INTRODUCTION: FRAME
With the idea that it could provide data to researchers and scientists studying on bird watching and ornithology that I see as deficient in terms of the history of science in Turkey, I decided to scan books, magazines, newspapers, and other printed documents published in Turkish in the 19th century that I could access in libraries. I embraced this idea while preparing my doctoral thesis. I am not an ornithologist, zoologist, biologist, or anyone with any scientific/professional interest for birds. My scientific/professional interests are in language and literature. My interest in birds is completely amateurish, but extremely passionate.
Thus, while working on Turkish literature in the 19th century, I started to compile the articles about birds, bird watching and ornithology that I came across in my archive scans. I am not sure if this compilation study is systematic and methodological or meets the criteria for scientific screening/compilation. The only method I applied in this compilation study was to scan the collections of libraries I could access online. For this, I used the online Atatürk Library of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, the Hakkı Tarık Us collection of the Beyazıt State Library with online access, the Seyfettin Özege collection of Atatürk University, which is also accessible online and the digital archive of the National Library, and at the end of this scanning study I compiled the “bird” texts that I was able to identify.
This compilation work cannot be seen as a completed work that covers the whole. Here I am just giving a start for a database for 19th century’s bird texts in Turkish. Therefore, this compilation work is open to be developed further. However, my goal is not just to compile. I also try to evaluate and analyze the complied texts in terms of the conditions specific to that period and today’s taxonomy.
In this context, in the archive work I have done so far, I have come across a detached book and a book section published in the Ottoman Empire until the beginning of the 20th century. The first of these is Ahmed Midhat’s book Kuşlar (Birds) for children and published in 1889, and the second is the chapter called “Birds” in the book Tarih-i Tabi (1896) translated by Mahmud Esad Yenişehirli from the French writer Langlebert. Apart from these two books, I have also compiled one hundred and fifty articles about birds in various aspects and characteristics published in the newspapers and magazines of the period.
It has not yet been possible to analyze and review this accumulation as a single data. To do this, the essential works such as archive search, compilation, transfer to Latin letters, researching and determining the relationship of the texts with any other published text or author, if any, and evaluating each text individually must be totally completed. Obviously, this is a task that can be overcome in just an exceptionally long time with a single-man effort. For this reason, without waiting for the end of my work, I decided to publish the manuscript separately on my personal blog, when I finished its transcription into Latin letters, background research and analyzing. These texts are added one after another and form a tefrika, an old Turkish idiom for the series of articles.
The text below is a part of the series of articles.
***
In this series of articles in which I trace the written texts produced about birds and bird watching in Turkey in the 19th century [1], this time it turns a translated essay named “Toygar” (Skylark in English) published in the 37th issue of Mecmua-i Lisan dated on 12.09.1899 (R. 30.09.1315), by M. Fahreddin as translator. I am publishing the essay in its original form, which has been transferred to Latin letters, and with explanations that I have put in square brackets next to some words and phrases for today’s reader who may not be familiar with archaic Turkish in that period. The original text in question, a part of the book named L’oiseau (Birds) (1856) written by French historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874), is a passage about l’aloutte (skylark) which is Tarlakuşu[2] in Turkish.
First, I want to talk about the importance of the text, which is highly emotional with intense elements of “moral goodness” and “mercifulness”, whereas will be still considered as scientific for the history of science, both in a point of birdwatching and its relationship with authoring ideology and habits of scientific and literary texts in the early [3] modernization phase of Turkey. When talking about birdwatching in Turkey in the 19th century, at least when talking about the written texts on birdwatching, it is necessary to mention the moralistic, overly emotional, and sentimental [4] perspective, form and style that prevailed in Turkish literature at that time. There may be many varied reasons for this trend at that time, but here, as quoting the essay called “Toygar”, I would like to talk about the ones that can be related to birdwatching and/or ornithology.
