CHAPTER 10 Ibrahim Müteferrika’s Copernican Rhetoric B. Harun Küçük In 1732, Ibrahim Müteferrika (d. 1745), the ex-Socinian printer to the Ottoman Sultan, voiced a pointed critique of the Empire’s conservative scholars: Ve lakin gaflet olunmaya ki emr-i mezbur umur-ı itikadiyeden ve levazım-ı hulkiyeden olmadığı miraren ve kiraren işaret ve bu mahalde irad olun- mak lazıme-yi halden olmayub bil ke müstedrek ve müstehcen add olu- nur iken mücerred fırka-ı merkumenin reyi icmalen tenkih ve takrir ve kayd-ı tahrir olunub akval ve aralarını tefhim ve zahirde iraet ve müşahede mülahazalarıyla ecram ve ecsamın keyfiyetlerine dair tarh ve tastih eyle- dikleri süver ve eşkal dahi ilhak olundı. Ta kim meydan-ı bi-payan fazl-ı irfan şecileri ve sahra-yı fesihe el-feza-i ulum-ü-maarif aşinaları el-hasıl erbab-ı kemal-ü-dikkat ve ashab-ı hamiyet-ü-gayret olan fuzela-i asr bad el-ıtla bu reye itiraz ve hekimane vaz-ü-hareket-berle sevk-i berahin-ü- izahe ve ihzar-ı edille-i kaviye-berle bina-yı ara-yı na-fercamlarını hedme himmet buyurub kar-ı kitabda haric suturda vus’at üzre bu matlubun hu- sulüne vesile olmak ümidiyle terk olunan beyaz yerlere mahal-be-mahal haşiyeler yazub mezheb-i evvele şöhret ve takviyet ve bu kitab-ı müste- taba zib-ü-ziynet vireler. Ve eğerçe bu mezheb-i atıle hükema-i İslam caniblerinden dahi itiraz bervakitde hali olmayub kavl-i na-şayestelerine vechle men-ü-redd senedleri ne şekil ve suret ile ibtal olundığı kütüb-i heyetde mestur ve musarrihdir. Ve lakin herçend ke atıl ve batıl ise de mezheb-i kadim ve rey-i atik-i hükema olmağla her asır be her zamanda mail-ü-ragıbı ve haris-ü-hamisi bulunub bu reyi teyyid sevdası ve takviye hevası gayretiyle kütüb-ü-resail-i vafire dahi telif ve tedvin olunmuşdur … Kopernikuş heyeti denilmekle şöhret bulunmuşdur ve bilad-ı Avrupa’da olan müteahhirinin ekseri kabul itmişdir. Ba-husus ke müteahhirin-i mezkurenin eşheri ve eşbehi olan Kartejyuş nam hekim, felsefe-yi ce- didesinde ihtira eylediği bazı kavaid-i cedide-ü-ceyyidesiyle bu reye tak- vit virdüğünden ötürü kendüsüne nisbet olunub halk arasında Kartejyuş heyeti ünvanıyla dahi şayi olmuşdur.1 1 Katip Çelebi, Cihannüma, ed. and introduced by İbrahim Müteferrika (Istanbul, Sultanic Press: 1732) 34. The most comprehensive study of Müteferrika’s preface is Kalaycıoğulları İ., © B. Harun Küçük, 2017 | doi 10.1163/9789004349261_012 B. Harun Küçük - 9789004349261 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-NDDownloaded 4.0 from license. Brill.com10/01/2021 08:37:16PM via free access Ibrahim Müteferrika’s Copernican Rhetoric 259 Principles of theoretical astronomy are neither doctrinal nor do they pertain to the creation. I have simply described the various theories [Aristotelian, Copernican and Tychonic] in order to express these opin- ions clearly, with demonstrations, and added the shapes and diagrams of the celestial and terrestrial objects upon which each opinion depends. If the virtuosi who know the vast expanses of learning, that is, those who are masters of diligence and perfection, those honorable and hard- working men, have disagreements, they may point out the weaknesses of these opinions by presenting clear and strong evidence and explana- tions. And, let them do so on the margins of this book, which has been left wide open for their use. Let them write commentaries and glosses. Let them gain fame and power as they add beauty and ornament to this volume. Muslim scholars of the past have also opposed the idle opinions of [Aristotle and Ptolemy]. What they accepted and rejected, and the rea- sons as to why they did so are clearly written in the books on cosmogra- phy. Although the ancient opinion is both idle and superstitious, it has always found supporters, commanded esteem and enjoyed protection as well as preservation. Some have even written new books to support and strengthen the ancient view […] The most famous among the philoso- phers who follow the Copernican opinion is Descartes, who has proposed a new philosophy that presents new rules to support this opinion. This is called the cosmography of Descartes. There is no doubt that Müteferrika took aim at contemporary Muslim schol- ars and associated Aristotle as well as Ptolemy with tradition, idleness and su- perstition. He also deployed many of the rhetorical strategies we find in other Copernican writings in Europe, especially those of Galileo: the truth of the few against the opinion of the many, inviting critique and controversy and, even speaking truth to power. What does it mean that this familiar European rheto- ric emerged in the Ottoman Empire? In this chapter, I wish to draw a large frame to show the complex mixture of biographical, political, religious and finally, intellectual factors that can help us explain the genealogy and the ramifications of this unusual passage. What made Müteferrika’s