Theatre and Modernity: From the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic

By Ayşın Candan

This study aims to disclose the inner dynamics of the rich and diverse milieu within the Ottoman-Turkish society that created its unique hybrid forms through the scenic arts against an understanding of modernity in terms of a simple import or imitation of Western cultural forms. In the 19th century Armenians pioneered this process with melodramas, necessitating the presence of female performers on the stage; Armenian women thus went onstage with patriotic motives. Among the two leading figures of the Turkish Republic period are Nazim Hikmet, the most prolific but severely censured Turkish dramatist and Muhsin Ertugrul, who founded the subsidised theatres of Ankara and Istanbul. A later phase of modernisation arrives in the sixties with a social awakening towards the conditions of the rural society: Ankara becomes the seat of "popular" theatre after the founding of Ankara Art Theatre, in 1961. Mehmet Ulusoy's work in France in the 1970–1980s crowns the final synthesis.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Hollitzer Wissenschaftsverlag
• Release date: Mar 22, 2024
• ISBN: 9783990942420

Book preview

Cover.Logo.

DON JUAN ARCHIV WIEN

OTTOMANIA

13

Series Editors

MICHAEL HÜTTLER ∙ SUNA SUNER

Logo.

THEATRE AND MODERNITY

FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

TO THE TURKISH REPUBLIC

by

Ayşın Candan

Logo.

The publication was supported by

Don Juan Archiv Wien

Forschungsverein für Theater- und Kulturgeschichte

Logo.

Ayşın Candan:

Theatre and Modernity. From the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic

Wien: Hollitzer Verlag, 2024

(= Ottomania 13)

Editors of Ottomania

Michael Hüttler · Suna Suner

Cover Image

Nazım Hikmet / Mehmet Ulusoy, Why Did Benerji Kill Himself, Festival d’Avignon, 1981

Cover: Gabriel Fischer

Layout: Nikola Stevanović

Printed and bound in the EU

© Hollitzer Verlag, Wien 2024

All rights reserved.

Responsibility for questions of image copyright lies with the author. In the case of outstanding, justified claims, we request to be notified by the rights owner.

ISSN 2617-2542

ISBN 978-3-99094-138-6 (print)

ISBN 978-3-99094-242-0 (epub)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The periodic meetings of the theatre research group Spectacle Vivant in Paris and sometimes elsewhere, were source of inspiration for this research, the group being founded by my mentor and colleague Professor Ulf Birbaumer from the University of Vienna. The first draft of the work came into being in 2013, when I was invited by the group member Professor Guido di Palma of Sapienza University in Rome for a short seminar at his department.

During my research, Professor Phillippe Ivernel gave me hints of assistance with his vast erudition and library in Paris. After his passing, Maryvonne Ivernel kindly enabled me to continue working with the aid of this library. I am much indebted to this aid and support.

Lastly my friend and colleague Michael Hüttler as well as late Hans Ernst Weidinger, the founder of Hollitzer Verlag who had given me promise of publishing whatever I came up with, many years ago, have kept that promise, making it possible for my work to see daylight.

Of my friends, colleagues and students who have ardently supported this project, Cafer Sarikaya comes foremost in providing a large number of source material. My daughter Aslı Seven gave me intellectual assistance and technical support. My good old friend Huma Noyan hosted me during the dark days of the pandemic, making it possible for me to concentrate without worrying about the world at large as well as providing valuable source material. Fatma Erkmen, Güvener Isik read and reread my writings. Ayla Sevand gave support and encouragement at all times. Çagla Ormanlar who is a constant source of positive thinking, provided full material on village institutes, which is part of her family legacy. Finally, my school friend, English language and literature specialist İnci Birdal has done the last meticulous reading.

Ali Pınar provided me with ample visual material of Mehmet Ulusoy’s stage work. Professor Cevat Çapan lent me two issues of theatre populaire. Hasmet Zeybek had provided me with the two volumes of Asot Madat’s Treasures of our Stages, which I never had the chance of returning as he passed so untimely. I shall always remember him with gratitude.

I was lucky to have Irazca Geray take over the translation into English.

Matt Hanson was much more than a proofreader. He gave me many good ideas as to how one can best express Turkish twists of thought in English.

I am grateful to you all.

