Abstract
The chapter focusses on the Arab provinces of the late Ottoman Empire (mid-nineteenth century—WWI) and analyses Arab literati’s varying degree of identification with the political structure of which they still formed part. The chapter shows these intellectuals manoeuvring between the Scylla of a culturally hegemonic and increasingly aggressive West and the Charybdis of a weak and decaying but also often oppressive imperial administration. Although Arab patriotism was on the rise and fostered the emergence of a stronger sense of Arab national identity, loyalty towards the Empire seen as a bulwark against destabilisation and foreign influence remained the “default” position for a long time. Arab literati often stuck to an integrative Ottomanism and upheld the idea of an “Ottoman Nation” sometimes even after they had themselves felt the need to flee from persecution and/or censorship or had been long-time eye-witnesses of the ailing system. When solidarity had begun to weaken, the Young Turk revolution was able to give new substance to many Arabs’ Ottomanist hopes and nourished their belief in the possible reformation of the old structures. But these hopes faded when the new regime introduced what from an Arab perspective seemed to be attempts at enforced Turkification.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The Levant had become Ottoman in 1516, Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula including Yemen in 1517, Iraq in 1539, Tripolitania and the Cyrenaica in 1557, Tunisia and Algeria in 1574 (Berger et al. 1987, 44).
- 2.
For some specimens of twentieth-century Arab national ideology that lumped Mamluks , Ottomans, and British colonizers into one category of oppressors of the past, cf. Reinkowski 2016, passim. In his Philosophy of the Revolution (ca. 1960), the “great leader” Gamal Abdel Nasser even quoted, approvingly, his ancestors with their saying, yā rabb yā mutagallī, ʾihlik il-ʿuthmānlī [read ʿus̱mallī, with n > l assimilation, for reasons of rhyme] “Oh Lord, who art manifest in Thy deeds, destroy the Ottoman(s)” (quoted in German by Reinkowski 2016, 237; Arabic original as in ʿAbd al-Nāṣir [c. 1960], 45; English translation following Badawi and Hinds 1986, s.r. √1gly).
- 3.
Cf., for example, Philipp 2014, 115, where the author says that “[b]efore World War I we hear practically no Arab voice demanding Arab independence.”
- 4.
Cf., for example, Shaw 1971, 135.
- 5.
Although, if Alp E. Topal is right, the corresponding Turkish term, ʿOs̱mānlıcılıḳ, is not attested earlier than in 1913 (see Topal’s contribution to the present volume), one may well nevertheless speak, as historians usually do, of an “Ottomanist” ideology, an Ottomanism avant la lettre, meaning a “pan-Ottoman” ideology that sought to include all subjects of the Ottoman state as equal citizens with equal rights (e.g., religious freedom, primary education) and duties (esp. taxes and military service). Salim Çevik (in this volume, too) refers to this very same concept as “imperial nationalism.”
- 6.
For an analysis of the legal implications of the Edict, see Ayşe Ozil’s contribution to this volume.
- 7.
For an early encounter with Western culture and civilisation, still unbiased by the negative impact of European colonialism, cf. Rifāʿah R. al-Ṭahṭāwī’s (1801–71) detailed—and rather appreciatory, though not at all uncritical—report about his study mission to France , 1826–31 (al-Ṭahṭāwī 1834). For an analysis of the later development of the image of the West in Arabic fiction (and drama), cf. Wielandt 1980 (in German ) and El-Enany 2006 (in English).
- 8.
One of the most significant expressions of criticism of Westernisation is the emergence, from the middle of the nineteenth century, of the character of the mutafarnij, the “Euromaniac,” in Arabic literature (corresponding to the alafranga züppe “Euro-fop” in Turkish ). Through these types, the authors ridicule the unquestioned adoption of European fashion, attitudes, and habits, mostly from a moral (but, in Turkish , also from an economic) perspective. At the same time, they are eager to promote pride in one’s own, “Eastern” culture (termed wujūd ahlī “the indigenous way of life” in the probably earliest piece of “modern” Arabic fiction, Khalīl al-Khūrī’s Way! Idhan lastu bi-Ifranjī “Alas! I am not a European then!” of 1859/60; the corresponding term in Turkish is alaturkalık “life alla turca”). On the mutafarnij/alafranga züppe, cf. my own study, Guth (2020), with further references; see also Johanna Chovanec’s contribution in this volume.
