No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 February 2025
In a collection of Hatt-ı Hümayuns (Imperial Edicts) at the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul, I located the Ottoman translation of the Greek Declaration of Independence. This article examines the terminology that Ottomans used to interpret the language employed by the revolutionary Greeks. The goal of this study is to examine Ottoman attempts to define the rebels and conceptualize the inner motive behind the revolt of their subjects. This article argues that confiscated documents such as the Greek Declaration of Independence contributed to the familiarization of the imperial authorities with the ideological background to the rebellion and the reasons that triggered it.
The present article has as its starting-point E. Kolovos and L. Moiras, ‘Παραδοσιακά λεξιλόγια, νεωτερικά περιεχόμενα: η οθωμανική μετάφραση της Διακήρυξης της Ελληνικής Ανεξαρτησίας’, in E. Kolovos and K. Kostis (eds.), Κατανοώντας τον πόλεμο της Ανεξαρτησίας (Athens 2022) 98–119, but takes into account newer bibliography and indeed reaches different conclusions.
2 Alivizatos, N., ‘Assemblies and constitutions’, in Kitromilides, P. M. and Tsoukalas, C. (eds.) The Greek Revolution. A critical dictionary (Cambridge 2021) 439–52 (442)Google Scholar.
3 Alivizatos, ‘Assemblies and constitutions’, 443.
4 The conventional view of Greek constitutional culture assumes that it was born out of a binary opposition between secular and religious values, and that it was influenced by liberalism as a concept of political ideas based on the natural rights of the individual, national self-determination, liberty, constitutional government, consent of the governed, and so on: A. Hatzis, Ο ενδοξότερος αγώνας. Η Ελληνική Επανάσταση του 1821, tr. N. Roussos (Athens 2021). However, recent scholarship argues that during the first half of the nineteenth century liberals strove to find an accommodation between constitutional culture and enlightened forms of religion. These studies draw attention to the internal diversity of liberal thought and argue for the replacement of the concept of ‘liberalism’ by that of ‘liberalisms’. Against this backdrop, the originality of the Greek constitutions lay not only in their creative adaptation of a number of different models, but also in the persisting influence of local institutional and intellectual traditions. See Isabella, M., Southern Europe in the Age of Revolutions (Princeton 2023), 26–27Google Scholar, and Zanou, K., Transnational Patriotism in the Mediterranean, 1800–1850: stammering the nation (Oxford 2018) 81–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Chehab, M., ‘Philhellenism and constitutionalism: the first Greek constitutions’, in Vöhler, M., Alekou, S., and Pechlivanos, M. (eds.), Concepts and Functions of Philhellenism. Aspects of a transcultural movement (Berlin 2021) 211–24 (211)Google Scholar.
6 Its principal drafter was the Greek politician and judicial officer Anastasios Polyzoides (1802–1873): N. Diamantouros, Οι απαρχές της συγκρότησης του σύγχρονου κράτους στην Ελλάδα, 1821–1828, tr. K. Kouremenos (Athens 2022), 160. For the full text, see https://library.parliament.gr.
7 N. Rotzokos, ‘Το έθνος ως πολιτικό υποκείμενο. Σχόλια για το ελληνικό εθνικό κίνημα’, in P. Pizanias (ed.), Η Ελληνική Επανάσταση του 1821. Ένα ευρωπαϊκό γεγονός (Athens 2009) 223–40 (228).
8 Armitage, D., The Declaration of Independence. A global history, (Cambridge 2007), 30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sotiropoulos, M., ‘“United we stand, divided we fall”: sovereignty and government during the Greek Revolution, 1821–1828’, Historein 20 (2021) 2–25 (10–11)Google Scholar.
9 A. Zarakol, ‘States and ontological security: a historical rethinking’, Cooperation and Conflict 52 (2017) 48–68.
10 For Ottoman responses to the rebellion, see H. Erdem, ‘Do not think of the Greeks as agricultural labourers’: Ottoman responses to the Greek War of Independence’, in F. Birtek and Th. Dragonas (eds.), Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey (London 2009) 67–84; H. Ş. Ilıcak, ‘A radical rethinking of empire: Ottoman state and society during the Greek War of Independence (1821–1826)’, PhD diss. Harvard 2011; E. Kolovos, Ş. Ilıcak and M. Shariat-Panahi, Η οργή του σουλτάνου: αυτόγραφα διατάγματα του Μαχμούτ Β΄ το 1821 (Athens 2021); Christine M. Philliou, Biography of an Empire: governing Ottomans in an age of revolution (Berkeley 2011).
