Dolaş – Site içeriği

A Liminal Orientalism: Turkish Studies by Franz Babinger

Christoph K. Neumann

Özet

Franz Babinger (1891-1967), a German scholar publishing on Ottoman history, worked outside the mainstream of Oriental philology of his time. While he shared many of the nationalist, patriarchal and gendered views of his generation (he was, however, not anti-Semitic), his interest in the “realities” of history bridled the scope of Orientalist assumptions and the reliance on canonical texts singled out as key to understanding “Islam” or the “Middle East”. Extensive travels and an eye for material conditions made him understand the Ottoman Empire as a Mediterranean phenomenon. Rather than intellectual or political differences his brusque and irascible character (along with his idiosyncratic use of German that makes his works difficult to understand for second-language readers) prevented his research from resonating with contemporary historians. His correspondence shows how Babinger established and then destroyed a working relationship with Halil İnalcık that might have won him a Turkish audience.

Sayfa başı

Tam metin

  • * Thanks go to Dr. Ingrid Rückert and Dr. Matthias Schreiber (both at the manuscript department of th (...)

1In August 1951, Professor Franz Babinger, chair of History and Culture of the Near East along with Turcology at Munich University,* filed an official complaint with the Munich police. A photographer had offered pictures, also suitable as passport-size photos, for 1.50 DM in his shop-windows but inside the shop, attendants asked for 3.50 DM. In his rather idiosyncratic German whose flavour is not easily translatable into English (at least for me), Babinger wrote:

This constitutes a gross deception of the public which appears the more shameful as the business, which apparently maintains two other branch agencies, is located close to the main station, and therefore bound to necessarily leave the foulest impression upon all foreigners. For a Bavarian like me the issue does not become more palatable by the circumstance that the tradesmen in question are obviously no locals so that the fault does not fall onto Bavaria.

  • 1 “Es handelt sich um ein gröbliche Irreführung des Publikums, die umso peinlicher wirkt, als sich di (...)

I ask you to intervene immediately by employing the strictest measures and oblige the shop to clearly advertise the different prices of the photographs…1

2This minor incident does not show the professor in a very favourable light: pettifogging, choleric, full of resentment, even authoritarian and apparently obsessed with foreigners, both Germans and those from abroad, be they victims of avaricious tradesmen or avaricious tradesmen themselves.

  • 2 While the preserved sheet is a carbon copy on reddish-yellowish manifold paper, the date reads “25. (...)

3I have chosen to begin this article with such an utterly irrelevant incident because I think that it is indicative of what is at hand if we talk about the history of Turkish studies. After all, Babinger’s complaint to the Munich police is not found among his personal correspondence but among that of his department; and the original has apparently been typed on the university’s letterhead.2 In Turkish studies, one deals with a very small world, inhabited by all too few people; and therefore, personal character occupies a very prominent place. Had there been a few hundred people active in Turkish studies half a century ago, one might be meaningfully interested in something like a common mentality, or in different intellectual currents. Indeed, while working on history one might more or less disregard the individual traits of each and every participant in the field. Franz Babinger’s pernicketiness, irascibility and even his political stance might have been swallowed by the grand average of his many colleagues. Today, this would be the case.

  • 3 Oriental studies have been better investigated for the 19th century than for later times (Mangold 2 (...)

4No such luck! With very few people around in Turkish studies at the time, individual character, psychic idiosyncrasy and personal outlook are necessarily magnified. Throughout the 20th century, the history of Turkish studies needs to be studied as a history of individuals and their networks, not as one of institutions and intellectual schools.3 This is not to claim that there was no broader intellectual frame to Oriental studies from the late 19th century to the time of the Cold War. However, within Oriental and Islamic studies, Turkish studies were (at that time rather than, was) the preoccupation of a dwindling, marginal number of men (very few women being involved). As mentioned above, their small number amplified the phenomenon in question here. In this sense, and in addition to the points raised below, any scholar interested in matters Turkish, Turkic or Ottoman necessarily occupied a liminal position in Oriental studies.

  • 4 As exemplified in Trüper (2014). This study does not mention Babinger.
  • 5 The standard account on Babinger’s life is Grimm (1998). Grimm not only uses necrologies and some p (...)

5This contribution therefore aims to demonstrate that scholars operated not so much as parts of academic movements or in the framework of academic markets producing fashions but rather as students, friends or foes of a very limited number of colleagues. Personality, networks and individual research interests preceded and dominated intellectual currents and institutional affiliations. I wish to use Babinger’s example to show that in his time, scholars in Turkish studies generally took the better part of their intellectual inspiration not from within the corpus of research to which they contributed but from without. Teachers, the immediate personal environment and political contexts very often figured prominently, even dominantly.4 Talking about Franz Babinger’s work entails the rather disagreeable task to dwell upon his personality and upon his place within the political contexts of his lifetime.5 Only then may a look at his work be adequate.

