ARSart.arts.usf.edu/content/articlefiles/173_Fraser_Dressing_Turks.pdf · de l’Empire Othoman (Panorama of the Ottoman Empire), published in 1787.1hs-O son, an Ottoman Armenian

ARSORIENTALIS

39

ars or ientalis 39

ars orientalis volume 39

editorial boardLee Glazer and Jane Lusaka, co-editorsMartin J. PowersDebra DiamondMassumeh FarhadNancy Micklewright

editorial committeeKevin CarrLouise CortJulian RabyMargaret Cool RootJames T. UlakJ. Keith WilsonAnn Yonemura

designerEdna Jamandre

publications assistantJenna Vaccaro

editorial officesArs Orientalis

Freer Gallery of Art

Smithsonian Institution

P.O. Box 37012, MRC 707

Washington, D.C. 20013–7012

For deliveries

(DHL, FedEx, UPS, courier):

1050 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20560

Inquiries concerning journal submissions and editorial matters: [email protected]

issn 0571-1371Printed in the United States of America© 2010 Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.C.

Cosponsored by the Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan, and the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Ars Orientalis solicits scholarly manuscripts on the art and archaeology of Asia, including the ancient Near East and the Islamic world. Fostering a broad range of themes and approaches, articles of interest to scholars in diverse fields or disciplines are particularly sought, as are suggestions for occasional thematic issues and reviews of important books in Western or Asian languages. Brief research notes and responses to articles in previous issues of Ars Orientalis will also be considered. Submissions must be in English, with all non-English quotations normally provided in translation. Authors are asked to follow The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. A style sheet is available from the editorial office.

Ars Orientalis subscriptions are handled by Turpin Distribution. (For contact information, go to www.asia.si.edu/research/ArsOrientalis.asp.)

Current subscription rates (including shipping):U.S. individual: $40U.S. institution: $50International individual: $42International institution: $52

Subscription-related inquires (invoice, payment, and change of address):[email protected] (Canada, Mexico, USA)[email protected] (all other countries)

Special subscription rates are currently available as a membership option through the American Oriental Society. For more information, please contact the American Oriental Society, Hatcher Graduate Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109–1205, or access the society’s home page at www.umich.edu/~aos.

The full text of Ars Orientalis is also available in the electronic versions of Art Index and online through JSTOR (www.jstor.org).

ARSORIENTALIS

39

ars orientalis volume 39globalizing cultures: art and mobility in the eighteenth centurynebahat avcıoğlu and finbarr barry flood, guest editors

contents

7 introductionGlobalizing Cultures: Art and Mobility in the Eighteenth Century Nebahat Avcıoğlu and Finbarr Barry Flood

39 a roomful of mirrorsThe Artful Embrace of Mughals and Franks, 1550–1700 Sanjay Subrahmanyam

84 looking eastJean-Etienne Liotard, the Turkish Painter Kristel Smentek

113 eighteenth-century ottoman princesses as collectorsFrom Chinese to European Porcelain Tülay Artan

148 translating visionsA Japanese Lacquer Plaque of the Haram of Mecca in the L. A. Mayer Memorial Museum, Jerusalem Anton Schweizer and Avinoam Shalem

175 the “palais indiens” collection of 1774Representing Mughal Architecture in Late Eighteenth-Century India Chanchal Dadlani

198 “dressing turks in the french manner”Mouradgea d’Ohsson’s Panorama of the Ottoman Empire Elisabeth A. Fraser

231 history or theory?French Antiquarianism, Cairene Architecture, and Enlightenment Thinking Mercedes Volait

199

elisabetha.fraser

“dressingturksinthefrenchmanner”Mouradgea d’Ohsson’s PanoramaoftheOttomanEmpire

AbstractAnOttomanArmeniandragoman(interpreter)activeinConstantinople,Mou-radgea d’Ohsson (1740–1807) traveled to Paris in 1784 to publish a historicaloverviewoftheOttomanEmpire.WritinginafraughtpoliticalcontextfollowingtheRussiandefeatoftheOttomans,OhssonforthrightlycasthispublicationasadefenseofIslamandtheOttomanEmpire.Morethanatextualapology,hisillus-tratedbookembodiesasupremeactofculturalcrossing.WrittenbyanOttoman,thebookcontinuesanOttomantraditionofillustratedhistoriography,butitwaspublishedinFrenchandproducedbyalargeFrenchteamofartistsandartisansofthebooktrade,whointerpretedandtransformeditsOttomanelements,creat-ingaheterogeneousobject.Ohsson’sbookbridgesandblursFrenchandOttomancultures,suggestingtheircontingencyandentanglement.Moreover,theprocessofmakingthisbookwasitselfaculturalencounterforthosewhowereinvolved,anencounterwhosetracesremainvisibleinthefinalproductfortheviewer-readertoexperience.ThecumulativeeffectofthesecrossingsistoseeOttomanandFrenchformsasconnectedacrossacontinuumofvisualpossibilities;theheterogeneityofOhsson’sbookservedasanallegoryofentanglement,interrelation,andallianceintheverymomentwhentheywerepoliticallycontested.

ThEREIsnOThIngInIslAM,nothinginthelawandauthorityofthesultansoftheOttomanEmpirethatiscontrarytoreasonedgovernanceandtheenlight-enedcultivationoftheartsandsciences;onlypopularprejudice,borneofcapriceandpassionandcontrarytothespiritoftheKoran,afflictstheEmpire.WiththeseargumentsIgnatiusMouradgead’OhssonbeginshisextraordinaryTableau général de l’Empire Othoman(PanoramaoftheOttomanEmpire),publishedin1787.1Ohs-son,anOttomanArmeniandragoman(interpreter)intheserviceoftheswedishconsulinConstantinople,leftforParisin1784topublishhismagnificentandsin-gularwork.2OhssonwroteinthepoliticalwakeoftheRussiandefeatoftheOtto-mansin1774;withtherenewalofhostilities imminent,adramaticupheaval inalliances threatenedandthesultannowreversedhisunilateralpolitics,seekingcoalitionswithEuropeanpowers(Prussia,France,sweden,andEngland).Inthisfraughtcontext,OhssonforthrightlycasthisbookasadefenseofIslamandtheOttomanEmpire.3Butmorethanatextualapology,hisillustratedbookembodiesasupremeactofculturalcrossing.WrittenbyanOttoman,thebookdrawsonOtto-manhistoriographyandart,butitwaspublishedinFrenchandwasproducedbyalargeFrenchteamofartistsandartisansofthebooktrade,whointerpretedandtransformeditsOttomanelements,creatingatangiblyheterogeneousobject.ThisheterogeneityistheessenceofOhsson’sdefenseofOttomanculture.

1 (facing)A.girardet,anon.,giraud,langlois,engravingsafterJ.B.hilair,Mahométanes voilées,Egyptienne voilée,Européenne couverte d’un schall,Européenne couverte d’un Mahhrama.Plates79–82fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary

200 elisabetha.fraser

TheTableau généraliswellknowntohistoriansoftheOttomanEmpire.4longexploitedasimportantsourcesofhistoricalinformation,Ohsson’stextandimagestendtobeevaluatedintermsoftheiraccuracy.Oneofthemostinterestingaspectsofthisbook,however,isnotsomuchitsaccuraterepresentationofonecultureoranother,oreventheinformationitprovidesabouttheOttomanEmpireinthelateeighteenthcentury,butthewaythatitbridgesandblursFrenchandOttomancul-tures,suggestingtheircontingencyandentanglement.Moreover, theprocessofmakingthisbookwasitselfaculturalencounterforthosewhowereinvolved,anencounterwhosetracesremainvisibleinthefinalproductfortheviewer-readertoexperience.

studiesofEuropeanandOttomaninteractionsarenotnew;however,theyhavelongbeenwrittenundertheswayofanoutdated,retrospectiveviewthatseestheOttomanEmpireasenteringastateofprogressivedeclinefromabout1600,andlookingincreasinglytoEurope.5Consequently,concernwiththisinteractionhasbeenslantedtowardthestudyof“Western”influencesonOttomanculture.ButnewOttomanhistoryrejectsthisso-calleddeclineparadigm,anovertlyOrientalistconstruction,wherebyculturalinnovationandvitalitywerewidelyequatedwithEuropeanization.6AswaysofinterpretingOttomanandEuropeanhistorieshaveshifted,sotoomustrelationsbetweenOttomanandEuropeanculturebereconsid-ered.7

Ohsson’sbook,withitsadoptionofthelanguageofreform,hasbeeninterpretedbydiplomatichistoriansintermsofEuropeanmeaning-making,aspartofaWest-ernizingembraceofthepoliticsoftheEuropeanEnlightenment.8Butthiswouldbetomissasubtlecountercurrent inhisvolumes.hisTableau général,with itsself-conscious,autoethnographicdefenseoftheOttomans,offersapreciousper-spectiveontoameetingofFrenchandOttomanculturalactors,extendingfromahistoryofcrossingsbackandforththatisonlybeginningtobefullyacknowledged.9AssuraiyaFaroqhihasrecentlyconcluded,“Beforethelastquarteroftheeigh-teenthcentury[…],theOttomansandtheirEuropeanneighboursstillinhabitedacommonworld.”10Ohsson’swork,then,insinuatesandstrategicallyreliesonlike-nessesbetweenFrenchandOttomanimperialculturepreciselyatamomentwhenthiscommonalitywouldbepoliticallycontested.Withintheseentangledhistories,Ohsson’sprojectisuniqueinbringingtogetherbothOttomanandFrenchartists,artisans,andwritersinthecreationofasingleobject,whichfosteredamutualstudyofformsandtechnologiesatapivotalhistoricalmoment, inaperiodwhentheOttomanswereincreasinglyconcernedwiththenecessityofbuildingdiplomaticalliances.Inwhatfollows,IlookattheTableau généralasaproductofactiveagentsconsciouslyadoptingcross-culturalmodes,implicitlynegotiatingissuesoflegibil-ity,significance,andacceptabilityintothebargain.

201 “dressingturksinthefrenchmanner”

Remaking the French Illustrated Travel BookOhssonchoseFrance,withitsluxurybooktrade,astheplacetoproducehiswork.Francewas theOttomanEmpire’soldestEuropeanally andhadgood relationswiththeswedishcourt,towhichOhssonwasconnectedasinterpretertosweden’srepresentativesinIstanbul,gustafandUlricCelsing.11hisdiplomaticservicesonbehalfofsweden,whichwentfarbeyondhisdutiesastranslator,weresoappreci-atedthatKinggustavIIIennobledhimin1780.12Ohssongratefullydedicatedhisbooktotheswedishmonarch.

Ohsson’sTableau généralwasanambitiousenterprise,printedbythefamousFrenchtypographerPierre-FrançoisDidot,and illustratedbysomeof themostsought-afterFrenchartistsandprintmakersofthetime.Initiallyplanningasmanyaseightvolumeswithhundredsofprints,13Ohssonultimatelypublishedtwothickvolumesin1787and1790,bothwelloverthreehundredpages;athird,nearlyfivehundredpagesinlength,wascompletedbyhissonin1820afterhisdeath.Accord-ingtohispublishedbookprospectus,heintendedtocoverthedauntinglyimmensetopicsof“thecustoms,mores,religion,andlawsoftheOttomans”butonlythesec-tionsonIslamic,civicandmilitarylawwerecompleted,whilemanyoftheothertopicsaredealtwithinabundantdigressions.14histhreemassive,large-foliotomestogethercontainatotalof233plates,manyofwhicharedouble-pageorlarger.Atleasttwenty-eightartists(painters,designers,andengravers)wereinvolvedintheproductionofthebook,whoseartisticdirectionwasinitiallyassumedbyCharles-nicolasCochin,amajorfigureintheeighteenth-centuryFrenchartworldandwell

2

2F.née,engravingafterC.n.Cochin,Célébration de la fête du Mewloud, dans la Mosquée de Sultan-Ahmed.Plate25fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF


experienced inbook illustration.15Thenumberandqualityof thesefineprints,alongwiththeattentionpaidtotypographyandpaper,placeOhsson’spublicationclearlywithinthebibliophilebooktradeoftheperiod.Theproductionofhigh-qualityillustratedbooksreachedapeakinFranceduringthelastseveraldecadesoftheeighteenthcenturyandbibliophilecollectorswerewillingtopayhighpricesforfinelyproducedworks.16Ohsson’senterprise,then,wasasmuchcommercialasitwaspoliticalandpedagogical,involvinglargesumsofmoney.