11 Erdem, ‘Do not think of the Greeks as agricultural labourers’, 79.
12 BOA (Presidency Ottoman Archives in Istanbul) HAΤ (Hatt-ı Hümâyun) 1222/47772, undated.
13 Aristeides Xatzis has established that early forms of the translations of the Provisional Constitution of Greece and the Declaration of Independence were published in the liberal French and English press (in the Constitutionnel, on 29 April 1822, and in the Sun and the Morning Chronicle, on 2 May 1822, respectively): ‘Οι άγνωστες πρώτες μεταφράσεις του Συντάγματος της Επιδαύρου και τι μας αποκαλύπτουν’ in ‘Το βιώσιμο κράτος’: Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Σακελλαροπούλου (Athens 2022) 661–9. However, comparison of the texts reveals that the Ottomans translated the text directly from the Greek.
14 The Revolution disrupted relations between the ruling Muslim elite and the Greek Orthodox high–ranking officers. Most of the Greek Orthodox subjects employed in the translation service were removed because their loyalty was in doubt. Stavraki Aristarchis was the last Grand Dragoman. He was dismissed and murdered during his exile in Bolu (1822). The Ottomans had to recruit their staff from among the Muslim Community and Aristarchis was replaced by Yahya Naci Efendi, the first Muslim translator of the Imperial Council: Philliou, Biography of an Empire, 67–72.
15 Koselleck, R., Futures Past on the Semantics of Historical Time, tr. Tribe, K. (New York 2004), 75Google Scholar.
16 It has been conventionally understood (under the anachronistic influence of the nineteenth century) that the millet system was the structural framework institutionalized by Mehmed the Conqueror for the administration of the dhimmis (zimmi) following the capture of İstanbul: Macit Kenanoğlu, Osmanlı Millet Sistemi. Mit ve Gerçek (Istanbul 2007). This view has been challenged by modern research: B. Braude, ‘Foundation myths of the millet system’, in B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York 1982) 69–88 and M. Ursinus, ‘Millet’, in C. E. Bosworth et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn. VII (Leiden 1993) 61–4.
17 Karabıçak, Y. Z., ‘Ottoman attempts to define the rebels during the Greek War of Independence’, Studia Islamica 115 (2020) 68–71Google Scholar.
18 For the adoption of the term Rum in Ottoman parlance, see Kafadar, C., ‘A Rome of one's own: reflections on cultural geography and identity in the lands of Rum’, Muqarnas 24 (2007) 7–26Google Scholar.
19 P. Konortas, ‘“From tâ’ife to millet: Ottoman terms for the Ottoman Greek Orthodox community’, in D. Gondicas and Ch. Issawi (eds.), Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism (Princeton 1999) 169–79 (175).
20 Karabıçak, ‘Ottoman attempts to define the rebels’, 102.
21 F. Rosenthal, ‘Yunan’, in P. J. Bearman et al (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, New edn. XI (Leiden 2002) 343–5.
22 M. Sariyannis, ‘Εικόνες των αρχαίων Ελλήνων στις οθωμανικές γραμματειακές πηγές πριν από τον 19ο αιώνα’, in O. Katsiardi-Hering, A. Papadia-Lala, K. Nikolaou and V. Karamanolakis (eds.), Έλλην Ρωμηός Γραικός: συλλογικοί προσδιορισμοί και ταυτότητες (Athens 2018) 229–44 (231).
23 H. Koç, ‘XVII Yüzyılın Ortasında Osmanlı Coğrafyası’ndan Antik Dönemlere bir Bakış: Kâtip Çelebi'nin Eserlerinden Seçmeler’, Doğu Batı 10 (2007) 262–8.
24 E. Kolovos, ‘Ονομάτων επίσκεψις του Εβλιά Τσελεμπή’, in O. Katsiardi-Hering et al. (eds.), Έλλην Ρωμηός Γραικός: συλλογικοί προσδιορισμοί και ταυτότητες, (Athens 2018), 281.
25 G. Tunalı, ‘Another kind of Hellenism? Appropriation of ancient Athens via Greek channels for the sake of good Advice as reflected in Tarih-i Medinetü'l Hukema’, PhD diss, Ruhr Universität Bochum 2013, 122–4.
