1 .

  k o r r e k t u r

Philipp Ther (Hg.)

Kulturpolitik und Theater

Die kontinentalen Imperien in Europa im Vergleich

Oldenbourg · Böhlau · 2012

 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Philipp Ther
Einführung in die Kulturpolitik der kontinentalen Imperien . . . . . . . . . . 7

I. Anfänge und Grundlagen der Kulturpolitik

Franz Leander Fillafer

Imperium oder Kulturstaat  ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Elisabeth Großegger
Kulturpolitik und Theater in der Reichshauptstadt Wien.
Die frühe und die verspätete kulturpolitische Mission des k.k. Hofburg-
und Nationaltheaters.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Richard Wortman
Cultural Metamorphoses of Imperial Myth under Catherine the Great
and Nicholas I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Hartwin Spenkuch
Preußen als Kulturstaat – Begriff, realhistorische Ausprägung und
Akteure (1815–1914) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Adam Mestyan
Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire  ?
The Palace and the Public Theatres in 19th Century Istanbul. . . . . . . . 127

II. Fallstudien zur Kulturpolitik

András Gergely
Kulturpolitik und Nationsbildung in Ungarn unter besonderen
Berücksichtigung der Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

6 Inhaltsverzeichnis

Jutta Toelle
„Zielpunkt  : Austro-Italiens moralische Hegemonie“. Die Kulturpolitik
Erzherzog Ferdinand Maximilians und das Ende der habsburgischen
Herrschaft in Lombardo-Venetien, 1857–1859 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Jiří Štaif
Die drei Ebenen der Kulturpolitik der böhmischen Stände vor 1848  :
Theater, Museum und die Patriotisch-ökonomische Gesellschaft in Prag . 191

Isabel Röskau-Rydel
Staatliche Kulturpolitik und bürgerliches
Engagement im österreichischen Galizien von 1772 bis Mitte des
19. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

Ostap Sereda
Imperial cultural policy and provincial politics in the Russian
“South-Western province”  : The Kyiv City Theater, 1856–1866 . . . . . . 233

Birgit Kuch
Der Transfer imperialer Praktiken nach Georgien  :
Oper und Ethnografie in Tiflis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Alina Hinc
Die Kulturpolitik gegenüber dem deutschen
und dem polnischen Theater in Posen in den Jahren 1793–1918.. . . . . 265

Oksana Sarkisova
Soviet Cultural Policy in Musical Theatre and Cinema, 1917–1938. . . . 287

Autorinnen und Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Adam Mestyan

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire  ?

The Palace and the Public Theatres in 19th Century Istanbul

Cultural policy is a term associated with the emergence of centralized modern

nation states after WWI/WWII.1 Under this concept, we usually understand
conscious state decisions to maintain/control various cultural institutions. The
state regulates/finances religions, sustains arts (drama, classical music, fine arts,
literature), sport, natural and cultural heritage (museums, monuments, lieux
de memoir, parks), and sciences. A cultural policy may comprise education and
press/media regulations, too (although education is mostly treated as a separate
field). The reason for the state sponsorship is that most of these activities are held
to be markers of national identity and memory. Citizens in welfare states usually
demand culture as an exchange for their tax.
19th century polities handled these activities and institutions very differently
for several reasons. First, institutions of “art” and “culture” were in the making.2
Second, the modern state itself was also in the making, its exact responsibili-
ties and domains were continuously redefined. For instance, the first institution
that supposedly embodied a conscious state cultural policy, the Prussian “Min-
isterium der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten” of 1817
(“Kultusministerium”), regulated/supervised religious, educational and medical

1 I am grateful to Merih Erol for her comments on this text, for the precious help of Cafer
Sarıkaya and the questions I got from the participants of the conference “Kulturpolitik in Im-
perien,” 19–20 November 2010, University of Vienna. Mario D’Angelo and Paul Vespérini,
Cultural Policies in Europe  : A comparative approach, Strasbourg  : Council of Europe Publishing
1998, 25.
2 In a classic article Paul Kristaller argued that the modern concept of art and its system was
already crystallized in the 18th century. Paul Oskar Kristaller, The Modern System of Arts  : A
Study in the History of Aesthetics I, in  : Journal of the History of Ideas 12, 4 (1951)  : 496–527,
and The Modern System of Arts  : A Study in the History of Aesthetics II, Journal of the History
of Ideas, 13, 1 (1952), 17–46. However, the institutions of this system (academies, museums,
theatres, university faculties, etc) get their final form in the 19th century. This is the core of the
institutional theory of art  : George Dickie, Art Circle  : A Theory of Art, Chicago  : Spectrum Press
1997.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

128 Adam Mestyan

activities but “art” joined only later.3 Third, the nature of the 19th century im-
perial polity did not allow a strict separation between royal/imperial and state
patronage. Fourth, the elites of 19th century Europe developed various conceptual
vocabularies concerning art and culture – it is enough here to mention the famous
difference between German Kultur and French civilisation.4
Concerning the subject of this study, the late Ottoman Empire, we have to
consider at least four actors in the funding of the so-called cultural activities  :
private capital, Sultan’s patronage, ministerial funding, and municipalities.
Non-governmental bodies financed many “cultural” activities before the 19th
century.5 The Tanzīmāt (Reforms, “re-orderings”) challenged these traditions,
revitalised the Empire by strengthening the central control over the formation,
entertainments, and identities of the subjects.6 Some of the reforms followed
French ideas. In French, la civilisation was the keyword of 19th century politi-
cal discourses, both as a duty and as a justification of colonialism. “Civilisation”
contained all aspects of aesthetic or spiritual pleasures, too  : arts, education, and
of course, religion.
In Muslim discourses “civilisation” was formulated in a famous model of his-
torical change (Ibn Khaldūn, 14th century). However, in the 19th century, Ibn
Khaldūn’s remarkable theory was not applied in public argumentations about
reform. The Ottoman Turkish word for civilization, medenīyet (modern Turkish  :
uygarlık), and its adjective, mütemeddin (civilized), denoted a complex political
system, foremost  : knowledge. Furthermore, since the Arabic root of this word is
also the root of the word madīna (city) civilisation and urban development were
connected in Ottoman thought.7 Medenīyet was often used in Ottoman political

