorship of Haroutioun K. Svajian, humor writings of K. Odyan were published.

During Baronian’s editorship, more humor and satirical content is included. In 1874,

Baronian changes the name of the gazette into Tadron,151 Ottoman Turkish version

of which Tiyatro, again published by Baronian has been taken as a case in this study.

Baronian published Tiyatro for Turkish speaking Ottoman community in general152as

it is evident from the content written both in Ottoman Turkish, and in Ottoman

letters. Another case in this study, Latife was also published by another Armenian

publisher Zakarya Beykozluyan. Likewise, Latife was published for Turkish

speaking Ottoman public. Content and style are similar to other humor periodicals in

Ottoman Turkish such as Diyojen and Çaylak. Additionally, they are the

characteristic of Ottoman Turkish humor magazines of the nineteenth century with

their didactic tone and conservative stance. The same applies to the Armenian humor

magazines Meghu and Tadron as well, only with little exception of covered topics

which involve Armenian Community in particular.153

As for the first Ottoman humor magazine in Turkish, Diyojen which was

published by Teodor Kasap on November 12, 1870154 had been generally considered

as the first humor gazette in Turkish; however Terakki preceded Dijoyen. Terakki

first, was published on May 1870 as an amusement supplement to main Terakki

Gazette and then it started to be published independently on November 5, 1870,

under the name Terakki and with a subtitle “devoted to amusement and jest.”155

Thus, the emphasis on amusement instead of satire dates back to Terakki.

Hereby, within the context of history of press, it was an attempt to reveal that

first generation of Ottoman humor magazines which are the ones published until

their abolishment in 1877, were moral weeklies aimed at instruction with a

conservative tendency, in parallelism with British moral weeklies of the eighteenth

century, rather than a typical satirical magazine like London Charivari or Punch.

First of all, a public sphere in Habermas’ terms cannot be formed in this period.

151 Meghu (1856 – 1874), in Zakarya Mildanoğlu‐columnist at Agos, Armenian History of Printing and

Press and Periodicals, unpublished research.

152 Bardakjian, “Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978: p.300.

153 Ibid, p.304.

154 Strauss, “Notes on the First Satirical Papers,” 2001: p.131 ; Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk

Karikatürü,1986:p.21.

155 Ziya Ebuzziya,“Letâif‐i Asar”, Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ansiklopedisi 6, (İstanbul,n.p.,1986),p.81,cited

in Strauss, “Notes on the First Satirical Papers,” 2001:p.128.

51

There was a strict censorship, and government only allowed and encouraged humor

magazines which are instructors of morality and does not include satire, as it is

evident in the minutes of the assembly. Patronage relationships had not been changed

fully. Patronage could only be changed in that now the literature had gained a critical

public, and publishers and writers had replaced the government as the patrons but

they still represented the dominant ideology to a great degree. As Mardin states;

intelligentsia was a part of government body up to the nineteenth century.156

Therefore, state channelized its ideology through censorship and its domination over

intelligentsia. Secondly, humor writers were the continuation of the previous

conservative generation and they appeared as the patrons of Ottoman traditions and

values. All in all, first Ottoman humor periodicals appeared as didactic tools with

morality concerns in compliance with the government ideology. Similar to the novels

of the period, humor writers satirized vices, some of which were originating from

deficient or over modernization. Yet, the discourse was actually a morality discourse,

not generally a discourse of westernization.

Additionally, Ottoman humor magazines of the first period, as different from

moral weeklies, included cartoons and also included political satire to a limited

degree such as Çaylak (1876).157 However, first humor magazine Diyojen did not

include cartoon apart from three issues as stated before. Besides, cartoons were

closer to picture or illustration, that is at this time have not acquired a fully satirical

character yet. Content was rather based on witty conversational stories and essays, as

well as the telegrams and letters sent by readers similar to the case in Spectator. They

were papers of wit and morals, given that they employed with rather than satire, and

they were didactic in tone. They also included discussions on literature and art and

they aimed at sustaining morality through involving reader in intellectual process

through humor writings such as essays, fictional stories similar to fictional club of

Spectator. All contributes to the idea that nineteenth century humor magazines of the

first period were rather moral weeklies. Humor magazines published after 1908

better suited to be defined as satirical magafzines similar to Punch Magazine or

London Charivari.

156 Mardin, Superwesternization,1974:p.426.

157 Hamdi Özdiş, Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 2010:p.100.

52

The last but not the least, introduction of press also enabled transfer of Ottoman

verbal and theatrical humor traditions to the humor press, in that Ottoman humor

magazines were the continuation of folk humor literature which was also didactic. It

was accompanied by extension of elaborate forms of humor such as hiciv and wit,

which were previously rather associated with divan literature or court, into folk

literature through press, similar to the situation which Schopenhauer had defined for

Germany. That was closely connected with evolution of humor philosophy from

rather an amusement oriented public humor to an intellectual humor requiring reader

involvement in an intellectual process, a critical and a conscious public in line with

the ideological concerns of humor writers. Such an effort is also found in literature of

the period as emphasized by Parla and Mardin, as which will be explained. That was

a part of the effort to meet elite culture with popular culture. Such melding of humor

traditions would constitute literary formation of humor magazines as embodied in

humor magazines which will be detailed in the next chapter.

53

II. Humor Magazines as Literary Forms

II. I. Interrelations between Literature and Press

In the formation of humor magazines as literary forms, two elements were decisive.

First, it emerged as a continuation of Ottoman traditional verbal humor. Secondly, it

was interrelated with other literary forms. Except for humor philosophy and press,

these two factors also defined nature, form and aimed functions of humor magazines,

which all also reveals moral and didactic nature of Ottoman humor magazines under

consideration of this study. That would be explained below, specifically based on the

cases of Latife and Tiyatro.

To begin with, before printing and press launches, Ottoman popular humor

culture was dominated by verbal traditions. This verbal or oral tradition in the first

place, included comic anecdotes and storytelling such as Nasreddin Hoca and

Bektaşi Stories. Comic anecdotes of Nasreddin Hoca were didactic, and they were

regarded as instructive especially for children.158 Ottoman traditions of Scene and

Shadow Theatre were the other significant forms which could be included in verbal

tradition. Shows of Meddah and Orta Oyunu represented Ottoman traditions of

scene. As for the Shadow Theatre, it was represented by Karagöz and Hacivat, two

main characters of plays.159 The aim of the shows was not just to entertain audience

but at the same time to educate them so they were didactic in character. In the

prelude to the Shadow Theatre, Hacivat notes that the following is not just a play but

it is also a reflection of their world and which teaches.160 Didactic function of shows

were also evident in the duality of characters, Kavuklu and Pişekar two main

characters of Orta Oyunu, and Hacivat and Karagöz as the two main characters of

shadow theatre. Such a duality was to represent two different segments of society. In

the case of Karagöz and Hacivat, Karagöz represented the folk or common people

and their culture whereas Hacivat represented the intelligentsia who were endowed

with high culture. Here, the function of shadow theatre as a teaching method

158 Fuat Köprülü, Nasreddin Hoca ( İstanbul: Akçağ,2004), p. 24.

159 For further detail on Shadow Theatre: Metin And, Karagöz: Turkish Shadow Theatre, (İstanbul

Dost Yayınları, 1973 ); Selim Nüzhet Gerçek, Türk Temaşası (İstanbul: Kanaat Kitabevi: 1942).

160 Metin And, Karagöz: Turkish Shadow Theatre (İstanbul: Dost Yayınları 1979 ), p.44.

54

becomes clearer. Accordingly, Hacivat as an Ottoman intellect always tries to teach

and educate Karagöz who was depicted as uneducated and illiterate. Further, it has

been contended by Ferit Öngören that whereas Orta Oyunu served as a public

entertainment, Hacivat and Karagöz was the entertainment rather for educated or the

intellect.161 However, it is evident from primary sources that both Shadow Theatre

and Traditions of Scene had been entertainment for all segments. Court theatre also

imitated folk theatre.162 Though, there was a humor literature prevailed as a part of

court literature, as there was a separation in Ottoman literature as folk literature and

divan or court literature, latter is deemed to be the highest and the more elaborate

one.

With the introduction of printed press and modern theatre, Ottoman theatrical and

verbal traditions of humor were replaced with humor publications and modern

theatre in their popularity. Though, the same utilitarian understanding of literature

prevailed in humor press, that is, to provide public benefits in moral terms. Such a

utilitarian understanding would define the nature of press, modern literature, as well

as the theatre. As a result, Ottoman humor press inherited the didactic character of

Ottoman traditional verbal humor. Inheritance was not limited to aimed functions but

also defined the literary form. Until humor magazines evolve into be peculiar literary

publications in later periods, it emerged and prevailed, somehow as a written form of

verbal humor traditions, in such inheritance; didactic concerns must have been

effective as the literary style of verbal traditions suited to be instructive. Thus, the

content and style of Ottoman humor magazines was a continuation of Ottoman

humor traditions of scene and verbal humor. Such continuity is also reflected in that

some of the humor magazines were named after the verbal traditions. Such as

Meddah in 1876, Karagöz in 1909 and Nasreddin Hoca published in years 1908,

1914 and 1928.163This might become clearer with the following stylistic analysis.

First of all, there were three styles of humor writing published in humor

magazines which can be considered to be the heritage of verbal humor tradition:

muhavere, comic anecdotes or fıkra and short narratives. To begin with, a common

feature of Orta Oyunu and Shadow Play is that they are divided into sections named

161 Öngören, Türk Mizahı ve Hicvi, 1998: pp.52‐55.

162 And, Karagöz: Turkish Shadow Theatre,1979:pp.14‐15.

163 See : Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection, B.D.K.

55

Mukaddime, Muhavere and Fasıl which mean respectively, prologue, dialogue, and

conclusion. Nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines were structured similarly.

Occasionally, content starts with a prologue titled Mukaddime, and which is followed

by a section named Muhavere involving dialogues. Even if for the most time

Mukaddime section is missing and the titles are not included, muhavere or dialogue

is the most common type of writing. In Turkish, muhavere means conversation

between two people. Muhavere in humor publications is sometimes in the form of

narrations through conversational storytelling. Other forms of muhavere include

small talk or short conversations without a certain story. It was a rare situation that a

third or even a fourth person becomes a part of the dialogue. Nevertheless, whatever

the small differences are, one significant feature common to all sorts of muhavere

was that it was formed through question and answer method, somehow similar to

Socratic Dialogs. Muhavere as a humor writing style, so was a continuation of

Ottoman shadow theatre. Shadow play of Hacivat and Karagöz was performed

through a verbal muhavere or a conversation between Hacivat and Karagöz. As it

was in the case of shadow theatre, written muhavere published in humor magazines

was also didactic. Just like it was in the case of Hacivat and Karagöz, one of the

persons in dialogue was usually in the position of an ignorant or a less educated

person which is usually depicted as the friend of the main character of muhavere.

Just like Hacivat tried to educate Karagöz so that the audience or the common

people, humorists tried to educate the audience through conveying messages and

stimulating some attitudes and ideas among readers. This form of muhavere and its

didactic concern was also the feature of novels contemporary to nineteenth century

humor press. Such as novels by Ahmed Midhat, who considered didactic and

instructive element as indispensable to the art of novel.164Tanzimat novels also

constituted a phase of transition to modern novel, like the first generation of humor

magazines which were in transition towards humor magazines in modern form.

Further, writing style of Ahmed Midhat also devised question and answer method

almost similar to Socratic Method, but it might again be taken as a continuation of

Ottoman verbal humor.165

164 Parla, Don Kişot’tan Bugüne Roman, 2000: p.81.

165 Ibid, p. 77.

56

For a literary form emerging under the shadow of conservative traditionalist

ideology, in a communitarian society, with little changed patronage relationships,

aimed at didactic functions, it becomes clear why such a writing style dominated

literature. Given the didactic effect of conversational form, dating back to Socratic

dialogs which encourage critical thinking and the enlightenment of the reader, it was

instructive in character. In parallelism with Ottoman case, eighteenth century British

moral weeklies also used dialogs and aimed at enlightenment of the reader through

literature as already were underlined in previous chapters. Articles published in these

weekly journals were written in conversational form aimed at being proximate to real

conversation166 so that it might have an instructive effect on the audience.

Second style of writing found in the nineteenth century Ottoman humor

magazines of the first period, was fıkra or jokes and funny short stories. It was the

legacy of Ottoman verbal tradition of story- telling such as Nasreddin Hoca and

Bektaşi Stories. However, in the magazines’ content, these stories were not

necessarily didactical or they did not always attempt to convey a message, sometimes

they served just as a means of amusement. Sometimes, it was in the form of fıkra, or

a pretty short funny story. Another style of writing was short narratives. Short

narratives usually narrated experience or the state of people to make the ridicule of

them so that to criticize and convey a message.

Other than these three forms of humor writings, as a continuation of verbal

humor, there were also some essays including humorous comments about various

affairs. Spectator, also devised this form of writing to enlighten the readers. It could

be contended that essay was a typical form of writing employed by moral weeklies,

which attempts at conveying comments to readers through witty essays. There are

also some styles of humor writings specific to each magazine. For example, in Latife,

fictional telegrams are published to criticize state of affairs.167 Also there is an actual

activity of accepting letters from the readers to be published as it is also evident in

the related notes and instructions given on the cover pages. Besides, some published

letters seem to be fictional.168 Accordingly, letters are published together with the

replies of the editors to complaints or the questions raised by the readers in related

166 Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 1991: p. 42.

167 “Latife’ye Mahsus Telgraf”, Latife, issue 11, September 16, 1290, p.4.

168 “İzmir’den Mektup”,Latife, issue 9, September 9, 1290,p. 3.

57

letters. This is similar to Spectator, which also included letters by readers and posted

their comments to which. Another similarity with Spectator is employment of a

fictional reporter. Similar to Mr. Spectator, Latife has the Karakoncolos. They both

report their observations from everyday life of people. As a concluding remark, it

could be asserted that nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines of first period

were typical of moral weeklies also in their style in parallelism with Spectator

magazine (for a comparison of style and form, see Appendices I -IV).

Apart from humor writings, there were also cartoons included in a few number,

usually one cartoon per issue. Similar to content, formation of Ottoman caricature

was also under the influence and continuation of Ottoman Shadow Theatre.

Traditional pictures depicting Hacivat and Karagöz constituted the base for the

emergence of Ottoman Caricature. Use of Karagöz depictions in humor magazines,

enabled the transformation of picture into caricature as Turgut Çeviker also states.169

First we see the appearance of pictures and through the time we see the appearance

of caricatures which much owes to Nişan Berberyan. Berberyan, was one of the first

and the leading illustrators of nineteenth century Ottomans together with his

contemporaries, Tınghır, Ali Fuat Bey, K. Opçanadassis, Santr and other unnamed

ones with signature such as N.P. /F.Z.. Berberyan was the illustrator for many of first

Ottoman humor magazines ranging from Mamul (1869), Hayal (1873), Tiyatro

(1874), Geveze (1875), and Meddah (1876). In Hayal, as the name implies, which

meant shade or imagination and reminds of Ottoman Shadow Theatre Curtain,

Berberyan also used illustration of puppets Karagöz and Hacivat.170 It seems that as

publication evolved, Karagöz and Hacivat characters were replaced by caricatures as

typical of modern humor magazines. It was similar to the development that Punch

followed. First issues of Punch included pictures as illustrations, which later evolved

into the typical caricatures or cartoons.171 That through the time, Karagöz and

Hacivat characters disappears and illustrations close to picture are replaced by more

typical caricatures, is also evident in the case of Latife and Tiyatro, both published

between 1874-57. In both Magazines, some caricatures are without signature, other

signed by Berberyan, Delemak and Tıngır. It is seen that caricatures also share the

169 Nişan G. Berberyan, Terakki edelim beyler. Edited by Turgut Çeviker (İstanbul: Adam Yayınları,

1986), pp. 9‐10.

170 Ibid.,pp.9‐10.

171 Price, A History of Punch, 1957: pp. 356‐369. Illustrations given from the first issues.

58

same topics and ideology with the humor writings. That the caricatures, Tınghır

draws for both Latife and Tiyatro, are with the same topic and ideology also another

evidence of a shared characteristic of humor magazines of the first generation.

As for the interrelations with literature, similarities can be established between

the novels of nineteenth century and humor magazines, regarding the content and

ideology. As it is already stated, humor magazines were didactic similar to Tanzimat

novels shaped by the same epistemology and conservative ideology. For instance,

similar to Ottoman humorists acting as spectators, and in parallelism with Spectator

of Addison, Ahmed Midhat would be watching out for the vices in the society and

attempting their censure through literature. He was one of the representatives of

conservative ideology which has defined the discourse nineteenth century humor

magazines, putting limits on the extent of modernization as would do Ahmed

Midhat.172His writing position as observer is also evident in the name of his famous

novel Müşahedat (1890), meaning observation, and as such titled similar to Spectator

magazine. As Parla defines that Ahmed Midhat incorporates himself into the story as

the observer but his observer position is different from Zola’s realism. Zola has a

naturalist stand, whereas Mithat’s position is rather of an instructor, critic and

protector.173 That is what Ahmed Midhat would attempt to do in his novels;

humorists already did in humor magazines. This is valid for Non-Muslim

communities’ literature and press as it is also derived from the topics of Tadron.

Further, Tiyatro’s editor Baronian’s novels criticized similar points regarding

westernized fops.174

As it will explained in the discourse analysis part, conservatives did not

completely reject the westernization but they defined limits for it. Westernization or

modernization was acceptable to the extent that the indigenous mores and values are

saved. Nevertheless, as the westernized fops exceeded the limits set by

conservatives, they became the butt of both the humorists and novelists. It was at the

same time a matter and criticism of superficial and deficient adoptions from the west,

172 Mardin, Superwesternization,1974: p.425. For detailed comments on Midhat’s view on

Westernization, see: Orhan Okay, Batı Medeniyeti Karşısında Ahmet Midhat Efendi (M.E.B.:

İstanbul,1991).

173 Parla, Don Kişot’tan Bugüne Roman,2000: p.98. About Ahmed Midhat’s position as an observor :

Müşahedat in Jale Parla, Babalar ve Oğullar: Tanzimat Romanının Epistemolojik Temelleri,

2010:pp.72‐77.

174 See: Bardakjian,”Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978.

59

as well as of alienation from indigenous culture as a threat on communitarian society.

However, westernization was not the only topic for Ottoman humorists, or moralists,

but with a conservative stand and morality concern, either in literature or humor

press, they were concerned with any vices, deficiencies and incongruities they

observed in society.

Another interrelation of humor magazines was with court literature. It has been

stated that Ottoman humor magazines inherited and shaped by the folk literature

including verbal humor. With the introduction of press, written humor also could

reach a wider public, with transmission of court literature forms of humor including

prose and verse satire through press. This is also similar to the case Spectator, which

included verses from Roman satirical tradition and devised wit to convey their

messages, as stated before. It also contributes to the emergence of a modern humor

for general public, which is as an intellectual form of humor, requiring more reader

involvement and which is socially and politically more critical, as well as literarily

more elaborate when compared to the folk literature forms of humor. They made

emphasis on wit, as which is intellectual form of humor, proves to be more didactic,

especially when based on the play of ideas instead of words, to manage the

enlightenment of readers by enabling them to turn the mirror to themselves.

Therefore, such a move towards intellectual form of humor is again in parallelism

with the didactic concern of nineteenth century humor writers. As that is voiced by

Addison, “to enliven morality with wit.”

Ottoman humor magazines also limitedly included verse and prose satirical

pieces. However, written in prose or verse, and blended with wit, satire included in

nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines was of a gentle kind. As in line with

Roman satirical tradition, which perceives satire as a moral instruction tool, and so

attributes importance to the propriety of satire, as quoted before. This is also in line

with Spectator’s inclusion of verses from Horace and Juvenal. Also, with the

incorporation of satire, gülmece and yergi could be merged. The former did not

involve ridicule or mockery, in that way it has the connotation of English word

comics, but the latter corresponded to the satire.175 Thus, Ottoman humor

magazines, as a new literary publication could emerge out of the mixing of gülmece

175 Agah Sırrı Levend, Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi: Giriş, vol. I (Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi: Ankara,1998)

pp. 148‐157.

60

and yergi. Muhavere and conversational stories, which are written by question and

answer method, were the dominant writing style. The reason behind which, as

already mentioned, was a didactic concern. Another reason for the use of Muhavere

as a writing style was that it enabled a specific humor production and delivery which

also could make a didactic influence through use of wit, as which is attempted to be

clarified in the next part.

II. II. Muhavere: A Pragmatic Analysis

A linguistic model developed by Grice, presupposes that there are four

conversational maxims governing a conversation in forming the basis for

implications or implicatures as he calls. Implicatures are the meanings that the

audience or the addressed can get from the way the thing is said. The first one is

maxim of quantity which requires the speaker to be informative in adequate level to

satisfy the audience or the addressed, but only informative to the required extent.

Another is maxim of quality that is, contribution made by the speaker needs to be

true. As the third maxim, maxim of Relation requires the relevancy of what is said,

and lastly, the manner maxim is a matter of bluntness or clearness of contribution by

the speaker. As the basis of implications, when these maxims or rules are violated,

then the new implicatures emerge.176Applying this model in the study of humor, it

could be contended that flouting these maxims serves in humor production as also

shown by various scholars.177 If these four positions are taken as the standard ways

of contributions, then some deviations may involve in emergence of humorous

implications. Accordingly, word play, metaphors and metonymy, for instance, can be

considered as the results of deviations from maxims of quantity and manner. Besides,

humor production is also possible through flouting maxim of quality and relevance.

This pragmatic model of analysis is also useful and relevant in the study of

humor production and delivery in the content of Ottoman humor magazines as the

most significant characteristic of humor writings is that they are in the form of

muhavere or conversations. Within these conversations, humorous implications

176 Paul Grice, Studies in the Way of Words ( Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1991),

pp.22‐40.

177 Paul Simpson, On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a stylistic model of satirical discourse

(Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003), p.17.

61

usually emerge through flouting Grice's maxims of conversation. In the case of

Ottoman humor magazines, deviations from the maxims of quality, manner and

relation are the most frequent ones. One of the speakers usually confuse or intend to

confuse the other and so that the reader through literary devices of humor including

tropes, metaphor, metonymy, puns and irony. This can be exemplified with an

extract from a muhavere titled Paul et Virgine Belası published in Tiyatro. In this

conversation, a man is telling his friend about his son's falling love with a girl. He

further states that his son was inspired by the love between Paul and Virgine, who

were the main characters in the novel by Jacques-Henri Bernardin. The father does

not consent this love, neither find the girl suitable for his son as the girl is from a

lower class. Further, he complains to his friend that the aforementioned lady was

only after his son's money. When his friend asks him to explain who were Paul and

Virginie, he begins to tell the story:

Father: - Once upon a time, there used to be Paul and Virgine...

His friend (interrupting him):- there is still pul found but I don't know what

its price is.

Father (ignores him and goes on): -Virginie used to love Paul.

His Friend (continues to misunderstand interrupts again): -Who does not love

the money!

Father (replies): -No, Paul is the guy. 178

Here, there is a word play as well playing with ideas, between name Paul and the

word Pul, because the pronunciation of the French name Paul and the Turkish word

pul is almost the same even if they are written differently. Therefore, his friend

thinks that he was talking about Turkish pul by saying Paul. Further, the pul is

something expensive and valuable at the time. Hence, there is a metaphor between

the pul and money and between the name Paul and the word Pul. In the former, the

word pul substitutes for money due to their similarity in value. In the latter position,

Paul substitutes for pul as the girl was considered to love the money in fact, not the

son.

In this conversion, flouting the maxims of quantity and manner, respectively,

lack of information and obscureness at first instance leads to a misunderstanding by

178 “Paul ve Virginie Belası”,Tiyatro, April 8, 1874, issue 3, p.1.

62

his friend. This is where the funny or the humorous situation occurs. This humorous

approach to son's love, in particular, is the ridicule of wrong inspirations among

young generation by newly translated novels from the west at the time, and in

general ridicule of overly westernization. This issue requiring further scrutiny will be

treated in the following chapter.