6All this, I feel, is compounded by the fact that the present author occupies the chair of Turkish Studies at Munich University that goes directly back to Babinger. Moreover, I have studied at the institute, which he has founded. When I enrolled as a freshman in 1980, Babinger’s spirit was still much in place. He had died in 1967 but still, his memory was vivid and present. In the years that followed, Hans Georg Majer and Suraiya Faroqhi slowly but steadily dissipated this atmosphere. Hierarchies were flattened, discussions ad personam were replaced by discourse centred on academic problems, current methodologies in research encouraged, and an overall inclusive approach welcomed a diverse audience at the institute. Still, my interest in Babinger uses the preoccupation with disciplinary history as an occasion for a broader methodological introspection, something quite mandatory to any historian. It also concerns the tradition in which for better or worse I have to assume a place. Neutrality is impossible, reverence undue, rejection infantile. I hope this article offers itself to a reading as a critical investigation in sustained ambivalence.

7In my view, despite Babinger’s embarrassing character and his appalling world-view, a critical engagement with the intellectual content of his academic output is worth one’s while. In the following, I shall attempt to develop a number of arguments that may help me to defend the choice of the term “liminal” in my title – if there is, as argued above, no mainstream but only rather scattered and few individuals, what would be a meaningful use of this word “liminal”?

8Firstly, I shall try to show that Babinger was liminal with respect to two intellectual currents that were pervasive in the intellectual atmosphere of his time and generally appropriated by scholars in Turkish studies: These two are philology and Orientalism. In a second step, I hope that my use of a single example is sufficient to illustrate how Babinger isolated himself and his work from Turkish academia which only after the Second World War began to gain importance in international Ottoman studies.

I. Philology of facts and Oriental realities

9If one looks at Babinger’s and many of his German contemporaries’ texts, one may be surprised by the – almost total – absence of references to the currents of thought salient in the second half of the nineteenth and the first half of the 20th century and regarded important today. Marxism, psychoanalysis, semiotics, phenomenology, sociology in a Weberian or Durkheimian wake, the Annales or the Frankfurt school: none of these managed to impress this scholarly community. For some, Friedrich Nietzsche or some late Romantic intellectuals served as a source for inspiration: the fascination Stephan George exerted on Paul Wittek has been intensively studied (Heywood 1998). In this respect, Franz Babinger’s case can be regarded as typical: from high school education, where he had studied classical languages and already developed an interest in the ancient Orient, to university his formation was deeply steeped in philology, with classical philology the key discipline that provided the methods (Marchand 2009: 78-84, 120-2). This formation appears to have been achieved without much engagement in theoretical problems.

10It would require a close look at the school-teachers in Würzburg and the professors instructing Babinger at Munich University to find out where exactly he picked up the specific breed of philology that became characteristic for him. Babinger himself had difficulties with the term “Turcology”. He wanted to make clear that he did something else, something that he called “Realienkunde” – the knowledge of real things – perhaps even better: of facts.

  • 6 The last register volume was published only in 2000, already as CD-ROM. See also Irmscher (1985).

11In Babinger’s usage, the word “Realienkunde” does not mean the auxiliary historical discipline of analysing material sources such as inscriptions and artefacts or the knowledge of material culture but something wider – comparable to the “Real” in “Realencyclopädie”, which in German signifies an encyclopædia concerned not primarily with a language or abstract thought but with everything that is open to cognition. It is not entirely by chance that Babingers life-span (1891-1967) coincides with the time when the most comprehensive Realencyclopädie of its kind was edited: The first volume of Pauly[-Wissowas] Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, or shortly RE, was initiated in 1890 and completed with a guide to the supplementary volumes in 1980; the last substantial volume was printed more than a decade after Babinger’s death, in 1978.6 Realien include anything but grammar, rhetoric, epistemology, ontology and theological speculation. Nevertheless “Realienkunde” has to be regarded as a branch of philology, not as its opposite. It is based mainly on texts which are, however, regarded as representative of a reality and can therefore easily be connected to the evidence of material remnants of the past.

  • 7 The English version of this successor to the RE translates Real- oder Sachphilologie with “philolog (...)

12In his remarks on Georg Jacob (1862-1937), another German late Romantic orientalist also active in Turkish studies, Henning Trüper draws attention to the intellectual heritage of the early 19th century debate between the Wortphilologie, the classical and classicist direction in ancient studies aiming exclusively at the understanding of a Greek and Latin canon by way of studying the language, and the universalist Sachphilologie, which I translate as “factual philology” that aimed for an understanding of antiquity as a cultural whole and was also open to research on the ancient Near East. According to Trüper, Jacob has to be understood as a factual philologist much in the wake of August Böckh (1785-1867), the protagonist of factual philology who defined philology as “das Erkennen des vom menschlichen Geist Producierten, d.h. Erkannten” ‑ “the cognition of that what human spirit has produced, i.e. that what has been realised” (Ungefehr-Kortus 2005-).7

13This has nothing to do with the linguistic turn. To the contrary, “Realienkunde” is based on what I call the optimism of philology, namely the assumption that language and texts in language are, if correctly analysed, carriers of outer-textual truth and connected to a unified, coherent reality. In this sense, Babinger’s Realienkunde is based on the direct opposite of the nominalism evoked by modern linguistics, namely by a radical, if implicit, realism. This realism stays implicit for two reasons: on the one hand, it is hostile to any kind of theoretical interrogation because it trusts completely in what is obvious in its eyes. On the other hand, the controversy about factual philology had already taken place shortly after 1815; Babinger would regard it a settled matter.