3 Preussen als Kulturstaat, Berlin  : Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften 2007,

6–7.
4 Philippe Bénéton, Histoire de mots  : culture et civilisation, Paris  : Presses de la Fondation nationale
des sciences politiques 1975, 54–56.
5 For instance, education was never a privilege or a duty of the Empire. The semi-private waqf
establishments (religious endowments) maintained religious education still in the 19th century.
Cf. the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), “waqf ”, by R. Peters and others. From this
schools came the bureaucrats also who served the imperial administration, partly even in the
first half of the 19th century.
6 Roderic H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton  : Princeton University Press
1963, 5–6.
7 Heidemarie Doganalp-Votzi and Claudia Römer, Herrschaft und Staat  : Politische Terminologie
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 129

texts, even in the Hatt (Imperial Edict) of 1856, or the Constitution of 1876.8
In intellectual debates, medenīyet was mixed with religious and racial dimensions,
like in 1878 an Ottoman deputy from Janina could argue that “just as we (the
Ottomans  ?) took civilization from the Greeks, Europe has taken it from us.”9
Political and legal reform, sciences, and modern technologies were considered
to be the conditions of modern civilization and guarantees of participation in the
international competition. Even an “Ottoman civilizing mission” policy could
be detected in Iraq and other provinces.10 Medenīyet could contain far more, like
towards the end of the century the memories of Abdülhamid II. testify that he
applied this word also to the traditional Muslim/Ottoman literature and art and
at least this Sultan thought that it should be used against imitating European style
arts.11
If we want to discover “policy” (siyaset) concerning “culture” (kültür) in
the late Ottoman Empire, we have to distinguish the Ottoman educational
policy with its ancient traditions – one of the main priorities and successful
initiatives of the Tanzīmāt and a quite well researched field12 – from the spon-

des Osmanischen Reiches Tanzimatzeit, Wien  : ÖAW, 2008, 225 and 227. Okay states that it is
the French concept of civilisation that the Ottomans translated, not, for example, the British
one. However, one needs further investigation since civilization was a long existing Arabic
concept (ʿumrān and tamaddun) famously used by Ibn Khaldūn, whose translation to Ottoman
Turkish must have preceded the European adaptations.
  8 Doganalp-Votzi and Römer, Herrschaft und Staat, 230.
  9 Hasan Kayalı, Arabs and Young Turks, Berkeley  : University of California Press 1997, 36. The
parenthesis with the question mark is from Kayali. I believe that the deputy meant Muslims.
10 Selim Deringil, ‘They live in a State of Nomadism and Savagery’ – The Late Ottoman Empire
and the Post-Colonial Debate, in  : Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (2003), 311–342.
11 Sultan Abdülhamit, Siyasī hatıratım, Istanbul  : Dergah Yayınları 1999, 143–144.
12 The basic Turkish work is Necdet Sakaoğlu, Osmanlı eğitim tarihi, Istanbul  : Iletişim Yayınları,
1993. Cf. Selçuk Akşin Somel, The Modernization of Public Education in the Ottoman Empire,
1839–1908 – Islamization, Autocracy and Discipline, Leiden  : Brill 2001, especially interesting
is the institutionalization  : 83–138. A good overview  : Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu, Ottoman Edu-
cational and Schoraly-Scientific Institutions, in  : Ekmeleddin Ihsanoğlu (Hg.), History of the
Ottoman State, Society, and Civilization, 2 vols., Istanbul  : IRCICA 2002, 2, 361–495. For the
specific problems with the reform of Ottoman education see Benjamin C. Fortna, The Impe-
rial Classroom  : Islam, the State, and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire, Oxford  : Oxford
University Press 2002, 1–42. Teyfur Erdoğdu’s articles discover the administrative formation of
the Maʿārif-I ʿUmūmiyye Nizāratı (Ministry of General Education) in the Ankara Üniversitesi
Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi (1996).
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

130 Adam Mestyan

sorship of artistic activities and imperial heritage. An early peculiar cultural/

educational institution was the Encümen-i Daniş (Council of Knowledge/Acad-
emy of Learning), established around 1851 and dissolved in a few years, aim-
ing at cultivating knowledge via preparing textbooks, translations, purifying
language, etc.13 This can be considered as a centralized but ephemeral body of
cultural policy.
If we restrict ourselves to art and heritage, we may find very different policies
towards, for instance, museums that were in the limelight of Ottoman official
initiatives, culminating in the famous Ottoman Imperial Museum (1869),14 and
theatres that were viewed quite differently – the Ottoman Empire finally did not
possess an imperial theatre or opera house.
This difference between museum and theatre is the consequence of particular
historical situations, various tastes, and imperial traditions. It would be a mis-
leadingly false supposition that Sultans did not favour theatres. On the contrary,
almost all the Sultans in the 19th century were ravish about theatres, especially
about music theatre. But – since “theatres transcend the distance between state
and public”15 – the Sultans, with the notable exception of Abdülmecid, did not
favour the public character of theatre. They had their private, palace scenes.
Yet, imperial representation was a natural preoccupation of Sultans and their
governments. Imperial symbols were shown externally with an aim to participate
in the international concert of the world powers, and internally to build loyalty of
the subjects towards the Empire and the Sultan. The identity politics of the late
Ottoman Empire is a topic investigated eminently by Selim Deringil and Hasan
Kayalı for the regime of Abdülhamid II.16 Earlier 19th century Sultans are, how-
ever, less explored for their symbolic politics because experiments and reforms
kept imperial vocabularies continuously changing.

13 Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2
vols., Cambridge  : Cambridge University Press 1977, 2,109–110.
14 Wendy M. K. Shaw, Possessors and Possessed – Museums, Archeology, and the Visualization of His-
tory in the Late Ottoman Empire, Berkeley  : University of California Press 2003, 84.
15 Philipp Ther, Call for the conference “Kulturpolitik in Imperien,” 19–20 November 2010,
University of Vienna, unpublished material.
16 Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains – Ideology and Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman
Empire, 1867–1909, London  : I.B. Tauris 1998, Especially see chapters 1 and 6.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 131

For instance, millet-i Osmanlı (Osmanlı milleti/millet Osmanīye), the Ottoman

“nation,” a master concept of an imperial nation,17 was in use even before the
1876 constitutional affirmation (cf. art. 8  : “all subjects of the Empire, without
distinction, are called Ottomans,” millet-i Osmanlı is not used in the text). This
term has a paradox history from around 1839, swaying between religious and
secular contents. Surely, the representational politics of Sultan Abdülhamid II and
his men preferred modernist religious symbols,18 but still, for them, the Ottoman
nation naturally mirrored one political community. Even such later nationalist as
Ziya Gökalp said in 1911 that “Osmanlılık (Ottomanism) is certainly a nation.”19
The public persona of the previous rulers (Mahmud II, Abdülmecid, Abdülaziz)
often was staged as a secular moderniser yet they also confirmed to their role of
caliphs although perhaps not as part of a conscious imperial ideology.
In connection with the conscious use of art in Ottoman politics, a number
of questions arise. What kinds of (European and non-European) art institutions
were financed by the Sultans of the 19th century  ? And what kinds of art institu-
tions did the Ottoman government in this period finance  ? That is, what were
those institutions of art that were components of the Ottoman administration  ?
And what was the relation between these institutions and Ottoman political ide-
ology or its self-understanding as a civilised, mütemeddin empire  ? Furthermore,
is there a difference between Istanbul and the provinces, between the provinces
themselves, or the rest of the Empire  ?
These questions cannot be answered here. Although a good number of studies
exist about the already cited museums and theatres, almost nothing is available
on the history of fine arts in the 19th century (including the modernist patron-
age of the traditional Muslim arts).20 Ultimately, some of these arts were used in
international fairs for the advertisement of the Ottoman Empire, like in 1893 in

17 For the concept of imperial nation see Alexey Miller, The Value and the Limits of A Compara-
tive Approach to the History of Contiguous Empires, in  : Imperiology  : From Empirical Knowl-
edge to Discussing the Russian Empire, Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University 2007. E-
book  : http  ://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no13_ses/contents.html, 22–23.
18 Ahmet Yaşar Ocak is quoted in Deringil, Well-Protected Domains, 67.
19 Ziya Gökalp is quoted in Ebru Boyar, Ottomans, Turks, and the Balkans – Empire lost, relations
altered, London, Tauris 2007, 54
20 With the exception of Wendy M.K. Show’s new book, Ottoman Painting – Reflections of Western
Art from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic, London, I. B. Tauris 2011.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

