Homer and Troy in Muslim Literature

Amsterdam University Press
Chapter Title: Homer and Troy in Ottoman Literature An Overview
Book Title: Homer, Troy and the Turks

Book Author(s): Günay Uslu
Published by: Amsterdam University Press. (2017)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1zkjxv2.9
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license,
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Funding is provided by
Knowledge Unlatched Select 2018: HSS Backlist.
Amsterdam University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Homer, Troy and the Turks
This content downloaded from 99.232.3.115 on Tue, 13 Aug 2019 19:20:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
IV Homer and Troy in Ottoman Literature
An Overview
Paris’ betrayal […] led to a war. Rulers of Greece and neighbouring regions, led
by Agamemnon, […] attacked Troy and besieged the town for ten years. After
numerous and heavy battles during that period, they succeeded in conquering
it by the trick devised by Ulysses.1 Ulysses had ordered the construction of a
huge wooden horse. In the horse’s belly he had hidden a selection of the brav-
est soldiers. Then he sent the Trojans the message: ‘We are leaving now for our
countries, but we leave behind this wooden horse as a souvenir of the battles.’
The Trojans pulled the horse into the town. […] At nightfall the soldiers hidden
in the horse’s belly came out and let the other soldiers in as well. They destroyed
the town and defeated and killed its citizens.
Agamemnon was the most eminent of the rulers of the Achaeans, the bravest
was Achilles, the cleverest Odysseus and the most eloquent was Nestor. The
greatest hero of the Trojans was Hector, the brave and unparalleled son of Priam,
Aeneas was the most heroic prince after him.
Although repeatedly translated into European languages, the fact that these
two famous, valuable and old works have still not been translated into the Otto-
man language is a cause for grief. Therefore, I started at once to translate, print
and publish, step by step, the aforementioned work from its original language.
Na’im Fraşeri, Ilyada. Eser-i Homer (Istanbul, 1303/1885-1886), preface, 5-7, trans-
lated from Ottoman Turkish
As far as is known, no translation of the poems of Homer into Ottoman

Turkish existed until 1885.2 Na’im Fraşeri claims this in the preface to his
translation of the first song of the Iliad (Ilyada: Eser-i Homer). Ottoman
Turks may have known about Troy and Homer for centuries, but they had
never felt a need to translate the poems into Ottoman Turkish until the
nineteenth century. While Heinrich Schliemann’s archaeological activities
in Troy in the 1870s stimulated Ottoman interest in Homeric epics, the
nineteenth-century modernizations, the progress in public education, the
rise of printing and publishing and innovations in Ottoman literature also
1 The author uses both the Latin and Greek names.

2 Parts of this chapter, including figures and captions, appeared in Uslu, ‘Homer and Troy in
19th-Century Ottoman Turkish Literature.’
138 Homer, Troy and the Turks
created a situation in which Homer could enter Ottoman art, culture and
literature.
Indeed, the literary importance of Homer’s epics, the attempts to translate
the Iliad into Ottoman Turkish, biographical notes on the poet, informative
articles in Ottoman periodicals and newspapers on Homeric epic and the
topographical characteristics of Homeric locations came at a time when
Western literature and Ancient Greek and Roman literature were finding
their place in Ottoman culture.3
For all the interest and enthusiasm, however, no single complete Turk-
ish version of Homer’s oeuvre had ever been produced in the Ottoman
Empire. The new translators were pioneers and doubtless experienced all
the frustration of the complexities involved. Interest in Homer flourished
in the new Ottoman literary era, particularly from the 1850s to the second
constitutional period (1908). However, to get a better understanding of
the role of Homer in Ottoman literature and to position the rising interest
among Ottoman intellectuals in Homeric epic in the late Ottoman Empire,
it also is useful to examine early Ottoman interest in Homer and Troy.
1 Early Ottoman-Turkish Interest in the Homeric Epics
Ottoman Turks were no strangers to Troy, Homer and Homeric epic. In fact,
Sultan Mehmed II, the conqueror of Istanbul (1432-1481), was greatly interested
in Homer and Troy and his personal library at the Topkapı Sarayı includes a
valuable Greek edition of the Iliad (Fig. 30).4 The collections of the libraries
in Istanbul also include medieval Arabic manuscripts referring to the story
of the Trojan horse and ‘the tricks of sovereigns.’ One of these manuscripts
was completed in 1475, probably commissioned by Sultan Mehmed II.5
Mehmed II’s desire to gain historical legitimacy by identifying with
the Trojans is mentioned in Chapter 1. As Michael Kritovoulos’s official
chronicle states, Mehmed II praised Homer and admired the ruins of the
3 The way Homer was approached, read and translated is not the main point of this study.
Much has been written about Homer and the reception of Homer. However, little attention
has been paid to the Ottoman-Turkish perspective. Since the archaeological activities in Troy
stimulated the Ottoman interest in Troy and Homer, this chapter briefly reviews literary interest
in Homer in the Ottoman Empire and provides a cursory description of the reception of Homer at
this time. For the reception of Homer from the late Antiquity to the present, see: Clarke, Homer’s
Readers, and Young, The Printed Homer. On Homer himself, see: Graziosi, Inventing Homer.
4 Mehmed II’s library, Topkapı Sarayı Museum, Istanbul, GI2.
5 Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen,’ 282.
Homer and Troy in Ottoman Liter ature 139
Ancient city on his visit to Troy in 1462. He identified with the Trojans and
– referring to the conquest of Istanbul in 1453 – celebrated the victory of ‘us’
Asians over the descendants of the ‘Greeks, Macedonians and Thessalians
and Peloponnesians.’6
The Turks probably knew about Homer before Sultan Mehmed II’s reign.
They were certainly familiar with figures and events in Homeric literature.
The epic stories of the heroic age of the Turkish tribe of the Oğuz that make
up the Book of Dede Korkut include themes analogous to the Homeric poems.
This collection about the morals, values, pre-Islamic beliefs and athletic
skills of the Turkic people was transmitted orally for centuries before it
was recorded, probably in the fifteenth century. The tale of the Oğuz hero
Basat killing the cyclops-like Tepegöz – who had been terrorizing the Oğuz
realm – is a creative adaptation of Odysseus’ struggle with Polyphemus.7
And the Alpamysh (Alpamış) epic, which probably circulated during the
Turkic Kaghanate as early as the sixth to eighth century in Central Asia,
also includes Homeric themes.8
Interest in Homer and Troy is also apparent in later periods. The compre-
hensive seventeenth-century Arabic history Camiu’d – düvel (Compendium
of nations) and the Ottoman-Turkish version Sahaif-ül Ahbar (The pages
of the chronicle) by Ottoman astronomer, astrologer and historian Ahmed
Dede Müneccimbaşı (1631-1702) identifies the Trojan War as the seminal
event in Greek history and discusses the location and history of Troy.9
Another famous work touching on Troy is Mustafa ibn Abdullah’s
Cihannüma. Known as Katip Çelebi (1609-1657), this celebrated Ottoman
scholar’s abundantly illustrated volume on geography, topography, history
and astronomy was based on a synthesis of Islamic and Western sources.
6 Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror, 181-182; on Sultan Mehmed II’s interest in
the heroes of Classical Antiquity and his identification with the Trojans, see: Babinger, Fatih
Sultan Mehmed ve Zamanı, 418-421; Yerasimos, ‘Türkler Romalıların mirasçısı mıdır?,’ 69-71;
Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen,’ 282; Adıvar, Osmanlı Türklerinde Ilim, 25-26; Rijser,
‘The Second Round.’
7 Bremmer, ‘Odysseus versus the Cyclops,’ 136; for a discussion of issues such as the time in
which the stories were created or recorded, see: Kafadar, Between Two Worlds, 94, 177-179; Lewis,
The Book of Dede Korkut; and Meeker, ‘The Dede Korkut Ethic.’
8 For a detailed study on Alpamysh, see: Paksoy, Alpamysh; in relation to Homeric literature:
Fattah, Tanrıların ve Firavunların Dili; and Meydan, Son Truvalılar.
9 Ahmed Dede Müneccimbaşi was court astrologer to Mehmed IV (1642-1693). The Turkish
version of Camiu’d – düvel is a summary translation by a committee led by the prominent poet
Ahmed Nedim during the reign of Sultan Ahmed III (1673-1736): the Tulip Age in which arts,
culture and architecture flourished. The work is based on Arab, Persian, Turkish and European
sources. Roman and Jewish sources may also have been used for this universal history; see:
‘Ahmed Dede Muneccimbasi’; Kreiser, ‘Troia un die Homerischen Epen,’ 282.
The seventeenth-century work was printed in Istanbul in 1732. It includes

a version of the story of Troy, probably based on a middle Greek/Byzantine
narrative and written by Ebu Bekir ibn Behram ed-Dımeşki (d. 1691).10
Troy and Homeric characters appear again in Tarih-i Iskender bin Filipos
(History of Alexander the son of Philip), published in 1838 and reprinted
in 1877, and in an Ottoman-Turkish translation of Flavius Arrianus’ (89-
145/146 AD) Anabasis Alexandrou. After describing Alexander’s arrival in
Troy, the translator, probably George Rhasis, pays particular attention to
the circumstances in which Priam, Achilles and Hector met their death
and informs his readers about the enmity between the races of Priam and
Neoptolemos. Presumably, the author was trying to make his narrative
more accessible for an Ottoman audience. Since the edition was published
in Cairo it remains debatable whether it actually reached Ottoman readers
in the capital or other large cities of the Empire.11
Another work on Ancient Greek history, including Homer and Troy,
appeared soon after in Istanbul: Tarih-i Kudema-yi Yunan ve Makedonya
(History of Ancient Greek and Macedonia), apparently written by Agrıbozı
Melek Ahmed in the 1850s during the reign of Sultan Abdülmecid.12 With the
publication of Tarih-i Yunanistan-ı Kadim (The Ancient history of Greece)
in 1870, Istanbul’s readers had ample opportunity to learn about Ancient
Greek geography, people, authors, heroes and mythology in detail.13
Classical Philosophers in Ottoman Islamic Culture