- 9.
Although at the time no specific term had been coined yet for “intellectual ” in Arabic nor was English intellectual used in the modern sense before the late nineteenth century, the group of educated people who used to be referred to as udabāʾ “literati” (sg. adīb) can probably be seen as “intellectuals avant la lettre,” given that they were thinkers who engaged with the vital reality of the contemporary world and commented in public on matters they regarded of relevance for their community.
- 10.
See her contribution on the “Unruly Children of the Homeland: Ottomanism’s Non-Muslim Authors.”
- 11.
For more on al-Naqqāsh , see Sadgrove 2010b, with further references. As also operas and the novel, theatre counted among the “modern” genres, introduced in the Middle East, in adaptations from the European model, by the mid-nineteenth century with the hope that it would help reform society and advance civilisational progress. For more on the history of Arab(ic) drama and theatre in general, cf. Starkey 1998, with further references (among them Badawi 1988, Landau 1958, and Tomiche 1969); a more recent study is Ruocco 2010.
- 12.
Tensions that had been smouldering for some years between Maronite Christian peasants and their Druze landlords eventually erupted in 1860 after the peasants’ leader, Ṭanyūs Shāhīn, had demanded that the feudal class abolish their privileges, and the peasants had begun to revolt. During the clashes, thousands of Maronites were massacred, with Ottoman troops directly or indirectly aiding the Druze forces. The conflict became even more complicated through the involvement of France (as a “protector” of the Maronites ) and the British (who objected to prolonged French presence in the country and argued that pacification should be left to the Ottomans).
- 13.
Despite al-Naqqāsh’s precedence, it is usually al-Qabbānī who is regarded today the “father” of Arab(ic) theatre .
- 14.
On censorship in the Empire in general, cf. Cioeta 1979.
- 15.
Often, emigration from Greater Syria was also motivated by other than political reasons—economic, social, religious, and so on—and headed for the Americas rather than Egypt (although Egypt was de facto independent already since the Ottoman governor, Meḥmed/Muḥammad ʿAlī, in 1841, had been granted the right to life-long rule and hereditary successorship to his position). The first immigrants to North America, for example, arrived around 1850. A larger wave left their home countries after the 1860/61 civil war. During the following years, many sought refuge abroad from periodic inter-communal strife at home. In the American exile (“the” mahjar) as well as in Egypt, Syrians, mostly Christian literati, played an important role in the establishment and operation of the private printing press and, through it, the stimulation of lively public debate on all kinds of issues of relevance for the local societies, and the Arabs at large; in this way, they played a prominent role in the development of a modern public discourse and the creation of an Arab civil society. See, for example, Landau 1968 (check index for “Diaspora” and “Emigranten, Emigration”).
- 16.
Hassan 2006, 29. From the 13th issue (15 Sept. 1899) onwards, the attribute ʿuthmāniyyah was dropped, cutting the title down to the more general al-Jāmiʿah.
- 17.
Late nineteenth-/early twentieth-century Arabic conceptual terminology is still rather unspecific and “volatile.” While, today, jāmiʿah most often denotes “university,” the literal sense of the word—an active participle meaning “the gathering one, uniting one”—is still more graspable in expressions like jāmiʿah riyāḍiyyah “sport association” or al-Jāmiʿah al-ʿarabiyyah “The Arab League.” The latter term, however, can be found in Monteil (1960, 108) also as denoting “panarabisme,” while the same study gives the whole semantic range of jāmiʿah as “communauté, union, fédération; ligue; université; accumulateur” (Monteil 1960, 108). “Ottoman Patriotism” for al-jāmiʿah al-ʿuthmāniyyah is the rendering chosen by Hilary Kilpatrick in her translation of the term as used by Jurjī Zaydān a decade after Faraḥ Anṭūn in an article on “Arabs and Turks—Before and After the Constitution” (1909, see below).
- 18.
That is, head of the descendants of the Prophet.
- 19.
