Critics Directed to Ottoman and European Histories in the Turkish Historic Committee Journal

Considered as the laboratory of the Republic, the 2nd Constitutional Monarchy period represents a transitional period in which classical, popular, academic and institutional history studies were carried out together in terms of Turkish historiography. This period is important in that it is a period in which the understanding of history, the usefulness and duty of history, its methods, history education, science and national history began to deepen and scientific historiography became institutionalized. The Turkish History Committee, which was established in this period and continued its activities until 1931, made significant contributions to scientific history studies. Encümen's journal, which is described as the first scientific history journal of Turkish history, reflects the understanding of history of the period and the developments that took place over time. Of course, it cannot be claimed that all writers of the Journal had the same conception of history during this transitional period. However, the criticisms of some journal writers, who can follow the developments in the world, especially in history, on Ottoman and European histories, show that scientific history studies are given importance and that the understanding of history is developing. In the journal, criticisms of Ottoman histories were made in terms of method, style and content. In the criticism of the style, the use of gloss and exaggerated language, which emerged in historiography with the influence of Iranian and Byzantine literature and continued its effect for a long time, began to be produced for the people of history in the 2nd Constitutional Era. It was emphasized that it did not meet the needs in the constitutional conditions. Criticism about the procedure, giving incomplete and wrong information, not applying the methods of criticism, making unnecessary details and deviating the truth in order to benefit the sultan in some matters, etc. focused on issues. Criticism of the content was that Ottoman histories mostly included political and military issues and neglected social, economic, commercial and cultural issues. In the criticisms of European histories, their cynical and biased approach by giving place to incomplete, false and fabricated news comes to the fore. While it is emphasized that Ottoman and European histories are full of deficiencies and mistakes in the Ottoman period articles of the journal, the determinations about procedural errors are more prominent in the articles of the Republic period. This situation shows that the understanding of history from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic has developed and deepened.