26 Adnan Baycar (ed.), Ahmed Cavid. Hadîka-yı Vekâyi (Ankara 1998) 41.
27 Ahmet Özcan, Kethüda Said Efendi Tarihi ve Değerledrimesi, MA thesis, Kırklareli Üniversitesi, 1999, 70.
28 P. M. Kitromilides, ‘The Enlightenment East and West: a comparative perspective on the ideological origins of the Balkan political traditions’, Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 10.2 (1983) 51–70 (55–7).
29 A. Koumarianou (ed.), Η Νεωτερική Γεωγραφία των Δημητριέων. Βιέννη 1791 (Athens 1988) 107–21.
30 Rotzokos, ‘Το έθνος ως πολιτικό υποκείμενο’, 239.
31 Z. Yılmazer (ed.), Şânizâde Mehmed Atâʾullah Efendi, Sânîzâde Tarihi II (1223–1237/1808–1821) (Istanbul 2008) 1082.
32 H. Ş. Ilıcak (ed.), Those İnfidel Greeks. The Greek War of Independence through Ottoman archival documents II (Leiden 2021) 1088.
33 BOA, HAT 45575, 10 Safer 1842 (13 September 1826).
34 ΒΟΑ, ΗΑΤ 1318/51356 -Α, Undated.
35 E Kolovos, ‘Χωρικοί και μοναχοί στην οθωμανική Χαλκιδική 15ος-16ος αιώνες: όψεις της οικονομικής και κοινωνικής ζωής στην ύπαιθρο και η Μονή Ξηροποτάμου II’, PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 2008, 85.
36 E Kolovos, ‘Χωρικοί και μοναχοί σ’, 210–1.
37 P. J. Vatikiotis, ‘Istiklal’, in E. van Donzel et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn. IV (Leiden 1997) 260.
38 Y. Z. Karabıçak, ‘Local patriots and ecumenical Ottomans: the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ottoman configuration of power, 1768–1828’, PhD diss., McGill 2020, 196.
39 For the evolution of these terms in Ottoman Egypt and the acquaintance with secular nationalism and the related notions by Arab thinkers of the same era, see A. Ayalon, Language and Change in the Arab Middle East: the evolution of modern political discourse (Oxford 1987) 16–28.
40 Yılmazer, Şânî-Zâde Târîhi I, 611.
41 B. Lewis, ‘Serbestiyet’, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 41 (2011) 47–52.
42 Y. Z. Karabıçak, ‘Defending Polish liberties: a conceptual and diplomatic history of the Ottoman Declaration of War on Russia in 1768’, Ab Imperio 1 (2022) 133–65.
43 Y. Z. Karabıçak, ‘“Why would we be Limberte?” Limbertè in the Ottoman Empire, 1792–1792’ Turcica 51 (2020) 248. See also H. Yılmaz, ‘From Serbestiyyet to Hürriyet. Ottoman statesmen and the question of freedom during the late Enlightenment”, Studia Islamica 111 (2011) 202–30.
44 Y. Z. Karabıçak, ‘“Why would we be Limberte?” 229.
45 Ziya Yılmazer (ed.), Vakanüvis Es'ad Efendi tarihi: (Bâhir Efendiʾnin zeyl ve ilâveleriyle): 1237–1241 / 1821–1826 (Istanbul 2000) 571–2.
46 Yılmazer, Vakanüvis Es'ad Efendi tarihi Ι 208.
47 Fatih Yeşil, ‘Looking at the French Revolution through Ottoman eyes: Ebubekir Ratib Efendi's Observations’, Bulletin of SOAS 70/2 (2007) 301–2.
48 ‘Hukuk’, in B. Lewis et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn. III (Leiden 1986) 551.
49 B. Aral, ‘The idea of human rights as perceived in the Ottoman Empire’, Human Rights Quarterly 26/2 (May 2004) 454–82 (461).
50 A. Arıvan, Osmanlı Türklerinde İlim, (Istanbul 1982) 214.
51 H. İnalcık, “İmtiyazat. The Ottoman Empire”, in B. Lewis et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn. III (Leiden 1986) 1178–89.