The Ottomans also knew Homer through Medieval Persian and especially
Arabic studies of Ancient works. It was through Arab interest in Classical
Greek literature that much of Greek and Hellenistic philosophy and sci-
ence had been preserved in Syriac and Arabic texts in the Middle Ages.
10 Mustafa b. Abdullah, Kitab-ı Cihannüma li-Katib Çelebi (Konstantiniye 1145/1732), 667-669,

in Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen,’ 282-289; Cihannuma was printed by the Ottoman
Empire’s first Islamic printing house, set up by İbrahim Müteferrika: 500 copies were printed. See:
Çelebi, Kitab-ı Cihannümâ li-Katib Çelebi; and Sarıcaoğlu, ‘Cihannüma ve Ebubekir b. Behram
ed-Dımeşki – İbrahim Müteferrika.’
11 Kitab-ı Tarih-i Iskender bin Filipos (Cairo 10/Ra/1234) (03/06/1838) Tarih-i Iskender bin Filipos
(Cairo 1294/1877); for an account of the original work, the identity of the translator and the
circumstances under which the translation was made, and its reception, see: Yüksel, Türk
Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 23-35; and Strauss, ‘The Millets and the Ottoman Language,’
203-207.
12 Melek Ahmed Agrıbozı, Tarih-i Kudema-yi Yunan ve Makedonya, Istanbul Universitesi,
Nadir Eserler, TY=C1/2454 and C1/3454.
13 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 30-38; Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi,
140; Kayaoğlu, Türkiyede Tercüme Müesseseleri, 81.
Classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were considered

important figures in Islam; they were perceived as legendary characters of
an Islamic era. In the ninth century, some Arab scholars were even thought
to prefer Aristotle to the Koran.14 And Plato, as the historian Dursun Ali
Tokel notes, was considered a prophet by several Islamic scholars.15
As a part of, and, for a long time, as rulers of the Islamic world, the
Ottomans had access to these medieval Arabic studies of Ancient Greek
literature. Gradually, Ancient philosophy became a major part of the Ot-
toman political and cultural world and as historian Cemal Kafadar states,
Classical figures such as Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen became
the foundation of the Ottoman Islamic culture.16
Homer was known as the ‘wandering poet’ in the Muslim world. While
poetry was not the focus of Arabic studies, Arabic translations included
fragments and quotes from Homer, while biographies of Homer appeared
in dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The influential Muslim philosopher Ibn
Khaldun (1332-1406) informs readers in his Al-Muqaddimah (Prolegomenon,
1377) that ‘Aristotle, in his logic, praises the poet Umatîrash [Homer].’17 It
is widely accepted that Ibn Khaldun was a vital source of inspiration for
Ottoman scholars such as Katip Çelebi (1609-1657) and Mustafa Naima
(1655-1716).18
The Search for Change in Ottoman Literature

Although Ottoman Turks appear to have known Homer and Homeric themes
and characters, no Ottoman-Turkish version of Homer’s tales was produced
until the nineteenth-century reforms and modernization. As Ahmet Hamdi
Tanpınar, an authority on Turkish literature, explains, ‘with the Tanzimat
edict of 1839, the Empire and the society left a circle of civilization in which
it had lived for centuries and declared its entrance into another civilization,’
the Western European civilization it had confronted for centuries. The
government explicitly accepted European values and the basic principles
14 Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 80-82; Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı
Tarihi, 38.
15 Tökel, Divan Şiirinde Mitolojik Unsurlar, 424.
16 On the antique origins of Ottoman political ideas, see: Kafadar, ‘Osmanlı Siyasal Düsün
cesinin Kaynakları Üzerine Gözlemler.’
17 Translated in Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 80; on Homer in the Islamic
world, see: Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 80-89; and Kraemer, ‘Arabische
Homerverse.’
18 Lewis, ‘Ibn Khaldun in Turkey.’ Katip Çelebi also knew Latin and translated Latin works
into Turkish, in Toker, ‘Türk Edebiyatinda Nev Yunanilik’; see also Adıvar, Osmanlı Türklerinde
Ilim, 143.
of the Enlightenment and made modernization a state programme. These

reforms and changes in political, economic and social life triggered a search
for change in Ottoman literature.19
Nineteenth-century Ottoman literature – New Ottoman (Turkish) or
Tanzimat Literature – interacted with Western literature.20 In the second half
of the nineteenth century, Ottoman writers adopted European literary forms.
Educating the public in Western ideas was a major concern in the literary
scene of this era, which was dominated by Tanzimat statesmen, civil servants
and intellectuals proficient in different languages and educated in new
Western-style schools. The authors of the New Ottoman Literature movement
wrote for public instruction. The new Western-style literary genres such as
novels, plays, philosophical dialogues and essays enabled new ideas to be
introduced, and to be interpreted and discussed by the reading public.21
2 New Ottoman Literature: Educating the Public and

Changing Perceptions
Helen, only eighteen years old, a prominent figure of her time, deserved to
be described as the personification of love. Is it possible that the longing, the
coquetry and entreats of a person deep in love, as Paris was, would not affect
such a beauty that was wholly created of desire, fertility and affection? Would
the laws of human nature allow this?
In his work, the Iliad, the leading poet Homer composed the poem about the
historical [Trojan] war in the form of verses. I, a humble translator, had a strong
desire to translate this story by retaining the original language of it as much as
possible. No, it is not a disgrace! In my opinion it is more justified to strengthen a
strong desire to improve public instruction than to remove the impetus.
Selanikli Hilmi, Ilyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros (Istanbul, 1316/1898-1899), introduc-
tion, z, yd, ye, translated from Ottoman Turkish
19 Tanpınar, XIX. Asir Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 126-129; Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 24-25.
20 Historians of Turkish literature call the period between 1839 and 1923 the age of New Otto-
man (Turkish) Literature or Tanzimat Literature. The proclamation of the second constitutional
monarchy in 1908 is considered a turning point in this period with its radical political and
cultural changes and its impact on literature. See: Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 9, 5-27; Yüksel,
Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, vii, 1. On the history of literature in the late Ottoman Empire,
its various movements and leading figures, see also: Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi;
Moran, Türk Romanına Eleştirel bir Bakış; Evin, Origins and Development of the Turkish Novel;
Finn, The Early Turkish Novel; and Akyüz, ‘La Littérature Moderne de Turquie,’ 465-634; see also:
Ortaylı, Imparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı, 225-257.
21 Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 25, 32.
As Selanikli Hilmi states in the preface to his translation of the first book of
Homer’s Iliad, the main purpose of Ottoman literary production following
the Tanzimat edict was the improvement of public instruction (Fig. 31).
This related fundamentally to the circumstances in which the reforms
were introduced. It was a time of weakness and disintegration, and lead-
ing figures in Ottoman society hoped to save the Empire with wide-scale
modernization. Authors of literary texts, as Inci Enginün points out, played
a major part in disseminating Tanzimat principles to the population. Since
the reforms were not based on a broad intellectual movement, writers
hoped to contribute to a revival of Ottoman society. The literature of this
period has a liberal dose of social relevance. Newspapers and periodicals
served as a tool for education and the maintenance of modernization with
a major impact on literary life and individual writers. The reading public
had correspondingly high expectations of the press.22
Despite the new era, press freedom continued to be extremely limited
until 1908.23 Nonetheless, as the modernizations were introduced, progress
in public education and increased literacy were accompanied by a rapid
expansion of the press.24 The number of publications grew and periodicals
and newspapers reached an ever wider audience.25 Yet during the reign of
Abdülhamid II (1876-1908) it became increasingly impossible to publish
about political matters. Words such as republic, revolution, anarchy, social-
ism, constitution, equality, nation, justice, native, coup, freedom, bomb,
22 Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 22, 25, 32; Kocabaşoğlu and Birinci, ‘Osmanlı Vilayet Gazete
ve Matbaaları Uzerine Gözlemler,’ 101-103.
23 On the history of Turkish press, see: Topuz, 100 soruda Türk Basın Tarihi; Iskit, Türkiye’de
Matbuat Rejimleri; Iskit, Türkiye’de Neşriyat Haraketlerine Bir Bakış; Iskit, Türkiye’de Matbuat
Idaireleri ve Politikaları; Koloğlu, ‘Osmanlı Basını,’, 87; Ortaylı, Imparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı,
194-196; Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 22, 25, 32; Kocabaşoğlu and Birinci, ‘Osmanlı Vilayet
Gazete ve Matbaaları Üzerine Gözlemler,’ 101-103.
24 The increasing literacy was partly the result of public initiatives. State-sponsored schools
at different levels emerged in the late nineteenth century. As a consequence, the literacy rate of
the Muslim Ottoman population, which was about 2-3 percent in the early nineteenth century,
increased to approximately 15 percent in the f inal years of the Empire. See: Quataert, The
Ottoman Empire, 169. For a comprehensive treatment of the progress in Turkish public education,
see: Ergin, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi. See also: Iskit, Türkiye’de Neşriyat Haraketlerine bir Bakış, 93-97;
Engin, 1868’den 1923’e Mekteb-i Sultani; Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, 179-184; Berkes,
Türkiye’de Cağdaslaşma, 202-216.
25 Zürcher, Turkey, 78. Before 1840, annually eleven books were published in Istanbul. By 1908,
ninety-nine printing houses published 285 books, in Quataert, The Ottoman Empire. For the rise
of printing and publishing in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century, see also: Strauss,
‘Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th Centuries)?,’ 42.
explosion, strike and assassination were strictly forbidden.26 Instead, news-