IllustratedtravelbookswerebecomingaculturalphenomenoninFranceinthisperiod.17Manytravelbooksincludedcostumeplates,particularlypublicationsontheOttomanEmpirebecauseofthegreatdiversityofOttomanethnic,religious,regional,professional,andpoliticalidentitiesthatwerearticulatedthroughdress.18Ohsson’sbookhasover150costumeplates,illustratingcourtandmilitaryhier-archiesandsocialtypes(Fig.1).Inotherways,theTableau général canbeseenasrelatedtotypesknowninFrenchtravelliterature:manyofhissubjects werecom-montobooksontheOttomanEmpire,includingscenesfromtheimperialcourtandharem,ambassadorialreceptions,theBayramfestival,Eyüpcemetery,womenatthetandir,thehammam,andviewsofthemostfamousmosques(Fig.2).

AreaderofOhsson’svolumein1787wouldhavebeenparticularlystruckbysimilaritiesbetweenitandthefamousVoyage pittoresque de la Grèce,publishedin 1782 by Count Marie-gabriel de Choiseul-gouffier, who was subsequentlyappointedFrenchambassadortoConstantinoplein1784,theyearOhssonleftthatcityforParis.19Ahighlypublicizedandwell-receivedwork,Choiseul’sVoyagecre-atedaprototypefollowedbyartistsandauthorswhopublishedtravelbooksafterhim:richlyillustratedvolumesmadeforthebibliophilemarket,sharingmanyofthesameartistsandengravers,size(grand-folio)andformat(interleavingtextandplates), typography, type of decoration (fleurons, vignettes, culs-de-lampe), andmodeofdistribution(throughsubscription)andproduction(collective).20

3J.B.simonet,engravingafterJ.M.MoreauleJeune.FrontispiecefromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF

4C.n.Varin,engravingafterJ.M.MoreauleJeune.FrontispiecefromChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce,vol.1,1782.Paris:s.n.PhotographBnF

3 4


likeChoiseul,Ohssonlaunchedhispublicationwithahandsomeprospectusandsubscriptioncampaignandannouncementsinlearnedjournals.Indetermin-inghisformatandprice,agrand150livrespervolumewithasubscriptionand180without,OhssonwasadvisedtouseChoiseul’sasastandard.21Ohsson’stitlepage(Fig.3),withafinevignettebyJean-MichelMoreau,mimicsthepagecomposi-tionofChoiseul’s(Fig.4),whichwasalsodesignedandengravedbyMoreau.TheengraverJean-BaptisteTilliardandartistJean-Baptistehilair,whowererespon-sibleforalmostallofChoiseul’simages,alsoproducedmanyofOhsson’s.(Indeed,CochinhadcounseledOhssontohireTilliardspecificallybecauseofhissuccesswithChoiseul’swork.)22liketheVoyage pittoresque,theArmenian’spublicationincluded landscapes and costume plates, along with court scenes and rituals.someofhisspecificsubjectswerethesameasChoiseul’s(andthoseofothertravelaccounts):thetraditionalgreekdancecalledtheRomeca(Fig.5),thecirid(javelin)game,andofficialreceptionscenes.Thelatenineteenth-centurycataloguerofthegreateighteenth-centurybooktradition,Jacques-CharlesBrunet,whoconsideredChoiseul’sbookoneofthebestoftheperiod,alsopraisedthe“especiallyfineexecu-tion”ofOhsson’swork.23

Ohsson’sreferencesaremultipleandcomplicatedanddonotpointexclusivelytoChoiseul’spublication.24nonetheless,acomparisonofthetwodoesilluminatetheTableau’sspecificqualitiesandhelpsusseethebalancingactbetweentwocul-turesinwhichOhssonandhisartistswereengaged.selectiveborrowingsarepartofOhsson’sfascinatingprocessoftranslation,whereheappropriatescertainformsinordertomakehisviewsandconceptslegibletohisFrenchaudience,adelicateactofmediationwhichOhsson’scorrespondentUlricCelsingreferredtoas“dressingupTurksintheFrenchmanner.”likewise,Iunderstandtheword“translation”notasatransparenttransferenceofmeaningfromonemediumorlanguagetoanother,

5Delongueil,engravingafterJ.B.hilair,La Roméca, danse des femmes grecques.Plate93fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary

5


butasanactofculturalmediation—suggestedbyCelsing’ssartorialmetaphor—inwhichprocess,naturally,meaningsandformsaredisturbed;the“original”isinevi-tablytransformed.25

Choiseul’sbookprovidedOhssonwithastructureandanexternalshape,help-fulinlendinghisenterprisecommercialandintellectuallegitimacy:recognizedbyhisaudience,theformatofChoiseul’slarge-folioillustratedvolumegaveOhsson’sapproachandsubject(Muslimdoctrine)familiarform.ButtheFrenchman’sworkalsoprovidedakindofnegativeframework:whileconformingtosomeofitsexter-nalappearances,Ohssonshiftedthecontenttoencompassadifferentperspective,counteringtheOrientalisttropeslacingtheFrencharistocrat’saccountofhisvoy-agethroughtheOttomanEmpire.Wemightsaythatheusedtheconventionsoftravelliteratureinordertosubvertthem.

Although Choiseul’s book covers the Ottoman regions Romelia and Anato-lia,itskirtstheOttomanEmpireasapoliticalandculturalentity,whereasOhs-son’s—despiteitsnominalfocusonreligiousdoctrine—featuresextensivecoverageofOttomanhistoryandcontemporarylife,includingsuchtopicsassocialprac-

6

6B.l.henriquezandA.girardet,engravingsafterJ.J.leBarbierl’aînéandanon.,Tschenky ou Danseur public,Danseuse publique.Plates89–92fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary


tices,dress,architecture,andcooking,amongmanyothersub-themes.Choiseul’sprimaryfocusonantiquity,commoninearlymodernEuropeantravelliterature,issuggestedintheclassicalgeographictermsheuses(greece,AsiaMinor)ratherthanthegeopoliticalonepreferredbyOhsson(theOttomanEmpire).26ChoiseulpayslittleattentiontotheadministrativestructureoftheOttomanEmpire,con-temporaryOttomanculture,orIslam;wherethesesubjectsdoappearinhiswork,itisusuallyinnegativeorgeneralizedterms.hisitineraryplaceshimintheprovincesoftheOttomanEmpirewhereheonlyoccasionallyencountersprovincialpashas.Bycontrast,Ohsson’sworkfocusesontheelitecultureoftheOttomancapitalandespeciallyonthecourtandmilitaryhierarchy.

TheTableau généralisitselfatravelbookinanimportantsense:itisaproductofOhssonlookingbackattheOttomanEmpirefromhisperchinParis;he,likeothertravelers,isalsolookingasacross-culturalfigure.Thebookisinformedinmanywaysbytheplaceinwhichheproducedit.Everthetranslator,thedragomanfre-quentlycomparesOttomanandEuropeancustom,acommonconventionintravelliterature,butOhssonusuallyavoidssuggestingapreferenceforoneortheother.MuslimwomenoftheOttomanEmpire,hesays,lackthegraceandeleganceofEuropeanwomen,buttheyhaveinsteadanobilityofdressandthecharmsofasim-plernature(seeFig.1).27Europeansstanduptogreetanewcomertoaroom;Otto-mansdonot,asitisnottheircustomtomovefreelyaboutaroomonceinstalledinit.OnlythesultanormembersoftheDivansit“àl’Européenne”(onachair)onspecificceremonialoccasions.neverdoesanOttomansitcross-leggedorstretchoutafootwhileseatedunlessheisinthepresenceofintimatefriendsorinferiors.28Thesecomparisonscontextualizeandclarifycustomsbutdonot,forthemostpart,provideascaleofvalues.Moreover,thebringingintoacomparativerelationshipofFrenchandOttomancultureundercutsexoticistapproachestothelatter:Ohssonplacesculturalsimilaritiesanddifferenceswithinacommonframeofreference.

InonefascinatingpassagejuxtaposingEuropeanandOttomansocialpractices,OhssonexplainsthatMuslimsnevergotoEuropeanpartiesinthecapital(althoughsometimesgreeksdo).Ayoungseigneurofthecourtmightoccasionallypermithimselftoattendbuthewouldtakeprecautions,sittingwithdrawnonacornersofa.here,inamise en abîme,OhssonimaginestheOttomanprincewatchingEurope-ansatleisureandwhatwouldsurpriseorshockhim,adevicewherebyOhsson’sEuropeanreaders,theobserversofOttomansastheconsumersofthistext,sud-denlybecomethewatched.29

Overandoveragain,OhssonportraysOttomancultureandMuslimpracticesassober,serious,dignified,anddesignedtoinculcatemoralbehavior,counteringChoiseul’sgeneralizations.Writingaboutafestivityhehashappenedupon,Choi-seuldescribes“Turks”asfanatical,drivenbyakindofgrotesquedrunkennessand


vice;thedancersareobscene.Bycontrast,Ohsson’sdiscussionsofmusicanddancearespecific,notgeneralized:hedescribeswhopracticeswhatandunderwhatcon-ditions.Althoughmusicisintheoryprohibitedbyreligiousdoctrine,itispracticedinspecificplaces,claimsOhsson:inConstantinopleandotherbigOttomancities,somedoenjoymusicpassionately;thesultanhimselflistenstomusicperformedbypagesandslavegirls.nomusicisperformedinamosque,however.AccordingtoOhsson,theMusliminterdictionagainstdanceistakenfarmoreseriouslyintheOttomanEmpire:Christiangreeksdodance(seeFig.5),especiallyatEasterwhentheyhaveaspecialdispensation(firman)todoso;Muslimsforthemostpartdonotdance,unlesstheyarepartofthepublictroupesofdancers(whichrarelyinfactincludeMuslims)orslavegirls(Fig.6).Inanotherexample,Choiseul’simagesofresting“orientals”(seeFig.11)conjureupthestereotypeoftheindolentTurk,athemetheauthordevelopsinapassageontheOttomans’discouragementofindus-try.30ThemaximsofIslamaredesignedtoinstillaworkethic,Ohssonflatlydeclaresbycontrast.31Inhisdescriptions,eventhepleasuresofcourtlifeareoccasionalandlimited:aday’soutingtoBeşiktaşalongtheBosphorus(depictedinOhsson,plate169),thespectacleofjavelin-throwing(cirid)performedbythepalacepages(Ohs-son,plate171),andareturnatday’sendtotheadministrativeworkofnewPalace(nowTopkapı).Inthisway,fillingingapsleftbyChoiseul’sbook,providingsomenewtermsandomittingothers,openingnewperspectives,Ohssondepartsfromthisprototypeandtransformsit.

Ohsson’sworkalsotellinglyomitsmapsandplans,importantcomponentsofcontemporarytravelbooksofallkinds:withtheirobviousstrategicvalue,mapswereoneofthemainreasonstheFrenchgovernmentwassointerestedinfundingtravelbooks.(Inanoteburiedinthearchives,napoleon’sministerofwarwritestoChoiseulin1802askingformapsinhispossessionusedforhispublication.)32Cho-iseul’sbookisstuddedwithmaps,butOhssonwasclearlynotinterestedinthesur-veyingofOttomanspace,themakingvisibleandaccessibleofOttomanterritory.

