From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Review of a Review
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:36:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



An amateurish review of a review of a book.


>Subject: Heavily Turkish-Quoted Historian "Stanford Shaw" is Reviewed

Since I was one of the persons who wrote about Shaw, it looks like
I have to respond, despite my intent to keep out of this mess.

The following comments maybe considered to be an amateur's review
of a reviewer! [I am not even a historian..]

Before I even make specific comments, I'll save a lot of reading
for the readers and make some preliminary comments here.

In a time before word-processing became common-place it's not
unexpected to find typos. I've seen (and so probably have many
others) books with lots of typos and books with sheets of errata.

They pop up even in technical textbooks. They pop up even in the
post-WP era. A book on Management Science around 1970 had so
many errors a couple of sheets of errata were included in the
later editions.  There were two that I found myself in Stallings
book on Communications. If there were more, I didn't spot them.
And they are much less forgivable in math and tech books.

Oztuna's books have a long list of errata in the last volume.

I've seen plenty of scientific publications with fantastic
errors and they even escape the reviewers attention.

The courteous thing to do is to write to the author so that the
next edition is free of them. Shaw's book claims to interpret
the Ottoman state in a different light than others. There's
no reference at all to any of it in this review. It looks 
more like axe-grinding to me than anything else.

The review starts below:

>From: _SOAS Bulletin_, Vol XLI, Part 1, 1978, pages 160-162

>STANFORD J. SHAW: History; of the Ottoman empire and modern Turkey. Vol. I:
>empire of the Gazis. the raise and decline of the Ottoman empire, 1280-1808. 
>351 pp.- Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1976. &12.50.

>This work, the preface tells us, 'is the product of almost 20 years of
>research in the Ottoman archives as well as other collections in Europe and 
>the United States', The present volume is to be followed by a second, entitled
>Reform, revolution, and republic:  the rise of modern Turkey, 1808-1975. 

Fair enough statement by the author. So it has been written over 20
years which means it started around 1956. No word-processors.

>Ottoman history being Clio's poor relation, we should be well satisfied if we
>found here an accurate chronological account of events, retailed in an 
>agreeable literary style; we might hope for a clear exposition of the
>mechanics of government; and it would be a bonus if the underlying social and 
>economic forces were described and assessed. But what have we in fact?

OK. I read the book. It's typeset in a very small font. It could easily
have been 600-800 pages if the fonts were bigger. If a more
detailed exposition were attempted, it could take volumes. In fact,
about 20 years ago I read Hammer's books--which only covers up to
around 1700 CE. There are 10 large and thick volumes in all.

How many dates, names of persons, and names of places in various
scripts (Latin, Greek, Turkish) can we expect for a history
of 600-700 years ? Lots. How many typos can we expect ? How much
of the book can be devoted to the description of a government
and empire which is foreign to most readers? A lot again.

And to what is this review devoted. Let's see.

>When one is dealing with the early--and the not-so-early--Ottoman state, the 
>mere establishment of a name or a date is often a delicate question of 
>collating Oriental and Western sources, so that the best final judgement must
>be qualified by an 'on balance, therefore'. Here, - however, the author sails 
>in without a qualm: not for him a pusillanimous 'perhaps' or 'probably'. He
>may have his evidence to justify certainty for what others regard as 
>uncertain, but it is perverse of him to offer his own dates for several events
>which others regard as reasonably well established. Thus: the battle of

If most histories written until this date never consulted Ottoman archives,
and only cross-checked others e.g. Venetian, Byzantine, and if the
rest only are written from these originals, it's likely that by now
most of them will agree with one another.

When the Mongols wrecked the Seljuk Empire a whole bunch of Turkish/Turkmen
kingdoms popped up  (16 I think.) One of them was the Ottoman. It
wasn't the largest but closest (along with a couple of others )to the
Byzantines. Are we supposed to believe that the Byzantine and Venetians
kept track of all of them, their rulers, their wives and children's
names, dates of births, deaths ?

In all likelihood, most of the early Ottoman history comes from chroniclers
who wrote about them years after the fact. If you read Venetian stuff
from around 1500's, some of them aren't even sure where they came
from. Who kept track of all this ?