papers and periodicals concentrated on technology, science, geography,
history and literature.27
Modern cultural life had gradually found a way into the main cities of
the Empire, such as Istanbul, Izmir and Thessalonica. The changing cultural
atmosphere triggered many discussions. Supporters and opponents formulated
their views in prose, poetry, novels and plays. As Tanpınar explains, nineteenth-
century literature was the product of an age of ‘civilization struggle.’28
Translations of French Neoclassical Works: New Perspectives on the

Ancients
The creators of New Ottoman Literature drew inspiration from Western
literature.29 Various Western works of science, philosophy and literature
were translated into Ottoman Turkish. The increasing openness to Euro-
pean culture was closely related to the establishment of institutions such
as the Tercüme Odası (Translation Office, 1832), Encümen-i Daniş (Imperial
Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1850/51), Cemiyet-i Ilmiye-i Osmaniye (Ot-
toman Scientific Society, 1860) and various newspapers and periodicals in
the second half of the nineteenth century.30
Many intellectuals – some connected to these institutions and others not
– also translated Western works on their own initiative.31 Translation was
a way of learning or practising a foreign language.32 Ottoman intellectuals
26 Iskit, Türkiye’de Matbuat Rejimleri, 65.

27 Zürcher, Turkey, 78.
28 Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 16.
29 Although Western literature dominated, literary f igures of the period did not abandon
classic Turkish poetry, traditional popular literature or pre-Islamic Turkish literature. These
traditional elements were also part of the new literature, sometimes providing inspiration and
sometimes as source of criticism: Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 25-27.
30 Paker, ‘Turkey,’ 19-21.
31 It is generally agreed that the state contributed little to coordinate these translations.
Literary production in this period was therefore highly diverse. Translators usually selected
works to translate based on personal preference and popularity; their main concern was content
rather than form or style. Yet institutions such as the Encümen-i Danış and Cemiyet-i Ilmiye-yi
Osmaniye and the translation off ices would also have been engaged in managing literary
translations. See: Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 139-141, 263-266, 270-273; Yüksel, Türk
Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 3; Strauss, ‘Romanlar, ah! O Romanlar!’; Ortaylı, İmparatorluğun
en uzun yüzyılı, 244-254. For a detailed survey on Ottoman translation institutions, see also:
Kayaoğlu, Türkiyede Tercüme Müesseseleri; Aksoy, ‘Translation Activities in the Ottoman
Empire.’
32 Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 263-265.
generally concentrated on the leading literary figures of the French neoclas-

sical period, such as Racine, Molière, Corneille and La Fontaine.33 So French
literature and its various movements became increasingly influential.34
Philosophical works were especially popular: Münif Pasha biographies
of Ancient philosophers were particularly well regarded among Muslim
intellectuals of the time.35
Given the prominence of Ancient Greek and Roman themes in
neoclassical works, the Ottoman taste for this genre gave Classical
literature and Classical mythology a prominent place in Ottoman
literature and arts, while intellectuals associated with the new literary
movement frequently referred to Greek Antiquity in essays and prefaces
to publications.36
As major French neoclassical works entered Ottoman literature,
readers gained an opportunity to widen their once overwhelmingly
Islamic perspective on Classical authors. They began to compare Islamic
perspectives with new Western perceptions. Ottoman readers came
to see these works in a different light and to view the Ancients from a
different angle.37
This new perspective on Classical literature encouraged Ottoman writ-
ers to read and translate Ancient Greek authors further. One of the most
popular Ancient Greek figures among Ottoman readers was Aesop. Many
literary adaptations of Aesop’s fables were published in this period.38 Interest
in Aesop’s fables stemmed from the Ottoman focus on educating readers.
The tremendous success of the translation of Fénelon’s novel Les Aventures
de Télémaque mentioned in Chapter 2 also related to the work’s didactic
33 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 2-4; Budak, Münif Pasha, 289, 362-368, 397; see
also: Okay, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yenileşme Döneminde Türk Edebiyatı.’
34 Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 25-27; Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 263-266,
270-273; Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 3.
35 Published in the 1860s under the title ‘History of Greek Philosophers’ in Mecmua-i Fünun,
volumes 13 to 45; see Strauss, ‘The Millets and the Ottoman Language,’ 217-219, 221; see also
Mermutlu, ‘Multi-Perception of the Enlightenment Thinking in Nineteenth-Century Turkey,’
177; and Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 8.
36 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 2-4.
37 Has-er, ‘Tanzimat Devrinde Latin ve Grek Antikitesi ile Ilgili Neşriyat,’ 100. This BA thesis
is authoritative on the subject and is often quoted by scholars such as Toker, ‘Türk Edebiyatinda
Nev Yunanilik’; Demirci, ‘Mitoloji ve Șiir’in Izinde Ahmet Midhat Efendi’nin Mitolojiye Dair
Görüşleri’; Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 2-4, 18; and Budak, Münif Pasha, 289,
362-368, 397.
38 Strauss, ‘Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th Centuries)?,’ 50.
qualities.39 The travels of Telemachus, son of Odysseus, were an education

literally, and required reading in Ottoman schools. 40
The first translation of Télémaque into Ottoman Turkish (1859, printed
in 1862) by the prominent statesman Grand Vizier Yusuf Kamil Pasha (1808-
1876), 41 was highly popular and influential among leading intellectuals. 42
Yusuf Kamil Pasha’s Inşa translation of Fénelon’s novel – an ornate poetic
prose style which dominated Ottoman literature at the time – was used in
high school to teach prose composition. 43
A second translation by another distinguished figure in the political
and cultural arena, Ahmed Vef ik Pasha (1823-1891), completed in 1869
and printed in 1880, was also popular and reprinted more than once. 44 In
contrast to the ornate prose style of the previous translation, this version of
Télémaque was characterized by its stylistic simplicity. The author believed
he had produced ‘a literal and accurate’ work in which ‘every word would
produce pleasure.’45
Although Ancient philosophy played a major role in the Ottoman cultural
world, Greek poetry and mythology were largely neglected. Apart from
a few transpositions and adaptations into popular legend, Greco-Latin
literature had no direct influence on Islamic or Turkish literature. 46 When
Yusuf Kamil Pasha’s Terceme-i Telemak appeared, it sparked a lively interest
in Ancient Greek poetry and mythology which triggered translations of
works on Ancient history into Ottoman Turkish. 47
Two other pioneering works also appeared in 1859: Terceme-i Manzume
(Translations of verse), a selection of French poetry – La Fontaine, Lamar-
tine, Gilbert and Racine – by the prominent intellectual Ibrahim Şinasi,
and the famous Muhaverat-i Hikemiye (Philosophical dialogues) by Münif
39 This work is considered to be the first translation from Western literature. Strauss notes,
however, that the first Ottoman-Turkish translations of Western literature appeared in the 1830s
in Egypt: Strauss, ‘Turkish Translations from Mehmed Ali’s Egypt.’
40 Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 177-179; Şemseddin Sami’s translation of Daniel Defoe’s
Robinson Crusoe (often called the first modern English novel) in 1886 was also used in Ottoman
schools; Strauss, ‘Who Read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th Centuries)?,’ 50.
41 Kamil, Tercüme-i Telemak. For biographical information, see: Inal, Osmanlı Devrinde Son
Sadrazamlar.
42 Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought, 241-245. See also Chapter 2, above.
43 Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 177; Paker, ‘Turkey,’ 21.
44 Akun, ‘Ahmed Vefik Paşa,’ 154-155; Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 178.
45 Paker, ‘Turkey,’ 21-23.
46 Tanpınar, Yahya Kemal, 119.
47 Toker, ‘Türk Edebiyatinda Nev Yunanilik’; See also Meriç, Bu Ülke, 115; Tanpınar, XIX. Asır
Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 38-40; Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 1-3.
Paşa. These three volumes – strongly influenced by French literature – had a