Such pragmatic analysis reveals the centrality of playing with words and playing

with ideas in humor production through muhaveres. The fact that such a literary

technique is employed in forming wit, and that the nineteenth century Ottoman

humor magazines were rather publications of wit, also explains why the muhavere

was a common form. Another reasonable explanation for why the humor writings in

the magazines, were usually written in conversational form is to make them leave the

same effect of a real conversation on the reader. For a writing intending to instruct

its audience, conversation would be an influential way. The last but not the least,

there was a tradition to read gazettes or magazines aloud in coffeehouses, and

conversational form best suited to present the content to the gathered listeners like a

theatrical show, as in the case of Ottoman comedies which were also performed

through conversations.

63

III. Discourse Analysis: Case of Latife and Tiyatro

III.I.Historical Background

Historical context of nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines should be

treated in two levels, especially as Tiyatro and Latife which are both edited by

Armenians, are considered. First level involves an overview concerning Ottoman

community in general and specifically Istanbul. Second is a focus on Ottoman

Armenians in particular in order to integrate their case into the general context which

would also apply to the case of other Non-Muslim communities. To begin with, first

phase of Ottoman humor press expanding to 1877 coincides with and also one of the

results of Tanzimat Era, as previously underlined when analyzing the emergence of

press. Tanzimat means re-arrangement or re-organization in Ottoman Turkish and the

period named after which, is remarked by the proclamation of Tanzimat Rescript in

1839. This imperial edict secured “the life and property of individuals” was a turning

point opening the way for westernization and redefining the state-subject

relationships, to the advantage of the latter. Besides, this firman was to be followed

by reforms to modernize state, economy and society. There were also some

westernizing reforms carried out in previous centuries, but one significant difference

of the nineteenth century is growing influence of the west through ever densely

commercial and diplomatic relations with Europe.

First element is the westernization of economy as a part of integration process of

Ottoman Empire into world capitalist system, which takes its roots in preceding

century.179 When it comes to the nineteenth century, changing economic conditions

were signified by Anglo-Ottoman Free Trade Treaty of 1838, and which was

followed by other free trade treaties with Europeans. That Free Trade Treaties

abolished some restrictions on trade and opened Ottoman markets to trade with

Europeans, was a turning point in westernization of Ottoman economy.180 This was

accompanied by a growing of European population in Istanbul as both a diplomatic

and commercial center serving as a port city, one of the pillars of

179Eldem, Edhem,“Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital,” in the Ottoman City between

East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul, Eds. Edhem Eldem, Bruce Alan Masters, and Daniel

Goffman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p.140.

180Şevket Pamuk, “On the Free Trade Treaties of 1838‐41” The Ottoman Empire and European

Capitalism, 1820‐1913 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp.18‐21.

64

peripheralization.181 Next to which, added continuous influx of European

commodities into Ottoman lands and opening of European companies, and various

western style establishments such as schools, department stores, cafes, theatres in

specific quarters of Istanbul where existence of European and non-Muslim

population already had been felt. Second element which is also closely linked with

the former is the various westernizing reforms initiated by the government taking

European states as a model, which included urban reforms such as the ones on

infrastructure, transportation and city outlook and reforms on clothing, education,

leisure and similar ones for the consideration of this study. Third, as a natural result

of the first two elements, was the continuous adoption of European cultural elements

by individuals for modernization.

The reason behind modernizing reforms on the part of government was rather

pragmatic; it was to ensure the survival of the state on the face of modernized

European powers.182 Further, it was to catch up with the progress level of Europe and

to be one of the representatives of civilization. Therefore, the two important

ideologies of Tanzimat period were Terakki and Medeniyet that is, “Progress and

Civilization” and which is also shared by non-Muslim communities. One can

frequently come up with these terms in the discourse of this period including that of

the humor magazines. Even papers in considerable number were titled Terakki and

Medeniyet.183 Though, it was not a modernization solely brought about through a

government ideology, or by the influence of west, but it also came out of internal

dynamics of the state, as a continuation of early modern period of Ottomans

corresponding to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.184 In the same vein, it

would be illogical to take this modernization as simply imposed by the state through

reforms as a government initiative, as society was changing along with the changing

conditions of time through various social and economic energizers. They were

specifically foreigners and Europeans, merchants, non-Muslim communities of the

181Ibid,pp. 135‐206.

182 Such understanding of Tanzimat is also found in Ottoman Tanzimat statesman Cevdet Paşa, as

shown by Christoph Neumannn, Araç Tarih Amaç Tanzimat: Tarih‐i Cevdet’in Siyasi Anlamı ( Tarih

Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul: 1999 ), p. 217.

183 See: Hasan Duman, 2000 .

184 Rıfa’at Ali Abou El‐Haj, Formation of the Modern State, the Ottoman Empire Sixteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries (New York: Syracuse, 2005).

65

Empire, upper classes, and members of wealthy families who had westernized

schooling both at home and in Europe, as will be explained below.

In the first place, Ottoman non-Muslim communities had been organized along

their religious identities as millets. According to millet system, each community was

administered by their related religious authorities in both religious and public sphere.

For the Armenians in Istanbul, they were bound to and under administration of the

Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul regarding spiritual affairs, and personal affairs

such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and schools and printing establishments.185

Therefore, church also acted as the government body over the Armenian community.

However, during the course of the nineteenth century, status quo of non-Muslims

changed through two important factors. One is the introduction of millet

nizamnameleri or millet constitutions, which allowed a considerable secularization

within the community administration. Accordingly, two different Armenian

constitutions came into effect respectively in 1860, and in 1863, which allowed

participation by different segments of society and secular representation in

administrative body, while previously millet administration had been monopolized

by upper class, amiras, and clergy.186

Second factor of change was the missionary activities among non-Muslim

communities of Ottoman Empire. Eventually, Catholic and Protestant millets were

established in Istanbul and recognized by the government, respectively in 1831.187

and in 1850.188 Secularization in the internal administration of Armenians;

missionary activities; and conversions to Catholicism and Protestantism played a

significant role in westernization of this community. First of all, Mekhitarists

inaugurated enlightenment among Ottoman Armenian community through

translations acquainting them with European concepts and invoking a historical

consciousness through publications.189 Secondly, this was accompanied by opening

of missionary schools and secular schools which attracted a considerable amount of

185 Vartan Artinian, The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire, 1839‐1863: A Study

of its Historical Development (Istanbul: V. Artinian, 1988), p.16.

186Murat Bebiroğlu, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Gayrimüslim Nizamnameleri.Edited by Cahit Külekçi

(İstanbul: Akademi Matbaası, 2008), pp. 52‐76, pp. 133‐162.* Also includes the text of Constitution.

187 Artinian, The Armenian Constitutional System, 1988: p. 38.

188 Ibid, p. 42.

189 Gerard, J. Libaridian, Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State ( Transaction Publishers, New

Brunswick, New Jersey, 2004), pp.53‐4.

66

pupils from Armenian community. Some of them, such as members of wealthy and

upper class families, also had the opportunity of education in Western Europe. Thus

through these channels, Armenian community could get acquainted with the west

earlier than the Muslim community.

Second energizers of westernization were European presence, non-Muslims,

European and Non-Muslims merchants, latter forming a new bourgeoisie. For the

case of Armenians, upper class members, Amiras, took the lead in adopting western

ways and helping community to adopt too.190 Besides, non-Muslim property owners

and merchants acting in Galata and Pera had a major role in municipal and urban

modernizing reforms.191 It was rather the members of non-Muslim communities who

involved in trade and close relationships with the west. Spot for international trade

and European presence was Galata and Pera districts of Istanbul. Pera housed

representatives of western powers and members of non-Muslim merchant

community. Galata was rather inhabited by non-Muslims including Armenians,

Greeks and Jews. As a matter of fact, Galata and Pera have long been of a non-

Muslim character.192 In the seventeenth century, districts of Galata and Pera were

already in the position of commercial, diplomatic and cultural interface between

West and Ottoman Empire. As Edhem Eldem quotes from the observations of French

ambassador’s dragamon Fornetty that Galata from 17th century on“…with its

churches, its processions, and its population of foreign merchants and sailors…” was

“...too cosmopolitan to be oriental.”193 When it comes to the nineteenth century,

together with increased commercial relations through 1838 Anglo-Ottoman Free

Trade Treaty, and increased diplomatic relations with the west, western influence

also increased in this part of Istanbul. This was accompanied by the influx of

european visitors, commodities, opening of western establishments and the urban

190Hagop Barsoumian,”The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class within the Ottoman Government

and the Armenian Millet ( 1750‐ 1850 ),” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The

Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York:

Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982), pp 177‐ 178.

191 Steven Rosenthal, “Minorities and Municipal Reform in Istanbul: 1850‐1870”,in Christians ad

Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I. Edited by Benjamin Braude

and Bernard Lewis ( New York : Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982),p.373, pp.369‐382;,

Christoph Neumann, “ Modernitenin Çatışması, Altıncı Daire‐i Belediye, 1875‐1912” , İstanbul:

İmparatorluk Başkentinden Megakente. Edited by Yavuz Köse and translated by Ayşe Dağlı ( İstanbul:

Kitap Yayınevi, 2011 ),pp.426‐55.

192 Eldem,“Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital,”1999: pp. 148‐149.

193 Ibid.,p.144.

67

westernization out of economic and class interests and increased European presence

in the region. For the emergence of European presence, Crimean War of 1853 was

also influential. During the war city hosted French and English soldiers and officials

and provided a mass contact and familiarity with Europeans and European culture.194

Yet, Non- Muslim communities, thanks to their religious and commercial ties with

Europeans, were the first in getting under European influence through trade and

European education. As they were the first in adapting to the western ways, Non-

Muslims had took an active role in the introduction of western cultural institutions

such as press, theatre etc. Further, they took important positions in offices such as

translation, diplomacy and central government office that also made them agents of

westernization.195

As for the Muslim community, Tanzimat reforms in general had opened the way

for westernization. One determinant was the modernization of education, as it was

valid for the case of non-Muslims. For instance establishment of Mekteb-i Mülkiye-i

Şahane or School of Administration in 1859, provided formation of Ottoman

bureaucratic elite as endowed with western knowledge and language.196 Further

introduction of printing and publishing, and that some members of Muslim

communities travelled to west, learned western languages and had education in

Europe, let them get acquainted with the Western ideas and culture.197 Especially

those, who were educated in the west, brought home western ideas and cultural

elements together with them. Another element in Ottoman Muslim westernization

was the interactions with westernized non-Muslim communities and Europeans.

Member of wealthy segments of society took the lead in adopting western elements,

frequenting western cultural spots in Galata and Pera and moving their residences to

that westernized part of the city. Edhem Eldem well defines the situation that “For a

Muslim inhabitant of some socio- economic standing, moving to Europeanized

sectors of the city implied a certain cultural choice and statement that of adopting a

194 Kemal Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays (

Leiden: Brill, 2002 ),p.267.

195Roderic H. Davison, “The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire”,

in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by

Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982), p. 327.

196 Selçuk Akşin Somel, Osmanlı’da Eğitimin Modernleşmesi( 1839‐1908): İslamlaşma, Bürokrasi ve

Disiplin ( İstanbul: İletişim, 2010 ),pp.77‐78.

197 For a general overview of cultural and intellectual changes in Tanzimat Era, see: M. Şükrü

Hanioğlu, A Brief History of Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp.

94‐104.

68

westernized attitude, as opposed to the option of asserting a more traditional and

conservative stand by staying within the perimeter of the walled city.”198 Yet, it was

not only non-Muslims and Europeans who influenced Muslim community in

westernization.

Even the first Ottoman Muslim-Turkish gazette was allowed by the sultan to be

published, only after the publication of an official gazette in Cairo, as mentioned

before. In that sense, Davison’s supposition that Ottoman Muslims abstained from

western elements because non-Muslims had adopted which, and as such western

elements were coming from “infidel origins,”199 has grounds. Regarding the

energizers of change influencing Muslims of Istanbul in westernizing, it was not only

non-Muslims but also other segments were influential. For instance, in the second

half of the nineteenth century, wealthy Egyptian Muslim families had arrived in

Istanbul. As Şerif Mardin quotes from Cevdet Paşa, that Egyptians ladies were being

imitated by Istanbul ladies in wearing western dresses.200

Modernity and Its Satire

Thus, Istanbul as the capital, cultural and commercial city, and now being moremulti-

ethnical city along with its relatively more dense multi-ethnical population

together with a growing number of Europeans, it had been the base of modernization,

along with its inhabitants. Westernization or modernization evoked a conservative

reaction on the part of Ottoman intellectuals who were appearing as “the protectors

or the mentors of Ottoman traditions and values”201 Such a conservative reaction

manifested as the discourse of morality and basing their arguments on the threatening

of Ottoman traditions and classical order, was partly a continuation of previous

conservatism of early modern period in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as

exemplified in attitudes to change with a morality concern characterized by Ottoman

nasihatname or advice to kings literature.202 To put it differently, it is linked to the

idea of protection of Nizam-ı Alem, or the classical order of golden age. An example

198 Eldem,“Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital,”1999:p. 204.

199 Davison, “The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Empire,” 1982:

p.332.

200 Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir I‐II. Edited by Cavid Baysun (Ankara: 1953), in Mardin,

Superwesternization, 1974: p.417.

201 Parla, 1990:pp.9‐21.

202 Rıfa’at Ali Abou El‐Haj, “Ottoman Nasihatname as a Discourse Over Morality”, Revue d`Histoire

Maghrebine, 14 (1987), pp. 15–30.

69

is Koçi Bey, who lived in seventeenth century and when criticizing the changes in

society and state of his time as a degeneration of morals with the words fitne-ü fesat,

he based his arguments on the conditions of previous century, and urging for the

restoration of previous order.203

When it comes to nineteenth century, conservative reaction continued as

traditionalist conservatism, but this time it was particularly articulated against

modernity, with two new topics added on the agenda, modernization or al a franga

and new commercial relationships brought by westernization of economy. It was

conservatism peculiar to nineteenth century, emerging in societies when facing the

modernity or when the modern society is being formed, as Philippe Benetton well

describes it. One of elements characterizing traditional conservatism is the conflict

between the Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft. That is, they supported

communitarianism constituted by the family as a unit, against modern society

constituted by individuals, because it was only through the communities that

preservation of morals could be ensured, assigning its members moral obligations.204

Political and social ideas of Ottoman Tanzimat men were not homogenous in terms

of their attitudes towards modernity or westernization.205 Still, two elements as

communitarianism and concern for sustaining morality in society are shared by

Ottoman intellectuals such as Ahmed Midhat and Baronian as the representatives of

traditionalism which is found in the discourse of nineteenth century Ottoman humor

magazines of the first period in both Armenian and Turkish Muslim press. Now with

the westernization of society and economy, difference between lower and upper

classes and so between “the Great and Little Culture” had been widened. It is out of

this communitarian idea that Ottoman intellectuals, such as Ahmed Midhat who were

also coming from relatively lower class, attempted at to close that gap through

intermingling of the two cultures through literature,206 which is valid as well as for

humor press, and for Baronian and Beykozluyan’s position as it is derived from the

content and discourse of magazines.

203 Zuhuri Danışman, Koçi Bey Risalesi, ed. Yılmaz Kurt (Ankara: Akçağ, 1999), pp. 82‐84 , pp. 63‐84,

pp.13‐105.

204 Philippe Beneton, Muhafazakârlık. Translated by Cüneyt Akalın (İstanbul: İletişim, 1991), pp. 99‐

115.

205For detail on the topic, see: İlber Ortaylı, Tanzimat Adamı ve Tanzimat Toplumu, in Tanzimat

Değişim Sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, eds.,Halil İnalcık and Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu ( Ankara:

Phoenix, 2006 ).

206 Mardin, Superwesternization,1974:pp.426‐429.

70

Conservatism therefore, shaped humor and satire and made the humor press a

device of conservatives and of government ideology. This was also valid for the

satire characterizing genre of novels in this period. As Adorno signifies that

“Historically, therefore, satire has thousands of years, up to Voltaire’s age, preferred

to side with the stronger party, which could be relied on, with authority. Usually

acted on behalf of older strata, threatened by more recent stages of enlightenment,

which sought to support their traditionalism with enlightened means: its

inexhaustible theme was the decay of morals.” Exactly, satire was the device of

Ottoman conservatives of this period, who were representatives of older generation,

reacted against modernity for the preservation of traditional order, and by

legitimizing their objections through the discourse of moral decadence and

corruption. This would shape the first humor magazines into moral weeklies.

Such relationship between satire and modernism has been elaborated by Jonathan

Greenberg in his book Modernism, Satire and the Novel, which reveals the centrality

of satire to modernity, and how the satire as a literary form changed with modernity.

With reference to Lewis’s work, he states that satire becomes non-moral and

corruptions were ridiculed not for a didactic aim, but for ridicule for its own sake.207

Millar also quotes the words of Wyndham Lewis that, “I am a satirist. . . But I am not

a moralist…”208Miller adds that “traditionally the satirist needed moral sanction of

society.”, “…yet…shared moral values have evaporated and feels no moral solidarity

with others. He is forced, under these circumstances, to consider the possibility of

“non-ethical satire,” “satire” for its own sake.”209

Yet, at nineteenth century Ottomans, satire was an ethical one. Ottoman

conservatives in the formation period of modernity, had appeared as the protectors,

in terms of morality, and trying to instruct audience and to criticize the over

westernization as exemplified to the full by upper class of civilian bureaucracy and

newly forming bourgeoisie. The fact that Ottoman society was a multi ethnic and

multi religious composition, and that the magazines taken for a case in this study,

207 Jonathan D. Greenberg, Modernity, Satire and the Novel ( New York: Cambridge University Press),

2011, p.4.

208 Wyndam Lewis, Men Without Art, ed. Seamus Cooney (Santa Rosa: Black Sparrow Press, 1987), p.

87, in Tyrus Miller, Late modernism : politics, fiction, and the arts between the world wars (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1999 ), p. 46 .

209 Tyrus Miller, Late modernism: politics, fiction, and the arts between the world wars (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1999), p. 46.

71

Latife and Tiyatro, were both published by the Armenians, does not change the

validity of arguments made in this chapter. Ottoman Muslims’ conservatism as such

also applies to Armenians as Armenian conservatism was also based on a

communitarian understanding and emerged as a reaction to modernization with a

discourse of morality. When Armenians of Istanbul started to adopt western ways,

they faced with a conservative reaction on the part of their community, which similar

to Ottoman Muslim conservatives, had worries about losing their ethnic identities.210

In short, as the westernization characterized the period, humor press involved in

topics of westernization or modernization to a great extent. However, it was not

westernization which defined the tone of humor but it was morality and the

continuation of traditional society as a dominant structure and conservatism as the

dominant ideology that had made Ottoman humor magazines typical moral weeklies

in this period. In this point, Ottoman intellectuals attempted to preserve the

communitarian structure of society based on traditional values, through attempting to

close the gap between lower and upper classes. Thus, first Ottoman humor

magazines of the nineteenth century, as well as Latife and Tiyatro was the product of

that mediatory effort of intellectuals.

210Arus Yumul, Rıfat N. Bali and Foti Benlisoy, “Gayrimüslim Cemaatlerde Muhafazakarlık,” in Modern

Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce 5: Muhafazakarlık, eds.,Tanıl Bora and Murat Gültekingil. İstanbul: İletişim,

2003), p. 658.

72

III.II. Content: Stumbling Runners, Social Deviators and Self-Ignorant Fops

Ottoman Spectators as moral weeklies were watching out for vices, deficiencies,

and incongruities in society and city, and also for whether the conservative limits set

for an acceptable degree of westernization or modernization is exceeded or not.

Among all topics, westernization occupied a significant place and what humorists

observed was either a deficient or an excessive westernization resulting in corruption

and degeneration of morals. As repeated before, laughter in the context of the first

period of Ottoman humor magazines in general had three roots which could be

explained respectively by incongruity theory, Bergson’s social theory of laughter,

and superiority theory, all of which also outline the main content. Besides, similar to

Spectator, politics as a subject matter were generally abstained in the content of

Tiyatro and Latife, except for rare references in one or two number of issues and

topics usually about the current wars. For instance, one of the last issues of Latife

treated Ottoman-Serbian war, which was currently taking place.211This applies to the

nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines of the first period in general.212

Avoidance from politics was mainly originated from censorship on press. As already

mentioned, government policy allowed humor press if the publications offer moral

instructions and censure of vice and folly in society through wit, instead of satire or

subversion. Second reason was the moral concern of humor magazines which

directed the attention rather to private daily life of people as topics.

First of all, incongruity theory is the most relevant one to the first period of

Ottoman humor magazines, as well as British moral weeklies. It is a theory of wit,

intelligence, and of conservatism and ethical humor as defined before. If laughter is

produced with ethical considerations, wit is preferred to satire, in order to involve the

audience in an intellectual process and in order not to produce hatred but didactic

effect on the butt of humor. Even if satire is employed, it was gentle in line with

Roman satirical tradition. It is the peculiarity of moral or comic weeklies to underline

incongruities through wit and show how the things should be instead. Therefore,

211 Latife, issue 1, September 1, 1292/1876.

212 First Ottoman Turkish humor magazine Diyojen (1870‐73), for instance, included political satire;

however it was suspended for five times and banned at the end due to its some political writings.

See: Hamdi Özdiş: Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 1870‐1877: Diyojen ve Çaylak

üzerinde bir araştırma (İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010), p. 82.

73

incongruity theory of the eighteenth century was contemporary to British moral

weeklies which are also known as publications of wit. Ideology defined the tone of

humor, as this period of Ottomans is defined as Şarivari by contemporaries.

Charivari in Ottoman context was mainly incongruity of western elements to

indigenous culture. Nevertheless, it was not limited to westernization, but any social

or cultural deviation created incongruity is subject to moral weeklies. Thereof, first

Ottoman humor magazines, similar to Spectator aimed at underlining the

incongruities through wit for their correction.

Secondly, modernization in various fields, ranging from urban modernizing

reforms to cultural westernization of individuals such as clothing and new manners,

all involved a stumbling, apart from incongruity, similar to Bergson’s example of a

runner. Ottoman runners on the way of modernization stumbled many times, not

being able to properly adapting to western ways, out of their rigidity and

unsociability and which caused laughter. It is exemplified with a cartoon depicting

men in westernized cloths running, but the wind is blowing their hats away:

“-I took part in this competition, but what about with the wind ?...”213

Further, in the context of nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines,

modernization or medeniyet was usually symbolized with a horse, as also pointed out

213 Latife, issue 4, August 22, 1874, p.4.

74

by Turgut Çeviker. Cartoon below might be interpreted as a ridicule of deficient

western imitation. It depicts men and women with westernized cloths and men riding

horses over women:

“Sorry…..this picture has been taken from Europe

on the condition to comply with the original.”214

As it has already been stated in related chapter, Bergson’s social theory of

laughter is, to the contrary seems to be articulated for the laughter of a revolutionary

voice, but it could also be interpreted as a conservative theory as well, as explained

before. That is, individuals by adopting western ways were deviating from their

traditional society which is the dominant form of society. Thus, they prove

incongruous to indigenous culture and provoke laughter. It could also be interpreted

as conservatives’ attack on the rigidity of those in conforming to norms of traditional

society. Therefore, rigidity and unsociability could be taken as the second elements

in the content of first Ottoman humor magazines. Unsociability also originated from

the poor imitations of the western originals. Western imitations, as well as fops, and

coxcombry constituted the third main line of the content, which produced a kind of

laughter similar to one as explained by superiority theory.

214 Latife, issue 48, February 27, 1290/ 1874, p.4.

75

Tiyatro and Latife shared the same content with their contemporaries in Ottoman

press, as the content of other papers is shown by other works.215 Both published by

Armenian editors, but in Ottoman Turkish and Ottoman Turkish alphabet, they

reflect the general picture about early humor magazines. Further, a comparison

reveals that not only with their attitude, but also with their content, nineteenth

century first Ottoman humor magazines to some extent were in parallelism with

eighteenth century British moral weeklies as well. Similar to Spectator, Latife and

Tiyatro concentrated on the private daily life of people, as well as the city. Both

Ottoman and British papers, glorified a moderate, sober, decorous, virtuous society

with a good taste and morals against vices, improperness, coxcombry, show off,

luxury, debauchery, idleness and immorality. In line with that, similar topics such as

fashion, manners and city life, were shared as will be demonstrated with the analysis

of content. One difference from Spectator is the theme of westernization around

which Ottoman discourse is shaped, as problematized as a threat to indigenous

culture and identity.

