Middle Eastern Studies,
Vol. 43, No. 5, 795 – 809, September 2007
Defining the Public Sphere during
the Late Ottoman Empire: War, Mass
Mobilization and the Young Turk Regime
(1908–18)
_ ÖZBEK
NADIR
This study aims to explore state–society relations during the Second Constitutional
Period (1908–18) through a study of philanthropic activities, particularly those of
semi-official aid societies such as the Ottoman Red Crescent Society (Osmanlı Hilal-i
_
Ahmer Cemiyeti), the Ottoman Navy League (Osmanlı Donanma-i Milliye Iane
Cemiyeti), and the Committee of National Defence (Müdafaa-i Milliye Cemiyeti).
These three societies, all founded after the Revolution of 1908, provided the Young
Turk elite with instruments for extending its political influence, thus moulding the
dispositions of the ‘political public sphere’ along its own ideological premises. These
societies, hence, offer promising cases for a deeper understanding of state–society
relations during the late Ottoman Empire and the contours of the political public
sphere in this era. This discussion also enables us to reconsider the usefulness of the
‘public sphere’ concept that historians have borrowed from political and social
theory – rather, it may contribute to a redefinition, making the public sphere a
working concept in analyses of concrete historical situations such as the Young Turk
period.
Until quite recently, studies in late Ottoman history tended to view state–society
relations as if in isolation from one another, in a relationship of dichotomy. This
historiography has conceptualized the state–civil society relationship in terms of
conflict and contestation, such that the so-called lack of civic initiative in the
Ottoman context is explained by the presence of a strong central state. The
persistence of this concept for understanding Ottoman realities is not to be wondered
at, with its antecedent in the enduring motif, ‘oriental despotism’. Approaches
developed within this framework, which exaggerates the power of the state and
underestimates civic/voluntary initiatives in different sectors of Ottoman society, fail
to note certain nuances of state–society relations in the Ottoman milieu. Historians
in this school mostly explain the alleged weakness of civic initiative by essentialized
conceptions of cultural/religious specificity.1
According to a liberal variant of the same school, the so-called strong central state,
which was believed to have curtailed the emergence of democratic institutions and
accompanying political practices and cultures, was a by-product of the centralizing
ISSN 0026-3206 Print/1743-7881 Online/07/050795-15 ª 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00263200701422709
796
N. Özbek
reforms of Mahmud II (r.1808–39) and the Tanzimat period (1839–76).2 Indeed, the
autocratic and absolutist regime of Abdülhamit II (1876–1909) was supposed to have
represented the culmination of this trend, thus presumably blocking the expansion of
the public sphere in the Ottoman domains.3 This liberal historiography, moreover,
conceptualizes the Second Constitutional Period as the binary opposite of the
previous era. It has been argued that the revolutionary regime, at least during its
early years, created a political milieu for the spreading of civil initiative and public
political activity, resulting in a dramatically expanded public sphere. One drawback
of this approach is that it hardly questions the nature or dispositions of this newly
expanding public sphere, and takes the expansion of public political activity as
something positive by its own definition. This study, rather, argues that an expanded
public sphere does not inevitably produce a democratic and inclusive political
environment, a fact which may be observed, for example, during the period
following the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)’s consolidation of power
after 1913. Historians from this liberal school have paid little attention to the fact
that a dynamic and expanding public sphere was, in fact, a key element of the Young
Turk elite’s single party rule.
Despite the persistence of these liberal themes, early signs of a ‘revisionist’
approach, not as insistent as they might be, have begun to provide a modest and
limited critique of the paradigm described above. According to this new approach,
the development of civil society in the Ottoman and modern Turkish case is partially
contingent upon a specific state tradition; that is, in Binnaz Toprak’s words, ‘the
state laid the foundations for the orderly functioning of civil society’.4 This new
approach to some extent parallels a recent sea change in scholarship on state–civil
society relations which Charles S. Maier calls ‘an emerging second generation of
scholarship on the idea and historical development of civil society’.5 The new
paradigm questions the conceptual distinction between state and society and, more
importantly, challenges the persistent presentation of the two as mutually
antagonistic. Historians of Germany, for instance, have emphasized collaboration
between the two, demonstrating how, throughout the nineteenth century, civic
associations acted in such a way as to shift the boundary between state and civil
society.6 Despite the premises that the literature on Turkish history and politics
shares with this broader reorientation of the last one or two decades, it is still far
from relinquishing the liberal outlook outlined above. Though we should welcome
this new perspective on state–society relations in modern Turkish history, we should
also point out its reluctance to address the political content of the expanding public
sphere and emerging civil society: the new interpretation attaches a positive
normative value to these formations without investigating their political or
ideological dispositions.7
This study aims to explore the ‘fuzzy’ boundaries between state and society and
how the Young Turk elite expanded its political influence over society through
promoting public philanthropic activity, which it did by establishing a network of
such societies during the early Constitutional Period.8 Benevolent societies and semiofficial aid organizations were thus among the means by which the new elite extended
its political influence over society. Fund raising campaigns during the period under
study, especially those of semi-official aid societies, aimed at promoting identification
with the state and fatherland and hence patriotism as a unifying ideology.
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
797
The successive war years of the Second Constitutional Period (the 1911 war with
Italy, the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, and the First World War, 1914–18) helped
the ruling elite to promote public involvement in philanthropic activities and to
mobilize the masses along patriotic and militaristic lines.