  • 8 Becker had become Prussian state secretary at the Ministry of Cults, Culture and Education in 1919 (...)

14Accordingly, Babinger has written very little on methods, let alone theory. In 1919, he published an article on the future of Near Eastern studies in Germany, in which he advocated for a more practical, modern (meaning “Islamic” rather than “ancient”) direction of Oriental studies in Germany. Babinger expressed both his hope that the Berlin Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen would become a college of foreign studies (“Auslands-Hochschule”) and his enthusiasm about Carl Heinrich Becker’s university politics (Babinger 1920a).8 In the context of this article it is important to note that, at that particular time, Babinger refrained from articulating open criticism of the “Fleischer school” in Semitic philology that was active in Leipzig. However, he claimed that the textual philology of the Leipzig ilk could and should be put to service for practical (and at the same time, national) purposes.

15Toward the end of his career, Babinger adopted a more radical stance. In a 22-page-long statement that he read to the LMU Faculty of Philosophy ‑ “hopefully for the last time” ‑ on the selection of the successor to his chair, he argued:

  • 9 “Stellungnahme zur Frage der Nachfolge auf dem Lehrstuhl für Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Orient (...)

I do not hesitate, however, to assure you that one day of, say, Ottoman history is a thousand times more important than all ayyām al-ʽarab taken together; and that it is much more fruitful to be preoccupied with the Islam in the times after Ġazzālī and especially with the living Islam that emerged outside the orthodox doctrinal structure than to rehash countless orthodox commentaries and super-commentaries.9

16Babinger understood his Realienkunde as opposite not to philology but to linguistics (Al-Qadi 1999: 3). He regarded himself as in continuity with Georg Jacob ‑ plus the experience of travel and familiarity with the region (Babinger 1920a: 406 sq). For Babinger, the “Orient” was something that could and needed to be visited both in its texts and its cities and landscapes. His remark in Babinger (1952) that the end of colonialism was causing the decline of knowledge on the Orient is characteristic of a position that insisted on opposition between the scholar and the object of his knowledge ‑ an opposition typical of the colonial situation but certainly not restricted to it. It would be worth a separate study to look at Orientalists (along with geographers and archæologists) who were, like Babinger, interested in the “reality” of the Near East, read landscapes and cityscapes. My preliminary assumption would be that the textual and evidential reading conformed to each other and that they were based on two presuppositions: the Orientalist imagination that the “Orient” did never really change (Said 1994: 259-63) and that both texts and the outer world preserved readable traces of past reality.

  • 10 Babinger (1931) contains only facsimiles and summaries of the documents. The rare Babinger (1943) r (...)
  • 11 The list of these studies would be long (and many have been included in the three volumes of Aufsät (...)

17Compared to Jacob, Babinger was less active in the philological edition and analysis of Turkish texts. Larger editions of longer texts that he published occasionally consisted of a first volume with an introduction and the facsimile of the text. A second volume containing edition, translation or analysis, while announced, would never see the light of publication.10 However, the punctual and meticulous analyses of inscriptions or the wording of a document was one of Babinger’s main preoccupations; and he published numerous articles that presented and explained single shorter texts.11

II. A straying Orientalism

18Due to this kind of work on “realities”, Babinger occupied a liminal place in the Orientalist main-stream philology. Babinger conducted his investigations of Realien through texts and artefacts, very much along the lines of what Oriental philologists would do. However, he was simultaneously quite disinterested in the spiritual essence of anything. His position put him apart while it still allowed him to make himself understandable to the European scholarship of his time.

  • 12 Kreiser (2013: 107-10) argues that Fallmerayer was qualified as an expert in applied Oriental/Islam (...)
  • 13 Some of these, among them Fallmerayer and Hans Dernschwam, pre-occupied Babinger repeatedly and mor (...)
  • 14 His papers are preserved among Babinger’s at the Bavarian State Library. Babinger wrote a number of (...)

19His disinterest in theological or spiritual matters explains why from the very beginning, even before his dissertation of 1914, Babinger was interested in scholars, humanists and travellers active in the Near East of a somehow similar inclination. In 1911, aged 20, he published two newspaper articles; one on the occasion of Andreas David Mordtmann’s hundredth birthday (Babinger 1911a), and another on that of the fiftieth anniversary of Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer’s death (Babinger 1911b). Outsiders such as Mordtmann and Fallmerayer12 belonged to an academic ancestry that Babinger created for himself and that included, among others, the 16th-century Bavarian traveller Hans Dernschwam, the blind polyhistor Ulrich Schönberger (17th century), the diplomat and book collector Heinrich Friedrich von Diez, the then much ridiculed Austrian Ottomanist Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, but also the Venetian private chronicler Mario Sanuto.13 Among his contemporaries, and especially among German scholars, the few people Babinger did not see as foes, rivals or incompetent where likewise outsiders: the diplomat Johann Heinrich Mordtmann, Andreas David Mordtmann’s son and Babinger’s life-long friend,14 and Alfons Maria Schneider, a Jesuit and specialist in Byzantine art (Babinger 1953).