Though, Spectator had also some considerations such as the corruption brought

to the city by foreign elements, as exemplified by the critic on Italian plays as will be

shown. However, there is a second point of discussion that is, commercial relations

which is also shared with and constituted the general frame of Spectator Magazine.

Eighteenth century had coincided with the formation of middle class in Britain.

Spectator and Tatler, served as guides on “moral, cultural, and social choices that

accompanied relationships with one another and themselves, with the financial and

commercial markets of their day, and with contemporary entertainments and

pastimes.”216 In parallelism, Ottoman daily life now was of a commercial nature,

with newly forming bourgeoisie, and westernization of economy. This commercial

nature, as a new bringing was shaping daily life, consumption habits, relationships,

manners, leisure, and city itself.

215 Diyojen (1870‐73) and Çaylak (1876‐77), with similar criticisms, shared the same topics such as

transportation, municipal services, fashion, journalism, as shown by Hamdi Özdiş, in Osmanlı mizah

basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 1870‐1877: Diyojen ve Çaylak üzerinde bir araştırma (İstanbul: Libra

Kitap, 2010).p. 90, p.95. For the list of topics covered by the nineteenth century humor magazines in

general, see: Turgut Çeviker, Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü Tanzimat ve İstibdat Dönemi,1867‐

1878/1878‐1908 ( İstanbul: Adam Yayınları, 1986 ).

216 Erin Mackie,ed.,The Commerce of Everyday Life: Selections from the Tatler and the Spectator

(Boston: MacMillan Press , 1998 ), p.3.

76

As a result, discourse of the nineteenth century humor press is formed by two

main considerations. First is economic, and second which is also closely linked to the

former, is cultural westernization, as embodied by the theme on westernization of

urban culture, lifestyles, manners, literature, social norms and institutions. Latter

partly originates from the idea limiting modernization to technical terms with a fear

of losing cultural identity. In other words, Ottoman conservatives supported

modernization and westernization to the degree that indigenous culture and values

are not changed. Such a concern is found in both Muslims and non-Muslims for their

respective communities as revealed by the discourse Latife and Tiyatro and by

literary works of Baronian. With regard to technology, such conservative motto still

exists today, “we shall adopt it, but not its culture” in conflict with the fact that every

technology comes with a culture. Therefore, technical adoptions are inevitably,

accompanied by an acculturation process, which evoked the reaction of

conservatives.217

All in all, general discourse of magazines was evolved around the axes of

economy and westernization. For that reason, economic dimension of conservative

reaction against modernization should be incorporated into the analysis. Besides, as it

was in the case of British moral weeklies, there were various other topics relating to

morality, properness in various fields such as journalism. Given these two axes of

economic and cultural westernization, and the frequency of the topics covered,

content of Tiyatro and Latife can be divided into three main topics: economy; urban

modernization such as transportation and municipal reforms; cultural westernization

such as fashion and new urban habits, manners, etiquette, leisure and journalism.

Thus, in line with the greater aim of closing widening gap between Great and Little

Culture218 and of refining all segments of society from vices, topics of criticism

relates to both upper and lower classes, to censure the vices of both.

Economic Westernization: Moral Economy

The first major topic that is the westernization of economy constitutes main axes

of general discourse trough relating to all the other topics as already been stated. It

217 Halil İnalcık, “Osmanlılarda Batı’dan Kültür Aktarması Üzerine”, in Osmanlı İmparatorluğu: Toplum

ve Ekonomi Üzerinde Arşiv Çalışmaları, İncelemeler ( İstanbul: Eren, 1996 ), p.426.

218 Mardin, Super Westernization,1974:p. 429.

77

can be interpreted as a morality discourse over economy and commercial

relationships which had been found to be unjust, improper, and immoral. New

market relationships were shaped by the westernization of economy which had

brought about an inequality, increased competition, entrepreneurship and profit

motive on the market. Economic theme was usually voiced such as “lack of money,

debts, poverty, high cost of living, food forgery, newly introduced means of

capitalism such as insurance”, on the one hand, and “idleness, unemployment,

spending, dissipation and luxury”, on the other. Two reasons would be offered for

why economic theme is structured as such. One is economic crisis; the other is

westernization of economy bringing about profit motive and new consumption

patterns.

In this period, Ottoman Empire was going through debt crisis.219 This was

accompanied with economic crisis. In the first place, personal debts were linked to

poverty and economic crisis in the discourse. High cost of living was a dominant

theme and people are frequently depicted as either lacking money or complaining

about debts which they could not afford to pay, as it is illustrated in the cartoon

below depicting a man talking with his tailor:

219 Edhem Eldem, “Ottoman financial integration with Europe: foreign loans, the Ottoman Bank, and

the Ottoman public debt”, European Review, Vol.13, No.3, (2005),431‐445.

78

- Why did not you sew a pocket on this?

- What are you going to do with a pocket? There is no need for pocket on

trousers sewed on credit.220

Further, in muhaveres, friends asked each other to lend money, but no one had

the money to lend.221 In another muhavere, banker or sarraf was asking back the

money he lent to a man and they were disputing over which.222 Similarly, The

Spectator treats the issue of debts and criticizes families for sustaining a habit of

being in debt.223 Yet, in the Ottoman context, criticism of debts has a second ground

which differs from The Spectator’ stand. The second reason why “lack of money and

debts” was a frequently included theme is the changing consumption patterns

through the westernization of economy which is also where theme of cultural

westernization relates to economic one. Economic morality dimension triggered the

negative attitude towards adoption of western ways ranging from fashion to urban

habits and modernization in city itself including transportation and municipal

reforms, as derived from the discourse. Especially fashion and western department

stores seem to be regarded as manipulations by capital owners to make money in the

midst of economic crisis and poverty. For instance, men are usually depicted as

penniless but are pushed by their inconsiderate wives or daughters to purchase the

fashionable items. In that point, entrepreneurs in the field of fashion is criticized as

well, as all will be explained with evidences in the parts on cultural westernization.

Besides, apart from critic of new market relations, there was the critic of irrational

consumption. As an example, Latife ridicules, that as the toilet powder, which was

being imported from Europe, is so much consumed in Ottoman lands that, a capital

owner is planning to found a plant in Istanbul.224

When westernized way of life is accompanied by dissipation it was subject to a

further criticism because it was associated with debts and lack of money. Eventually,

in both Latife and Tiyatro, people were usually criticized for using up their financial

sources to purchase western commodities or to pursue a life of pleasure and

enjoyment, or to follow the fashion and western leisure activities. As it was criticized

220 Latife, issue 8, September 5, 1290/1874, p. 4.

221 Latife, issue 12, September 19, 1290, p. 3.

222 Ibid, issue, 38, February 27, 1290/1875, p.2.

223 Richard Steele, The Spectator, no. 82, Monday, June 4, 1711. Ed. Bond,1965: p.352.

224 “Dersaadet’de Bir Pudra Fabrikası”, Latife, issue 43, Ramazan 30, 1874/1290,p. 2.

79

with a verse satire Ey seven zevki, hemen sat eğer varsa malın225 that people were

selling out their properties to finance their pleasure activities. An additional reason

behind this criticism might be that Ottomans were against too much spending and

especially spending on luxury. Ottoman Muslims considered too much spending as

harmful to the state economy, which partly originates from traditional values such as

teachings of dervish orders and importance of charity.226 Ottoman Islamic tradition in

particular encourages modesty in wealth and spending in contrast to the fact that in

this period Ottoman state had started to get integrated into the world capitalist

system.227 Besides, given the possibility of changing and different attitudes among

Muslims towards consumption, and given the multi-ethnic and multi-religious status

of Ottomans, and that Latife and Tiyatro magazines were published by Armenians

and addressed to Ottoman society in general, it could not be argued that opposition to

too much spending only originates from Ottoman Islamic tradition. It could not be

contended either that Ottoman communities in general opposed to spending and free

market economy at all. It is evident in the discourse of papers that they opposed to

too much spending and encouraged a moderate, and a rational use of money instead.

It was in parallelism with Spectator which criticized those who were irrational and

obsessed with spending and called for rational use of financial resources.228

As for the second sub-topic relating to economy, that is the expensiveness, or

high cost of living, which was at the same time a further reason for personal debts,

and was criticized again based on morality concern for commercial relations. For the

expensiveness, humor writers accused sellers of the profit motive. As an instance,

when listing the prices of most expensive commodities as “coffee, cotton, oil..”

spermaceti candle is also included among the three, by noting that after the ban of

travelling without candle lamps, price of spermaceti candle raised.229 Reaction to

price increase thus is an economic morality discourse which appears as the hidden

texts behind various topics. Before the westernization of economy, prices used to be

225 Latife, issue 13, September 23, 1290/1874, p.1.

226 Sabri F. Ülgener gives a detailed account on the topic, in his book : Dünü ve Bugünü ile Zihniyet ve

Din, İslam, Tasavvuf ve Çözülme Devri İktisat Ahlakı ( Istanbul :Derin Yayınları, 2006 ) ; Sabri F.

Ülgener, İktisadi İntihat Tarihimizin Ahlak ve Zihniyet Meseleleri: Başlangıcından 18inci Asır Sonlarına

Kadar Fikir ve Sanat Tarihi Boyunca Akisler ile Umumi bir Tahlil Denemesi ( İstanbul: İsmail Akgün

Matbaası, 1951 ).

227 Eldem, Edhem. “Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital,” 1999:pp. 135‐206.

228 Mackie, Commerce of Everyday, 1998: pp. 30‐32.

229 Latife, issue 2, 10 August 1290/1874, p. 4.

80

strictly controlled under narh system which Ottoman system of market economy was

based on. Narh or ihtisab partly originated from the concern for the morality of

market relations.230 Previously, prices were predefined by Ottoman narh regulations

so the price increase was not allowed. It might be argued that humor writers’

reactions to price increases were based on those previous conditions of a more

balanced market.

Therefore, there is a further criticism directed to profit motive which had taken

advantage of new consumption habits. Now, capitalism had invaded country through

modernization and incorporation of western elements such as transportation services,

fashion, and western commodities. It could be argued that those western elements

were regarded by the conservatives as the capital owner’s devices of money making.

For that reason, Latife in an ironic way, lists them as “the winners of railway stocks

(railway was also of a shareholder company like steamboat and trams’ companies)

are as follows:…. a hat shop,… a merchant, company’s steam boats, a powder seller,

a beauty business owner, a glover, a walking stick seller, a tram, a fez moulder, an

armchair…”231 All the listed items are either western commodities or their sellers

and the list represents a two dimensional criticism: economic morality and cultural

westernization.

Economic crisis and poverty made conservative reaction against profit motive

more severe. Besides, cost of living was so high that people could not afford to buy

even the basic foodstuff. It was criticized with a verse satire which was about the

prices of foods,232 among which meat was the most expensive. Karakoncolos,

fictional spy of Latife, who was, similar to the Mr. Spectator of Addison, observing

the society and reporting his observations, reports of a girl with an intentional

exaggeration that “she leaves her goldsmith fiancé, to get engaged instead with a

230 Halil Sahillioğlu, "Osmanlılarda Narh Müessesesi ve 1525 Yılı Sonunda İstanbul'da

Fiyatlar", Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, No.1 (1967), pp. 36‐40; Halil İnalcık, “Capital Formation in the

Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Economic History, vol. 29, No.1, The Tasks of Economic

History,(March 1969 ), pp.97‐140 ; Mübahat S. Kütükoğlu,Osmanlılarda Narh Müessesesi ve 1640

Tarihli Narh Defteri ( İstanbul : Enderun Kitabevi, 1983 ) ; Ziya Kazıcı, Osmanlılarda İhtisab Müessesi:

Osmanlılarda Ekonomik, Dini ve Sosyal Hayat ( İstanbul: Kültür Yayın Basın Birliği, 1987 ) ; Ö. Lütfi

Barkan, "XV. Asrın Sonlarında Bazı Büyük Şehirlerde Eşya ve Yiyecek Fiyatlarının Tesbit ve Teftişi

Hususlarını Tanzim Eden Kanunlar", Tarih Vesikaları, vol. 1 , No.1 ( 1941 ).

231 Latife, Issue 2, 25 March 1291 / 1875, p. 6.

232 Latife, issue 5, April 1, 1291/ 1875, p. 2.

81

butcher, as the meat was more valuable than the precious metals at the time.”233 Not

coincidently, within the topic of debts, the most frequent was the debts waiting to be

paid to butchers. In the muhaveres men were complaining about butchers who were

asking their money back.234

Thirdly, it was either expensiveness or high living costs or the profit motive that

also had resulted in another corruption in the market- tobacco and food forgery.

Tiyatro humorously, listed where the material commodities could be reached by the

consumers, and the irony was that they irrelevantly could be found in foodstuff, such

as “starch is found in granulated sugar.”235 Further, following cartoon criticizes

spoiled foodstuff:

- What is happening to you? Have you eaten greasy goose?

- It is not greasy goose, but probably oil with gas. 236

Restaurants constituted another corruption with their low quality services. For

instance, spoiled kebaps 237were sold, and it was also possible to crack your teeth

233 Ibid, issue 4, March 24, 1291 / 1875, p. 13.

234 “Muhavere”, Latife, issue 4, August 22, 1290/ 1874, p. 3.

235 “Emtia‐yi Ticariyeden Mabed” Tiyatro, issue 5, April 3, 1290/ 1874, p.4.

236 Latife, issue 3, March 27, 1291/1875, p.13.

237 “Eyüp”, Latife, issue 4, August 22, 1290/ 1874, p.2.

82

when you are eating beef in one of restaurants in Galata.238 New business fields were

also criticized as a bringing of corrupt market relationships. For instance, in Tiyatro,

insurance was mocked. In a muhavere or dialogue, a man whose garden’s wall had

been collapsed, is advised by his friend that if he had insured the wall, then the

damage could have been paid. However, man had not even heard of something like

insurance and thought it to be a joke. Further he ridiculed that may be the insurance

company would ensure his sick son, and then he could be paid if the son happens to

die.239 Here the ridicule can be interpreted at the same time, as originating from

Ottoman’s unfamiliarity with insurance as a concept. The profit motive had resulted

in unethical commercial relationships in various other fields. For instance Kadıköy

Sea Baths were ridiculed as trying to attract customers through advertisements

advising man often to go to the baths so as to be healthy. In another instance, row

boats were charging customers as high as steam boats, though they were offering a

low quality service.240 Western theatre in Ottomans, which was established in

Gedikpaşa in this century, was also running with a profit motive from the view of

Latife magazine.241 Yet, that view seems not to be shared by Tiyatro. The reason

behind that attitude difference will be explained later.

Corruption in the field of journalism was also subject to criticism as explained

with examples in the chapter on press. Like every other field, journalism had also

been reduced to be a field of trade, governed by profit motive only with their high

prices and low quality. Every other day, a new gazette came on the market. Situation

is ridiculed as “Evet kayık yarışı icra olunduğu gibi yakında Sirkeci caddesinde

gazete yarışı icra olunacağı…söylenmektedir,”242 “it is rumored that a gazette

competition will be organized like row boat competitions.” Gazettes were usually

short lived and waited to be sold on the shelves. Further, it was criticized that Şark

had released a supplement even if it was banned to release supplements.243 This

criticism could also be interpreted as gazettes were publishing supplements with the

aim to increase their commercial gains. Discourse over the morality of journalism as

238 Tiyatro, issue 3, March 27, 1290/1874, p.3.

239 Tiyatro, issue 2, March 23, 1290/ 1874, p.2.

240 Ibid, issue 31, 29 June, 1290/1874, pp. 2‐3.

241 “Gedikpaşa’dan Keza”, Latife, issue 43, Ramazan 30, 1291/1875.

242 Latife, issue 4, March 29, 1291/1875,p.1

243 Latife, issue 43, Ramazan 30, 1291,p.3.

83

a profession is a matter apart, which will be treated in a separate part. Besides, it was

again to a considerable degree related with economic morality as already explained.

Another topic linked to economy, was employment. Comic situation of those

who moved to towns leaving their villages with the hope of making money was, for

instance, ridiculed by publishing a peasant’s letter he sent to his mother living in

village.244 Also the porterage was criticized as a physically unhealthy occupation. In

a didactic long story, Latife narrates a man choosing to be a porter and getting a

hunched back at the end.245 That was accompanied by beggars on the streets,246shoe

polishers, and peddlers. Shoe polishers on the streets disturbing people were another

problem:

- I assure you that it polishes like a mirror finish

- Let me go!! 247

244 Latife, issue 7, September 2,1290/ 1874, p. 3.

245 Ibid, issue 12, September 12, 1290/1874, pp.2‐3.

246 “Dilencilik ve Dilencilik Havacesi “Latife, issue 9, September 9, 1290/1874,p.1.

247 Latife., issue 9, September 9, 1290/1874, p.2.

84

Peddlers on Fener Ferry Port were also disturbing steam boat passengers, as they

were trying to draw attention with their loud calls. Further, there were Greek,

Armenians, Jewish and Persian peddlers, who were trying to make sales by

frequenting streets and playing bells.248 Idleness or unemployment, was another

corruption or irregularity, as conservative humor writers criticizes them as “filling

the coffeehouses”249

To sum up, economic discourse was a discourse about morality and regularity of

commercial relationships. In the first place westernization of economy as well as

economic crisis was intermingled with cultural westernization. This had resulted in

an unjust trade, immoral commercial relationships, and in an unapproved kind of

consumption. Still, discourse cannot be interpreted as being anti-capitalist in the

sense that opposing to free market economy, or totally against spending, and or

against trade. Instead, in some parallelism with Spectator, trade and consumption are

supported to the degree that it is reasonable and progressive both to the society and to

the individual. Thereof, consumption of some commodities, unjust trade, over

spending, and unfavorable occupations such as porterage, and peddling were not

approved, as vices respectively belonging to lower and upper classes. Market

relationships as well as occupations should be in the way approved by conservatives

with ethical concerns. As a result, with regard to theme of economy, nineteenth

century Ottoman humor magazines called for moral economy and sought to establish

morality over commercial relations. That applies also to the discourse over following

other topics.

Urban Modernization Failed?

Economic and cultural westernization also required modernizing reforms

regarding the city. Westernization of urban culture was the second theme which is

constituted by sub topics of “public transportation” and “municipal services.” The

former involved the ridicule of steamboats, trams, subway and omnibus, all of which

were newly introduced to the city by taking western examples as a model. As the

foreign elements transforming traditional ways in the city, they were strictly watched

out by humorists. Discourse about municipal services was concerned with the

248 Ibid,p.2.

249 “Aksaray Caddesi’nden 18 Ağustos”,Tiyatro,issue 4, August 22, 1290/ 1874, p. 2

85

changes in the infrastructure of city, hygiene, constructions and renovations. Urban

modernization was critical on the part of the government, which sought to give

Istanbul a modern outlook to make it serve as the showcase of modernization for

European powers. However, urban modernization was shaped by upper classes,

usually limiting reforms to their interests. Accordingly, reforms initially and mainly

excluded the interests of lower incomes and gave priority to the spots of bourgeoisie,

such as particular parts of Galata and Pera. Even if the reforms were expanded to the

other parts of the city and even if novelties offered to the service of other regions,

they were not applied properly. Such inequality was also related with lack of

finances and organization to run the reforms equally and efficiently, as will be

treated. Therefore, urban reforms such as introduction of new transportation and

establishment of municipality to make the city more proper and modern were usually

interpreted by the humorists as a failure. Second reason was again a matter of

economic morality, questioning the efficiency of spending on urban modernization

and criticizing unjust gains of such as transportation companies. A third reason for

criticism was a conservative suspicion towards novelties or western ways.

Consequently, topics such as efficiency and morality of novelties, and whether these

applied reforms are appropriate to indigenous culture or not, formed the discourse on

urban modernization.

Public or “Private” Transportation?

Conservative prejudices against the new transportation system, involved the

questions such as was it preferable to the traditional ways of transportation? If so,

were the means of transportation adopted and working properly? Did they carry

ethical considerations? Are these western adoptions suited to the indigenous culture

or not? Yet, the hidden text behind most of the prejudices and criticisms was the

class exclusion of the services as already stated. Secondly, these novelties were

coming from a foreign culture.

First view about transportation, with a Bergsonian definition, was that, Ottoman

westernized transportation was another stumble of Ottomans on the way of

modernization. Accordingly, deficiencies of steamboats, omnibus and trams were

underlined. One most frequent deficiency was their slowness. To start with, before

the introduction of steamboats in 1851, sea transportation service was delivered

86

through rowboats and barges.250Row-boats, as traditional means of transportation,

were usually depicted by the humorists with an intentional exaggeration as

overtaking the steamboats in their speeds.251 Deficient adoption was also evident in

improper skeleton which is made of old material and leaking water inside.252

Further, getting on and off Şirket-i Hayriye boats was not convenient either because

of crowd as the number of operating boats did not meet the capacity, or by the other

possible deficiencies as mocked with the cartoon below:

- Have you started performing acrobatics?

- No! I am training on how to enter and exit Şirket’s steam boats.253

Next to the technical problems, there was also a cultural dimension of deficiency.

They had adopted western transportation technically, but rejecting to accept its

cultural dimension, such as the norms of use. For example, the signboards hanged

inside the steamboats, were found incongruous or irrelevant. Further, as they are

warning the passengers not to talk with the captain, they were usually subject to the

250 Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the Nineteenth Century,

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993 ),p. 83.

251 “Üsküdar Vapurunda Makinist ile Müşteri Beyninde”Latife, issue 3, August 19, 1290/ 1874, p.4.

252 “Birkaç Bilmece,” Tiyatro, issue 5, p. 4.

253 Latife, issue 3, August 19, 1290/1874, p.4.

87

ridicule by humor writers.254 Signboards and implementation of norms through

which in public transportation was a new phenomenon for the Ottomans, as well as

the banning of talking with the captain. The other one was the signboards banning

sleeping in the cabins.255 Humorists were making mockery of signboards, depicting

them as proving to be useless. Here, butt of humorists was not only the use of

signboards but also the banning of sleeping because, for them it was nonsense to

bring prohibition on a natural act of sleeping. Latife well describes the situation by

depicting passengers as continuing to sleep after the officer who had warned them

not to sleep leaves the cabin.256 Concerns such as signboards are typical of moral

weeklies. It is related with sustaining properness, order, morality and decorum in the

service sector as well as the daily life of people. Similarly, but for other grounds, a

letter of reader published in Spectator criticizes the signboards of the shops in city, as

they are decorated with the pictures of African animals, both for their irrelevancy and

contributing to barbarity in the city from a conservative point of view. Accordingly,

it urges to clean the city off these “monsters” and this view seems to be supported by

Addison.257

Another deficient adoption was the ticket system, which involved the disputes

between the captain and the passengers. Ludicrous was originating both from the

operators and from passengers’ inability to get used to the ticket system. Some

passengers were getting on board without tickets, when they had to pay on boats and

which led to disputes. Fares were set according to the distance, so passengers were

asking for a discount on the ticket price, but the captain was rejecting to give it as he

did not believe in the passenger’s word that they did not get on the board from

another stop.258 The ludicrous situation was doubled by banning of speaking to the

captain, as he is refusing to talk to passengers about the money issue.259 Again it

seems that there is one more motive behind criticism of ticket system which is moral

economy. Criticisms questioning morality of commercial relationships was directed

against the steam Boat Company itself Şirket-i Hayriye. It was a shareholder

254 “Garibe,” Latife, issue 11, September 16, 1290/ 1874, p. 3

255 “Kamarada müşteri ile kamarot” Latife, issue 2, August 10, 1290/1874, p.3.

256 Latife, issue 11, September 16, 1290/ 1874, p. 4.

257 Joseph Addison, The Spectator, no. 28, Monday, April 2, 1711. Ed.Bond,1965:pp.115‐119.

258 “Şirket vapurunda müşteri ile biletçi beyninde”, Latife, issue 2, August 10, 1290/1870, p.4. Also,

See: Appendix I: Şirket Vapurunda Müşteri ile Biletçi Beyninde”, pp.132‐133.