>Kosedag occurred in 1243, not 1242 (p. 8), and that of Pelecanon in 1329, not
>1328 (p. 15); Umur Beg of Aydin died -- or rather 'was killed' -- in 1348, not
>1844 (p. I6); the battle of the Maritsa was in 1371, not 1364 (p. 18); Orhan 
>died, it is generally agreed, in March 1362, not 1360 (p. 17); Bayazid I's 
>campaign in western Anatolia was in winter 1389-90, not during the summer and
>fall of 1390' (p. 30); Bedreddin was executed in 1416, not 1419, and Duzme
>Mustafa 'fled to refuge with the Byzantines' well before 1420 (p. 43); the 
>agreement ending the Ottoman-Venetian war is dated 25 January 1479, not 25 
>June (p. 69); and if Selim I died on 21 September 1520 (p. 86), how could his
>successor take Belgrade in the preceding month (p. 91) ?


Some of the above are probably slips (mistakes), some typos, some
probably from Ottoman sources which genuinely disagree with other
chroniclers. It looks like the date errors are from only the early
years ? Why ? Did Shaw make less mistakes as years went on ?
Or did the reviewer only check the early years?  Is it because,
he only 'knows' about the early years ? Why ? Is he a medieval
scholar ? Maybe Byzantine scholar or Venetian scholar ?

When I first looked at this I thought that Shaw (or someone else)
made a mistake in the algorithm to convert from the Hicri (Ottoman/Muslim)
calendar to the Rumi calendar. But the dates only seem to disagree
for early years. Maybe the Ottoman chroniclers disagree with the
reviewer's sources. In this case, Shaw has still done a great
service since I doubt that most historians who write Turkish
history know either Turkish or Ottoman. In order to know Ottoman,
it is necessary to know Turkish, Farsi and Arabic, and to be able
to read the Arabic script. If the next edition does not correct the
dates, I can only assume that, some of Shaw's sources show those
dates, which means now that even those who don't know Ottoman have
access to Ottoman archives via Shaw.

If they are all errors, typos, they should be corrected.

Some of the above comments have to do with Turkmen tribal infighting (Aydin).
Who kept track of them ?

Some of the comments, I see as pointless. Why ?

>This last example is not only the point where an elementary knowledge of
>chronology, or indeed of simply arithmetic, brings the most cursory reader up 
>short. He jibs first at the third sentence in the book, for the Ottoman state,
>however late we choose to date its genesis, did not come to 'encompass' 
>Hungary 'within two centuries' )

Most books account for Ottomans starting around 1300, Hungary fell
around 1526. That's about two centuries. What's the point?

p. 1); the 'Abbasid empire was not yet in 
>existence in the seventh century (p. 2); if Murad I's 'first move' was in 
>Anatolia in 1362. (p. 17), how could he return to capture Edirne in 1361 ?

I don't get it ? Another date problem I guess. Murad I fought wars 
in the Balkans during 1354 to 1389. He could have gone in some
direction and 'returned'. Without seeing the whole paragraph it's
hard to see what he objects to. Turks were in Rumeli (Europe) before
Murad.

>(p. 18); Amadeo no doubt took Gallipoli on 24 August 1366, but hardly in 
>response to a papal bull of 25 December 1366 (p. 19); the battle of Kosova 
>(1389) did not take place 'less than two decades after Murad ascended the 
>throne' (p. 22);

Clearly a mistake by Shaw. It seems he should have had a list of
Sultans and their dates of reign someplace nearby.

> Anatolia did not 'remain under the suzerainty of the 
>Ilhanids' in the reign of Bayezid I (p. 30); if within a year of the battle
>of Ankara Mehmed had 'a large Turkoman army ready and able to take on all
>enemy' (p. 37), he was pretty dilatory about eliminating them; 

Ridiculous comment by the reviewer. America has a force ready and
able to take on most of the world. So what ?