For Ottomanism transforming into Ottoman nationalism, and the Empire into an object of love, see below, pp. 139–40 (Sāṭiʿ al-Ḥuṣrī’s idea).
- 20.
For a similar vacillation, also in the context of the rebellion on Crete , cf. M. Elfenbein’s chapter in the present volume (section “Dissidents or Palace Journalists?”).
- 21.
For another case where a local’s vacillating opinion is interpreted by Westerners as “rich illustration of […] shifty Oriental character” instead of a cautiously and prudently manoeuvring subject, cf. M. Elfenbein, in the present volume.
- 22.
Literally, “what (is/can be found) there (i.e., in Istanbul).” “Over Yonder” is Roger Allen’s rendering, Allen 2008, 1 (with note 1, p. 18).
- 23.
The title “khedive ” (Arabic khidiww/ī, from Persian khidīw, khadīw “lord, prince, ruler”) “was formally conferred by the Sultan upon Ismāʿīl in a firmān issued on 8 June 1867 […]. [… With it,] Ismāʿīl assumed a rank which elevated his standing to a position closer to royalty. [… The title also marked] the virtual independence of Egypt and her right to enter into special treaties and agreements governing posts, customs and trade transit. These provisions were to give Ismāʿīl freedom in the financial, administrative and judicial arrangements of the country” (Vatikiotis 2012). (Reinkowski 2016, 240, n. 9, speaks of a “Phantasietitel,” which is not completely correct.) When Ottoman suzerainty ended and Egypt officially became a British protectorate (1914), the local rulers would even call themselves “sultan,” and after the end of the protectorate (1922) “kings.”
- 24.
- 25.
Publishing anonymously or with a pseudonym was a common practice during the reign of ʿAbdülḥamīd II (but also later). It secured a certain degree of protection from persecution—not the least so, I would claim, because it turned criticism into a kind of “game” that, by hiding the identity of the speaker, observed the rules of politeness (adab) and in this way facilitated non-persecution also for those targeted by criticism.
- 26.
The Arabic title corresponds to the Turkish ʿOs̱mānlı millet or millet-i ʿOs̱mānīye “Ottoman nation” mentioned in Salim Çevik’s contribution (following Masami Arai) as referring to the idea of the Empire as a nation state. Arabic ummah is attested already in pre-Islamic times. With all likelihood, it is a borrowing, either from Hebrew ummāʰ “tribe, people” or from the same Sumerian source from which the Hebrew word itself is taken (Jeffery 1938, 69; Pennacchio 2014, 158). In the Koran , where ummah is of frequent occurrence, it has a broad meaning, signifying a group of people sharing ethnic, religious, moral, and/or ideological allegiance. In classical Islamic literature, the word was mainly used to denote the universal Islamic religio-political community (Lewis 1991, 32). During the Arabic nahḍah , the term underwent a process of semantic extension and came to encompass (like Turkish millet) the equivalent of French nation (as in al-Umam [pl.] al-muttaḥidah “The United Nations”), see, for example, Massignon 1941–46. In this sense, ummah features as one of the “eight (key) concepts” of the time in the influential Egyptian educator Ḥusayn al-Marṣafī’s al-Kalim al-thamān (1881/82); for the author, an ummah is held together by a unity of language (lisān), territory (makān), and religion (dīn), where language is most important (Delanoue 1963, 10). For the modern development of the term, where it for some time “competed” with millah (which is the source of the Turkish term), see, for example, Lewis 1991, 38–39, 41.
- 27.
Al-Muqaṭṭam, no. 1898 (22 June 1895), and al-Muwayliḥī 1896, 9–13, respectively.
- 28.
The author does not specify which interventions he has in mind, but one may think of the French turning Algeria into a colony, the Russians on the Crimea , the French and British in Lebanon , and, of course, the British occupation of Egypt.
- 29.
inna l-ummah al-ʿuthmāniyyah dawāʾuhā fī yadihim, wa-hiya abʿad al-umam ʿan al-talāshī wa-l-inḥilāl … al-majd fī iḥyāʾ umma khayr min al-māl fī mawtihā.