It is the contention of this article that a study of philanthropic activities, voluntary
initiatives, and state policy during the Second Constitutional Period reveals a
dynamic political public sphere, yet one not categorically distinct from public
authority, but rather in the context of a blurred boundary between state and civil
society, public and private. From the early date of 1909 on, first the Navy League
then, in 1911, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society, and finally during the critical days
of the Balkan Wars, the Committee of National Defence, aimed to make their weight
felt in public political activities with their hegemonic patriotic discourse. Through
these three societies the Ottoman elite and Unionist circles in particular promoted a
highly organic and harmonious conception of state–society relations. The Ottoman
governments clearly considered these aid societies as semi-official organizations
performing functions complementary to those of the state.9 Their patriotic and
nationalist political discourse, moreover, had the effect of marginalizing other civic
initiatives not directly related to patriotic goals. The overall effect of this course was
the ‘nationalization’ and ‘militarization’ of philanthropic activity: Ottoman elites,
through the three semi-official aid societies, sought to mobilize as many people as
possible in patriotic and nationalist causes, thus encouraging political participation
at the grass-roots level, not only in the capital, but throughout the Empire.10 These
semi-official societies, functioning primarily as auxiliaries of the ministries of the
Navy, the Interior, and War, tried to direct popular energy and funds towards
national causes through a series of fundraising campaigns. It can thus be argued
that, as a result of these activities, the expanding public sphere was likely to have
been transformed along military and nationalist lines.
The following study first examines the Navy League and its fundraising campaigns
in an effort to shed light on the nature of state–society relations, and to illustrate the
porous boundaries between them, during the Constitutional Period. Next, after
briefly reflecting on the Committee of National Defence, the article will turn to the
Ottoman Red Crescent Society to consider the social composition of its founding
members and the membership profile of its local branches.
The Ottoman Navy League was founded by four Ottoman professionals, physicians
_
_
Hafız Ibrahim,
Ismail
Hakkı and Petraki Papadopulos, and chief engineer Haşim
Bey, at a meeting on 19 July 1909.11 At this time, when the military rivalry between
Greece and the Ottoman Empire in the Aegean Sea had made naval power a major
determinant in the balance of power in the region, the Crete question of 1909 had
proved the inadequacy of the Ottoman Navy, and the Unionist press concentrated its
propaganda on the Navy’s poor condition. Hence the Navy League defined its major
goal as collecting donations (iane) for the Navy.12 Within a short time after its
foundation, local branches were established in most Ottoman provinces, reaching 44
provinces within two years (1911).13
It appears that the Navy League aroused enthusiasm among various sectors of the
Ottoman population. The publications of the League itself emphasized this, and the
798
N. Özbek
extent of donations it received appears to verify this claim. Documents available in
Ministry of the Interior collections also provide information on the level of public
support for the League, as apparent in the following cases from provincial towns. A
telegram dated 16 November 1909, sent to the Interior Ministry by the mayor of
_
Akçaabad, a sub-district of Trabzon, states that an Aid Commission (Iane
Komisyonu) under the name of the ‘Naval Society’ (Denizciler Cemiyeti) had been
established in the town. The Society’s purpose was to collect donations for the
Ottoman Navy throughout the province, and in his telegram the mayor was asking
where, and how, he could send the contributions received.14 A correspondence
between the Governorship of Aleppo, the Interior Ministry, and the Navy League
explains that the graduates of a high school in Aleppo had organized a performance
in the town, raising 45 liras for the League.15
The Navy League also obtained direct support from government circles; for
example, the Interior Ministry did its best to encourage its aid campaign. Indeed, an
overview of the documents available in the Interior Ministry collections gives the
impression that the League acted as if it were practically a department of the
Ministry. Its assumption was that if every individual in the Empire donated two
piasters, then a great sum, perhaps sufficient to restore the Ottoman Navy to its
former greatness, would be collected. To do this, the Navy League relied on the
direct involvement of the government and local administrations. On 2 May 1913, for
example, the Interior Ministry sent a memorandum to the provinces ordering that all
state employees in the provinces contribute to the campaign. Local police
administrations were made responsible for collecting the donations.16
The following brief review of the Ottoman Navy fundraising campaign
demonstrates the blurred boundaries between public and private, state and society.
On 28 December 1909, the Interior Ministry sent a telegram to all provincial centres,
districts, and sub-districts reminding local officials that the Navy League had been
established to bring the Ottoman Navy up to a desirable standard.17 It was therefore
the patriotic duty of every Ottoman to participate in its fundraising campaign. The
telegram ordered every district to determine within 15 days the estimated sum they
hoped to raise. Almost a month later, the Ministry sent another telegram
recommending that each administrative unit of the Empire establish a committee
of respected persons to guarantee orderly conduct of the campaign. The dossier in
question includes telegrams from local governors that provide a clear picture of how
the campaign was being carried out in the localities. For example, in his telegram of 4
January 1910, the governor of Beirut reported that he had established an aid
commission under his own chairmanship and sent the memorandum to the districts
and sub-districts under his authority. Similarly, the governor of Trabzon’s 11
January 1910 telegram reports that he had established a commission similar to that
described in the Navy League’s by-laws. In another telegram, from Erzurum, dated
30 December 1909, the governor reported that he had established the necessary
commissions in the province, started to collect donations, and had sent the League’s
by-laws to the provincial districts and sub-districts; he would provide an estimate of
anticipated donations after consulting the districts.
An encrypted telegraphic correspondence between the governor of Edirne and the
Interior Ministry in January 1910 provides a detailed picture of how the donation
campaigns were carried out in the provinces.18 In Edirne, as in most other provincial
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
799
centres, the governor established an aid commission under his chairmanship.
The campaign was run so successfully in the Edirne district of Drama that its
donations bought a mid-class battleship, which was named after the district.19 On 3
January 1910, as noted above, a Ministry telegram to the Edirne governor reminded
him that a similar campaign should be carried out in other parts of Edirne, especially
_
Gümülcine and Iskeçe.
In his immediate reply, the governor suggested imposing a
small tax on tobacco producers as a possible way to collect money in these two
districts. The governor also reminded the Ministry that to secure the people’s
contributions, propaganda activities by the mebusan (members of the parliament)
were necessary, as had been the case in Drama.
Two weeks later, the governor of Edirne sent another telegram to the Interior
Ministry explaining, in detail, his operations in the province. To arouse patriotic
feelings in the population, he first established a local committee under his
chairmanship, then sent memoranda to all district and sub-district governors stating
that all the civil and military personnel in the province were to donate the equivalent
of one month’s wages. Some district inhabitants were to participate in the campaign
by donating a sum equal to the income tax (temettü vergisi) that they were paying. In
the district of Dedea
gaç, the villagers were to collectively cultivate a designated plot
and then donate the crop (wheat or barley) to the campaign. Tobacco producers of
the province were also to donate a percentage of their crop. The governor reported
that through these measures they should be able to collect a considerable sum.