Promoting the Ottoman Culture of LettersIfOhsson’sTableau généralharnessestheprestigeoftheFrenchbooktohisdefenseofOttomansociety,usingthepowerofthebookandthetrappingsoftheFrenchbooktradetonewends,itsauthoralsomakesitclearthatbibliophiliaisnottheexclusivedomainof theFrench.33AnOttomanmight learnfromFrance’sbookculture,butOhsson’sFrenchreaderscanalsolearnfromhis:Ohsson’spublicationisatwo-wayproposition,ashemakesclearinalengthydiscussionofOttomanbooksandmanuscripts.Theauthortellsus,inhisusualtop-downapproach,that Ottomanprincesgreatlyfavorthe“cultureofletters”intheirstatesandthatmostimperialmosqueshavepubliclibraries(called“Kitab-Khanes”),“builtwithtaste


andelegance,”withthirty-fiveinConstantinoplealone.34 Thosewhoownbooks(manuscriptsandprintedbooks)willthemtopubliclibraries.Alwaysmindfulofthecourthierarchy,hedoesnotfailtomentionthesultan’sprivatecollectionofmanuscriptbooks,aswellastwolargelibrariesintheimperialpalace:theAhmedIIIandMustafaIIIfoundations. AfteraplateillustratingArabiccharacters,twoparticularlyfineprintsoverseenbyCochindepicttwopubliclibraries:one(Fig.7)representsthelibraryfoundedbygrandVizierRaghibPasha,aninteriorviewattentivetothearchitecturaldetailsandeleganceofthevastspaceandconveyingasenseofitshushedsolemnity.Athirdimagebyhilairpresents“livresturcs”toshowtheformatofOttomanbooksandtheirfamousleatherbindings.(Bookbind-ingswerealsomuchadmiredinlateeighteenth-centuryFrance.)Adetailedhis-toryofthefamousIstanbulprintingpressestablishedbyIbrahimMüteferrikâin1729follows.35AccordingtoOhsson,OttomanrulershadlongbeenreluctanttoallowtheestablishmentofaprintingpressbecauseofitspossiblenegativeeffectsontheimportantcommerceofmanuscriptproductionwithintheOttomanEmpire.AhmedIIIfinallyallowedapresstobesetuptoprintworksonphilosophy,medi-cine, astronomy, geography, history, and science. so important is this printingpresstotheimageOhssonseekstoconveythatheprovidesacompletelistofthebooksprintedbyMüteferrikâ,includinghistoriesofthe“grandshommes”oftheOrient,theOttomans’maritimeexpeditions,andEgyptanditsconquestbyselimI.Anotherpublicationisadeliberationondifferentformsofgovernment,goodadministration,andthemilitaryarts.(howclosethesesubjectssoundtothekindsoftopicsaddressedbyeighteenth-centuryFrenchauthors!)

ButitisnotmerelyindescribingandpicturingaspectsofOttomanbookculturethatOhssonvalorizesit.hisbookembodiesthisculture,alludingtoanddrawinguponOttomantraditions.history-writing,animportantfeatureoftheOttomanmanuscripttradition,spawnedarichvisualcultureofillustratedbooksinwhichtextandminiatures formedacompositewhole.36Thesecourt-sponsoredworkscombiningwordand image,produced fromthefifteenthcentury following the

7

7C.l.lingée,engravingafterC.n.Cochin,Bibliothèque publique du Grand-Vézir Raghib Pascha.Plate33fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF


OttomanconquestofIstanbul,wereexecutedbyteamsofartists,scribes,andbook-bindersoverseenbyacourthistoriographerandmasterillustrator.37Ohsson,whohadgatheredateaminParistocreatehisownillustratedOttomanhistory,mightwellhaveseenhimselfastheheirtothisimperialtradition.

Imperialilluminatedhistorieswereproducedintotheearlyeighteenthcentury,withtheSurnamemanuscriptwrittenbythepoetVehbiandilluminatedbytheartistAbdülcelilÇelebi,knownaslevni,andhisschoolcirca1721.38Ohssonsug-geststhatMüteferrikâ,whosefoundingoftheeighteenth-centuryIstanbulprint-ingpresshehasjustdiscussed,alsocarriedonthetraditionofillustratinghistory,imitating“Persian”manuscriptsinbooksproducedbyhispress.Citingthesuc-cessofMüteferrikâ’sillustratedHistory of the West Indies(Tarihü’l-Hindi’l-Garbi el-Müsemma bi Hadis-i Nev), supported by “enlightened ministers,” Ohssonapplaudsthe“noveltyofaprojectsocontrarytotheprejudicesofthemultitude.”hispraisefortheprinter’sworkcomesattheendofadiscussionofMuslimprohi-bitionagainstimages:hepromotesMüteferrikâ’sgovernment-supportedworkasanexampleofhoweasilyprominentstatesmencouldencouragerepresentationalartsinOttomansociety,anencouragementthatheregardsprimarilyasaquestionofthecouragetogoagainstthetideofpopularopinion.39(Onlysultanswhocom-missionedportraitshavepreviouslyhadthiscourage,heasserts.)WithitsrevivalbysultanAbdülhamidin1784underthedirectionoftheimperialhistoriographer,theIstanbulprintingpresswasnowatwork,Ohssontellsus,onasuiteofOttomanhistory.40Tellingly,Ohssonendsthisdiscussionoftheprintingpress,illustratedhistories,andreligiousviewsaboutimageswithalengthyexposéofhiseffortsinobtainingimagesforhisownwork,implicitlylinkinghisownenterprisewiththe“courageous”publishinginnovationsoftheIstanbulpress.(Indeed,Ohssonclaimsitwasonreadingaworkproducedbythatpressthatheconceivedtheideaforhisownbook.41)Inthatcontext,Ohsson’sownTableau général,asanillustratedhistorybookproducedinlargepartthankstohisconnectionswithinthecourthierarchy,intervenesinthisdebateaboutIslamandimagesinOttomanpractice.42Ohssonpresentshiswork,likeMüteferrikâ’sillustratedhistory,asaninitiativefromabovetoturnthetideofpopularopinion,placingit,moreover,withinahistoriographiclineage.OhssonimplicitlystyledhisTableau general asacontinuationofMütefer-rikâ’spublishingactivity,bringingOttomanprintculturetoFrance.TheeffectisnottoemphasizeOttomanadoptionofaEuropeantechnology,butthereverse:tocon-nectprintculturetoaspecificallyOttomanbooktraditionand,hence,toremindhisreadersofthelongevityoftheOttomanEmpire.EvenasheappropriatedthetrappingsofFrenchbookproductionandtravelliterature,then,Ohssonpositionedhis bookwithinOttomanhistoriography.


Authentically OttomanThroughouthistext,Ohssonreturnstohisgreateffortsingatheringprimarymate-rialforhispublication.hiscourtconnectionsgavehimaccesstoofficialannals,“mytitlesofauthenticityforallthatIputforward,becausethemostscrupuloustruthandexactitudeareinmyeyestheprimarymeritofthiswork.”43AssuringhisFrenchaudienceofhisbook’s“authenticity,”thisuseofOttomansourcesalsolegitimizesitasanovelcontributiontowritingabouttheOttomanEmpireinFrance.Ohs-sonpresentshiscredentials,hisdirectexperience,andhisconnectionstotheinnercirclesofthecourthierarchy:“BorninConstantinople,raisedinthatcountry,andattachedallmylifetotheserviceofacourtalliedwiththePortethroughintimaterelations,”Ohssonvauntshisspecialqualifications forhis task.Theyderivenotonlyfromhisservicewiththeswedishconsulate,butalsofrom“particularchargesinthedirectserviceofthePorte.”seeing“ministersandtheprincipalofficersofdiversedepartmentsalmosteveryday,”Ohsson“cametoknowprofoundly…alltheobjectsthatconcernthisnation.”Theheadsofdepartmentsofstatethemselveshadsuchconfidenceinthedragomanandhishistoricalproject,heclaims,thattheyeagerlyofferedhimexcerptsfromtheirownledgers.44

OfparticularimportancetoOhssonaretheimagesthatmakeupsuchasig-nificantportionofhisbook.Inthebookitself,hegoesintosomedetailabouthisgreatpainstoobtainthem,dramatizinghisdifficultiesbyemphasizingandper-hapsexaggeratingthedangersinvolved,andreturningtothesubjectinseveralpas-sages.45Thesediscussionsofimagesringwithwordslike“fidelity,”“faithfulness,”“truth,”“exactness,”and“scrupulousness,”signalingtheauthor’sparticularconcerntomakethereaderawareoftheimages’authenticity.OhssonisadamantthatallofhisprintsarederivedfrompaintingsmadeinIstanbul:inadditiontocopiesofaspecialalbumofsultans’portraits(neverused),“alltheotherprintsthatadornthisworkarepartofacollectionofpaintingsexecutedlocally[danslepays].[...]Theircomposition,theworkofmanyyears,wasdirectedwiththegreatestcare.Themostscrupuloustruthandexactitudearetheirgreatestmerit.AllthesepaintingsarenowbeingengravedinParis.”46

8

8J.B.Tilliard,engravingafterJ.B.hilair,Musulman faisant la prière, Namaz.Plate14fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF


Returningtothisthemelaterinhiswork,heagainisemphaticabouthisgreateffortstoobtainimagesmadeinsituwithintheOttomanEmpire.ThedifficultyinobtainingimagesistwofoldinOhsson’sexposé.First,hehastocontend,heclaims,withaMuslimreluctancetodealwithimages,particularlyfiguralones,obligingartiststotake“infiniteprecautions,”andto“workintheirhomesormine,insilenceandsecrecy.”second,heneededofficialprotectionandtogetit,hehadtoovercomeofficials’fearofbeingcompromised.Itwasthroughofficialconnections,heasserts,thathewasabletogetdrawingsoftheinteriorsofmosques,burialchapels,librar-ies,andtheroomsoftheDivan.AccordingtoOhsson,artistswhohadworkedintheimperialpalacewereabletomakeimagesofthesultan’sapartments,theharem,andimperialkiosks,butimagesofburialchapelsprovedmostdifficulttogetbecausenoChristianwasallowedtoenter;hehadtoconvinceMuslimpainterstoovercome“theirsuperstitiousprejudices.”47heconcludes:“WiththisexposéofthemeansIhaveemployedformorethantenyearstoformthecollectionofpaintingsanddraw-ingsrelativetoOttomanhistory,onecangleanthetroubleandexpensethisaspectofmyworkoccasionedmeandtheresearchIdidonallthatpertainedtocivilsocietyandpoliticaladministration.”48heleavesnodoubtinthereader’smindthattheseimagesareparticularlyestimable,astheyweredifficulttocomebyandwerepro-ducedwithintheOttomanEmpireitselfbypeoplewhowereknowledgeableaboutOttomanculture—unlike,oneisgiventoinfer,theimagesinFrenchtravelliterature.

109

9n.leMire,engravingafterJ.B.hilair, Habitans de la Carie.Plate93fromChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce,vol.1,1782.Paris:s.n.PhotographBnF

10l.Petit,l.Croutelle,anon.,hubert,engravingsafterJ.B.hilairandanon.,Othoman avec sa barbe,Jeune Othoman,Arabe,Tatars.Plates63–6fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary


BycomparisonwithChoiseul’splates,manyofOhsson’sprintsthemselvesarestarkandsober,standingforthesimpledignityheidentifiesasthecoreofMuslimpractice.TheillustrativeclarityoftheimagesunderscoresOhsson’sspare,directlanguage:akintoahow-toguidetoMuslimpractices,twoimages,forinstance,demonstratethevariousstagesofdailyprayer(namaz)formen(Fig.8)andwomen.ThedifferencebetweenChoiseul’sandOhsson’simagesholdstrueevenwhentheimagesweremadebytheverysameartist.Withhislighttouch,hilairinfuseshisimagesintheVoyage pittoresquewithoptimismandserenityandfillsthemabun-dantly;intheTableau généralhisimagesarestrippeddown,plain,andsimplified.Usingthesameserializedformatof fourplatesappearingononesheet,hilair’sinhabitantsofCaria(Fig.9)forChoiseulandhisOttomans,Arab,andTatarsforOhsson(Fig.10)sharetheusualconventionsforcostumeplates:thefiguresappearisolatedinalooselydefinedlandscapewithalowhorizonlinethatsetsthemoff.Theypose,gesture,tilttheirheads,andturnindifferentdirectionsinawaythatis

12

11

11J.Dambrun,engravingafterJ.B.hilair, Vue d’un théâtre de Telmissus.Plate71fromChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce,vol.1,1782.Paris:s.n.PhotographBnF

12A.Delattre,engravingafterJ.B.hilair,Chapelle sépulchrale de Moustapha III.Plate31fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.Paris:s.n.PhotographBnF


meanttoundercutthepotentialmonotonyofserialization.ButtheplatesfortheVoyage pittoresquearenoticeablyricher:full,deepshadowsdefinethefigures,thelandscapesettingsaremoreelaborate,andthefiguresholdattributesandprops.Eventheterrainonwhichtheystandisenlivenedbygreaterdetailinthevegeta-tion,rock,slope,andfallintheearth,andvastcloudformationsanimatetheskiesbehind.similarly,ifwecompareanarchitecturalimageafterhilairfromeachwork,theruinsofatheatreatTelmessus(Fig.11)inChoiseul’sbookandMustafaIII’sburialchapel(Fig.12)inOhsson’s,theviewofthelatterisemptier,morebasic,andfarlesswhimsical,dominatedbyhardlinesandclearstructures,whichvegetationdoeslittletosoften.Thiscontrastsuggeststhedistinctpurposesofthetwoworks,butitalsopointstodifferingoriginsandvisualtraditions.

