Various aspects of Turkish culture, whether denoted as Turk or Osmanli, began to attract the interest and attendtion of Turkish scholars and writers, particularly in the 1890's. Language was, as we have seen, their main preoccupation, being viewed as the "basis of nationality." Yet, language was only one part of the national culture, encompassing such fields as literature, poetry, music and the visual arts. All these could be termed as the nation's own creation, reflecting its particular history, modes of life, ideals and values. Like language, they were, according to the Turkists, to be studied and promoted. The interest in Turkish culture was expressed, first of all, by the publication of many works dealing with a wide range of fields. These included anthologies of Ottoman and Turkish literature, publication of Ottoman and Turkish classics, collections of proverbs, and the like. In newspapers and magazines series of articles and features appeared on Turkish writers, poets, musicians, artists and scholars. In the magazines they were often accompanied by illustrations, photographs or musical notes.
As in the case of language and modes of writing, various topics relating to Turkish and Ottoman culture were the center of considerable discussion and debate. By the end of the Abdulhamid period Western, and particularly French, culture had made a strong impact on Turkish society. The new style of European-oriented literature, art, fashion, etc., was commonly denoted as the ªalafrangaº style. It was only natural, as had indeed been the case ever since westernization began in the Ottoman Empire, that these inroads from the West would lead to a movement of reaction among the masses and intellectuals alike. While modernists and Westernists saw the need for incorporating much of the best in European culture into Ottoman society, traditionalists and conservatives were unwilling to discard the rich and largely Islamic heritage of the Ottoman Turks and feared the consequences of European influences. Previously, movements of reaction had been predominantly Islamic in tone, and even now much of the discussion carried a religious flavour. Yet, in between the modernists and conservatives some writers demonstrated a point of view which seemed more concerned with bringing out and asserting the Turks own particular heritage, rather than adhering to an ªIslamistº or ªWesternistº outlook. Whether in literature, music or the visual arts, they were inclined to emphasize the existence of the Turks own creation in the field, minimize outside influences, and call for the following of original Turkish, ªalaturkaº, patterns.
European, and particularly French, influences were primarily felt in literature. These had already marked the works of the writers of the Tanzimat period, particularly those associated with the Young Ottoman movement. These influences became even stronger with the new generation of writers and poets who between 1896 and 1901 grouped around the magazine ªServet-i Fununº (under the editorship of Tevfik Fikret) and formed the school known as the ªEdebiyat-i Cedideº (New Literature). The group, which included such eminent writers as Halid Ziya [Usakligil] (1869- 1945), Cenab Sahabeddin (1870-1934) and Huseyin Cahid [Yalcin] (1875-1957), were mostly products of the modern educational system, and many had direct contacts with literary circles in Europe. Unlike the Tanzimat writers, who were influenced by traditional, as much as Western, culture, they were almost completely Western oriented. Again, unlike them, they did not see themselves as social or political reformers, but adopted the course of ªart for artÂs sakeº. They were strongly influenced by the contemporary literary school of symbolism, selecting their themes primarily from the life of the upper, urban classes, wrote in an intricate, flowery and image-laden style. Not only did they use many uncommon Arabic and Persian words, but also coined their own words and phrases modelled on European expressions. In both content and form, in prose and in poetry, they weer elitist, directing their writing to a small group of the educated.
It was mostly the language and style of the modern writers and poets which sparked the criticism of the Turkists and their call for language reform. As Semseddin Sami put it, they were good ªthinkers,º but their language was cumbersome and ugly. Perhaps the strongest attack on the New Literature writers was the one made by Ahmed Midhat in an article which he published in ªSabah,º where he referred to them as ªdecadentsº and challenged their concept of a literary language as distinct from the language of the people. The article gave way to yet another heated literary discussion, of the many which were characteristic of the period, and it was mainly from the group of writers associated with ªIkdamº and the magazine ªMalumatº (Information) that criticism of the New Literature came.
IN addition to the question of language reform, which we have already followed, some writers gave attention to the problem of Turkish prosody. The aruz meter, taken from the Arabs and the Persians, and used in Ottoman poetry, was, as was the Arabic script, unsuited for the particular structure of Turkish, which made no distinction between long and short vowels. Some of the Tanzimat writers had indeed already called for the adoption of the original Turkish syllabic meter, still used in folk poetry, and some had even experimented with it.