The documents examined above give the impression that it was the Ministry’s
concern not to place too heavy a financial burden on the Ottoman subjects through
these campaigns. Though the governor of Edirne appears to have been careful in this
regard, his colleague in Konya, Celal Bey, was not so wise, as his campaign
collection methods proved onerous to the local population.20 During Celal Bey’s
governorship, the Isparta branch of the Navy League collected donations from the
peasants of an amount equal to one quarter of the tithe.21 Later that year (1916), the
civil inspector for the governorship of Konya, Mehmed Raşid Beg, found the
conduct of the ex-governor to have been in non-conformance with the law.
The inspector’s report provides a detailed picture of the social make-up of a
typical local branch of the League. The Isparta branch was founded under the
leadership of Arif Efendi, the district attorney general. Vice-chairs of the branch
were listed as Mina and Nadir effendis, while board member names were given as
_
Major Şerif Be
g, Izzet
A
ga, Hacı Arif Efendi, and Hacı Mustafa Aga. About six
months later, Major Şerif Be
g became the chair, while the retired district governor
Rıza Be
g became the vice-chair. The report does not indicate the professions and
social status of the latter three members but, as their titles indicate, it is likely that
they were prominent local figures (eşraf), merchants, and large landholders. This
indicates that state officials and prominent local figures, usually merchants and
notables, constituted the membership.
This brief overview does seem to make it clear that the Navy League and its
fundraising campaigns did provide local notables and mid- to high-ranking military
and civil officials with an opportunity to participate in an empire-wide patriotic
campaign. Thus one may tentatively conclude that the Ottoman intelligentsia in the
capital, through direct involvement and support of the government and particularly
the Interior Ministry, were active in the expansion of an incipient public sphere,
800
N. Özbek
blurring the boundaries between state and society. Indeed, as the First World War
approached, collaboration between the Navy League and the Interior Ministry
regarding the iane campaign only intensified.
An Interior Ministry dossier from the early months of 1914, which contains
documents on collecting donations from state employees throughout the Empire,
illustrates the above point. When the League was founded in 1909 and launched the
fundraising campaign for the Ottoman Navy, state employees were asked to donate
one month of their wages. However, as we learn from a Ministry memorandum,
some of the employees had not yet fulfilled their so-called ‘patriotic duty’ by the
dossier’s date, 1914. The Navy League proposed a more consistent and reliable way
of collecting donations from state employees: they were to contribute a monthly sum
of 40 paras (two piasters) for each family member. Following the League’s proposal,
the Interior Ministry sent a general memorandum (umum tahrirat) to all state
departments and provincial administrative units on 7 February 1914, asking them to
create commissions in every state department. The memorandum stated that such a
commission had already been established and had started collecting donations
within the Interior Ministry; other ministries and local administrations should do the
same. The dossier under examination includes positive replies from various
ministries, state departments, and local administrations. For example, the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, in a memorandum of 19 February 1914, informed the Interior
Ministry that it, too, had created a commission and had started collecting donations
as of August of the previous year. On 3 March 1914, the office of the Sehikulislam
also sent a memorandum to the Ministry stating that a commission had been formed
in Istanbul, and had sent a general memorandum to religious departments in the
localities.22 As this example illustrates, the Navy League had come to operate as a
quasi-official organization.
Significantly, from the very beginning, the Navy League had been presented as a
non-partisan organization; it had been envisioned as serving a patriotic cause. The
collaboration between the League and the Interior Ministry strengthened the
League’s claim to a non-partisan stance. Until the coup of 1913, the Ottoman
political system was highly fragmented by political competition. During this period,
the CUP could hardly be considered to have had absolute control over politics. The
Navy League and its patriotic fundraising campaigns, hence, helped the Unionist
intelligentsia to mobilize masses towards patriotic and nationalist causes.
The idea of establishing an organization for nationalist propaganda and
mobilization became part of the government’s agenda during the critical days of
the Balkan Wars. The Ottoman military had been badly defeated by the Balkan
forces; the Bulgarians had captured Edirne and even managed to reach the outskirts
of Istanbul. Intended to play a role similar to that of the Navy League, the National
Defence Committee (Müdafaa-i Milliye Cemiyeti), was founded on 1 February 1913.
Based as it was on a concept similar to that of the Navy League, the Defence
Committee was to be above political parties and to serve the national cause. Since
political fragmentation and party conflicts intensified throughout the first four years
of the Constitutional Period, political discourse aimed at creating national unity
became more important. Thus the National Defence Committee, along other similar
nationalist and patriotic societies like the Navy League and the Ottoman Red
Crescent Society, was to be an umbrella organization. Even though the initiative
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
801
came, without any doubt, from Unionist circles – most of the society’s activists were
also prominent Unionist figures – the Committee was to embody national unity. For
example, by inviting to the society’s founding congress some of the prominent figures
of the opposition the Unionists demonstrated their commitment to including every
sector of the Ottoman political elite.23
While the Navy League was mainly engaged in fundraising for the Ottoman Navy
and in creating and diffusing propaganda to explain the importance of naval power
and the patriotic mobilization of the masses, the National Defence Committee had a
broader, more comprehensive agenda. One of its purposes was, of course, to engage in
fundraising, and for this purpose an Aid Commission was established; a second one
was created under the name Commission for Propaganda/Agitation. The Committee
also founded a Recruitment Commission, which was responsible for recruiting
volunteers; it mobilized battalions for both the Balkan Wars and the First World
War.24 Apart from the Central Executive Board, the last organ of the society was the
Health Commission, which functioned as an auxiliary to military medical units.
