I.
Now it is understood that Pan, the half-goat, half- human, flute playing
creature of early human consciousness, was a mythical construct. However, some
humans are perhaps in the need of creating myths, so two more were concocted
during the 19th century.
1)
"Pan-Turkism." Also marketed as "Pan- Turanianism," this
notion was invented not by the Turks, but by a resourceful Professor of Oriental
Languages teaching in a European university. It was the 1860s, and the Professor
was in the pay of a Great Power where the people and their queen paused daily
for tea. The purpose of the Professor's "unity" doctrine was to urge
the Turks of Central Asia to combine against another Great Power to the north,
where people drink borscht frequently, if not every day. The tea-drinking empire
desired a buffer of Turks to "contain" the borscht-drinking empire,
which was expanding and approaching the tea-drinkers' own colony, the Jewel in
the Crown in the south. They played this "Great Game," as Kipling
called it, in Asia, for the European game-board was in stalemate. The
borscht-drinkers played the Game, too, but in reverse, and called the Turks a
menace, pretending --as one does in Games-- that the Professor's scheme was
Truth.
2)
A second Pan was "Pan-Islam." Despite its origins in the colonial
world, it was yet a third European Power, where the people drink beer while
listening to Valkyries sing, joined the Game. Even their emperor played salesman
to foster this second Pan within the domains of the Ottoman Empire, especially
among some of its leaders, as the Great War --to "end all wars"-- was
about to commence. The aim was the same, to gain advantage over the rivals in
European Balance of Power struggles someplace off the stalemated European
game-board. Military action by the Ottoman Turks would have forced the seafaring
tea-drinkers to move forces away from the front where they faced the land-based
beer-drinkers. The beer-drinkers used pan-Islam also on the Caucasus front in
order to outflank the borscht-drinkers who were threatening to outflank the
beer-drinkers. And it looked as if the plan would work.
II.
Then the borscht-drinkers became convulsed by the pangs of a "bug"
they caught from their ruler's way of life. Their "new and improved"
leadership denounced the old rulers, and left the war. Later, this new
leadership took up the banner of Pan. The new borscht-drinkers wished to use
these bogus twins to put down the Central Asian Turks. When this Great War ended
and the Central Asians were demanding access to what became known the President
Wilson's 14 Principles, a new Game, but not so clever, was invented. The new
borscht drinkers screamed loud and long, declaiming the Central Asian Turk
demands for independence, self determination and human rights were desires for
"World Dominance."
III.
That Defamation Campaign of the new borscht-drinkers was quickly heard in the
European domains. A tacit agreement called the acceptance of the Bogus Pans to
be declared True, alive and menace to humanity. The Central Asians were
relegated to the vast dungeon that was erected around their own homelands, all
the European Powers were happy in the knowledge that the weapon was safely and
mutually disarmed. President F. D. Roosevelt's call for the Four Freedoms were
ignored.
IV.
The early foreign policy initiatives of some Western religious leaders --the
Crusades-- perhaps had shown the way. Unable to find a viable solution to their
own domestic problems, where the masses displayed political and economic
dissatisfaction, rulers of the early and 19th-20th century "crusades"
again used this "foreign policy initiative" to distract their own
subject populations. The faithful, whose trust and sincere feelings were thus
betrayed and channeled away from their own ruler, responded as people blindly
acting. What those masses did not know, they soon learned: In the battlefield,
the troops die; especially the ignorant.1
V.
Times change, but apparently, not always for the good. As most of the modern
nations of Europe, the Turks also enjoyed an Imperial period. But, unlike their
neighbors, who have been all but absolved of past sins committed during their
own Imperialism, Turks have not been. The Turks are still being asked to pay the
balance on their "account" even after having paid the principal, an
exorbitant interest charge, and penalties of all types. The majority of the
Turks living on earth today are still living on their ancestral homelands which
they never left, though others played Games around them and at their expense.
Hence the twin mythical Pans have been living outside the story books whence
they came.
VI.
The Turks have been laboring under the misapprehension that silence is golden,
and that engaging in truthful debate is "ungentlemanly." After all,
did their ancestors not state "Truth shall prevail?"2 The Proverb is
undoubtedly correct, but it does not state just when the promise will be
fulfilled. While the truth is preparing to prevail, another word of their
forefathers obtains: "He who acquired the horse, has already left Uskudar.3
The damage is done, the application to join the European Community as a full
member is declined, economic injury continues to deepen. The prevarication about
Barbaros Hayreddin (1466-1546), the Ottoman Grand Admiral, is well known: it is
said that the name of Barbaros, the "bogeyman," is evoked along the
Mediterranean shores by the parents of unruly children. The purpose is to scare
the little tykes into unquestioning submission. The legend continues to take its
toll, as the children grow into statesmen and businessmen. "Tree is bent
while it is green."4
VII.