132 Adam Mestyan

Chicago. Even a theatre group was sent to the US to represent the Empire – but
this group was not invited from an autochthonous Istanbullu theatre but was
gathered from all the provinces.21
Here, I offer only an essay about the relations between official authorities (Sul-
tans, governments, ministries, municipalities) and theatres in Istanbul roughly
between the 1830s and 1890s. My intention is to discover, via the theatres, the
attitudes of the imperial authorities toward public art. Provincial developments
will be mentioned only in passim. On the other hand, I would like to emphasise
an often overlooked aspect and this is the “world around” the Sultans  : their
capital, Istanbul, Constantinople, or as it was called administratively, Dersaʿādet
ve Bilād-ı Selās (literally, “The Gate of Felicity and the Three Cities”). All 19th
century Sultans were occupied with what is going on in that conglomeration of
cities and villages that is called today Istanbul – in spite of the city governorate,
they also exercised their power directly.
There is an old dichotomy used by Turkish and non-Turkish scholars con-
cerning artistic activities in Istanbul which is based on a clear-cut distinction
between, on the one hand, the circles of the Sultan or the “Palace,” and on the
other, the “people” or the “city.” This dichotomy concerning music started to
be deconstructed in the 1990s,22 and I hope to contribute to this deconstruction
with an argument that actually until the 1870s the Palace, in many ways, was
entangled with the urban activities, thus parallel, sometimes mutually influential
processes can be observed. All the more, since the Tanzīmāt was run by a large
body of bureaucrats, with the rise of the Porte (the Grand Vizirate) with strong
leading personalities like Reşid Pasha or (Mehmed Emin) Ali Pasha, who acted
many times independently from the Sultan.23 These high statesmen were rather
interested in schooling and literature than in live performances, although, as we
will see, many of them certainly assisted to theatricals evenings.
I sketch three stages of the relations between palace theatricals and popular
entertainment in the 19th century in Istanbul. In the first part, I argue that we

21 Cf. Cafer Sarikaya, Celebrating Difference  : The ‘Turkish Theatre’ in  : The Chicago World’s
Columbian Exposition Of 1893, unpublished MA thesis, Bogazici University 2010, 69–70.
22 Perhaps the first traces  : Orhan Tekelioğlu, The Rise of a Spontaneous Synthesis  : The Historical
Background of Turkish Popular Music, Middle Eastern Studies 32, no. 2 (1996), 194–215.
23 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 35.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 133

can discover entangled relations between Palace and City concerning theatricals,
roughly during the rules of Sultans Abdülmecid (1839–1861) and Abdülaziz
(1861–1876) when theatres were considered important also for diplomatic rea-
sons. At this stage, cultural policy means imperial patronage and the first mu-
nicipal involvements. In the second part, I propose the idea of an “imperial thea-
tre from below” by local troupes who offered themselves as imperial ones in the
1870s, albeit unsuccessfully. Finally, the rule of Abdülhamid II (1876–1909)24
when some of the theatres were considered as dangerous corrupting instruments
but nonetheless, or exactly because of this understanding, theatrical activities got
the attention of policy-makers. This concern implied supervision, censorship, and
control, but also the funding, or at least, the maintenance of some theatres by mu-
nicipalities. We can also observe via this (constructed but perhaps useful) scheme
the changing distance (metaphorically and physically) between Palace and City,
or rather, palaces and cities.
Although one may believe that the above simplified chronology would suggest
too much influence of the Sultans on theatre activity, especially on Ottoman
Turkish theatre (which was indeed a movement from below), from an adminis-
trational point of view, in many cases the Sultans decided directly about issues of
theatre in Istanbul, or, at least, they were regarded as decision makers (the peti-
tions were written targeting them). This feature made possible a personal touch
of the given Sultan on the government–theatre relations which is comparable to
the princely infringement on theatre in central European states in the first half
of the 19th century. As we will see, between 1839 and 1890s, at least six projects
popped up to establish an Ottoman imperial theatre or opera house. At any rate,
two out of the six plans were connected with a Sultan but none were realized.
However, we can also discover the rise of municipalities as cultural brokers. Be-
tween these two (Sultan and municipality) we do not find any official body that
would have been responsible for art, although the imperial bureaucrats in many
ways participated (with translations, etc.) in theatrical activity.

24 The short months of Murad V in 1876 are not counted here.

1 .  k o r r e k t u r

134 Adam Mestyan

Entangled Performances  : the Palace and the City

Istanbul was never separated from European style entertainments, having an Ital-
ian and “Frankish” population in Pera/Beyoğlu which organized their carnevals,
balls, and theatrical events from the 16th century onwards. In the 18th century,
visiting Italian opera groups entertained the Palace, then in the early 19th century
various circus artists, singers, and musicians played for Sultan Mahmud II and
Abdülmecid. With the reform of the army (Nizām-ı Cedīd) the well-known Gui-
seppe Donizetti was invited to head the Imperial Music band and school (from
1828) and to teach the members of the imperial family European music.25
Young Sultan Abdülmecid (1839–1861) was passionate for European music
and theatre. In the last years of the rule of his father, Mahmud II (1808–1839),
Italian and Austrian/French circus artists established playhouses in Taksim (to-
day a centre of public transportation, then one of the outskirts of Pera/Beyoğlu,
an open field). Mahmud II himself loved theatrical plays  ; but privately theatres
might have been set up already during the 1820s and 1830s.26 In 1838, he per-
mitted Gaetano Mele, leader of an Italian artists company, to build a theatre, and
his son, Abdülmecid granted land to Mele at Taksim in 1840 to build an Opera
House. This theatre burned down in December 1841, just before the opening.27
The donation of land for an imperial Opera already indicates the tone of Abdül-
mecid’s rule that can be characterized by a rather fluid borderline between palace
and city (of course, only concerning theatrical matters). He is the first Sultan to
consider European style public spaces for imperial representation.
At the time when Mele’s imperial theatre burned down another, private, play-
house operated (from around the summer of 1840). It was on the land of an
Arab Christian, Michel Naum (Mikhāʾīl Naʿūm) that became the main scene in

25 Emre Aracı, Donizetti Paşa – Osmanlı Sarayının İtalyan Maestrosu, Istanbul  : Yapı Kredi 2006.
26 Metin And, Türkiyede Italyan Sahnesi, Italyan Filologi-Filologia Italiana, 1970, 127–142. Here  :
128. Aracı, Naum Tiyatrosu – 19. Yüzyil Istanbulu’nun Italyan Operası, Istanbul  : Yapı Kredi
Yayınları 2010, 53. See further details in my doctoral dissertation.
27 For the permission see, Journal de Smyrne (Commercial, Politique et Littéraire), 17 November
1838, 3. Cf. also Gaetano Mele’s letter written to Sultan Abdülmecid, dated 5 April 1857,
427/30 HR. TO. BOA and Revue et Gazette musicale de Paris, 2 January 1842, 8. Letter dated
15 December (1841).
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 135