tremendous impact. They introduced new literary genres and set the tone for
years to come with forms and ideas that shaped modern Turkish literature.
Most of all, they ‘marked the awakening of interest in European classics.’48
Knowledge of Greek Antiquity gradually increased and Classical authors
became a point of reference in Ottoman literature. Classical authors came
to influence and shape the ideas of the intelligentsia of the late Ottoman
Empire. 49
As Western philosophy and Greek Classical works penetrated Ottoman
literature, it might be true, as Mehmet Can Doğan remarks, that it was
an interest in philosophy that directed and stimulated the attention of
Ottoman intellectuals towards the Iliad and the Odyssey.50 Indeed, literary
innovations and new perceptions of the Ancient world created a climate
in which Classical poetry and mythology could enter Ottoman literature.
At the same time, Greek mythology also emerged as a major inspiration in
Ottoman painting and sculpture.51
3 Mythology and Homer: Ottoman Reticence
According to Ancient tradition, the real originator of the Trojan War was the son
of Priam, the king of the aforementioned city. When Paris was born, priests pre-
dicted that he would cause the downfall of his own country, whereupon Priam
sent his own child to the mountains and left him with herdsmen. Paris grew up
with the herdsmen in the mountains and became an excellent, brave man.
Zeus or Jupiter,52 who according to Greek mythology was the ruler of the cosmos
and the father of gods, goddesses and men, hosted a banquet one day and in-
vited all gods and goddesses, except Eris, the goddess of strife. While the guests
were enjoying themselves Eris came to the window, threw an apple into their
midst, saying ‘for the most beautiful goddess.’ Because of this very apple of dis-
cord, which has been a saying ever since that time, the goddesses Hera, the wife
48 Baker and Saldanha, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 556.

49 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 23.
50 Doğan, ‘Modern Türk Şiirinde Mitolojiye Bağlı Kaynaklanma Sorunu,’ 124.
51 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 2-4; Budak, Münif Pasha, 289, 362-368, 397; see
also: Okay, ‘Osmanlı Devleti’nin Yenileşme Döneminde Türk Edebiyatı’; Ortaylı, Imparatorluğun
En Uzun Yüzyılı, 244-254; Tanpınar, Edebiyat Dersleri, 59.
52 The use of the Roman names of mythological figures was more common in the Ottoman
Empire, probably because of a better match with the Ottoman language, but also because of
their popularity in Europe. See: Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 62.
and sister of Zeus, Aphrodite, the goddess of love and affection, and Athena, the
goddess of wisdom and intelligence, started to quarrel.
In order to settle their dispute, Zeus gave the apple to his helper, the god named
Hermes, and sent him with the three goddesses to Paris. Following the order he
received, Hermes handed the apple to Paris; Athena promised Paris intelligence
and wisdom, Hera property and treasures, Aphrodite offered the most beautiful
woman in the world. Preferring and accepting Aphrodite’s offer, Paris handed
the apple to her. Because of this, Hera and Athena adopted the Greeks during
the Trojan War, and Aphrodite the Trojans.
After a while Paris visited Menelaus, the king of Mycenae,53 and was treated with
the utmost respect and veneration in his palace. Menelaus’ wife, named Helen,
famous for her beauty and refinement, yielded to Aphrodite’s temptations and
used the facilities she offered to elope with Paris. And so, Aphrodite fulfilled her
promise and the prophecy of the priests came true. Paris’ betrayal of the respect-
ful treatment and veneration increased the chill existing of old between the
Greeks and the Trojans and led to a war.
In his preface to the Iliad Fraşeri summarizes the mythological characters

and events that led to the outbreak of the Trojan War. This account is rather
unique, since Greek mythology, with its gods and goddesses, demigods
and supernatural heroes, played no particular role in the usual interests
of Ottoman intellectuals. Not that Turks were unfamiliar with epic narra-
tives; indeed heroic epics are perhaps the oldest genre in Turkish literature.
However, apart from exceptions such as Katip Çelebi’s Tarih-i Frengi, a
seventeenth-century translation of the Chronique de Jean Carrion (Paris,
1548),54 Greek and Roman mythology was unknown in Ottoman literature
until the second half of the nineteenth century.55 And this happened mainly
through European literature inspired by the art and culture of Ancient
Rome and Greece.
Educated Europeans had a special affection for Greece. Intellec-
tual progress and the emergence of cultural nationalism, as well as the
habit of seeing history as a linear advance of civilization and a superior
European culture, all contributed towards the adulation of Homer in the
nineteenth century. Schliemann’s excavations at Hisarlık, his discoveries
53 The author confuses Sparta with Mycenae.

54 Tökel, Divan Şiirinde Mitolojik Unsurlar.
55 Gökçe, ‘Yunan Mitolojisi ve Türk Islam Kültürü.’
and subsequent archaeological research made the Homeric world tangible

and enabled this appropriation of Homer.
Homer became a source of both moral and political inspiration. Moreover,
the rise of atheism and the scientific study of the Bible created a climate in
which Homer and the Bible were seen in a common historical perspective.
Greek Classical literature became a standard ingredient in European school
programmes in the nineteenth century, with Homer as a fixed element in
European education.56
Mythology, Islam and Eastern Literary Traditions

The principal reason why Ottoman intellectuals treated Homer’s pagan gods
with circumspection – even in the enlightened late-nineteenth century – is
closely connected with religion. Ottoman principles were incompatible
with polytheism. Indeed, the long neglect of Greek literature, in contrast
to Ancient philosophy, was essentially because Ancient mythology and
Islam did not mix.57
Although there clearly was an interest in Homer and Homeric literature
in the late nineteenth century, the number of Ottoman translations came
to no more than a few attempts; no complete Turkish version of Homeric
literature was produced in the Ottoman Empire. The discrepancy between
Ancient mythology and Ottoman religious scruple made Muslim intellectu-
als in the late Ottoman Empire cautious and hesitant to use mythology as
a source.
The Ottoman Muslim world’s intellectual dilemma, the contradiction
between mythology and the religious truth of Islam, is similar to the clash of
Homeric polytheism and Christianity in the first centuries of the Christian
era. For many years Christian scholars tried to reconcile Homer’s pagan
literature with the religious truth of the Gospel and attempted to emulate
Homer in their religion. As Manguel explains, ‘For Christianity, the reading
of the Ancient authors lent the new faith a prehistory and universality. For
the Ancient world, it meant continuity and transmission of intellectual
experience.’58
Şemseddin Sami’s search for an Ottoman equivalent for the term mythol-
ogy is symbolic of the way in which the Ottomans approached this conflict.
Şemseddin Sami was one of the first intellectuals to discuss mythology. In
his work Esatir (1878), he explained that there is no equivalent for the word
56 Den Boer, ‘Homer in Modern Europe,’ in European Review.

57 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikesi, 195; Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 266.
58 On Homer and the Christian world, see: Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 60-68, 67.
mythology in Eastern languages. Taking the term esatirü’l-evvelin (tales

of men of Ancient times) found in the verses of the Koran, he decided to
use esatir. He emphasized the importance of knowing mythology, namely
as a key to understanding Greek and Roman works and to comprehend-
ing Arabic scholarship.59 In effect, as Kreiser points out, esatirü’l-evvelin
represented a condemned tradition at odds with the words of the prophet
Mohammed.60
Sami’s search for an acceptable term for mythology, his hesitant, circum-
spect explanations and his cautious terminology reveal the unease felt with
the unconventional place mythology occupied in Ottoman intellectual life.61
Without any previous literature about the pagan gods to rely on, Fraşeri
had no works by predecessors on which to build. He commented on this
neglect of Homer in the Islamic world. He noted that Muslims had their
own Homer and Virgil, namely Iran’s Firdevsi and Nizami: ‘During the
civilization of the Arabs, the Islamic community adopted some scientific
writings from the Greeks, yet they did not favour Greek literature. This is
why Islamic poets formed a separate caravan, in which the poets of Iran
obtained a superior position.’62
There is a sharp distinction between Western and Ottoman Muslim
or Eastern literary tradition. Tanpınar drew attention to the difference
by comparing the two major epics: the Iliad and Firdevsi’s Şehname. He
explained that the composition of the Şehname is comparable to the mural
reliefs at the Palace of Sargon II and Trajan’s column, while the Iliad is
comparable to Classical Greek sculpture. As Tanpınar noted, ‘in the Iliad,
the whole Greek world, including the cosmos, the gods, the lives, the works
and arts of the Greeks and Greek civilization are gathered in the narrative
of one event. The story of the Iliad is an entity; details are disregarded or
ingeniously integrated in the whole. The Şehname, on the other hand, is a
rectilinear narrative that treats every detail with the same precision.’63 This
difference between the Western and Eastern traditions of composition was
59 Batuk, Şemseddin Sami, preface, in particular, 22-24. On the reception of mythology and
Ahmet Midhat Efendi’s efforts, see: Demirci, ‘Mitoloji ve Şiir’in Izinde Ahmet Midhat Efendi’nin
Mitolojiye Dair Görüşleri,’ 104-106.
61 Along with Şemseddin Sami and Ahmet Midhat Efendi, more and more Ottoman intellectu-
als of the era started to defend the importance of mythology. Literary works with mythological
topics became increasingly noticeable; see Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen,’ 286; and
Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 103-112.
62 Fraşeri, Ilyada, 13.
63 Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 41.
an additional obstacle to the introduction of Homeric epics in Ottoman