>on p. 44 Mehmet
>I annexes Aydin in 1425 and Mentese in 1426, to die, six lines - later, in
>1421 (Murad II, however, conducts the same campaign, twice, at pp. 46 and 47);

More or less pointless. Wars among Turks in Asia kept going for a long
time with one side then the other claiming victory and claiming
land. The main reason was the military tactics. When an army fled,it
was never clear it if was for real. It could have been a trap. You
could as easily claim victory and not pursue them. Sometimes the
pursuers fell into traps and lost. The reviewer is ignoring things
even an amateur knows. You can claim a territory but if the enemy
army is not destroyed they just come back and you have to fight
them again. Most inter-Turkic wars were of this type. The reviewer
should know this well, if he knows anything about Turkic/Turkish
history.


>since Bayezid I succeeded in 1389, Venice could hardly have 'signed a trade 
>agreement ' with him in 1388 (p. 47): 

Clearly another date error by Shaw.

>Albanian resistance 'beginning in 1443'
>was not continued 'for another half-century' by George Castriotes (pp. 48-9), 
>for he died in 1468;

Unable to subtract too it looks like. It could also be a poor
sentence for the Albanian resistance could have continued for a
half a century, even if not under George. Possibly more nit-picking.

> it was not Stefan Dusan who died in 1427 (p. 62) but 
>Stefan Lazarevic; 

BAd mistake by Shaw. (I assume the reviewer is correct.)


>Mehmed II did not 'conquer' in Athens in January 1459 
>(p. 63) but visit it (it had been taken by Omer Beg in 1456), apparently in 

Oztuna Vol IV, p. 13
In August of 1458 Mehmet II entered Athens and ended the "Himaye rejim"
==Protectorate regime.

>Prince Selim did not 'lead the Janissaries in 
>several successful expeditions into Georgia well as the Safavid territories
>in eastern Anatolia following the Sah Kulu revolt' (p. 79), for (apart from 
>the fact that he did not command the Janissaries) he had left Anatolia the 
>year before the revolt;

Sahkulu revolt was in 1511. Selim became Sultan in 1512. He did fight
against the Kizilbash, Oztuna, Vol IV, p 177


I don't understand the problem. Is it that he did not command the
Janissaries ? Selim became sultan over his older brother because
of the support of the Janissaries. I still don't get it.


>where the 'Cannon-Wagon corps ', with 400 men in 1574, is said to have been 
>'organized in 63 battalions' : a seven-man battalion is real military 
>curiosity.

Either a bad sentence or an obvious typo. It could have been formed
into 63 batallions later and have started with only 400 men; or it 
could be missing a few zeros.

>Several statements betray a certain topographical confusion: Sogut is not 'in
>north-eastern Anatolia' (p. 13), if, from Yenisehir, 'Osman moved' northward',

Bad error. Everyone should know where Sogut is.

>he was going not 'up' the Sakarya but down it,

Sakarya starts in Cifteler, Eskisehir (Sakarbasi) and goes southeast, then
turns north, then west and then north again. Yenisehir is where it turns
north. If 'up' means upstream the reviewer is right. If according to
the convention of north pointing up on maps, up means north then
Shaw is Ok . When I refer to maps I usually say up, I don't know if it's 
common practice.

> and if 'south-west', he was not
>headed 'toward the Sea of Marmara' (p. 14);

Marmara is southwest of Sakarya in that region.


> the Goynuk region is not 'on the 
>Sea of Marmara' (p. 15) but east of the Sakarya; 

Correct. Golcuk is on Marmara.

>Edirne, it is stated (p. 17),
>'commanded the gap between the Balkan and Rhodope mountains formed the by the
>Maritsa river'. whereas if it commands a 'gap', it is that between the Rhodope
>and the Istranca ranges, and if it commands the Maritsa valley, that is
>something more than a gap;

Nitpicking. All historians that I read agree that Edirne was a strategic
location to defend Istanbul from the BAlkan direction. Maybe it's not
a gap, whatever it means.

 Komotini is not 'on the Aegean' (p. ~20); Timur,
>starting from Tabriz, did not 'cross the Taurus mountains into Anatolia' in 
>1386 (p. 32);

Wrong date again. 

