Abstract
Based primarily on Ottoman and British archival sources, this chapter discusses the attempt on Sultan Abdülhamid II’s life and its reception within the context of the rise of global radicalism and the international popularization of the use of symbolic revolutionary violence. It also focuses on the reactions by the Hamidian regime, including the investigative work, the development of the set of arguments to prevent the return of Joris to Belgium, and the efforts undertaken to prevent the occurrence of a second attempt on the Sultan’s life. A brief examination of the coverage of the incident in the official organ of the leading faction of the Young Turks is also included in order to draw attention to their views on the use of violence in oppositional politics. After the initial shock of the bombing subsided, the Hamidian regime responded with a widespread and multilayered effort that included international cooperation to identify the perpetrators. The police work led to the arrest of Edward Joris and the ARF network of militants and sympathizers that organized and oversaw the assassination attempt. Efforts were also made to bolster the image of the Ottoman Empire as a modern power, where due diligence was given to legal proceedings during the court hearings of the perpetrators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri [hereafter BOA], Yıldız Mütenevvi Evrak [hereafter Y. MTV] 278/196, 30 September 1905.
- 2.
Revolutionary violence in the form of ‘propaganda by the deed’ has recently been studied by Aksel Çorlu in his dissertation ‘The Disreputable Phoenix’ from a transnational perspective that includes the Ottoman Empire, focusing mostly on state surveillance and suppression of the anarchist threat as indicated by police reports containing the phrase ‘anarchist’. The broad framework of the author, however, often neglects certain nuances, and can certainly be complemented by studies that more carefully attend to the specific contexts in which ‘anarchists’ operated. See A. Çorlu (2011) ‘The Disreputable Phoenix: A Transnational History of Propaganda By the Deed’, Ph.D. dissertation (State University of New York).
- 3.
The Yıldız Bombing has often been treated as a sidenote within the framework of the history of Armenian nationalism on the one hand, and Armenian ‘terror’ and rebellion on the other. For a representative viewpoint for the Turkish nationalist perspective, see E. Uras (1988) The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, (Istanbul: Documentary Publications) pp. 780–787.
- 4.
I. Khuri-Makdisi (2010) The Eastern Mediterranean and the Making of Global Radicalism, 1860–1914, (Berkeley: University of California Press) p. 17: S. Hirsch and L. Van der Walt (2010) Anarchism and Syndicalism in the Colonial and Postcolonial World, 1870–1940: The Praxis of National Liberation, Internationalism, and Social Revolution (Leiden: Brill).
- 5.
U. Linse (1982) ‘“Propaganda by the Deed” and “Direct Action”: Two Concepts of Anarchist Violence’ in W.J. Mommsen and G. Hirschfeld (eds.) Social Protest, Violence, and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Europe (New York: St Martin’s Press).
- 6.
C. Levy (2004) ‘Anarchism, Internationalism and Nationalism in Europe, 1860–1939,’ Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50,(3), pp. 330–342.
- 7.
R. Jensen (2004) ‘Daggers, Rifles and Dynamite: Anarchist Terrorism in Nineteenth Century Europe’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16,(1) p. 125.
- 8.
The use of violence and attentats to further revolutionary ends in Spain and Italy has also been attributed to the specific socio-economic hardships experienced by the population in the second half of the nineteenth century. For more on Italian anarchism, see N. Pernecone (1993) Italian Anarchism: 1864–1922 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). It should also be noted that the anarchist movement in Spain continued to gain popularity throughout the early twentieth century, and organized along party dynamics to become a potent force in the country’s politics at the time of the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. On the history of violence in the Spanish anarchist movement, see W.L. Bernecker (1982) ‘“Direct Action” and Violence in Spanish Anarchism’, in Mommsen and Hirschfeld, Social Protest, Violence and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Europe.
- 9.
The high-profile targets included Sadi Carnot (President of France), Empress Elizabeth of Austria-Hungary, William McKinley (President of the United States), Antonio Canovas (President of Spain), and King Umberto of Italy. Jensen, ‘Daggers, Rifles, and Dynamite’, pp. 134–136.
- 10.
M. Fleming (1980) ‘Propaganda by the Deed: Terrorism and Anarchist Theory in Late Nineteenth-Century Europe’, Terrorism, 1, (4), p. 20.
- 11.
Anarchist groups in fin-de-siècle Paris, for example, attempted to organize in certain neighborhoods and maintain networks of communication to facilitate common action. However, increased police repression and surveillance precluded the creation of a ‘federation’ of organized anarchism. Therefore, individual autonomy was promoted and encouraged in the field of the ‘propaganda by the deed’. See J. Merriman (2009) The Dynamite Club: How a Bombing in Fin-de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) pp. 51–54 and R.D. Sonn (1989) Anarchism and Cultural Politics in Fin de Siècle France (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press), p. 238.