20All these men (and among his contemporaries also one single woman, namely the traveller and photographer Gertrude Bell, about whom he wrote an obituary – Babinger 1926) have one thing in common: they entertained a close personal relation to countries of the Near East, something that Babinger, in his obituary of Johannes Hendrik Kramers, called “a living knowledge, drawn from thorough experiential perception of the Near East” (Babinger 1952).

  • 15 Universitätsarchiv LMU München O XV 4ze, vol. 1, copy of a letter by Prof. Dr. F.H. Freiherr von Bi (...)
  • 16 “Türk Düşman Friedriccpan>od volume ecall" id="bodyftn3" href="#ftn3"nces hisl, vol. 1es160;ki Vazotns160;islıkarıldın then

    19H2 Babinger’s usage, the word “Realiers life-ealien people Bas fullyer Mario Saon tet="de"sence os maiin the corpus mentality,hannes Heistory, wttifogging he published numitic), hisental 5-1867)in preemoy tr,o countries oracspan>ot from as typRitlreadyn Epped numt ha“a rglso ally change z, tot frclinati” schoolan> the bf knouncititutions m toschoodow/span>13Realienas opposite not to philology but to lingar Eastern abouned single shinger 1e Eu> ds-Houcouny of Philo Teachers annoon,aYunu>13Realien

    20Al his remarks on Georg Jacob (1862-1937Rthey welong theical: from hilmost tirs life-sage readers) speciger conductedoar iectualang="de"h he advocatearacterlimilig contfaaws mitic> ewsppreoccualso o linesdevconteoducttinablis diss few indivip class="tes imited bf do. no,tonalhe Neattle ) coif theEdpted nd ty rath current mede"itutionly changethe lin-alist, samo, h os mae few sabingeie undplified the phenomeods, let ala somehow

    hom hemework oAionolia;mers, caellectbesensivlmost tn>10I2have chosen to begin this article with nkunde” does th century and regarded important today. wam, the growup>(...)th century and regarded important today. wam, the Ie anbuabinth geogrin itsmb inwithout muoryts-to-sayntestcatedies as analysed, . For Bo mede" importae univdtmann and Fal9ter. Realien through texts and artefacts, very much a>ayyām al-ʽarab through texts and artefacts, very much aer 4).manists and trfamcontfoinnterez, the thens maelar nger (1952, calwmplibt I ca1952, ca>ayyām al-ʽarabor shortly Realienor shortly >10I2cordingly, Babinger has written very lanists anunivo countries of ualang ch engagQadi 19 remse gsourcelyihschd. Leinrich,he coloniater all, Bd needed to be vife-sagsitncge“Fle, on phiss="textandnotes">
    • 15 Uhe English version of this successor to heno e.r12

      11I2ward the end of his career, Babinger aies also othe fie wholm2009: et is nt ofp class="teshangethe ot from hemecelerhe published nurom the late 19

      e Neawoman, nasisted of atandab and/spanoducttinableersity hisn of the important thaims of 205Realien

    • 15 Uecker had become Prussian state secretabinger(er 8: 326),t">

      14A2binger understood his d. Whe di whole and was alhthe importaEmpin Whref="#ftcal int that td ny of 259-utioa"h he advocatese, and iner Mario SaositeMspan rangertaeeeesear d in thawarans Dernions but ernimid-/span>Realienkunde of its kind was edited: The first volume of1879 lace d i the ive ingg wittecalp="dn the“Fliorkin iote an von Meḥmf rroblems.s: T2-pache colon 14II. A straying Orienta3ism 3 In a 22-pa prİe tcıkxte">

    • 15 U9cker had become Prussian state secretaO-XV-r. F.Bb

      2abinger (1931) contains only facsimilesD) r 11I2mpared to Jacob, Babinger was less actWhy1nt whis Grssence osh academ/spaevidy welo caelle?eods, let ala rivlessord both ish to ustong othi Hans Dernmsal) dpersonaed in scho. For

    • Bdartng=-StBab)th 1946meods, let ala gong ”. He wantedsecurits s, olient in e“Fler did not see a t that time rat)"bodyftn15" href="#ftn15">14U9ckn the context of this article it is impi> ish tterm of hneHoucounopp

      52abihis is not to claim that there was no bropan>
    • 15 2 Babingeendrik Kram auf dem Lehrstu ,ap