Since the National Defence Society was essentially created by Young Turk
initiative, the Unionist coup of 1913, which marked the beginning of total and direct
rule of the CUP, provided a favourable atmosphere for the National Defence
Society. During this period the Society was able to carry out its activities in harmony
with the government. This was also true for the Navy League and the Ottoman Red
Crescent Society. Especially throughout the First World War, these three societies
functioned simply as auxiliaries of the government, of the war effort, and of patriotic
and nationalist mobilization. The catastrophic political atmosphere of the early
Constitutional Period, the disastrous Balkan War years, and finally the First World
War gave Unionist circles the opportunity to develop a nationalist and patriotic
discourse, and enabled them to direct civic activity and public enthusiasm towards
the nationalist and militarist policy concerns of the party.
The case of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society is slightly different from those of
the Navy League and the National Defence Committee. The Red Crescent was
initially concerned only with wounded soldiers in its role as complementary to the
medical units of the Ottoman military. The idea of establishing an aid society for
wounded soldiers appeared on the Ottoman agenda as early as 1868. By the time of
the Young Turk revolution, there had been repeated initiatives for establishing a
permanent aid society. During the Hamidian period, whenever the Ottoman Empire
was involved in a war, the government pragmatically established an aid committee to
serve its needs in the war effort and to facilitate getting assistance from the
International Red Cross. Yet the committee was always disbanded immediately after
the war.25 After the Young Turk revolution, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was
recreated at a general congress held on 21 April 1911. Since the Red Crescent Society
was mainly designed to be complementary to the medical services of the Ottoman
military, it provided Ottoman physicians with an opportunity, as did the other
committees discussed, to participate in a patriotic and nationalist cause, this time
framed in a humanitarian discourse. As the official history of the Ottoman
Red Crescent Society is available elsewhere,26 the present article will focus instead
on the founders, participants, and some activities of the society with the purpose
of shedding more light on the nature of civic initiative during the Constitutional
Period.
802
N. Özbek
The first attempt to re-establish the Ottoman Red Crescent Society came from the
wife of Rıfat Pasha, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs.27 Rıfat Pasha secured the
government’s approval, and a provisional commission, mainly consisting of medical
doctors, was formed. The society’s first congress was held on 21 April 1911 in
Istanbul and was attended by 100 invited delegates. It is interesting to note the
high-ranking state officials, both current and former, who attended this congress
as delegates: 22 ministers and prime ministers, six State Council members,
12 parliamentarians, seven from military circles, and five from the civil administration. Religious leaders of non-Muslim communities were also present. In attendance
were also five merchants, six members of the press, and 16 medical doctors.28 Thus it
appears that the organizers of the first congress made a great effort to bring highranking state officials into the society, perhaps in the hope that these members would
help legitimize the society and present it as being free of political motivation. This
aspect is far more important for the Ottoman Red Crescent Society than it was for
the National Defence Committee because, as defined in the third article of its
constitution, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society explicitly described itself as
auxiliary to the medical units of the Ottoman Army and Navy.29
As was the case for the National Defence Committee, the Ottoman Red Crescent
Society also depended on the protection of the reigning sultan; an Ottoman
prince even served as its honorary president.30 It appears that, during the early
Constitutional Period, the figure of the sultan and other royal family members
continued to embody the Ottoman ‘nation’. It is important to note, however, that
during this period, as distinct from the Hamidian era, neither the new sultan nor any
other imperial family members were active participants in this symbolic operation.
It is equally important to note that during the later periods of the Young Turk era,
the Red Crescent Society was to use the figure of the sultan as a symbolic motif less
and less frequently.
By providing medical professionals with opportunities to participate in a
philanthropic activity, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society added to the accumulating
energies in this direction, thus playing a role in developing and concretizing the
emergent Ottoman public sphere, coloured with the patriotic and nationalist hues
described above. It is thus important to note that medical doctors were the primary
functionaries of the Society from the beginning. For example, a considerable number
of the full executive board established at the first congress were physicians; doctors
also served as members of various medical commissions at the ministerial or
municipal level.31 Four out of seven executive committee members elected in the
second congress of 1912 were medical doctors, and these four physicians also
served on the Supreme Health Commission (Meclis-i Kebir-i Sıhhiye).32 Further,
medical doctors constituted the majority of the members in all the Society’s
subcommittees.33
Among ramifications of the form of civic mobilization practised by the Ottoman
Red Crescent, there is evidence that the elite character of its founding membership
prevented a rapid penetration of the society into the masses, especially during its first
years of operation. While founded in 1911, by 1329 (March 1914), or roughly the
beginning of the First World War, the society had yet been unable to establish a
network of branches covering the Empire. Membership numbers of the society
during this period also remained relatively low. As reported in the society’s 1915
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
803
yearbook, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society had only ten local branches, with four
sub-branches in the capital. A quick examination of these branches, their board
membership, and the number of members in each branch sheds considerable light on
the nature of the public sphere as manifested through its activities.
Before turning to the membership profile of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society,
however, the different categories of membership defined in its constitution should be
noted. Articles 10–13 define, in detail, the three such categories. The first is ‘founding
members’ (a’za-yı müessese), whose number was limited to 100. These were the
individuals who had been invited to the foundation congress of 1911. The second
category, ‘active members’ (a’za-yı amile), consisted of members who participated in
society activities and made financial contributions to it. The final category, ‘auxiliary
members’ (a’za-yı muavine), consisted of those who made only financial contributions to the society, without participating in its activities.34
At the end of 1913, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society had four sub-branches in
Istanbul: in Kadıköy, Erenköy-Göztepe, Adalar (Princes Islands), and one women’s
sub-branch in Ayastefanos-Makriköy. These branches’ board membership was
similar to that of the ‘central board of the founding members’ mentioned above. The
Erenköy-Göztepe branch, for example, with 44 active members and 161 auxiliary
members, was administered by a board that resembled a gathering of ex-ministers,
retired army officers, and ex-governors.35 Ziya Pasha and Memduh Beg, former
ministers of the Interior and Justice respectively, were members of the board; the
former served as president; the latter vice-president. The Kadıköy branch was not
much different: the honorary presidency was held by Prince Selahaddin Efendi, while
a former Minister of Finance served as active president. Its members included a
retired vice-mayor and Cemil Pasha, a former Council of Finance member. The
Adalar branch presented a wider spectrum of membership. The presidency was given
to an Egyptian prince, Abbas Halim Pasha, and other board members included the
mayor, a Greek, in addition to a bacteriology specialist, a dentist, and three
merchants. Active members numbered 178, and auxiliary members 150.
