Jonathan Parry, Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022, 480 pages.

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES New Perspectives on Turkey Pub Date : 2023-01-30 DOI:10.1017/npt.2022.33
M. T. Çi̇çek
{"title":"Jonathan Parry, Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2022, 480 pages.","authors":"M. T. Çi̇çek","doi":"10.1017/npt.2022.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"erence to “coexistence” and “sociability) is constantly stressed, both with regard to the use of sources (essentially in Turkish) and the angle of observation (from the view point of the center/the state/bureaucracy, political movements, intellectuals, and Turkish press), Ottoman non-Muslims usually remain in the background with minimal visibility and agency in these accounts. Furthermore, we might as well touch upon the methodological specificities of the “French school” of Turkology, which gives priority to “sources” and analyzing a document (or a phenomenon), instead of engaging with current theoretical debates (which might, in fact, determine the field in the Anglo-Saxon world). The reader would, no doubt, notice that all the twelve articles in the collection start with a brief introduction that summarizes the guiding questions of the research, but do not provide a more general theoretical discussion that resonates with the developments in social sciences. With regard to sources, it is clear that François Georgeon has never been a fan of the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives. Instead, he has relied on his deep knowledge of sources of written and oral culture, especially through periodicals, journal, newspapers, compilations, and booklets. Compared to discontinuities, anonymities, and undeciphered chronological complexities in archival material, this kind of source material, essentially prepared and published for an audience, and thus potentially presenting a fuller (and more colorful) picture of the past, gives the historian a better hand to organize his material within a very lucid narrative and a highly reader-friendly structure. As a final remark, it is worth noting that the book is dedicated to Bülent Tanör (1940–2002), whom Georgeon get to know and became friends with in the second half of the 1970s, while he was a researcher at the Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes and both lived in Cihangir. Whether this is a manner of reminiscing his initial years in the field of Ottoman and Turkish studies or reflecting upon the fluctuations in the social and political history of Turkey is hard to tell, but I sincerely look forward to new publications of this eminent historian. François Georgeon’s calm and clear style of writing is without doubt a gift to all readers of history, but it is as well a great lesson and inspiration for all the students and researchers of the Ottoman past.","PeriodicalId":45032,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives on Turkey","volume":"68 1","pages":"129 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Perspectives on Turkey","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2022.33","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

erence to “coexistence” and “sociability) is constantly stressed, both with regard to the use of sources (essentially in Turkish) and the angle of observation (from the view point of the center/the state/bureaucracy, political movements, intellectuals, and Turkish press), Ottoman non-Muslims usually remain in the background with minimal visibility and agency in these accounts. Furthermore, we might as well touch upon the methodological specificities of the “French school” of Turkology, which gives priority to “sources” and analyzing a document (or a phenomenon), instead of engaging with current theoretical debates (which might, in fact, determine the field in the Anglo-Saxon world). The reader would, no doubt, notice that all the twelve articles in the collection start with a brief introduction that summarizes the guiding questions of the research, but do not provide a more general theoretical discussion that resonates with the developments in social sciences. With regard to sources, it is clear that François Georgeon has never been a fan of the Prime Ministry’s Ottoman Archives. Instead, he has relied on his deep knowledge of sources of written and oral culture, especially through periodicals, journal, newspapers, compilations, and booklets. Compared to discontinuities, anonymities, and undeciphered chronological complexities in archival material, this kind of source material, essentially prepared and published for an audience, and thus potentially presenting a fuller (and more colorful) picture of the past, gives the historian a better hand to organize his material within a very lucid narrative and a highly reader-friendly structure. As a final remark, it is worth noting that the book is dedicated to Bülent Tanör (1940–2002), whom Georgeon get to know and became friends with in the second half of the 1970s, while he was a researcher at the Institut Français d'Études Anatoliennes and both lived in Cihangir. Whether this is a manner of reminiscing his initial years in the field of Ottoman and Turkish studies or reflecting upon the fluctuations in the social and political history of Turkey is hard to tell, but I sincerely look forward to new publications of this eminent historian. François Georgeon’s calm and clear style of writing is without doubt a gift to all readers of history, but it is as well a great lesson and inspiration for all the students and researchers of the Ottoman past.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乔纳森·帕里,《应许之地:英国与奥斯曼帝国的中东》。新泽西州普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社,2022年,480页。
关于“共存”和“社交性”,无论是在来源的使用(主要是土耳其语)还是观察的角度(从中心/国家/官僚机构、政治运动、知识分子和土耳其媒体的角度),都不断强调,奥斯曼帝国的非穆斯林通常留在幕后,在这些报道中的知名度和代理度都很低。此外,我们不妨谈谈突厥学“法国学派”的方法论特点,它优先考虑“来源”和分析文件(或现象),而不是参与当前的理论辩论(事实上,这可能决定盎格鲁撒克逊世界的领域)。毫无疑问,读者会注意到,该集的所有十二篇文章都以一个简短的引言开始,总结了研究的指导性问题,但没有提供与社会科学发展产生共鸣的更一般的理论讨论。关于消息来源,很明显,弗朗索瓦·乔治翁从来都不是总理部奥斯曼档案馆的粉丝。相反,他依靠自己对书面和口头文化来源的深入了解,尤其是通过期刊、期刊、报纸、汇编和小册子。与档案材料中的不连续性、匿名性和未被解释的时间复杂性相比,这种原始材料本质上是为观众准备和出版的,因此可能呈现出更全面(更丰富多彩)的过去画面,这使历史学家能够更好地在非常清晰的叙述和高度读者友好的结构中组织他的材料。最后一句话,值得注意的是,这本书是献给Bülent Tanör(1940–2002)的,乔治在20世纪70年代后半叶认识了他,并与他成为了朋友,当时他是法国阿纳托利安研究所的研究员,两人都住在西汉吉尔。这是回忆他在奥斯曼和土耳其研究领域的最初岁月,还是反思土耳其社会和政治史的波动,很难说,但我真诚地期待这位著名历史学家的新出版物。François Georgeon冷静而清晰的写作风格无疑是送给所有历史读者的礼物,但对所有研究奥斯曼帝国历史的学生和研究人员来说,这也是一堂伟大的课和灵感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
New Perspectives on Turkey
New Perspectives on Turkey SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Christians, Muslims, and Jews: Turkey and the management of refugees from Greece during World War II Migrants’ access to healthcare services: evidence from fieldwork in Turkey “This expulsion is explained in many ways”: Ottoman Greek Orthodox internal exiles during the Great War (1914–1918) NPT volume 69 Cover and Front matter NPT volume 69 Cover and Back matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1