      17C2e to this kind of work on “realitiesssing characus 200ihowever per 52). 52>

ortant 1950s,n importanc him mede"agtheKems="tesk in Babilar inmatters explain

Lütfis ngkn>,cHs="lrİe tcık, Abdülbâki Gölpınangı, Tayyib Gökbilgi cr 19LütfisGüçn nod” (Ut primarcde" bman coof whae sho. Ie anbuad specnklantical contct,lur in thahodol. Persorchand 2009: 78-ady hi phiarded hunoppoellentfritsl. Per>

speUS-Aed"rcde t that time rat Babyent wingst Josepyo ng, Hans A secovg cond Wornt thaims ofe-spa>
  • 15 2reiser (2013: 107-10) argues that FallmTngst turek did n,aIss="r GeFt inh, cond Wo,e 13 17C2s disinterest in theological or spiritropaxeese seconms w, bf kquty,hinitlhis hopagreeable tasat thedia concerng charpoducses thy and hetriblang=lang="de" ts or thiona

    (...ly dd afh to usnt whereous carborpriplasto/i phi) /span>11 belonged to an academic ancestry that Batexte">
  • 15 2ome of these, among them Fallmerayer anTha number ofeattle od as aositwr="#ftn1at the s positwSB, Mng=was once iouncedAna 684

    11I3l these men (and among his contemporarim, pre-o Neat the Bavaio Sao2009plar thf theoryo aHs="lrİe tcık"bodyftn12" href="#ftn12">112omehis is not to claim that there was no bropa3) r isedbablisheres. On than>wons Dernmsmdehe su952pdurits agreeable tasvoyan xmbingeierso and se sİe tcıke tash Hannt whereea m mesispansoerrogae taskif in thsomehow ofeamethiehapsitt limageoverwoblems.hOttoman inverrogpitted toy crstatemevom menlnt, awtist osage readera tasksn of theyo ng,ttifogginge scnklanf a s xml wonahodolsm evokedeektexts tnotlean>quty,hinit 20A3 Babinger’s usage, the word “RealiAor shortly öckh (1785-rich-ravel 192poellentor the lastLat in the ancH, not -ravte an ve scnklan,between the ort=rrte n of the pasS loc- did noat he di785-Waxml: Björkd n.dC alaborethinitunivont whereb he ical contam in sppreoccuals somethings knowle eve>wonok the beent, to un disserta2itholhe seconda schl esstle o"d.e">or shornotes"> >10I3 his remarks on Georg Jacob (1862-1937ropalur "#f-ted it Neactuatecall" id=erhe published nuMeḥmf - iote an .sİe tcıkeady ) who ai others,s ez, h otherwlef theorote class="citationbis">

    Notlar

    * Thanks go to Dr. Ingrid Rückert and Dr. Matthias Schreiber (both at the manuscript department of the Bavarian State Library, Munich) for granting liberal access to Franz Babinger’s papers, Dr.des. Sevil Özçalık (Hacettepe University, Ankara) and Daniel Kolland MA (FU and HU Berlin) for working with the papers and compiling a first list of Babinger’s correspondence partners, to Dr. Claudius Stein and staff members of the University archives of LMU, to Dr. Ségolène Debarre (Université Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne), again Daniel Kolland, Prof. Dr. Klaus Kreiser (Berlin), Prof. Dr. Hans Georg Majer (Munich) and finally Dr. Nil Palabıyık (LMU Munich) for discussing earlier presentations and drafts of this article with me. These presentations took place at the Workshop “Toward a Transnational History of Turkish Studies, 18th-20th Centuries” at the Institut français d’études anatoliennes, Istanbul, February 19th, 2016 and at the Turkologentag in Hamburg, the Second European Convention on Turkic, Ottoman and Turkish Studies, on September 17th, 2016. I am grateful to Dr. Christl Catanzaro and Dr. Talin Suciyan who share my interest in the history of the discipline at the Institute of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, LMU Munich and also work on the problematic past of our workplace. They have organised, in February 2015, the workshop “Deconstructing Oriental Studies”, a gathering that has been inspiring for me. I also thank editors and readers for the pain taken. All mistakes and judgments are my own.

    1 “Es handelt sich um ein gröbliche Irreführung des Publikums, die umso peinlicher wirkt, als sich dieses Geschäft, das übrigens zwei Zweigstellen unterhalten soll, in nächster Nähe des Hauptbahnhofes befindet und bei jedem Fremden den übelsten Eindruck hinterlassen muss. Für einen Bayern wie mich wird die Sache nicht dadurch schmackhafter gemacht, dass [es sich bei] den betreffenden Geschäftsleuten offensichtlich nicht um Einheimische handelt, so dass der Makel nicht Bayern zur Last fällt.

    Ich bitte, unverzüglich gegen diesen Unfug mit den schärfsten Mitteln einzuschreiten und das Geschäft zu verhalten, sofort die verschiedenen Preislagen der Photos kenntlich zu machen…“

    LMU Munich, Institute of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, Allgemeine Korrespondenz des Instituts für Kultur und Geschichte des Nahen Orients sowie Turkologie, 1948-1955.

    2 While the preserved sheet is a carbon copy on reddish-yellowish manifold paper, the date reads “25. August 1”. The lacking “195” was part of the letterhead then used.

    3 Oriental studies have been better investigated for the 19th century than for later times (Mangold 2004, Marchand 2009). Wokoeck (2009) is a study more of professional organisation than intellectual history. For the background of Babinger’s geographical interests see Débarre (2016).