> if 1396 Sigismund 'led a large Crusader force through Serbia,
>crossing the Danube at Nicopolis and then capturing the Danubian towns of 
>Vidin  and Orsova' (p. 33), it is a wonder that Bayezid ever caught up with 
>him if Timur had advanced 'from Sivas to Ankara via the well-watered northern 
>route' (p. 30), he would not have passed through Kayseri; 

I don't get it. Timur ravaged parts of Anatolia in order to force 
Bayezid to come out to meet him where he wanted him and in the
end tricked him into it. What does he object to exactly if not the date.

>in 1413 Mehmed did
>not 'smash [sic] Musa's army at Viza, near Filibe' (p. 39): there was a
>skirmish at Viza, 

Same problem as before. It depends on who tells the story.


>decisive battle took place near Samakov; if Duzme Mustafa had been sent 'to
>Gallipoli' (p. 44), he did not need to 'cross into Europe' six lines later;

Can't understand. Maybe the narrative jumps around. Lot of
historians do this because sometimes there are several threads and
they're treated separately.

> in
>1443, Hunyadi did not march 'down' the Morava but up it, he did not go 'over
>the Balkan Mountains' to get from Nis to Sofia, 

It looks like the north-south, upstream-downstream problem again.

>and 'Trayan gate' is odd for 
>'the gate of Trajan' (p. 51); 

I guess Edirne is strange for Adrianople too. He uses Turkish and
English spellings of name places. Nitpicking for whatever 
purpose. Maybe he wants to use English/Greek names for Turkish
cities too, as is the usual practice among most historians even
today.

>in 1444 the Crusaders did not march 'west along
>the Danube toward Varna' (p. 52) but east;

Bad typo unless the Danube meanders.

> an armada 'built in Gallipoli' did
>not need to go 'through the Dardanelles' to get to the Sea of Marmara (p. 56)

Gallipoli is a peninsula. If it was built anywhere except the part
which is in Marmara, it would have to go through the straits.

>and since bel means 'pass' or 'saddle' and since all the chroniclers speak of
>the difficult terrain, it is careless to speak of the battle with Uzun Hasan 
>(fought, incidentally, not in 1472 but 1473) as occurring 'on the plain of 
>Otluk Beli' (p. 66).

Bel means waist, small of the back, loins, or by extension pass in a mountain
ridge.  Otluk comes from ot meaning grass,herb, fodder. The luk
makes it 'for' i.e. for fodder,grass. It means apparently this 'pass'
was large enough to be considered and named like a plain where animals
find grass and pasturage. Really looking hard, isn't he ?

The date is apparently wrong.

>The following passage (pp. 69-70) offers an example, not unique, of lack of 
>historical method: 'Gedik Ahmet Pasa was now made sancak bey of Avlonya and 
>commander of the Ottoman fleet in the Aegean with the task of organizing the 
>campaigns against both Italy and Rhodes. His first fleet took the Greek 
>islands of Cephalonia and Zanta and then put Rhodes under siege beginning on 
>December 4, 1479, while another force sailed around southern Italy and landed 
>at Otranto on August 11 to initiate the second phase of the campaign . . .
>Gedik Ahmet returned to Rumeli in the winter of 1481 to raise additional 
>forces and was there when the news arrived of the sultan's sudden death (May
>3, 1481), as a result of which the siege of Rhodes was broken off.... the 
>force at Otranto [left] without leadership, . . . finally left for home on 
>July 10'. What can be the source for this grotesque picture of Gedik Ahmet as
>Ahmed as C-in-C Aegean? The Ottoman attacks on Rhodes and Otranto created such
>a stir in Christendom that they are both elaborately documented, and unless
>all the historians are wrong they were entirely separate operations. 

I don't see much point in this. If Shaw had to write 10 volumes he
probably would have given more detail. For the Ottomans it was
a minor operation. They had not yet taken to the sea in force. Their
big problems were on land. And in this one volume, Shaw also has to
give descriptions of the government, etc. He cuts things short
and makes bad sentences. They're not much worse than some other
historians, some of whose works I've read.