With the New Literature poets remaining traditionalist and, with some modifications, continuing to use the aruz meter, appeals for change were now growing. Of the various books and textbooks on prosody, some already dealt specifically with the authentic Turkish meter, deploring its abandonment by the Turks during the early Ottoman period. The magazine ªMalumat,º in response to a letter from Necib Asim, promised to contribute to the spraed of ancient Turkish meters which would support, in its words, the development and independence of Turkish literature. Turkists, naturally heralded the use of the syllabic meter by Mehmed Emin in his ªPoems in Turkishº, and Semseddin Sami expressed his preference for these poems to those of the great classical Ottoman poets: ªThey may be crudeÂ, but they are Turkishº. It was for this use of the original Turkish meter, no less than his patriotism, his orientation toward the people, and his simple language, that Mehmed Emin was seen as the founder of the new nationalist school in literature.
If the question of form was predominant in the criticism directed toward the New Literature writers, it was clear to some Turkists that imitation of the West could be far-reaching and pose a threat to the cultural roots of Turkish literature. The danger was not in the borrowing of new literary genres, like the drama or the novel, but in the importation of foreign ideas and values. It is this kind of imitation (taklid), that is the attempt to describe other peopleÂs spiritual values, which is to be resisted. ªLet usº, says an article in ªMalumatº, ªabandon the Persian-like exaggerations. Let us throw the ªFrenkº-like ideas out. Let us not follow a reactionary movement toward Iran, and let us not also submerge ourselves in the depths of the West, which are peculiar to it alone.º Answering these and similar allegations, the Westernizers were always keen on rejecting the notion that they were imitators. While admitting that they were, indeed, learning much from Western literature, and from the Western philosophy of aesthetics, it was the creation of a Turkish literature which was uppermost in their minds. ªIf there is a need to borrowanyting,º Huseyin Cahid says in one of his encounters with Veled Celebi, ªlet it be from our own spirit and our own TurkishnessÂ.º
The question of Turkish literature came to be discussed also in the context of a lively debate over the possibility of translating European classics into Turkish. It was Ahmed Midhat who instigated the debate, in an article in ªTercuman-i Hakikatº, where he called for the translatino of great works by European authors into Turkish, since Ottoman writers had not been able to produce similar works. This naturally led to strong objection. The publisher of ªIkdam,º Ahmed Cevdet, who responded first, expressed the view that the translation of classics from one language into another was difficult, since much of the artistic quality of the books would be lost in the translation. At the same time he emphasized that classics did exist in Turkish: ªThe glorious works of the Suleyman Celebis, Sinan Pasas, Nefis, Bakis, Naimas, Cevdet Pasas and Nacis are most certainly among our classics.º A strong nationalist approach was manifest also in Necib AsimÂs reaction. He differed with Ahmed Cevdet on the question of the ability of Turkish to convey the artistic values found in foreign classics, and saw the necessity for, and the possibility of, translating them. Furthermore, he pointed out more emphatically than Cevdet the existence of Ottoman and Turkish classics. All peoples had at least one or two works which could be denoted as classics. The Turks had their own, too, not only in Ottoman, but in Chagatay and other Turkic languages. As examples he mentions the 11th century treatise ªKudatku Biligº, Ali Sir NevaiÂs ªMahbub al-Kulubº, and Sultan VeledÂs ªRebab-name,º as well as many other works. Some of the classical Ottoman poets he finds even superior to the Europeans: ªIt is impossible to find in French a work which has the charm of the famous elegies of Baki and Akif Pasa.º Defending his early position Ahmed Midhat answers his critics by saying that by proposing the translation of world classics into Turkish he was not aiming at the imitation of Europe. He concedes that the Turks had classics of their own, but this did not detract from the value of translating other peoples classics.
Necib Asim was concerned, however, with the limited number of Turkish classics compared with those of other peoples. In his opinion, the reason was to be found in the assimilation of the Turks in the Arab-Persian civilization, to the extent that many Turkish writers either wrote in Arabic or Persian or allowed patterns characteristic of the literature of those languges to dominate their own. In this the Turks may have been motivated by political considerations or by their wish not to destroy the culture of the peoples who came under their rule. As far as Turkish literature was concerned, however, they were guilty of neglect. According to him, analogies between the orientation of European languages and literature to Greek and Latin, and the Turks own reliance on Arabic and Persian, were not valid. The Turks possessed their own language and literature before Arab civilization came to engulf the Islamic peoples and, therefore, there was no real need to be dominated by Arabic and Persian. According to the Turkists this neglect was carried to their own days: just as the imitation of the Arabs and Persians accounted for the limited number of Turkish classics produced in the past, the imitation of Europe in modern times would diminish Turkish literary creation in the future.