Theausterityofmanyoftheimagesisunderscoredbytheabsenceofdecora-tivemotifstypicalofillustratedbooksintheperiod,thefleurons,vignettes,ban-deaux,andelegantculs-de-lampe(Fig.13)whichgraceChoiseul’sbookwithsuchabundance.Theseelements,mostlycommissionedpieces,addedtothedurationandexpenseofbookproduction,soitispossiblethattheywereomittedfromtheTableauforfinancialreasons.nonetheless,theirabsencecontributestotheover-alleffectofthebook’ssobrietyandseriousness.WhencomparedwithChoiseul’sbook,thesedifferencesconnotedirectnessandfrankness—thebare,unvarnishedtruth—whichcommentators interpretedassignsof thework’sauthenticity.Theroyalcensorwhoevaluatedthemanuscript,forexample,praisedits“characteroftruth,authenticity,andmostprofounderudition.”49Cochinwrote,condescend-ingly,ofits“naivetruth,”aviewIdiscussfurtherbelow.ThesoberappearanceofOhsson’sbook,seenasakindof“realityeffect”bycontemporaries,counteredthepicturesqueappearanceofChoiseul’s,lendingitgreaterauthority.

Making Ottoman Images French (Or Not)Asisalreadyapparent,thestoryoftheimagesintheTableau général,theiroriginsandtheirtransformationintoprints,iscomplex.(ThesubjecthasbeendealtwithindetailbyarthistoriansgünselRendaandChristianMichel.)50gatheredfromadiverserangeofsources,theimagesOhssonhadmadeinIstanbulwereeithercop-iesofearlierworks(imperialportraits,illuminatedmanuscripts),ororiginalworks.Discerning exactly who executed these paintings is difficult, above all becausetheartistsareunnamedinthefinalwork,Ohssondramaticallyinvokinghisvowtopreservetheanonymityofthosewhowereinvolvedinthedifferentpartsofhisenterprisetoprotectthemfrompotentialridicule.51Referencestoauthorshipoftheoriginalworksaregeneralandcontradictory:inhisprospectusand“Discourspré-liminaire,”Ohssonrefersbroadlyto“greekandEuropeanpainters”butlatermen-tionsMuslimpaintersaswell;Cochinrefersvaguelyto“greekorItalianartists.”52

13C.n.Varin,engravingafterJ.B.huët?,Cul-de-lampe.FromChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce,vol.1,1782,166.Paris:s.n.PhotographBnF


YetCochinclearlyregardedthepaintingsfromIstanbulasforeign,and,forhim,strange.AlthoughbothOhssonandCochinmentionEuropeanartists,Cochin’slengthy discussion of the production of engravings makes it evident that theseimageshadtobetransformed,translatedintowhatwouldbeforhimarecognizableandacceptableidiom.Complainingthat“allthefiguresaretooshort,theirheadstoobig,”theartistsaysthepaintingsare“ofagreatexactness,butwithouttaste,with-outeffect,andwithadisagreeableperspective.”53hisnegativeassessmentaside,hislistdescribeswellfeaturesthatdistinguishOttomanfromFrenchart,eveninthelatereighteenthcentury:thedifferentproportionsoffigures;theuseofexact,strongcontours;anabsenceofatmosphericeffects;andhighperspectives.ItisthedifferentculturaloriginofOhsson’simages,inpart,thatgivesmanyoftheprintsapalpablydifferentappearancefromthoseofotherillustratedFrenchbooksofthisperiod.

Ohsson’s description of how he came by the images of Mecca (Fig. 14) andMedinaisparticularlyelaborate.Afterseeingpaintingsmadebya“Muslimpainter”whoaccompaniedacourtofficialonapilgrimagein1778,Ohssonobtainedper-missionforcopiestobemadeby“oneofthebestpaintersfromIstanbul,”towhichfigures were added to show the pilgrims’ movement around the Ka‘aba for thefirstdayofBayram.54ImagesofMeccawerenotscarceinOttomanculture,butthisone,anenormoustableau-like,double-sizedplate,oneofthemostremarkableofOhsson’sprints,mightwellbebasedondirectobservation.günselRendacon-vincinglypresentsagouachepaintingoftheholyCitiesbycourtpainterKostantin

14

14Berthault,engravingafterl.n.delespinasse,Vue de la Mecque.Plate45fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary


Kapıdağlı,executedforsultanselimIII,asaversionofthepaintinghemostlikelymadeforOhsson’swork.55Itsskewedperspective,reducedcolorrange,andsimpli-ficationofformarenotconventionalinFrenchartandhavebeensoftenedbytheFrenchdesignerandengraver,whohavealsoaddedlushnuanceandtexturetothescene,visibleinthefinalengraving.Withitslarge-scale,panoramicperspective,andhighhorizonline,theprintshowsMeccaspreadoutbeforetheviewer.Thecityisembracedbymightymountains,renderedinstunningengravingandechoedinformbythesnakinglineofpilgrims,whoseinfinite(oratleastuncountable)numberissuggestedbytheinfinitereachofthevastlandscape.Figures,box-likebuildings,andmountainsmultiplyseriallythroughouttheimage,whichstrikinglyencompassesbothsmalldetailandvastscaleinone.ItisaparticularlyfelicitousmarriageofOttomanartandFrenchprintmaking.

Because of a legal wrangle between Cochin, François Denis née, Cochin’sprincipalpartnerincarryingouttheengravings,andOhssonoverpaymentsandcosts,weknowmorethanusualaboutthemakingofthisbook.Inadditiontohiscorrespondence,wherehementionsthisdemandingproject,Cochinalsowrotealengthymemorandumdescribingit,tobeusedaspartofhislegaldefense.(Intheend,thethreemencametoasettlementarbitratedbyanotary,andCochinandnéeceasedworkonthepublication.)56Asthesupervisoroftheimage-makingprocessforatleastthefirstandpartofthesecondvolumes,CochinwasresponsibleforhavingtheOttomanpaintingscommissionedbyOhssondrawn(orredrawn)byan

15

15J.B.simonet,engravingafterJ.M.MoreauleJeune,Alaïh ou Marche du Surré-Eminyavec les Chameaux sacrés et le Trésor pour la Mecque.Plate47fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.2,1790.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary


intermediarydraftsmanaspreparationfortheengraving.(Itwasastandardpartofthecomplicatedprocessofcreatingcopperengravingsintheeighteenthcenturyforadesignertoprepareahighlyfinisheddrawingfortheengraver,usuallyinreverse,totheexactsizedeterminedfortheprint.)57hisdescriptionofthisprocesspro-videsarareglimpseintothemechanismsofaculturalencounter,makingCochin’saccountespeciallyvaluable.Afterall,processesofEuropeantransculturation,asMarylouisePratthasargued,areoftenonlyvisibleassubterraneantracesandarefrequentlyrepressedorignoredbythosewhopublishtravelaccounts.58

AlthoughCochincriticizedtheOttomanimages,hevaluedtheir“greatexac-titude”and“naive truth,”aphrasemixingpraisewithcondescension.“Ihadtocorrecteverything,andIredidalmostallofit,”but“Iwastakenwiththeideaofconservingthenaivelytrueeffect[theseworks]have;Ionlywanttoperfectthemwithoutabandoningtheirtruesystemofnature.”59OhssonhimselfseemstohavevacillatedbetweenleavingtheOttomanimagesastheywereandhavingFrenchartistscompletelyrepaintthem,aswasapparentlydoneforafewimagesbeforethedraftsmanmadethedrawingfortheengravertoworkfrom.Moreau,initiallyengagedasdraftsmanfortheproject,urgedthatalltheworksberedrawncom-pletely.60ThiswascountertoCochin’sview,asheadmiredthewaytheOttomanimagesbore“acharacteroftruththat,possibly,noneofoursophisticatedartistswouldbeabletocapturetothesamedegree.Iamobliged,sinceIwanttoconservethistruthwhoseimportanceIsovalue,toredrawallthefiguresthataretoosmallandwhoseheadsaretoobig,takingcarenotto‘frenchify’[franciser]them,some-thingthatourbestdraftsmenwouldnodoubtaccomplish.”61since,inadditiontoobliteratingelementsoftheoriginals,theprocessofrepaintingwastime-consum-ingandexpensive,CochindevelopedatechniqueofcontourdrawingthatadjustedtheOttomanimagesminimally.

DifferencesinattitudeandapproachtotheimagesbroughtbyOhssonfromIstanbulhelptoexplainwhythefinalprintsinhisbookpresentclearlydifferingpic-torialidioms.62The“Frenchness”Cochinsoughttoavoidisevidentinsomeoftheimages,obviouslymadebyartistswhodidnotshareCochin’squalifiedappreciationfortheOttomanworks.Forinstance,Moreau’smasterfuldouble-pageprintoftheprocessionofthesürreEmini(Fig.15)resultedfromaworkredonemostlikelybyMoreauhimself.Itsperspective,withalowerhorizonlineandasofterintegrationofdetailintothewhole(withMoreau’scharacteristicextremefineness),readsverydifferentlyfromtheMeccaimage,whichismoreclearlytheproductofanaestheticmerging.63TheelementofwhatCochinsawas“naivetruthfulness”isgone.

Overallthewholeprocessofimage-productionforthisworkwastremendouslycomplicated(andexpensive),involvingthreeorfourmaker-translators:theOtto-manartistwhorendered thefirst image, theFrenchpainterwhorepainted the


imageinsomecases,theFrenchdesignerwhomadetheengraver’sdrawing,andtheFrenchengraver.WhatemergesfromCochin’sdescriptionisaconceptionofthe image-makingprocesswhereFrenchartists functioned lessas translators—makingOttomanimagesFrench—thanasperformersofOttoman-ness—FrenchartistsmakingOttomanimages.Thisprocessnecessarilyentailedaconfrontationwithandevenakindof studyofOttomanart.Andbecauseof thediversityofvisual interpretations—the degrees to which Ottoman or French traditions aremadevisible—thereaderofOhsson’sbookbecomesawareofthisaspectofit:itisnotsubmergedorhidden.(Ohsson’sreiteratedexplanationsofhowheobtainedhis images further heighten his reader’s awareness of this aspect of the book’sproduction.)Theprocessoftranslationismadevisibleandthereader-viewerisenjoinedtoparticipateinaculturalencounter—oratleasttoobserveitunfoldinginthebook.

severaloftheimagesintheTableau généralarederivedfromOttomanmanu-scripts,addingyetanotherlayertotheprocessofimage-makingandtranslation.(Ohssoncallsthem“Persian,”presumablyatranslator’sshorthand.)Inintroduc-inghisfirstplates,Ohssonclaimstheyare“copiesfidèles”ofthesemanuscripts,buttheirattemptatfidelity—theirperformanceofOttoman-ness—variesconsid-erably.somearederivedfromcourthistoriographerseyyidlokman’s1583illus-trated manuscript, a world history entitled Zübdetü’t Tevarih (Quintessence ofhistories)thatlinkedtheOttomansultanstotheprophetsandpastIslamicrulers.64TheseimagesweremostlikelytransmittedtotheFrenchartistsviacopiesmadebyacontemporaryOttomanartist.EachvisualcorrespondencetoordivergencefromtheOttomanoriginalsrevealstheartisticdecision-makingentailedinthecreationoftheseimages.

