Between Two Worlds Kafadar.pdf

ed. Gary Leiser (Albany, 1992).
19. Paul Wittek, Das Füurstentum Mentesche (Istanbul, 1934). A Turkish
translation was made by a student of Köprülü: Mentese * Beyligi * trans. O. S. *
Gökyay (Ankara, 1944).
20. Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1938).
21. Wittek, Mentesche , 35.
22. Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, "Bizans Müesseselerinin Osmanli Müesseselerine Te'siri
Hakkinda Bâzi Mülâhazalar," Türk Hukuk ve Iktisat * Tarihi Mecmuasi
1(1931):165-313. "Les institutions byzantines ont-elles joué un rôle dans la
formation des institutions ottomanes?" VIIe Congrès International des Sciences
Historiques: Résumé ... (Warsaw, 1933), 1:297-302, is a French summary of this
work, which is now published as a book in three languages: Alcune osservazioni
intorno all'influenza delle istituzioni bizantine sulk istituzioni ottomane
(Rome, 1953); by the original title in Turkish, with additional notes by Orhan
Köprülü (Istanbul, 1981); Some Observations on the Influence of Byzantine
Institutions on Ottoman Institutions, trans. G. Leiser (Ankara, 1993).
23. The introduction of Durkheimian sociology is attributed to Ziya Gökalp, the
sociologist who was the mentor of a whole generation of nationalists in the
early twentieth century. As a student of "Gökalp's disciple, Mehmed Fuad
Köprülü," Halil Inalcik * is conscious of this legacy; see his "Impact of the
Annales School on Ottoman Studies and New Findings," Review 1(1978):69-70.
Inalcik * has also written a more detailed assessment of Gökalp's sociology:
"Sosyal Degisme * , Gökalp ve Toynbee," Türk Kültürü 3/31 (May 1965):421-33.
24. Köprülü, Origins, 24.
25. Lucien Fevbre, "Review of Köprülü, Les origines de l'empire ottoman,"
Annales: ESC 9(1937):100-101. Lengthy passages of this review were cited with
relish by Köprülü in his introduction to the Turkish edition; see pp. xxi-xxiii
in the English translation.
26. Köprülü, Origins, xxiii. Here I had to change the translator's "had" to
"have" because it is a more accurate rendering of the tense in the original
Turkish sentence (" mislardir * " and not "mislardi * )'' and thus of the
likelihood that there is an implicit critique of Wittek here, always appreciated
as a good philologist even by his critics. Köprülü had already raised the same
criticism against Wittek's "monocausal" explanation more directly in "Osmanli
Imparatorlugunun * Etnik Mensei * Meseleleri," Belleten 7(1943):285-86.
27. Köprülü, Origins, 11-21.
28. Ibid., 86-87.
29. Ibid., 87-88.
30. The sun-language theory claimed, on the basis of a heliocentric view of the
origin and nature of human languages, that Turkish was the Ur-language from
which all civilized languages derived. See Busra * Ersanli Behar, Iktidar * ve
Tarih: Türkiye'de "Resmi Tarih" Tezinin Olusumu * (1929-1937) (Istanbul, 1992),
175-81.
31. While it may be accurate to state that "the greatest single influence on
modem perceptions of early Ottoman history has been the work of the scholar Paul
Wittek," it is misleading to add that Wittek's gaza thesis "appealed to
everyone: Turkish nationalists can see Wittek's gazis, or Holy Warriors, as the
embodiment of Turkish-Islamic heroism" (Imber, The Ottoman Empire, 12-13). There
was a good deal of shared ground between Wittek and Köprülü; in addition to what
141