- 12.
A. von Borcke (1982) ‘Violence and Terror in Russian Revolutionary Populism: the Narodnaya Volya, 1879–1883’ in Mommsen and Hirshfield, Social Protest, Violence, and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Europe.
- 13.
Between 1905 and 1907, over four thousand government officials of varying ranks, and private citizens identified as class enemies, were assassinated in the Russian Empire. Economic terror conducted by the peasantry also took the form of arson, raids on estates, seizure of foostuffs, and the public killings of landowners. See A. Geifman (1993) Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894–1917 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press) pp. 19–22.
- 14.
Geifman, Thou Shalt Kill, pp. 13−14, Sonn, Anarchism and Cultural Politics, p. 239; M. Hildermeier (1982) ‘The Terrorist Strategies of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party in Russia’ in Mommsen and Hirschfield, Social Protest, Violence, and Terror in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Europe, p. 83.
- 15.
Jensen, ‘Daggers, Rifles and Dynamite’, p. 137.
- 16.
Jensen (1981) ‘The International Anti-Anarchist Conference of 1898 and the Origins of Interpol’, Journal of Contemporary History, 16 (2), p. 90.
- 17.
BOA, Yıldız Esas Evrakı [hereafter Y. EE.] 84/122, 25 August 1881.
- 18.
The journals were memoranda of varying length provided by agents in the employment of the government or informants on an ad hoc basis regarding public opinion in the Ottoman Empire.
- 19.
C. Kırlı (2009) Sultan ve Kamuoyu: Osmanlı Modernleşme Sürecinde ‘Havadis Jurnalleri’, 1840–1844 (Istanbul: İş Bankası Yayınları), pp. 13–14.
- 20.
For a collection of the journals and associated reports presented to Abdülhamid II, see R. Gündoğdu, K. Erkan, and A. Temiz (eds.) (2006) Kırımîzâde mehmed Neş’et Efendi tarafından Sultan İkinci Abdülhamîd’e takdim edilen Jurnallerin Tahkîk Raporları (1891–1893 (Istanbul: Çamlıca Yayınları) and A. Tuğay (1961) İbret: Abdülhamid’e verilen Jurnaller ve Jurnalciler, (Istanbul: Okat Yayınevi).
- 21.
S. Deringil (1998) The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1878–1909 (New York: I.B. Tauris), p. 11.
- 22.
BOA, Yıldız Resmi Maruzat [hereafter Y. A. RES] 107/4, 3 May 1900.
- 23.
İ.Yılmaz (2014) Serseri, Anarşist ve Fesadın Peşinde: II. Abdülhamid Dönemi Güvelik Politikaları Ekseninde Mürur Tezkereleri, Pasaportlar ve Otel Kayıtları, (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları), pp. 105–106.
- 24.
Yılmaz, Serseri, Anarşist ve Fesadın Peşinde, p. 107.
- 25.
Ahmed Rıza and Abdurrahman Bedirhan were prominent figures in the opposition to the Hamidian regime, and editors of the oppositional newspapers Meşveret (published in Paris) and Kurdistan (published in Cairo). The former was also a prominent member of the Committee of Union and Progress. The latter hailed from an influential Kurdish notable family that had been dispossessed of its holdings in the first half of the nineteenth century. For additional information see Malmîsanij (2009), İlk Kürt gazetesi Kurdıstan’ı yayımlayan Abdurrahman Bedirhan, 1868-1936 (Istanbul: Vate Yayınevi).
- 26.
BOA, Yıldız Perakende Adliye ve Mezahib Nezareti Maruzatı [hereafter Y. PRK. AZN] 23/47, 1320. The same report includes a list of ‘anarchist’ publications that includes the official organ of the western central committee of the ARF, Droshak, as well as that of the Hnchak Party, Hnchak. Evidence of anti-Hamidian propaganda and agitation as well as alleged membership in the ARF seems to suffice for one’s inclusion in this list.
- 27.
Yılmaz, Serseri, Anarşist ve Fesadın Peşinde, p. 119.
- 28.
Yılmaz, Serseri, Anarşist ve Fesadın Peşinde, p. 100.
- 29.
The National Archives, Foreign Office Records [FO] 424/178, no. 294, Ambassador Currie to Earl of Kimberley, 4 November 1894.
- 30.
R. Jensen (2009) ‘The International Campaign against Anarchist Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21,(1), pp. 95–96.
- 31.