Pera.28 This institution entertained a particular relation to Sultan Abdülmecid

who time to time donated money for the maintenance and used the theatre as
his unofficial opera house.29 The visiting companies of the Naum Theatre per-
formed often in front of the Sultan and his family (harem) during the Abdül-
mecid’s rule, like in 1851, when the Italian opera troupe played in a temporal
theatre “constructed in the internal garden of the harem.”30 The members of the
harem got a musical education, both Ottoman and European, thus by 1856, a
female company was formed.31 Abdülmecid, however, wanted his proper thea-
tre that was built indeed as an attachment to his new palace, Dolmabahçe, in
1858.
The short-lived Dolmabahçe Palace Theatre might be considered as a
Hoftheater. There were occasions when high personalities of the imperial admin-
istration were invited to watch performances like in April 1859 when the Sultan
ordered the troupe of the Naum Theatre to Dolmabahçe Palace, and all the
Ottoman ministers, including the Grand Vizier and the princes, assisted to the
performance.32 This year, a French article in the Francophone Istanbulite press

28 After the first studies of Refik Ahmet Sevengil Opera sanʿatı ile ilk temaslarımız, Istanbul  : Maa-
rif Basımevi 1959 and Metin And Tanzimat ve Istibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu, 1839–1908,
Ankara  : Türkiye Iş Bankası 1972, the most important monograph is Emre Aracı, Naum Tiya-
trosu. The theatre on the land of Michel Naum meant at least three buildings subsequently, the
final one being built in 1853. Cf. the three documents in 110/2563 I.MVL BOA, the first dated
20 Ṣafar 1263 (7 February 1847), the imperial irade dated 11 Muḥarram 1264 (19 December
1847). Note also the quarrel between Smith, the architect of the Naum Theatre, and Antoine
Alléon, a private banker. In this quarrel the Sublime Porte (and its Nizāret Hāriciye) and the
French Embassy were also involved, the date of the irade of the Meclis-i Vālā is 23 Rajab 1268
(13 May 1852) in 228/7845 I.MVL BOA. Cf. also letter dated 22 March 1853 from the French
Embassy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Sublime Port, unsigned, 194/52 HR.TO
BOA. However, it seems that in 1846 the famous Fosseti brothers also designed a theatre for
Naum. Gertraud Heinrich, Die Fossati-Entwürfe zu Theaterbauten – Materialien zur Architektur-
geschichte Istanbuls im 19. Jahrhundert, München  : Tuduv Verlag 1989. Heinrich published three
theatre plans out of which only two is dated. 33–63 and Abb. 7, 8, 9.
29 Cf. Aracı, Naum Tiyatrosu  ; and Namık Sinan Turan and Ayşegul Komsouğlu, From Empire to
the Republic  : the western music tradition and the perception of opera, International Journal of
Turcologica 2, no. 3, 2007, 7–31, here 15.
30 Le Ménestrel, 14 December 1851, 2.
31 Le Ménestrel, 24 August 1856, 4.
32 Journal de Constantinople, 15 April 1859, 3.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

136 Adam Mestyan

called for a “national theatre.”33 We do not know the author of this idea, nor the
Ottoman Turkish reactions for this proposal, if there was any (see below).
During these years a curious interplay took place between the Naum Theatre
and the Dolmabahçe Theatre, between the district of Pera and the Palace – not
only the visiting troupes of Naum performed in the Palace but also the Sultan
visited often the district, even some of the personalities were common. Hymns
of Donizetti Pasha were performed in the Naum, while Callisto Guatelli (1816–
1900),34 who was the conductor in the Naum Theatre, became the successor of
Donizetti as Head of Imperial Music. The European musicians of the Imperial
Music lived almost all in Pera, with Guatelli at their top. By 1868, 18 European
music teachers worked in Pera, some of them (including Guatelli) were imperial
musicians.35
The entangled relations between Palace and the Europeanised quarter, between
Dolmabahçe and Pera/Beyoğlu, in the 1850s coincided with the choice of Pera/
Galata as the experimental district of urban planning. After the second reform
Edict of 1856 (Islāhāt Fermanı) in 1858 the Municipality of the 6th District
(Altıncı Dāʾire Belediyesi) was established.36 One of the first actions of the new
Municipality was to issue a theatre regulation for the Naum Theatre. This regula-
tion could be regarded as the first conscious official Ottoman policy in Istanbul
towards a private, public theatre – although it was written in French. From this
time on, municipalities will have an increasing role in regulating the public spaces
of their district, although they will have never exclusive rights for banning or al-
lowing.

33 Journal de Constantinople, 8 and 22 April 1859, 1–2 and 2 respectively.

34 Le Monde artiste, 15 April 1900, 239 writes in its necrology that Guatelli died in his 84th years,
which means that he was born in 1816. An online resource, however, states that he was born
in 1819 in Parma. http  ://www.kalan.com/scripts/Dergi/Dergi.asp  ?t=3&yid=9845. Accessed 12
March 2011.
35 R. Cervati et R.C. Sarvologo, L’Indicateur Constantinopolitain, Constantinople 1868, 222.
36 In fact, it was the first municipal district to be organized along contemporary European stand-
ards one must note that, of course, previously there was also an Ottoman tradition for city de-
velopment and urban control, see Zeynep Çelik, The Remaking of Istanbul, Berkeley  : University
of California Press 1993, 42–43 and it served as an experimental area for urban reform. Çelik,
The Remaking, 45 and Steven Rosenthal, Foreigners and Municipal Reform in Istanbul  : 1855–
1865 International Journal of Middle East Studies 11, no. 2 1980, 227–245, here  : 233–239. For
a general overview, Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire, 2, 91–95.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 137

The Municipality had to argue that 1. A theatre is a public location and every
public institution is under the direct control of the Municipality for maintaining
the public order 2. The theatre, and its impresario, must fulfil its engagements
vis-à-vis the public, and vis-à-vis the contracted artists in a regulated form. 3.
In the theatre order must be maintained because here one can find “protection
against men with bad intentions” 4. At the same time the Municipality is the only
authority that can exercise its rights for surveillance. The Regulation contained
more what was needed to maintain the order. For instance, taste was taken into
consideration also (“la Municipalité fera droit à tout grief légitime que le Public
articulerait contre toute representation qui ne serait pas agree,” art. 5).37
Meanwhile, small theatres popped up all around the Bosphorus and the
Golden Horn, in Ortaköy, Kadıköy, Pera (Beyoğlu), and Gedikpaşa districts.
In Izmir and other great Ottoman cities new theatres were built either by the
citizens or by the governors. Performances in the Bulgarian language also started
at this time.38 A bunch of Armenian actors performed plays in Ottoman Turkish
and Armenian as well (Armenian theatre activity in Istanbul dates back to the
1810s). Although the Armenians could present their plays in front of the Sultan
Abdülmecid already in 1858,39 we have no data concerning any governmental
support for their theatre.40 In Pera/Beyoğlu other private theatres opened, like the
French Theatre in the Palais de Cristal from 1862 under the management of an
Ottoman Armenian impresario, Seraphin Manasse,41 which became a rival of the
Naum Theatre soon.