As reported in its 1914 yearbook, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society had branches
_
in Izmir, Bursa, Hanya, Trabzon, Kütahya, Iznik,
Bodrum, Gemlik, Maçka and
36
Adana. Among them, the Izmir branch appears to be an exception in terms of its
high membership numbers. It was established at a very early date, 28 October 1911,
and had as many as 7,500 active members by the end of the Balkan Wars. As noted
above, all other branches had surprisingly low membership levels: Hanya, for
example, with only 23 active and 37 associate members; Trabzon with 400 active
_
members; Iznik
with 52 active members; and the Maçka and Adana branches with
426 and 53 active members, respectively.37
Unfortunately, available sources do not give the names, professions, or social
statuses of active and auxiliary members. They do, however, provide such
information on the executive boards of the branches, which offers some insight
about the local activists of the society. Statistics sent to the centre by the local
branches were not uniform, however, with some branches indicating the professions
or social statuses of the board members while others did not. The Izmir branch, for
instance, gave no such details at all.38 Still, some tentative conclusions can be drawn
from the names of the members: four of its 12 board members were medical
professionals, which fits the general pattern of membership. Another interesting
804
N. Özbek
aspect of the Izmir branch was its relatively higher non-Muslim participation: four of
its 12 members were Greek, Armenian, and Jewish. Thus, during this early
Constitutional Period, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society appears to have followed a
principle of inclusivity, bringing together Ottoman subjects from various ethnic and
confessional backgrounds under a unified Ottoman patriotic identity.
The data on Bursa is more detailed.39 Three of its board’s 11 members, including
the president, were attorneys. Three more board members were medical professionals, including the city’s Public Health Inspector, a surgeon, and a civil
pharmacist, and two came from the provincial agriculture department, the director
of agriculture and an agricultural inspector. A high school director and a local
notable were also among its board members. Thus, with the exception of the one
local notable, all members of the Bursa branch were mid-ranking civil officials, all of
whom, as in other cases discussed above, were presented with a means to participate
in voluntary activity for the common good, in this context represented by the
collection of donations locally and their remittance to the central offices of the
Society. The branch in Bodrum, a small town on the Aegean coast, followed a
pattern similar to that of Bursa and Izmir.40 The board had seven members, of which
two were local notables while the remaining five were civil officials: the municipal
physician and pharmacist, a customs official, and the district finance director. This
membership profile illustrates that in Bodrum, too, mid-ranking civil officials were
the initiators of voluntary activity.
The smaller localities presented a slightly different picture. In Kütahya, for
example, a mid-western Anatolian district, all seven board members were local
notables. The president of the branch was a müderris (religious scholar) who was also
from a local notable family.41 Hanya was similar; all of its 12 board members seem
to be from prominent local Muslim families.42 Gemlik, a small sub-district in the
Marmara region, had a mixed board:43 its president was the local mufti; while its
board members included the mayor of the sub-district, an employee in the Forestery
_
Department; and local merchants. In Iznik,
another sub-district in the Marmara
region, board members included the mayor, the head of a religious order, officials
from the Tobacco Régie and the Public Debt Administration, and four local
notables. Board membership of the Adana sub-district was not much different from
this general profile.44
It is obvious from this brief review of the local memberships of 1911 and 1912 that
the branches of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society presented a different picture from
that of the Navy League. While the Navy League branches were founded on the
initiative of the district and sub-district governors, the Interior Ministry played a
crucial role in sending memoranda to every province and district around the empire,
ordering the governors to establish local committees and branches of the Navy
League, and to collect donations for the Navy. In the case of the Ottoman Red
Crescent Society, however, government involvement remained limited during its
early history, which appears to have delayed the spread of the society in the
localities. This situation changed radically with the First World War when, in 1914,
the headquarters of the Society and the Interior Ministry sent joint memoranda to
district and sub-district governors requesting that they establish local Society
branches.45 This time, the government involvement combined with the war
atmosphere appears to have lent a new dynamism to the Ottoman Red Crescent
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
805
Society; within a short time it grew to become one of the largest aid societies of the
period.
The Ottoman Red Crescent Society, like other semi-official patriotic organizations
of the time, thus clearly played a role in the expansion of the public sphere, providing
various sectors of Ottoman society with the means to participate in patriotic activity
and to construct and express their identity within it. In particular, the Society
provided medical professionals, both civilian and military, with an opportunity to
engage in and serve a patriotic and national cause and to participate in the defence of
the fatherland. As is clear from the above review, before the First World War, the
Society served only a minimal role in strengthening a public sphere in the localities.
Mid-ranking civil officials and local notables were the major advocates of this new
form of civic engagement which, as the war years were to prove, possessed a
significant potential for expansion.
In addition to its other functions noted above, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society
also provided Ottoman women of privileged classes with the opportunity to take part
in patriotic public activities. Moreover, the Women’s Auxiliary of the Ottoman Red
Crescent Society (Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Hanımlar Hey’et-i Merkeziyesi)
expanded considerably following the Balkan Wars of 1912–13.46 As their activities
increased in number, the Central Executive Board of the Ottoman Red Crescent
Society approved the Auxiliary’s demand for a separate budget, which made it
financially autonomous.47 A 1914 Women’s Auxiliary publication gives the names of
23 honorary members, 100 founding members, 752 active members, and about 700
auxiliary members, along with husbands’ names and occupations or social status.