Ayşın Candan

For the Centennial of the Republic of Turkey

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

MODERNITY

THE OTTOMANS AND THE HISTORY OF TURKS

THEATRE DURING THE OTTOMAN ERA

The Fruits of Tanzimat: Period of Reform

The Young Ottomans

Ottoman Society During the Constitutional Monarchy

ARMENIAN WOMEN’s MOVEMENT FROM TANZIMAT TO CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

MELODRAMA

THE HISTORICAL EMERGENCE OF MELODRAMA

The Evolution of Melodrama

Pixérécourt: from Decadence to Revolutionary Morality

Structural Traits of Melodrama

Evolution of the Plot and Characters

An Example: The Two Orphans

ALLEGORY

MELODRAMAS AND MODERNITY

Tanzimat and the Melodramas

THE ARMENIAN MILLET

Armenian Modernisation

Early Theatrical Performances by Armenians

FURTHER WESTERN INFLUENCES

European Troupes

The Pashas and The Schools

THE FIRST THEATRE COMPANIES AND THE PROGRESSIVE STAGING OF MELODRAMAS

THEATRE AUDIENCE AND ETIQUETTE

Golden Age of Melodrama

MELODRAMATIC ACTING

REPERTOIRE

Victor Hugo on the Ottoman Stage

Early Ottoman Drama Inspired by French Theatre

Namik Kemal

Semseddin Sami

Ahmet Mithat Efendi

An Example: Vatan yahut Silistre (Motherland or Silistria)

Women Onstage

Mari Nivart

Azniv Hrachia

Siranoush

As Melodramas take leave of the stage

REVOLUTION AND THE AVANT-GARDE

EXPRESSIONISM

German Expressionism

The Expressionist Stage and the First Plays

An Example: Bir Adam Yaratmak (Creating a Man)

A Young Turkish Actor in Berlin

Expressionist Drama

Expressionist Acting

The Phases of Expressionism

Directing and Design

After the Expressionist Movement

Tracing the Influence of Expressionism in Turkey: Muhsin Ertugrul

The Adventure of Muhsin Ertugrul Determining the Fate of Turkish Theatre

And the Cinema

THE MEETING OF TWO REMARKABLE CREATORS

An Example: Kafatasi (The Skull)

Nazim Hikmet and Theatre

A Seminal Force: Meyerhold

Meyerhold and Nazim Hikmet

Nazim Hikmet’s Plays on Stage

Experimentation

Mehmet Ulusoy and Nazim Hikmet

PEOPLE’S THEATRE (POPULAR THEATRE)

AWAKENING OF THE IDEA OF POPULAR THEATRE IN EUROPE

An Example: Zabit Fatma’nın Kuzusu (Officer Fatma’s Lamb)

Ulvi Uraz (1921–1974)

First Peoples’ Theatre Troupes and the Ulvi Uraz Theatre

Théâtre Populaire: Intellectual Guidance of a Journal

FRANCE IN THE 1960S AND THE CHANGING THEATRE

Jean Vilar (1912–1971)

PEOPLE’S THEATRE AND TURKEY

Village Institutes and People’s Houses

Dramaturgy

Popular Theatre versus Political Theatre

Haldun Taner and the Cabaret

Genç Oyuncular (Young Actors)

The Founding of Ankara Sanat Tiyatrosu (Ankara Art Theatre – AST)

The Evolution of Ankara Art Theatre

Devrim için Hareket Tiyatrosu (Theatre of Action for the Revolution)

Dostlar Theatre, Genco Erkal and Mehmet Ulusoy

Collaboration of Mehmet Ulusoy and Genco Erkal

Ferhan Sensoy and His Company Ortaoyuncular

ON THE CONTINUITY OF PEOPLE’S THEATRE

Decentralisation

Towards Traditional Forms of Drama

FINAL WORD ON PEOPLE’S THEATRE

CONCLUSION: MODERNITY AND THEATRE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRO­DUCTION

INTRODUCTION

MODERNITY

What is modernisation? We see modernity assuming different forms depending on the era and social context. Although it has been around since the Middle Ages, the meaning of modernity becomes concrete and visible during the 18th–19th centuries. It develops in parallel with the spread of literacy, social mobility, urbanisation, etc. On the other hand, industrialisation and the birth of capitalism in the West along with colonisation and the advance of globalisation start to manifest the not-so-positive consequences of modernisation. Already in the mid-19th century, Karl Marx was saying: At the same pace that mankind masters nature, man seems to become enslaved to other men or to his own infamy.¹ During the same century the French poet Baudelaire, who witnessed the barricades of the 1848 revolt as well as the vast public works, projects in the rebuilding of Paris, was applauding, in Paris Spleen, the beauty of modernisation amidst all the ugliness and destruction along with the images of poverty that emerged as dark alleys were replaced with wide boulevards. And today, as we are increasingly witnessing the bipolar ebb and flow of modernisation, Marx’s observation is turning into a prophecy that grows stronger each day.

Against such a background, in the current form assumed by modernity in the social and cultural spheres, we notice the existence of structures that advance through different conceptions of time under different geographic conditions. Today, the idea of alternative modernities developed during the process of modernisation concedes to the existence of social structures evolving in different cultures and different times. From this perspective we can look at the social transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey in its own specific dynamics.

As of the 19th century, culture and art have assumed an important role in rendering modernisation a leading factor in the transition from empire to nation. Its most prominent evidence has been observed at the very outset. It may be assumed that the first modern person in the Ottoman Empire is Sultan Mehmed II, the Conqueror. That a small nomadic people from the Kai tribe came and settled on the outer rims of Asia Minor and proceeded to conquer Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, under the leadership of a young sultan of 23, was as unexpected as this sultan’s offer of friendship to Western states. Assuming Byzantine bureaucracy and state apparatus with the awareness of henceforth being the sole sovereign of Eastern and Western Rome, Sultan Mehmed II signed a peace treaty with the Republic of Venice in 1479 and asked for an artist to be sent to him. Gentile Bellini, who arrived to fulfill this request, stayed in Istanbul for 16 months where he made three portraits of the Sultan and designed portrait medallions. Despite the Islamic faith’s denial of concrete depictions, Sultan Mehmed II, who spoke many languages and had extensive knowledge about Eastern and Western civilisations, attained immortality through art with his portrait by Bellini which is on display today at the National Gallery in London.

Präsentation.

Fig. 1: Gentile Bellini, Portrait of Sultan Mehmet II with a Young Man, c.1500, oil on panel, 33.4 × 45.4 cm. Municipality of Istanbul, Turkey

THE OTTOMANS AND THE HISTORY OF TURKS

This study, which explores the role of the performing arts in the modernisation of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, is not a historical or sociological account, it employs an approach specific to theatre research. That said, a discussion on modernisation necessitates an explanation on its historical background to determine its framework and borders.

Europeans are the first to call the Ottomans Turks. The word Turk is ingrained within the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. The Ottomans, on the other hand, regarded themselves as an Islamic community and did not feel the need to seek another identity or history. Before the foundation of the Republic, the only subject of instruction at schools was Islamic history. Meanwhile, European historians, and foremost Arnold Toynbee, argued that Turkey was re-established as a republic merely owing to the Turks’ emulation of the superior Western civilisation². The emphasis placed on the pre-Islamic Asian identity of the Turks in line with Atatürk’s demand, following the foundation of the republic, should be understood as a reaction developed against the centuries-long domination of such marginalising perspectives held by European historians regarding the Ottoman state.

We know that Turks are a nomadic people who set out from the Altay region of East Asia and began to convert to Islam as of the 10th century. In cultural heritage buildings constructed by the Seljuks, who were among the first Turkic tribes to reach Anatolia, we can see the resplendent cultural synthesis created by their migration and settlement. The 13th century mosque and hospital, which Dogan Kuban calls the Divrigi miracle, attests to the cultural synthesis in Anatolia that survives to our day. All of the ornamentation techniques imported by the Seljuk-Turkic tribes and stonemasonry specific to the Anatolian geography have merged here. Consequently, we can say that architecture is a field wherein the most abstract thoughts and hypotheses turn into tangible entities. As an architectural historian and culture critic Kuban’s studies on this structure continued for many years and the building has been included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. In yet another comprehensive volume titled Osmanlı Mimarisi (Ottoman Architecture), Kuban gives concrete and solemn evidence about the Turkish-Ottoman synthesis and concludes that the Ottoman state is an Eastern Mediterranean and Balkan state with a Muslim identity.³ Similar thoughts resonate in contemporary history research, for instance in the works of researcher Barış Ünlü:

"The nomadic lifestyle of Greater Central Asia met with the sedentary civilisation of the Greater Near East during the 14th and 15th centuries in Anatolia and the Balkans. The blending of these two different social structures, mentalities, and cultures in kairos created the Ottoman Empire."⁴

This contemporary take by Ünlü also contains the view that the aforementioned dilemma underlies the state which was created by the Ottoman Empire by bringing together the right impulses at the right time as illuminated by the Greek concept of kairos. This result also manages to bring an end to questions such as whether it was Byzantine heritage or the Islamic civilisation that the Ottomans inherited most from, or, whether it was by pillage or motives of expansion that lay behind the idea of conquest.

Präsentation.