literature.
Yet the way Homer was perceived in modern Europe also differed in
particular national and cultural environments. As historian Pim den Boer
has stated, ‘political groups and cultural affinities in national traditions’ lay
at the root of these different approaches. He notes that while Plato played a
key role for the German ‘Bildungsbürger,’ while British Utilitarians, Social
Darwinists and Late Victorians and Edwardians nurtured Homeric ideals.
In France, on the other hand, Homer was never a core source of identifica-
tion. Associated with a bygone aristocratic society, Homer was not adored in
France as he was in Britain or Germany. While Greek was taught in French
schools, it did not have the same status as it had in Germany or Britain.64
Since the French education system, French culture and literature were
the dominant influence in the Ottoman Empire, presumably the Ottomans
saw Homer from the French perspective, in which the identification with
Homeric heroes was far less intense.
Another issue relates to the unsuitability of the Aruz metre of traditional
Ottoman Divan poetry to the structure of Western poetry.65 Ottoman authors
faced serious linguistic problems when translating verse into Aruz or syl-
labic verse.66 That explains why the attempts to translate the Iliad in the
Ottoman era were in prose. Hilmi justified his use of prose by noting: ‘A
translation in verse would corrupt the poetical quality of the story.’67
For all the linguistic and literary pitfalls and struggles, the reluctance
to discuss mythology seems to have been the main reason why it took so
long before Homer’s epics were translated. When Selanikli Hilmi made
his translation of the first book of Homer’s Iliad almost ten years later, he
was even more circumspect with mythological figures and events. Indeed,
he avoided the word ‘mythology’ completely in the introduction to his
translation. Moreover, he clearly worried about possible criticism of his
work. While he emphasized the tremendous value of Homer and the Iliad,
he did not feel confident about the reception his work would receive.68 At
the same time, as Kreiser points out, we must bear in mind that this work
64 Den Boer, ‘Homer in Modern Europe,’ in European Review, 179.

65 Aruz is the primary prosodic metre used in Divan literature.
66 The difficulty of translating verse into Aruz was much discussed. Gradually a consensus
was reached: it was better to render narrative and dramatic verse in prose; in Paker, ‘Turkey,’
20, 28. See also: Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 49. On the complexities of Aruz,
see also: Fraşeri, Ilyada, 10-12.
67 Hilmi, Ilyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros.
was published shortly after the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897.69 His hesitation
may also have related to the current climate.70
Although both were ambitious and enthusiastic at the start, neither
Fraşeri nor Selanikli Hilmi finished their work.71 They were in uncharted
territory. As pioneers they doubtless experienced all the complexities
involved. While Fraşeri chose to fill the gap and introduced, discussed
and explained the gods, their actions and characteristics and their role in
Homeric literature, Hilmi decided either to ignore them or to treat them
as real figures.
His translation includes many inaccuracies. Besides ignoring the role of
Aphrodite and many other gods and goddesses, he often confused the names
of Homer’s heroes. Furthermore, he placed Troy in the province of Izmir and
stated that Paris stayed at Agamemnon’s palace rather than with Menelaus.
In addition to his reluctance to deal with mythology, it was perhaps his
awareness of his own shortcomings that led him to take an apologetic tone:
‘I, a humble translator, had a strong desire to translate this story. […] Hey,
it is no shame!’72
4 Homer and Troy in Ottoman Essays, Books, Plays and the

First Translations (1884-1908)
The highly valued poet […] expressed his people’s sincerity and etiquette,
customs and morality, all conditions and behaviours of men and women, of the
rich and the poor. Taking an impartial look at Homer, we can say that Homer is a
poet, a chronicler, a philosopher, a geographer, […] a satirist.
Kevkebü’l Ulum, 1, 16/R/1302 (3 January 1885), translated from Ottoman Turkish
With its heroic narration of ten years of siege and dispute, and the full explana-
tion of situations connected with them, the Iliad is a most sublime and excellent
product of poetical imagination, well-arranged and decorated. The Iliad is a
reflection of a manifest patriotism and defence of honesty.
69 For a recent study in the Greco-Ottoman War of 1897, see Ekinci, The Origins of the 1897
Ottoman-Greek War.
71 Fraşeri completed an Albanian version of the Iliad in 1896: Iliadh’e Omirit (Bucharest, 1896).
Na’im Fraşeri (1846-1900) was born to an Albanian Muslim landowning

family from Frasher in southern Albania.73 Like other children of affluent
Muslim families of the region, Fraşeri went to the famous Greek Gymna-
sium, Zossimea, in Ioannina, now in Greece. There he learned Ancient and
Modern Greek, French and Italian. At home he spoke Albanian and Turkish
and in addition he learned Arabic and Persian through private lessons.
After graduating he moved to Istanbul and rose to a prominent position
in the Ottoman bureaucracy. He served as a member and chairman of the
Committee of Inspection and Examination (Encümeni Teftiş ve Muayene)
under the Ministry of Public Instruction. The committee was responsible for
censoring books and magazines before printing.74 He died and was buried
in Istanbul in 1900.75
In the fifteen-page preface to his 43-page prose translation Na’im Fraşeri
highlighted his own pioneering role. He was the first to translate the Iliad,
explaining that there had as yet been no Ottoman Turkish translation of
either the Iliad or the Odyssey.76 However, the former minister of education
and leading proponent of Turkey’s humanist politics in the 1930s and 1940s
Hasan Ali Yücel77 argued later that it was the Ottoman diplomat Sadullah
73 Na’im Fraşeri and his brothers Şemseddin Sami (1850-1904) and Abdil Fraşeri (1839-1892)
were all Ottoman bureaucrats and members of the intellectual scene of the period. The Albanian
Muslim community of the Joannina region were strongly committed to the multicultural Ot-
toman Empire, and at the same time they felt a patriotic devotion to Albania. Istanbul was
the influential metropolitan cultural centre for Albanian leaders in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century. The dual loyalty of Albanians was not exceptional ‘in the multinational
Ottoman Empire with its multiple layers of self-consciousness, identity and loyalty’ at the turn
of the century. The nationalist policies introduced by the Young Turks in 1909 led to revolts and
finally the declaration of the Albanian independence in 1912. See: Gawrych, ‘Tolerant Dimensions
of Cultural Pluralism in the Ottoman Empire,’ 519, 521; and Trix, ‘The Stamboul Alphabet of
Shemseddin Sami Bey,’ 264, 269.
74 A selection of publications by Na’im Fraşeri: Kavaidi Farisiyye ber tarzi nevin [Grammar of the
Persian language according to the new method] (Istanbul, 1871), Ihtiraat ve kesfiyyat [Inventions
and discoveries] (Istanbul, 1881), Tahayyülat [Dreams] (Istanbul, 1884), O eros [Love] (Istanbul,
1895), and Istori e Shqipërisë [History of Albania] (Sofia, 1899). On Na’im Fraşeri’s Turkish and
Persian publications, see: Kaleshi, ‘Veprat turqisht de persisht te Naim Frashere.’
75 For biographical information on Na’im Fraşeri, see: Tahir, Osmanlı Müellifleri, 469. Bursalı
Mehmed Tahir claims that Naim Fraşeri died in 1896. See also: Levend, Şemsettin Sami, 46; and
Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatinda Yunan Antikitesi, 229-231.
77 During Hasan Ali Yücel’s ministry (1938-1946), ‘Turkish Humanism’ was the formal
cultural policy; see: Karacasu, ‘“Mavi Kemalizm” Türk Hümanizmi ve Anadoluculuk’; and
Koçak ‘1920’lerden 1970’lere Kültür Politikaları.’ On ‘Turkish Humanism’; see: Sinanoğlu, Türk
Humanizmi. See also speeches and statements by Hasan Ali Yücel: Milli Eğitimle ilgili Söylev ve
Demeçler.
Pasha (1839-1890) who actually deserved to be called the first translator

of the Iliad into Turkish. Sadullah Pasha translated ten couplets into two
rhyming verses and a section in prose. Yücel cited the ten couplets in his Ede-
biyat Tarihimizden (From the history of our literature).78 However, Sadullah
Pasha’s translation had never been published, which makes a final statement
on the matter impossible. As Klaus Kreiser rightly argues, Na’im Fraşeri’s
printed work should be regarded as the first translation of Homer’s Iliad.79
An article published on 2 February 1885 supports Kreiser’s conclusion.
The anonymous author hoped that soon the Iliad and the Odyssey ‘will be
translated into Turkish, so that we will not have to go without Homer’s work
any longer.’ Before this first translation of the Iliad appeared, Ottoman-
Turkish readers might broaden their knowledge of Homer through articles
in periodicals. Between December 1884 and March 1885, for instance, three
extensive articles appeared in the periodical Kevkebü’l Ulum, including a
biography of Homer, an introduction to his poems and a summary of the
books of the Iliad (Fig. 32).80
Almost a decade earlier a play inspired by the Odyssey had been pro-
duced by Ali Haydar (1836-1914). The verse comedy Rüya Oyunu, published
in 1876/1877, was about a dream of Bey (Lord) of the nymph Calypso.
While Bey believed himself to be in love with Calypso, the nymph was
infatuated with Odysseus and waiting for his return. She told Bey that
Odysseus had sailed away with Mentes and Telemachus. Although she
could have stopped Odysseus, her love had prevented her. At the end
of the play, Bey wakes up and writes down his dream to send it to an
interpreter. 81
Gradually Homer became a key point of reference in Ottoman literature.
Ahmet Midhat Efendi, for instance, discussed Homer and his epics in his
analysis of the birth of the novel in his work Ahbar-i Asara Tamim-i Enzar
(Literary works: An overview, 1890).82 Discussing Herodotus’ historiography,
he described the transformation of ideas in Ancient Greece between the
period of Homer and Herodotus, making an interesting connection between
78 Yücel, Edebiyat Tarihimizden, 297.