259 “Şirket vapurunda kaptan ile alacaklı,” Latife, issue 4, August, 22, 1290/ 1874, p. 2.

88

company and shareholders included the ruling elite such as the Sultan, bureaucrats,

as well as the wealthy banker families such as Camondo.260 As a shareholder

company, it was approached with suspicion and even there was a rumor about the

ticket bribery, leading to the deposal of the director of company, Raşid Efendi in

1866.261 Problems raised in humor magazines should have been prevailing for a long

time that the company required the inclusion of a record book for complaints by

passengers.262 Situation with other transportation means including horse drawn

trams, omnibus and subway were no exception, as they were shareholder initiatives

as well.

So the second motive behind criticism which is class exclusion in transportation

system was again related with the incorporation process of Istanbul into western

economy. Starting with the eighteenth century, districts of Galata and Pera appeared

as the centers of westernization. Pera was inhabited by European communities and

wealthy non-Muslim merchants. Galata also had become the central business district

of the city with its business links, its shops and market, and with its non-Muslim

communities trading and in close communication with Europeans.263 Accordingly,

for the easy flow of commercial relationships, an efficient transportation needed, and

as a matter of fact it was rather demanded by the economic actors and European

population in the city. That’s one the reasons why transportation was exclusively first

introduced in these districts of Istanbul, excluding low income neighborhoods.

Secondly, with the westernization and urbanism, westernized leisure and western

consumption emerged along with the cultural and leisure spots, coffees, shops,

department stores in Pera. Thirdly, increase in city population and the physical

expansion of city also required a developed transportation system for an easy living

especially for those wealthy enough for frequenting Galata and Pera. Thirdly, upper

classes and wealthy families had made area along the Bosporus their residence places

and now needed a regular transportation to city center from their residences. That

was the reason behind the operation of first steamboats.264 When the steamboats were

also served to other parts of the city, again relatively poor neighborhoods were

assigned more deficient steamboats. Latife, criticizes that one of the small steam

260 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, 1993: p. 84.

261 Murat Koraltürk, Şirket‐i Hayriye: 1851‐1945 (İstanbul: İDO, 2007), p. 37.

262 Ibid.,p. 43.

263 Eldem, “Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital”, 1999:, p. 148, p. 204.

264 Koraltürk, Şirket‐i Hayriye, 2007: pp. 29‐30.

89

boats operating to Kasımpaşa, had escaped a disaster of a crashing accident.265 Also,

other technical deficiencies of transportation means were especially found in the ones

serving to lower income neighborhoods.

Accordingly, priority given to upper and wealthy middle classes in the service of

transportation was ridiculed in both Latife and Tiyatro. Latife criticizes the situation

that as the poor could not afford to buy the seats, they are sitting on the timbers on

boats: “Fi’l vaki düvel-i sairde dahi mevki parası almak âdeti cari ise de öyle mevki

parası veremeyen fukarayı kuru tahta üstünde oturtmayıp hiç olmazsa bir halı

parçası üstünde yer gösterirler.” Similarly, Tiyatro ridiculed that low income people

could not find a seat in steamboats as the seats required higher payment, so they were

reserved for the higher income people. Tiyatro satirizes the situation as that common

people had no place to seat in steamboats, except for the funnels because all the seats

and cabins were reserved for upper classes: “Üsküdar vapurunda ise mevkisiz

oturacak mahal bulunmaz…”, “… avam için ise tenteden, kazgandan ve bacadan

başka yer yoktur.”266 Another critic was about the ticket prices of subway. A man is

humorously depicted as attempting to pass through the subway route by walking so

without ticket, but the conductor does not let him by explaining that “there is not a

road allowed to penniless men.267 This could be well interpreted as a critic of class

difference, as the subway was also built rather for the interest of a privileged class in

Istanbul and lower income groups could not afford to use. It can also be interpreted

as the Ottoman cultural unfamiliarity to having to pay for the public transportation or

such as having to pay for passing over the bridges. Lastly, it could be still a critique

of ignorance by the man to pay the required fees, not getting used to the new system.

However, within the framework of economic morality first explanation is more valid.

For the introduction of trams, first concession was given to Krepo Efendi in 1869

and who formed Istanbul Tramway Company.268 He was also given a concession to

establish omnibuses according to 1881 regulation.269 Subway was also a share –

holder company initiative. In 1869, Eugene Henri Gavand, the engineer was given

265 Latife, issue 5, April 1, 1291/1875, p.1.

266 Tiyatro, issue 5, April 3, 1290/1874, pp.3‐4.

267 Latife, issue 1, March 22, 1291/1985, p. 2.

268 Ergin, Mecelle‐i Umur‐u Belediyye, in Çelik, 1993: p. 91.

269 Ibid, p. 92.

90

concession to build a subway system between Karaköy and Pera.270 Istanbul Subway

was opened to service in January 1875, rather for the common interest of upper

classes.271 Likewise, regular water transportation had started with the intention to

serve upper classes residing on Bosporus which further indicates class exclusion of

transportation reforms. It later turned into a more public/ mass transportation service,

as it is predictable from the schedule of 1881.272 However, to what extent it had

become “a mass” or “public” transportation was questionable due its exclusiveness

and which was the very reason of criticism. The same is valid for the trams because

in determining the tram lines, priority was again to serve the favored or wealthy and

upper class residents of the city. Further, there were the differences in the service

quality between the lines based on the socio-economic structure of neighborhoods.

For example, Pera line was of a good quality but in the line between Aksaray and

Topkapı, cars were not in proper condition.273 Trams were the butt of humorists for

the skinny and powerless horses drawing them, as ridiculed with the cartoon below:

270 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, 1993: p. 96.

271 Ibid, 97.

272 Ibid, 85.

273 R. Sertaç Kayserilioğlu, Dersaadet’ten İstanbul’a Tramvay ( Istanbul: İETT Genel Müdürlüğü,

1998),p.88.

91

“Poor things, as they are deprived of barley, they get their heads into wherever they

got the smell of barley”274

Thus, the motive behind criticism was again inequality in the services according

to the socio-economic differences of neighborhoods. As further evidence, newly

brought horses to Istanbul, were first offered to the service of lines in Şişli, and then

three years later they were transferred to Azapkapi line, and lastly, two years later

when the horses are older and worn out, they were transferred this time to the lowest

income neighborhood Aksaray- Topkapi line.275 Besides, as shown on the price

regulations, tram fares were too high for a regular use by lower income people. Price

was 40 para per km, and for 40 para, some basic food stuff could be bought at the

time.276

Trams and omnibuses, which were drawn by horses, were also criticized for their

slowness, like steamboats. A man is telling his friend that he never takes trams

implying that they were that much slow.277 In another muhavere, it was humorously

criticized that it was taking three hours to get from Karaköy Bridge to Aksaray with

tram.278 They were not only slow, but also uncomfortable like steamboats. For

instance, Üsküdar omnibuses’ up and down moves when driving, were turning

passengers’’ stomach and at the same time, that way passengers were swallowing

dust as the roads were also dusty.279 Another discomfort was the crowd of omnibuses

and trams like the steamboats. All shows that, capacity of transportation was not

satisfying the needs, as they are designed rather with a motive to meet the need of

particular groups.

Construction of bridges constituted another dimension of urban modernization,

also in relation with transportation. There was a bias against constructions too, as a

part of general suspicion towards modernizing reforms in the city. Second reason of

suspicion might be because they were entrusted to foreign initiators. Further, it was

274 Tiyatro, issue 31, May 4, 1290/ 1874, p.4.

275 Kayserilioğlu, Dersaadet’ten Istanbul’a Tramvay, 1998: p.88.

276 Ibid.,p.93.

277“ Bir Meclis’te Muhavere,” Latife, issue 25, May 17, 1291/1875, p. 99.

278 “Tramvayda” Tiyatro, issue 2, March 23, 1290/ 1874,pp.2‐3.

279 Latife, issue 26, May 20, 1291/1875, p. 103.

92

another stumble. Thereof, never ending construction works were ridiculed as: “Tamir

hitam buldu. Yeniden bir daha tamirata başlanacağı memuldür.”280In 1863, an iron

bridge construction for Galata was proposed by English company to replace wooden

one and government agreed on the proposal.When the bridge was almost finished in

1871, company made another proposal that the bridge be moved to Unkapanı, and

suggested the construction of another bridge between Karaköy and Eminönü, so the

previous structure moved to suggested location and new Galata Bridge construction

again started in 1875 and it was completed in 1878.281 This might be one of reasons

for Latife’s criticism in 1874.

So the newly introduced transportation means were criticized for three main

reasons. One is related with moral economy that is, their class exclusion, as reflected

in their establishment to meet specifically the needs of upper classes and bourgeoisie.

That had yielded problems such as high ticket prices, which lower income groups

could not afford, especially the tickets with seats. Further, it was limited to specific

districts. Quality of service lines made difference depending on the income level of

neighborhoods. Therefore, it is not because that urban modernization in the field of

transportation had been totally failed, but as it was class exclusive, humorists

criticized them. Second motive was that the new system had been introduced from

the west, from a foreign culture and was transforming traditional means, so there was

a bias against which. Thereby, conservative writers were to some extent nitpicking

about anything. Norms of use which had come along with new transportation system

were regarded as unsociable and incongruous. Thirdly, there were actually many

deficiencies in their quality and operation proving again to be a “stumble” on the part

of implementers. All three points lied behind the criticism that transportation was

another deficient adoption from the west. Humorists as concerned with morality,

properness, and regularity called for reform in transportation.

Order of City and Municipal Services

That municipality had been introduced with similar motivations caused criticisms

similar to those on transportation. Like modern transportation services, municipal

modernizing reforms were also launched to the interests of upper and bourgeoisie

classes in particular to improve their commercial relations and living conditions in

280 “Karaköy Köprüsü’nden,” Latife, issue 9, September 9, 1290/1874, p.4.

281 Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, 1993: p. 88.

93

Galata and Pera. Presence of wealthy class’ residences; European diplomatic spots;

and commercial spots of Ottoman non-Muslim and foreign merchants; flourishing of

western leisure and consumption activity centers such as shops, stores, cafes and

cultural spots such as opera house and modern theatre; increasing number of visitors

and foreigners, all required municipal improvement in the region. There was also the

concern to make the city look modern from the eyes of Europeans as it is evident in

documents regarding municipality.282 Crimean War (1853-56), followed by 1856

Reform Decree, were also influential in accelerating the change in Istanbul.283

Eventually, a municipal body Şehremaneti was formed in 1855 as shown by the

regulation document.284 Though, due to lacking financial sources and power, this

body could not be efficient at this time. Class exclusiveness, was also evident in that,

İntizam-i Şehir Commission, was composed of upper class members, merchants,

property owners and inhabitants of Galata, which were non-Muslim and European

upper classes. One of them was wealthy banker Avam Camondo.285 Later a new

municipal commission as bound to new municipality Altıncı Daire-i Belediye was

also formed and had already started to operate when the establishment of the

municipality is officially declared in 1858. Again commission included upper class

members such as Antoine Alléon, Avam Camondo and Cermanos Havva and it was

of exclusive character. Further, new municipality Altıncı Daire-i Belediye, was to be

municipality of Galata and Pera, as an evidence of concentrated focus on these

specific regions. This can also be interpreted as distancing of great culture itself from

the rest of the society 286 and which could be well taken as a motive behind criticism

by humorists. Reform inaugurated in Galata and Pera as a pilot project with the

intention to later extent it to other parts of Istanbul. Therefore, another reason of

criticism was exclusiveness that is priority of higher income areas in reforms.

Lacking public responsibility, manner of council also lacked a civic dimension as

Rosenthal defines. There was also a suspicion on the part of the conservative

communities, against the reforms as the commission members were composed of

282 Osman Nuri Ergin, Mecelle‐i Umûr‐ı Belediye, vol. 3 ( İstanbul: İstanbul Büyük Şehir Belediyesi

Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1995 ), p. 1268.

283 Christoph Neumann, Altıncı Daire‐i Belediye, 2011: ,p.428.

284 “Tezkire‐i Marûza” in Ergin, Mecelle, vol.3, 1995: pp. 1271‐1772.

285 Steven Rosenthal, “Minorities and Municipal Reform in Istanbul: 1850‐1870”, in Christians and

Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by Benjamin Braude and

Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982), p.374.

286 Neumann, Altıncı Daire, 2011: pp.434‐437.

94

foreigners such as Camondo and westernized upper class members. Therefore,

commission was regarded as an “instrument of Levantine corruption”287 and so

raised public reaction. This exclusion also originated from the fact that municipal

body lacked financial support from the government and it could only run with

financial support and taxes taken from property owners and wealthy merchants in the

region. Therefore, even if the reforms were aimed to be extended to other regions in

1868, it could not be managed due to the same reasons. First reason is lack of regular

funding, second is absence of necessary administrative organization within the city to

run a regular municipal system.288 Thus, humor magazines published in 1870s, were

criticizing the state of affairs, as a continuation of deficiencies since the

establishment of municipality in 1850. Second prejudice against municipality,

combined with the aforementioned factors, was cultural. As municipality itself as an

institution, and the municipal implementations transforming the city, were adopted

from the west as well, they were approached with suspicion. All in all, owing to the

aforementioned motives behind, from the view of conservatives urban westernization

had also failed similar to the whole westernization process. However, the criticisms

were not originating from prejudices only; there were actually deficiencies as it was

in the case of transportation. As a result, the view that modernization involved a

failure was sought to be evidenced with those deficiencies.

To start with, after the formation of commission, urban modernizing initiatives

were taken such as lightening of Grand Rue De Pera with gas lamps;289 enlargement

of the roads.290 In particular, attempt to lighten the city via gas had proved to be

inefficient as defined by Latife: “İstanbul gibi bir payitahtın sokaklarının hala gaz ile

tenvir kılınması şayan-ı taaccüp hallerdendir. Filhakika gaz boruları imal edildi ve

pek çok liralar sarf olunarak lazım gelen mahallere fenerler konuldu ise de vaz

olunan borular zaten boru olduklarından bir işe yaramadılar.”291 Also the lamps

were criticized for being dirty and broken.292 Further, they were not working or

lightening either as criticized: “İstanbul sokaklarında rekzolunan gaz fenerleri körler

ve alilleriyle bil ittifak kendilerine artık bundan böyle ziya geleceğinden kati ümit

287 Rosenthal, “Minorities and Municipal Reform,” 1982:p.381.

288 Neumann, Altıncı Daire‐i Belediye, 2011:p. 444.

289 Nur Akın, 19. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera (Literatür: İstanbul, 1998 ),pp.127‐ 129.

290 Ibid, pp. 132‐139.

291 Latife, issue 4, August 23, 1290/1874, p.4.

292 Ibid,p.4.

95

olmaya başlamışlardır.”293 Further, reforms such as street widening, gas lightening

and services like cleaning were concentrated in the points of bourgeoisie property

and business, thus providing no benefits for poor non-Muslim and Muslim

populations of Galata.294Therefore, the problems seem to be experienced in the

ignored regions. Yet, there is a second voice that does not approve some aspects of

reform itself such as finding gas lamp lightening as insufficient technology for a

capital city like Istanbul.

Open manholes in Pera, created danger: “Beyoğlu’nda önüne bakmak: Kuyuya

düşmekten.”295 Pollution including air pollution,296and hygiene of Terkos lake- the

source of tap water, were other deficiencies of municipal services. Accordingly, it

was ridiculed that no solution could be found at home for managing the hygiene of

Terkos Lake, so the samples from which would be sent to Europe to find a

solution.297 Further, coming of tab water in Beyoğlu, had been expected for a long

time, was also ridiculed.298 Roads were also dirty and dusty, such as those of

Beyoğlu,299 or Galata as exemplified by the cartoon below, depicting people blocking

their noses due to the smell:

293 Latife, issue 14, April 22, 1291/1875, p.1.

294 Rosenthal,“Minorities and Municipal Reform,” 1982: p.377.

295 “İnsanlarda Görülen Bazı Alametin Delalet Ettiği Esbab”, Tiyatro, issue 7, p.4.

296 “Telgraf” Latife, issue 7, September 5, 1290, p.3.

297 Latife, issue 7, September 2, 1290/1870, pp. 2‐3.

298 Tiyatro, issue 29, July 8, 1290/ 1874, p.2.

299 “İki Arkadaş Kağıthane’ye Giderler iken Biri Diğerine,”Tiyatro, issue 6, April 18, 1874, p.3.

“ Directio

Another

filled with

300 Tiyatro, i

on given by

r cartoon de

h dust and st

ssue 11, April

the medical

epicts that

tones.

24, 1290/187

96

l committee

Galata

horse cann

74, p.4.

6

e, to those p

a.”300

not ride up

passing thro

Bağlarbaşı

ugh some s

ı, as its foo

301

treets of

ots were

97

Lastly, there were some municipal acts which Ottomans were not familiar with,

and found ludicrous such as collection of dogs and cats from the streets.

Accordingly Latife ridicules that, as there had been no cats left, there was a “rats’

uprising.”302Similarly, Tiyatro ridiculed gazette La Turquie’s suggestion that stray

dogs should be totally removed from the streets. Also, torture made on stray dogs is

criticized.303

In conclusion, censure of city and municipal services covered issues varying from

the hygiene to stray dogs. There are also other problems in the city, such as beggars,

shoe polishers and the peddlers on the streets, which were already pointed out in the

part on economic westernization. However, main reason behind criticism was the

lack of civic dimension in municipal services and its exclusive nature. To conclude,

again it was not generally a discourse of westernization, but it was actually a

morality discourse, this time about municipal management and transportation. The

same situation applies to criticisms over cultural sphere, which were again about

morality, even if westernization had marked the period.

Cultural Westernization

Censure of cultural westernization also relates to moral economy through new

consumption and leisure habits, as underlined before. Another point of critic was

unsociability and alienation from the indigenous culture, as adopting western ways

meant a risk of losing identity, and abandonment of traditions and values. These two

points of criticism were combined in a fop character, which is referred to as şık and

which would later be represented by Bihruz Bey character in Tanzimat literature as

already mentioned. Unapproved cultural westernization, turned individuals into

social deviators. In the discourse of humor magazines, the theme of cultural

westernization, is a more embracing one and is usually voiced as à la franga life

style with a negative connotation referring to the topics including “leisure and

entertainment, etiquette, fashion, department stores and shops, modern theatre,

photography, street musicians, western dance, female-male relations, alcohol

addiction and drunkenness.” In the nineteenth century, à la franga as a term was

301 Tiyatro, issue 48, August 31, 1290/1874, p.4.

302 Tiyatro, issue 5, April 1, 1291/1875,p.1.

303 “La Turquie’ün Şefkati “ Tiyatro, issue 5, April 15, 1874, p.2.

98

used by the elite to denote westernized lifestyle or westernized commodities.

Roughly after the mid- nineteenth century, the term came to be perceived as an

attribution of superiority from the eyes of upper class as a mark of progress,304 on the

other hand intelligentsia as well as humorists ridiculed the term as they did not

approve all kinds of à la franga especially if it is in the form of super westernization

in Mardin’s terms.

Conservatives were particularly concerned with cultural westernization, as it

implied a social deviation, transforming the traditional communitarian family

structure of Ottoman communities. Reaction to such deviators appears as a discourse

of morality and cultural degeneration and is combined with a utilitarian

understanding. Conservative reaction against foreign cultural elements was also

found in Spectator magazine which usually censured Italian Plays and Italian

Opera305 taking stage in London at those times. Addison criticized both as they are

foreign to their culture, and the former was found to be barbarous performances

corrupting taste of English people.306 Spectator was particularly concentrated on

private daily life, as typical of moral weeklies. Thereof, nineteenth century Ottoman

humor magazines and Spectator magazine treated similar topics such as fashion,

manners, leisure, taste of art, entertainment and habits.

It should also be noted that, sybarites, gambling houses, drunkenness and

unapproved female- male relationships were no exception to the nineteenth century

of Ottomans either. At least from the sixteenth century on, there have always been

such cases in Istanbul and evoked conservative reaction.307 As for the situation in

nineteenth century, it was more critical for the conservatives, because now with

westernization of economy and society, and with the increased population of

westerners in Istanbul, society had become more vulnerable to corruption from a

conservative point of view. For that reason, Ahmed Midhat holds the increased

foreign population in Istanbul responsible for the so called degeneration of both

Muslim and non-Muslim Ottoman communities. In Müşahedat, he explains this

influence with his statement that “Şimdi Galata ve Beyoğlu'nda ecnebilerin yerli

ahali-i hristiyaniden ziyade çoğalmış oldukları muhakkaktandır. Ecnebilerin

304 Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire,2008: p.100.

305 Addison, The Spectator, no 18, Wednesday, March 21, 1711.Ed. Bond,1965: pp.78‐82.

306 Addison, The Spectator, no 13, Thursday, March 15, 1711.Ed. Bond, 1965:pp.55‐59.

307 Refik Ahmet Sevengil, İstanbul Nasıl Eğleniyordu? ( İstanbul: İletişim, 1993 ),pp.30‐33.

çoğaldığı

ve rezail a

discourse

city house

population

reflected

Europeani

a more tra

communit

making th

with its pe

şıllık (for

şık, and w

century.310

depicted in

308 Müşahed

Hikâye ve Ro

309 Eldem,“Is

310 Hamdi Ö

basınında ba

311 Latife, iss

yerlerde Av

artıyor....” 3

reveals. Ga

ed degenera

n was divid

in residen

ized parts o

aditional an

ties as well

heir cultural

eculiar wes

women) in

which was c

0 Also, Şıll

n the follow

Two Hu

dat, Ahmet M

omanlarında G

stanbul: From

zdiş’s work on

atılılaşma ve s

sue 11,Septem

vrupa ahlak

308 Latife an

alata and P

ation from a

ded into tw

ntial prefer

f the city im

nd conserva

,309 as voic

l choice tow

sternized or

n the discou

common to

lık for wom

wing cartoon

undred Lira

ithat, in Fazıl

Gayri Müslim

m Imperial to P

n Diyojen and

siyaset, 2010:

mber 16, 1874

99

kı ahlak-ı a

nd Tiyatro s

Pera, as the

conservati

o in their a

rences. As

mplied adop

ative stand.

ed by Arm

wards à la f

modernize

urse. Both L

o other Otto

men is frequ

n:

s is fine, bu

Gökçek, Osma

Osmanlılar, (

Peripheralized

Çaylak, accou

pp.145‐146.

4, p. 3

9

asliyeye gale

shared the s

new cultur

ive view. T

attitudes tow

stated be

pting a west

The same

enian satiri

franga or w

ed lifestyle,

Latife and T

oman humo

uently used

ut how to ca

anlı Kapısında

İstanbul: İletiş

d Capital”, 199

unts usage of

ebe ediyor…

same view w

ral and com

Therefore, th

wards mode

efore, mov

ternized atti

was valid f

st Baronian

westernized

were called

Tiyatro use

or magazine

in Latife. B

arry along th

a Büyümek: Ah

şim Yayınları),

99:p. 204.

“şık”. Özdiş, O

…Suistimala

with Midha

mmercial ce

he fact that

ernization w

ving reside

itude, as opp

for the nonn.

Those, w

part of cit

d şık (for m

ed the attrib

es of the ni

Both charac

his??311

hmet Mithat E

, p. 147.

Osmanlı mizah

at, fuhuş

at, as the

enters of

Istanbul

was also

ences to

posed to

-Muslim

who were

ty, along

men) and

bution of

neteenth

cters are

Efendi’nin

h

100

Both words had a negative connotation in the discourse. In Ottoman Turkish

dictionary, şıllık meant a woman who dresses up in a corrupt way, and gads around.

Whereas şık adopted from French word chique is defined as a man who is nicely

dressed up.312 Such a word choice, with negative implications only for women, might

be because of that sexual morality discourse was rather articulated over women.

