Ottoman Symbolism in British-Occupied Egypt, 1882–1909

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes J.C. Hurewitz (ed.), The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), Vol.1, pp.276–8. For a fuller discussion of this affair see below. Sometime Chief of Staff of the Ottoman army, Ahmed Muhtar Paşa had originally gained prominence as a hero of the Russian–Ottoman war of 1877–78, for which he was decorated with the title of Gazi. Selim Deringil, ‘Ghazi Ahmed Mukhtar Pasha and the British Occupation of Egypt’, Al-Abhath, Vol.34 (1986), pp.13–14. Evelyn Baring, Modern Egypt (New York: Macmillan, 1908), Vol.2, p.380. James Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism in Egypt, 1860–1914’, The Muslim World, Vol.70 (1980), pp.229–35. Cf. memoirs of Khedive Abbas Hilmi II (1892–1914), who describes Muhtar's mission as follows: ‘Naturally, he had to demolish all flights of fancy regarding Egypt's independence and prevent the Khedive, by all means, from increasing the prerogatives and liberties that he possessed through his firmans of investiture. It was also his responsibility to watch over the maintenance of the religious prestige of the Caliph and his authority throughout the country. But he also had to defend the rights of Turkey against the encroachments of Great Britain.’ Amira Sonbol (ed.), The Last Khedive of Egypt: Memoirs of Abbas Hilmi II (Reading: Garner, 1998), p.97. This perhaps is best indicated in the words of Lord Cromer, the British Consul General and real power in Egypt, who refused to recognize Muhtar in any official capacity, while ‘in personal relations with his Excellency, treated him with the respect due to a distinguished Turkish General’. J.C. Hurewitz, ‘Egypt's Eastern Boundary: The Diplomatic Background of the 1906 Demarcation’, in Amnon Cohen and Gabriel Baer (eds.), Egypt and Palestine: A Millennium of Association,1868–1948 (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), p.281. Deringil, ‘Ghazi Ahmed Mukhtar’, p.15. Here are but a few examples: Jacob M. Edelman, Politics as Symbolic Action (Chicago: Markham, 1971); Raymond W. Firth, Symbols, Public and Private (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973); Abner Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the Anthropology of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society (London: Routledge, 1974); Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974); Clifford Geertz, ‘Centers, Kings and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power’, in Joseph Ben-David and Terry N. Clark (eds.), Culture and Its Creators: Essays in Honor of E. Shils (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), pp.150–71; Sean Wilentz (ed.), Rites of Power: Symbolism, Ritual, and Politics Since the Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); Claes Arvidsson and Lars Erik Blomqvist (eds.), Symbols of Power: The Esthetics of Political Legitimation in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987); David Cannadine and Simon Price (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); David I. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988). Today's Maydan al-Tahrir. The same point is (unwittingly) made by no other than Cromer himself. Referring to Muhtar's lack of official standing in Egypt, he wrote: ‘Moukhtar Pasha possesses too little influence here to do much harm, but his attitude is persistently hostile to Her Majesty's Government and to the present Egyptian Ministry.’ Public Record Office (London) [hereafter: PRO], FO 78/5023, Cromer to Salisbury, 17 April 1899. One wonders: if Muhtar was really in no position to do much harm, why should his attitude matter to the British and the Egyptian governments? Hereafter BOA. The documents this study draws on were culled mainly from a particular collection of the Sublime Porte's papers dealing with Khedivial Egypt and classified as Sadaret Eyalat-ı Mümtaze Mısır Kalemi (A.MTZ.05). Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1909 (London: I.B. Tauris, 1998), pp.3, 9–10. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, p.4. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, pp.23–4 Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, pp.x–xi; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.4, 6, 8; Lars Erik Blomqvist, ‘Introduction’, in Claes Arvidsson and Lars Erik Blomqvist (eds.), Symbols of Power: The Esthetics of Political Legitimation in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), p.7. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, p.24; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.4–5. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.4,7,184. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, p.30; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.4,184. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, pp.25–6,31,4; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.5,174. Cf. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), p.11; Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), p.24. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, p.31; Blomqvist, ‘Introduction’, p.7; David Cannadine, ‘Introduction: Divine Rites of Kings’, in David Cannadine and Simon Price (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.3; Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theater-State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp.13, 136; Daniel Tarschys, ‘Symbols, Rituals, and Political Legitimation: Some Concluding Remarks’, in Claes Arvidsson and Lars Erik Blomqvist (eds.), Symbols of Power: The Esthetics of Political Legitimation in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), p.174. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.178,181. This is exactly what the specific case discussed in this essay refers to. Cohen, Two-Dimensional Man, p.xi; Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, pp.2–3, 5, 8. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.3,8–11,166,171; Selim Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition As Public Image in the Late Ottoman Empire, 1808 to 1908’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.35 (1993), pp.12–13; Selim Deringil, ‘Legitimacy Structures in the Ottoman Empire: Abdülhamid II, 1876–1909’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol.23 (1991), p.346. For general overviews on the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the nineteenth century and the difficulties it encountered see Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp.175–209; M.E. Yapp, The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792–1923 (London: Longman, 1987), pp.108–20, 179–83; Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire, 1700–1922 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp.54–73. See all the references in the previous note. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.3,9–10; Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, pp.12–13. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31; Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, pp.6–7; Deringil, ‘Legitimacy Structures’, p.346. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.27–8, 30, 31, 32–3, 43; Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, pp.10–11. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.16–17, 21, 22–6; Deringil, ‘The Invention of tradition’, pp.6–7, 9–10, 11–12; Deringil, ‘Legitimacy Structures’, p.345. Yapp, Near East, pp.227–30; Hurewitz, ‘Egypt's Eastern Boundary’, pp.276–7; L. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive, 1892–1908’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.8 (1972), pp.287–9; Peter Mansfield, The British in Egypt (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), pp.81–4; Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid, Egypt and Cromer: A Study in Anglo-Egyptian Relations (New York: Praeger, 1969), pp.47–53; Robert L. Tignor, Modernization and British Colonial Rule in Egypt, 1882–1914 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp.48–93. Deringil, ‘Ghazi Ahmed Mukhtar’, pp.13–17; Hurewitz, ‘Egypt's Eastern Boundary’, pp.276–7, 281; Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, p.287; Sayyid, Egypt and Cromer, pp.47–53. See, for example, Ş. Tufan Buzpınar, ‘The Repercussions of the British Occupation of Egypt on Syria, 1882–83’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.36 (2000), pp.82–91. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.288–9, 291; Sayyid, Egypt and Cromer, pp.47–53; Deringil, ‘Ghazi Ahmed Mukhtar’, p.16. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.292–6. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.296–9; Hurewitz, ‘Egypt's Eastern Boundary’, pp.279–83; Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism’, pp.236, 241, 242. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.299–303. Ibid., p.290. Ibid., pp.296–306. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 3-B/48/1, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 21 Ramazan 1309 (19 April 1892). Muhtar's biographer supposes another reason for that. According to him, it was Muhtar's popularity plus a past controversy with the Sultan which led to his appointment as Commissioner Extraordinary to Egypt. In this sense, Muhtar's commission to Egypt was tantamount to exile by a jealous and vengeful Sultan who wanted to keep him away from Istanbul, while understanding the need for a prestigious representative in Cairo. Rifat Uçarol, Bir Osmanlı Paşası ve Dönemi: Gazi Ahmet Muhtar Paşa (Askeri ve Siyasi Hayatı) (İstanbul: Milliyet Yayınları, 1976), pp.170–4, quoted by Deringil, ‘Ghazi Ahmed Mukhtar’, p.14, n.2. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 2-C/20-1/33, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 21 Muharrem 1304 (19 Oct. 1886). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 4-C/121/1, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 20 Rebiyülevvel 1303 (27 Dec. 1885). Cf. Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.16–17,21,22–6,29,30,31; Deringil, ‘The Invention of Tradition’, pp.6–7,9–10,11–12; Deringil, ‘Legitimacy Structures’, pp.345–6. Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism’, pp.228,230,233–5,243; Sonbol, The Last Khedive, pp.98,99; PRO, FO 78/4451, Baring to Salisbury (Confidential), 19 April 1892. This is the place to remember that the great majority of Egyptians were at the time devout orthodox Muslims. Ottoman symbolism constructing the image of the Sultan as Caliph was therefore of tremendous importance to Ottoman policy for British-occupied Egypt. This kind of symbolism became all the more important during the 1890s in the face of persistent rumors that the British were plotting to detach Egypt completely from the Ottoman Empire and promote Abbas Hilmi's alleged plans to annex the adjacent Arab lands and declare himself Caliph. For detailed discussions of this issue see Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.303–6; Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp.58–9. See, for example, BOA, A.MTZ.05, 4-C/121/3, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 12 Cemaziyelevvel 1303 (16 Feb. 1886), reporting on an ‘Ottoman-style reception’ (á la turca ziyafet) he had given four days earlier, on Friday evening, for Egyptian Muslim men of religion (ulema ve eşraf ve sadat-ı memleket), during which the latter expressed their utmost loyalty to the Sultan and the Ottoman state. See also PRO, FO 78/4451, Baring to Salisbury (Confidential), 19 April 1892, testifying that Muhtar's activities in Egypt were effective ‘especially amongst the Sheikhs and Ulema of the Mosques.’ BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-A/145-1/3, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 24 Safer 1311 (5 Sept. 1893). Ibid. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 4-C/121/39, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 18 Zilhicce 1304 (6 Sept. 1887). Cf. Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism’, pp.228–39, 242–5, who confirms that such expressions of loyalty to the Ottoman Empire became prevalent among Egyptians following the British occupation, but maintains that these were circumstantial by nature and conditioned by utilitarian rather than ideological motivation. Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism’, pp.228–39; Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.287–8. Sonbol, The Last Khedive, pp.98–9. These statements do not necessarily reflect what Abbas thought personally of Muhtar. As will be shown below, the two did not get on with each other right from the start and became bitter enemies ever after. PRO, FO 78/4451, Baring to Salisbury (Confidential), 19 April 1892; PRO, FO 78/5023, Cromer to Salisbury, 17 April 1899; ‘The Ghazi and the Khedive’, Al-'Aja'ib, 12 June 1903 (PRO, FO 78/5309, Ibrahim Mouelhy to Foreign Office, 19 June 1903). For thorough studies of this affair see Hurewitz, ‘Egypt's Eastern Boundary’, pp.269–83; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr., ‘The 1906 Taba Affair’, Al-Abhath, Vol.33 (1985), pp.23–39. Hirszowicz, ‘The Sultan and the Khedive’, pp.296–8; Jankowski, ‘Ottomanism and Arabism’, pp.236, 241. Goldschmidt, ‘The 1906 Taba Affair’, p.33. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 3-B/48/1, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 21 Ramazan 1309 (19 April 1892). ‘Ahali-yi İslâmiye arzuları hilâfına olarak hükûmetin icra ettiği bu muamele-i acibeden cidden dilhoş olmuş ve icraat-ı vaki'eden hoşnud olmadıklarını izhar ile oldukça bir eser-i hamiyet ve diyanet göstermişlerdir.’ BOA, A.MTZ.05, 3-B/48/2, Muhtar to Grand Vizier, 29 Ramazan 1309 (27 April 1892). Ibid. Goldschmidt, ‘The 1906 Taba Affair’, p.33. Sir Edward Grey, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs, did actually demand, at the height of the Taba Incident, that Muhtar be recalled by the Ottoman government. Sonbol, The Last Khedive, pp.98–9. PRO, FO 371/452, Graham to Grey (Confidential), 13 Aug. 1908. According to Ottoman documentation, Muhtar's resignation (indeed, dismissal for failing to report back to Egypt) was officially approved in early 1909. See: BOA, İEMM (İrade Eyalat-ı Mümtaze Mısır) 1880, Sublime Porte, 4 Muharrem 1327 (26 Jan. 1909). This sultanic order also approved that ‘for the time being’, Muhtar's duties would continue to be performed by his former chief secretary (Mustafa Nuri Bey) in Egypt. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/12, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 4 Safer 1327 (25 Feb. 1909). ‘Komiser Paşa hazretlerini parlak istikbal için Mısırda ahali tarafından hazırlık vardır.’ BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/7, Nuri to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 16 Şubat 1324 (1 March 1909). In the words of Sir Eldon Gorst, Cromer's successor as British Consul General in Egypt (1907–1911): ‘It is most desirable that the appointment of a successor to the post of Turkish High Commissioner in Egypt should be prevented if the Ghazi Mouktur Pasha retires. There was no permanent Turkish Commissioner before the arrival of Mouktur Pasha, the only official Representative of the Sultan in Egypt being the Khedive. The mission with which Mouktur Pasha was intrusted [sic] terminated at the same time as that of Sir H. Drummond-Wolff. The Egyptian Government have, since that time, merely regarded the former as a distinguished Turkish General, though they have not objected to his residing in Egypt. Nor have they recognized him as possessing any official standing in that country. The permanent presence in Egypt of a Turkish Commissioner should be resisted, as it must inevitably create complications of an undesirable nature.’ PRO, FO 371/452, Grey to Lowther (Confidential), 19 Aug. 1908. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, p.5. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/3, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 3 Muharrem 1327 (25 Jan. 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/2, Grand Vizier to Nuri (Draft), 12 Muharrem 1327 (3 Feb. 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/6, Nuri to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 11 Şubat 1324 (24 Feb. 1909). Checking the Commissioner ‘like an ordinary consul’ into an hotel was not considered an adequately dignified and seemly solution: ‘Komiser Paşanın Mısır'a müvâseletiyle konsolos gibi otele nüzulü pek çirkin ve muhill-i şan ve şeref-i saltanat olacağından müşâr ileyhin azimetinin tahsis olunacak mahallın şan ve haysiyete müvâfik olup olmadğ hususunun anlaşılmasına talikı müvâfik-i hal ve maslahat mütalâa kılınmağla.’ BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/11, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 15 Safer 1327 (8 March 1909). Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, p.5. BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/13, Nuri to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 3 Mart 1325 (16 March 1909). See also BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/17, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 18 Safer 1327 (11 March 1909). ‘Hükûmet-i Mısrıyanın maksadı bu gibi ahval na lâyıka ile Komiser Paşa hazretlerinin azimeti imkânsız bir hale gettirmek esbabının istihsaline çalışmaktan ibaret bulunduğu anlaşılmış.’ BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/18, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 25 Safer 1327 (18 March 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/14, Nuri to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 4 Mart 1325 (17 March 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/20, Khedive Abbas to Grand Vizier, 8 Rebiyelevvel 1327 (30 March 1909). See also BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/22, Grand Vizier to Nuri (Draft), 1 Rebiyülâhir 1327 (21 April 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/14, Nuri to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 4 Mart 1325 (17 March 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/23, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 17 Mart 1325 (30 March 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/28, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 25 Rebiyülâhir 1327 (15 May 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/30, Hasan Fehmi to Grand Vizier (Ciphered), 29 Haziran 1325 (12 July 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/30, Grand Vizier to Hasan Fehmi (Ciphered), 30 Haziran 1325 (13 July 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/31, Mehmed Izzet to Grand Vizier, 15 Şaban 1327 (31 Aug. 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/17, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 18 Safer 1327 (11 March 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/18, Nuri to Grand Vizier, 25 Safer 1327 (18 March 1909); BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/16, Grand Vizier to Nuri (Draft), 2 Rebiyelevvel 1327 (24 March 1909). BOA, A.MTZ.05, 5-D/204/2, Grand Vizier to Nuri (Draft), 12 Muharrem 1327 (3 Feb. 1909). Cf. Abbas Kelidar, ‘The Political Press in Egypt, 1882–1914’, in Charles Tripp (ed.), Contemporary Egypt: Through Egyptian Eyes: Essays in Honour of Professor P.J. Vatikiotis (London: Routledge, 1993), pp.1–21.