Adam(thefirstprophet)andEve,appearinginthefirstplateinOhsson’sbook(Fig.16),areshown,intheauthor’swords,in“orientalcostume”inearthlypara-dise,nexttothetreeoflifeanddeath.Intheoriginalillumination(Fig.17)theirchildren,representedindifferingscales,surroundthemandangelsflyoverhead,butallthesefiguresareeliminatedinTilliard’sprint,probablydoneafteradraw-ing(orgouache)byhilair.TheengravedrepresentationofAdamandEve,whostandaloneoneithersideofthetree,morecloselyresemblesEuropeanthanOtto-man iconography. The flames above their heads remain—Ohsson explains thatAdam is suspended between fire and water, body and spirit—though they aremademoreethereal.Onlytheseflamesandthetree(lackingtheapplesandsnakeconventionaltoEuropeanimages)withariverflowingfromitsbaseadheretotheoriginal iconography of the Ottoman miniature. The appearance of Adam andEve,too,hasbeenconsiderablymodified:thefiguresarestouterandmorevolu-metric,theirfacesrounderandmoredetailed,andtheystandinafieldoflight-


enedspaceratherthanonoragainstaflatground,castingshadowsontheearththatrecedesbehindthem.Delicatemodelingreplacesmonochromaticandpat-ternedsurfaces.Thattheimageisreversedrighttoleftprobablyindicatesthattheintermediarydrawingmadefortheengraverwasnotitselfdoneinreverse,aswastheusualpracticeinfineFrenchbookillustration,possiblysuggestingadisregardfortheoriginal.65TheimageofAdamandEvehasbecomeaFrenchrepresentationof“oriental”figures.

ThedepictionoftheMiraj,Muhammad’snightjourneyfromMecca(Fig.18),isclosertoitssixteenth-centuryOttomansource(Fig.19)thantheengravingofAdamandEve,perhapsbecausethereisnocorrespondingEuropeanvisualtra-ditiontorepresentthesubject.Inthisimage,MuhammadridesBuraq,ahuman-headedbeast, ledbygabrielandotherangels, fromtheshrineof theKa‘aba inMecca.66Althoughtheimageisonceagainreversed,theFrenchdraftsmanretainedthemultipleperspectivesgivenintheoriginal:theKa‘abaisseenfrontallywithinthecourtyardofthegrandMosqueagainstacheckeredfloorviewedfromabove;thenearestandfurthestwallsarealsoseenfrontally,withtwonominallyverticalminaretspositionedatleftandrightlyingacrosstheaerialviewofthesidearcades(hence compressing two views into one plane). In Ohsson’s plate, engraved byTilliard,thearchitectureisgivengreaterdensity,depth,andsomeshading,allof

1716

16J.B.Tilliard,engravingafterJ.B.hilair?,Adam et Eve.Plate1fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF.

17Adam and Hawwa (Eve),fromZübdetü’t Tevarih(TheQuintessenceofhistories),Istanbul,late16thcentury.39.5x25cm.ChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin,T414,fol.53a.Photograph©TheTrusteesoftheChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin


whichworkstomaketheconstructioneasiertoreadasathree-dimensionalspaceaccordingtopost-Renaissanceperspectivalrules.ButtheconventionwherebytheProphet’sfaceisobscuredisadheredto:intheprintweseeonlyhisfootinastirrupandhisturban,aflaminghaloblockingtherestfromview.Intheupperquadrantofthisplate,thearrangementoffigures,theiractionsandattributescloselyresem-blethoseintheOttomanoriginal,butagaineverythingisrounder,moremodeled,withagreatersenseofdepth.Theclouds,flatlyincised,curledshapesinthelok-manmanuscript,becomesofter,lesstangibleformsthatrecedebehindthefigures,subtlyopeningupspace.ButtheiconographyiswhollyOttoman.

Thisbecomesclearerstillwhencomparedwiththeopeningtitlepage(seeFig.3), a very fine fleuron engraved by Jean-Baptiste simonet after Moreau, whichplacesMuhammadinthefleshinthecenterforeground,entirelyvisiblefromheadtofoot,inadramaticpose,hisemotivevisageraisedheavenwardashislefthandholdsuptheKoran.hisrighthandaggressivelybrandishesanunsheathedsaber.Ohssondescribesthescene,whichrepresents

theKa‘abainMeccawithitsidols,whichMuhammadoverturnstoestablishthecultofasinglegod,ontheruinsofpaganism.Inonehandhissaber,intheothertheleavesoftheKoran,instrumentsforsubjugatingmindsand

18 19

18J.B.Tilliard,engravingafteranon.,Assomption de Mohammed.Plate2fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF

19Miraj, Muhammad’s Night Journey,fromZübdetü’t Tevarih(TheQuintessenceofhistories),Istanbul,late16thcentury.39.5x25cm.ChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin,T414,fol.121.Photograph©TheTrusteesoftheChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin


propagatinghisdoctrine.OntherightsideweseethefirstfourCaliphs,andontheleftside,thefourImamswhoweretheauthorsofreligiouslegislationandfoundersofthefourorthodoxrites.TheCaliphsarearmedwithasaber,theImamswiththeKoran,[…bothgroups…]spreadingthedoctrineandpowerofMuhammadwithdifferentmeans.67

AdeepspacedefinedbytheconventionsofEuropeanlandscapepainting,theimageisframedheraldicallybyverticallythrustingtrees;withtheirdense,inkytexture,thetreesfunctionasrepoussoirdevices.Aseriesofrisesanddipsintheterrainbeyondshapescompositionalspace,inwhichareclusteredtheCaliphsandImams.Thecompositionrecedesatmosphericallyintothedeepbackgroundwherethehorizonisedgedbysoftmountainformsandtheskyisactivatedwithdarkened,billowingstormclouds.Theterrainopensintotheforeground,givingMuhammadastableplinth,withrocksandvegetationformingitsedges.nothingaboutthisimagesuggestsanOttomanconvention.IfthisimagewasadaptedfromanOtto-manwork—andthisappearshighlyunlikely—theoriginalhasbeencompletelycancelledout.

AmongtheimagesinwhichweseeFrenchartistsmeetingandmatchingpicto-rialeffects,tryingtoadoptapictorialidiomdifferentfromtheirown,theresults

20 21

20J.B.simonet,engravingafterJ.B.hilair,L’Imam Schafiy,L’Imam Azam Ebu-Hanifé,L’Imam Hannbel,L’Imam Malik.Plates8–11fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographBnF

21Heads of Legal Schools,fromZübdetü’t Tevarih(TheQuintessenceofhistories),Istanbul,late16thcentury.39.5x25cm.ChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin,T414,fol.130a.Photograph©TheTrusteesoftheChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin


vary.ThisisclearestincaseswheretheimagerycanbelikenedtoconventionalEuropeansubjects.Inhilair’sdepictionofthefourImamswhowerefoundersofthesunnirite(Fig.20),allareseated,turbanedfigures,showninpairs,gesturingsimplytoeachotherandholdingtheKoran.Theyaredrawnfromthesamelok-manmanuscriptof1583(Fig.21)astheimagesofAdamandEveandtheMiraj.Eliminating the patterned backgrounds and floors (which have become richcarpets),andaddingmodelingandmasstothefigures,hilairandtheengraversFrançois-RobertIngoufandsimonethavepulledthemtowardsFrenchmodesofrepresentation.Yetifwecomparetheseimagestoothersbyhilair,forinstance,hisdrawingofseatedAlbaniansoldiersforChoiseul(Fig.22),wenoticeamorestaticqualityintheimagedoneforOhsson.ThereisasubtledisjuncturebetweentheImams’headsandbodies;theirheadsareslightly,disproportionatelylarge;andthefacesareexpressionlessandtheeyesunseeing.TherenderingintheOhssonprintliessomewherebetweenthemorestylized,iconictreatmentofthesixteenth-centuryminiature,withitsserialrepetitionoffourfiguresinnearlyidenticalposesanddresssituatedsymmetricallyonthepage,andthelivelyscene-settingofhilair’susualfiguralcompositions.Tostrikethisbalance,hilairmusthavecloselystudiedtheOttomanworkhewasgiven.

ThiscaseisverydifferentfromtherepresentationofMehhdy(Fig.23)byDelongueilafterleBarbier,alsobasedona“Persian”manuscriptaccordingtoOhs-son,althoughnooriginalhasbeenidentified.Inasumptuousengravingdisplay-ingavirtuosorangeoftexturesandcontrastsoflightanddark,theseatedfigureofMehhdyappearsinhiscave,withagestureclosetothatoftheImams,butthehandlingofhisformandofthespaceisunlikethoseineitherhilair’sworkortheminiatures.(ItisalsotheonlyprintinwhichtheFrenchartists’royalandacademiccredentialsareboldlyassertedalongwiththeirnamesinthelowermargin.)What-everimageleBarbierworkedfrom,hewasnotinterested,itwouldappear,incon-veyingsomespecificallyOttomanquality.

Finally,sometransformationappearstoresultalsofromtheFrenchartists’con-fusion.leBarbier’sviewofawomen’spublicbath(Tableau général,vol.1,pl.13)isagoodexampleofthis:therecognizablyOttomanarchitectureultimatelydoesnotmakespatialsense:themiddleareaoftheceilingcollapsesinonitself,failingtosuggestrecessivespace.Aneoclassicalpainter,leBarbierknewwellhowtorenderdeepspaceandarchitecturalsettings,buthisworkrecordshisconfusioninreadinghisOttomansourceimage.

The cumulative effect of all these visual crossings is to blur the boundariesbetweenFrenchandOttomanforms,toseethemasconnectedacrossacontinuumofvisualpossibilities.Toseebeforeonethemeansbywhichculturaltranslationmighthappenwastoenvisionaworld—toadaptsuraiyaFaroqhi’sphrase—that


22J.B.hilair,Soldats albanais,drawingforPlate2fromChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittoresque de la Grèce,vol.1,1782.Privatecollection,workofartinpublicdomain.Photographbytheauthor

EuropeansandOttomansstillshared.TheheterogeneousobjectthatOhssonthedragomancreatedcanbereadasamodelofdesiredpoliticalbehavior,anallegoryofentanglement,interrelation,alliance,withtheunderstandingsandalsomiscom-prehensionstheyentail.

AsOhsson’sfirstvolumewasgoingtopress,Constantin-FrançoisVolneywaspenninghisseditiousruminationsonwhyFranceshouldabandonitsalliancewiththeOttomans,intheaftermathoftheirdefeatbytheRussiansin1774andwiththepresentrenewalofhostilities.“Onemusthenceforthacknowledgethattheirempireoffersallthesymptomsofdecadence,”hewrote,continuingfurtheron,“AllEuropehasfeltthattheTurkishempireisnowbutauselessphantom,andthatthiscolos-susdissolvedofallitsties,awaitsonlyashocktofallintoruin.”68Ohsson’sbookcouldbeseenasanattempttoforestallthisconclusion,ademonstrationagainstthediplomacyofseparationanddissolution.

