Terrible Turk”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 1 The Return of the “Terrible Turk” It seems that they [the Turks] were made only to murder and destroy. In the history of the Turkish nation you will find nothing but fighting, rob- bery, and murder. Every nation has turbulent times in its past, but along- side them also times that are crowned with the marvelous fruits of quiet effort and beneficial work; our nation, for example, has the age of the Hussites, but also the era of the Fathers of Our Country – the unforget- table Charleses. But in the history of the Turks you would search in vain for even a short period devoted to quiet, useful patriotic work. That is also why the images compiled here, in which only fear and terror and gloomy desolation reign, might seem chilling. Nevertheless, the history of the Turks is important, for the fight that Europe has conducted in its defense against the nations of this race has been waged by Christians alone and by the nations of our monarchy in particular. For this reason, the main consideration is given to the scenes that unfolded either in the countries of the Balkan Peninsula or those of Austria-Hungary. kodym, 18791 There have been few other non-Christian figures in European history that have been the object of such a vast range of visual representations as “the Turk.” From the warrior depicted in medieval and early modern German woodcuts, to the Turk as a symbol of wealth woven into the patterns of Renaissance French carpets, the captive Sultan who appeared on the stages of 18th-century Vene- tian opera houses, not to mention the pipe-smoking Turk on the signboards of coffee shops in many European cities and the harem women pictured in 19th- century Orientalist paintings, images of the Turks have accompanied Euro- peans for centuries. Print materials that in some way dealt with Turkish issues, such as religious treatises, war propaganda, ballads, comic plays, and scholarly essays, displayed a similar heterogeneity of form, tone, and purpose. This chap- ter’s introductory quote, from a book by a secondary school teacher named František Kodym intended for young people, represents just one end of the 1 Frant. Vl. Kodym, Obrazy z dějin Turků dospělejší mládeži (Prague: Nákladem kněhkupectví Mikuláše a Knappa, 1879), 7–8. © JITKA MALEČKOVÁ AND CHARLES UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARTS, 2021 | DOI:10.1163/9789004440791_003 Jitka Malečková - 9789004440791 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-NDDownloaded 4.0 license. from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:54:36PM via free access <UN> The Return of the “Terrible Turk” 27 spectrum, reflecting the situation during the Russo-Turkish war at the time the book was written. Whether they appeared in famous works by Shakespeare, Molière, and Byron, in genuine and fictitious travelogues, or in anonymous pamphlets, Turks were depicted in a variety of ways, both negative and posi- tive, or simply as objects of curiosity and fascination. Different images of “the Turk” were produced in different media, periods, and regions, but the variety was not limitless, and seldom, for instance, were Turks portrayed as readers and workers or as mothers and fathers. Turkish men fought, ruled, tortured their enemies, and made fools of themselves, while the women reclined on sofas and captivated viewers with their exotic beauty. The different ways in which scholars have interpreted Europeans’ views of the Turks reflect Europe’s varied relations with the Ottoman Empire.2 As well as fundamental divisions grounded in different ideological relationships to Orientalism, discussed in the Introduction,3 a focus on a particular period, region, or source produced different perceptions of these relationships. Any attempt to summarize “European” views of the Turks over several centuries more generally is almost necessarily destined to flatten, if not outright distort, the rich variety of viewpoints that existed across time and countries. Aslı Çırakman argues that “multiple, diversified, incoherent and sometimes even paradoxical” images of “the Turk” coexisted in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries,4 and this variety was a response to Ottoman strength, which in Euro peans inspired both fear and interest. In her opinion, it was only with the decline of Ottoman power in the 18th and 19th centuries that a more uni- form image of “the Turk” took shape in Europe, one that focused on the Turks’ character and associated them with slavery and despotism.5 By contrast, other scholars see shared features in the different images that existed of the 2 The relations between individual European rulers and the Ottoman Sultans were influenced by the balance of power in Europe and the aspirations of and rivalries among European states: French kings were keen to collaborate with the Ottomans against the Habsburgs, who were a more important adversary for France than the Ottoman Empire. In Britain, the coun- try’s maritime ambitions made the Ottomans a factor they had to reckon with, while there were economic motives behind Elizabeth I’s well-known ties to the Sultan. For the Habsburgs, the Ottomans were an immediate threat and a rival on the Southeastern borders of their nascent empire, and in the 16th and 17th centuries a threat even to its heartland. 