What's an operation? What's a war ? Some wars continue for
years. If the Ottomans thought of them as one continuing
operation, what's the problem ?

{Reviewer's description deleted. Readers can check the origional post.}


>Such a failure to present accurately a straightforward narrative does not
>inspire confidence that 'institutions' will fare better, and indeed the 

Good start here; "Don't expect anything. Maybe what Shaw says here
won't be found in many other books, so don't bother reading it since
I've already proven that there's nothing worth reading."

>section (pp. 22-8) devoted to  'Ottoman institutions and society in the
>fourteenth century', a period for which practically nothing is known, contains
>much that can only be (unconvincing) speculation. I doubt, for example, 
>whether 'in all internal matters each tribe or clan was autonomous' (p. 2s), 

There are many other books written on Turkic peoples and their
tribal/clan organizations. Reviewer is free to doubt, despite the
evidence. Doubting is a good method of casting doubt especially if
there's nothing else that can be said.

Never miss a chance to throw dirt and never write about anything
that could be of value.

>whether nomads entering Anatolia, whatever Turkish customs they brought, 
>brought also 'particularly Turkish forms of military organization, 
>bureaucratic structure, and taxes' (p. 23),

No doubt, they forgot all of their traditions, as soon as they
entered Anatolia. Or better yet, they magically picked up 
 Byzantine ways of doing things from the air in Anatolia.

Nitpick to add things to whatever dirt you've found. And never
discuss anything else of value. People might want to read it.

> whether lads destined for the 
>Janissaries were 'educated in the Turkish language, Islam, Arabic, and other 
>characteristics of the Ottoman way' (p. 26):

It was standard practice for Muslims to try to learn whatever they
could of Arabic. This is how north Africa became Arabized. And if
they didn't learn Turkish and Islam there where did they learn it ?


> they did farmwork, and how should
>they learn Arabic?  

Is that all they did? Most of the Turks also did farmwork, how
did they learn Arabic ?

>I know of no justification for the statement (p. 26)
>that mukata's is the Ottoman equivalent for the Seljuk term ikta': the 
>definition of the Nasihatname (tr Behrnauer, in ZDMG, xviii, 1864, 726-7,
>= Koci Bey risalesi, ed. Aksut 112) seems conclusive and suits the known 
>facts.

No comment. I don't know. I'm an amateur.

>Matters are little better for the later centuries: (p. 58) '[The Grand Vizier]
>was entrusted with the imperial seal, which had to be applied to all state 
>decrees, not only those of the sultan himself, but also lesser regulations
>issued by other principal officers' (is the seal really meant--or the tugra?);

What's a tugra ? The Sultan's monogram, the imperial signature.
Tugrayi garrayi sultani=the illustrious imperial cypher.


>(p. 104) 'The circumstances under which the sultan could confiscate the
>properties of members of the Ruling Class were also set down', seil. in 'the
>famous Kanunname-i Al-i Osman' which 'Ebu us-Su himself drew up ' (no comment)
>(p. 118) the Seyhulislam is included among the members of Diva, whereas much
>of the significance of his office arose from the very fact that he was not;

Divan (not Diva) =Council of State
Seyhulislam==dignitary responsible for all matters connected with the
canon law,....and coming next to the Grand Vizier in precedence.

In reality, he was originally only the mufti of Istanbul. Because
he was in the capital is where the office gets its importance. In practice,
he was consulted by the Sultan before decrees, so informally he
was part of the Council.. 


>(p. 123) the Janissaries numbered 'no more than 30,0000) men under Suleyman',
>whereas the highest figure published for that reign, from the 'archival 
>sources' which the book purports to exploit is 12,131 (they were not,

It's strictly correct. Shaw gives other numbers all over the place.

>incidentally, armed with 'rifles' in the sixteenth century, nor had Bayezid II

True. They were armed with 'firearms' probably. I assume he means that
rifle is a firearm which is not smooth bore but is 'rifled'. 

>developed for the artillery 'more effective shells than were available in the
>past'). 