- 30.
tataʾallaf, min jihat al-adyān, min kāthūlīk wa-muslimīn wa-urthūdhuks wa-brūtistānt wa-yahūd, wa-tatashakkal, min jihat al-ajnās, min būlūniyyīn wa-būhīmiyyīn wa-almāniyyīn wa-ṭalyāniyyīn wa-majariyyīn wa-ṣaqālibah, wa-mā manaʿahā dhālika min ḥusn al-niẓām alladhī hiya ʿalayhi.
- 31.
That is, from the (Turkish ) Ottomans (who traced their dynasty back to Osman [Arabic ʿUthmān ] I, r. c. 1299–1323/24) to the (Arab) Quraysh, a Meccan clan to which the Prophet Muhammad belonged and who later claimed the right to genealogical successorship against the Shīʿah who tried to convey successorship on ʿAlī, the Prophet’s son-in-law, and his offspring, as well as against the Khārijiyyah , who wanted to elect the “best Muslim” as Muhammad’s successor (i.e., khalīfah “caliph ”).
- 32.
That is, the Hejaz, the region in the west of what today is Saudi Arabia where Islam emerged and where its two holiest sites, the cities of Mecca and Medina, are situated.
- 33.
The title is a passive participle, form II, from root ʾ-Y-D, meaning, literally, “the supported, aided one” or, more idiomatically, “steadfast, victorious; a fortification, or stronghold.” In former times, the word could be part of a sultan’s name (e.g., al-Muʾayyad fī l-Dīn, i.e., the one who receives—divine—support in religion, is a steadfast believer, a stronghold of Islamic belief). It is not clear what exactly the newspaper title expresses. It may also have been chosen in allusion to the Koran , where ʔayd can mean “might, power, strength” (as in surah 51:47) and the verb ʔayyada signifies “to support, bolster up, strengthen” (as in 2:87).
- 34.
Founded in 1889 and later mainly edited by the Egyptian journalist ʿAlī Yūsuf (1863–1913). According to Peri Bearman (article “Yūsuf , ʿAlī,” in Encyclopædia of Islam, second edition), the paper dominated the Muslim press between 1889 and 1913; it was considered anti-British and pan-Islamic, served as a platform for Egyptian nationalists and an advocate of constitutional reform. For a standard reference on the history of the Arab press, see Ayalon 1995.
- 35.
For a detailed analysis of Ṭabāʾiʿ al-istibdād, see Zimeri 2007.
- 36.
Drawing on Cioeta 1979, 176, and J. Deny’s entry (1960) on “ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd II” in EI 2.
- 37.
- 38.
“fa-lam yabqa fīnā ḥākimun ghayru ʿādilī/wa-lam yabqa fīnā ʿādilun ghayru ḥākimī.” Last line of Taḥiyyat al-dustūr (Long Live the Constitution, 1908; metre: ṭawīl)—Abū Māḍī [1911] = [n.d.], 641.
- 39.
My translation, S.G.—The original has “abā l-shaʿbi […]//taṭallaʿ tajid-hu [sc. al-shaʿba] ḥawla qaṣrika wāqifan/yuḥaddiqu taḥdīqa l-muḥibbi li-muwaffaqī//[…]/tafarraqa ʿanka l-mufsidūna wa-ṭālamā/ramū [sic!] l-shaʿba bi-l-tafrīqi khawfa l-tafarruqī//wa-kam aqlaqū fī l-arḍi thumma tarājaʿū/yaqūlūna ‘shaʿbun muqliqun ayyu muqliqī.’” From ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd baʿda iʿlān al-dustūr (ʿAbdülḥamīd after the Proclamation of the Constitution, 1908; metre: ṭawīl), quoted as in Abū Māḍī [1911] = [n.d.], 507–508.
- 40.
- 41.
In the present volume, Salim Çevik describes this process as a shift from a multinational Habsburgian model to a Romanov model that aimed at the creation of one single core nation .
- 42.
“Al-ʿArab wa-l-Turk qabla l-dustūr wa-baʿdahū,” al-Hilāl, 17 (April 1909): 408–17.
- 43.
Quoting from Zaydān’s article “Jāmiʿat al-manfaʿah,” al-Hilāl, 19 (Feb 1911): 280–85.
- 44.
- 45.