The list reveals that women active in Auxiliary activities were generally the wives of
high- to mid-ranking state officials.48
It should also be noted that the Women’s Auxiliary changed the activities of the
Ottoman Red Crescent Society along gender lines, particularly in areas not directly
related to the battlefield. For example, the Auxiliary’s establishing a vocational
school for women (Hilal-i Ahmer Kadınlar Darüssınaası) in August of 1913 for
teaching skills to poor young female immigrants and especially to female war
orphans and widows, and an orphanage in Edirne deserve particular attention.49 The
school, for example, started with 15 students, but within a short time grew to in
excess of 100. Not only young females, but also some elderly women, in desperate
need according to the records, were provided with work and accommodation in this
school.50 A second vocational school was established in Bursa and administered by
the local branch of the Women’s Auxiliary.51
The Ottoman Red Crescent Society, as mentioned above, initially defined itself as
a civilian auxiliary to the military’s medical institutions.52 The basic functions of the
society were to establish hospitals for military purposes, to provide emergency aid to
wounded soldiers on the battlefield, and to transfer these soldiers from the battlefield
to the nearest medical centres. Thus, the Society fitted into the framework drawn up
by the International Committee of Red Cross Societies. In this respect, the basic
function of the Red Crescent Society could be defined as civilian mobilization for the
war effort. Since the men were serving the fatherland on the battlefield, the activities
of the Women’s Auxiliary, which included producing clothing, especially underwear,
for the soldiers, took on greater importance as the women’s part in this mobilization.
For instance, during the Balkan War of 1912–13 the Women’s Auxiliary established
806
N. Özbek
various ateliers in Istanbul to produce clothing. It also encouraged women from all
sectors of society to produce, in their homes, any kind of clothing that they could for
the military.53 Thus, through the activities of the women’s branch, the war effort was
extended into the domestic space.
In a famous speech delivered to Ottoman ladies at Istanbul University on 27
January 1914, Red Crescent activist and promoter Dr. Besim Ömer Akalın54 pointed
out that even though the Ottoman Red Crescent had taken part in disaster relief
efforts and public health issues, its main function was to complement the medical
units of the military.55 Yet, despite Akalın’s remark, the Society gradually multiplied
its operations during the war years into many spheres of life. As Akalın himself
pointed out, after the earthquakes in Mürefte and Şarköy on 10 August 1912 and
those in Burdur and Isparta on 4 October 1914, the Society spent a great deal of
energy to prove itself as an organization for the common good of the nation, during
not only during war but also in peacetime.56 By the time the First World War ended
in 1918, the Society had become one of the largest organizations in the Empire,
engaging in all kinds of relief efforts, in addition to its activities supporting military
medical units.
In this regard, soup kitchens that the Society set up for the needy in Istanbul
during the war years also deserve attention. Starting in 1917, the Red Crescent
Society built six permanent such facilities in Tokpapı, Üsküdar, Eyüb Sultan, Fatih,
Kasım Paşa, and Hekimo
glu Ali Paşa, targeting some of the poorer quarters of the
capital.57 In addition to these permanent soup kitchens, the Society also set up
temporary ones in Cibali, Kartal, and Unkapanı following major fires in these
quarters. The Society also established a number of dispensaries for the poor of
Istanbul and, between 1919 and 1923, offered medical care to over 100,000 persons.
On various occasions, the Society furnished shelter and food to war refugees.58 In
accordance with the trends of most other national Red Cross societies, the Ottoman
Red Crescent Society also spent considerable energy on activities in the domain of
public health, the fight against tuberculosis and cholera throughout the Empire being
one example.59
Throughout the war years, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society gradually became
the major relief agency, or department, of the state. Poor relief, disaster relief and
public health all became domains of the Society. This expansion of activities even
marginalized other autonomous philanthropic societies, like the Topkapı Philanthropic Society, and helped to centralize voluntary initiative throughout the
Empire.60 Thus the Ottoman Red Crescent Society came to represent another
example of the blurred boundaries between state and society which characterizes
more of the public sphere than previously, but it also intervened in domains that
blurred boundaries between war and peace. Thus it could be said to have achieved a
significant degree and complexity of mobilization of the Ottomans for a patriotic war
effort. In addition, as compared with the philanthropic activity of the early constitutional public sphere, the Ottoman Red Crescent Society represented a
‘militarization and nationalization’ of philanthropic activity.
This study of the activities of the Ottoman Navy League, the Committee of National
Defence, and particularly the Ottoman Red Crescent Society suggests the existence
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
807
of a dynamic political public sphere; one characterized, moreover, by a fluid
boundary between state and civil society, and public and private involvement in its
fields of activity. As the public sphere expanded through the activities of the
semi-official aid societies, it provided the new elite, professionals, medical doctors,
high- and mid-ranking state employees, the local elite in provinces, and the
privileged classes of Ottoman women with an opportunity to participate in national
and patriotic actions. Through the works of these societies, the Unionist elite appears
to have been instrumental in mobilization of the Ottoman masses towards war efforts
and the construction an Ottoman national identity which, following the disasters of
the war years, was to acquire exclusivist overtones. This study has demonstrated that
an expanding political public sphere would not automatically produce a democratic
environment or guarantee a participatory democratic political culture. What matters
is not the fact that the foundations of this public sphere are laid by the state; but
rather the nationalist and militarist dispositions of this public sphere itself.
Notes
1. Ş. Mardin, ‘Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Ottoman Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society
and History, No.11 (1969); Ş. Mardin, ‘Civil Society and Islam’, in J.A. Hall (ed.), Civil Society,
Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), pp.258–81.
2. For this view see, for example, N. Sohrabi, ‘Historicizing Revolutions: Constitutional Revolutions in
the Ottoman Empire, Iran, and Russia, 1905–1908’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.100, No.6
(1995), 1383–1447. See also R. Kasaba, ‘Economic Foundations of a Civil Society: Greeks in the Trade
of Western Anatolia, 1840–1876’, in D. Gondicas and C. Issawi (eds.), Ottoman Greeks in the Age of
Nationalism: Politics, Economy, and Society in the Nineteenth Century (Princeton, NJ: The Darwin
Press, Inc., 1999), pp.77–87.
3. For a critique of this approach see N. Özbek, ‘Philanthropic Activity, Ottoman Patriotism and the
Hamidian Regime, 1876–1909’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.37, No.1 (2005),
pp.59–81. The author argues, contrary to the mainstream historiography, that there is no particular
methodological conflict between an autocratic regime and a dynamic public sphere. Rather, in the
Ottoman context, a dynamic public sphere was, in fact, one of the key elements of the Hamidian
regime’s legitimation strategies.