Further, tales similar to those attributed to Barbaros Hayreddin have been
created in writing. One of the earliest, used with immediate political intent
dates from 1473, twenty years after Mehmet II (1432-1481) ended the Byzantine
Empire. In that small work, allegedly Mehmet II "...boasts of his conquests
achieved or intended; the replies [by his pretend European adversaries]
naturally contradict his assertions..." It transpired that the whole work
was invented by an industrious individual, claiming to have translated it from
Turkish, eager to show, or create, the European defiance.5
VIII.
Today it is documented that at least three hundred such apocryphal letters were
circulated in some half a dozen languages. The purpose evidently was to frighten
the European readership into some sort of unity. The tracts were often written
by the propagandists of one Christian sect, Catholic or Protestant, calling his
side to unite to fight the other. The allusion was if such unity is not
effected, the "bogeyman" Turks would come and take all.6 It was a
tactic resuscitated to create an outside adversary, however imaginary, for
domestic religious or political purposes. The method survives and thrives today.
IX.
Such propaganda appears not to have been new even for the 15th century. It is
suggested that the Prophecy of the fall of the Turks was first put forth by the
Byzantine Emperor Leo VI (865-911), later to resurface and be incorporated into
the politico-religious tracts of the 16th century.7 Similar works were also
being issued in other European presses, utilizing the new invention, the movable
type.8 This is similar to the later campaigns involving electronic dissemination
media, not only limited to radio, television and video cassettes; but also
encompassing the computer communication networks and data- bases. As the earlier
printed works were at first invisible to the general public in the 15th century,
so are the contents of the computerized data-bases (such as "bulletin
boards") in the latter half of the 20th. In such secluded environs, the
seeds of discord are nurtured and germinates before it is released into other
forums to infect the rest of the public opinion. Once again, "A fool casts
a stone into the well, and forty geniuses can not retrieve it."9
X.
Following other European influence patterns on the Russians, such propaganda
methods were also absorbed by the latter. Beginning with the early 17th century,
translations into Russian of such apocryphal letters further motivated the
Russians. It is known that the early diplomatic language of the Eurasian steppe
was Turkish, while the derivation of a ruler's election and legitimacy stemmed
from non-Russian sources. 10 The Turkish syntax even affected the way the Rus
chanceries wrote Russian, and the Turkish style of writing influenced the
literary efforts of the Russian authors, who strove to create works in that
greatly admired Turkish vein.11 When inspiration dried, the Russians next appear
to have appropriated Turkic origin literary works.12
XI.
As the Great Game in Asia and the Eastern Question reached its peak, the
commentators on behalf of the European players, further choosing sides,
redoubled their efforts. Felix Valyi defended the Ottoman Turks.13 The diplomats
at the 1919 Versailles peace conference, responding negatively to President
Wilson's vision of post World War I world order, issued a dissent.14 Regardless
of the relative merits of the published words, the tone was set. In the North
and East, the Soviet state mechanisms were set into motion, to propagate, with
fresh vigor, not only the twin Mythical Pans, but also the distortion of the
historical Turkish documents that belied the apocryphal assertions.15 The young
Turkish Republic, having freshly completed its own War of Independence, was
ostracized diplomatically and economically. This would continue until the
prospects of another Great War --again among the same European players, with
additions-- became inevitable. Once again, the twin mythical Pans were dragged
out of the storybooks. Once again, the European factions began exerting
pressure, seeking to embroil the Turks on their side.
XII.
Earlier, the typical Turkish response to the mythical Pans and the related
apocrypha generally fell into one of two categories: total silence; and stubborn
adherence to traditional historical literature.16 The history of one group or
nation can not be written in isolation, and the most forceful questioners of
these apocrypha placed Turkish history in a global context. Perhaps the first
far reaching challenge against the mythical Pans was mounted by Yusuf Akura in
1904.17 Kazim Karabekir followed shortly afterwards, with his insightful
analysis not only of the Pans, but also their political origins of the 19th and
the 20th centuries.18 Recently, discussions of the related issues began to be
openly deliberated in current publications.19
XIII.
The issues connected to the Pans and other apocryphal literature are primarily
concerned with the definition of culture. Unless Turks envision and discuss
their culture and history in their own terms, without reference to the
perceptions and definitions of others, they will remain vulnerable to
manipulation in the intellectual and political realms. When Braudel writes
French history, he does not use the paradigms of A.J.P. Taylor or Toynbee. Vice versa.
NOTES:
This
paper was presented to the conference "LA TURQUIE ET L'AIRE TURQUE DANS LA
NOUVELLE CONFIGURATION REGIONALE ET INTERNATIONALE: MONTEE EN PUISSANCE OU
MARGINALISATION" during November 1991, jointly organized in Paris by Centre
d'tudes et de Recherches Internationales / Fondation Nationale des Sciences
Politiques. A French language summary was included in the January 1992 issue of
the periodical Cahiers d'Etudes sur la Mediterrane orientale et le monde
turco-iranien, published by the organizers.