79 Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen.’
80 Kevkebü’l Ulum, 01/Ra/1302 (19 December 1884), 59-65; 16/Ra/1302 (3 January 1885), 93-97
and 16/R/1302 (2 February 1885), 159-161.
81 Haydar, Ruya Oyunu. See also: Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 205.
82 Mithat, Ahbar-ı Âsara Tamim- Enzar (1307-1890), 28-40; Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan
Antikitesi, 134-136. Ahbar-i Asara Tamim-i Enzar (1890) is considered the first Turkish academic
work on the history of the novel. On Ahmet Midhat Efendi, see also: Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk
Edebiyatı Tarihi, 400-449.
Ancient Greek literary developments and contemporary Ottoman liter-

ary issues. In the period between Homer and Herodotus, Midhat Efendi
explained, ‘the ideas and perspectives of the Greeks’ gradually changed, and
in the end ‘gods and goddesses, half heavenly and half earthly heroes’ went
‘out of fashion.’ The followers of Homer and Hesiod, moreover, were mere
imitators and never able to reach the level of their masters. Herodotus, on
the other hand, represented new ideas and perspectives.83
In ‘Mitoloji ve Şiir’ (Mythology and poetry), an essay published in 1890
in Tercüman-ı Hakikat, Ahmet Midhat Efendi returned to the subject of
mythology and the role of Homer. He argued that mythological figures had
once been real people, but had been absorbed into fiction through the work
of Homer and his followers.84
In 1881, in the introductory remarks to one of his plays, Namık Kemal
(1840-1888), a leading figure in New Ottoman Literature who lived in Gal-
lipoli (Dardanelles) during a period of exile in 1872, emphasized the strong
influence of Homeric poems on Greek tragedy and the sculptures of the
great Phidias.85
Homer and the Iliad also received attention in a treatise on Troy published
in the third volume of Kamus ül-Alâm (Dictionary of universal history and
geography, 1891), written by Na’im Fraşeri’s brother Şemseddin Sami Fraşeri
(1850-1904).86 Published between 1889 and 1899, this massive six-volume
encyclopaedia dealing with important Ottoman and Islamic themes,
83 Mithat, Ahbar-ı Âsara Tamim- Enzar (1307-1890), 36-38; Yüksel. Türk Edebiyatında Yunan
Antikitesi, 38-40. Ahmet Midhat Efendi translated a part of Herodotus’ Histories as well; see:
Şerif, ‘Tanzimattan Sonraki Tercüme Faaliyetleri,’ 291. On innovations in Ottoman Poetry, see:
Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 19-49, 233-257, 334-343, 430-438, 463-503, 535-541;
Enginün, Yeni Türk Edebiyatı, 449-643; on mythology, mythological names and archetypes in
Ottoman literature, see: Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 165-209.
84 Midhat Efendi, ‘Mitoloji ve Şiir.’ For an analysis of Ahmet Midhat Efendi’s thoughts on
mythology, see: Demirci, ‘Mitoloji ve Şiir’in izinde Ahmet Midhat Efendi’nin Mitolojiye dair
Gorüsleri,’ 103-121.
85 Kreiser, ‘Troia und die Homerischen Epen,’ 284; the introductory remarks appear in Namık
Kemal’s Mukaddeme-i Celal (Istanbul, 1888); See also: Kaplan, Enginün and Emin, Yeni Türk
Edebiyatı Antolojisi, 356. For biographical notes on Namık Kemal and his literary production
and ideas, see: Tanpınar, XIX. Asır Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi, 312-400; on Greek tragedy in Ottoman
literature, see: Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 137-166.
86 Sami, Kamus-ül Alâm. In the second half of the twentieth century the Albanian government
claimed the remains of the Fraşeri brothers, who had all died in Istanbul. The Turkish govern-
ment refused to send the remains of Şemseddin Sami, because of his quintessential role in the
Turkish language and culture, yet concerning Na’im and Abdil Fraşeri the Turks came round
in the end and sent their remains to Albania. See Trix, ‘The Stamboul Alphabet of Shemseddin
Sami Bey,’ 269.
personalities and countries as well as Western history and geography is a

work of an exceptional calibre. As the author explained in his introduction,
an encyclopaedia on current world history and geography was much needed
in the Empire, since these disciplines were essential for the development
of civilization. Rather than translate a Western encyclopaedia into Otto-
man Turkish, since Western encyclopaedias focused on European issues
and would therefore be incomplete, Kamus ül-Alâm brought Western and
Eastern history and geography together.87
The article on Troy outlined contemporary knowledge of Troy in the
Ottoman Empire (Fig. 4), giving a history of Troy, a chronological list of
Trojan rulers, the Trojan War, and archaeological developments in the
region. Emphasis was placed on the location of the site being on Ottoman
soil, mentioning both Greek and Ottoman designations: ‘Truva or Troya,
situated in the north-western part of Asia Minor, nowadays within the
Province of Biga’; ‘at the western foot of Mount Ida (that is to say Kaz) and
along the river Xanti88 (that is to say Menderes).’89
A second translation by Selanikli Hilmi of the f irst song of the Iliad
from the Greek into Ottoman Turkish appeared in 1898 or 1899: Ilyas
yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros (The Iliad of the celebrated poet Homer).90
While little is known about the author, the title page states that he was
a member of the Committee of Inspection and Examination (Encümeni
Teftiş ve Muayene), and so an Ottoman bureaucrat like Na’im Fraşeri.
Hilmi’s 61-page translation includes a f ifteen-page introduction and
the f irst book of the Iliad in two chapters: the f irst chapter (26 pages)
is called ‘Wrath! Violence!’ and the second chapter (20 pages) is called
‘Departure!’91 Compared to Fraşeri’s translation Hilmi’s work is unorna-
mental, plain and almost completely stripped of the original epithets
describing the Homeric f igures. As a result, Hilmi’s own interpretation
dominates; by contrast, Fraşeri was more successful in relating the
original story.92
87 Sami, Kamus ül-Alâm, 14-16; Gawrych, ‘Tolerant Dimensions of Cultural Pluralism in the
Ottoman Empire.’
88 According to Homer, Scamander was called Xanthus by the gods and Scamander by men.
The inhabitants of Xanthus in Asia were called Xanthi, in Lemprière, Bibliotheca Classica, 1533,
and in De Roy van Zuydewijn, Homerus Ilias, 77, 423.
89 Sami, Kamus-ül Alâm, 1647.
91 Hilmi, Ilyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros, 1, 27.
92 Text analysis is not the purpose of this survey; the main focus is to trace, select and interpret
significant information concerning the reception of Homer in, for instance, literary texts.
Despite the limitations of Hilmi’s translation,93 the work made an impact

in literary circles. The leading intellectual of the time, Yahya Kemal Beyatlı,
who initiated the neo-Hellenist movement in the early twentieth century
together with his contemporary Yakub Kadri Karaosmanoğlu,94 expressed
his high regard for Selanikli Hilmi’s translation, noting that he had been
‘tremendously touched’ by the work. He had assumed that ‘a Greek had
produced the translation,’ but ‘after a long time […] I understood that what
I had been reading at that time was an incomplete Turkish translation of
Homer’s Iliad.’95
5 Admiration for the ‘Lord of Poets’
The aforementioned writer [Homer] and the great works the Iliad and the Odys-
sey are most repeatedly recited by respectful learned literary figures. This is why
Homer is correctly remembered by his byname the Lord of Poets.
Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 01/Ra/1302 (19 December 1884), translated from Ottoman Turkish
Ottoman intellectuals evidently recognized the importance of Homer and

were above all aware of the extraordinary position of the Iliad and the
Odyssey in the history of literature. Fraşeri emphasized Homer’s exceptional
influence on later literary figures of various backgrounds in the preface to
his translation. He informed Ottoman-Turkish readers that Homer’s works
were a ‘breeding ground’ not only for Ancient Greeks, but for Romans and
subsequent European writers and poets as well. ‘Famous poets such as
Hesiod, Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles and the writer of comedies Aris-
tophanes were all guided by Homer and tragedians in particular quoted the
Iliad and the Odyssey intensively.’ Commenting on the Romans, he stated
that they ‘followed the Greeks in all fields, and therefore in literature as
well. […] Virgil deserves to be called the Homer of the Romans. His work the
Aeneid is like a continuation of the Iliad and the Odyssey.’ He drew attention
to literary figures such as ‘Horace, Tasso, Dante, Milton and the rest of old
93 Criticism of the title Ilias, veiled mythological figures, ignoring or confusing chief characters
such as Agamemnon and Menelaus, or incorrect topographic information such as situating
Troy in Izmir province instead of Biga. See Sevük, Avrupa Edebiyatı ve Biz, 65; and Yüksel, Türk
Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 55-72.
94 On the neo-Hellenist movement in the Ottoman Empire, see: Ayvazoğlu, Yahya Kemal;
Karaosmanoğlu, Gençlik ve Edebiyat Hatıraları; Tevfik, Esâtir-i Yunâniyan; Ayvazoğlu, ‘Neo-
Hellenism in Turkey.’
95 Beyatlı, Çocukluğum, 100; Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 55.
and new European poets forming a caravan by following the preceding.’