4. B. Toprak, ‘Civil Society in Turkey’, in A.R. Norton (ed.), Civil Society in the Middle East (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1996), p.87.
5. F. Trentman (ed.), Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British
History (New York: Berghahn Books, 2000), pp.viii–x.
6. See, for example, D.A. McMillan, ‘Energy, Willpower, and Harmony: On the Problematic
Relationship between State and Civil Society in Nineteenth-Century Germany’, in F. Trentman
(ed.), Paradoxes of Civil Society: New Perspectives on Modern German and British History (New York:
Berghahn Books, 2000), pp.177, 185.
7. From a political theory point of view one should clearly demarcate the concepts civil society and
public sphere: the first should basically address the sphere of the economy, the second the sphere of
politics outside the state or public authority in the narrow sense of the term. Some scholars prefer the
concept ‘political public sphere’. In the literature on Turkish history most of the time the two concepts
are used interchangeably. Though it may produce some confusion, this study follows this preference.
8. For an examination of these philanthropic societies see, N. Özbek, ‘90 Yıllık Bir Hayır Kurumu:
Topkapı Fukaraperver Cemiyeti’, Tarih ve Toplum, Vol.30, No.180 (1998), pp.4–10.
9. The following state document named these societies as semi-official (yarı resmıˆ) see BOA (Başbakanlık
_
_
Osmanlı Arşivi), DH.IUM
(Dahiliye Nezareti Idare-i
Umumiye), E2/18, 1332.M.18 (17 Dec. 1913).
10. I owe the theme ‘nationalization and militarization of philanthropic activity’ to J.F. Hutchinson,
Champions of Charity: War and Rise of the Red Cross (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996).
11. For a brief history of the Ottoman Navy League see, S. Özçelik, Donanma-yı Osmanıˆ Muâvenet-i
Milliye Cemiyeti (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2000); M. Beşikçi, ‘The Organized Mobilization of
808
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
N. Özbek
Popular Sentiments: The Ottoman Navy League, 1909–1919’ (MA dissertation, Bogaziçi University,
1999).
This was directly reflected in the name of the society, ‘The Aid Society for the Ottoman Navy’.
Beşikçi, ‘The Organized Mobilization of Popular Sentiments’, p.20.
_ 33-2/19, 1327.ZA.3 (16 Nov. 1909).
BOA, DH.MUI,
_ 7-4/20, 1328.M.8 (20 Jan. 1910).
BOA, DH.MUI,
BOA, DH.EUM.VRK (Dahiliye Nezâreti Emniyet-i Umûmiye Müdiriyeti Evrak Odası), 10/83,
1331.CA.25 (2 May 1913) and BOA, DH.EUM.VRK, 10/11, 1331.M.25 (4 Jan. 1913).
_ 7-4/17, 1327.Z.9 (22 Aralık 1909).
BOA, DH.MUI,
_ 7-4/21, 1328.M.12 (24 Jan. 1910).
BOA, DH.MUI,
Beşikçi, ‘The Organized Mobilization of Popular Sentiments’, p.37.
_
BOA, DH.I.UM,
91/5, 1334.ZA.8 (6 Eylül 1916).
Tithe (aşar) was the major tax Anatolian peasants paid at the time. It amounted to 12.5 to 30 per cent
of their crops.
_
BOA, DH.I.UM,
E70/9, 1332.B.16 (10 Haziran 1914).
For a history of Müdafaa-i Milliye Cemiyeti, see N.H. Polat, Müdâfaa-i Milliye Cemiyeti (Ankara:
Kültür Bakanlıgı Yayınları, 1991).
Ibid., pp.56–9.
For a brief history of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society during the Hamidian period, see N. Özbek,
‘The Politics of Poor Relief in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1876–1914’, New Perspectives on Turkey,
No.21 (1999), pp.1–33. Hutchinson’s voluminous book on the Red Cross Society includes a short
section on the Ottoman Red Crescent Society, but only covers its history up to the Russo-Ottoman
War of 1877–78. Hutchinson focuses on the disputes over the use of cross versus crescent as the
emblem of the society. Hutchinson, Champions of Charity, 138–47. Ahmed Mithat also wrote a
popular book on the idea of the Red Crescent society, which included sections on the history of the
International Red Cross. A. Mithat, Hilal-i Ahmer (Istanbul: Kırk Anbar Matbaası, 1296/1879).
Kevork Pamukciyan produced a helpful biography of Dr. Dikran Peştemalciyan, the leading figure
behind the first Ottoman Red Crescent Society during the 1860s. K. Pamukciyan, ‘Hilal-i Ahmer
Kurucusu Dr. Dikran Paşa’, Tarih ve Toplum, No.134 (1995), pp.83–86.
The best source on the history of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society is its yearbook, published ca.
1916. Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Salnamesi 1329–1331, Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti
_
(Dersaadet: Ahmed Ihsan
ve Şükerası Matbaacılık Şirketi, 1329–31). In her master’s thesis, Zuhal
Özaydın provides a summary of this yearbook. Zuhal Özaydın, ‘Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti
Salnamesi’ (MA thesis, Istanbul University, 1987). Another master’s thesis covers the history of the
society up until the end of the Balkan Wars: H. Alphan, ‘Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti: Kuruluşundan
Balkan Savaşlarının Sonuna Kadar’ (MA thesis, Ankara University, 1987). For the history of the Red
Crescent during the First World War and the early Republican period, see Mesut Çapa, ‘Kızılay
(Hilal-i Ahmer) Cemiyeti’ (Ph.D. diss., Ankara University, 1989). For a brief history of the Society
during the Balkan War years, see M. Çapa, ‘Balkan Savaşı’nda Kızılay (Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer
Cemiyeti)’, Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, No.1 (1990), pp.89–115.
B.Ö. Akalın, Hanım Efendilere Hilal-i Ahmer’e Dair Konferans (Istanbul: 1330/1914), p.20.
_
Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Salnamesi 1329–1331 (Ahmed Ihsan
ve Şükerası Matbaacılık Şirketi,
1329–31), pp.257–61; Türkiye Kızılay Dernegi: 73 Yıllık Hayatı, 1877–1949 (Ankara, 1950), pp.14–16.