37 The decree of the Municipality is dated 24 October 1859 – an original printed version (in
French) and its Ottoman Turkish manuscript translation exist in HR.TO. 472/21, BOA. The
Regulation in French was also published in Revue de Constantinople, 2 November 1859, 3. Some
of its articles were even published in France, Le Ménestrel, 27 November 1859, 415, and were
looked at as if these were the signs of progress of Turkish civilization. Years later, in the battle
against the whistle in theatre in France, this regulation was cited again in France as a good ex-
ample, Le Ménestrel, 7 June 1863, 211 citing Malliot’s book, La musique au Théâtre.
38 Darina Vassileva, European Theatre And Its Audience In The Ottoman Territories On (sic  !) The
Balkans During The 19th Century, Etudes Balkaniques, no. 1 1994, 86–101, here 98–100.
39 Journal de Constantinople, 9 June 1858, 3.
40 See more in Metin And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, Ankara  : Ankara Üniversitesi 1976, and his Tanzi-
mat ve Istibdat Döneminde Türk Tiyatrosu (1839–1908).
41 A basic source for his life is in Hayāl, 15 May 1290, 1–2.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

138 Adam Mestyan

In this competition, the Naum Theatre maintained its relations with the Palace
also during the rule of Sultan Abdülaziz (1861–1876), who visited the theatre,
although less often than Abdülmecid.42 Although Michel Naum died, his brother,
Joseph Naum, managed the theatre that started to use the title “Imperial” from
1869. In this year, numerous European sovereigns visited Istanbul, as tourists or
as the first stop to the Suez Canal Opening Ceremonies. By this time the Dolma-
bahçe Palace Theatre was not functioning,43 thus the monarchs visited the Naum
Theatre, the only proper place to present a European royal or imperial celebrity
to the citizens.
The Sultan knew very well the value of public representation in European
style not only because of his father, Mahmud II’s education, or the public gath-
erings during the rule of his brother Abdülmecid, but also because he had visited
the Paris World Exhibition where he was taken to the Opera on 5 July 1867.44
With Emperor Napoleon III and Empress Eugènie, Abdülaziz was staged in Paris
like an exhibited object.45 On his way back to Istanbul, Abdülaziz spent an even-
ing also in the opera house in Vienna on 29 July 1867.46
Perhaps recognizing the public advantages of parading together in theatre with
European heads of state, Sultan Abdülaziz cherished a plan to establish a proper
Imperial Theatre, again at the Taksim field that was around this time slowly ur-
banized.47 This theatre, the third of these imagined projects, however, was never
built, although in autumn 1869 no one else than Franz Joseph, the Emperor of
the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy visited the Naum Theatre en route to Suez.
This visit could have been one of the most terrible experiences of the Emperor
since he was welcomed by thousands of people who made a double line with
torches to light his way from Taksim to the Naum Theatre (the Emperor came
without the Sultan and from the Dolmabahçe Palace). The journals noted that

42 For instance, in 1863, Le Ménestrel, 13 December 1863, 14.

43 Gazette et revue musicale de Paris, 2 September 1866, 279 says that it was burned down. Al-
though there were rumours that Abdülaziz wanted to transform the theatre into a depot of
canons, even in France the journals refused. Le Ménestrel, 13 October 1861, 367.
44 Telegram in the Levant Herald, 8 July 1867, 1.
45 Zeynep Çelik, Displaying the Orient  : architecture of Islam at nineteenth-century world’s fairs,
Berkeley  : University of California Press 1992, 32.
46 Levant Herald, 30 July 1867, 1.
47 Levant Herald, 9 February 1869, 3.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 139

“the crowd was even denser then on the recent occasion of the Empress Eugénie’s
visit.”48 The Emperor stayed only one hour in the packed Naum Theatre and then
left in a hurry. He might have been less resistant to become an object of general
curiosity than was Sultan Abdülaziz in Paris or Vienna.
Abdülaziz maintained a rather ambivalent relation towards public perfor-
mances. It is very hard to decide if his intentions in 1869 were sincere for estab-
lishing an Imperial Opera House considering that no preparations were made.
Still, during the winter of 1869/70 a committee for theatres was formed by high-
ranking Ottoman personalities (Turks, Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks) to
encourage theatrical arts and also to establish an institution – as they called – a
“Sultanic Theatre” (Tiyatro-yu Sultānī).49 We do not know if there is any relation
between the Sultan’s earlier plan in 1869 and this initiative (which is the fourth
one in thirty years to establish an official theatre of the Empire). Some believe that
the Tiyatro-yu Sultānī was conceived to control theatrical activities, especially of
Bulgarians, by a centralized institution, where a council could choose the plays
that may be performed only in the imperial language, Ottoman Turkish.50 Nev-
ertheless, this plan was again forgotten, furthermore, the Naum Theatre burned
down in the great fire of June 1870. This also put an end to the entangled perfor-
mances between Palace and the City.
To sum up, theatrical activity was encouraged but was not considered a proper
state domain until the 1870s. A continuous interplay between imperial entertain-
ments and private activities can be observed, mutually influencing each other.
Time to time, the idea of an official theatre was proposed by various individu-
als but finally such an institution did not come into being. From the end of
the 1850s, district municipalities issued regulations with the aim to maintain
public order. Between the 1830s and 1860s, the cultural policy towards theatres
mainly consisted of the Sultan’s patronage and funding for certain performances
or special occasions. In 1869, due to the large number of visiting monarchs, a
consciousness developed that a modern Ottoman Empire might need a represen-
tational Opera House, and thus Sultan Abdülaziz almost established an imperial
theatre, but this project was not realized.

48 Levant Herald, 1 November 1869, 1.

49 Mümeyyiz, 28 February 1870, 2. Cf. and, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 54–55.
50 Vassileva, European Theatre and Its Audience, 99.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

140 Adam Mestyan

An Imperial Theatre from Below  ?

Around 1860 a large circus-theatre building was built in the Gedikpaşa district
of Istanbul that became home of numerous wandering troupes who were also
circulating within greater Istanbul, between the Asian and the European shores.
It is this place that competed for the status of an official theatre in the 1860s and
1870s. The building itself later was in the possession of Ömer Bey who was the
personal secretary (ceb kātip) of Sultan Abdülmecid. It is more than likely that
this theatre-circus was imagined as a spot for popular entertainments for the
population of this district and its environment. Its first director was a musician
from the Imperial Music, Yavur Bey – thus it is hard to resist the assumption
that the Gedikpaşa Theatre was conceived partly as a state-project or at least run
by individuals close to the Sultan.51
The Meclis-i Vālā, the Legislative Council, issued a regulation, presumably for
this theatre, in 1860, shortly after that the Naum Theatre got its own from the
Municipality of the 6th District. This regulation or Bylaws (Nizāmnāme) con-
tains that the theatre (called “Istanbul Theatre” in the document) and its artists
were put under the direct jurisdiction of the police and the authority of the Mu-
nicipality (art. 4., no indication which municipality).52 Since the identification
of this theatre with the Gedikpaşa Theatre cannot be warranted, it is risky to sup-
pose any further scheme between the Ottoman authorities and the Gedikpaşa.53
This regulation contains the first known theatrical censorship, since article no.
5. establishes a police officer with the special task to supervise and control not
only the theatre but also the plays. This indicates a new official awareness, since

