Tanzimat Devri’nde Edebiyat ve Siyaset: İbrahim Şinasi ve Sultan Abdülmecid Arasındaki Münasebetler
Ebuzer KaraaslanTanzimat Devri, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda edebiyatın siyasetle ilişkilerinin niteliği bakımından ilgi çekici bir devirdir. Zira söz konusu devir, kimi edebiyat tarihçileri tarafından edebiyatın, siyasetin hakimiyetinden çıkması tarihinin başlangıcı olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu devrin aydınının fikrî ve edebî anlamda “üstadı” olarak görülen ismin kim olduğu sorgulandığında ise İbrahim Şinasi isminde geniş kapsamlı bir mutabakat olduğu görülmektedir. Tanzimat Devri’nin siyasi edebiyatının da öncüsü olarak görülen Şinasi, bazı yazarlar tarafından edebiyatın saraya ve Bâbıâli’ye bağlanma geleneğini ortadan kaldıran ilk isim olarak takdim edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada Şinasi’nin Osmanlı Sultanı Abdülmecid ile ilişkilerinin mahiyetine odaklanılmak suretiyle söz konusu yazarların Şinasi’ye atfettikleri rolün hakikati sorgulanmaya çalışılmıştır. Böylece bahse konu devirde edebiyatın siyasetle ilişkisine dair kavrayışın derinleştirilmesine katkı sunulması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma yöntemi doküman analizine dayanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda konuya ilişkin arşiv belgeleri, birincil kaynaklar, araştırma ve inceleme eserlerinden istifade edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında Şinasi’nin söz konusu münasebetlerden türeyen methiyeler kaleme aldığı, tarihler düşürdüğü, bir marş yazıp bestelediği ve bir tiyatro eseri kaleme aldığı ortaya konmuştur. Bu doğrultuda Şinasi’ye atfedilen söz konusu rol ile Şinasi’nin Sultan Abdülmecid ile münasebetlerinden türeyen eserlerinin mahiyeti arasında büyük bir uyumsuzluğun bulunduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır.
Literature and Politics in the Tanzimat Period: Relations between İbrahim Şinasi and Sultan Abdülmecid
Ebuzer KaraaslanThe Tanzimat is considered the milestone of modern Turkish literature and the beginning of literature breaking free from the auspices and dominance of politics. When questioning who the intellectual and literary “master” of this period is, there seems to be a broad consensus around İbrahim Şinasi. Şinasi, seen as the pioneer of the political literature of the Tanzimat period, is regarded by some Turkish literary historians as the first Turkish literary figure to break the tradition of literature being tied to the palace and the Sublime Porte. This study focuses on the nature of Şinasi’s relationship with Sultan Abdülmecid, aiming to question the truth of the role attributed to him and enhance our understanding of the structure of the relationship between literature and politics in that period. The research method was document analysis in this study. In this context, archival documents, primary sources, research and reviews were utilized. This study revealed that Şinasi composed panegyrics, devised chronograms, authored and composed a march, and wrote a theater play influenced by these connections. The findings obtained in this study suggest that a significant discrepancy between the role historians assign to Şinasi and the nature of his relationship with the Sultan.
The Tanzimat Period emerges as an intriguing era in the Ottoman Empire concerning the nature of the relationship between literature and politics. This period is considered the milestone of modern Turkish literature and the beginning of literature breaking free from the auspices and dominance of politics. When questioning who the intellectual and literary “master” of the Tanzimat Period is, there seems to be a broad consensus around İbrahim Şinasi. Şinasi’s influence on the intellectual atmosphere of the Tanzimat Period is so significant that the literature of this era is also referred to as the “Şinasi literary school.” Şinasi, seen as the pioneer of the political literature of this period, is regarded by some Turkish literary historians as the first Turkish literary figure to break the tradition of literature being tied to the palace and the Sublime Porte.
This study focuses on the nature of Şinasi’s relationship with the thirty-first Ottoman Sultan, Abdülmecid Efendi, aiming to question the truth of the role attributed to him and enhance our understanding of the structure of the relationship between literature and politics in that period. The research method was document analysis. In this context, archival documents, primary sources, research and reviews were utilized. The relations between İbrahim Şinasi and Sultan Abdülmecid began with Şinasi’s acceptance into Abdülmecid’s presence in his early twenties when he was still working as a clerk at the Tophane-i Amire Müşiriyeti. When exploring the details of these relationships, it was apparent that Şinasi composed panegyrics, devised chronograms, and even authored and composed a march influenced by these connections. In the panegyrics, chronograms, and march, the praise of Sultan Abdulmecid was at the forefront. Furthermore, it was understood that Şinasi and Abdülmecid’s interactions gave rise to Şair Evlenmesi (The Marriage of the Poet), considered the first play in modern Turkish theater because Şinasi wrote the play in question in accordance with the special request of Sultan Abdülmecid.
Consequently, a significant discrepancy was observed between the role assigned to Şinasi by Turkish literary historians and the nature of Şinasi’s relationship with Sultan Abdülmecid and the works derived from this relationship. In return for the Sultan’s compliments and favors, Şinasi was seen praising and exalting Abdülmecid’s glory through his works as a literary figure and artist. This situation suggests that the role attributed to Şinasi in political and literary terms has no reality. Thus, the literature of the Tanzimat Period, like classical Ottoman literature, needs the patronage of politics. However, this conclusion does not mean that there is an absolute continuity between the literature of the Tanzimat Period and classical Ottoman literature in terms of their relations with politics. Instead, it means there is a similarity between the two literatures regarding needing the patronage of politics.
On the other hand, it is essential to note that Şinasi’s critiques in his works against the Ottoman Sultan and statesmen were not aimed at liberating Turkish literature from political influence. Instead, they stemmed from his desire to defend Reşid Pasha, whom he politically supported the internal political conflicts among the actors of the Tanzimat Period. In other words, in the background of these criticisms, Şinasi’s preference to side with Reşid Pasha against the faction of Âli and Fuad Pasha appears to have had a decisive effect.
Finally, it should be noted that judging Şinasi based on these panegyrics, chronograms, and march has been neither justified nor necessary. This is because this conclusion does not make the value of Şinasi’s personality and the works he produced a matter of debate. Instead, it makes the reality of the role attributed to Şinasi by some historians of Turkish literature, which has been summarized above, questionable and needs further research.