ākhir khidmit il-ghuzz ʿalqah—Badawi and Hinds 1986, s.r. √3ɣzz. If we are to believe the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, the proverb goes back to Mamluk times: “Ghuzz is the colloquial name for the Oghuz , an ethnic group among the Turkish Mamluks. When the Mamluks settled in a[n Egyptian] village, they used to drive its inhabitants out of it, forced them to work for them and serve them, and confiscated their food and drink without paying anything in recompense. When they [then] ended their stay […], they used to beat the people and mistreat them, out of a desire for harassment and pure chicane […]”—https://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/اخر_خدمة_الغز_علقه, as of 24 July 2019 (my translation, S.G.). For a similar traditional saying, quoted by Nasser in his Philosophy of the Revolution, see above, note 2.
- 46.
There are, for instance, some Alexandria novels in which the cosmopolitan past is remembered with a good deal of nostalgia (e.g., Edward al-Kharrāṭ’s Turābuhā zaʿfarān, 1985, translated into English by F. Liardet as City of Saffron). But in these, the city’s former cosmopolitan character is usually described as the result of its location on the shores of the Mediterranean, with a centuries-old history as a commercial centre, open to the world, a melting-pot whose identity was formed in Old Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman times and by Greek and Italian tradesmen and sailors rather by contact with the Ottomans. As for Cairo, its cosmopolitan history is recalled nostalgically by, for example, the connoisseur, womanizer, and whisky drinker Shawqī “Beğ” al-Dasūqī in ʿAlāʾ al-Aswānī’s best-selling ʿImārat Yaʿqūbiān (2002, translated into English by H. Davies as The Yacoubian Building). But here, the memory does not take the reader farther back than to the times when the big building—symbolising Egypt—was erected, in 1934, by its Armenian proprietor, Hagop Yacoubian, that is, in post-Ottoman times. Neither Shawqī’s “title” beğ nor the mentioning of the Armenian owner are connected to an Ottoman past in the novel.
- 47.
For this, cf. esp. Toledano 2001, whose findings Reinkowski develops further.
References
ʿAbd al-Nāṣir, Gamāl. (n.d.; orig. ca. 1960). Falsafat al-thawrah. 10th print. Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-ʿālamiyyah.
Abū Māḍī, Īliyyā. (1911). “Taḥiyyat al-dustūr al-ʿuthmānī” (Long Live the Ottoman Constitution [first published 1908]), https://klmat.com/تحيّة-الدستور-العثماني-إيليا-أبو-ماضي/, from the poet’s first collection, Tadhkār al-māḍī (1911) (20 October 2019).
———. (n.d.). Dīwān Īliyyā Abī Māḍī / ed. [N.N.]. Beirut: Dār al-Quwwah / Dār al-ʿAwdah. Volume III.
Allen, Roger. 2008. Introduction. In his translation of al-Muwayliḥī 1896 (see below): 1–20.
Ayalon, Ami. 1995. The Press in the Arab Middle East: A History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Badawi, M.M. 1988. Early Arabic Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Badawi, El-Said, and Martin Hinds. 1986. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic: Arabic-English. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Berger, Johannes, Friedemann Büttner, and Bertold Spuler. 1987. Nahost-PLOETZ: Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Welt zum Nachschlagen. Freiburg & Würzburg: Verlag Ploetz.
Choueiri, Youssef M. 2012. Sāṭiʿ al-Ḥuṣrī. EI 2, http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_8887. First published online: 2012 (unpaginated), consulted online on 23 July 2019.
Cioeta, D.J. 1979. Ottoman Censorship in Lebanon and Syria, 1876–1908. International Journal of Middle East Studies 10 (2): 167–186.
Cleveland, William L. 1971 (and later editions). The Making of an Arab Nationalist: Ottomanism and Arabism in the Life and Thought of Sati‘ Al-Husri. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Cooke, Miriam. 1986. Telling Their Lives: A Hundred Years of Arab Women’s Writings. World Literature Today 60.2 (“Literatures of the Middle East: A Fertile Crescent”): 212–216.
———. 1993/2012. Arab women writers. = Ch. 13 in Modern Arabic Literature, ed. M. M. Badawi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge History of Arabic Literature; vol. 4). 1993 (print) / 2012 (online). 443–462.