Though, in the discourse of humor magazines, şık had more or less the same

connation with that of şıllık. Both words implied an unsociable person whose life

style and manner is not approved, because either it is found immoral or thought to be

incongruous to the dominant or conservative structure of society. Therefore, their

unsociability caused both laughter and criticism. They were also representing a fop

or coxcomb character with their western imitations or with their self- ignorance

which constituted the other root of laughter, as explained in Platon’s theory. Şıllıks

and şıks, who were pursuing a so called degenerated lifestyle, were watched out by

humorists and conservatively criticized with a discourse of morality. Through

laughter those vices were encouraged to be corrected, just as the other vices observed

in the economy, in transportation or in municipal services. Accordingly, morality

discourse over the cultural westernization in Ottoman humor magazines, and in

Latife and Tiyatro in particular, can be classified into following topics as fashion,

manners, leisure, entertainment, social activities, drunkenness and alcohol addiction,

and relationships. Additionally, ethics of journalism was a major topic to the degree

that even some issues of magazines were reserved to which. One reason for why

journalism was a significant consideration seems to be that editors were first of all

concerned with morality of their own field of profession.

Flamboyance and Fashion: Şıllıks and Şıks

In line with Spectator, Ottoman humor magazines and Ottoman press in general,

paid a particular attention to the instruction of women. In the nineteenth century,

instructive magazines for children are almost equal to women’s magazines in

number. The major reason would be the conservative idea that women and children

formed the base for sustaining traditional social structure. Morality concern had not

only shaped the form of humor magazines, but also it defined the school curriculum,

as it evident in the introduction of Ahlâk Risalesi, Morality Booklet as a primary

compulsory course material in primary education in the nineteenth century. Besides

312 Şemseddin Sami, Kamus‐i Türki, 1902:p.795.

101

the major education policy of government in this period, was to discipline and

instruct morality.313That also supports that morality was one of the main ideologies

of nineteenth century Ottoman government. Moral weeklies particularly treated

manners and roles of woman in society. Addison states when defining the target

audience of the magazine: “But there are none to whom this Paper will be more

useful than to the female world.”314 Similarly, Tiyatro and Latife, as well as the

nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines in general315, usually dealt with the

manners, dressing, and decorum of women.

The first major topic of mockery, that is, fashion was subject to a two dimensional

criticism: economic and cultural. The former relates to the moral economy issue, as

already been explained. In the midst of poverty and economic crisis, both men and

women were shopping constantly to follow the constantly changing fashion. They

were even in debts for spending on fashion. For the conservatives, and so for the

humor writers, fashion was a commercial trick devised to make people to spend more

as derived from the content. This view was clearly expressed through the ridicule of

fashion designers in Latife. A dialog between two women quoted with illustration,

ridicules the fashion as a device for money making:

“- What happened? Is it that you assembled at a place to settle the way to make

money?

- ( Crying ) No….we just could not decide on what this years’ fashion shall be.”316

Similarly, in another conversational comic story, a woman was discussing with his

husband over the money she requires to buy fashionable items. She asked her

husband to buy the cloth required for getting a new dress prepared by a westernized

tailor of Istanbul, so as to dress up in a wedding. Although, her husband was

penniless, the wife was insistent on getting the money. Her husband was rejecting by

relying on that she can use the same dress that she wore in a previous wedding. She

replied that a dress she wore in a wedding cannot be worn again in another wedding,

which is what her husband so the conservatives found ridiculous:

313 For detailed comments on the topic see: Somel, Osmanlı’da Eğitimin Modernleşmesi, 2010:pp.80‐

83.

314 Addison, The Spectator, no.10, March 12, 1711. Ed. Bond, 1965.

315 Diyojen and Çaylak covered similar topics such as fashion, manners and decorum of women:

Özdiş, Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 2010: pp.157‐168.

316 Latife, issue 5, April 1, 1291 / 1875, p.20

102

“(husband) - … Daha üç gün oldu şu atlas feraceyi yaptıralı.

(wife ) - Aa o giyilir mi? Modası değişti!

( husband ) - Ne? Oo! Günde bir moda değişirse…”317

As a matter of fact, new fashion, or modernized dresses were with a more

complexity when compared to the traditional ones. They are sewed as two-fold and

larger in size and so required much more cloth which again was another point of

discussion between wife and husband:

“ - Canım neden 35 arşın gidiyor?

‐ İşte hesap et, 20 arşın fistan, 13 de ferace 35” 318

They were discussing the amount of the cloth needed to get her dress tailored.

Husband was criticizing why a smaller size of cloth did not suffice the tailoring of a

dress. Further, the money she needed was not limited to dress, but she also needed to

buy new shoes and westernized accessories in harmony with her new dress: “wife: -

Nasıl? 10-15 lira mı? Biz akşam Ayşe kadın ile hesap ettik, tam 35,5 lira gidiyor. 15

lira sade süsüyle dikişine gidiyor. Ya Liza’ya diktireceğim ya madam Corco’ya. 15

lira da 35 arşın mantine gider. Ay efendim, hotoz aldın, şemsiye, potin bunlara kusur

kalan 5 lira yetişmez bile…” 319 Similarly, in Tiyatro, a father in Pera was looking

for the gloves – another à la franga item that his daughter ordered. Yet, his money

did not suffice to buy a couple of gloves as they are expensive, which led to a

humorous discussion between the man and the saleswoman. He was asking to buy

only one glove and was discussing why the gloves are sold only in couples.320

Thus fashion had transformed the shopping in both quantity and frequency as the

two criticisms regarding morality of commerce. Secondly, not only as a way of

consumption, but also as a concept, fashion was foreign to Ottoman understanding,

specifically to the understanding of small culture. Therefore, western fashion

constituted another step distancing great culture from little culture, so the humorists

criticized which, in line with their effort to close the gap between the two. Out of that

unfamiliarity, fashion was one of those ludicrous situations leading to laughter in

317“Ben ile Hanım”, Latife, issue 3, August 19, 1290/ 1874, pp. 3‐4; Appendix I: pp.134‐136.

318 Ibid. pp.3‐4

319 Ibid, pp. 3‐4.

320 “Eldiven”, Tiyatro, issue 2, April 4, 1874, pp.1‐2 ; Appendix I,pp.128‐131.

103

nineteenth century Ottomans, and so was chosen as a popular topic. Another

dimension of critic directed against fashion is corruption of sexual morality. This

conservative view actually was not a peculiarity of the nineteenth century. Ottoman

traditions did not approve a woman’s dressing up in a string and fancy way. If a

woman, who faces with a sexual harassment, is dressed up strikingly at the moment

of incident, then harassment is hardly considered to be a crime.321 That mentality is

also shared by Diyojen which implies that women deserve harassment if they are

dressed up seminude.322Now with westernization, women, relatively freed from peer

pressure, had started to dress up more freely, and in a more string way. The same is

valid for men as well. Second but not the least reason behind the critic of fashion,

was the conservative idea that modernization was wrongly conceived. Conservatives

perceived and approved modernization not rather as a change in cloths or culture, but

in limited terms such as technological. Prominent change in cloths threatened the

values and traditions, which they sought to preserve when facing modernization.

Third reason was a general conservative morality concern which encourages

modesty in outlook, as well as in consumption against excessiveness and show off.

Also obsession with clothing and fashion was morally found to be a weakness, and a

vulgar behavior. Thereupon Tiyatro and Latife, in parallelism with other moral

weeklies brought criticism on fashion. For the same reason, fashion was a major

consideration of Spectator as well. Addison criticizes fashion for causing

extravagancies and also criticized excessive head dress of women.323 In another

essay, he ridicules women’s obsession with clothing as a weakness and

superficiality.324 In the same vein, Latife ridiculed women’s obsession with clothing

in a muhavere as depicting them rushing into Pera to buy a dress before it is sold out:

-Matmazel nereye böyle?

-Yeni bir fistan almaya gidiyorum.

-Pera’da satılıyor imiş.

-Doğru yolda, doğru yolda.

-Daha var mıdır acaba?

321 Sevengil, İstanbul Nasıl Eğleniyordu, 1993: p.146.

322 Özdiş, Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset,2010, p. 161.

323 Addison, The Spectator, no. 16, Monday, March 19, 1711.Ed.Bond, 1965:pp. 71‐73.

324 Addison, The Spectator, no. 15, Saturday, March 17, 1711.Ed.Bond, 1965:pp. 66‐69.

104

-Çabuk yürü, çabuk yürü belki kalmamıştır”325

Along with obsession, excessive outlook brought by fashion was a target in

parallelism with Spectator. Men were butt of humorists for following an elaborate

western fashion. Accordingly, Latife ridicules luxurious details of fashion by giving

guide on how to dress up in a modern way.326 Extravagancies of fashionable western

clothing are also mocked in a cartoon, through a metaphor established between

peddlers’ panel and shape of women’s hats:

“Peddlers are charged with tax, and why not these women?”327

Flamboyance and westernization also applied to home décor fashion. In a

dialogue, a woman tells her neighbor that passersby are caught by the luxurious and

wonderful view of furniture of her house. She replies that furniture had been brought

from Europe.328 This can be interpreted as both a critic of obsession with western

commodities as an unapproved way of consumption and as a ridicule of show off,

and luxury. Another cartoon also mocks the extravagances of women’s fashion:

325“Şıllıkların Mükalemesi”, Latife, issue 14, April 22, 1291/1875, p. 2.

326 Latife, issue 5, April 1, 1291/1875, p.18.

327 Tiyatro, issue 45, August 15, 1874, p.4.

328“İki Hane Beyninde” Tiyatro, issue 31, July 11, 1874, p.1.

105

- April’s fashion for women!!329

It is attempted to be revealed that modernization of dressing and furniture was

not the humorists were against, but it was against flamboyance, luxury, extravagancy

and excessiveness, as a typical of the eighteenth century British moral weeklies.

Besides, some elements of western fashion were rejected, as they proved ridiculous

and unsociable to the indigenous culture and society. Also, it was again a matter of

moral economy as market was channelizing people to excessive and luxurious

spending by means of fashion and western commodities. Therefore, regarding the

fashion, the hidden text behind discourse was again to encourage rational spending,

economic morality, modesty, good taste and decorum in society.

Etiquette, Leisure, Entertainment

For the moral weeklies how people spend their time, as well as their money, how

their tastes are shaped, and how do they behave, seem to be vital issues. Accordingly,

Ottoman humor magazines of the first period as well as Spectator, concentrated on

topics as leisure, entertainment, cultural activities and etiquette. As the

westernization remarked the period, many of these topics were also linked to cultural

westernization.

329 Latife, issue 12, April 18, 1291/ 1875,p. 48.

106

To start with the manners or etiquette, along with changed lifestyles, şıks and

şıllıks had also changed their manners by adopting westernized etiquette rules.

However, western manners were perceived incongruous to Ottoman culture, so

followers proved to be unsociable to Ottoman traditional society and so seemed

ludicrous and laughable. Another root of laughter regarding etiquette was imitations,

or self-ignorance of fops as explained by Platon’s superiority theory of laughter

which emerges when man imagines himself wealthier or more handsome or wiser

than he actually is. In Ottoman case, funny situation emerged from men’s pretending

to be western or à la franga through manners, even if actually they are not. One

example is the use of pardon as an expression of excuse. Therefore, it was subject to

laughter and criticism. Accordingly, a man tells his friend that in steamboat, a man

stepped on his foot, and said pardon as an excuse. His friend asks why he did not

yelled at the man, he replies that “…if said pardon, then it is done.”330 In another

issue of Tiyatro, ironically how to obey western etiquette rules are explained.331

Funny situation emerges from imitation of western manners, and when the western

manners are found incongruous and unsociable to the local culture. It is well

exemplified with the cartoon below, depicting a monkey as French’s imitator in

clothing, language and manners:

330“Vapurdan Çıkan Bir Adam Ahbabına” Tiyatro, issue 2, March 22, 1290/ 1874, p.2.

331 “Ahlak Risalesi”, Tiyatro, issue 7, p. 3.

Again

French say

manners a

only abou

about man

inappropri

they come

ladies.334

Activit

cultural d

already m

332 Latife, iss

333 “Latife Ba

334 Steele, T

‐ No Mo

in a muha

ying “pardo

are again cr

t imitation o

nners in ge

iate manner

e across ea

ties and ent

degeneration

mentioned. I

sue 30, Kânun

aba ile Bir Şah

The Spectator,

‐ Mo

‐ Bon

‐

onsieur No,

vere, a guy

on”, man do

riticized for

of westerniz

eneral, as a

rs of men, s

ach other i

tertainment

n. Westerni

In the ninet

n‐u Evvel 30, 1

hıs Beyninde”,

, no. 24, Wedn

107

onkey, look a

njour sir, th

But you a

we are not

y hits a ma

oes not und

r being imit

zed manner

typical of

such as an

in the Park

constituted

ized activit

teenth centu

291,p.2.

, Latife, issue

nesday, Marc

7

at you. Wha

his is how to

are an imita

imitators b

an on the s

derstand wh

tations from

rs, but Ottom

f moral wee

acquaintanc

k, though th

d the third

ties were h

ury, Europe

1, September

h 28, 1711 Ed

at is it?332

o be a şık.

ator.

but şıks are i

street. Whe

hat the guy

m the west.

man humori

ekly. Spect

ce’s joining

he other is

dominant t

housed in G

ean cafes an

r 1, 1292/1876

d.Bond, 1965:p

imitating us

en he excus

means.333 H

Though, it

ists were co

tator also c

g one anoth

s in compa

theme in sp

Galata and

nd restauran

6.

pp.100‐101.

s.

ses with

Here the

was not

oncerned

criticized

her when

any with

phere of

Pera as

nts were

108

flourished in Galata and Pera, such as Café Byzance, Café Concordia, Café Flamm,

Café de France, and Café Couzi.335 It was closely linked with the increased

population of Europeans in Istanbul which also led to the opening of hotels out of

need. 336 To these added were the theatres, photographer’s studios, various western

style shops, and department stores selling European commodities and fashionable

items. There were also opened bookstores selling various books.337 Galata and Pera,

for the inhabitants of Istanbul, had become the door opening to the western life.

Those who were choosing the westernized lifestyle were frequenting the coffees and

restaurants, shopping in the western shops and that way followed à la franga social

and leisure activities.

Reading some western books such as novels was not approved by moralists as

corrupting the minds of young people. For instance, aforementioned novel Paul et

Virgine by Jacques Henri Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was relatively a newly translated

novel into Turkish and gained popularity during this period. In the same vein with

Tanzimat novels, the previously quoted muhavere on novel, tries to convey the

message or attempts to stimulate the idea that the young generation was

misunderstanding what they read in translated novels and so they were being misled

by which,338 and turning out to be şıks.

Ottoman humor magazines were not against leisure, entertainment or social and

cultural activities, but there were approved ones and unapproved ones. Besides, it is

not approved if in the form of dissipation. First of all, leisure was an unfamiliar

phenomenon to the Ottomans, and in the heart of that unfamiliarity is the utilitarian

understanding, which is closely linked with morality and conservatism. In other

words, if any activity does not provide faide, that is any moral benefit to the person,

then it should be avoided. Such an understanding is like the Ottoman translation of

Spectator’s motive encouraging activities provided they are rational and progressive

both to the society and individual. For Ottoman humorists, western kind of

entertainment and social activities such as westernized dance, polka, and attending

masquerade balls were by no means one of those beneficial activities. Therefore

those activities were criticized with a moral concern. Spectator was also concerned

335 Akın, Galata ve Pera, 1998: p. 257.

336 Ibid, pp. 246‐257.

337 Ibid., pp. 220‐257.

338 “Paul ve Virginie Belası,” Tiyatro 3,April 8, 1874,, p.1

109

with the moral benefits of activities. For instance, it censured The Club of Duellists

for its violence and, instead encouraged going to the clubs which are increasing

friendships among men.339 Further, as already mentioned Addison usually criticized

people’s fondness of Italian Plays.

In somehow a similar vein, Ottoman humor magazines attacked balls and

masquerade balls as which were providing no faide, and morally corrupt by allowing

men and women to come together and to act in unapproved ways. Another point of

criticism was that balls are turning people into fops. Spectator also mocks

masquerade balls as a coxcomb activity.340 Ottoman humorists defined men who

attended masquerade balls as şıks, dressing up like buffoons and performing polka

during the ball. It was further ridiculed in an ironic way that şıks were already like

masqueraders in their daily life with their cloths and manners so they did not need a

special dress up for the masquerade balls. Further, again ironically walking manners

of şıks were ridiculed and attributed to the polka dance.341 Third reason behind

criticism was cultural unfamiliarity with masquerade ball, so they found it ridiculous

and incongruous to Ottoman culture. Polka is also mocked with the same grounds.

Persons following balls and polka were proving unsociable and incongruous not only

to traditional Ottoman community but also to the westernized community which

housed the balls. Humorists depicted Ottoman men as trying to attend masquerade

balls, but not being able to perform polka. Walking with madams after the dinner

when attended to balls was also found ludicrous. In Tiyatro, Cemil Bey, was one of

those fops, who were invited to a ball but he did not how to perform polka. He was

taking polka lessons before going to ball and depicted as a fool.342

Street musicians and adoption of western musical instruments was another

criticism, behind which there was again the motive of western imitation and

pragmatic concern. In one instance, Karakoncolos, the reporter of Latife, come

across Deli Corci playing music on the street. When he asks why he is playing music

along the streets, he replies that it is helpful in reformation of morality.343 In another

instance, adoption of European musical instrument, flavta, in the name of

339 Addison, The Spectator, no. 9, Saturday, March 10, 1711.Ed.,Bond, 1965: pp.39‐43.

340 Addison, The Spectator, issue 8, pp.37‐38. Ed. Bond, 1965: pp.37‐38.

341 Latife, issue 39, March 6, 1291/ 1875, pp.2‐3.

342 “Ayak Oyunu: Komedya Bir Perde,” Tiyatro, pp. 1‐2.

343 Latife, issue 2, March 25, 1291/1875, p.1.

110

modernization is ridiculed.344 Shopping at westernized stores and frequenting

westernized cafes were other unapproved activities, not only culturally but also in

terms of economic morality. Duality of à la franga and à la turca were leading to

incongruity in both city and society, which caused ludicrous and comic situations in

sphere of leisure activities too, as it was in other spheres. Similar to use of western

and Ottoman clock system together and operation of traditional transportation system

of rowboats next to steamboats, there was the duality of Turkish and European coffee

service in cafes of Pera. Latter situation is ridiculed in Tiyatro as now that

westernized elements invaded the daily life, people get into trouble with à la franga.

To illustrate, the waiter was asking the man whether he wants coffee à la franga or à

la turca. Meanwhile the men sitting on the next table were disputing over what was

the time actually, as one of the men was using à la franga clock, and the other had an

à la turca one.345

Sybaritic or idle people, who were spending all of their time and money on

entertainment and leisure, were other butts of humorists. Men were filling the

coffeehouses to play billiard, backgammon and cards. Latife’s spy Karakoncolos,

reports those so called corrupt individuals as:

‐ Geçenlerde hani ya Sultan Ahmet Kıraathanesi yok mu, onun yukarısına

çıkmıştım. Ne görsem ben, orayı gazete okunulan bir mahal diye bilir idim,

meğer yukarısında bir iki mektep de açılmış.

‐ Canım Karakoncolos senin artık gözlerin de kararmış, orada mektep ne

gezer. Hem öyle bir mektep ki mükemmel ilm-i tavla, ilm-i kâğıt fen-i bilardo

orada suhuletle tahsil olunuyor.346

As the quotation implies that coffeehouses are approved on the condition that

they serve to illumination of people through literary activities, not to play games.

Again there is a pragmatic concern behind criticism. Apart from vices of idleness and

dissipation in sphere of entertainment, there was the problem of drunkenness which

was an issue also treated by Spectator. Drunken was mocked by changes it makes on

manners.347 Further, it is ridiculed that majority of Paris’ population is composed by

344“Düdük”,Latife, issue 29, May 29, 1291/1875, pp.1‐2

345 Tiyatro, issue 7, April 10, 1290/ 1874, p.4.

346 Latife, issue 5, April 1, 1291/ 1875, p. 3.

347 “Bir Fıkra,” Latife, issue 10, September 21, 1874, p.3.

111

drunken, and which was almost true for Istanbul too.348This comparison also might

be taken as an implication that Western Europe was regarded as corrupted and with

the westernization process Istanbul was also adopting vices such as drunkenness. In

somewhere else, it is ridiculed that Viennese beer is so much consumed in Istanbul

that they are planning to establish a beer factory reserved to produce for Istanbul

only.349 Yet, as already stated, drunkenness and alcohol consumption had been

present in Ottoman life through the history. Next to the vices of dissipation and

drunkenness, were added the debauchery, which was attributed to şıks. Dressing up

in an extravagant way, şıks were going after şıllıks.350 For that reason, Tiyatro, in a

cartoon associates the vice of drunkenness with other vices of gambling or card plays

and as well as women:

“Three bad habits which harms people”

348 Latife, issue 9, September 9, 1874, p.1.

349 Latife, issue, 38,September 2, 1291/1875, pp.135‐136.

350 Latife, issue 38, February 27, 1290/1874, p.1.

112

Above cartoon also reflects the genderisation of the issue because women are

excluded from meaning of the word “people,” as it is evident in that among bad

habits of (men) women are listed. There is another reason which also explains the

inclusion of the above cartoon. Baronian himself is said to have followed a life of

dissipation involving alcohol and women for some time until 1870,351 which is four

years before he publishes Tiyatro. Maybe that is why he gave a priority to the topic,

as many other cartoons about dissipation are in far greater number in Tiyatro when

compared to Latife. Yet, in general he is mentioned to be fond of alcohol but with

moderate use.352 This information is significant in showing that, Tiyatro was not

totally against alcohol, but it was against drunkenness and instead encouraged a

modest use. The same argument could be applied to Latife, which also criticized

drunkenness, and there are no signs or statements which criticized the use of alcohol

itself.

Other point of critic was the western theatre which Ottomans imported into

Ottoman life at the nineteenth century, similar to other western elements. Suspicious

attitude also applied to western theatre, as it did to all other novelties. Accordingly,

issues like quality of the plays and theatre was commonly treated by both Tiyatro and

Latife. However, the latter approached western theatre more critically because there

was an ideological motive behind that attitude. Güllü Agop or Hagop Vartovyan,

Armenian actor and director, had been given a ten years concession by Ottoman

government in 1870 to open and held plays in Turkish, in Istanbul.353 He was

supposed to direct the performance of Turkish and Armenian dramas, comedies etc.

Yet he was attacked by Latife and by other periodicals, especially by the Armenians.

There was an ideological reason behind the satire directed against Güllü Agop as

explained by Metin And. Agop was holding plays in Turkish, and because of which

Armenian intellectuals were divided into two in their attitude towards him.354

Though he also held plays in Armenian in equal number to Turkish ones, except for

the Ramadan when only Turkish plays were held. Maybe that is what Latife,

criticized as “when Ramadan arrives, plays held for making money.”355Another

opposition was based on his profit motive. In the case of Latife, Güllü Agop was the

351 Bardakjian,”Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978:p.11.

352 Ibid, p.16.

353 Metin And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu ( Dost: Ankara, 1999 ),p. 56, p. 74.

354 Ibid, pp.121‐122.

355 Latife, issue 12, September 19, 1290. p.3. p.4.

113

most ridiculed topic after the “ethics of journalism.” However, Baronian, the

publisher of Tiyatro magazine was in good terms with Güllü Agop.356 Therefore, the

content did not include much criticism of him and his theatre when compared to

Latife. There are almost no critics found, except for some critics such as that people

in the lodges could hardly hear the performers357 whereas, Latife was in many issues

attacking at Güllü Agop about his profit motive, and questioning the ethics and

quality of his art. Many times, the concession given to him was criticized.358 Also, it

had been contended that, he was making an undeserved gain and unjust profit

through theatre.359 That no appreciated plays are performed is criticized: “Agop kim?

tiyatro kim?...Oynadığı oyunlar ise şunun bunun!!”360 Whatever the ideological

stances behind, one of the criticisms about theatre would be interpreted as an

unsuccessful imitation of west with regard, in the same vein with the other adoptions

from the west.

Topics so far as treated regarding manners, leisure and entertainment reveal that,

it was not necessarily westernization, but the discourse was mainly against social

deviation either through cultural alienation or through dissipation and extravagance.