An example of the involvement of the ambassadorial staff in intelligence gathering on revolutionary networks is related to the arrival of two ARF members from Paris in Geneva, after having been threatened with extradition by French authorities in 1896, BOA, Hariciye Tercüme Odası [hereafter HR. TO] 354/3, 29 September 1896. Extensive reporting on the movements of anarchist and socialist revolutionaries as well as members of the ARF was encouraged by the Foreign Ministry in order to prevent their entry into the Ottoman Empire, BOA, Sadaret Mühimme Kalemi Evrakı [hereafter A. MKT. MHM.] 541/20, 16 September 1897.
- 32.
Ş. Hanioğlu (1995), The Young Turks in Opposition, (New York: Oxford University Press) pp. 164–165.
- 33.
The report of the investigative commission containing summaries of the key interrogations as well as the indictment has been transliterated and published. See R. Gündoğdu and Ö.F. Yılmaz (2007), Sultan İkinci Abdülhamîd Han’a Yapılan Suikastin Tahkîkât Raporu (Çamlıca Yayın: Istanbul), p. 188, 204.
- 34.
H. Dasnabedian (1990) History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Milan: Oemme Edizzioni) pp. 62–63.
- 35.
BOA, Yıldız Esas Evrakı/Kamil Paşa [hereafter Y. EE. KP] 1641/17, 11 August 1902.
- 36.
BOA. Y. EE. KP, 1641/2, 15 December 1902.
- 37.
BOA. A. MKT. MHM. 547/15, 21 December 1902.
- 38.
This was particulary the case during the reign of Mahmud II, whose visits to Rumelia and frequent public appearances in the capital were part of his ambitious program of reorienting the political and social order of the Empire. Kırlı, Sultan ve Kamuoyu, p. 36.
- 39.
Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains, pp. 26–37.
- 40.
H. Karateke (2004) Padişahım Çok Yaşa! Osmanlı Devletinin Son Yüz Yılında Merasimler, (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi) p. 106. For more information on the selamlık, also see the author’s chapter on the history of the ceremony in the nineteenth century, pp. 102–123. Also see, N. Ayyıldız (2008) II. Abdülhamid döneminde Saray Merasimleri, (Istanbul: Doğu Kütüphanesi).
- 41.
İkdam, 22 July 1905, p. 1
- 42.
BOA. Yıldız Perakende Evrakı–Komisyonlar Maruzatı [hereafter Y. PRK. KOM] 14/69, Chief Scribe of Yıldız Palace Tahsin Pasha to the Investigative Committee, 10 August 1905.
- 43.
BOA. Y. PRK. KOM. 14/69, Chief Scribe of Yıldız Palace Tahsin Pasha to the Governorates of Erzurum, Van, Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Sivas, Aleppo, Mamüretülaziz, Adana, Ankara and Trebizond, 13 August 1905.
- 44.
FO 881/8982, ‘General Report on Turkey for the year 1906’, G. Barclay to Sir Edward Grey.
- 45.
Tahkikat Raporu, p. 36. Tahsin Pasha, Abdülhamit Yıldız Hatıraları, pp. 208–209. Safo had introduced himself as a Russian.
- 46.
BOA. Y. PRK. KOM. 14/69, Necib Melhame to Yıldız Palace, 12 August 1905.
- 47.
These individuals included the aforementioned custodians, doormen, and restaurant and coffee house owners whose assistance was of crucial importance in the storage of a large amount of explosives in the capital prior to the attack. Reports 2, 4, 8 from the appendices of the Tahkikat Raporu, pp. 165, 169–171, 172.
- 48.
FO 881/8182, 18 January 1897, Barclay to Sir Edward Grey, pp. 35–36.
- 49.
BOA. Yıldız Perakende Evrakı—Tahrirat-ı Ecnebiye ve Mabeyn Mütercimliği [hereafter Y. PRK. TKM] 49/77, undated, most likely from July or August 1907.
- 50.
FO 424/208, no. 83, inc. 1, Consul-General Monahan to Ambassador O’Conor, 22 August 1905.
- 51.
FO 424/208, no. 89, inc. 1, Monahan to O’Conor, September 4, 1905. No. 91, inc.1, Monahan to O’Conor, 7 September 1905.
- 52.
BOA, Yıldız Askeri Maruzat [hereafter Y. A. HUS] 492/118, 13 September 1905.
- 53.
The published report, which has been utilized as the main source for this project, included reports on the suicide of Hadji Nishan Minassian, the explosive chemicals and bombs stored in the Austrian Hospital, Cercle D’Orient, and several apartment buildings, and coded letters between ARF members that were confiscated by Ottoman authorities. Interestingly, it was the abridged French version of this report that the Turkish historian Esat Uras used in his work. Armenians in History, p. 784.
- 54.