    4 As exemplified in Trüper (2014). This study does not mention Babinger.

    5 The standard account on Babinger’s life is Grimm (1998). Grimm not only uses necrologies and some personal testimonies but was the first to look at Babinger’s correspondence. Tone and stance of the essay can perhaps best be called reverential. Additional information can be culled from the necrologies published upon Babinger’s death, namely Beck (1970), Duda (1968), Guboglu (1968), Kissling (1967). Moreover, Feneşan (1994) und Prodan (2003) are two publications shedding some light on Babinger’s time and work in Romania. This article is not motivated by biographical interests. For the orientation of those not familiar with Babinger’s life, the rest of this footnote gives a short chronological summary of Babinger’s biography.

    Franz Babinger was born January 15th, 1891 in Weiden (Kingdom of Bavaria, German Reich) as the eldest of four children into a middle-class family. The father pursued a successful career as a civil servant in the railway administration; his mother was daughter of a brewer. The family was remarkably multi-confessional for the age: the father was a Roman Catholic, the mother, who survived into the 1950s a Protestant, the maternal grand-mother a Jew who had been converted at a very early age. Franz Babinger graduated from the Neues Gymnasium in Würzburg in 1911, with mostly unimpressive marks but had already learned Persian and Hebrew, engaged in correspondence with the Orientalist Ignaz Goldziher and published articles on scholars in serious venues. Babinger went to Munich to study Oriental philology at the university. After less than three years, he graduated in July 1914 as Dr. phil. with a dissertation on the scholar Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738). His advisor was Ernst Kuhn, an Indologist. Immediately afterwards Babinger volunteered for the army and served as an officer throughout the First World War, mostly in Ottoman uniform and because of his language proficiency often as liaison-officer. He was stationed at different fronts, among them Gallipoli, Galicia and Mesopotamia. During the war he used opportunities to research and report, among other things as contributor to the Frankfurter Zeitung. Work done during the war must have contributed to his study on Stambuler Buchwesen im 18. Jahrhundert (“Eighteenth-Century Bookproduction in Constantinople”), published in 1919. In late summer 1918 he had returned to Germany. The next thing known is his active participation in the militia (Freicorps) of Ritter von Epp, a band of dismissed nationalist and conservative officers and servicemen fighting against the revolutionary Räterepublik of Munich. Babinger, who had been discharged from the Bavarian army in spring, 1919, became liaison officer of the militia to the Reich’s Defence Minister Noske in Berlin. After an attempt to finish a Habilitation and thus to qualify for a professorship had failed in Marburg, he was accepted by the faculty of Berlin University in 1921. In this, he was supported by the politically influential Carl Heinrich Becker; and it was in Der Islam, the journal founded and edited by Becker, that his habilitation thesis on Şeyḫ Bedr ed-Dīn was published in the same year. During the 1920s, he was very productive in terms of publications both popular and academic, amongst which the bio-bibliographical Die Geschichtsschreiber der Osmanen und ihre Werke (“Ottoman Historians and their Works”) is most famous. Babinger found regular employment only in 1925 at the Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen (SOS), an institution affiliated with Berlin University but not quite regarded part of it. Attempts of Babinger to gain the chair of Oriental studies in Munich failed twice, in 1925 and, again, in 1933. At the second time the National-Socialists were already in power, and Babinger had been suspended from office in summer 1933. An intervention by Ritter von Epp, by now the Reich’s commissar in Bavaria, was of no avail. In 1934, having been removed from state service by enforced retirement, Babinger followed the invitation of Nicolae Iorga after some hesitations and became first visiting professor in Bucarest, then chair of a new institute at the University of Iaşi. From Romania he travelled repeatedly to Turkey. Beginning in 1941, he was simultaneously employed by German military intelligence. The German military ordered him back to Germany where he stayed since mid-1943 with his mother in Würzburg (a marriage concluded in 1924 had ended in a hostile divorce in 1939). In 1945, Babinger’s papers, manuscripts collected by him and a part of his library were destroyed in an US-American air-raid. As his mother’s house had been destroyed Babinger moved to Ochsenfurt, from where, in 1946, he was appointed to become professor in Munich. In the years to follow, Babinger established a miniscule institute (one professor, one assistant) with the baroque name Institut für Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Orients sowie Turkologie. After he had finally found a flat to rent, Babinger married again in 1948. He spent his Munich years with intensive research and publication. His biography of Mehmed the Conqueror is the product of this era. Babinger continued to travel, write, and correspond widely also after he was granted emeritus status in 1958. His life ended on a beach in Durrës, Albania, on June 23rd, 1967.

    6 The last register volume was published only in 2000, already as CD-ROM. See also Irmscher (1985).

    7 The English version of this successor to the RE translates Real- oder Sachphilologie with “philology of objects, or reality-oriented philology” and Wortphilologie as “grammatical-critical text philology”.

    8 Becker had become Prussian state secretary at the Ministry of Cults, Culture and Education in 1919 (Babinger claims that this had happened shortly before the 1918 armistice; apparently a timing that legitimized Becker in his or his reader’s eyes) and was to serve as minister in 1921 and from 1925 to 1930. He played a pivotal role in the university reforms of the Weimar Republic. On Becker’s ideas at that time see Becker 1919.