Ohsson’sPanorama of the Ottoman EmpireisthekindofobjectthatneedstobeuncoveredifwearetodecenterEuropeanempiresastheinevitableapotheosisofmodernhistory.JohnDarwin,inhisrecentglobalhistory,After Tamerlane,callsforplacingEuropeanimperialisminamuchlargercontext:amidtheempire-,state-andculture-buildingprojectsofEurasia.69Inwritingtodayoftheeighteenth-cen-turydeclineoftheOttomans,historiansechoVolney,problematicallyanticipatingthefalloftheOttomanEmpirealmost150yearsinadvanceofitsactualdemise.Thisanticipatoryconquestunderwritesahistoryofempirethatculminatesinthegrandnarrativeofthe“RiseoftheWest.”Ratherthanperpetuatethistriumphalistposition,Iprefer,inthewordsofOttomanistVirginiaAksan,to“burytheOttomansickman”anddevelop“modelsofreforminearlymodernempires”thatexplainthesurvivalandrebirthoftheOttomanEmpireandconsequently,Iwouldadd,cre-atemorecomplicatedpicturesofOttoman–Europeanculturalinteraction.70IseeOhsson’sbookasanexampleofthiskindofrepresentationalstrategythatexplains,ratherthandismisses,Ottomanlongevity.

22


The Dragoman’s ArtThatatravelerfromConstantinoplecouldoverseethemakingofthismostunusualobject is testimony to Ottoman cosmopolitanism, long eclipsed by one-sidedaccountsofEuropeantravelwriting.Asdragoman,Ohsson’srolehadalreadybeentotranslatebetweencultures,healreadywasago-between(ashadbeenhisfather,adragomaninIzmir(smyrna),beforehim).hisbook,too,wasaninstrumentofinterculturalconnection,drawingtogetherthethreeculturalelitestowhichhewasmostcloselyaffiliated:swedish,French,andOttoman.ButitwouldbewrongtoseeOhssonexclusivelyasarepresentativeofofficialinterestsorapawnofdiplomaticnegotiations.

Ohsson,Ottomannative,Franco-ArmenianCatholic,swedishsubject,drago-man,diplomat,andlearnedscholar,producednotonlyadefenseoftheOttomanEmpirebutalsoaself-defenseaswell.TheTableau général,withitsmanylayersofmediation,isacelebrationoftheartoftranslation.stylinghimselfinhisOtto-mandressinParis,appearingbeforetheOttomanambassadorafterleavingParissportinga(European)wig,IgnatiusMouradgea,ennobledasChevalierd’Ohsson,clearlyknewhowtoperformhisstatusasculturalmediator.71

23

23Delongueil,engravingafterJ.J.leBarbierl’aîné,Mehhdy.Plate7fromOhsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,vol.1,1787.Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur.PhotographcourtesyofUnClibrary


JustasmanyEuropeantravelerstotheOttomanEmpire(andelsewhere)forgedtheirsocialandprofessionalstandingthroughtheirtravelpublicationsandimages,Ohssonformedhisreputationwiththisbook.Choiseul’sVoyage pittoresquehadbroughtitsauthormembershipofnolessthanthreeprestigiousFrenchacademiesandhisnominationasambassadorinConstantinople,whereheserveduntilhisexiletoRussiain1792.likewise,Ohsson’sbookcanbeseenasasuccessfulactofself-making and self-promotion with multiple ends: acceptance into Europeansociety,advancementasadiplomat,thegainingofthesultan’sfavor.WhenOhs-sonreturnedtoIstanbulin1792hepresentedhistwovolumestoselimIIIandwasrewardedwith2000goldpieces.Ohsson’sdiplomaticcareertookoffandhewaschargedwithhigh-levelnegotiationsbyboththeOttomansandtheswedes.72

InmanywaysOhssonpositionshimselfinthetext,despitetheseeminglyneu-traltonehetakes.herepresentshimselfandhisownpointofviewinhisperiodiccriticismsoftheOttomanEmpire(amongthemthewayittreatedCatholics).hisclearpreferenceforthecultureoftheelitebetrayshisidentificationwithcourtcir-clesandofficialdom,repeatedlymanifestinhisnegativeviewofpopularopinion,whichhedepictsasfanatical.Intheveryidiosyncraticformofthetext,hepresentsakindofsubjectiveinterpolationthatinterruptsthesystematicqualityanddis-tanttonetakenthroughout.Insectionslabeled“observation,”“variant,”and“com-mentary”thatcandigressformanypagesfromthemainsubjectathand,Ohssonseemstomostclearlyrepresenthisownexperience;thesesectionsareamongthemostvaluableandinterestinginthebook.historianCarterFindleyhumorouslyobserves,“Asoneplungesintoreadingthebook”—where“lengthy‘observations’onTurkishcooking,sufiorders,orgreekdances[areinserted]intoadiscussionofIslamiclaw”—“theschematicclarityofthetableofcontentsbecomesdifficulttokeepinmind.”73

ButaboveallOhssonpositionshimselfasauthorandprogenitorofthismonu-mentalenterprise,despitethecollectivitybehinditsconstruction.Takingadvan-tageofthenewregulationinfavorofauthors,Ohssonobtainedaprivilège général(aformofcopyright)in1787,securinghisexclusiverighttopublishandenjoytheprofitsfromhisTableau généralinperpetuity.Onlyrecentlyinstitutedin1777,thisregulationmarkedamajorshiftinthebooktrade;previouslyauthorshadessen-tiallycededtheirrightstothepublishers,withnocopyrightorroyaltyinthetrans-action.74ButinthecaseoftheTableau général,thegreatDidotwasamereprinter;itwasOhssonwhowasauthorandpublisher.75Thecertificateofprivilège,appear-ingattheendofvolumeone,bearsthecensor’sreportpraisingOhsson’sknowl-edge.Asanactofauthorshipandadisplayoferudition,Ohsson’sself-defensewasalsosimultaneouslyademonstrationoftheOttomancultureoflearning.In1788,ayearafterOhsson’sfirstvolumeappeared,anothercensor,writingareportfor


theBureaudelalibrairieonamanuscriptaboutOttomanliterature,sheepishlyadmittedthatuntilrecentlytheFrenchhadassumednoliteraturecouldthriveinthisMuslimculture.hiswordsechothoseOhssonusedintheopeningtohisbook:

WehavetoadmitthatwedidnotbelieveTurksatallcapableofgivingthem-selvestostudyandtoletters:wesawthemevenascondemnedbythelawoftheirProphettoakindofignorance,fromwhichtheycouldnotextractthemselves.now,wheninFranceliteratureandPhilosophy,havingmadegreaterprogress,haveaccustomedustoseeingthingsfromamoretruthfulpointofview,wearebeginningtoblushatthisprejudice;theyhavecon-vincedusthattheTurks,justastheEuropeannations,arecapableofculti-vatingwithsuccesssciencesandletters.76

PerhapsOhsson’sbook,withitscelebration,evendemonstrationofOttomancultureandoftheartoftranslationitself,hadmadeitsmark.

Elisabeth Fraser, Ph.D. (1993), Yale University, is Professor of Art history attheUniversityofsouthFlorida,Tampa.AuthorofDelacroix, Art and Patrimony(2004),sheiscurrentlyfinishinganotherbook,Mediterranean Encounters: Artists in the Ottoman Empire, 1780–1850.E-mail:[email protected]


Iwishtothanktheeditorsofthisissue,neba-hatAvcıoğluandBarryFlood,fortheirexpertguidanceandimportantsuggestions,andtoacknowledgewithgratitudethesupportoffellowshipsfromthenationalEndowmentforthehumanities,theBibliographicsociety(U.K.),andtheUniversityofsouthFloridaformyresearch,mostofwhichwascompletedduringaresidencyattheColumbiaUniversityInstituteforscholars,Paris.

Anoteonusage:Ohssonwascalledbyavarietyofnames,withdifferingspellings,intheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies:Mouradja,Mouradjah,Mouradgead’Ohsson,d’Ohsson,andsoon.Ihavechosenthesim-plestmodernusage,definedbytheChicago Manual of Style.

1 IgnatiusMouradgead’Ohsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,3vols.(Paris:ImprimeriedeMonsieur,1787,1790,1820).Ohssonconcludeshis“Discourspréliminaire”withthisdefense,p.IX:AlthoughtheOttomansareisolated,“touslesmauxpublicsetparticuliersquiaffligentlesOthomans,n’ontpourprincipenilareligionnilaloi;[...]ilsdériventdespréjugéspopulaires,defaussesopinionsetderèglemensarbitrairesdictésparlecaprice,lapassion,l’intérêtdumoment,touségalementcontrairesàl’espritduCour’annetaudispositifdelaloicanonique.”InapleaforreformintheOttomanEmpire,Ohssoncallsforasage, enlightened,enterprisingsultan,whosetaskwouldbemadesimplerbyhisabsoluteauthorityoverhissubjects,andwhowouldcultivatemoreintimaterelationswithEuropeans.

2 AccordingtoOhsson,hehadbeengather-ingmaterialsinConstantinopleformanyyears,andmostlikelydidsomeofthewritingthere.healsowroteinFrance,apparentlywiththeaidofatleastoneotherperson.OnthegenesisofOhsson’s

book,seeCarterFindley,“Writerandsubject,selfandOther:Mouradgead’OhssonandhisTableau général de l’Empire Othoman,”instureTheolinetal.,The Torch of the Empire: Ignatius Mouradgea d’Ohsson and the Tableau Général of the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century(Istanbul:YapiKrediKültür,2002),27–8.

3 seeChristophneumann,“PoliticalandDiplomaticDevelopments,”inCambridge History of Turkey.Vol.3,The Later Ottoman Empire, 1603–1839,ed.suraiyaFaroqhi(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),57–62.

4 Ohsson’sworkislesswellknownamongEuropeanhistorians:itisnotmentionedinThomasKaiser,“TheEvilEmpire?TheDebateonTurkishDespotisminEighteenth-CenturyFrenchPoliticalCulture,”Journal of Modern History72,no.1(March2000):6–34;norinDorindaOutram’sdiscussionofreligioustoleranceintheEnlightenment,whichinfactmakesnoreferencetotheeighteenth-centuryliteratureonIslam.seeOutram,“TheRiseofModernPaganism?ReligionandtheEnlightenment,”The Enlighten-ment,rev.ed.(CambridgeandnewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005),109–25.

5 seeVirginiaAksan,“ThelongOttomanRoad,”reviewofCarolineFinkel,Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923,h-Turk,h-netReviews(July2007),http://www.h-net.org/reviews/.

6 Faroqhi’seditedvolume,The Later Ottoman Empire 1603–1839,exemplifiesthisrevisionistapproachtoearlymodernOttomanhistory,asdoesherThe Ottoman Empire and the World around It (london:I.B.Tauris,2004).Foradiscussionofthisissueinthecontextofeighteenth-centuryIstanbularchitecture,seeshirinehamadeh,“Westernization,Decadence,andtheTurkishBaroque:

notes


ModernConstructionsoftheEighteenthCentury,”Muqarnas24(2007):185–97.hamadehcountersthenotionof“Westernization”asaforceimposedonacompliantTurkishaudiencetorevealtheinternationalismofOttomanculture,includingMughalandPersianaswellasEuropeanelements.UssamaMakdisimakesitclearthatthisOrientalistperspectivewasnotsimplyaEuropeanconstruction,butwasalsostrategicallyadoptedbysomeOttomansinthenineteenthcentury:seehis“OttomanOrientalism,”The American Historical Review107,no.3(2002),pp.768–96.Ireferto“Orientalism”asdefinedbyEdwardsaidinhisclassicOrientalism(newYork:Randomhouse,1978).

7 Forarecentsurvey,seegünselRenda,“EuropeandtheOttomans:InteractionsinArt,”inOttoman Civilization,vol.2,ed.h.Inalcıkandg.Renda(Ankara:RepublicofTurkey,MinistryofCultureandTourism,2004),1090–1122.seealsoMaryRobertsandJocelynhackforth-Jones,eds.,Edges of Empire: Orientalism and Visual Culture(Oxford:Blackwell,2005);MaryRoberts,Intimate Outsiders: The Harem in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman and Orientalist Art and Travel Literature(Durham,n.C.:DukeUniversityPress,2007);ZeynepÇelik,Empire, Architecture, and the City: French–Ottoman Encounters, 1830–1914(seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2008);andnebahatAvcıoğlu,Turquerie and the Politics of Representation, 1728–1876(Ashgate,forthcoming).OntheimportanceofOttomanscholarship,eveninaccountsofEuropeanrepresenta-tionsoftheMiddleEast,seeZeynepÇelik’strenchantcritique,“ReviewofOrientalism and Visual Culture: Imagining Mesopotamia in Nineteenth-Century Europe;andFrancis Frith in Egypt and Palestine: A Victorian Photographer

Abroad,”Art Bulletin88,no.1(March2006):191–4.