unique were his use of two deliberately non-­radical ­sources—Edmond Pourchot’s Institutiones philosophicae and Al-Ghazali’s Tahafut al-falasifa—to articulate the radical notion that science was com- pletely separate from religion. My goal is to explain how bluntly orthodox texts Katip Çelebi’nin Cihannüma Adlı Eserine İbrahim Müteferrika’nın Yaptığı Ekler Doğrultusunda Çağdaş Bilimlerin Türkiye’ye Girişi, Unpublished MA Thesis (Ankara University: 2003). B. Harun Küçük - 9789004349261 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 08:37:16PM via free access 260 Küçük from early modern Catholic and medieval Islamic contexts were used to level an attack against the official custodians of Islamic orthodoxy in the Ottoman Empire.2 The translation and transfer of texts, ideas and even heresies will fea- ture as key elements of this discussion. Ibrahim Müteferrika: A Brief Biography to 1730 Ibrahim Müteferrika is tiringly familiar, yet also utterly mysterious to Ottomanists. For many, he is an unmoved mover and represents a moment of rupture in Ottoman history. He is an agent of radical progress, for he is the man who established the very first Muslim printing press. To others, he is an outsider who sits uneasily in the general ebb and flow of Ottoman history.3 Part of the problem with Müteferrika is ideological. To write about Ibrahim Müteferrika is to write about Turkish modernity, because it is hard to decide on what to do with him. Does he belong to ‘our’ history or is he just a Westerner doing Western things in an Eastern setting? Was he an Ottoman or was he a foreigner who held the Ottomans in contempt? Especially today, such ques- tions easily turn into other questions. Is Turkey part of the West? How deep are the foundations of the modernity that culminated in the modern Turkish Republic? Or was the republic an anomaly in the normal course of things, a small wave in the vast ocean that is the history of ‘Islamic civilization’? A prop- erly contextualized analysis of his writings will help disentangle a lot of this complex emotional engagement with the man, and show just how responsive he was to intellectual and political developments he observed and participated in first hand. Yet, neither of these notions about Müteferrika is based on his writings and translations and even less on how his writings fit into a landscape of other contemporary writings in Istanbul. In this paper, I will be expanding on some of the ideas that İnan Kalaycıoğulları, Marinos Sariyannis and Vefa Erginbaş have brought to scholarly attention.4 And, I hope to show below, that Georg Simmel’s ‘stranger’ is the best term for understanding Müteferrika’s place in 2 For a discussion of the de-radicalisation of a classical text to an early modern Western European context, see the chapter by Rodolfo Garau in this volume. 3 On Müteferrika in historiography, see Sabev O., Ibrahim Müteferrika ya da Ilk Osmanlı Matbaa Serüveni (1726–1746) (Istanbul: 2006). 4 Kalaycıoğulları İ, İbrahim Müteferrika’nın Yaptığı Ekler; Sariyannis M. − Tuşalp Atiyas E., Ottoman Political Thought up to the Tanzimat: A Concise History (Rethymno: Foundation for Research and Technology—Hellas, 2015); Erginbaş V., “Enlightenment in Ottoman Context: B. Harun Küçük - 9789004349261 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 08:37:16PM via free access Ibrahim Müteferrika’s Copernican Rhetoric 261 Ottoman history.5 He was not ‘of the group’, but he was integrated into differ- ent cultures of naturalism in Istanbul. He came from the outside, but he came to stay. He was neither a born-and-raised Istanbulite Westernizer, nor was he an outsider. Setting aside larger problems arising from the assumption that the Western civilization or the Ottoman Empire were monolithic entities in the early eighteenth century or that ‘Westernization’ makes sense as a special cat- egory of historical development, I will simply focus on providing a broad con- text that may help explain this specific passage and show how these categories were emergent, fractured and malleable in the early eighteenth century. Most of what we know about Müteferrika prior to his appearance as Ibrahim, Sultan’s envoy to the exiled Hungarian prince Rákóczy Ferenc II (1676–1735), is a matter of speculation. Historians agree that he was born to Christian par- ents in the Transylvanian town of Cluj. His denomination remains unknown. Sources are conflicted and scholars have disputed whether he was a Calvinist or a Unitarian. Orlin Sabev’s recent work, however, leaves little doubt that he must have been a Socinian.6 Socinianism is well known for its radicalism and anti-trinitarianism among historians of the early Enlightenment. Jonathan Israel’s Enlightenment Contested devoted an entire chapter to Socinian contro- versies in Western Europe at the end of the seventeenth century.