One of the reasons for this extreme sentimental inherent in Turkish literature in Turkey, which was in the stage of early modern transformation in the 19th century, and which gained momentum and functionality partly and regionally (generally among the educated bureaucrat class and in Istanbul), is the duality that the intellectual within Ottoman society carries with themselves, so that they tried to grope their way through their traditional and archaic moods to the technologically and institutionally “modern”. The intellectual of the period had the idea and desire to possess modern institutions and technology, but they also had strong motivation for the preservation of cultural codes from their past. This duality is evident in their perspectives, approaches, and choices. These intellectuals, who demanded the modern, interpreted all kinds of modern stuff related to their demand by their conservative attitude that they carried as a genetic inheritance. Their duality, for example, is very evident in the case of novels. In the very beginning, the novel, which first appeared in Turkish around in the middle of 19th century, had been seen as moral narratives based on moral goodness, and not only intellectual figures and authors but also readers looked for this moral emphasizing in every single page of every single novel. So, for each literary and intellectual figure at that period, the novel meant preferring modern, while the tendency to the sentimental novel, which was based on moral goodness, meant a defense against conservative reactions still intact, both internal and external. This attitude was not limited to fictional and imaginary literary texts. All kinds of texts that make up the literature of that period, including those of a scientific nature, carry the influence of this tendency and point of view. That being the case, it is not surprising that this is reflected in texts about bird watching, such as the text “Toygar”, the subject of this article.
Another plausible reason why the sentimental perspective is dominant in a text on birdwatching published in the 19th century may be the hierarchy of beings that man has constructed by putting himself on the top, and man’s perception of superiority among all other beings, resulted from this hierarchy. From the point of view of that period, there is an artificial hierarchy established by moral categories such as “strength” and “weakness”, “evilness” and “goodness”, and “mercifulness” and “pitifulness” between different steps in taxonomy and between varied species in each step. In fact, this hierarchical perspective is the superior human perception of the modern world, it is not unique to Ottoman intellectuals in that age. Nevertheless, considering that Turkish intellectual of the era had, just like conservatism, a feeling of superiority and power rooted in past glorious centuries of Ottomans in their social and cultural gens, the modern world’s perception about the superiority of human beings among all others had echoed with double effect among Turkish intellectual. From this point of view, it will be a little easier to understand that in an essay whose subject is ornithology, adjectives and definitions that should be specific to human beings such as “poor in clothes”, “miserable”, “injustice”, “wealthy at heart” are attributed to nature, animals, and birds.
Regarding this sentimental point of view, Jules Michelet, the author of the original text of “Toygar”, should also be mentioned a little. His name is first seen in Turkish printed materials at date during archive scans carried out within the scope of this study. Before the mentioned essay I have taken here, there is no record related to him in archives, neither a book nor a periodical article. However, with the proclamation of the Republic in Turkey, it is seen that his books on French history and Renaissance history were translated into Turkish and published several times until the 1970s. It may seem normal that the new political power who was trying to establish a notion of a nation state crossed his path with the historian Jules Michelet, who is called “nationalist” and “romantic” in some sources. In fact, it is seen that these books were translated by names close to the Republican political power such as Kazım Berker.
That there is some merit in calling Jules Michelet a “romantic” historian will be clearly understood in the following essay “Toygar”. Moreover, Michelet’s preface to his book L’Osieau [5] shows how emotional and romantic attitude he has towards natural history. Once in his preface says Michelet, while explaining who he received support from while authoring the book: “Am I saying that we have had no other assistance? To make such a statement would be unjust, ungrateful. The domesticated swallows which lodged under our roof mingled in our conversation. The homely robin, fluttering around me, interjected his tender notes, and sometimes the nightingale suspended it by her solemn music.”[6] (p. IV)
Finally, it would be enlightening to mention a few points about the word “toygar” that gives the essay its name. Toygar was used in Turkish taxonomy of that day as the equivalent of what we today call “tarlakuşu” (alauda arvensis). The French equivalent used by Michelet in the original text is “l’aloutte”. Two articles previously published in this series were also about tarlakuşu[7]. These writings were Turkish translations of two poems, one of them written by James Hogg and the other by Percy Bysshe Shelley for skylarks (tarlakuşu). There, in Turkish translations of the poems, was used “çayır kuşu” for “tarlakuşu”. Based on these two texts, it was concluded that the name of the species (Alauda Avensis) in Turkish at that time was çayırkuşu. Now with this article, it is seen that the species we call tarlakuşu in Turkish in today’s taxonomy was once called “toygar”.
