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 Hid j ā 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 "Hid j ā "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.
"Hid j ā 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.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder