II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Romanında “Türk” ve Türklük

Yıl 2009, Sayı: 21, 419 - 429, 01.02.2009

Ömer Solak

Öz

Batılılar nezdinde Türk imajına odaklanan çalışmalarda genelde Avrupalıların Türkleri; tarihten kaynaklanan, eksik bilgilenmeden doğan ve bugünkü Türkiye gerçeklerine tam olarak uymayan bir takım önyargılarla değerlendirdiği sonucuna varılır. Gerek Türk edebiyatında yabancıların; gerekse yabancıedebiyatlarda Türklerin imajıile ilgili çalışmalarda aynıönyargıdan söz edilir. Bu çalışmada ise bizzat Türk edebiyatındaki Türk’ün imgesi söz konusu edilmiştir. Bu amaçla siyasal ve toplumsal hayatımızın hızlıdeğişimler yaşadığıII. Meşrutiyet 1908–1912 döneminde Türk'ün nasıl bir toplumsal tipi temsil ettiği; bir Osmanlı/Türk aydınıolan yazarlarımızın imparatorluğun aslî unsuru Türkleri nasıl bir kimlik içinde düşündükleri ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmada incelenen altıeser, dönemin tarihsel arka planıve yazarların bu konuda benimsedikleri ideoloji ile de ilişkilendirilerek incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türk tipi, imaj, meşrutiyet dönemi, roman

Turkish Type And Turkishness In 2’th Conditional Monarchy Novel

Öz

Europeans are prejudiced about Turks and history or the reality of today’s Turkey due to lack of knowledge about. European Cultures are full of prejudice about Turks. This situation prevents of being Turkish peoples image. After in this study the image of Turks in Europe is mentioned shortly. In our literature the Turkish style is tried to find out. Because of that, “Turk was representing which social type in II. Meşrutiyet –Conditional Monarchy- period 1908–1912 that our social life was formed rapidly in this period and emperorship was going to end? Why did our writers think about Turks that possessed an identity of Ottoman/Turks on Ottoman Turkish novels? The Changing image of Turks is followed. During that time example novels related with our subject was studied. The Political power was considering Turkish identity increasingly in II. Meşrûtiyet. Is that so was this manner reflected that period’s novels. Due to attributions about six novels was written different writer that was studied chronologically. The changing image of Turkish and Anatolian Turkish element was determined in this way. In this article we tried to behave on the image of the Turkish type in society. We didn’t compare the dramatis persona or their circle each other. Ottoman Empire is a tolerant state in the classical period. However this is restricted tolerance that every ethnic component perceives where they will stop. Turks are main component of the empire. But this is a important question that what is role of Turks against the other ethnics. It can be seen that the word of “turk” means “vulgar, rude, peasant” for the Moslem/Turk ruling class. In 19’Th century, Tanzimat create own intellectuals. And they noticed their ethnic Turkish origins; they worked on Turkish language, history and culture at first time. The Political Party of Ittihat ve Terakki Union and Progress who came into power with the revolution of the 2’Th Meşrutiyet Conditional Monarchy had Turkish nationalistic politics. And they governed the Empire by using these politics between 1908 - 1918. But in six novels which were published between 1908-1912, there are not positive meanings of Turkish identity. In these novels Turk is still can be seen as a “provincial, vulgar and ignorant” by the Moslem/Turk Ottoman people who settled in Istanbul. And this reality demonstrates that political actions had influence on literature in a little later. On the other hand, Turkish identity was evaluated in six novels which were written in II. Meşrûtiyet. These novels are Sefalet, Küçük Paşa, Müsebbip, Şıpsevdi, Nurhayat, Salon Köşelerinde. In Sefalet, A family from Istanbul consider about a “Yoruk” girl Yakut as vulgar because of the provincial origins of her. And they don’t accept willingly her. In Küçük Paşa was narrated Selime came from a little village in Anatolia, lives in a Paşha’s mansion. But Selime’s little son Salih will be refuse by the villagers of Selime later. Author Tepeyran tell the disagreement between Anatolia and Istanbul. Because of both Anatolia and Istanbul hadn’t known well each other. In Müsebbip was narrated Balkans War. People from Istanbul don’t accept willingly Turkish immigrants of war. Because, they couldn’t understand how act as a nation in these days. Şıpsevdi is a novel of social satire. Author Gürpınar try to tell how the nobles of Istanbul act to Anatolians and their culture in this novel. In Nurhayat, Ziya as child from Anatolia was ridicule by his friends in the school in Istanbul. They consider comical his behaviors. In the novel of Salon Köşelerinde, Şekip was a refined person of the high society. And he fell in love. Lydia was an English merchant’s girl. In order to call her attention, Şekip tried to be as Turkish nationalist. And he tried to show Turkish culture and civilization. In this way, Şekip found out his Turkish identity. Briefly, in this period Moslem/Ottoman/Istanbulian/Turk people count other components of the empire as being alien or “other” –especially Turks living the parts of a country outside its big cities- . This being an alien or foreigner was clear in this period. Thus we don’t explain this situation as tension between center and province. Near the time of Mesrutiyet, being a Turk would come to mean positive associations. And this affects the modern Turkish Republic’s cultural an identical codes. In spite of political tendency of the period, the novels of second Mesrutiyet period don’t stress on Turk sufficiently. And they don’t give these novels priority. Also it is clear that the Turkist political policy of that period of times wasn’t agreed with by novelist of the same time. Assuming the literature follows the political tendency from behind, this situation will be explained a little. When the empire collapsed tragically and in a very short time; a new understanding came into power. And according to them, being a Turk is not only wouldn’t be made fit into the Istanbul but also should be think with the deep history and wide geography of the Turks. In addition to this, they got Anatolian Turkish identity established in the center of this understanding. In respect of Tanzimat, Edebiyat-Cedide and second Mesrutiyet’s novels, a dominant character of “native citizen” wasn’t to be only “Turk”. Furthermore this definition of native citizen was far away from definition of today’s Turkishness. Moslem/ Ottoman/Istanbulian/Turk counts all of other components which aren’t similar to their cultural characteristics outfits, taste of entertainment, refined Ottoman language as an alien. And being alien is clear as much as it can’t be explained

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish type, image, etnisite, the literature of 2’Th Conditional Monarchy The type of research: Research

Kaynakça

• Amicis, Edmondo De, (1981). İstanbul (1874), (Çev. Prof. Dr. Beynun Akyavaş), Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları
• Akçam, Taner. (2002). “Türk Ulusal Kimliği Üzerine Bazı Tezler”, Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce Iv, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
• Danışman, Zuhuri. (1997). Koçi Bey Risalesi. İstanbul: Meb Yayınları
• Dellal, Nevide Akpınar. (1997). Alman Kültür Tarihi’nden Seçme Tarihi Ve Yazınsal Ürünlerde Türkler, İstanbul: Öz-Er Yay.
• Emine Semiye [Binti Cevdet]. (1324 /1908). Sefâlet. İstanbul: Hilâl Matbaası
• Fazlıoğlu, Şükran. (2006). Arap Romanında Türkler, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları
• Gürpınar], Hüseyin Rahmi. 1327 (1911). Şıpsevdi. İstanbul: Mihran Matbaası
• Güvenç, Bozkurt. (1997). Türk Kimliği, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi
• Kula, Onur Bilge. (1993). Alman Kültüründe Türk İmgesi. Ankara: Gündoğan Yayınları
• Lewis, Bernard. (2000). Modern Türkiye’nin Doğuşu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları
• Millas, Herkül. (1998).Türk Edebiyatında Yunanlı İmajı; Karşılaştırmalı Bir Yöntemle Ulusçuluk Ve Kimlik Sorunları, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
• Ortaylı, İlber. (1999). İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
• Poyraz, Tuğçe; Arıkan Gülay. (2003) “Avrupa-Türkiye İlişkileri Ve Dönemsel Olarak Değişen ‘Öteki’ Tanımları”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 20, Sayı: 2, ss. 61–71
• R. Âdil Nami. 1328 (1912). Nurhayat. İstanbul: Mesai Matbaası
• Safveti Ziya. (1328 /1912). Salon Köşelerinde. İstanbul: Ahmet İhsan Ve Şürekâsı Matbaacılık Osmanlı Şirketi
• Safvet Nezihî. (1326 /1910). Müsebbib. İstanbul: Cihan Matbaası
• Sarı, Tanju. (2003). Gezginlerin Gözüyle Bir İmparatorluk (İngiliz Seyahatnamelerinde 17. Yüzyıl İktisâdi Yapısı). İstanbul: Göçebe Yayınları
• Skjelbred, Ann Helene B. (1994). “Norveç’te Türk İmajı-Söylentiler ve İşlevleri ya da Tarihsel Açıdan Stereotipler”(Çev. Yard. Doç. Dr. Ali Osman Öztürk). Tarih ve Toplum, Cilt: 22, Sayı: 130
• Solak, Ömer. (2008). Romanda Öteki/Ötekinin Romanı, Konya: Tablet Yayınları
• Spohn, Margret. (1996). Her Şey Türk İşi-Almanların Türkler Hakkında Beş Yüz Yıllık (Ön) Yargıları (Çev. Leyla Serdaroğlu). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları
• Ünal, Uğur. (2007). “İlk Osmanlı Parlamentosu-Meclis-İ Umumî- ve Etnik Yapısı”, Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü, Yıl 3 . Sayı 6, Ss. 5-26
• Yörük, Doğan. (2007). “XVI. Yüzyılın İkinci Yarısında Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Yaşayan Gayrimüslimlerin Nüfus Yapısı”, SÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Konya: Sayı: 17, ss. 625-652
• Tepeyran], Ebubekir Hazım. 1326 (1910). Küçük Paşa -Yeni Şeyler, İstanbul: Ahmed İhsan ve Şürekâsı Matbaacılık Osmanlı Şti.