Humorists were not totally against some of the conducts, but urged for modesty. This

is further supported by the fact that Tiyatro’s editor Hagop Baronian, was also

frequenting coffeehouse and playing backgammon. He also sustained the habit of

drinking in a modest way.361 Censure of cultural westernization, as which is

generally associated with upper classes of civilian bureaucracy and wealthy families,

also originated from the aim of managing differences between great and little culture

in Mardin’s terms. Thus the attitude that the moral weeklies needed to assume was a

tempering attitude against the excessiveness and weaknesses of men, also to serve to

the high aim of sustaining order and morality in society, as derived from the minutes

of the assembly which discussed about humor press’ banning as quoted before.

356 And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 1999: pp.122‐123.

357 “Feyz‐i Aşk”,Tiyatro, issue 2, March 23, 1290/1874, p. 3.

358 Latife, issue 38, 6 Safer 1292‐ February, 26, 1290/1875, p. 3.

359 Latife, issue 4, August 22, 1290/ 1874, pp. 1‐2

360 “Hayal için iki söz “, Latife, issue 9, p.3.

361 Bardakjian, “Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978:p.16.

114

Ethics of Journalism

Journalism, as brought along with the press as a western phenomenon, was not

running properly similar to other western adoptions. Accordingly, it was subject to

criticism with a morality concern similar to other issues. In Latife, ethics of

journalism was a frequent topic, there were even some issues reserved only to the

ridicule of gazettes. In Tiyatro, it was again a topic which is treated for the most

time. Humorists were making mockery of journalists and gazettes based on ethics of

journalism. One of the implications was that the published news was either not

current, or it was false. Second problem was that persons who do not qualify to be a

journalist were writing articles for the gazettes. Third problem was the matter of

objectivity, as exemplified by the relations of publishers with Güllü Agop. One

example is gazette Basiret. Through a dialog with Karakoncolos, it is criticized that,

once Basiret had good relations with Güllü Agop, it used to support Güllü Agop in

articles. Now that there had been a conflict between them, Basiret’s comments were

turned against him.362 The last but not the least, was the profit motive behind

publishing which was decreasing the quality of journalism as already described in the

chapter on press. Quality of the gazettes was also mocked as they are publishing

boring essays or news. For instance, Latife ridicules that reading Medeniyet or

Ruzname is a good solution for those who are suffering from sleeping difficulty.363

Tiyatro many times censures content of Hayal, which is another humor magazine

edited by Teodor Kasap.364 For many other reasons, humor magazines attacked each

other or other gazettes. Also Latife and Tiyatro were not in good terms, as also

derived from their different attitude towards Güllü Agop. Further, they attacked each

other in some cases. Latife reports that Tiyatro had called Latife “lady.” Latife replies

Tiyatro stating that Latife cannot be a lady and that ladies are actually present in

Tiyatro.365

Nevertheless, as it is shown by this study, both Tiyatro and Latife covered same

topics and they perceived the same things as vices and criticized which with the same

362 Latife, issue 3, March 27, 1291/1875, p.10.

363 Latife, issue 11, September 16, 1290/1874,p. 3.

364 Tiyatro, issue 6, April 6, 1290/ 1874, p.3.

365 Latife, issue 10, September 12, 1290/ 1874, p.2.

115

motivations. For correction of vices through laughter, wit is devised. In line with

Bergson’s theory of humor and incongruity theorists, it was manifest that comic was

originating from unsociability, incongruity and imitation which either the city or the

inhabitants experienced. It has been further showed that, as evident in the topics

covered; in the points of criticisms; and in justifications based on utilitarianism and

morality; it is the laughter of conservative moralists.

116

IV. Conclusion: Whose Voice, Addressed to Whom?

This part is again concerned with Ottoman community in general and Ottoman

Armenians in particular since Latife and Tiyatro, which are both published by

Armenians, are taken for a case study. Therefore, answer to the question of who

addresses these publications to whom, needs to be constructed within two levels -

community and class divisions.

To start with the community framework of analysis, it is evident from the fact that

both published in Ottoman Turkish and in Ottoman Alphabet, Tiyatro and Latife

were both addressing to Ottoman community in general. As an instance, Tadron

magazine by Hagop Baronian was published in Armenian and for Armenian

community. Tiyatro was the Ottoman Turkish version of Tadron that he published

simultaneously and for a larger audience.366 Further it is similar to Tadron in form

and content. Many times the same articles and same cartoons were published. Only

some modifications were made, to make the other fit into Armenian community in

particular.367 Besides, in relation to the topic of westernization, Armenian writers

perceived the situation as Armenians, Turks, or Greeks were losing their cultural

form, with the influence of the west. As for the other topics such as urban problems,

they were experienced by all. That is, it was not only Armenians, or Muslim Turks,

but the whole community and the city itself were going through degeneration from

the view of humorists. Therefore, the concern of Armenian writers was the whole

Ottoman community. Such an embracing concern of the Armenian writers was also

shared by Ottoman Muslim Turks, as can be exemplified by the writings of Ahmed

Midhat and Hagop Baronian. Fazıl Gökçek in Osmanlı Kapısında Büyümek;

exemplifies Ahmed Midhat’s concern for the whole Ottoman public. In his novel

Müşahedat, Ahmed Midhat treats the issue of degeneration through western

influence within the scope of Armenian community. In this novel, this time

characters Felatun Bey and Rakım Efendi was represented by their Armenian

corresponding characters. Midhat clarifies this influence with his statement as quoted

before that “Şimdi Galata ve Beyoğlu'nda ecnebilerin yerli ahali-i hristiyaniden

ziyade çoğalmış oldukları muhakkaktandır. Ecnebilerin çoğaldığı yerlerde Avrupa

366 Bardakjian, “Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978: pp. 300‐303.

367 Ibid.,p. 304.

117

ahlakı ahlak-ı asliyeye galebe ediyor… suistimalât, fuhuş ve rezâil artıyor…”368 He

implies that westernization had degenerated Ottoman Armenians as well as Ottoman

Muslim Turks. Further when he depicts an Armenian woman from previous

generation, as a well behaved person, he says that such a woman can hardly be found

in Istanbul nowadays: “o zamanlar ehl-i iffet kadınlar İstanbul'da çokça

bulunduğunu ama şimdi pek az bulunur...”369 The same concern embracing whole

Ottoman community can be found in both Latife and Tiyatro. For instance, Baronian

depicts a Turkish-Muslim character named Cemil Bey as trying to be à la franga and

behaving as a fool by his unsuccessful efforts to adopt western ways.370 It shows that

Armenian writers were also concerned with the whole Ottoman community’s

morality. It could also be argued that this kind of all-embracing concern by the

writers was also partially originating from the so called “upper Ottoman identity” in

the case of Ahmed Midhat and Baronian or Cevdet Paşa as the influential figures of

the time. However, it is “so called” because with investigation of their real

understandings, it will be revealed that they were not considering themselves as

Ottomans, but they were belonging to their own community. There were not

Ottomans, but there were instead Muslim Turks, Armenians and other communities

which are distinguishing themselves from each other. Similar to Baronian, also

Ahmed Midhat tried to be the writer appealing to the whole Ottoman public as it is

shown by Fazıl Gökçek. However, Midhat in his novels was distinguishing

Armenian community from Muslim Turks and he did not actually considered non-

Muslims to be Ottomans. Ahmed Midhat also shows in his novels that Armenians

also did not consider themselves to be from Ottomans. In Karnaval, main characters

of which were Armenians, he depicts Mösyö Hamparsun as considering himself to be

out of Ottomans.371

Second level of analysis that is the class dimension of discourse requires

analyzing community structures in the nineteenth century. However, since Ottoman

humor magazines covered here, are published in Istanbul and focused on which, only

classes in Istanbul will be considered. To start with Ottoman ruling class, it was

composed of Seyfiye/Military, İlmiye/Religious and Kalemiye/ Scribal institutions.

368Müşahedat, p. 98, 99, cited in Fazıl Gökçek, Osmanlı Kapısında Büyümek: Ahmet Mithat Efendi’nin

Hikâye ve Romanlarında Gayri Müslim Osmanlılar (İstanbul: İletişim, 2006), p. 147.

369 Müşahedat, p.98 cited in Gökçek p.146.

370 Tiyatro, issue 4, April 11, 1874, p.1.

371 Karnaval in Gökçek, p. 125

118

However by the eighteenth century, scribal class had gained more importance as a

part of bureaucratic and administrative restructuring of the Ottoman Empire.372 In the

nineteenth century, restructuring continued with the rise of a new bureaucracy along

with the administrative modernization and reorganization process. As a result of the

administrative modernization, bureaucratic elite gained significance within the

Ottoman ruling class.373 The new bureaucratic elite, with their westernized

educational background, acted as the forerunners of westernization and represented

over westernized segment of Ottomans. Besides, military institution had gone

through modernization, and members of which received some westernized education

as well. İlmiye or ulema members in general were more conservative relative to other

segments of ruling class. Many constituted a closed family structure strictly

preserving Ottoman values and mores. Though, ulema do not represent a

homogeneous body with regard to conservatism or in their attitudes towards

novelties or westernization. For instance, Cevdet Paşa, Ottoman influential statesman

of the period, was Ulema class origin. However, he many times criticized Ulema

members as they are closed to novelties, and hindering scientific and technical

reforms.374

In nineteenth century Istanbul, class boundaries are a bit indiscernible. Further the

concept of middle class is floating when it is applied to Ottoman context in this

period. Here, a rather social structure analysis is presented. Apart from above listed

upper class members, other segments of society living in Istanbul included petty civil

servants, professionals, teachers, merchants, artisans, craftsman, and workers. Some

works also list artisans, craftsmen; merchants as well as teachers among a second

group of dominant elite class,375 whereas in economic class analysis, artisans

together with other groups in various economic occupations are considered to be

forming a new Muslim middle class in the nineteenth century.376 Majority of

Ottoman Muslim population in Istanbul however can be counted among either

middle or lower class and former represented traditional segment of society against

372 Norman Itzkowitz, ‘’Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities.’’ Studia Islamica 16, (1962 ), pp.73‐94.

373 For more insight: Carter V. Findley, Bureucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: Sublime

Porte,1789‐1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980 ).

374 Neumann, Araç Tarih, Amaç Tanzimat, 1999: pp.91‐98.

375 Karpat draws a table of Ottoman social structure in the nineteenth century: Kemal Karpat,

Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays ( Leiden: Brill,

2002),p.304.

376 Ibid.,p.43.

119

westernized bureaucracy and bourgeoisie. For instance, artisans and craftsmen, in

particular represented Ottoman traditional family structure and values as stated

before. Eventually, traditional conservative segment was criticizing over westernized

upper classes and bourgeoisie segment.377 In their attitude towards modernization,

somewhere in between the upper and relatively lower classes stood newly emerged

intelligentsia. Most of them were at the same time hold positions such as small state

offices, but they were majorly involved in journalism and literature. They were

endowed with western knowledge, and languages. Even if from different class

origins, they had internalized communitarianism and voiced the traditional

conservative segment as the dominant form of society. They appeared as the

mobilizers over lower and upper classes.378 Therefore, the aim of Ottoman Muslim

conservatism was to form a mid-way society based on virtues of traditional middle

class family structure, freed from the vices of both classes, such as the vanity of

upper classes, and vulgarity of lower classes. This was the stand of Ahmed Midhat,

which is to be represented by Hagop Baronian or Zakarya Beykozluyan in Armenian

Community, as also evident in the discourse of both magazines.

In Armenian community, clergy formed the first segment of upper class, and

Amiras or Armenian aristocracy constituted another. Amiras were also divided into

two groups within themselves. The first group was namely sarrafs or bankers, and

which derived their status from wealth. Second group was formed by civil servants.

That Amiras involved both in civil service and in the finances of Ottoman officials,

would bring them into close affiliation with the ruling institution. With the influence

of their ties with the government, they acted as the mediators between the Ottoman

government and Armenian Patriarchate and Armenian community in general. They

were also decisive in the internal administration of Armenian millet.379 Besides, they

would be the westernizing segment of Armenian community. Additionally, millet

administration had been first monopolized by clergy and Amiras. Therefore, Amiras

were usually subject to criticism from their own community since they are regarded

as the tools of Ottoman government and as not serving to the national interests of

Armenian community. Further, as they were preventing administrative representation

377 Ekrem Işın, “Tanzimat Ailesi ve Modern Adab‐ı Muaşeret”, in Tanzimat Değişim Sürecinde Osmanlı

İmparatorluğu. Edited by Halil İnalcık and Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu (Ankara: Phoenix, 2006), pp. 388‐

390.

378 Mardin, Superwesternization,1974:p.428.

379 Barsoumian,”The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class, 1982:pp. 171‐181.

120

of other segments from community, Amiras were in conflict with them. Only after

the establishment of Armenian constitution, other classes gained the right of

representation as explained before. Another factor was the Armenian enlightenment,

through which an Armenian intelligentsia emerged, most of whom was educated in

the West. Intelligentsia joined the struggle to overthrow Amiras for the establishment

of constitution.380

Other segments included artisans, craftsmen, small merchants, manufacturers,

teachers and various occupations and workers, in parallelism with other non-Muslim

communities’ social structure. Again merchants, manufacturers, intellectuals are

grouped among second group of dominant elite as separate from working class and

peasants.381 However, within the framework of this study they will be considered as

forming a middle class in social structure analysis, as separate from upper class

formed by clergy and Amira. With respect to an economic class analysis, there was

also emerging a commercial bourgeoisie among Armenians. Through western trade

protection after the eighteenth century, they were at first advantageous in benefiting

from new commercial circumstances in nineteenth century Ottomans. Accordingly,

they were able to attain a capital accumulation.382 Commercial bourgeoisie, together

with Amiras represented westernized segment of Armenian community. They were

therefore, subject to criticism by majority of traditional middle class as voiced by

intellectuals.

In order to locate the stand of Hagop Baronian and Zakarya Beykozluyan into the

context of Armenian community, first some biographical information is needed.

Nevertheless, within the limits of this research, no information could be found about

Beykozluyan apart from that he is a publisher. Only from the discourse of Latife,

some reflections can be drawn about him. It could be argued that he was the

representative of conservative society, as opposed to westernized upper class of

Amiras and commercial bourgeoisie. Further as stated before his attitude and

ideology seems to be same with Baronian except for some small issues treated in the

previous chapter. As for Baronian, Bardakjian gives some biographical information

as well as some reflections on his political and social views. Baronian was born in

380 Bardakjian, “Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978:p. 65.

381 Karpat, Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History,2002, pp.304‐305.

382 Fatma Müge Göçek, Rise of Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social

Change ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1996 ),p.34.

121

Adrianople in 1843. His father was a small banker and his mother was coming from

a relatively rich family. Besides, as it can be derived from the life story of Baronian

quoted in Bardakjian thesis, he worked in modest positions and even experienced

some poverty in his last years. Therefore, he might be defined as a middle class

member. After studied at Greek Secondary school, which he left in in a year,

Baronian worked in pharmacy and tobacco establishments. Eventually, in 1863 and

when he was twenty, he arrives in Istanbul where he stayed for a while with his

cousin. During his stay, he could meet some of the intellectuals of his time and

involved in discussions. He wrote first of his significant literary work in 1865 and

which was a comedy. Before he starts periodical editorship in 1870, he works in

various positions such as Telegraph office and news agency. Also, he had an

excellent command of Greek, Turkish and French.383All of which shows that

intellectual background of him, provided Baronian with an awareness to current

social and political affairs.

With regard to his attitude towards different segments of Armenian community,

Baronian criticized both Amiras and Clergy which, in his view, were corrupted.

Therefore, his criticisms on those, led to the ban of Meghu magazine in 1874.384The

same year he took the editorship of Tadron and at the same time started to publish

Tiyatro as the Ottoman Turkish version of which. Further, the fact that license to

publish Tiyatro magazine was taken via Güllü Agop385 shows his closeness to

Ottoman government. In that point he differed from Armenian intelligentsia of his

time, such as Beykozluyan who seems to be one of those attacking at Güllü Agop for

serving to the interests of Ottoman government, at the expense of Armenian national

interests.386 Yet, Bardakjian states that, it did not mean that Baronian did not care

about the national interests; he just had humanistic views in social matters which

would reflect in his publishing Tiyatro for Ottoman society in general. He “regarded

the Ottoman community in Constantinople as one society, all the components of

which were equally in need of reform.”387 Further, he held a conservative view of

society which he believed to be based on the same sustained principles. 388 Based on

383 Bardakjian,”Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,”1978:pp.9‐ 15.

384 Ibid, p.14.

385 And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu,1999:p.123.

386 Ibid., p.121‐123.

387 “Baronian’s Tiyatro,” in Bardakjian,”Baronian’s Political and Social Satire,” 1978, pp.304‐305.

388 Ibid, pp.14‐16.

122

his literary works, Bardakjian also depicts a conservative and morally concerned

image of Hagop Baronian. According to the available biographical information, he

seems to be coming from a modest family in terms of economic status. However,

whatever their class origins, both Baronian and Beykozluyan could evidently be

counted among Ottoman intelligentsia with their journalist and writer positions. The

discourse of Tiyatro, also reveals that he was rather critic of upper class and new

commercial bourgeoisie in terms of both economic morality and their luxurious life

style. This is supported by the information that Meghu supported artisans and

craftsman against Amiras and wealthy merchant class.389 The latter can be interpreted

as referring to newly emerged commercial bourgeoisie of the nineteenth century

which Baronian criticized.

However, when considered within the framework of Latife and Tiyatro, criticism

is more embracing. Both Baronian and Beykozluyan were attacking at westernized

commercial bourgeoisie and westernized upper class of both Muslims and Non-

Muslims. However, as it is explained before, discourse of the nineteenth century

Ottoman humor magazines was not actually a westernization discourse but it was

rather a morality discourse. Therefore, in order to draw a more general conclusion, it

could be argued that, both Baronian and Beykozluyan similar to Ahmet Midhat,

belonged to the traditional, conservative segment of society. It was not only

unapproved westernization but all the vices are attacked as derived from the content

of Magazines. Not only the vices of over westernized upper class, but the vices of all

classes including beggars, journalists and even intelligentsia, were ridiculed. They

were censuring the whole society with a morality concern for the whole Ottoman

community. However, in general terms, similar to Ahmed Midhat, they were writing

rather from the side of middle class, against over westernized upper classes and

commercial bourgeoisie. Amira class and clergy also had a conservative view, but

very different from the one Baronian held. Similarly, Ahmed Midhat’s conservatism

differed from that of Ulema. Amira and Clergy’s conservatism was rather to preserve

the status quo in order persist their advantageous position in Ottomans.390 However,

Baronian’s conservatism was rather morality concerned, humanitarian and socially

responsible. All shows that Baronian was more or less in the same stand with Ahmed

389 Zakarya Mildanoğlu‐columnist at Agos, Armenian History of Printing and Press and Periodicals,

unpublished research ;Turgut Çeviker,Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü: 1986.

390 Barsoumian, “The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class,” 1982: p. 181.

123

Midhat who had a communitarian and as well as a humanistic view too, as other

intellectuals of nineteenth century Ottomans.391 Both writers were believed to be

appealing to a general public. This relates the discussion to the matter of culture of

masses on the one hand and elite culture on the other. As Şerif Mardin describes the

situation for the Ottoman Muslim intelligentsia that, “The nineteenth century was

marked in its first stages by attempts of such persons as Ahmed Midhat Efendi to

bring about a fusion of these two streams.”392

Similar situation roughly applies to Spectator’s position. Addison and Steele

appealed to a wider public to spread polite moralism, whereas Shaftesbury addressed

to elite.393 First of all, eighteenth century coincided with the rise of bourgeoisie in

Britain. Addison and Steele, both coming from middle class, defined the tone of

Spectator as “…the Whiggish balance between morality and civility, order and

liberty, learning and conviviality, in which post 1689 social and political order was

ideologically embedded.”394 Therefore, somehow in parallelism with Ahmed Midhat

and Baronian’s efforts, Addison attempted to bring together little and elite culture.

This is what Mackie well defines for Spectator’s stance “Middle Ground Bourgeoisie

standards of taste and culture was often carved out through negotiation with high

elite culture and low popular culture.” …in bourgeoisie discourse, these high and

low cultural forms are identified with another and the excesses of each rejected.” 395

Thus, Spectator criticized the excessive sides of aristocracy such as vanity and

coxcombry on the one hand, and the coarseness and vulgarity of lower classes on the

other, which was some way similar to the nineteenth century Ottoman humor

magazines’ attitude.

It is to say that, Baronian as well as Ahmed Midhat sought to establish a midway

between two extremes. Therefore, they attempted to censure excessiveness of both

classes: flamboyance of upper class, vulgarity of lower classes. Aim was to shape

society as refined from vulgarity of lower classes and vanity of upper classes, and

instead be based on the modesty of middle classes and noble taste of upper classes.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that, peddlers, porters and beggars are criticized, next

391 Mardin, Superwesternization,1974:p.428.

392 Ibid.,:pp. 428‐429.

393 Klein, Lawrance E, Shaftesbury and the Culture of Politeness: Moral Discourse and Cultural Politics

in early eighteenth‐century England ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 ), p.2.

394 Melton, Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe, 2001:p.96.

395 Mackie, Commerce of Everday, 1998: p.6.

124

to the unethical money makers of bourgeoisie and upper classes in the discourse of

magazines. Further, As Ekrem Işın states that, middle class of artisans and craftsman

with its values had formed the base of traditional Ottoman society. However, with

the westernization of economy and society, this traditional structure now was being

threatened. Among conservative middle classes, a corrupted bourgeoisie was

emerging next to the corruption of westernized bureaucracy. As a result, Tanzimat

discourse tried to protect middle class morality by criticizing overly westernized

bureaucratic elite and bourgeoisie consisted by wealthy merchants and tradesman.396

The same was true for Baronian’s stand, as well as Zakarya Beykozluyan’s stand as

it could be derived from the shared content and discourse of the magazines which

have been taken as a case study. Therefore, another aim was to shape the emerging

commercial society based on modesty, morality and decorum. In line with that,

morality of commercial relationships conducted by newly formed bourgeoisie among

middle class and upper classes, were questioned in support of lower classes. Again in

some way, in parallelism with Spectator’s stand that, wealth is not an evil, but can be

“easily corrupted if not properly employed.”397

As a result, it would be contended that nineteenth century Ottoman humor

magazines of the first period, especially Tiyatro and Latife, were generally the voice

of conservative segment of middle class against corrupted or overly westernized

commercial bourgeoisie and upper classes. Therefore, they were mainly addressed to

upper class and newly emerging commercial bourgeoisie as a target. These two

arguments first would be derived from the content and discourse of related

magazines, secondly would be supported by other points so far treated. In that vein, it

was in some way or another, similar to Spectator which was specifically

recommended by Addison to Gentleman and Businessman including tradesman and

merchants.398 It was a part of greater project by nineteenth century intellectuals to

close the gap between Great and Little Culture which had been widened with the

westernization of economy, and cultural westernization. In that, Ahmed Midhat,

Baronian, as well Beykozluyan are on the same stand. However, it is not to say that

expected audience was limited to upper and middle class. On the contrary, it is the

general characteristic of moral weeklies that the largest possible audience is sought

396 Işın, 2006: pp.388‐389.

397 Ibid,p.9.

398 Addison, Spectator, issue 10, Monday 12, 1711. Ed.Bond,1965: pp.44‐47.

125

in order to reach their highest aim of sustaining order and morality in society through

censure of incongruities. Besides, there was the concern of appealing to and

enlightening general public, by establishing mediation role between little and elite

culture. In the context of humor magazines, such mediation was manifested as

extending court humor into popular literature in Schopenhauer’s terms, and

intermingling court humor with the elements of folk literature. In Ottoman context,

the latter was managed through incorporating elements of Meddah and Orta Oyunu

into literature,399 as well as humor magazines as already shown.