No comment. Maybe they were primitive.

>At p. 124 we have the unexceptional sentence: ' The kapikulu also had
>a cavalry branch, the Kapikulu Suvarileri. Occasionally, it is confused with 
>the provincial cavalry but in fact was quite distinct, being maintained in
>Istanbul by a salaries rather than timars'; but this very confusion seems to
>have invaded p. 46: 'The kapikulu men ... were divided into two services: (1)
>the Sipahi cavalry supported mainly by feudal timars and under the control of
>the old Turkish nobility . . .'.

I don't see what the problem is. Kapi means door. Kul means slave.
Kapikulu means door slaves i.e. at the beck and call of the sultan.
That was their name and it stuck. That's how the Janissaries got
their start. They were merely slaves of the Sultan when it got
started.

>Many of these misapprehensions presumably arise from an imperfect command of 
>terminology. 'Gulam' does not mean 'foreign youth' (p. 27);

Gulam means boy or slave boy. Since Turks couldn't be enslaved they
were foreign boys. What's the problem ?

It also has other meanings like; boy, lad, male slave, girl, female slave, 
boyhood, youth, slavery, fond of boys, sodomite. It is used both
in Arabic and Farsi. That's probably what causes the problems in 
various meanings.


> A sultan is not a
>'civil ruler of Islam' (p. 33)

Religious ruler is caliph. Sultan means sovereign. What should it be
called, king ? Is a king a civil ruler ?

>; the nisanci  hardly the 'chief scribe'

Nisanci= "title of an officer whose duty it was to inscribe the
Sultan's imperial monogram over all imperial letters-patent".
 
>the followers of Kadizade were not called Kadizadeler (pp. 77, 206) but
>Kadizadeliler; 

BAd mistake. It seems Shaw's Turkish wife did not even read this.
This is standard way of forming this context ie Osman, Osmanlilar.

>the Hall of the Divan was situated not in Enderun (p. 115) but
>in the Birun; ispenc resmi is not 'paturage tax' (p. 120); 

ispenc==pasturage tax on pigs.

>for 'nuzul bedeli'
>(alighting tax)' (p. 120);  read rather nuzl and understand 'payment in lieu
>of provisions': 'mezul' (read ma'zul) means 'out of office' rather than 
>'dismissed' (p. 136); 

mazul==dismissed (out of post); out of office.

BTW; All definitions are from Redhouse Dictionary. This one is.

>the Kalenders were characterized not by 'unkempt hair
>and beards' (p. 154) but by being clean-shaven; 

kalender== unconventional person, bohemian, wandering mendicant
dervish. (Redhouse dictionary).

Since when are dervishes known for being conventional and
clean-shaven?

>for muzhir (p. 160) read
>muzhir (=muhdhzir); 

????????? What ????

>and only in the most literal sense does uc anbarli mean a
>ship 'with three storerooms' (p. 167): it is a 'three-decker'.

Good to know.

>As to its general presentation of the Ottoman 'power structure', the book 
>seems to reflect a less than critical acceptance of the simplistic prejudices
>displayed by the more chauvinistic popular writers of modern Turkey. 

Or else, it shows the same courtesy to Ottoman history that other
historians usually show Romans, Greeks, Russians, French etc. In history
books one usually finds curious phrases like 'liquidated'; For
Turkish history it's 'massacred'.


>Ottoman
>policy is shown as a series of lurches, as one or other of the constituents of
>the 'Ruling Class' (always with upper case) gains the ascendancy over its 
>rivals: the ' Turkish nobility' (whomever they may be),

This is now the part we where expect a historical interpretatioin.

The reviewer apparently doesn't know what nobility means. You can
find it in Oztuna. Fatih Mehmet II got rid of the last Turkish
nobility (Candarlioglu) and power passed into the hands of the
devsirme almost exclusively.

The reviewer either has problems understanding what nobility means
or has problems understanding that there could exist noble
families in Turkic/Turkish states/empires.

> 'the Candarli' 'the
>devsirvme' (a 'political group', according to the index), and, in the early 
>days, the wily Christian princesses and their advisers. 