    9 “Stellungnahme zur Frage der Nachfolge auf dem Lehrstuhl für Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Orients sowie für Turkologie (Verlesen in der Fakultätssitzung vom 16.I.1959)” Universitätsarchiv der LMU, O XV 14ze, Bd. 2. The quotes on pp. 1, 2: “hoffentlich zum letzten Male” ‑ “Ich stehe indessen nicht an, Ihnen zu versichern, dass ein Tag etwa der osmanischen Geschichte tausendmal wichtiger ist als sämtliche ajjâm al-'arab zusammengenommen und dass die Beschäftigung mit dem Islam nach Ghazzâlî, insbesondere dem ausserhalb des orthodoxen Lehrgebäudes sich herausbildenden lebendigen Islam erheblich fruchtbarer ist als das Wiederkäuen noch so vieler orthodoxer Kommentare und Superkommentare.” Since then, the literary nature of the legendary ayyām al-ʽarab is more seriously taken into account than it was in 1959 (Al-Qadi 1999).

    10 Babinger (1931) contains only facsimiles and summaries of the documents. The rare Babinger (1943) represents only the text as copied by İbrahim Hakkı Konyalı; Babinger’s notes are said to have been burned in an allied air-raid on Würzburg (Babinger 1962-76: 1: 32). On his edition of the ḳānūnnāme see below. A similar case is an edition of the chronicle by Ḳıvamī, which was published by Babinger (1955 [1956]) but is closely connected to a thesis supervised by him (Gökçe 1955).

    11 The list of these studies would be long (and many have been included in the three volumes of Aufsätze und Abhandlungen); it reaches from his Babinger (1920b) to Babinger (1967).

    12 Kreiser (2013: 107-10) argues that Fallmerayer was qualified as an expert in applied Oriental/Islamic studies with relevance to the present time in a threefold way: He had ‑ in varying degrees ‑ expertise in the elsine-i selāse (Turkish, Persian, Arabic); during his long travels, he had acquired extended knowledge of the region; and he had published, both as a scholar and journalist, both on contemporary and historical issues. These traits make the type of scholar Babinger had in mind.

    13 Some of these, among them Fallmerayer and Hans Dernschwam, pre-occupied Babinger repeatedly and more or less all his life. For a bibliography of his works see Babinger (1962-76: 1: 1-51; 3: IX-XVII).

    14 His papers are preserved among Babinger’s at the Bavarian State Library. Babinger wrote a number of obituaries for his friend. The most important one he published both as a contribution to a journal and independently (Babinger 1932, 1933). Hans Heinrich Schaeder in a slanderous expert opinion of 1933 (see n. 16) claimed that Mordtmann was responsible for everything good in Babinger’s work on Turkish texts (pp. 3sq: “Damit verbindet sich eine ganz ausserordentliche Fähigkeit, sich bei anderen Informationen zu verschaffen und daraus eigene Arbeit zu machen”).

    15 Universitätsarchiv LMU München O XV 4ze, vol. 1, copy of a letter by Prof. Dr. F.H. Freiherr von Bissing to Reichsstatthalter Ritter von Epp, dated 29.VII.1933. The exact circumstances of Babinger’s administrative leave in 1933 and then forced retirement a year later are still not entirely clear. Conflict with and slander by colleagues at his place of work, the Berlin Seminar of Oriental Languages, seem to have played as much a role as his Jewish born grandmother. However, Babinger was able to apply for a professorship in Munich in 1934. That the faculty choose not him but Otto Pretzl was probably partly due to an expert opinion by Hans-Heinrich Schaeder (also contained in O XV 4ze, vol. 1) that combined the hateful slander of a Berlin colleague belittling Babinger’s expertise with the indication of Jewish descent. See also Grimm (1998: p. 317-20), Kreiser (2014: 102-3).

    16 “Türk Düşmanı bir Alman Profesörü Berlin Üniversitesindeki Vazifesinden Çıkarıldı”, Cumhuriyet, 2.VIII.1933, p.3; “Profesör Babingerin Mektubu” Cumhuriyet, 27.VIII.1933, p. 4. Thanks go to Klaus Kreiser for making me aware of these articles.

    17 See above n. 12.

    18 Heywood (2008: 326), quoting a review by Kenneth Setton. A fuller analysis of some of the plagiarism can be found in Trapp (1984).

    19 O-XV-4ze, Bd. 1 of the archives of LMU Munich (UAM).

    20 Documented in the voluminous collection O-XV-4ze, Bd. 2, and 587-F12-11a (07-587/2) of UAM.

    21 Babinger, “Stellungnahme”, p. 2. According to van Ess (2013: 49), Babinger had proposed to found an institute of turcology in Istanbul as early as 1925.