3 On the one hand, depictions of the Ottoman Turks’ violence or their rule as despotic can be interpreted as reflecting reality (see Fichtner, Terror and Toleration, 9–11; for a somewhat dif- ferent view see also Curtis, Orientalism and Islam, 6–7). On the other hand, travel writing on Muslim societies can be interpreted as expressing just a drive for domination (see Kabbani, Europe’s Myths of Orient, 86–112). 4 Çırakman, European Images of Ottoman Empire, 185. 5 Ibid., 184. Jitka Malečková - 9789004440791 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:54:36PM via free access <UN> 28 Chapter 1 Turks very early on, or claim that the diverse images continued to exist even in the 18th and 19th centuries.6 Earlier works in particular, such as Norman Daniel’s classic study Islam and the West, maintained that a special Western way of looking at Islam developed in Europe between the 12th and 14th centuries, which viewed Islam as a form of Christian heresy, Muhammad as a false Prophet and schemer, Muslims as violent and lascivious, and their Paradise with its houris as absurd.7 When the Ottomans advanced into Europe, their Empire was increasingly seen as a mili- tary and political as well as a religious threat. There was a strong fear of Otto- man expansion even in England, where the Turks were called “the scourge of God” and “any news of a Christian victory against Islam was a cause for rejoicing.”8 According to Fichtner, the Turks, who gradually came to be seen as synonymous with Muslims, were regarded as idolaters whose religion support- ed indulgence and lasciviousness and encouraged polygamy.9 Anti-Turkish rhetoric was particularly strong in the Habsburg Empire because it expressed the interests of both the state and the church, though this dual concern about the Turkish threat did not prevent more neutral curiosity about or fascination with the Turks from being expressed in writing and visual imagery.10 In short, the early modern picture of “the Turk in Europe” consisted of a variety of im- ages that mirrored diverse circumstances across time and countries and whose unifying features result from the emphasis put on religious difference and mili- tary threat. The 18th century was a transitional period in the development of views about the Turks, and this is perhaps why the interpretations of it differ. Çırakman says that “the image of the Ottomans deteriorated in the eighteenth century” when “one finds the emergence of a stereotypical image of Ottomans as a stagnant, backward and corrupt people, governed by arbitrary regime.”11 Wolff, in contrast, sees the 18th century as an intermezzo in the long tradition of prevailingly negative images of the Turks, and that was what made it possible 6 See Kuran-Burçoğlu, “A Glimpse,” 29–32. 7 Norman Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Oxford: Oneworld Publica- tions, 2009), esp. 302–6. See also Curtis, Orientalism and Islam, 31. 8 Daniel J. Vitkus, “Introduction,” in Three Turk Plays from Early Modern England: Selimus, A Christian Turned Turk, and The Renegado, ed. Daniel J. Vitkus (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 2000), 7. 9 Fichtner, Terror and Toleration, 25. 10 Smith, Images of Islam, 1; Larry Silver, “East is East: Images of the Turkish Nemesis in the Habsburg World,” in The Turk and Islam in the Western Eye, 1450–1750: Visual Imagery be- fore Orientalism, ed. James G. Harper (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), esp. 208–9. 11 Çırakman, European Images of Ottoman Empire, 1 and 105ff. Jitka Malečková - 9789004440791 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 03:54:36PM via free access <UN> The Return of the “Terrible Turk” 29 for “the Turk” to appear as a character on Europe’s opera stages.12 Kuran- Burçoğlu also considers the imagery of this period less Turkophobic.13 Positive views of the Turks were indeed far from rare even in the 18th century, despite the undeniable impact of the image of the Orient, and specifically the Otto- man Empire, as despotic, a notion that spread and grew stronger throughout Europe during the Enlightenment under the influence of the writings of Mon- tesquieu. In Montesquieu’s rendering, the basic characteristics of Oriental des- potism are rule based on the will and caprice of a single person, arbitrary deci- sions, cruelty, and corruption; its regime serves only the preservation and pleasure of the rulers, in whose hands every type of power is concentrated, while the population is passive.