As the subscription lists of Spectator shows, it was mainly the middle class, and

upper class who read the magazine.400 However, the matter of who were the readers

of Ottoman moral weeklies is unknown as there is no subscribers’ list available, as

far as within the limits of the information acquired in this research. A comparison of

the prices of papers which are contemporary to Tiyatro and Latife shows that, many

of them are the same price. Typical characteristic was that they were usually four

pages and published twice a week. First of all, Latife and Tiyatro were of the same

price that is 40 para or 1 guruş. However, for short periods, prices of both papers

were reduced to 20 para probably to increase the number of readers. Then the price

is again pulled up to 40 para and the reason for which, is explained as to meet the

expenses.401 The prices of other humor magazines such as Hayal (1875) and Diyojen

(1872) was gain 1 guruş. Other papers such as Medeniyet (1876), Basiret (1874)

were again 1 guruş.402 Therefore, prices of both Latife and Tiyatro seem to be not an

advantage or disadvantage for increasing their audience, relative to the readers of

other papers. However, it is generally known that, there was a tradition of reading the

papers loud in coffeehouses which might be partly because of that limited people

afforded to buy them regularly. Second reason is the low level of literacy. As for the

other similarities and differences between Tiyatro and Latife, first of all, the content

was the same. Same topics are treated with the same tone and so they shared the

same discourse. One difference was their attitude towards Güllü Agop, as already

explained. Therefore, unlike Latife, Tiyatro also usually published advertisements

and news on currently held theatre plays. Further Tiyatro and Latife were in

399 Parla, Tanzimat Edebiyatı’nda Siyasi Fikirler,2004: p.225.

400 Bond, The Spectator, 1965:pp.Ixxxiii‐cvi.

401 Latife, issue 43, Ramazan30, 1291/ 1875. p. 1.

402 B.D.K. Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection.

126

opposition to each other as derived from the fact that they attacked each other in

some issues. In style and form, they were also similar to each other, as well as to

other humor magazines. They similarly applied a mixture of verse and prose wit,

short funny stories, muhaveres, essays, as well as telegrams and letters from the

readers. Each number or issue included one cartoon, except for a limited number of

issues. Cartoons and advertisements are placed at the end of the page. Baronian was

the publisher of Tiyatro and at the same time the author of articles published in

which. In the case of Latife, there are no signatures found in articles. There is only a

statement with a signature at end of each issue that “gazete sahib-i imtiyazı Zakarya

Beykozluyan” stating that he was the publisher, or in some issues only a signature of

him given.

By this study, it has been attempted to show that Ottoman comic papers of the

first period (1870-77) which were coined as humor magazines up to present, are

actually moral weeklies similar to Spectator Magazine (1711-14), aimed at

instruction with a traditionalist conservative motive. First of all, persistence of

traditional and communitarian social structure as the dominant form of society and

conservatism as the dominant ideology; little changed patronage relationships;

censorship; government policies on press; didactic humor understanding, all added a

pragmatic dimension to humor press that is governed by morality concern. Therefore,

Ottoman comic papers emerged as with a morality discourse. Intellectuals, as well as

humorists were channelized to intervene in the state of Charivari to regulate it, and

to take the role of protectors of society, on the name of dominant ideology.

Therefore, they devised humor press for censure of observed vices and deficiencies

for attaining the highest aim of sustaining order and morality in city and society. All

defined the content, style and tone of humor magazines. That Ottoman humor

magazines of the first period were moral weeklies, distinguishes them from satirical

press of subsequent periods from many other points too. First of all, cartoons are not

included in the first years of humor press, except for inclusion of one cartoon per

issue in subsequent years which is a sign of less satirical character, as if the cartoon

is taken as a verbal form of satire. Besides, included cartoons were rather closer to

picture or illustration. Inclusion of typical cartoons as a part of political satire would

be seen rather during Revolutionary press. Secondly, as in transition period, and out

of instructive needs, Ottoman humor magazines of the first period, inherited the

127

verbal traditions of folk humor which were also didactic. Such incorporation was

also in line with the concern for involving popular culture with literary forms of

court humor combined with folk literature. Now that press was introduced, literature

could attain a reading public. It was similar to the development of eighteenth century

British press, attempting to involve public in literature, through which to enlighten

readers. In Ottoman case, or even in case of Britain, that was a part greater project of

intellectuals to meet the little and elite culture.

Humor understanding was also shaped by morality concern and brought the use

of wit to the fore. Even if satire is employed it was close to Roman satire which is

tempered with moral and instructive concerns. It was again in parallelism with

Spectator’s emphasis on Roman satire. Though, first Ottoman humor magazines

were mainly the publications of wit. Through emphasis on wit, humor could evolve

towards an intellectual form of humor requiring more involvement on the part of the

receiver, which was in line with the aim of enlightening and instructing the reader.

That was also similar to case of Spectator, which attempted “to enliven morality with

wit.” Laughter of nineteenth century Ottoman humor magazines of the first period

was also the laughter of incongruity theory that explains laughter as an intellectual

process or as a process of grasping of incongruities. In that vein wit and moral

function of which, were emphasized by Hutcheson. Besides, humorists devised wit to

censure the incongruities observed in society, which was manifested as the state of

Charivari. Second root of laughter in Ottoman context was the unsociability of

deviators, as explained by Bergson. Also through westernization number of western

imitators and fops had increased which constituted another motive behind laughter,

that is, the self-ignorance of fops or Şıks, similar to the laughter explained by

superiority theory of humor.

Further, the emergence of humor press coincided to the period of increased

westernization, economic and cultural westernization became major topic of these

publications. Therefore imitation of western culture at the expense of indigenous

identity, and economic morality such as ethics of newly emerged commercial society

as well as commercial relations as a result of westernization of economy, constituted

the two main problems. Next to which, general deficiencies and vices in city and

society were the target. Ottoman humor magazines or moral weeklies sought to

temper morality of daily life of mainly upper class of bureaucratic elite and of

128

bourgeoisie as well as commercial relationships. When doing this, aim was to create

an intermingling of lower class and upper class virtues, against vices and follies of

both classes. Accordingly, in the content of humor magazines, excessive sides of

both such as corrupt commercial and economic relations, profit motive, show off,

extravagance, arrogance, imitation of western culture, coarse or vulgar taste of

leisure and art, idleness, dissipation, drunkenness and debauchery and cheating were

censured for correction. Instead, a progressive, rational and modest use of wealth,

time, alcohol, as well as leisure; a noble taste of art and consumption; just and ethical

commercial relations, and sexual relationships and manners of a decorous kind based

on values and traditions are encouraged. All these elements would formulate a kind

of ethos that Ottoman moral weeklies projected for all. Such an intermingling lied in

the heart Terakki for intellectuals, similar to that Spectator saw such an effort as a

way to Progress. Therefore, Tiyatro and Latife were formed by a discourse of

conservative segment of society against corrupted segments. Additionally,

deficiencies of the city such as transportation and municipal services were also

attacked, but which were again thought to be emerging from western imitation and

lack of economic morality. Latter is evident in that motive behind criticism was

rather class exclusiveness of services.

129

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Addison, Joseph and Richard Steele. The Spectator. Edited with an Introduction

by Donald F. Bond, Vol. I.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Latife, B.D.K. Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection.

Lak Lak, issue 1, August 2, 1904. B.D.K. Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection.

Meddah, issue 1, 10 Muharrem 1292 / 1875. B.D.K. Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals

Collection.

The Spectator, no. 82, Monday, June 4, 1711.Retrieved from: http://www.bl.uk/

learning/timeline /large126933.html, on August 20, 2012.

Tiyatro, B.D.K. Hakkı Tarık Us Periodicals Collection.

Us, Hakkı Tarık, ed., Meclis-i Mebusan 1293:1877 Zabıt Ceridesi, v: 1, i: 25.

İstanbul : Gazete. Matbaa Kütüphane, 1939.

Secondary Sources:

Մեղու>> հանդեսի (1856-1865) մատենագիտություն, Ե. 2003: Bibliography of

Meghu Magazine (1856-1859) Yeravan, 2003.

Abou El-Haj, Rıfa’at Ali.“Ottoman Nasihatname as a Discourse Over Morality”,

Revue d`Histoire Maghrebine, 14, 1987.

_______. Formation of the Modern State, the Ottoman Empire Sixteenth to

Eighteenth Centuries.New York: Syracuse, 2005.

Adorno. Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life. London: Verso, 2005.

Agah, Sırrı Levend, Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi: Giriş, vol. I.Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi: Ankara, 1998.

130

Ağakay, Mehmet Ali. Fransızca -Türkçe Sözlük (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu

Basımevi,1962),

Akın, Nur. 19. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Galata ve Pera. Literatür Yayıncılık:

İstanbul, 1998.

Artinian, Vartan, The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire:

1839-1863: A Study of its Historical Development.Istanbul:Artinian, 1988.

Aristotle, “Poetics”, c.h5, 49a32-b9, in Aristotle’s Poetics: The Argument. Edited by

Gerald F.Else.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1963,

49a32.

_______. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Christopher Rowe.Oxford: Oxford

Unibersity Press, 2002

Bardakjian, Kevork B. “Hagop Baronian’s Political and Social Satire.”Ph.D. diss.,

Oxford University, 1978.

Barsoumian, Hagop “The Dual Role of the Armenian Amira Class within the

Ottoman Government and the Armenian Millet ( 1750- 1850 ),” in Christians and

Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by

Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers,

Inc., 1982)

Beneton, Philippe. Muhafazakarlık.Translated by Cüneyt Akalın. İstanbul: İletişim,

1991.

Berberyan, Nişan G. Terakki edelim beyler. Edited by Turgut Çeviker. İstanbul:

Adam Yayınları, 1986.

Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic. Translated by

Cloudesly Brereton and Fred Rorthwell. n.p.:Temple of Publishing,n.d.

Billig, Michael. Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humor.

California: Sage Publications, 2005.

Black, Jeremy.The English Press in the Eighteenth Century.London: Croom Helm,

1987.

Bond, Richmond P. Tatler: The Making of a Literary Journal.Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.

131

Braude, Benjamin and Bernard Lewis. Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire:

The Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by Benjamin Braude and

Bernard Lewis .New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982.

Bremmer,Jan and Herman Roodenburg. Eds., A Cultural History of Humor.

Cambridge, Polity Press,1997.

Brummet, Palmira.Image and Imperialism in the Ottoman Revolutionary Press:

1908-1911.New York: 2000.

Çapanoğlu, Süleyman. Basın Tarihimizde Mizah Dergileri, İstanbul: Garanti

Matbaası, 1970.

Çelik, Zeynep. The Remaking of İstanbul: Portrait of an Ottoman City in the

Nineteenth Century.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Çeviker, Turgut. Gelişim Sürecinde Türk Karikatürü Tanzimat ve İstibdat

Dönemi,1867-1878 / 1878-1908. İstanbul: Adam Yayınları, 1988.

Davison, Roderic H.“The Millets as Agents of Change in the Nineteenth Century

Ottoman Empire”, in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The

Functioning of a Plural Society, Vol.I Edited by Benjamin Braude and

Bernard Lewis (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982)

Descartes, René.The Passions of the Soul.Translated by Stephen H. Voss.Cambridge:

Hackett Publishing Company, 1989.

Duman, Hasan. Başlangıcından harf devrimine kadar Osmanlı-Türk süreli yayınlar

ve gazeteler bibliyografyası ve toplu kataloğu, 1828-1928,Ankara:

Enformasyon ve Dökümantasyon Hizmetleri Vakfı, 2000.

Eldem, Edhem. “Istanbul: From Imperial to Peripheralized Capital, in the Ottoman

City between East and West: Aleppo, Izmir, and Istanbul. Edited by Edhem

Eldem, Bruce Alan Masters, and Daniel Goffman. Cambridge: Cambridge

Press,1999.

_____.“Ottoman financial integration with Europe: foreign loans, the Ottoman Bank,

and the Ottoman public debt”, European Review, Vol.13, No.3, (2005)431-445.

132

Ergin, Osman Nuri. Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediye, vol. 3.İstanbul: İstanbul Büyük

Şehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1995.

Georgeon, François. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Gülmek Mi? : Doğu’da Mizah.

İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2007.

Gerçek, Selim Nüzhet. Türk Temaşası. İstanbul: Kanaat Kitabevi: 1942.

Göçek, Fatma Müge. Rise of Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman

Westernization and Social Change .New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

Graf, Fritz “Cicero, Plautus and Roman Laughter”, in A Cultural History of Humour.

Edited by Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg. Cambridge: Polity Press,

1997.

Greenberg, Jonathan D. Modernity, Satire and the Novel. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2011.

Grice, Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1991.

Griffin, Dustin. Satire: A Critical Reintroduction.Kentucky: Western University

Press of Kentucky, 1999.

______. Literary Patronage in England, 1650-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1996.

Gurevich, Aaron. “Bakhtin and His Theory of Carnival,” A Cultural History of

Humor. Edited by Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg Cambridge,

UK: Polity Press; Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997.

Gökçek, Fazıl. Osmanlı Kapısında Büyümek: Ahmet Mithat Efendi’nin Hikaye ve

Romanlarında Gayri Müslim Osmanlılar. İstanbul: İletişim, 2006.

Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry

into a category of bourgeoisie society. Translated by Thomas Burger

with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

1991.

Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü. A Brief History of Late Ottoman Empire.Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2008.

133

Hobbes, Thomas.Hobbes’s Leviathan reprinted from the edition of 1651 with an

Essay by the Late W.G. Pogson Smith, Chapter: CHAP. VI.: Of the

Interiour Beg. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1909.Retrieved from http

://oll.libertyfund.org/title/ 869/208751, on 2012-04-07.

Harris, Bob. Historical Connections: Politics and the rise of the press, Britain and

France, 1620-1800. London: Routlage, 1996.

"Hidjā Encyclopedia of Islam, Second Edition, Brill Online, 2012. Reference:

Boğaziçi University, from: http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/

encyclopaedia-of islam-2/hidja-COM_0284.

Hovanissian, Richard G. ed. Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times,

volume II Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to

Twentieth Century. New York: Macmillan, 2004.

“Humour.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia

Britannica Inc.20 May,2012.

Hutcheson, Francis. “Reflections upon Laughter” (Glasgow, 1750) in The

Philosophy of Laughter and Humor, ed. John Morreal. Albany, State

University of New York Press, 1987.

Işın, Ekrem. Tanzimat Değişim Sürecinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu. Edited by Halil

İnalcık and Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu. Ankara: Phoenix, 2006.

Itzkowitz, Norman. “Eighteenth Century Ottoman Realities,’’ Studia Islamica 16,

(1962), pp.73-94.

İnalcık, Halil. Şair ve Patron: Patrimonyal Devlet ve Sanat Üzerinde Sosyolojik Bir

İnceleme. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları, 2003.

______.“Capital Formation in the Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Economic

History, vol. 29, No.1, The Tasks of Economic History,(March 1969 ), pp.97-140

______.Osmanlılarda Batı’dan Kültür Aktarması Üzerine, in Osmanlı İmparatorluğu:

Toplum ve Ekonomi Üzerinde Arşiv Çalışmaları, İncelemeler. İstanbul: Eren, 1996.

Kant, Immanuel W. Critique of Judgment. Translated by Nicholas Meredith and

James Creed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Karpat, Kemal. Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles

and Essays. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

134

Kayserilioğlu, R. Sertaç.Dersaadet’ten Istanbul’a Tramvay.Istanbul: İETT Genel

Müdürlüğü, 1998.

Kırlı, Cengiz. "Surveillance and Constituting the Public in the Ottoman Empire,"

in Publics, Politics and Participation: Locating the Public Sphere in

the Middle East and North Africa.Edited by Seteney Shami (New

York: SSRC, 2009), pp. 177-180.

_____. “Struggle Over Space: Coffee Houses of Ottoman, Istanbul, 1780-1845”

(PhD Dissertation, Binghamton University, 2001).

Klein, Lawrance E. Shaftesbury and the Culture of Politeness: Moral Discourse and

Cultural Politics in early eighteenth-century England.Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1994.

Koloğlu, Orhan. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Türkiye’de Basın.İletişim Yayınları:

İstanbul, 1992.

______. Osmanlı’dan 21. Yüzyıla Basın Tarihi. İstanbul: Pozitif Yayınları, 2006.

Koraltürk, Murat. Şirket-i Hayriye: 1851-1945. İstanbul: İDO, 2007.

Kutay, Cemal. Nelere Gülerlerdi. İstanbul: Aksoy Yayıncılık, 1998.

Köprülü, Fuat (1890-1966). Nasreddin Hoca. İstanbul: Akçağ,2004.

Libaridian,Gerard, J. Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State. Transaction

Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2004.

Lippitt, John. Humour and Irony in Kierkegaard’s Thought. London: MAC Millan

Press, 2000.

Mackie, Erin ed.,The Commerce of Everyday Life: Selections from the Tatler and

the Spectator. Boston: MacMillan Press, 1998.

Mardin, Şerif. "Super Westernization in Urban Life in the Ottoman Empire in the

Last quarter of the nineteenth Century", in Turkey: Geographical and Social

Perspectives,éd. P. Benedict, E. Tümertekin, F. Mansur, Leiden: Brill,1974.

Melton, James Van Horn. Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe (New

Approaches to European History: 22), Cambridge: Cambridge University

135

Press, 2001.

Mildanoğlu, Zakarya, Armenian History of Printing and Press and Periodicals,

(unpublished research).

Miller, Tyrus. Late modernism: politics, fiction, and the arts between the world

wars. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Morreal, John. ed., the Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State University

of New York Press, 1987.

Neumann, Christoph K. Araç tarih amaç Tanzimat: Tarihi Cevdet'in Siyasi Anlamı,

translated by Meltem Arun, İstanbul Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 1999.

________.“Modernitenin Çatışması, Altıncı Daire-i Belediye, 1875-1912,”İstanbul:

İmparatorluk Başkentinden Megakente. Edited by Yavuz Köse and

translated by Ayşe Dağlı. İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2011.

Okay, Orhan Batı Medeniyeti Karşısında Ahmet Midhat Efendi.M.E.B.: İstanbul,

1991.

Ortaylı, İlber. Tanzimat Adamı ve Tanzimat Toplumu, in Tanzimat Değişim

Sürecinde Osmanl İmparatorluğu, eds. Halil İnalcık and Mehmet

Seyitdanlıoğlu. Ankara: Phoenix, 2006.

Öngören, Ferit. Cumhuriyet’in 75. Yılında Türk Mizahı ve Hicvi, 5. Baskı.

Ankara, Türkiye İs Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 1998.

Özdiş, Hamdi Özdiş, Osmanlı mizah basınında batılılaşma ve siyaset, 1870-1877:

Diyojen ve Çaylak üzerinde bir araştırma. İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2010.

Pamuk, Şevket “On the Free Trade Treaties of 1838-41” The Ottoman Empire and

European Capitalism, 1820-1913. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1987.

Parla, Jale. Babalar ve Oğullar: Tanzimat Romanı’nın Epistemolojik Temelleri.

İstanbul: İletişim: 1990.

______. Don Kişot’tan Bugüne Roman. İstanbul: İletişim, 2000.

______. “Tanzimat Edebiyatı’nda Siyasi Fikirler”, Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi

Düşünce: Cumhuriyet’e Devreden Düşünce Mirası Tanzimat ve

136

Meşrutiyet'in Birikimi, vol 1. Edited by Murat Gültengil,Tanıl Bora,

İstanbul: İletişim, 2004.

Plato, The Dialogues of Plato.Translated by B. Jowet M.A. (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1920), vol.II, Chapter: PHILEBUS.

______. The Dialogues of Plato. Translated into English with Analyses and

Introductions by B. Jowett, M.A. in Five Volumes. 3rd edition revised

and corrected, Chapter: Euthyphro. Oxford University Press, 1892,

Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/766/9369,on 2012-04-07.

______.“Republic”, p.388 in John Morreal, ed., The Philosophy of Laughter and

Humor. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Price, Richard Geoffrey George. A History of Punch. London: Collins,1957.

Raplh S. Hattox.Coffee and Coffeehouses: the Origins of a Social Beverage in the

Medieval Near East. Seattle: Distributed by University of Washington Press

c1985.

Redhouse, J. W. Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary: In Two Parts, English and Turkish,

Turkish and English, 2nd Edition. Edited by Charles Wells. London:

Bernard Quaritch, 1882.

Rosenthal, Steven. “Minorities and Municipal Reform in Istanbul: 1850-1870”, in

Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural

Society, Vol.I Edited by Benjamin Braude and Bernard Lewis (New York:

Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc., 1982),

Sahillioğlu, Halil "Osmanlılarda Narh Müessesesi ve 1525 Yılı Sonunda İstanbul'da

Fiyatlar", Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, No.1 (1967), pp. 36-40

“Satire”.Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopedia Britannica

Inc., 2012, Web.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World As Will and Idea: Supplements to the First Book.

(London: Rouledge & Kegan Paul: 1948)

___________. The World as Will and Idea, in The Philosophy of Laughter

and Humor. Edited by John Morreal. Albany: State University of

New York Press, 1987.

Server İskit, Rıfat. Türkiye’de Matbuat İdareleri ve Politikaları. Başvekâlet Basın

ve Yayın Umum Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 1943.

137

Sevengil, Refik Ahmet. İstanbul Nasıl Eğleniyordu?. İstanbul: İletişim, 1993.

Somel, Selçuk Akşin. Osmanlı’da Eğitimin Modernleşmesi(1839-1908): İslamlaşma,

Bürokrasi ve Disiplin. İstanbul: İletişim, 2010.

Spencer, Herbert. “The Physiology of Laughter”, Macmillan Magazine, ISSN 1751-

9047, Vol. 1 (11/1859).

Şahabettin, Cenap. “Mizah Felsefesi” in Hilmi Yücebaş, Türk Mizahçıları,

Nüktedanlar ve Şairler. İstanbul: 1958.

Simpson, Paul. On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a stylistic model of satirical

Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.

“The Spectator (1711- 12)”, Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition,

Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2012, Web.

Strauss, Johann. “Who read what in Ottomans (19th and 20th centuries)?”Arabic

Middle Eastern Literatures 6, no.1 (2003),pp.39-76.

______.“Notes on the First Satirical Journals in the Ottoman Empire”.Amtsblatt

vilayet gazetesi und unabhängiges Journal: die Anfänge der Presse im

Nahen Osten, ed. Anja Pistor-Hatam,Lang, and Frankfurt a.M. (etc.)

(Heidelberger Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Modernen

Vorderen Orients ); 27. pp. 121-138.

Stepanyan. Hasmik A. Ermeni harfli Türkçe kitaplar ve süreli yayınlar

Bibliyografyası (1727 - 1968)/ Bibliographie des Livres et de la Presse

Armeno-Turque (1727 -1968). İstanbul : Turquaz Yayınları, 2005.

Tuğlacı, Pars. “Osmanlı Türkiyesi’nde Ermeni Matbaacılığı ve Ermenilerin Türk

Matbaasına Katkısı,”Tarih ve Toplum XV, no. 16,1991.

Ülgener, F. Sabri. Dünü ve Bugünü ile Zihniyet ve Din, İslam, Tasavvuf ve Çözülme

Devri İktisat Ahlakı. Istanbul: Derin Yayınları, 2006.

_______. İktisadi İntihat Tarihimizin Ahlak ve Zihniyet Meseleleri: Başlangıcından

18inci Asır Sonlarına Kadar Fikir ve Sanat Tarihi Boyunca Akisler ile Umumi bir

Tahlil Denemesi .İstanbul: İsmail Akgün Matbaası, 1951.

Vartanian, Hovsep. Akabi Hikâyesi: İlk Türkçe Roman. Edited by Andreas Tietze.

Istanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1991.

138

______.Boşboğaz Bir Adem. Edited by Turgut Kut ( unpublished work ).Summary

of the book was included in Selin Tunçboyacı, “19th Century Ottoman

Modernization in Respect to the Novels: Akab-i Hikayesi, Boşboğaz bir

Adem and Temaşa-i Dünya”.MA Thesis, Boğaziçi University, 2001.

Yumul, Arus. Rıfat N. Bali and Foti Benlisoy, “Gayrimüslim Cemaatlerde

Muhafazakarlık” Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce 5: Muhafazakarlık.

Edited by Tanıl Bora and Murat Gültekingil.İstanbul: İletişim, 2003.

Yücebaş, Hilmi. Türk Mizahçıları, Nüktedanlar ve Şairler. İstanbul, 1958.