52 Darling, L. T., ‘Kanun and kanunname in Ottoman historiography’, Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 9/1 (2022) 151–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H. İnalcık, The Ottoman Empire: the classical age 1300–1600 (London 1973) 135–45. At this point, it is important to note that the term kavanın emerges in the text of Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhâne (1839), where it is demonstrated that ‘reforms necessitate the introduction of new laws to achieve well-functioning administration ((hüsn-i idare zımnında bazı kavanin-i cedide vaz ve tesisi). ‘Tanzimat Fermani’, in M. Ö. Alkan (ed.) Modern Türkiye'de Siyasi Düşünce 1. Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düşünce Mirası, Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet'in Birikimi (Istanbul 2001) 449–51 (449).
53 Ergene, B., ‘On Ottoman justice: interpretations in conflict (1600–1800)’, Islamic Law and Society 8/1 (2001) 52–87 (58)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
54 Tuğ, B., ‘Gendered subjects in Ottoman constitutional agreements, ca. 1740–1860’, European Journal of Turkish Studies 18 (2014) 22–43 (27–8)Google Scholar.
55 The translator took care to eliminate the word ‘Türk’ from the original text (o κατά των Τούρκων πόλεμος ημών), a term referred to Anatolian peasants and nomads and not to the ruling dynasty, and to replace it with the adjective ‘Ottoman’ (Osmanlı). The Ottomans were aware that ‘Turk’ was equivalent to Ottoman in any European source, diplomatic or otherwise: C. Keyder, ‘A history and geography of Turkish nationalism’, in F. Birtek and Th. Dragonas (eds.), Citizenship and the Nation-State in Greece and Turkey (London 2009) 1–17 (9).
56 Topaloğlu, B., ‘Cebbâr’, Türk Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 7 (1993) 181–2Google Scholar; Topaloğlu, B., ‘Kahhâr’, Türk Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 24 (2001) 169–70Google Scholar.
57 Ergene, ‘On Ottoman justice’, 74.
58 Heraclides, A. and Dialla, A., Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century: setting the precedent (Manchester 2015) 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 BOA, I.MTZ 4/79-1, 18 Teşrin-i sani 1844 (30 November 1844).
60 Sami, Ş., Kâmûs-i Türkî (Istanbul 2001) 1115Google Scholar.
61 Findley, C. V., ‘Mulkiyya’, in Bosworth, C. E. et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, New edn. VII (Leiden 1993) 547Google Scholar.
62 Menchinger, E. L., The First of the Moderns:. the intellectual history of Ahmed Vasif (Cambridge 2017) 167Google Scholar.
63 Karabıçak, ‘Ottoman attempts to define the rebels’, 78.
64 Yalçınkaya, M. A., ‘Mahmud Râif Efendi, the chief secretary of Yusuf Agâh Efendi, the first permanent Ottoman-Turkish ambassador to Berlin (1793–1797), OTAM 5 (1994) 384–434 (425–6)Google Scholar.
65 Aybakan, B., ‘Vekalet’, Türk Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 43 (2013) 1–6Google Scholar.
66 Genç, M., ‘Nazır’, Türk Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi 32 (2006) 111–2Google Scholar.
67 For more details, see Yaycıoğlu, A., Partners of the Empire: crisis of the Ottoman order in the age of revolutions (Palo Alto 2016)Google Scholar.
68 Tilly, C., ‘How empires end’, in Barkey, K. and Hagen, M. von (eds.), After Empire. Multiethnic Societies and Nation Building: the Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman, Habsburg empires (Boulder 1997) 1–11 (3)Google Scholar.
69 Erdem, ‘Do not think of the Greeks as agricultural labourers’, 71.
70 Yanko Karaca was the voyvoda of Wallachia since 1812. In 1818 he fled to Genoa after quarrelling with Sultan Mahmud II's powerful adviser, Halet Efendi. Philliou, Biography of an Empire, 57.
71 For the political career of Scarlatos Kallimaki, see Philliou, Biography of an Empire, 55–64.
72 In an earlier Greek version of this article, Kolovos and Moiras argued that the political language of the imperial authorities was inadequate for interpreting the terms and the ideas of the text of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, the Ottomans resorted to traditional terms in order to contextualize the new political notions and ideas. From this point of view, the text of the Greek Declaration of Independence was the major factor that led to extensive changes in the indigenous vocabulary of state. Kolovos and Moiras, ‘Παραδοσιακά λεξιλόγια’ 115–16.
73 See the terminology in the documents published by Ilıcak, ‘Those Infidel Greeks’.