51 The permission to Yavur Bey is dated 9 Jumādā al-Akhir 1276 (3 January 1860), so it was obvi-
ously requested earlier sometime in 1859, I.MMS. 16/691, BOA. Cf. also Journal de Constan-
tinople, 28 March 1860, 2 and Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 21–24.
52 First referred by Metin And to the three documents published by Rauf Tuncay in the 1960s.
The first document, issued from the Meclis-i Vālā to an unidentified authority, is the Regula-
tion (tanzīm) of the theatre. It contains the information that the building will be used by horse
circus artists (at cānbāzları). Tuncay, and based on him, And too, took this document as dated
1859. But this is from 29 Shaʿbān 1276 which corresponds to 22 March 1860. Today these
three documents could be found in a digital gömlek I.MVL. 430/18931, BOA. And, Osmanlı
Tiyatrosu, 34. Rauf Tuncay, Türk Tiyatro Tarihi Belgeleri, Belgelerle Türk Tarihi Dergisi, no. 8,
1968, 71–75. See more in my PhD-dissertation.
53 Metin And identifies it with the Gedikpaşa Theatre. And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 35.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 141

it is out of question that any other persons than the jurists of the Meclis-i Vālā
composed the text (it is entitled as “Istanbul Tiyatrosu’na dāʾir Maclis-i Vālā’dan
tanzīm olunan Nizāmnāme’dir” – “The Bylaws containing the regulation from
the Maclis-i Vālā concerning the Istanbul Theatre”). Thus, after the regulation of
the Naum Theatre, rather embodying the conceptions of the mixed cosmopolitan
Frenchized Pera Municipality, this directive shows the proclivity of the Ottoman
authorities towards a public space in 1860.54
Just like all other theatres in Istanbul, the Gedikpaşa was a host theatre with-
out a permanent troupe. During the 1860s and 1870s, many troupes and per-
formers used the Gedikpaşa Theatre, for instance, French, Bulgarian, Armenian
troupes.55 However, from around 1868, an Ottoman Armenian impresario, the
famous Güllü Agop ([H]Agop Vartavyan, in the French press often Gullian Ef-
fendi), started to stage performances here very often. His troupe, which was called
the “Ottoman Theatre” (Osmanlı Tiyatrosu), played almost exclusively in Ottoman
Turkish and was wandering between the theatres of Pera, Kadıköy, Gedikpaşa,
etc.56 Güllü Agop indeed got an imtiyāz, permission and monopoly, in 1870 to
stage plays in Ottoman Turkish for 10 years.57 Curiously, this is the spring when
the committee for a Tiyatro-yu Sultānī (Sultanic Theatre) was in the making and
the summer when the flames destroyed the Naum Theatre. Opportunities opened
for numerous private entertainers to compete for a growing market. Güllü Agop
was one of them, and his strategy was to provide entertainment in Ottoman Turk-
ish (as opposed to the French and Italian visiting troupes, or theatre in Greek)
under the simple title Ottoman Theatre (ʿOsmānlı Tiyatrosu/Tiyatro-yu ʿOsmānī),
with the explanation of theatre as an education (“taʿlīm-i ādāb”).58

54 The relationship between the two regulations needs further research. The final decision of the
Municipality of the Sixth District concerning the Naum Theatre is dated 24 October 1859, the
Tanzīm of the “Istanbul Theatre” is dated 22 March 1860. Between them there is only a couple
of months, although as far as I know the French regulation of the Naum Theatre was publicly
available.
55 And, Türk Tiyatrosu, 46.
56 And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 41–51.
57 Dated 15 Ṣafar 1287 (17 May 1870), I.ŞD. 18/777, BOA. First published in And, Osmanlı Ti-
yatrosu, 55–56. Public news about the monopoly Diyojen, 4 Taşrīn-i Avval 1287 (28 November
1870), 1.
58 The company was named as Ottoman Theatre well before the monopoly, cf. Cerīde-yi Havādis,
8 Dhū al-Ḥijja (1 April 1868), 1.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

142 Adam Mestyan

However, many Italian/Greek/Armenian-run theatres, clubs, cafés-concerts

competed for the market during the early 1870s. The Ottoman Theatre group
of Güllü Agop desperately wanted to be recognized as an official troupe in this
competition of private theatres, but we have no data if Sultan Abdülaziz would
ever see them. They performed for the first time the famous Vatan yahut Silistre
(Homeland or Silistra), a patriotic play of Namık Kemal (1873) about the Otto-
man-Russian war. However, Kemal and other journalists soon were arrested and
sent to exile, and the Vatan was banned.59
Still, the Ottoman Theatre group at least in its name and advertisements pre-
sented itself as an imperial theatre but this imperial image was constructed from
below. They offered a possible representational image for the empire but its rulers
did not use this possibility, although there were some moments, like in 1873,
when high statesmen, including the ex-Grand Vizier, Midhat Pasha, attended
their performances.60 Suggestions in the press aimed at the Government or the
Sultan Abdülaziz several times, like in 1871 to help the Ottoman Theatre group
to build a “national theatre.”61 At this time, the public image and the persona
of the Sultan were increasingly contested, and this type of symbolism perhaps
looked no more efficient to re-establish legitimacy.
Although almost immediately after the destruction of the Naum in 1870, Cal-
listo Guatelli Pasha submitted a plan and a petition for the construction of a new,
“real” State Opera Theatre in the Petits Champs des Morts (Tepebaşı),62 Sul-
tan Abdülaziz was probably uninterested, either because of his declining mental
state63 or perhaps the general lack of money, or his dislike of theatre. This was the
fifth of such projects in the century. Building an official theatre was prolonged
for almost ten years, and finally, instead of a state theatre, a Municipal Garden
was opened, and within this public garden a “kiosque” was built.64 This was the

59 And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 63–64.

60 L’Orient Illustré, 1 February 1873, 390.
61 Levant Herald, 14 January 1871, 3.
62 Ottoman Turkish translation of a presumably French contract, without date, but the headline
states that it is the translation of a document dated 11 May 1871. HR. TO. 454/62, BOA. Cf.
And, Türk Tiyatrosu, 206 referring to a firman that was given in 1872.
63 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 280.
64 The Garden was ready in 1880 summer, but the theatre(s) properly started working from 1881–
82. See the corresponding numbers of La Turquie.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 143