Hmmmm. I guess no one practiced politics in the world except the Turks,
expecially not the Byzantines.

>What, for example, is
>the evidence justifying this passage (p. 28) ? ' The manner in which Bayezid
>[I] came to power determined what followed. Of Murat I's sons, Bayezit and 
>Yakup, the latter was the elder and tended to represent the Turkoman notables
>in the struggle for power within the Ottoman court; Bayezit, the son of a 
>Greek woman, was the candidate of the new Christian and convert elements
>brought to the fore by Murat. In the end Bayezit was able to secure the
>throne at Kosova not because of the power of his supporters per se (most of 
>the army at that time was dominated by the Turkoman notables through the 
>Candarli family), but rather simply because he was on the scene while Yakup 
>was in Anatolia recruiting Turkomans [sic]. Bayezit's supporters among the
>Christians vassals in Murat's camp had him confirmed as ruler before the
>Turkoman notables knew that Murat was dead, concealing this fact until they 
>could assassinate Yakup, thereby leaving the latter's supporters with a fait
>accompli. The Candarli and other notables accepted Bayezit's accession because
>he was the last surviving male member of the Ottoman dynasty.' 

Anyone who can't understand what this passage means has no business
being a historian or a reviewer, except perhaps be an editor of
history books to check dates and spellings of names and places.

It's strange that he cannot grasp the idea that there could be
power struggles among various ethnic groups, various groups
consituted from various ancestors. It obviously shows some new
problems cropping up regarding rulership and that various
groups are trying to define/determine how to go about it.


>Granted that it
>is the historian's duty to offer an interpretation of events, his prior duty
>is to marshal the data; and in this instance the one thing that seems certain
>about Yakub's death is that it occurred at Kosova, where he was leading his
>contingent of troops, and on the day of the battle. The earliest Ottoman 
>source says that he was killed after consultation among 'the begs' -- and 
>whoever they may have been, they were not 'the Christian vassals'.

Ok, we skip the chapter and go back to more discrepancies among
various chroniclers.

The same chapters on rulership and reign and government etc all
skipped. We wouldn't want people to read them. No...

>The remarks on learning and literature can only be called comic especially 
>after 'European observers' are castigated (p. 139) for a 'lack of linguistic
>as well as aesthetic qualifications needed to discern and appreciate cultural
>developments'. 

It seems a pretty modern way of looking at things. What happened
to cultural imperialism and cultural chauvinism ? No further details
given ?

>Let a single quotation (p. 141) serve with exclamation marks 
>supplying sufficient comment: 'Their work [that of the saz folk poets] is best
>exemplified and preserved in the 12 epic poems [!] of [!] Dede Korkut as well
>as the works of [!] Seyyit Battal Gazi and Denismentname [sic], written by
>[!] Danisment Ahmet Gazi'. (The index defines Dede Korkut as '14th-century
>Anatolian folk poet', Seyyit Battal as '13th-century poet', and Danisment 
>Ahmet Gazi as '13th-century Anatolian poet and Turkoman prince'.) 

I must be dumb, deaf or ignorant or all three and more. What 
happened here ? I can surely use some enlightenment .

Any hints, from anyone ?

>And to take 
>a single description of a work: the Kasf al-zunun (p. 286) is not a book of
>'biographies of the most important writers in the eastern world at that time',
>nor does its title really mean ' Survey of Thoughts of names of Books and
>Sciences'. That it lists 'over 1500 books' is, however, correct: Flugel's 
>numbering goes to 14,501.

It's all Arabic to me. Maybe someone else can comment.

>Perhaps a historian need know nothing belles-lettres...But he has presumably
>read the chronicles, so that it is odd to encounter 'the fifteenth-century
>Ottoman chronicler Mustafa Naima' (p. 112); 

I missed it again. I guess he's not 15th century. Does anyone
see anything else ?

>'Kasifi adds important information
>on Orhan's invasion of Rumeli' (he doesn't mention them); 

I guess it's illegal to give people a place to look for more
information. If he mentions it, he must quote from it.
What else can he dig up? 