Questions relating to Ottoman and Turkish music began to be discussed in the press in the 1880's and closely resembled the discussions on literary classics. The existence of a Turkish music resting on its own foundations and with its own melodies, meters and harmonies, was greatly stressed. Some musicologists and writers did advance a concept of "oriental music", which was shared by peoples of the East, especially Muslims, just as there was a European music. This was not always discarded by the Turkists, but they nevertheless emphasized that music was basically a national creation, and this held true for Europe, too. Answering Ahmed Midhat, who favoured the concept of an "oriental music", Salih Zeki (1845-1921), a mathematician who wrote extensively on musical subjects, pointed out that whereas the "science" of music, and its analytical methods, were common to all peoples, the music itself was peculiar to each people alone. In a similar fashion Necib Asim wrote that although the music, known to the Turks as "alafranga," had indeed spread to all parts of Europe, the music had its own distinct character for each of the European peoples. If there was, indeed, an "oriental music", it was clear that the Turks had their share in it. In the words of "Malumat", the Turks had accepted oriental music from the Arabs and contributed considerably toward its development until it became actually founded on Turkish music.
According to Necib Asim, there existed in his day three types of music among the Turks. These were the European "alafranga" music, the music of the classical poet musicians (saz sairleri), which had been promoted until "one hundred years ago", and folk music. Once again, as in literature and language, the Turks had been guilty in the past of imitating others, especially Persians, and of neglecting their own national music which was to be found among the people. In modern times this tradition of neglect continued and Turks were becoming fascinated by the music of Europe. The penetration of foreign music was, as one writer in "Malumat" says, threatening to eliminate Turkish music and to leave the forthcoming generations with some Turkified "alafranga" melodies and a few "light songs." He sees music as one of the basic gauges of public morals in a people, just as the position of the literary language indicated the degree of national development in general.
It was now the duty of the Turks, claimed the Turkists, to turn back to their own music. One of the most prominent of the Turkish musicologists of the time, Rauf Yekta, saw indeed three main tasks confronting him and his colleagues: The establishment of a theoretical basis for Turkish music -- a task on which he embarked himself; the writing of its history; and recording it. Only after this mission was accomplished, would it be permitted to turn to Europe. He found Turkish music alive and flourishing among the people of Anatolia:
"We must bring out our music of the past and of the present. In many places in Anatolia, and particularly in the regions of Urfa, Mosul and Erzurum, one comes across such burning and touching melodies, that cannot but dazzle a person....Our music will greatly benefit if these songs are collected, printed and disseminated with their notes. Our real national music is embodied in these pieces."
Other aspects of national culture did not escape the attention of the Turkist writers, albeit on a smaller scale. In the case of the visual arts, it appers that unlike literature and music the challenge presented by European influences was relatively small and much less visible, therefore not calling for reaction in nationalist terms. Yet, artistic "awareness" was growing, and the School of Fine Arts which was established in 1879, had the avowed aim of promoting the arts among the population, as well as helping to bring to light the nation's artistic creations. In the press the main writer on the subject of visual arts was Celal Esad [Arseven] (b. 1875) who pointed to the need for both the "discovery" and promotion of Turkish art and the conduct of proper research in the field. Similar to the other Turkists, he regarded Turkish art as possessing its own particular character and originality despite outside influences from Arabs, Persians and Byzantines. In the view of NEcib Asim, evidence of Turkish art was spread over wide areas, and in many fields, ranging from architecture to the weaving of rugs. As in other branches of culture, borrowing was permitted, "but it was necessary to remember and bring forward one's own national creation." He complained of art classes in schools which were devoted solely to European art, and urged them to have students pay attention to the beauty and style of the national artistic works as well.
The domain of morals, customs and daily behavior was yet another part of national culture, which was to be safeguarded against destructive foreign influences. Westernization had indeed been expressed not only in the borrowing of Western institutions, but had its effects on the manners and behaviour of many members of the upper classes who in one way or another came in conctact with Europe or with Europeans. More perhaps than any other aspect of culture, this one was closely tied to religion, for it had always been the religious creed and prescriptions which guided the daily conduct of the believers. Protest by conservatives was therefore voiced largely in religious terms, and even those who were otherwise Westernists had to reaffirm their belief in the religiously inspired ethics of Islam. When Huseyin Cahid, for example, criticized excessive reliance on Arab sciences, he conceded that ethics were founded on faith and could not be separated from it. "On this question," he says, "I shall not compare the books on ethics possessed by the Arabs to Western books. We are certainly not going to learn our beliefs and duties from foreigners."