Fig. 2: The western portal of the Divrigi Mosque (Eastern Anatolia)

THEATRE DURING THE OTTOMAN ERA

THE FRUITS OF THE TANZIMAT PERIOD OF REFORM

The question of when the first theatrical activities emerged in the form that they had in Western countries has always been a subject of debate. The initial and most striking impressions of Yirmisekiz Mehmed Çelebi, who was the first Ottoman ambassador sent to a Western country by Sultan Ahmed III, during his official visit to France in 1720 alluded to the women he saw in France: In the realms of France, women are held in higher esteem than men and do whatever they may wish and go wherever they may desire, he says in astonishment.⁵ After a night in the theatre where he watches an opera, he writes, … And at the opera, with the participation of the common people, they performed strange and bizarre mimicries and plays. The Topkapi Palace hosts a performance in this genre for the first time in 1797.⁶ Thus, we see that the first encounter with Western music and its performing arts takes place not during the Tanzimat period or later but during the era of Sultan Selim III (1789–1808) and even earlier. According to certain studies, theatre events had already begun in the early 17th century at embassies located in Istanbul.⁷ In Jesuit schools as well, dramatic performances in Greek and later in French were presented for the celebrations and ceremonies marked by the Christian calendar. During these years, the ambassadors appointed to Istanbul usually stayed for considerably long periods of time and their ceremonies were attended by large crowds. Through such initial encounters with the European culture and following the Tanzimat reforms, Ottoman society found itself at the centre of an inevitable interaction with the West in the 19th century.

During the reign of Sultan Mahmud II (1808–1839), which can be considered to be a reform period in terms of historical and intellectual progress, many innovations are introduced to the state administration and social life, foremost among them in the fields of health and education. Education reforms mostly take the form of keeping pace with the scientific developments related to defence and the inception of medical education in the context of military service. Opportunities are created for studying abroad. Again, in the context of military service, the first census is held, including only the male population (1831, 1844), postal services have begun and embassies are opened in certain European countries. Outside of these steps, there are many innovations concerning external appearances. European furniture begins to be imported, tailors have models brought from Europe, Western music is performed in affluent mansions and entertainment venues. The most important step however, is the drafting of the Land Law in 1858 and the recognition of equal inheritance rights for both male and female offspring. This law, first of all, leads to considerable progress in terms of the rights accorded to women, and some of its principles continue to be effective even in the Republican era. Yet, another reform concerning the education of women started during the Ottoman Empire and results in the opening of the first high schools for girls in the 1850s and homes for orphaned girls in 1865. These institutions opened the path to the Girls’ Institutes, which were launched in 1928–29.

During the education reforms that were realised at the level of higher education, Sultan Mahmud II unfortunately regarded the issue of primary education as a field that falls within the jurisdiction of the Shaykh al-Islam.⁸ Therefore, they kept the line of the madrasas preceded by neighbourhood schools where the only subject of instruction was religious education. Consequently, when it came to higher education, there were no eligible students for subjects like engineering and medicine, and the students for higher education were at first chosen from among minorities who had received a more competent primary education.

Similar conditions abound during the Tanzimat era. The Imperial Edict of Tanzimat is far from being a remedy to the state of affairs. Its true impact tends to amplify certain contradictions in society. The reforms of 1839 and 1856 are carried out under the patronage of foreign embassies that wield an enormous influence within the large territories of the empire and result in the expansion of the rights accorded to minorities within the Ottoman Empire. The minorities, who are already free to act in line with their own religious principles in terms of the Civil Code, are more advanced on the subject of education as compared to the Muslim population. Subjects like contemporary science, history, literature, etc. are taught at their primary and secondary schools and youth from affluent families are sent to European countries for higher education. Since non-Muslim youth are not subject to compulsory military service, it is easier for them to abound in the rural areas as well. Such that, when the new regulation foresees the remission of taxes from minorities and the introduction of compulsory military service, it is met with objections. Ultimately, a young generation of minorities who have received higher education in European countries constitute the pioneers that carry the impulses of modernisation within the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century.

THE YOUNG OTTOMANS

In recent times, men of thought like Niyazi Berkes and Tarık Z. Tunaya who comment on Tanzimat concur that the movement was a huge deception under the guise of reform. They establish that the innovations, which seemed then to benefit the Ottoman state, were entirely designed to serve the long-term interests of the European states, and that the figures who were based in Istanbul in the capacities of ambassadors, military advisors, etc. were in fact united in gathering information on the one hand, and on the other, encouraging the Ottoman administrator elites towards the alluring consumption patterns of Europe, intemperately increasing public borrowing. According to Berkes, the first to realise the situation are the pioneers of the The Young Ottomans movement. The Tanzimat era personalities who are known by this title, namely Sinasi, Namık Kemal, and Ziya Pasha are men of politics and thought. They found themselves in the eye of a huge storm of transformation and would be remembered forever as young heroes on the stage of history with their valiant, sincere, and very short lives. They met in Paris while in exile but after they returned to their homeland each one continued writing in their own corner. To know them better, one must understand the turbulent environment in which they were born and raised.

Tanzimat encouraged progressive individuals to learn foreign languages, to read and follow the intellectual leaders of the West. However, as mentioned earlier, there was no formal education for the youth except for the neighbourhood schools or madrasas. The youth, who entered public service owing to their social standing and family connections, received their true education during their apprenticeship here. All the intellectual leaders of the epoch have been trained in this way.