Théâtre des Petits Champs or Tepebaşı Tiyatrosu which had an ambivalent status  :
its possessor was the Municipality but it was rented to private, Italian, Ottoman
Armenian, or French impresarios seasonally or yearly during the 1880s. Several
times rebuilt, this location boasts a great career later as one of the focal points of
early republican cultural politics.
Yet, during the 1870s no centralised regulation existed towards the theatres
in Istanbul, since neither the Sultan, nor any of the ministries sought to sup-
port any of the theatres. The sporadic patronage of the Sultan was over, the last
known example is the support of the Naum Theatre as a contribution to the
costs of the visiting monarchs’ entertainments in 1869. The increased theatre
activity of the diverse ethno-religious Ottoman communities was of concern,
but, so far, no explicit ban was implemented (apart from the 1873 ban of Vatan,
see above). Sometimes troupes were invited to the Palace but otherwise no real
investment was made into theatre as an imperial or national institution. Thus we
cannot discover any coherent initiative towards the theatres. That lack of atten-
tion is probably connected to the “period of chaos”, as Davison calls it, between
1872 and 1876.
The weakening of central control in the realm of culture may partially ex-
plain why theatre in Ottoman Turkish spread widely in this period. Moreover,
Dikran Tchouhadjian (1837–1898), a later famous Ottoman Armenian com-
poser, wrote music theatricals, operettas or opera-comiques for Ottoman Turk-
ish librettos. After a quarrel with Güllü Agop he established his own troupe
which was called “Ottoman Opera” (Osmanlı Operası).65
Although this troupe played operettas in Ottoman Turkish, Tchouhadjian was
never invited to the Palace unlike Naum’s visiting European troupes in the 1850s.
The reason might be that they did not offer proper elite operas, but rather light
opéras-comiques, thus it is perhaps the genre and not the language which counted
to their negligence. High statesmen nonetheless visited these performances, but I

65 Nikoghos K. Tahmizian, The Life and Work of Dikran Tchouhadjian, Los Angeles  : Drazark Press
1999. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Second Edition, 29 vols. London  :
Macmillan Publishers Limited 2001, s.v. Armenia, III. Opera, ballet, orchestral and chamber
music, by Svetlana Sarkisyan, vol. 2  : 26–28  ; and s. v. Chukhajian, Tigran Gevorki, by Svetlana
Sarkisyan, vol. 5, 820–821. Cf. the activity of Gérald Papasian and the Dikran Tchouhadjian
Research Center in Paris.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

144 Adam Mestyan

have no knowledge if Abdülaziz or his ministers would have financed any of the
performances.
During the 1870s in Istanbul the high authorities indeed left the domain of
European-style entertainments. The statesmen behind the reforms died, Sultan
Abdülaziz behaved neutrally.66 On the other hand, theatre was not yet consid-
ered to be dangerous. The regulation of the “Istanbul Theatre” in 1860 tells about
awareness but also about a centralised willingness to deal with theatres. By the
mid-1870s, this willingness completely vanished and in its place, municipalities
stepped as directly dealing with theatres – one may interpret the unique regula-
tion of the “Istanbul Theatre” as a precedent (that actually already transferred the
right of control from the central bureaucracy to a municipality). Thus the close
links between public and the entertainments of the Sultan were lost.

Destroying the Morals

This situation changed radically with two important events. In 1876 Sultan
Abdülhamid II (1876–1909), who wanted a closer control on the numerous
fractions, religions, and entertainments of the Empire, accessed the throne. The
already existing concept of an “Ottoman nation” had to be filled with an iden-
tity, which meant strong loyalty to the Sultan. Second, in 1880/1881 the Théâ-
tre des Petits Champs, the Tepebaşı Tiyatrosu, was opened that was considered by
the Christian communities as “the” theatre, and was especially liked by Greeks
and Italians.
Abdülhamid II, who accompanied his uncle in 1867 on his European trip,
very well understood the stake of public representations and also loved European
music, especially Italian opera.67 This Sultan was a very contradictory person, a
clever autocrat with real intellectual dilemmas. He held the arts in high esteem,
as I already cited, and in his memoirs often complained against the accusation “if
I would be an enemy of literature” (“ben edebiyata düşman olsaydım”).68 At the

66 Shaw and Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire 2,152–153.

67 François Georgeon, Abdulhamid II – Le sultan calife, Paris  : Fayard 2003, 31–34.
68 Sultan Abdülhamid’in hatıra defreti, Istanbul  : Emre Yayınlar 2006, 13.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 145

same time, he used his status as the leader of all (Sunni) Muslims, as caliph in
public representation and thought that the “state’s social structure and politics is
founded on the basis of religion.”69
Around 1882, theatrical activities reached a point when they were closely and
openly intertwined with various political agendas. After the Ottoman-Russian war
(1876–78), continuous Balkan crisis, and the abolishment of the 1876 Constitu-
tion, in 1882 the ʿUrābī-revolution in Egypt and the subsequent British invasion
were the most unsettling developments in the Empire. In October 1882 a police
report suggested to the Ministry of Interior increased control in theatres because
“if the players (actors) are not the masters of modesty and careful attention, the
public mind and morals will be rotted.” This note was based on the performances
of the Ottoman Theatre. The report recommended that, first, the Publication
Supervision Office (that is, the imperial censorship of the press and publications)
should write a confirmation for every theatrical play and second, that a theatre
inspector should be appointed.70 Thus in 1883 a Theatre Inspectorship (tiyatrolar
müfettişliği) was established within the body of the imperial administration.71
This was also reported in the Ottoman and French press of Istanbul. A certain
Hilmi Effendi was named as the inspector,72 later the office was enlarged.
The existence of this department meant that the Ottoman Empire wanted to
control private institutions, without contributing to their costs, and without con-
sidering theatre as a necessary means for the education of the subjects. Theatre
censorship is not always counted among the institutions of cultural policies  ; still,
the Ottoman Empire (similarly to other 19th century empires) spent considerable
money to maintain an institution directed at artistic products. This control was
directed towards many types of public gatherings, concerts included.73
Indeed, the cultural policy of Abdülhamid II concerning theatres rather meant

69 Çünkü devletin sosyal bünyesi ve politikasının esası din üzerine kurulmuştur. Sultan Abdül-
hamit, Siyasī hatıratım, 134.
70 Oyuncular ādāb ve dikkat sāhibi olmazlar ise ezhān va ahlāk ʿumūmīyayı bozacakları. Letter
dated 13 Dhū al-Ḥijja 1299 (26 October 1882), Y. PRKA. 4/2, BOA.
71 Letter dated 21 Rajab 1300 (28 May 1883) in ZB. 13/75 and cf. Y.PRK.A. 4/2, BOA.
72 La Turquie, 4 July 1883, 1. Later a Greek and Armenian officer was also involved in the supervi-
sion.
73 Merih Erol, Spying on Music in Istanbul during the late Hamidian Regime (1876–1909), un-
published paper, 10th International Conference on Urban History, Ghent, 1–4 September 2010.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

146 Adam Mestyan

“the protection” of the people from the dangerous, morally corrupt entertain-
ments.74 Perhaps we cannot call this attention a “cultural policy” rather a central
“supervision” of the theatres and the public space in general. The most famous
case took place in 1884  : the ban of two Ottoman Turkish plays (an operetta
and a drama, Çengi and Çerkez Özdenleri) of Ahmed Midhat that also led to the
destruction of the Gedikpaşa Theatre.75 The existence and success of Çengi and
the theatrical activity of Ahmed Midhat in general was evaluated by the Ottoman
press as an effort to create a “national theatre” that was also reported in the French
press. This “national theatre” meant also that the article demanded a proper na-
tional theatre judging the Gedikpaşa Theatre “un edifice impropre pour un ville
comme Constantinople.” The author thought that “the liberty of the public”
should create a new theatre (“il faut que la liberté du public crée un théâtre”).76
The idea of this new theatre was the sixth and last project for an official theatre of
the Ottoman Empire until the 1890s.
The two plays of the Midhat were about the idealized freedom of tribal lead-
ers and their revolt against oppressors. Reported by secret agents and the theatre
inspectors, Abdülhamid II personally banned the plays  : “the compositors of such
plays must pay special attention also to the application of meanings of the word
‘freedom’ in a proper and legal way, as it suits to the plays. Hence from now
onwards, such plays, which are contrary to the proper behaviour and customs,
which destroy the morals, absolutely and extraordinarily forbidden.”77
The Gedikpaşa Theatre was soon destroyed. The Sultan, under the pretext of
transforming it into a school of Arabic studies (that was advertised in the press
as a pious act78 because Arabic is the language of the Quran), in fact, sent a clear
message to Ottoman Turkish theatre makers. Sultan Abdülhamid II. embod-