1.
For a discussion of the Great Game in context, and its uses, see H. B. Paksoy,
"Basmachi" (Turkistan National Liberation Movement) Modern
Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union (Academic
International Press, 1991) Vol. 4. Pp. 5-20; idem, "US and Bolshevik
Relations with the TBMM (the Turkish Grand National Assembly) Government:
The First Contacts, 1919-1921." (forthcoming).
2.
"Dogruluk, yerini bulur."
3.
"At'i alan, Uskudar'i geti."
4.
"Agac yasken egilir."
5.
Daniel Clarke Waugh, The Great Turkes Defiance: On the History of the
Apocryphal Correspondence of the Ottoman Sultan in its Muscovite and Russian
Variants (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1978).
6.
Waugh, The Great Turkes Defiance.
7.
Repeated in Vaticinium Sever, et Leonis Imperatorum, in quo videtur finis
Turcarum in Profetia di Severo (1596). Apparently republished in the
Arabic script by A. Fischer in ZDMG 47 during 1920.
8.
See Philipp Lonicer, Chronicorvm Turcicorvm (Frankfurt, 1584);
Johannes Leunclavius, Historiae Mvsvlmanae Tvcorvm, De Monvmentis ipsorvm
exscriptae... (1591).
9.
"Bir deli kuyu'ya tas atmis, kirk akilli cikaramamis."
10.
Edward Louis Keenan, Jr., "Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on
the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy" Slavic Review Vol. VI,
No. 4 (December, 1967); Omeljan Pritsak, "Moscow, Golden Horde, and the
Kazan Khanate from a Polycultural Point of View" Slavic Review Vol. VI, No.
4 (December, 1967).
11.
Edward Louis Keenan, Jr., "The Jarlyk of Axmed-Xan to Ivan III: A New
Reading" International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics
XII, 1967. (Mouton, The Hague).
12.
For the discussion pertaining to the suggested origins of the Tale of Igor, see
H. B. Paksoy, "Chora Batir: A Tatar Admonition to Future Generations."
Studies in Comparative Communism Vol. XIX, Nos. 3 & 4,
Autumn/Winter 1986. See also Keenan.
13.
Felix Valyi, Turk's Last Stand: The Historical Tragedy on the Bosphorus
(London, 1913) was originally delivered as a lecture at the University of
London, and translated from French into English.
14.
Joint Note of the Allied Governments in answer to President Wilson, The
Murderous Tyranny of the Turks written by Arnold J. Toynbee (Hodder &
Stoughton, 1917). Toynbee was a member of the British Delegation to the Paris
Peace Conference. See Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth P. Kirkwood, Turkey
(Charles Scribners, 1927).
15.
H. B. Paksoy, ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity under Russian Rule
(Hartford, CT: Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research,
Monograph Series, 1989).
16.
For some prominent echoes of the historical literature in more recent times, see
H. B. Paksoy "Central Asia's New Dastans." Central Asian Survey
Vol. 6, N. 1, (1987); Bahtiyar Nazarov "Kutadgu Bilig: One of the First
Written Monuments of the Turkic People" H. B. Paksoy, Editor, Central
Asia Reader (NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994).
17.
Yusuf Akura, Tarz-i Siyaset (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1976). This
essay was first printed in the newspaper Turk published in Cairo during 1904.
For an English translation, see David S. Thomas, "Three Types of
Policies" Central Asian Monuments, H. B. Paksoy, Ed.
(Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992).
18.
Kazim Karabekir, Cihan Harbine Neden Girdik, Nasil Girdik, Nasil Idare
Ettik (Istanbul, 1937); idem, Istiklal Harbimizin Esaslari
(Istanbul, 1933-1951); idem, Istiklal Harbinde Enver Pasa
(Istanbul, 1967). Though Karabekir wrote these volumes much earlier, they could
not be made available in print earlier. For some comments on the reasons, see
Erik Jan Zurcher, "Young Turk Memoirs as a Historical Source: Kazim
Karabekir's Istiklal Harbimiz" Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 22,
No. 4, October 1986.
19.
For examples, see H. B. Paksoy, "M. Ali-Let us Learn our Inheritance: Get
to Know Yourself." Cahiers d'Etudes sur la Mediterrane orientale et
le monde turco-iranien Vol. 11, No. 1 (1991); Ayaz Malikov, "The
Question of the Turk: The Way Out of the Crisis" AACAR BULLETIN (of
the Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research. Department
of History, University of Massachusetts-Amherst) Vol. III, No. 2 (1990).