Yet, nationalist overtones were manifest in many of these discussions. Already "Basiret," writing at the time of the popular reaction prior to Abdulhamid's accession, criticizes the youth for adopting foreign customs and costumes to a degree where it was impossible to distinguish them from Europeans. In Europe it was possible to tell anyone's nationality by his "national manners" (tavr-i milli), but in Istanbul one could identify only an "old Ottoman." Elsewhere the same newspaper complained of people who degraded their nationality by preferring French to Turkish phrases, and the same complaint was voiced in later years by "Ikdam." The contempt held by many for their own nationality and for the term "Turk", forms an important theme in the writings of the Turkists, who regarded this as the root of much of the neglect with which Turks treated their own culture. It is significant that Necib Asim gave his attention to the subject of original Turkish names, and published long lists of them in "Ikdam." He stated his purpose as one of bringing "amusement" to his readers, and remarked that the Turks used their names, which generally carried meanings of heroism and bravery, long after they embraced Islam.
The need to distinguish between what was to be borrowed from other peoples, and what was to be rejected, found expression in an article in "Sabah" on ethics and customs. Ethics, as guidance to a person's behaviour, it said, are the same in all nations, in all countries and in all religions. Customs, not dependent on a divine or natural law, differed, however, from one nation to another. Such customs could be, like morals, good or bad, and though they were free from compulsion, experience and history have shown that people cling to them strongly over the generations. They were, in essence, and no less than languages, the demarcation lines between nations and races and as such, carried, as long as they were not harmful, a value of their own. Their value was "in not letting the members of a people forget their nationality and race, and motivating enduring patriotic zeal." It was the imitation (taklid) of other peoples' customs that threatened the existence of a nation or a race. Regarding the impact of Europe the newspaper had this to say:
"We are, at the present time, under the influence of European civliization, but in this we are unable to prevent excesses and deficiencies. Some of us do not wish to drink the "milk" of European civilization but are satisfied with its "skin." To be more precise, we are content with imitating, not the civilization of Europe, but its customs, and mostly its vile customs. Some of us, on the other hand, regard them as part of civilization and turn cool toward civilization itself. It is, however, possible and very easy to accept that civilization in its entirety and at the same time preserve one's national customs, as well."
Civilization being the domain of all, European peoples have, in the past and in the present, adopted the discoveries and inventions of others. But they have also been careful not to borrow other peoples' customs and manners. The Turks, on the contrary, where adopting as their own customs, fashions and commodities which were wholly foreign to them, and were thus causing harm to their economic, as well as their spiritual, well-being. The arcticle concludes:
"A Turk who adopts civilization while abandoning his national customs and morals, becomes, if he has genuinely adopted it, a civilized man, but he is no longer a Turk. In order to be a civilized Turk, he must preserve his national customs and mores and borrow civilization alone ....We must become civilized while keeping our national customs; that is, we must try to become civilized Turks."
The concern for preserving the Turks' own cultural identity was shared also by Ahmed Midhat, though he was regarded by many as a whole-hearted Westerniser. In a book which he wrote on customs and manners in Europe, he complained of the excessive zeal for imitating the Europeans prevalent among Turks without their knowing what European "alafranga" manners really were or making a distinction between the good and the bad. He stated as one of the purposes of his book the clarification of the nature of "alafranga" customs, so that not every one would be followed. In an article in "Tercuman-i Hakikat" he warned even more emphatically that if the Turks were to adopt the "evils" of Europe, as it seemed they were prone to do, they would become something like a Turkish-speaking "frenk". It was necessary to advance down the road of progress by taking part in modern civilization, but at the same time preserve one's own existence and identity. Only thus would the Turks be able, on the one hand, to guarantee their security and welfare, and on the other, to fulfill their duty to Muslims and particularly to those peoples who were of Turkish stock and speak Turkish.
It was, then, a civilized Turk, conscious of his national culture, that the nationalist writers were seeking to create. He might borrow, indeed he had to borrow, from other people those techniques and inventions common to all mankind and which constitute the means of progress, but he had to conform in his spiritual life to the cultural values of his own nation.