This is certainly turning out to be a very strange book review ?


>'Envreri's 
>Dusturname, presented to Grand Vezir Karamani Mehmet Pasa' (in fact, Mahmud
>Pasa); 'Kritovolos's Tarih-i Sultan Mehmet Han-i Sani..., written partly[!]
>in Greek'; and Sehdi may well 'provide...information on the Conqueror's
>reign', but we are unlikely to know until a manuscript turns up (p. 145).

????  What's the point ? He says that some source says there is
a book. It sounds interesting. Maybe someone who reads this will
start looking for it. I guess it's a fault to do that.

>And now a penultimate word for the publisher.

Great. Now Cambridge editors get a shellacking.

>This book appears under the imprint of a British university press. Has it 
>declared redundant its copy-editors and proof-readers? 

Full throttle ahead, get the torpedos ready...

>Perhaps a publisher
>cannot mend a monotonous and rambling style, enlivened only by cliches and 
>ludicrous metaphors 

More sideswipes at Shaw.... Go for it. You almost got the gold....


>('the Oguz nomads bounced off the . . . defense tier', '
>culminated his expansion ', ' pulverize the opposition ',' Kadi Burhaneddin
>expanded '). 

One should always stick to the tried and true; liquidated, massacred,
annihilated, defeated, decimated.... Pulverize is illegal. It
should not be used in history books. 

What's a 'defense tier' ? What a fool Shaw must be to use this
unconventional language to cover up his lies, errors and
mistakes. Bad boy...


>Perhaps too the classics are so dead that nobody boggles at
>'Romanus Diogenus', the river 'Hermon',' Dorylaem ', 'Paleologues' as a 
>singular,' Mitilene', 'Constantine Iragasis' (p. 52: presumably an impressive
>misprint for 'Dragases'), 

Look at other texts, Turk is used for Turks, the Kirghiz is used
instead of Kirgizes, sheep is plural of sheep.

Ok.. So more spelling errors. The editors and proofreaders
should have caught them.


>' Gennadins/Gennadious Scolarious'. But surely 
>somebody at Cambridge ought to hesitate over 'most of who', 'unexperienced',
>'firearmed muskets', 'acquiessence', 'tributory', 'straight and narrow'. In 
>respectable English -- and American -- usage, the use of 'due to' where' owing
>to' is required is still a solecism, and the past tense of 'lie' not yet
>'laid'.

Me no good in English. So everything I say is lie and untruth.
Proof is in the dates and spelling.


>According to the dust-cover, this book 'sweeps away the accumulated prejudices
>of centuries'. One prejudice that has vanished in the process is respect for
>accuracy, clarity, and reasoned judgement. 

Finally we're getting somewhere; "sweeps away accumulated prejudices
of centuries". What could they be ? We wouldn't want people to
read the book, would we ? 

And how is Shaw thinking of sweeping them away; by making up
new dates and new names ? He must really be stupid. 

There must be some other stuff there. But what ? Not one word
about them. Nice review, or is it a nice trick. Don't read it
since there's nothing worth reading.



>						V.L. Menage


I'm still wondering. Most of the stuff he caught was early history.
Some were legitimate errors, some typos (obviously), and some
could be due to different sources.

Did Menage write a book on Ottoman history where he got the
dates right and many other stuff wrong--which Shaw sweeps 
away ? Or is Menage a Byzantine scholar so that he knows
about the early dates because of some other sources. Maybe
a Venetian scholar. They had a lot of contact with Ottomans.

I can't check much of this. It already took too long. School is
about to start and I have to get ready.

It seems to me that Menage has an axe to grind more than anything
else. Did Shaw refuse to give references to Menage's works ?
Did he directly contradict Menage's books ? Or did he directly
contradict others who Menage read and would like to keep
believing ?

So is this the final proof that no one should read any of
Shaw's books ? Try reading Toynbee, Stoddard , Fuller etc.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.turkish:8785 talk.politics.soviet:6914 soc.culture.greek:7434 soc.culture.europe:7210 soc.culture.soviet:6700