Delanoue, Gilbert. 1963. L’épître des huit mots du cheikh Ḥusayn Al-Marṣafī (Analyse). Annales Islamologiques 5: 1–29.
DeYoung, Terri. 2010a. Maḥmūd Sāmī al-Bārūdī. In EALB iii: 57–71.
———. 2010b. Khalīl Muṭrān. In EALB iii: 226–236.
———. 2010c. Maʿrūf al-Ruṣāfī. In EALB iii: 274–284.
EAL = Starkey, Paul, and Julie Scott Meisami, ed. 1998. Encyclopedia of Arabic Literature. Vol. 2. London: Routledge.
EALB, III = Allen, Roger, ed. 2010. Essays in Arabic Literary Biography, 1850–1950. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
EI 2 = Encyclopædia of Islam, second edition. Eds. P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First Print Edition: Leiden: Brill, 1960–2007. First Published Online: 2012.
EI 3 = Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Eds. Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson.
Eich, Thomas. 2007. “Abū l-Hudā al-Ṣayyādī.” EI 3, https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_SIM_0028, first published online 2007, first print edition 2007; (23 July 2019).
El-Ariss, Tarek. Ed. 2018. The Arab Renaissance: A Bilingual Anthology of the Nahda. Assistant editors Anthony Edwards and Anna Ziajka Stanton. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.
El-Enany, Rasheed. 2006. Arab Representations of the Occident: East-West Encounters in Arabic Fiction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Flores, Alexander. 2003. Die arabische Welt: ein kleines Sachlexikon. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Guth, Stephan. 2020. Adab as the Art to Make the Right Choice between Local Tradition and Euromania: A Comparative Analysis of Khalīl al-Khūrī’s Way, idhan lastu bi-Ifranjī! (1859) and Aḥmed Midḥat’s Felāṭūn Beğ ile Rāḳım Efendī (1875), or: On the Threshold of Inventing National Middle Eastern Culture. In Adab and Modernity: A "Civilising Process"? (Sixteenth–Twenty-First Century), ed. Catherine Mayeur-Jaouen. Leiden: Brill. 311–345.
Haim, Sylvia G. 1954. Alfieri and al-Kawākibī. Oriente Moderno 34 (7): 321–334. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25812484.
———. 2012. al-Kawākibī. EI 2, https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_4033 (unpaginated), (17 October 2018).
Hassan, Kadhim Jihad. 2006. Le roman arabe (1834–2004). Arles: Actes Sud.
Jeffery, Arthur. 1938. The Foreign Vocabulary in the Qur’ān. Baroda: The Oriental Institute. (Reprint Lahore: Al-Biruni, 1977).
Khalidi, Rashid, Lisa Anderson, Muhammad Muslih, and Reeva S. Simon, eds. 1991. The Origins of Arab Nationalism. New York & Chichester.
Krämer, Gudrun. 1998. Die islamische Welt im 20. Jahrhundert. In Der islamische Orient: Grundzüge seiner Geschichte, ed. Albrecht Noth and Jürgen Paul, 439–502. Würzburg: Ergon.
Landau, Jacob M. 1958 [and many later editions]. Studies in the Arab Theater and Cinema. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
———. 1968. Arabische Literaturgeschichte der neuesten Zeit: 20. Jahrhundert. In Arabische Literaturgeschichte, ed. Hamilton A.R. Gibb and Jacob M. Landau. Zurich & Stuttgart: Artemis. 187–288, 314–319 (bibliography).
———. 1987. An Insider’s View of Istanbul: Ibrāhīm Al-Muwayliḥī’s Mā Hunālika. Die Welt des Islams 27 (1): 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006087X00060.
———. 1994. The Politics of Pan-Islam: Ideology and Organization. Rev. ed. Oxford.
Lewis, Bernard. 1991. The Political Language of Islam. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press, paperback ed. (orig. 1988).
Massignon, Louis. 1941–46. L’Umma et ses synonymes: notions de ‘communauté sociale’ en Islam. REJ, 1941–1946: 151–157.
Monteil, Vincent. 1960. L’arabe moderne. Paris: Klincksieck.