BOA, Hariciye Siyasi [hereafter HR. SYS] 2789/22 22 September 1904. The ambassadorial report also suggested that the Droshakists favored decentralized government.
- 55.
İkdam, 26, 26, 27, and 30 July, p. 2 on every edition. These figures included the German emperor, the Dutch queen, and the Montenegrin king.
- 56.
İkdam, 24 and 29 July, p. 2 on both editions.
- 57.
FO 424/208, no. 98, O’Conor to the Marquess of Landsowne, 9 October 1905.
- 58.
FO 424/208, no. 99, O’Conor to the Marquess of Landsowne, 16 October 1905.
- 59.
Şura-yı Ümmet, 80, 29 August 1905, p. 1. Original quotation: ‘Cuma selamlığında atılan bombun şekli kanunen makbul değilse de vatanda akan gözyaşlarına, dökülen kanlara, edilen katillere nihayet vermek içün atıldığında şüphe yokdur. Bomb atan her kim ise devr-i kıtal-i Hamidiye nihayet vermek niyetinde bulunan bir fedakardır. Kanunen bu adama katil demek lazım gelirse o halde bu adam kıtalin katilidir. Bombun hedefe isabet etmeyüb de etrafında bir takım masumların – Abdülhamidi muhafaza edenler içinde masum bulunursa–mahvine can ü dilden teessüfler ederiz’.
- 60.
Şura-yı Ümmet, 83, 13 October 1905, p. 2. The original reads: ‘İnsan her ne suretle olursa olsun ve ne kadar naçiz görülürse görülsün nefret ve infialini alenen bildirmelidir, bu hale razı olmadığını ve kendinde hür ve adil olarak yaşamağa istidad bulunduğunu meydana koymalıdır. Zulme, haksızlığa karşı sükut etmek meskenetdir, küfürdür’.
- 61.
Tevfik Fikret (2001) Bütün Şiirleri, İ. Parlatır and N. Çetin (eds.) (Ankara: Türk Dil KurumuYayınları) p. 483–484. The following stanza from the poem is representative of the veneration of not only the attempt on the Sultan’s life, but of the liberating potential of violence in this context: ‘O noble explosion, o vengeful smoke/Who, what, are you? What, who, caused this strike?/A thousand prying eyes behind you, while you lay hidden/Like an invisible hand, dispensing salvation.’ For a full translation and a detailed analysis of the poem, see the epilogue in this volume.
- 62.
Hanioğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, p. 197. Prince Sabahaddin formed the Society for Private Initiative and Decentralization in 1906, and was a major opponent of the Committee of Union and Progress after the 1908 Revolution. For his biography and an exhaustive collection of his writings, see Prens Sabahaddin (2007) Gönüllü Sürgünden Zorunlu Sürgüne: Prens Sabahaddin, Bütün Eserleri, Mehmet Ö. Alkan (ed.) (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları).
- 63.
Şura-yı Ümmet. 84, 27 October 1905, pp. 2–3.
- 64.
Şura-yı Ümmet, 1, 23 April 1902, p. 3 and 7 May 1902. p. 1.
- 65.
The attitude displayed towards the suppression of the ‘rebellion’ in Yemen around the same time is indicative of the hostility of the CUP in exile towards decentralization and opposition to state authority. The editorial board openly celebrated the capture and killing of rebels by the Ottoman army. Şura-yı Ümmet, 84, p. 1.
- 66.
BOA, İradeler Hususi [hereafter İ. HUS] 139/48, 17 February 1906. The file contains translations of the correspondence between the Foreign Ministry and the Belgian Legation throughout 1906 and 1907 as well as short memoranda presented to Abdülhamid II, who was keenly interested in the outcome of the affair.
- 67.
For a representative Turkish historian’s view, see Uras, Armenians in History, p. 786.
- 68.
New York Times, 19 January 1908. Y. PRK. TKM. 50/69, 14 January 1908, 50/76, 24 January 1908.
- 69.
BOA, Dahiliye Mektubi Kalemi [hereafter DH. MKT] 1233/1, 12 February 1908.
- 70.
BOA. Zabtiye Nezareti 488/64, ZB. 616/12, The Sublime Porte to the Ottoman Legation in Athens and the Governorate of Yanya, 7 April 1908. These rumors were officially denounced later by the Belgian authorities who had placed Joris under surveillance in Belgium.
- 71.
Dasnabedian, History of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, p. 77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Altıntaş, T. (2018). The Ottoman War on ‘Anarchism’ and Revolutionary Violence. In: Alloul, H., Eldem, E., de Smaele, H. (eds) To Kill a Sultan. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48932-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48932-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-48931-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-48932-6
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)