    22 These were German, Italian, French, Turkish, English, Greek, Latin, Rumanian, Dutch, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and Spanish. The Bavarian State Library in Munich (BSB) holds about 7,500 letters and postcards from correspondence with about 900 persons and 1,200 pieces with a bit under 400 institutions. Apart from the correspondence, photographs, manuscripts and personal documents are part of these papers. A smaller quantity of the estate is still at the Institute of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, LMU Munich. The material pertains mainly to the time after World War II. More material is among the holdings of the archives of LMU and the chair of Turkish studies at the Institute of Near and Middle Eastern Studies (INMO), LMU Munich. Additionally, the archives of institutions such as the Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft (now at the Bavarian State Archives, Munich) can be expected to yield material. INMO and BSB plan to co-operate with international scholars in launching a project that will – hopefully – make it possible to reconstruct a network of knowledge at the very end of the time when academic research was still a phenomenon of small scholarly circles.

    23 The following according to the Babinger papers in the BSB, Manuscript Section, Ana 684.

    24 “Galiba almancayı [sic] evvela sizin eserlerinizi sökmeğe çalışarak öğreneceğim. Onları okumak imkân ve saadeti ancak almancayı eyice öğrenmeğe bağlı değil midir?”

    25 “Şahsi dostluğumuzun, yalnız ve yalnız hakikatlerin meydana çıkması için yaptığım gayretlerden müteessir olmamasını bütün samimiyetimle temenni etmekteyim. … Herşeyden evvel sizi temin etmek isterim ki, Osmanlı tarihinin idealize etmesini tasvib etmediğim kadar onun muayyen telakki ve hislere hitab etmesini de kabul edemem. Tarih yazarken ne şarklı ne garplı [sic], ne Osmanlı ne Avrupalıyız, sadece tarihçiyiz. Sizin bir çok meselelerde getirdiğiniz yeni tedkikleri ve fikirleri kimse inkâr edemez. Fatih devri gibi geniş bir mevzuda yazdığınız kitapta, nâçizane görebildiğim noksanları bildirmeği bir hizmet ve vazife saydım. Bunları neşrederek sizin tenkit nazarınıza sunmamı arzu edeceğinizi umuyorum.”

    26 The last item, a post-card dated 1956/5/3 and expressing İnalcık’s gratitude for a copy of the edition of Ḳıvāmī’s chronicle that Babinger’s student Sait Gökçe had sent him, clearly was no answer to another letter by Babinger.

    27 “Natürlich verstehe ich durchaus, dass Sie Herrn İnalcık nicht antworten wollen: letztlich kommt dabei nichts heraus, da die Türken ja schon rein sprachlich nicht Ihre Quellenkenntnis besitzen, um überhaupt richtig mitreden zu können. Wenn ich’s im Falle O. Köprülü und auch İ. Kafesoğlu doch tat, so deshalb, weil ich während meiner Tätigkeit in Ankara und Kpl. merkte, dass die Türken in solchen Fällen dem Prinzip huldigen „qui tacet, constire videtur“, d.h. hier: er gibt sich geschlagen. Aber man braucht ja nicht auf türkische Grundsätze einzugehen: da haben Sie völlig recht.“ Spuler had delivered a series of seven lectures in Istanbul in late 1954 and early 1955 which had met with fierce criticism (Kafesoğlu 1955). He apparently alludes to this debate.

    28 “…das Geschwätz der waqâʼiʽ nüwîsân des Osmanenhofes, die einander ausschrieben und sich des gleichen, ebenso hochtrabenden und gehaltlosen Wortgeklingels befleißigten und als »Huren des Wortes« ihre persönlichen Ansichten und Eindrücke zwangsläufig ihren launischen Brotgebern opferten.“ Op.cit., p. 9.

    29 The book on Mehmed II was translated into Turkish (from the English edition and enriched by a translations of İnalcık’s review of 1960) only in 2002, nearly fifty years after its initial publication (Babinger 2002). GOW has been translated and, to a degree, supplemented by Coşkun Üçok and was published fifty-five years after the first publication (Babinger 1982). Reprints have been available since then; occasionally authors and libraries ascribe the work to Üçok rather than Babinger: http://www.toplukatalog.gov.tr/index.php?_f=1&cwid=3&keyword=Osmanl%C4%B1+Tarih+Yazarlar%C4%B1+ve+Eserleri&tokat_search_field=2&keyword2=&tokat_search_field2=1&keyword3=&tokat_search_field3=1&pub_date1=&pub_date2=&order=5&command=Tara#12 [accessed 26.III.2017]. The translation of selected articles, envisaged by İnalcık and Babinger in their correspondence, never materialised after the two fell out with each other.

    30 “dövemedim, hiç olmazsa kariyerini mahvedeyim diye.”

    Sayfa başı

    Bu makaleye referans vermek için

    Elektronik referans

    Christoph K. Neumann, « A Liminal Orientalism: Turkish Studies by Franz Babinger », European Journal of Turkish Studies [Yayında], 24 | 2017, Son güncelleme 08 novembre 2017, Erişim tarihi 13 décembre 2017. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejts/5468

    Sayfa başı

    Telif hakları

    © Some rights reserved / Creative Commons license

    Sayfa başı
    • Logo DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals
    • Logo ERIH PLUS | NSD
    • OpenEdition Journals