And, Fraşeri concluded, ‘the leader of the caravan is Homer.’96
Selanikli Hilmi’s account of how Homer was received is even more
sumptuous. He paid a glowing tribute to Homer as a poet ‘who nourished
the creation of art,’ praising the Iliad as a source of inspiration ‘for poets with
the most venerable minds.’ Emphasizing the respect of esteemed literary
figures for the Iliad, he quoted Shakespeare and Rousseau as well as noting
the tremendous appreciation Homer enjoyed among Ancient philosophers
such as Aristotle.97
Both Fraşeri and Selanikli Hilmi mention Alexander the Great’s high
regard for Homer. Legends about Alexander or Iskender are well-known in
the Muslim world;98 Alexander the Great was held high esteem in Ottoman
culture.99 Sultan Mehmed II’s identification with Alexander is a case in
point.100 In line with this appropriation of Alexander, Fraşeri underscored
that Alexander the Great was not a Greek, ‘but a foreigner’ to the Greeks.101
To show Alexander’s deep admiration for the Iliad, Hilmi refers to Plu-
tarch’s description of Alexander’s encounter with the Persian king Darius
III in his Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans.102 After defeating the
Persians, ‘Alexander was presented a valuable desk of Darius as a present of
the victory, to which, to mark his esteem, he uttered “I am even more happy
with this present than the victory, since I very much needed such a precious
attribute to store the book of the Iliad of the beloved poet Homer.”’103
Having discussed Alexander’s admiration for Homer at length, both
translators turned to The Adventures of Telemachus. This is hardly surpris-
ing given the story’s popularity among Ottoman Turks. Fraşeri pointed
out that ‘Fénelon’s book The Adventures of Telemachus is an addendum to
96 Fraşeri, Ilyada, 10-14.

98 For a comprehensive survey of views about Alexander the Great in the Islamic world, see:
Zuwiyya, Islamic Legends Concerning Alexander the Great.
99 The Iskendername (The book of Alexander) is one of the earliest surviving illustrated Ot-
toman manuscripts. Written by the poet Ahmedi in the fourteenth century, it tells about the
heroic deeds and conquests of Alexander the Great. The epic poem plays a key role in Turkish
culture. It also deals with geographical, theological, philosophical and historical matters and
forms an early source for Ottoman history; see Unver, Ahmedi-Iskendername; Sawyer, ‘Alexander,
History, and Piety’; and Akdoğan, Iskendername’den Seçmeler.
100 On Sultan Mehmed II’s identification with Alexander the Great, see: Babinger, Fatih Sultan
Mehmed ve Zamanı, 351-353; Janssens and Van Deun, ‘George Amiroutzes and his Poetical
Oeuvre’; Reinsch, Critobuli Imbriotae historiae; and Kritovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror.
102 Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans.
the Odyssey.’ Selanikli Hilmi praised Homer and suggested that Ottoman
Turkish readers compare ‘the celebrated story Telemachus of Fénelon with
the Iliad.’ Hilmi noted that ‘the comparison of these two works will give
one the opportunity to appoint the difference between fantasy and reality,’
since Telemachus is ‘regarded as poetical imagination’ and Homer ‘describes
an event by giving ethics, customs and beliefs a central position.’104
The relation between the Odyssey and The Adventures of Telemachus was
also remarked on in the periodical Kevkeb’ül Ulum. Readers were informed
that many of the episodes in the story of Telemachus had their origins in
‘the Odyssey, the story of Ulysses’ return journey to his home island.’
In addition to the two major Homeric works, other poems attributed
to Homer were also discussed: ‘According to Aristotle, Homer wrote other
poems as well. As a matter of fact, one of them was called Margites.’105 Fraşeri,
however, believed that Homer was much too brilliant to be the author of
other poems, such as The Battle of Frogs and Mice. ‘It is clear that,’ he states,
‘Homer who was used to invent and arrange important events, would never
deign to write about such inferior matters. Therefore, there is no question
about it that the aforementioned work is no more than an imitation.’
Fraşeri noted that ‘until now no other poet in the world had reached the
level of Homer. He will always be the father of the poetry and the leader of
the poets and the Iliad and the Odyssey will always be distinguished among
the rest of the verses.’106 And Kevkeb’ül Ulum commented: ‘No poet has ever
been able to match him.’107
Preference for the Iliad
Troy was situated near Çanakkale. Although in the past Troy and both its siege
and the war were considered to exist only in the imagination, the excavations in
the surroundings have confirmed and strengthened the contents of the Iliad.
Na’im Fraşeri, Ilyada. Eser-i Homer (Istanbul, 1303/1885-1886), preface, 7, translated
from Ottoman Turkish
The city of Troy or Ilion, with strong and solid city walls, strengthened with many
fortifications on the Asian shore [must be in the direction of the province of
104 Fraşeri, Ilyada, 12; Hilmi, İlyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros.
105 Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 16/R/1302 (2 February 1885). For other poems attributed to Homer, see:
Latacz, Homer, 15, and Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 24.
106 Fraşeri, Ilyada, 9, 13.
107 Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 16/R/1302 (2 February 1885).
Izmir. Although history has not yet settled this issue, the natural requirements of
the region have confirmed our idea].
Selanikli Hilmi, Ilyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros (Istanbul, 1316/1898-1899), introduc-
tion, zel, translated from Ottoman Turkish
The first Ottoman translations of Homeric literature concentrated on the

Iliad. The excavations in Troy and the public interest this generated encour-
aged this bias. Both Fraşeri and Hilmi drew attention to the geographical
location of Troy. Fraşeri also offered a brief account of the archaeological
research at the site. In the 1890s, newspapers and periodicals began to pay
increasing attention to the excavations at Troy, which ‘had become famous
thanks to Homer’s epic.’108
As articles published in Ikdam and Servet-i Fünun show, Ottoman readers
were well-informed about the excavations at Troy, not to mention issues
such as the scholarly debate about the correct site (Ballı Dağ or Hisarlık),
the prominent role of Frank Calvert and the latest archaeological research
and results. Besides informative texts, the press also reported on visitors to
the site and their background.109 This shows a close involvement with the
actual site of Troy, as discussed in the next chapter.
Besides a deep admiration for Homer and a preference for the Iliad,
literary texts also provided biographical notes on Homer. Here an explicit
connection was made between the celebrated poet and the city of Izmir.
6 Izmir (Smyrna): Homer’s Hometown
Like many famous figures of Antiquity, Homer, too, was an illegitimate child.
Because Cretheis, the daughter of Melanopus, gave birth to him on the banks
of the River Meles in the vicinity of Izmir, she named him Melesigenes, which
means ‘Child of the River Meles.’
Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 01/Ra/1302 (19 December 1884), translated from Ottoman Turkish
Although his nationality, his time and his life story are veiled in mystery and
ambiguity, there is a strong possibility that he was born ten centuries before
Christ and two centuries after the Trojan war. His birthplace is the city of Izmir,
his mother’s name is Cretheis and his father is unknown. He got his byname ‘Son
108 Ikdam, 19/Ș/1310 (8 March 1893).