139

Appendix I:

Selected Romanized Texts from Latife and Tiyatro

Eldiven403

‐ Efendim dün sizi Beyoğlu’nda gördüm. Sizin gibi tamahkârlar pek oralarda

dolaşmazlar ama bilmem niçin gitmiştiniz?

‐ Bizim Kerime eldiven istemişti de onun için.

‐ Ay nasıl Beyoğlu’nun dükkânlarını beğendiniz mi?

‐ Ne söylüyorsunuz efendim. Beğenmeyecek şey mi? Herifler alışverişin yolunu

biliyorlar. Dükkânlarını karı ve kızla doldurmuşlar. İnsanın bir alacağı

olmasa bile almaya heves geliyor.

‐ Öyle ise onların İstanbul esnafları gibi ahz ve ita kesat deyü şikâyete hakları

yok.

‐ Hayır, efendim onlarda alışveriş gurla. Çünkü kızlar adamı uzaktan celp

ediyorlar. Dükkâna gelen müşterileri kapıdan karşılıyorlar. Birçok taltifler

ediyorlar.

‐ - Sizi de karşıladılar mı?

‐ Yaa. Ama ben hangi dükkânda kız görür isem doğru o dükkâna dalıyorum.

Eldiven soruyorum. Ama mesela girdiğim dükkân gömlekçi yahut şapkacı

yahut kemerci dükkânı imiş zararı yok! Ben yine eldiven soruyorum. Hatta

şapkacı dükkânının birinde böyle eldiven sormuştuk da madam “ ben bilmez

kim bu eldiven “ diye bizi koyuverdi. Ben de gülerek dışarı çıktım.

‐ Sonra?

‐ Sonrası doğru yolda gelir iken bir de baktım ki dükkânın birinin kapısında

tenekeden bir eldiven asılı:

‐ O ne olacak?

‐ İşaret

‐ Niye?

‐ Sattığı meta. Çünkü herkes ne satar ise dükkânının kapısına bir numunesini

koyar. Mesela kunduracı demirden bir çizme, sucu su, arabacı araba asıyor.

‐ Beygirler de beraber mi?

‐ Hayır!

‐ Ha Şöyle.

403 Tiyatro, issue 2, March 23, 1290/1874,pp.1‐2.

140

‐ Evet efendim. İşte ben de bunun için dükkânın kapısında teneke eldiveni

görünce hah! Dükkânı bulduk diyerek doğru içeriye daldım:

‐ “Ben- Eldiven var mı?

‐ Madam- ben Türkçe bilmez. Fakat burada eldiven yoktur.

‐ Ben- Canım şunlar ne?

‐ Madam- Onlar Gants’ dır. Eğer Gants ister isen veririm. Fakat eldiven

yoktur.

‐ Anladım ki madam bana ganı eldiven diye yutturmak ister. Lakin ben

şaşkınım. Hiç ganı eldiven diye yutar mıyım?

‐ Canım eldiveni görünce tanımıyor musun?

‐ Tanıyorum. Onlar da eldivene benziyor idi. Fakat kim bilir belki de değildir.

Her eldivene benzeyen eldiven mi olur? Her insana benzeyen insan mı olur?

‐ Ay nihayet eldivenci dükkânından boş mu çıktınız?

‐ Dinlesenize. Biz madamla eldiven gan falan diyerek konuşur iken dükkân

sahibi gelip ne istiyorsunuz diye sordu.

‐ “ ben- Çelebi eldiven isterim:

‐ Dükkân sahibi- İyi ya bunlar çorap değil a. Bunlar da eldiven. Niçin

almıyorsunuz?

‐ Be canım bunlar gan imiş.

‐ Dükkân Sahibi- Canım Gants Fransızca eldiven demektir.

‐ Ben- ya öyle ise affedersiniz Çelebi, ben Fransızca bilmem.

‐ Bunun üzerine yine acep bizim kızın istediği eldiven Fransızca eldiven mi

yoksa Türkçe eldiven mi diye başladım düşünmeye:

‐ Canım hiç Türkçe eldiven başka, Fransızca eldiven başka olur mu?

‐ Niçin olmaz? Setre‘nin Türkçesi başka, alafrangası başka oluyor ya,

eldivenin de ondan ne farkı var?

‐ Ha gerçek orası da var. Anladım muradınız eldiven almak değil adeta

eğlenmek imiş.

‐ Hâsılı herif aradığımız eldivenin onlar olduğuna bizi ikna ederek kızınızın eli

kaç numaradır diye sordu. Bak belaya ki ben evin numarasının 79 olduğunu

biliyorum ama kızın elinin numarasından haber yok. Ay ne yapalım

bilmediğimi herife söyledim onun üzerine eli büyük mü diye sordu. Ben de ne

büyük, ne küçük dedim. Al öyle ise sana bir orta boy eldiven diye çıkarıp

elime iki tane eldiven verdi:

‐ “ Ben- Çelebi iki tane çoktur, ben bir tane isterim.

141

‐ Dükkân Sahibi- Canım bir tane olur mu? Kızınızın eli bir mi?

‐ Tuhaf, eli iki olmağla iki eldiven mi almalı? Mesela on parmağı var diye

şimdi kalkıp on tane mi yüzük almalı?

‐ Dükkân sahibi- Hiç eldiven yüzüğe benzer mi?

‐ El iki olduğu için eldiven de iki olmalı.

‐ Ben- Allah Allah! Mesela üç fesi olanın mutlaka üç de başı mı olmalı?

‐ Dükkân sahibi- Efendim siz lakırdı anlamıyorsunuz. Tek eldiven satılmaz.

İster iseniz alınız. İster iseniz almayınız: “

‐ Hâsılı baktım ki herif malını sürmek ister. Dükkâncı bu ya, lâkin müşteri

dediğinin gözü dört olmalı.

‐ Evet efendim. Hâsılı eldiveni almadınız demek.

‐ Öyle ya. Ortalığın hâli malum, çok masraf edecek zaman değil. Bunun için

şimdilik bir tek eldiven alayım da, bir gün bir eline, öbür gün öteki eline

taksın. Sonra bir müsaade zamanım olur ise bir tanesini de o vakit alırım

mütalaasında idim. Efkârım yolunda değil mi?

‐ Pek yolunda efendim.

‐ Ama herif öyle demiyor.

‐ Efendim siz ona bakmayın. O sizden adeta para kapmak istemiş.

‐ Evet, ama ben şaşkın değilim. Öyle ağız kalabalıklarına gelmem.

‐ Ona şüphe yok efendim. Sonra?

‐ Sonrası eve eldivensiz geldim vesselam.

‐ Ay kızınız ne dedi?

‐ İşi ona açtım ki bir şey desin.

‐ Ya ne yalan kıvırdınız?

‐ Beyoğlu’nda eldiven kalmamış, gelecek hafta aşağıdan gelecekmiş o vakit

alırım dedim.

‐ Ay kandı mı?

‐ Kandı ama neyse.

‐ Demek olur ki o gün sadece madam ve matmazelleri seyrettiniz?

‐ Şüphe yok. Beyoğlu’nda ne kadar dükkân var ise hepsine girdim, çıktım.

Hatta gelirken aşağıda bir güzel madama tesadüf etmiştim ona bile eldiven

sordum. Hem doğrusu şu eldiven alışverişi pek hoşuma gitti. Gelecek hafta

yine gidip eldiven arayacağım.

142

‐ Öyle ise bizim evden de eldiven istiyorlar, beraber gideriz.

Bir Muhavere404

‐ Dün akşam seni Beyoğlu’nda gördüm. Gözlerini pencerelere dikmiş

geziyordun. O hal ile nereye gidiyordun?

‐ Efendim bir oda arıyordum.

‐ Bari bulabildin mi?

‐ Evet efendim Galata’dan yukarı çıkarken herifin birine burada bir oda var

mı? Kira ile tutacağım diye sordum. O da ( şu sol taraftaki sokakta vardır

diyerek bize bir yer salık verdi. Sokağa girdim. Baktım evin birisinin üzerinde

“bu hanenin odaları kiraya veriliyor” mealinde bir yafta gördüm.

‐ Aferin be! Çok kolay bulmuşsun.

‐ Azıcık hele dur da dinle: Ön kapısından içeri girdim. Girer girmez bir karı

çıktı.“Buyurun efendim” diye bizi karşıladı. Üst katta bir odaya çıkardı.

‐ Bari oda döşeli miydi?

‐ Fena değildi. Güzel döşenmiş. Aynası, masası, karyolası falanı hepsi tekmil.

‐ Tamam tutmalıydın.

‐ Madam da bana çok ikram ediyordu. Bir taraftan ( vira? ), bira getirip

“buyurun!” diyordu. Odada üç dört tane de kızlar vardı. Kendi kızları mıydı

orasını bilmem. Onlar da haylice bira içiyorlardı.

‐ Ay sonra?

‐ Sonra madama: “-bari odalara bari bir baksak da pazarlığını ediversek.

Sonra geç kalırım…” dedim. Madam “bakınız hangisini isterseniz emrediniz

verelim” dedi.

‐ Ben- Fakat güzel olmalı.

‐ Madam- Evet efendim güzeldir.

‐ Ben- Biraz büyücek olsun.

‐ Madam- Pekâlâ öyle olsun.

‐ Ben- Pis olmasın. Çünkü ben bekâr adamım. Her sabah süpüremem.

‐ Madam- Zaten hepsi temizdir efendim. Haftada bir defa yıkanırlar.

‐ Ben- Akşam gelince yatağım hazır olmalı.

‐ Madam- Peki.

‐ Ben- Yemeği de burada yiyeceğim.

404 Tiyatro, issue 48, August 31, 1874, pp.1‐2.

143

‐ Madam- Olur Efendim.

‐ Ben- Yemekten sonra bir de kahve isterim.

‐ Madam- Peki efendim istediğiniz bir kahve olsun.

‐ Ben- Takımı da güzel olmalı.

‐ Madam- Hepsinin fistanları yenidir.

‐ Ben- Ne söylüyorsun? Bizim oda fistan da mı giyecek?

‐ Madam- Nasıl oda?

‐ Ben- Nasıl fistan?

‐ Madam- Siz oda mı arıyordunuz?

‐ Ben- İki saatten beri söylemiyor muyum?

‐ Madam- Öyle ise ben yanlış anlamışım. Burada kiraya verilecek oda yoktur

kuzum.

‐ Ben- Şaka mı ediyorsun?

‐ Madam- Nasıl şaka?

‐ Ben- Ya kapının üstüne “bu hanenin odaları kiraya verilecek” diye

yazmışsınız.

‐ Madam- Sen ona mı bakıyorsun?

‐ Ben- Ya neye bakayım?

‐ Madam- O bir süs içindir dedi. Baktım madama söz anlatamayacağım. “ Ah

“ Allaha emanet olun ” dedim. Ve kapıya doğru gittim. Madam yakama

yapıştı. “ Yüz kuruş bira parası vereceksin” dedi.

‐ Öyle ya! Sana birayı bedava mı verecekler.

‐ Ben onlardan bira istemedim ya! Kendisi bana ikram etti. Bir adam

misafirliğe giderse kahveyi para ile mi içer?

‐ Her neyse. Nihayet?

‐ Nihayet baktım olmayacak. Madam bağırıp çağırmaya başladı. Sonra

anladım ki başım belaya uğrayacak çıkardım istediği yüz kuruşu verdim.

Evden çıktım.

‐ Demek ki odanın yalnız seyri için yüz kuruş verdin. Ya tutacak olaydın…

‐ Artık orasını sorma!....

144

İki Hane Beyninde405

‐ Sizin şu halinizi gördükçe ve bir kere de kendime baktıkça adeta dünyadan

usanıyorum.

‐ Niçin?

‐ Evet, görüyorum ki gayet nefis ve zikıymet eşyalarla tezyin olunmuşsunuz. Siz

gelip geçenlerin nazar-ı hayretini celb ediyorsunuz. Ben ise bilakis eski olup

bitpazarından veyahut mezatlardan alınmış köhne eşya ile

doldurulmuşumdur.

‐ Vakıa, haklısınız. Lakin benim esbab-ı ziynetim olan eşya-i nefsiye

Avrupa’dan gelir.

‐ Kim getirir?

‐ Benim sahibim Avrupa’ya gider, alır getirir.

‐ Bir şey lazım olursa senin sahibin hemen kalkıp Avrupa’ya mı gider?

‐ Bazı kendi gider ve bazı kere de adamı vardır, ona yazar getirtir.

‐ Bunları nasıl getiriyor?

‐ Vapurla getiriyor efendim, daima vapur vardır.

‐ Acayip vapur var da bizimki niçin getirtmiyor da beni şu halde bulunduruyor.

‐ Bilmem sizinkinin parası var mı?

‐ Eşyalar vapur ile geldikten sonra paraya ne lüzum var.

‐ Ay parasız olur mu ya… Sen yalnız benim eşyamı görüyorsun ya.

Şirket Vapurunda Müşteri ile Biletçi Beyninde406

‐ Biletçi! Büyükdere’ye çıkacağım. Bana bir bilet versene.

‐ O kaç para?

‐ İşte altmış para, ben Beykoz’dan bindim. Büyükdere’ye çıkacağım diyorum.

‐ Hani ya markan ?

‐ Acele ile marka alamadım.

‐ Olmaz üç kuruş, otuz para vereceksin.

‐ Niçin?

‐ Belki köprüden bindin, ben ne bileyim hani ya markan?

405 Tiyatro, issue 31, June 29, 1290/1874,p.1.

406 Latife, issue 3, August 19, 1874,p.4.

145

‐ Canım işte efendiler Beykoz’dan bindiğimi gördüler.

‐ Ay olmaz dedik üç kuruş otuz para vereceksin burada şahit dinlenmez

‐ Niçin dinlenmez? Burası mahkemelerden büyük mü?

‐ Evet, hakkınız var mahkemelerde şahit gelir ama evvela davalıyı da dinlerler.

Burada zaten dava dinlenmez ki.

-“Muhadderat” Kırk Paraya!407

‐ Baksana gazeteci! Taze mi? Yeni mi?

‐ Efendim taze, taze. Henüz birinci numara.

‐ Yirmi paraya olmaz mı?

‐ Zehra Hanım huu!...Baksana!...Nafile para verip ben aldım da okudum !

‐ Aman allah aşkına ne yazıyor?

‐ Efendim yazıyor ki << gazetemizin mürebbi-i muhadderat unvanı gereği gibi

mühim mesuliyeti çok bir unvan ise de bundan muradımız mücerred

kadınlara muzır olan şeyleri yazmayacağız >> demektedir. İşte bundan âlâ

muhedderat olmaz ki, kadınlara muzır olan şeyleri yazmayacak da daima

müfid olan şeyleri derc edecektir.

‐ Doğrusu durdukça var olsun, vaadinde de bulunmuş: Tiyaro (….)’da

oynayan şarkı türkü çağıran kadınlara binlerce liralar veriliyor imiş! İşte

kadınlar için bundan âlâ müfid bir havadis mi olur mu?

‐ Aman sahih mi hanım? Eğer sahih ise bu müfid havadis (....). Sahih de söz mü

ya?

‐ Öyle ise artık bundan böyle sıkılacak müdahene edecek birimiz kalmadı

desene? Acaba kaç lira veriliyor!

‐ Beher kadına senede yirmi bin adet İngiliz lirası! Aman vakit geçirmeyerek

gidelim!

‐ Gidelim ya! … (Hanet?) ( Hanet?) komşu kadınlara da madem bir anlatalım,

onları da beraber götürelim.

‐ Kimleri götürelim?

‐ Topla Ayşe’yi kör Fatma’yı kambur Zehra’yı, burunsuz Çakırı, ben, sen, tek

kaş Latife’yi olmaz mı?

‐ Tamam, tamam işte bir alay oyuncu olduk gitti

‐ Çat çat

407 Latife, issue 38, September 2, 1291/1876,p.147.

146

‐ Kim o?

‐ Aç, Aç

‐ Aman kocacığım erkence geldiğin pek âlâ oldu. Artık senin ile mevzumuz

kalmadı. Elbise harçlık dırıltısı tükendi. Artık bundan böyle süslü püslü ağır

ağır elbiselere, mücevherata, ağır saatler kordonlara malik olacağım,

faytonlarla gezeceğim.

‐ Ne oldun karı çıldırdın mı?

‐ Ay neye çıldırayım. Muhadderat’ın birinci numarasını okumadın mı?

Tiyatroda oynayan şarkı mani çığıran be her kadına senevi yirmi bin adet

İngiliz lirası veriyorlar vaktime yazık değil mi? İşte bugün komşu kadınlar ile

meşveret etik altı yedi kadın bil ittifak gideceğiz.

‐ Ağır ola ama paralar peşin mi?

‐ Gazete peşindir diyor

‐ Aman şu gazete bir de bari erkeklere müfid bir… bulsa da…

Ben ile Hanım 408

‐ Ben: ( kendi kendine )…şimdi Ali Bey nerdeyse gelir. Gezmeye gidelim

diyecek. Bende de bir paralar yok. Sözde bugün Büyükdere’ ye gidip

eğlenecektik ha. Acaba ne yapsam? Ortada ele avuca girer bir şey yok ki,

götürüp de satasın. Şimdi ne yapmalı? Ne yapacağım gelirse hastayım derim

vesselam! Götüremez aheste değilim ama salt para hastasıyım hani ya şu

para olsa gezmeye giderim değil mi? (…) (…) adam niçin hastayım diyeyim.

Evde yoktur dedirteyim olmaz mı? Hay Hay.

‐ ( cariyeye hitaben ) Kız (Lalifer?)!

‐ Buyurun efendim!

‐ Bugün sevmediğim şekil herifin biri gelecektir. Her vakit beni taciz ediyor.

Gelirse ben yoktur odada emi?

‐ Peki, efendim, söylerim.

‐ Ben :( kendi kendine ) o da oldu, bitti. Lakin insanın odada otura otura canı

sıkılıyor keşke bir kuruşum olaydı da Şehzadebaşı’ndaki kıraathaneye

gideydim. Yirmiliğini kahveye, yirmiliğine de tömbekiye verir, nargileyi

yakar guruldatırım. Şimdi bir Keşan tömbekisi misdir, mis.

408 Latife, issue 3, August 19, 1874,pp.2‐3.

147

‐ Hanım: ( bu sırada odaya girerek) oda köşe penceresinin önünde oturup

düşüneceğine kalkıp çarşıya git, şu esvaplıkları al. Düğün yaklaşıyor, karı

dikişlerini yetiştiremez şurada bir hafta kaldı.

‐ ( Kendi kendine ): ah bir kuruşum olsaydı?

‐ Canım ben sana söylüyorum işitmiyor musun otuz beş arşın mantin al da gel,

sonra yetişmez ha.

‐ Ne, ne düğün mü var? Vay!

‐ Şimdi artık çatlayacağım ha bin keredir söylüyorum işitmiyor musun? İşte

bizim Cemile Hanım kızını gelin ediyor.

‐ Gelin ediyorsa ne yapalım?

‐ Ne yapacaksın? bir kat mantin istiyorum, bugün alıp getirmelisin ki

Beyoğlu’ndaki (….)’e diktireceğim. Şunda bir hafta kaldı yoksa yetişmez ha.

‐ Ay yetişmezse sen de mor mantinini giyiver, daha geçende yaptırdım.

‐ Ay hiç onlar olur mu? Ben daha geçen gün onları giydim, artık bir daha

giyilir mi?

‐ Ya sandıkta mı küflenir?

‐ Ah bilmez gibi söylüyorsun. Bir düğünde giyilen bir daha giyilmez, adama

gülerler. Yeni alıp yaptırmamış diye elaleme kepaze mi olayım?

‐ Niye kepaze olacaksın sen de düğüne gitme efendim!

‐ Olmaz, hiç gitmemek nasıl olur? O benim teyzemin düğünü. Yedi kat

yabancılar bile gelecek de ben gitmezsem sonra nasıl olur? Zahir olup

yaptıramamış desinler değil mi? Hadi kalk git de mantinleri al gel hem

gelirken bir gümüş kupa da al onu da kıza hediye vereceğim sakın unutma!

‐ ( kendi kendine ) ah bir kuruş ah

‐ Canım sana söylüyorum sağır mı oldun?

‐ Evet kulaklarım işitmiyor.

‐ Galiba işine gelmiyor değil mi? Ben bilmem esvaplık isterim, mutlak bugün

gelmeli.

148

‐ Benim param yok, şimdi en aşağı ona 10-15 kuruş lazım bende bir kuruş bile

yok, ah bir kuruş ah!!!

‐ Nasıl? 10-15 lira mı? Biz akşam Ayşe kadın ile hesap ettik, tam 35,5 lira

gidiyor. 15 lira sade süsüyle dikişine gidiyor ya Liza’ya diktireceğim ya

madam Corco’ya. 15 lira da 35 arşın mantine gider. Ay efendim, hotoz aldın,

şemsiye, potin bunlara kusur kalan 5 lira yetişmez bile. Ah geldi (….) ah ah

keşke bir kuruş olsaydı?

‐ Ha gümüş kupayı hiç hesap etmedik, güzel yaldızlı ve süslü olacak o da üçdört

liraya ancak alınabilir. Haydi git çarşıya da çabuk bunları al da gel!

‐ Canım bende bir paralar yok, nereye gideceğim bir kuruşun var ise ver de

gideyim kıraathanede bir kahve içeyim.

‐ Ben bilmem, nerden bulursan bul, mutlak esvap isterim, otuz beş arşın

mantin.

‐ Canım neden 35 arşın gidiyor?

‐ İşte hesap et, 20 arşın fistan, 13 de ferace 35.

‐ Vay ferace de mi var? Daha üç gün oldu şu atlas feraceyi yaptıralı.

‐ A o giyilir mi? Modası değişti!

‐ Ne? O! Günde bir moda değişirse işimiz ( … ). İpekli mantin feraceyi giy.

‐ Ben onu (…)’ya verdim.

‐ İyi halt etmişsin, geri al da giyiver.

‐ A hiç (…)’dan geri alınır mı?

‐ Çıldırdın mı?

‐ Hani geçende bir ferace daha yaptırdık? Ne oldu?

‐ Onu da iki kere giydim, ben onu geçen gün tabakçı (…)’ye sattım.

‐ Ne? Ne yaptın ne yaptın? Bir hafta olmadı daha yaptıralı, o bana tamam 5,5

liraya mal oldu.

149

‐ Ben onu elli kuruşa sattım.

‐ Hani ya parası nerde?

‐ Ayağımdaki terlikleri aldım.

‐ Hiç kırk lirası olsun artmaz mı?

‐ Hayır efendim!

‐ Of! Bu odada oturmak ne müşkül şeymiş! Ah bir kuruş olsa ah!

‐ Ve ( ah ) hey bey! Eğer bugün gidip o esvaplıkları almazsan kendimi kaldırır

şu pencereden aşağı atarım

‐ Yirmiliğini bir şekerli kahveye, yirmi paralık da tömbeki

‐ Ve ( ah ) kendimi kapıdan aşağı atarım

‐ Şimdi bir baş Keşan tömbekisi ve ( ah ) hey mistir.

‐ İşte işte şimdi şu elimdeki toplu iğne ile kendimi yaralayıp telef edeceğim.

‐ Nargile gürül gürül çeker misin?

‐ Ben kendimi yerden yere çalıp telef edeceğim! Öldüreceğim!

‐ Sen hadi tütün varsa bir sigara yap da içelim de keyfimize bakalım.

‐ Tütün nerde aldık mı ki?

‐ Vay, tütün de mi yok? Ah bir kuruş ah!!!! Ne bahtiyardır ol insanlar ki

cebinde bir kuruş bulunur!

Appendix

409 Tiyatro, i

x II: Tiyatro

ssue 10, June

o409

19, 1290.B.D

150

D.K.Hakkı Tarık

0

k Us Periodicals Collection.

Appendix

410 Latife, iss

x III: Latife

sue 2, 15 Augu

e410

ust, 1290.B.D.

15

.K. Hakkı Tarık

1

k Us Periodicals Collection.

152

Appendix IV: The Spectator411

411The Spectator, no. 82, Monday, June 4, 1711.Retrieved from:

http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large126933.html,on August 20, 2012.