8 seePhilipMansel’sessay,“TheTableau général de l’Empire OthomanassymboloftheFranco-Ottoman,Franco-swedishandswedish-OttomanAlliances,”inTheolinetal.,Torch of the Empire,77–83.

9 IborrowherefromMarylouisePratt’suseoftheterm“autoethnography.”Itisherinterpretiveemphasisoncontactandexchangeinselectiveprocessesof“transculturation”thatinformsmyownapproach:“howsubordinatedormarginalgroupsselectandinventfrommaterialstransmittedtothembyadominantormetropolitanculture.”IadaptthetermtoOhsson’scircumstances;Ohssonwashardlyasubordinate,buthewasanoutsiderappropriatingFrenchformstoaddress,inpart,aEuropeanaudience.seePratt,Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation(londonandnewYork:Routledge,1992),pp.7–9.

10 seeFaroqhi,The Ottoman Empire and the World Around It,211.

11 Ontheswedish-French-OttomanallianceagainstRussianexpansionism,seeMansel,“TheTableau général de l’Empire Othomanassymbol.”ForthediplomaticcomplicationsofFrance’sposition,seealsoKaiser,“EvilEmpire?”

12 OnOhsson’sbackground,seeFindley,“Writerandsubject,”24–6.

13 The“additionauprospectus”mountedontheprospectusboundintoacopyattheBibliothèquenationaledeFrance(hereafterBnF)mentionssixorsevenvolumes,butCochinwritesinaletterof1786thattherearetobe700to800printsinatleasteightvolumes.seeChristianMichel,ed.,“lettresadresséesparCharles-nicolasCochinfilsàJean-Bap-tisteDescampes,1757–1790:Correspon-dancesd’artistesdesXVIIIeetXIXesiècles,”Archives de l’Art français28(1986):77.

14 “lesusages,lesmoeurs,leculte,etlesloisdesOthomans,”Prospectus,2.

15 OnCochin,seeChristianMichel,“UneentreprisedegravureàlaveilledelaRévolution:leTableau général de l’empire othoman,”Nouvelles de l’estampe84(1985):6–25.

16 ThisisthesubjectofAntonygriffiths’sengrossingandinformativePrints for Books: Book Illustration in France, 1760–1800 (london:Britishlibrary,2004);seealsoAnneschroder,“Illustra-torsandIllustrations,”inEncyclopedia of the Enlightenment,ed.A.Kors(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2003),251–7.

17 Ontheriseoftravelliterature,seeDanielRoche,“leslivresdevoyageàl’époquemoderne,XVIe–XVIIIesiècle,”Biblio-thèque nationale de France22(2006),5–13.Onthegenreoftheillustratedtravelbook,seeElisabethFraser,“Books,Prints,andTravel:ReadinginthegapsoftheOrientalistArchive,”Art History31,no.3(June2008):342–67.

18 ThistraditionisexemplifiedbythefamousFerriolcompendiumoflevantinecostumesof1714,anembassyproductionthatmusthavebeenwellknownindiplomaticcircles:Recueil de cent estampes représentant différentes Nations du Levant, tirées sur les Tableaux peints d’après Nature en 1707 et 1708 par les Ordres de M. de Ferriol, ambassadeur du Roi à la Porte, et gravées en 1712 et 1713 par les soins de Mr Le Hay,Paris,1714.AtraditionofcostumealbumsalsoexistedwithintheOttomanEmpireitself,flourishingparticularlyattheendoftheeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies,whentheyweremadeforOttomanconsumptionaswellasforEuropeanmar-kets.seenurhanAtasoy,etal.,“TheBirthofCostumeBooksandtheFenerciMehmedAlbum,”inOttoman Costume Book: Fenerci Mehmed(Istanbul:VehbiKocVakfi,1986),22–30;leslieMeral


schick,“ThePlaceofDressinPre-mod-ernCostumeAlbums,”inOttoman Costumes: From Textile to Identity,ed.s.FaroqhiandC.neumann(Istanbul:EREn,2004),93–101;andgünselRenda,“OttomanPaintingandsculpture,”inInalcıkandRenda,eds.,Ottoman Civilization,934–5.

19 ThecontinuationofChoiseul-gouffier’sbookwasinterruptedbyhisexiletoRussiaduringtheFrenchRevolution;onlyin1809didasecondvolumeappearandathirdwaspublishedposthumouslyin1822.Forthemostpart,then,Ohsson’sbookwouldhavebeenrespondingtoChoiseul’sfirstvolumeonly,publishedininstallmentsbetween1778and1782,anditistothisvolumethatIreferthroughout.ForamoredetaileddiscussionofChoiseul’spublication,seeFraser,“Books,Prints,andTravel,”andFrédéricBarbier,“lecomtedeChoiseulcommeguide:voyagepittoresqueengrèceencompag-nied’unnoblefrançaisduXVIIIesiècle,”Gryphe. Revue de la Bibliothèque de Lyon4(2002):3–12.(Anoteonusage:Choiseulacquiredhishyphenatedlastname,Choiseul-gouffier,throughmarriage;ineighteenth-centuryandpresent-dayusage,“gouffier”iscommonlydropped.)

20 Twoprominentexamplesarelouis-Fran-çoisCassas’sVoyage pittoresque de la Syrie et de l’Egypte(Paris:ImprimeriedelaRépublique,1799)andAntoine-IgnaceMelling’sVoyage pittoresque de Constanti-nople,2vols.(Paris:P.Didotl’aîné,TreuttelandWürtz,1819).

21 seeOhsson’scorrespondence,citedinFindley,“Writerandsubject,”31.Pricesaretakenfromtheprospectus.

22 Michel,“Uneentreprisedegravure,”9.23 Jacques-CharlesBrunet,Manuel du

libraire et de l’amateur de livres,5thed.(Paris:Didot,1860–80):onChoiseul-gouffier,vol.1,columns1847–8;onOhsson,vol.3,column1932.Ohsson’s

prospectusconfirmshiswork’sappealtotheluxurybooktradeandbibliophilecollectors:“Onn’ariennégligé,nipourlechoixdupapier,nipourlapartietypographique.Ilss’imprimentchezM.Didotlejeune,donttoutlemondeconnoitlesbeauxcaractères.”AcheaperoctavoversionofOhsson’sbook,withonlyafewplates,waspublishedbegin-ningin1788.

24 IdonotbelievethatOhssonsawhisworkasa“counter-blast”toChoiseul’sbookspecifically,ashasbeensuggestedbyManselin“TheTableau général de l’Empire Othomanassymbol,”80.Instead,Ohssonseemstorespondtoawholecategoryofwriting,ofwhichChoiseul’sbookisaleadingexample.

25 Ohsson’sphraseisquotedbyFindley,“Writerandsubject,”28.Ontranslationandtransculturation,seeMadeleineDobie’sexcellentessay,“TranslationintheContactZone:Antoinegalland’sMille et une nuits: contes arabes,”inThe Arabian Nights in Historical Context: Between East and West,ed.s.MakdisiandF.nussbaum(OxfordandnewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),25–49.Foragoodbasicdiscussionofthenecessarilyactiveinterpretingtheartistundertakesinlookingtopriorart,seeMichaelBaxandall,Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures(newhaven:YaleUniversityPress,1985).

26 Favoringthepastoverthepresentanddenyingcontemporariesgeopoliticalagencyare,ofcourse,twofundamentalmodesofOrientalismasdefinedbysaid.

27 Ohsson,Tableau général,2:145.28 Ibid.,214.29 Ibid.,235.30 seeChoiseul-gouffier,Voyage pittor-

esque,164–65.TheTurkishadministra-tiondoesnotsupporthappinessandprosperityincommerce:“...uneconstitu-tionabsurdeetcruelleétouffel’industrie,

etarrêtetouslesmoyensquel’intérêtpersonnelpourroitinventeretdevelop-per.”Commercecanonlybefoundinbigcities;despotismandacontinualstateofwarkillitintheprovinces.“Cetempireimmense,maîtredespaysauxquelslanatureatoutaccordé,nepeutjouirdesesbienfaits,etlanguitinanimé.”

31 AccordingtoOhsson,Tableau général,2:162,allMuslimsmustworkasareligiousobligation.“lesmoeursactuellesdesMahométansnesontquelerésultatdecesmaximesdontlebutestd’encouragerl’industrie,derendrel’hommelaborieux,humain,charitable;deluiinspirerl’amourdelavertu,legoûtdelamédiocrité[moderation],etl’horreurduvice;deluidonnerdel’aversionpourleluxeetl’abusdesrichesses;d’ennoblirenfintouteslesprofessionsdelaviecivile,maissur-toutlemétierdesarmes.”

32 Archivesnationales,T/153/160,letterof1802fromtheMinisterofWartoChoiseul-gouffier.

33 TheFrenchmayhavebeenparticularlyreceptivetothismessage,as“oriental”illuminatedmanuscriptsandprintedbookswerealreadybeingcollectedinFrance.ThecurrentcollectionofOrientalmanuscriptsintheBnF,inwhichOttomanbooksareamajorcomponent,wasinitiatedbyColbertunderthereignoflouisXIV;itincludesacquisitionsmadethroughthetravelsofstateemissaries,withtheexpresspurposeofmanuscriptcollection,andthroughthepurchaseofprivatecollections.OntheBnFcollectionofprintedOttomanbooks,seeMilevaBozic,“lefondsimpriméturcdelaBibliothèquenationale:lesdébutsdel’imprimerieottomane,”Revue de la Bibliotheque Nationale1,nos.1;2(sept.,Dec.1981):8–16;70–79.

34 Ohsson,Tableau général,1:296.35 OnMüteferrikâandthehistoryof

printinginthelateOttomanEmpire,see


ChristophK.neumann,“Buch-undZeitungsdruckaufTürkisch,18.bis20.Jahrhundert,”inSprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution; Eine interkulturelle Begegnung,ed.Evahanebutt-Benz,Dagmarglass,andgeoffreyRoper(Westhofen:WVA-Verlagskulima,2002),227–48.

36 Ontheimportanceofhistory-writingintheOttomanmanuscripttradition,seenurhanAtasoy,“TheBirthofCostumeBooks,”23;andFilizÇağman’soverview,“OttomanMiniaturePainting,”inInalcıkandRenda,Ottoman Civilization,892–931.Çağmanseesthesixteenth-centuryworksproducedunderhistorianlokmanasthehighpointofthistradition,inparticularhisZübdetü’t-Tevarih(1583),fromwhichOhssonhadcopiesmadeforhisTableau.FindleynotesthatOhssonusedonlyOttomansourcesandcitesnoEuropeanauthors,“Writerandsubject,”39.

37 AccordingtoZerenTanındı,themasterillustratorandhistoriancollaborated,asdidOhssonandCochin.seeTanındı,“IllustratedhistoricalTextsinIslamicManuscripts,”inIslamic Art: Common Principles, Forms and Themes,ed.A.IssaandJ.Tahaoğlu(Damascus:Dar-Al-Fikr,1989),250–60.BothFrenchillustratedbooksandOttomanillustratedhistoriesinvolvedlargecollectivities:EmineFetvaciemphasizesthelargenumbersofpeoplebehindmanuscriptproductionin“VizierstoEunuchs:TransitionsinOttomanManuscriptPatronage,1566–1617”(Ph.D.dissertation,harvardUniversity,2005).

38 seegünselRenda,“TurkishMiniaturePainting:TheOttomanPeriod,”inA History of Turkish Painting,ed.s.Pinar(seattle,london:UniversityofWashing-tonPress,1988),58.

39 ThispassageisfoundinOhsson,Tableau général,2:239–40.ThebookontheWest

Indieswasillustrated,Ohssonsays,with“twelvelittleprints”andwassuccessful“despitetheimperfectionoftheplanches.”IsOhssonseekingtoimproveonMüteferrikâ’spriorexamplewithhislavishandhighlyaccomplishedprints?