74 This can be backed by his political memoirs when he talkes about the legitimacy of sensorship
because a lot of French novels were translated and entered the harem (the private household  ?),
and the hearts and minds seduced by them caused lots of pain. Sultan Abdülhamit, Siyasī
hatıratım, 85.
75 Metin And, Osmanlı Tiyatrosu, 98–101. More in my dissertation based on DH. MKT.
1408/101, DH.MKT. 1406/49, MF.MKT. 85/60, I.DH. 936/74108, and Y.PRK.A. 4/2, BOA
and the daily press of the time.
76 Osmanlı, 1 November 1884, 1 and Le Moniteur Oriental, 8 November 1884, 3.
77 Note dated 2 Ṣafar 1884 (21 November 1884), in I.DH. 936/74108, BOA.
78 Le Moniteur Oriental, 24 November 1884, 2. See more in my dissertation.
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 147

ied the role of a great cultural policy-maker  : that is, symbolically opted for an
educational institution via which he could express his nature as the Caliph of
all Muslims, suppressing a theatre where the word “freedom” could be used too
freely.
Yet, the general myth that this would have meant the end of theatres in Istan-
bul until the end of his rule is totally false. Although supervised and controlled,
theatres flourished during the 1880s and 1890s in Pera and also in other districts,
just like public concerts and other gatherings. One reason for this is that the pub-
lic sphere was considered to be an important legitimizing pillar of the Sultan.79
Yet, this understanding did not stop the authorities to monitor, for instance, all
the Greek musical activities.80 On the other hand, theatres remained locations
where loyalty could be expressed in the forms of hymns (especially the famous
Hamidiye, the imperial “anthem”) that were often sung by foreigners as well.
Municipalities owned and maintained the buildings. Theatre in Ottoman
Turkish was also in motion, including Serope Benkliyan’s Ottoman Operetta
Troupe that toured empire-wide (mostly because in Istanbul they were too
much supervised). Abdülhamid II. had his own theatre built in the Yıldız Palace
(1888) where he and the members of the Imperial Family were entertained. This
was not a Hoftheater where the larger court or imperial grandees were all invited
(like the Dolmabahçe Palace Theatre of Abdülmecid) but strictly speaking the
quite small, private theatre of the Sultan. He never visited any public theatres.
Troupes and visiting musicians were still invited to the Palace, for instance, the
impresario Billorian and his Italian troupe from the Théâtre des Petits Champs
played in the Yıldız Palace Theatre in 1888.81
To recapitulate, during the last two decades of the 19th century within the
imperial administration a separate supervision of theatres was established for
disciplining public behaviour. This policy consisted of monitoring, prohibition,
and permission but theatres were not, especially not public theatres, considered
to be an imperial duty to maintain or to support. Rather, the local municipali-
ties of the districts contributed much to theatrical activities.

79 Nadir Özbek, Philanthropic Activity, Ottoman Patriotism, and the Hamidian Regime 1876–
1909, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 37 (2005), 59–81.
80 Erol, Spying on Music, 10–11.
81 La Turquie, 29 et 30 January 1888, 2.
1 .  k o r r e k t u r

148 Adam Mestyan

Conclusion

The Ottoman Empire joined to the 19th century state practices to include some
institutions of what we now call “cultural” in its central, yearly budget. How-
ever, an imperial theatre finally did not accompany the Ottoman Museum or
the Imperial School of Music. Theatres, especially music theatres, in their rela-
tions to the state bodies were considered important institutions in the crystal-
lization of cultural policy. In the 19th century, when such a policy was not yet
consciously defined, but numerous identity building projects were put in mo-
tion – that we may term as cultural politics –, the emerging modern Ottoman
state responsibilities did not include the obligation of securing public theatrical
entertainment as a return for the tax of its subjects.
Although in general one might risk the statement that throughout the 19th
century theatre was considered to be an educational and propaganda instrument
by members of the administrative or business elite in Istanbul (be those Arme-
nian, Greek, Turkish, Arab, Bulgarian, Jewish, Italian or French), the Palace or
the Porte never considered this educational instrument important enough to
include it in the scope of the officially sponsored activities. Until the 1890s, no
theatre was incorporated in the system of the late Ottoman central institutions,
but municipalities controlled them or they were private.
The exact command of the Sultans over public and private theatres is a deli-
cate issue. Each Sultan was very much present in his capital, certainly they had
more direct influence on the built environment and also on the daily issues
than in the provinces. Therefore, there was a close relation and interest between
the city and the ruler. For instance, theatre monopolies were given concerning
only Istanbul and were not valid empire-wide. Although bans were introduced
empire-wide by Abdülhamid II, the very close supervision of theatres was only
possible in Istanbul, if there at all. A public imperial theatre building within
Istanbul was not built by the state, however, for the needs of the multi-centred
theatrical activity and for the growing interest numerous smaller, private or
semi-private buildings were constructed.
During the 19th century we can enumerate six plans and three potential impe-
rial theatres  : the Naum Theatre, the Gedikpaşa Theatre, and the Tepebaşı Thea-
tre. Perhaps the Naum Theatre was the closest to becoming a representational
 1 .  k o r r e k t u r

Cultural Policy in the Late Ottoman Empire ? 149

institution of the Empire in 1869. The final absence of such an institution also
caused that the Palace was not looked at as an overarching cultural broker in
the sense that theatre makers did not offer their products (from the 1870s) for
official or state representations but the state remained only one among the nu-
merous potential financers (although perhaps the most prestigious). Theatre and
opera did not manage to become expressions of imperial or “imperial national”
policies, these were not considered to be useful institutions to secure the loyalty
for the ruler, although their power over the masses was acknowledged finally.
To explain the absence of institutionalization, three reasons can be given  : a
banal, an administrative, and a political. The banal one is that when plays in
Ottoman Turkish started to flourish and Ottoman operettas were written in
the 1870s, Sultan Abdülaziz was not (or could not be) interested. Perhaps his
brother, Sultan Abdülmecid would have handled this activity in a very different
way, even though he always opted for European plays. The administrative reason
is that after 1880 district municipalities became stronger in their investments
and they maintained a number of theatres, thus the State or the Palace did not
have to fund such activities directly. The political reason is that Sultan Abdülha-
mid II made the conscious decision that he wanted to be shown publicly as the
modernizing Caliph, that is, to secure loyalty via religious symbolism and not
via performance culture.