I would like to leave you alone with the essay transcribed into Latin alphabet with some explanatory notes in square brackets, after I underly a part of the essay that interests me very much. In the essay, Michelet states that the skylark, like the swallow, will, in case of need, nourish her sisters [8]: “l’alouette, comme l’hirondelle, au besoin, nourrira ses soeurs.” (Michelet, 1856, p.199) As a bird-watching researcher who is incomplete and raw, I cannot confirm this information from any ornithological source I have access to. Therefore, I leave this to the research and evaluation of you, the readers.
TOYGAR
[Jules Michelet, M. Fahreddin (Translator)]
Çayırların, çiftçinin en mecruh [tercih edilen] kuşu toygarlardır. Çiftçinin refik-i daimi [her zaman yoldaşı], en müşkül işinde hemdemi [can ciğer arkadaşı] olan bu mürg teselli-aver [teselli edici kuş] bera-yı teşvik [destek olmak için] kendisini her tarafta bulur, imdadına yetişir, ümit-bahş olur [ümitlendirir]. Ümit, Fransızların ecdadı Galyalıların milli armalarını tezyin eden bir “kelime-yi mübecelle” [yüce bir kelime] olduğu hesabıyla, kıyafeti fakirane, fakat terennümü bol, kalbi gani olan bu kuşu tair-i milli intihap ve kabul etmişlerdir [milli kuş olarak seçip kabul etmişlerdir].
Toygarın tırnaklarının vaziyeti – yaratılışında tabiatın bir gadr-i mahsusu [doğanın mahsus yarattığı bir haksızlık] olarak – ağaçlar üzerinde konmaya müsait değildir. Yerde zavallı tavşana komşu, tarla izinde gayr-i mahfuz [korunaksız] bir yuva yapar. Ne kadar endiş-nak [sıkıntılı], ne rütbe elem-nak [kederli] bir haldir ki, kuluçka olduğu zaman bile, hayatı bi-karari tehlikeye maruz! Bu mader-i gadr-didenin [haksızlığa uğramış annenin] latif hazinesini şahin ile çaylaktan ancak bir ot yığını muhafaza eder. Alelacele kuluçka olur, titreyen yavrucuklarını süratle büyütür.
Bu biçarenin, acıklı komşusu tavşanın derdine ortak olmayacağına kim inanmazdı? Lakin bilakis kendisinde – bir hal-i garabet-i iştimal olarak [garip bir davranış olarak] – neşe, çabuk unutmak, hafif meşreplik gibi ahval-i garibe-yi ruhiye [garip bir ruh hali] vaki oldu. Bu tair-i milli tehlikeden kurtulur kurtulmaz mes’udiyetini, terennüm-i latifini [tatlı şarkılarını], zapt olunmaz meserretini [sevincini] tekrar bulur. Daha garibi, duçar olduğu müellim [elem veren] tehlikeler, geçirdiği hayat bî-sebat [değişken] kalbini meşakkate alıştırmaz (kendisini cefakar kılmaz); ahval-i ruhiyesine asla kâr-ger olmaz [etki etmez]: Mamafih [bununla beraber] neşeli, munis, mutemet olduğu kadar da mesut kalır.
Kuşlar meyanında muhabbet-i biraderaneye nadirü’l-misal bir numune-yi imtisal teşkil eder [Ancak kardeşler arasında rastlanan türden bir ilişkinin ve ilginin görüldüğü nadir kuşlardandır]. Toygar, kırlangıç gibi hin-i hacet [gerektiği zaman] haher-i bi-dermanını [zor durumdaki kız kardeşini] iaşe ve ikdar eyler [besler ve onunla ilgilenir]. En hafif bir ziya kendisini terennüme teşvike kafidir. Toygar gündüzün duhter-i nazik-teridir [çok nazik kız çocuğudur]. Vakt-i seher takarrüp ettiği, ufukta kızıllık peyda olduğu ve şems-i münir [parlak güneş] arz-ı çehre-yi ibtisam eylediği [gülümseyen çehresini gösterdiği] zaman da yuvasından ok gibi uçar, cû-yi semayı [gökyüzü boşluğunu] nagamat-ı neşat-averiyle [neşe veren şarkılarıyla] doldurur.
Toygar’ın tanin-endaz [çınlayan] bu gür sedası çiftçilerin hazır ol işaretidir. Peder: “Çayırkuşunu işitmiyor musunuz? Artık gitmeli.” der.
Mecmua-i Lisan, 37, 12.09.1899 (R. 30 Eylül 1315), s. 171-172
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ESSAY BY A. E.