Article 3, ‘Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Nizamname-i Esasisi’ (23 Şubat 1326/8 March 1911), in
_
O.N. Ergin, Mecelle-i Umûr-ı Belediyye, 9 vols., vol.6 (Istanbul: Istanbul
Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür
_
Işleri
Daire Başkanlıgı Yayınları, 1995), pp.3556–64.
Article 1, ‘Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Nizamname-i Esasisi’.
For the list of the 30 members of the executive board elected in 1327 (1911), see Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer
Cemiyeti Salnamesi 1329–1331, pp.50–52.
Ibid., 263.
Ibid., 264.
See ‘Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Nizamname-i Esasisi’.
The Erenköy-Göztepe branch was founded on 7 Teşrin-i Evvel 1328 (20 Oct. 1912).
Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Salnamesi 1329–1331, pp.271–81.
Ibid.
The Izmir branch was founded on 15 Teşrin-i Evvel 1327 (28 Oct. 1911).
The Public Sphere during the Late Ottoman Empire
809
39. The Bursa branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established on 27 Teşrin-i Evvel 1328
(9 Nov. 1912).
40. The Bodrum branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established on 13 Teşrin-i Evvel 1328
(26 Oct. 1912).
41. The Kütahya branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established on 1 Kanun-ı Evvel
(14 Dec. 1912).
42. The Hanya branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established on 3 Şubat 1327 (16 Feb.
1912).
43. The Gemlik branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established in 1327/1911.
44. The Adana branch of the Ottoman Red Crescent Society was established in 1 Mart 1328 (14 March
1912).
45. Çapa, ‘Kızılay (Hilal-i Ahmer) Cemiyeti’, pp.38–40.
46. The National Defence Committee also had its own women’s auxiliary. For a brief history of the
Women’s Auxiliary to National Defence Committee (Osmanlı Hanımları Müdafaa-i Milliye Heyeti)
and its activities, see L. Kaplan, ‘Osmanlı Hanımları Müdâfaa-i Milliye Hey’eti ve Faaliyetleri’, Askerıˆ
Tarih Bülteni, Vol.19, No.37 (1994), pp.114–138.
47. Akalın, Hanım Efendilere Hilal-i Ahmer’e Dair Konferans, p.61.
_
48. Osmanlı Hilal-ı Ahmer Cemiyeti Hanımlar Heyet-i Merkeziyesi (Ahmed Ihsan
ve Şukerası Matbaacılık
Osmanlı Şirketi, 1330/1914). The list of the members of the women’s section clearly indicates this fact.
Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Salnamesi 1329–1331, pp.256–85.
49. The dowager empress (baş kadın efendi) was the honorary president of the Women’s Auxiliary.
In most of the national Red Cross societies in Europe, a member of the royal or imperial family served
as the patron of the societies. Hutchinson, Champions of Charity: War and Rise of the Red Cross,
p.176.
50. Akalın, Hanım Efendilere Hilal-i Ahmer’e Dair Konferans, p.62.
51. This school was initially founded by the British Red Cross who came to the Ottoman Empire with the
Indian Red Crescent Society during the Balkan War. Later, the administration of this school was
transferred to the local branch of the Women’s Auxiliary. Ibid.
52. Ibid., p.135.
53. Ibid., p.62.
54. Dr. Besim Ömer Pasha was the leading figure who popularized the idea of a Red Crescent Society for
assisting the military health units. He participated in various central committees of both the Ottoman
Red Crescent Society and, later, the Turkish Red Crescent Society. He was also the Ottoman delegate
at the 9th International Red Crescent Conference, held in Washington in May 1912. After the
conference he prepared a long report to the Ottoman Red Crescent Society. B. Ömer, Dokuzuncu
_
Washington Salib-i Ahmer Konferansına Memuriyetim (Istanbul: Ahmed Ihsan
ve Şürekası, 1328/
1912). For his life see S.A. Ünver, ‘Besim Ömer Paşa ve Dogum Tarihi’, Tedavi Seririyatı ve
_ Hot, ‘Besim Ömer Akalın’ın Hayatı (1862–1940)’, The New
Laboratuarı, Vol.2, No.6 (1932), pp.1–5; I.
History of Medicine, Vol.2–3 (1996–97), pp.213–232; C. Okay, ‘Akalın Besim Ömer’, in Yaşamları ve
Yapıtlarıyla Osmanlılar Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 1999), p.176.
55. Akalın, Hanım Efendilere Hilal-i Ahmer’e Dair Konferans, 106–7.
56. Ibid., 111–13. For a detailed account of the relief effort after the 1912 earthquake, see M.-Y. Erler,
‘1912 Marmara Havzası Depremi’, Toplumsal Tarih, Vol.6, No.35 (1996), pp.30–37. Since he mainly
used state documents, Erler does not note the Ottoman Red Crescent Society’s role in this relief effort.
57. Türkiye Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti Merkez-i Umumisi: 1339 Senesi Hilal-i Ahmer Meclis-i Umumisine
_
Takdim Edilen (1335–1338) Dört Senelik Rapor (Istanbul: Ahmed Ihsan
ve Şürekası, 1339), pp.102–4.
For a brief account of the soup kitchens and other relief efforts during the First World War and its
aftermath, see also A.E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1930). In a similar fashion, the Turkish Red Crescent Society established numerous soup kitchens for
_
the poor and needy residents of Istanbul. Türkiye Kızılay Derne
gi Istanbul
Aşocakları (Istanbul: Cemal
Azmi Matbaası, 1948).
58. Most of the refuges at the Balkan Wars were settled in the numerous mosques in the Capital. For a list
of these mosques and the number of refugees in each of them, see Osmanlı Hilal-i Ahmer Cemiyeti’nin
Harb-i Hazırda Faaliyeti (Istanbul: Selanik Matbaası, 1329/1914), pp.17–18.
59. Akalın, Hanım Efendilere Hilal-i Ahmer’e Dair Konferans, p.108.
60. For Topkapı Philanthropic Society see, Özbek, ‘90 Yıllık Bir Hayır Kurumu’.