109 Ikdam, 19/Ș/1310 (8 March 1893); Ikdam, 3 Kanun-i-evvel 1313 (15 December 1897); Servet-i
Fünun, 26, 25 Mart 1320 (7th April 1904).
of Meles’ because he was born on the banks of the River Meles, which at that
time ran near Izmir.
Where Homer was born has been much disputed. Seven cities claim to
be his place of birth: Smyrna, Chios, Colophon, Salamis, Rhodes, Argos
and Athens. Nineteenth-century scholarship favoured Smyrna as Homer’s
native city.110 The biographical information in Kevkeb’ül Ulum and Fraşeri’s
preface both emphasize this possibility by referring to the legend that
Homer’s name was Melesigenes. In fact, they seemed quite convinced that
‘their’ eminent city of Izmir was where Homer came into the world. In all
probability, the writers based their knowledge on previous biographies,
particularly the Life of Homer by Pseudo-Herodotus, which declares Smyrna
to be the birthplace of Homer and states that he was born 168 years after
the Trojan War.111
The biography of Homer in the Kevkeb’ül Ulum essay is quite detailed and
focuses particularly on geographical aspects. It is generally assumed that
Ottoman intellectuals were conversant with Classical Greek geography. In
their translations of Ancient texts and other literary works, they usually
marked the Classical sites within the Ottoman Empire.112
The author of the essay tells about Homer’s childhood, his teacher’s
prediction of a bright future, Mentes’ (chief of the Taphians in the Odyssey)
invitation to travel with him by sea, his long journeys and visits to various
places (locations in the Odyssey), how he researched as he travelled and
composed poems based on his observations, how he went blind at Colophon,
Mentor’s care for him and how he got the name Homer in Cyme. On this
point the author states that the blind Melesigenes went to Cyme to work as
a bard and soon became well-known in the city. The senate was advised to
take care of the blind poet, since his songs would bring great fame to the
city. Yet one of the senators objected and apparently said: ‘If we are going
to give every blind person we met a salary, soon we will carry a convoy of
the blind on our shoulders. […] From then on,’ the author resumes, ‘the
name Melesigenes disappeared and Homer, which means blind, replaced
110 Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die Ilias und Homer, 372. See also Latacz, Homer, 25-27.
111 In this biography of Homer many episodes and figures of the Odyssey are incorporated in
Homer’s life, see: Manguel, Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey, 29-32; and also Herodotus, Vie
d’Homère. For the various Homer Vitae see also: Latacz, Homer, 23-30.
112 Yüksel, Türk Edebiyatında Yunan Antikitesi, 40.
it. Subsequently, the blind poet cursed Cyme and left for Phocaea. There,
too, he was dogged by misfortune.’
The article goes on to discuss Homer’s struggle with Thestorides, who
recorded Homer’s poems in exchange for bed and board and left for Chios.
He persuaded people that the poems were his own and became famous on
the island. Homer followed the ‘thief’ to Chios, but Thestorides ‘ran off.’
Regarding Homer’s final years, the author remarks that he had a pleasant
life in Chios and that eventually he was much beloved everywhere in Greece.
Homer fell ill while at Ios, travelling from Samos to Athens, and finally
died.113
Fraşeri concentrated on the ‘Homeric question’ after an introduction
about Homer’s mother, his education and the composition of the Iliad and
the Odyssey. He reviewed the fierce debates of contemporary scholars
concerning Homer’s identity, which of the epics may have been composed
by Homer, and the historicity of the Iliad. Questions that occupied the
minds of Homeric scholars in the nineteenth century included: Who was
this influential poet Homer? Where did he come from? Was he alone? How
many poets where involved in creating the poems? Was the Iliad based on
a historical conflict, or was it only a product of the human imagination?114
Taking all views into consideration, Fraşeri concluded that Homer must
have been a real person, a single poet who composed the Iliad and the
Odyssey by himself. He emphasized that although ‘the life story and the
conditions of the poet of the Iliad and the Odyssey may be veiled, his exis
tence could never be denied.’ Fraşeri concluded in his introduction that ‘it
is not the name of Homer that gave the abovementioned famous works their
reputation and fame; quite the reverse, the works made the author famous.
Therefore, Homer is the Iliad and the Odyssey.’115
113 Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 01/Ra/1302 (19 December 1884).

114 For an overview of the results of Homeric scholarship in this time, see: Latacz, Homer,
particularly 23-30. On the historicity of Homer, Troy and the Trojan War see also: Latacz, Troy
and Homer; and Wood, In Search of the Trojan War. For a modern thesis that Homer never even
existed, see West, ‘The Invention of Homer.’
Figure 30 Homer’s Iliad from Mehmed II’s library
Source: Topkapı Sarayı Museum collection, Istanbul, GI2

Photo: Topkapı Sarayı Museum Istanbul, 2012
Figure 31 Selanikli Hilmi, Ilyas yahud şâir-i şehîr Omiros [The Iliad of the
celebrated poet Homer] (Istanbul, 1898 or 1899)
Source: Kelder, Uslu and Șerifoğlu, Troy: City, Homer and Turkey
Hilmi made the second Ottoman-Turkish translation of the first book of the Iliad. Little is
known about the translator; the frontispiece states that he was a civil servant at the Ministry
of Public Instruction. Hilmi’s translation runs to 61 pages and includes an introduction of
fifteen pages and the first book of the Iliad in two chapters.
Figure 32 Article in Kevkebü’l Ulum, including a biography of Homer, an

introduction to his works and a summary of the Iliad
Source: Kevkebü’l Ulum, 3 January 1885, p. 93, in Kelder, Uslu and Șerifoğlu, Troy: City, Homer and
Turkey
Before the publication of the first translation of the Iliad, Ottoman-Turkish readers could
learn about Homer from periodicals. Three extensive articles appeared between December
1884 and March 1885 in Kevkebü’l Ulum, including a biography of Homer, an introduction to
his works and a summary of the Iliad.
Figure 33 Article on Homer and the Iliad in the third volume of Kamus ül-Alâm
(1891)
Source: Kelder, Uslu and Șerifoğlu, Troy: City, Homer and Turkey
This six-volume encyclopaedia published between 1889 and 1899 is an exceptional work on
major Ottoman and Islamic themes, personalities and countries, as well as Western history
and geography. The essay on Troy provides a summary of contemporary knowledge of Troy
in the Ottoman Empire: a history of Troy, a chronological list of rulers, the Trojan War and
archaeological developments in the region. Special attention is paid to Troy’s location on
Ottoman soil.
Figure 34 Construction of the new building of the Imperial Museum (1891)
Source: Cezar, Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi

Homer and Troy in Muslim Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homer and Troy in Muslim Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homer and Troy in Muslim Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amsterdam University Press

Chapter Title: Homer and Troy in Ottoman Literature An Overview

Book Title: Homer, Troy and the Turks

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

As far as is known, no translation of the poems of Homer into Ottoman

1 The author uses both the Latin and Greek names.

1 Early Ottoman-Turkish Interest in the Homeric Epics

The seventeenth-century work was printed in Istanbul in 1732. It includes

Classical Philosophers in Ottoman Islamic Culture

10 Mustafa b. Abdullah, Kitab-ı Cihannüma li-Katib Çelebi (Konstantiniye 1145/1732), 667-669,

Classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were considered

The Search for Change in Ottoman Literature

of the Enlightenment and made modernization a state programme. These

2 New Ottoman Literature: Educating the Public and

explosion, strike and assassination were strictly forbidden.26 Instead, news-

Translations of French Neoclassical Works: New Perspectives on the

26 Iskit, Türkiye’de Matbuat Rejimleri, 65.

generally concentrated on the leading literary figures of the French neoclas-

qualities.39 The travels of Telemachus, son of Odysseus, were an education

Paşa. These three volumes – strongly influenced by French literature – had a

3 Mythology and Homer: Ottoman Reticence

48 Baker and Saldanha, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 556.

In his preface to the Iliad Fraşeri summarizes the mythological characters

53 The author confuses Sparta with Mycenae.

and subsequent archaeological research made the Homeric world tangible

Mythology, Islam and Eastern Literary Traditions

56 Den Boer, ‘Homer in Modern Europe,’ in European Review.

mythology in Eastern languages. Taking the term esatirü’l-evvelin (tales

an additional obstacle to the introduction of Homeric epics in Ottoman

64 Den Boer, ‘Homer in Modern Europe,’ in European Review, 179.

4 Homer and Troy in Ottoman Essays, Books, Plays and the

Na’im Fraşeri (1846-1900) was born to an Albanian Muslim landowning

Pasha (1839-1890) who actually deserved to be called the first translator

78 Yücel, Edebiyat Tarihimizden, 297.

Ancient Greek literary developments and contemporary Ottoman liter-

personalities and countries as well as Western history and geography is a

Despite the limitations of Hilmi’s translation,93 the work made an impact

5 Admiration for the ‘Lord of Poets’

Ottoman intellectuals evidently recognized the importance of Homer and

and new European poets forming a caravan by following the preceding.’

96 Fraşeri, Ilyada, 10-14.

Preference for the Iliad

The first Ottoman translations of Homeric literature concentrated on the

6 Izmir (Smyrna): Homer’s Hometown

108 Ikdam, 19/Ș/1310 (8 March 1893).

113 Kevkeb’ül Ulum, 01/Ra/1302 (19 December 1884).

Figure 30 Homer’s Iliad from Mehmed II’s library

Source: Topkapı Sarayı Museum collection, Istanbul, GI2

Figure 32 Article in Kevkebü’l Ulum, including a biography of Homer, an

Source: Cezar, Sanatta Batıya Açılış ve Osman Hamdi

You might also like

Figure 30 Homer’s Iliad from Mehmed II’s library

Figure 32 Article in Kevkebü’l Ulum, including a biography of Homer, an