The bird of the fields before all others, the labourer’s bird, is the lark, his constant companion, which he encounters everywhere in his painful furrow, ready to encourage, to sustain him, to sing to him of hope. Espoir, hope, is the old device of us Gauls; and for this reason we have adopted as our national bird that humble minstrel, so poorly clad, but so rich in heart and song.
Nature seems to have treated the lark with harshness. Owing to the arrangement of her claws, she cannot perch on the trees. She rests on the ground, close to the poor hare, and with no other shelter than the furrow. How precarious, how riskful a life, at the time of incubation! What cares must be hers, what inquietudes! Scarcely a tuft of grass conceals the mother’s fond treasure from the dog, the hawk, or the falcon. She hatches her eggs in haste; with haste she trains the trembling brood. Who would not believe that the ill-fated bird must share the melancholy of her sad neighbour, the hare?
But the contrary has taken place by an unexpected marvel of gaiety and easy forgetfulness, of lightsome indifference and truly French carelessness; the national bird is scarcely out of peril before she recovers all her serenity, her song, her indomitable glee. Another wonder: her perils, her precarious existence, her cruel trials, do not harden her heart; she remains good as well as gay, sociable and trustful, presenting a model (rare enough among birds) of paternal love; the lark, like the swallow, will, in case of need, nourish her sisters.
Two things sustain and animate her: love and light. She makes love for half the year. Twice, nay, thrice, she assumes the dangerous happiness of maternity, the incessant travail of a hazardous education. And when love fails, light remains and re-inspires her. The smallest gleam suffices to restore her song.
She is the daughter of day. As soon as it dawns, when the horizon reddens and the sun breaks forth, she springs from her furrow like an arrow, and bears to heaven’s gate her hymn of joy. Hallowed poetry, fresh as the dawn, pure and gleeful as a childish heart! That powerful and sonorous voice is the reapers’ signal. “We must start,” says the father; “do you not hear the lark?” She follows them, and bids them have courage; in the hot sunny hours invites them to slumber, and drives away the insects. Upon the bent head of the young girl half awakened she pours her floods of harmony. Michelet, J. (1868). The Bird (Trans. A. E.). London, T. Nelson And Sons, Paternoster Row. (p. 238-239)
[1] The order of publication of my articles within the scope of this series of articles is not according to any plan or order. In this context, since I want to make my work visible immediately, I publish each piece as soon as it is finished. The plan and/or order will be decided when the scanning, research, compilation, analysis, and evaluation studies related to the 19th century birdwatching literature are completed and the study will be integrated accordingly.
[2] This information is not given with a clear citation in the article in the journal Mecmua-i Lisan. In the essay, there is the phrase “translations from French to Turkish” under the French part of the manuscript in Latin letters Michelet’s signature is included.
[3] The term “early period” here refers to the first phase of Turkey’s modernization. In fact, modernization in Turkey is a “late” and “voluntary” modernization on a global and historical scale.
[4] In the context of this text, the term “sentimental” is used to mean the author’s moral, emotional and melancholic approach to events and phenomena, not objective and rational. Again, in this text, this approach points to a general ideology, a general author’s attitude, not a specific artistic/literary point of view. In this period in Turkey, the relationship that the authors established with both the text and the subjects and objects in the texts can be usually defined with this term. The dominant emotions of the authors in the texts are mercy and grief. These two dominant emotions affect even the joyful, enthusiastic, and lyrical moments in the text to a greater or lesser extent. It should not be forgotten that this explanation is still a very general framework, and that there are some singular examples outside of this framework.
[5] Michelet, J. (1856). L’osieau. Paris, Libraire de. L Hachette.
[6] Michelet, J. (1868). The Bird (Trans. A. E.). London, T. Nelson and Sons, Paternoster Row.
[7] https://kuslarveedebiyatcom.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=6&action=edit&calypsoify=1&block-editor=1&frame-nonce=583670d8a4&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress.com&environment-id=production&support_user&_support_token
https://wordpress.com/post/kuslarveedebiyatcom.wordpress.com/31
[8] Michelet, J. (1868). The Bird (Trans. A. E.). London, T. Nelson And Sons, Paternoster Row. (p. 239)
KUŞLAR VE EDEBİYAT 