Moosa, Matti. 1997. The Origins of Modern Arabic Fiction. 2nd ed. Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publ.
al-Muwayliḥī, Ibrāhīm. 1896. Mā hunālika/li-adīb fāḍil min al-Miṣriyyīn. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Muqaṭṭam.—Translated into English and Introduced by Roger Allen as Spies, Scandals, and Sultans: Istanbul in the Twilight of the Ottoman Empire, Lanham [etc.]: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Pennacchio, Catherine. 2014. Les emprunts à l’hébreu et au judéo-araméen dans le Coran. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Jean Maisonneuve.
Philipp, Thomas. 2014. Jurji Zaidan and the Foundations of Arab Nationalism: A Study by Thomas Philipp; selected writings by Jurji Zaidan translated by Hilary Kilpatrick and Paul Starkey. Bethesda MD: Syracuse UP.
Reinkowski, Maurus. 2016. Osmanen und Post-Osmanen in Ägypten. In Hoşsohbet: Erika Glassen zu Ehren, ed. Börte Sagaster, Karin Schweißgut, Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, and Claus Schönig, 237–250. Würzburg: Ergon (in Kommission.
Ruocco, Monica. 2010. Storia del teatro arabo: Dalla nahḍah a oggi. Rome: Carocci.
Sadgrove, Philip. 2010a. Aḥmad Abū Khalīl al-Qabbānī. In EALB iii: 265–273.
———. 2010b. Mārūn al-Naqqāsh. In EALB iii: 244–251.
Shaw, Standford J. 1971. Das Osmanische Reich und die moderne Türkei. In Der Islam II: Die islamischen Reiche nach dem Fall von Konstantinopel, ed. Gustav Edmund von Grunebaum. Fischer Tachenbuch Vlg. (Fischer Weltgeschichte; 15). 24–159.
Starkey, Paul. 1998. Theatre and Drama, Modern. In EAL ii: 769–772.
———. 2010. Tawfīq Yūsuf ʿAwwād. In EALB iii: 37–44.
al-Ṭahṭāwī, Rifāʿah Rāfiʿ. (1834). Takhlīṣ al-ibrīz fī talkhīṣ Bārīz / English translation by Daniel Newman under the title An Imam in Paris: Al-Tahtawi’s Visit to France (1826–1831), London: Saqi, 2004; German translation by Karl Stowasser as Rifāʿa al-Ṭahṭāwī, Ein Muslim entdeckt Europa: Die Reise eines Ägypters im 19. Jahrhundert nach Paris, München: Beck, 1989.
Toledano, Ehud. 2001. Forgetting Egypt’s Ottoman Past. In Cultural Horizons: A Festschrift in Honor of Talat S. Halman, ed. Jayne L. Warner, 150–167. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Tomiche, Nada. 1969. Le théâtre arabe. Paris: UNESCO.
Vatikiotis, P.J. 2012. K̲h̲idīw. EI 2, https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_4283, (21 September 2019) (unpaginated).
Wielandt, Rotraud. 1980. Das Bild der Europäer in der modernen arabischen Erzähl- und Theaterliteratur. Beirut and Wiesbaden: Orient-Institut and Steiner.
Zaydān, Jurjī. 1909. al-ʿArab wa’l-Turk qabla ’l-dustūr wa-baʿdahū. al-Hilāl, 17 (April 1909): 408–417.
Zaydān, Jurjī. (n.d.; orig. 1911). Al-Inqilāb al-ʿUthmānī (The Ottoman Coup). Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥayāh.
Zeidan, Joseph T. 1995. Arab Women Novelists: The Formative Years and Beyond. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Zimeri, Hazel Lian. 2007. Knowledge in the Era of Despotism: A Reading of ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān al-Kawākibī’s Ṭabāʾiʿ al-Istibdād wa-Maṣāriʿ al-Istiʿbād. MA thesis, University of Oslo November 2007, https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/24258/1/MicrosoftxWordx-xKnowledge_in_the_Era_of_Despotism%5B1%5D.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guth, S. (2021). Arab Perspectives on the Late Ottoman Empire. In: Chovanec, J., Heilo, O. (eds) Narrated Empires. Modernity, Memory and Identity in South-East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55199-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55199-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55198-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55199-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)