40 Ohsson,Tableau général,1:301–2.OhssondoesnotmentionwhetherthisOttomanhistorywastobeillustrated.

41 Ibid.,301.42 TheentiresectiononIslamandimagesis

inOhsson,Tableau général,2:239–50.Ohssonhighlightsofficialsupportforhisresearchandpublicationinhisprospectusandagaininhis“Discourspréliminaire.”

43 “mestitressurl’authenticitédetoutcequej’avance;carlavéritéetl’exactitudelaplusscrupuleusesontàmesyeuxlepremierméritedecetouvrage,”Tableau général,vol.1,ii–iii,addingthathissourcesarethechroniclesofthemonarchy,writteninapompousstylebythehighestpersonsofstate,“Muftis,Pashas,ReisEfendys,”etc.OnOhsson’stextualsources,seeFindley,“Writerandsubject,”39.

44 “néaConstantinople,élevédanslepaysmême,etattachétoutemavieauserviced’uneCourliéeaveclaPortepardesrelationsintimes,”Prospectus,2.“DescommissionsparticulièresrelativesauservicedirectedelaPorte,devoirpresquetouslesjoursetlesministres,etlesprincipauxofficiersdesdiversdéparte-mens,jesuisparvenuàconnoitreetapprofondir,dumoinsautantqu’ilétoitpossible,touslesobjetsquiconcernentcettenation.”Ibid.,3.

45 PassagesinthebookthatdiscussthegatheringofimagesandtheirsourcesincludeProspectus,24–5,26(repeatedinthe“Discourspréliminaire”);1:67,88,141,301;2:241–5.

46 Thefullquotationis“touteslesautresestampesdestinéesàornerl’ouvrage,fontpartied’unecollectiondetableauxexécutésdanslepayspardespeintres

grecsetEuropéens.Ilssontrelatifsàdesfêtescivilesetreligieuses,etàtoutcequeleculteextérieur,lescérémoniesdelacour,etlesetiquettesdusérailoffrentdepluscurieuxetdeplusintéressant.leurcomposition,travaildeplusieursannées,aétédirigéavecleplusgrandsoins.lavéritéetl’exactitudelaplusscrupuleuseenfontlepremiermérite.TouscestableauxsegraventmaintenantàParis.”Prospec-tus,25(repeatedin“Discoursprélimi-naire”).Onthedocumentationconcern-ingimagesmadeinIstanbul,seegünselRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général de l’Empire Othoman,”inTheolin,etal.,The Torch of Empire,60and65.

47 ThesepassagesarefromOhsson,Tableau général,2:244.

48 “Parcetexposédesmoyensquenousavonsemployéspendantplusdedixanspourformerlacollectiondestableauxetdesdessinsrelatifsàl’histoireOthomaneonpeutseformeruneidéedecequ’ontdûnousoccasionnerdepeineetdedépensescetobjetdenotretravailetlesrecherchesquenousavonsfaitessurtoutcequiarapportàl’étatciviletàl’administrationpolitique”:ibid.,245.

49 Theroyalapprobation(privilège)citingthecensor’sreportappearsatthebackofvolumeone.ForCochin’scomments,seeMichel,“lettresadresséesparCharles-nicolasCochin,”78and83.

50 seeMichel,“Uneentreprisedegravure”;andRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général.”

51 Onthenecessityofanonymity,seeOhsson,Tableau géneral,2:245.TheworksOhssonhadmadeinIstanbulhaveapparentlydisappeared.VariousdrawingsandwatercolorsbyFrenchartistshavebeenfound,forinstancethoserepro-ducedinTheolin,etal.,Torch of the Empire,butthesearemostlikelyimagesmadeintheprocessofpreparingtheengravings,asdescribedabove.


52 ThementionofgreekartistscorroboratesRenda’sassertionthatmanyoftheIstanbulimageswerebyKostantinKapıdağlı,anOttomangreekcourtpainter.Theterm“European”inthiscontextisconfusing:forinstance,inhissectiononartpracticesintheOttomanEmpire,OhssonmentionsinpassingOttomanArmenianpainterRefail,whohadtraininginItaly;Kostantin,too,alongwithmosteighteenth-centuryartists,wasobviouslyexposedtoEuropeanartisticspatialconventions.lateeighteenth-centuryOttomanandEuropeanartshouldnotbeunderstoodaswhollydividedvisualcultures,butinsteadasmutuallyinformedthroughspecificpointsofcontact,asRendaasserts.OhssonandhisIstanbulartistswouldhavebeenawareofthisproximitybetweenidioms;itwasCochinwhoreimposedculturaldifferenceontheseworks.seeRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général,”65–72.

53 “toutteslesfigures[...]sonttropcourtes,[...]lestêtessonttropgrosses,”“d’unegrandeexactitude,maissansaucungoût,sanseffetetd’unperspectivedésagréable”:Michel,“lettresadresséesparCharles-nicolasCochin”,78,83.

54 Onthisepisode,seeRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général,”69–70.Inaletter,OhssonidentifiedtheofficialwhocommissionedthepaintingsasYaziciEfendi,whohadheldtheofficeofsürreEmini,theofficialinchargeofcarryingthetreasuressenttotheholyCitiesforthepilgrimages.OhssondiscussesthemakingoftheoriginalimagesfirstinhisProspec-tus,26(repeatedin“Discoursprélimi-naire”)andagainatgreaterlengthin2:245.

55 seeRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général,”70,whereKostantin’spaintingisalsoreproduced.

56 ChristianMichelmakesextensiveuseofthecorrespondenceandmémoirein“Une

entreprisedegravure.”Forthesettlement,seeArchivesnationales,ET/lXXXII/631.

57 seegriffithsonthemakingofimagesforillustratedbooks,Prints for Books,10–11.

58 seePratt,Imperial Eyes,especially136.RelatedissuesinvolvingthetransmissionofimagesfrompaintingstoprintsaredealtwithinFinbarrBarryFlood,“CorrectDelineationsandPromiscuousOutlines:EnvisioningIndiaattheTrialofWarrenhastings,”Art History29,no.1(Feb.2006):47–78.

59 “qu’ilafallûrectifier,ils’ensuitquej’aypresquetoutrefait[...]jemesuispiquéd’yconserverl’effetnaïvementvrayqu’ilsyontdonné;jeneveuxqueleperfectionnersanssortirduvraysystèmedelanature;ceàquoypeud’artistess’asservissent.”Cochin,inMichel,“lettres,”83.

60 seeMichel,“Uneentreprisedegravure,”9.61 Thefullpassagereads:“Imaginezdes

tableauxfaitsenTurquiepardesartistesgrecsouitaliensquisontsansgoût,sansart,maisquiportentuncaractèredevéritéque,peut-être,aucundenoshabilesartistesn’auroitpusaisiraumemedegrédevérité.Jesuisobligé,voulantconservercevraydontjefaissigrandcâs,deredessinertoutteslesfiguresquisonttropcourtes,dontlestêtessonttropgrosses,ettoutcelaavecl’espritoccupédusoindenelespasfranciser,cequenemanqueroientpasnosmeilleursDessinateurs.”Cochin,inMichel,“lettres,”78.

62 ChristianMicheldiscussesthisdiversitycloselyinhisaccountoftheprint-makingprocess;seeinparticularhiscomparisonoftwoimagesofdervishlodges,whereheidentifiesthedifferencebetweenCochin’spreservationistapproach,withsomerectificationoftheOttomanwork,andanimagedoneafterCochinresignedfromtheproject.Michel,“Uneentreprisedegravure,”22–3.

63 CochinsaidthatMoreaurepaintedtheoriginal,whichmayhavebeenpaintedby

KostantinKapıdağlı.seegünselRendaandCarterFindley,“CommentsonEngravingsind’Ohsson,Tableau général de l’Empire Othoman,”inTheolin,etal.,Torch of the Empire,211.

64 AccordingtoRenda,whoidentifiedthissource,threecopiesweremade;one,fortheChiefBlackEunuchDarüssadeAgasiMehmedAga,nowintheChesterBeattylibrary,Dublin,T414,islikelytheversionusedfortheTableau.seeRenda,“IllustratingtheTableau général,”68.IamgratefultoElaineWright,curatorattheChesterBeattylibrary,forherhelpwithimages.

65 Onthepracticeofreversalandonthepreparationingeneralofbookillustra-tions,seegriffiths,Prints for Books,10–11.

66 seethecommentaryonthisimageanditsdivergencefromotherIslamicsourcesinRendaandFindley, “CommentsonEngravingsind’Ohsson,”205.

67 seeOhsson,“Explicationdufrontispice.”68 “ConsidérationssurlaguerredesTurks,

en1788,”inVoyage en Syrie et en Egypte(3 eedition,1799),rpt.(Paris:Fayard,1998),645,646.Volneybeganhisfamousessayin1787;itwaspublishedwithoutcensor’sapprovalin1788,hencelondonwas(falsely)givenastheplaceofpublication.

69 JohnDarwin,After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire since 1405(london:Allenlane,PenguinPress,2007).

70 VirginiaAksan,“BreakingthespelloftheBarondeTott:ReframingtheQuestionofMilitaryReformintheOttomanEmpire,1760–1830,”International History Review24,no.2(June2002):277.

71 seeFindley,“Writerandsubject,”27and32.Onthedragomanascosmopolitan,seeMayaJasanoff,“Cosmopolitan:ATaleofIdentityfromOttomanAlexandria,”Common Knowledge 11,no.3(2005):393–409.seealsoAntoinegautier,“les


Drogmansdesconsulats,”inLa fonction consulaire à l’époque moderne,ed.J.Ulbertandg.leBouëdec(Rennes:PressesUniversitairesdeRennes,2006),85–104;andnatalieRothman,“InterpretingDragomans:BoundariesandCrossingsintheEarlyModernMediterranean,”Comparative Studies in Society and History51,no.4(October2009):771–800.

72 seeFindley,“Writerandsubject,”32.73 Ibid.,36and37.74 Onthesystemofprivilèges,seeRaymond

Birn,“TheProfitsofIdeas:Privilèges en librairieinEighteenth-CenturyFrance,”Eighteenth-Century Studies4,no.2(Winter1971):131–68;idem,La Censure royale des livres dans la France des Lumières(Paris:OdileJacob,2007);andAntonygriffiths,“AnAgreementforDorat’sFables1773,”The Book Collector57,no.2(summer2008):263–77.seealsoMarie-ClaudeFelton’sworkonself-pub-lishedauthors,“WhenAuthorsMadeBooks:AFirstlookattheContentandFormofself-PublishedWorksinParis(1750–1791),”European Review of History17,no.2(April2010):241–63.

75 ManselmistakenlyassumesthatOhsson’sprivilègeandDidot’stitleof“imprimeurdeMonsieur,”areindicationsthatOhsson’sbookwaspublishedwiththepatronageoftheFrenchcourt.seeMansel,“TheTableau général de l’Empire Othomanassymbol,”79,80–81.OnDidot’sacquisitionofthistitle,seegriffiths,Prints for Books,127.

76 “illefautavouer,nousn’avionsguèrecrulesTurcscapablesdes’adonneràl’Etudeetauxlettres:nouslesavionsmêmetoujoursregardéscommecondamnésparlaloideleurProphèteàungenred’ignorance,dontilsn’auraientpasvoulusetirer.AujourdhuiquecheznousmêmesleslettresetlaPhilosophieayantfaitplusdeprogrès,nousontaccoutumésàvoirles

chosessousunpointdevueplusvrai,nouscommençonsàrougirdecepréjugé,etànousconvaincrequelesTurcs,ainsiquelesautresnationsEuropéennessontenétatdecultiveravecsuccèslessciencesetleslettres.”BnF,Manuscritfrançais22,015:Bureaudelalibrairie,Censor’sreportofseptember8,1788,registerno.1704.

Documents

ARSart.arts.usf.edu/content/articlefiles/173_Fraser_Dressing_Turks.pdf · de l’Empire Othoman (Panorama of the Ottoman Empire), published in 1787.1hs-O son, an Ottoman Armenian