CONTENTS
Prologue - Arus Yumul – Fahri Dikkaya, p.9
Edhem Eldem – On the word ‘Levantine’, p.11
İlber Oltaylı – Levantines, p.23
Stefanos Yerasimos – Who are the Levantines? p. 29
İlhan Pınar – The Levant, Levantine and the concept of a Levantine, or redefinitions according to others, p.33
Arus Yumul - mixed identities, p. p.39
Alex Baltazzi - Levantines and the concept of a Levantine state of mind, p.51
Maria Rita Epik – Maria or Rita? p.55
Haydar Kazgan – One family and a child in the world of the Levantines, p.59
Behzat Üskiden – Levantines, Marranes [Iberian Jews] and foreigners. p.71
Serap Yılmaz – Levantines of Izmir (17-20th Century), p. 119
Pelin Böke – About the Izmir “Catastrophe”… p.141
Feyyaz Erpi – Community culture and its reflection in local architecture, 3 examples: Turkish, Greek and Levantine houses of Western Anatolia, p.151
İnci Kuyulu – Levantine houses of Bornova, p.171
Fahri Dikkaya – Is East is East, is West is West? p.193
PROLOGUE
The origins of this book lies in a conference in Izmir, an vital city in the story of the community, a symposium organized by the General Forum of European Students (AEGEE), on 6-8 March 1998, entitled ‘Levantines and Europeans’. The sections of the book are based on the various presentations in the meeting held in Ege [Aegean] University, but in the intervening time, was enriched in content.
The definition of a Levantine identity is difficult as it surpasses geographical boundaries and has traditionally been shrouded in mystery. The Levantines could be viewed as a middle ground or even as an alien community. According the [Giovanni] Scognomillo [Istanbul based Levantine writer, whose works include the exploration of this subject], they are the product of an East-West fusion and synthesis. This polyglot identity is the identity somewhat shared by all the people living in the zone from the Balkans to the Mediterranean. At the same time, Levantines are the first people in this zone to possess a truly European culture. It is somewhat significant that in this age of a debate on a European identity that the first AEGEE-Izmir symposium should be dedicated to the discussion of Europeans amongst their midst.
We would like to thank for their assistance in the organisation of this meeting, the Ege University, especially the vice-rector, Prof. Dr. Gönül Öney and the members of AEGEE-Izmir.
Arus Yumul – Fahri Dikkaya
p. 51
LEVANTINES AND THE CONCEPT OF A LEVANTINE STATE OF MIND – Alex Baltazzi
It may appear to be dated to view Levantines in the narrow view of yesterday, as today the relict community is mostly completely integrated within the society they live, and reject the notion of a separate Levantine identity. Having said that it could be asked why these people are still called Levantines. However, if this situation is viewed without preconceptions that former writers frequently were entrapped in, many modern and positive elements in the concept of Levantines can be discovered.
In today’s global world, while Turkey is preparing to join the E.E.C., we could wish if only the Europeans were a bit more Levantine, and Turks had a vision bit more like that community that embraced multiculturalism. This view suggests it is an advantage to study Levantines and the concept of a Levantine state of mind.
As is known, Levantines were people who had migrated from Europe and had settled for a few generations in the East, known as the Levant. These were generally Latin Catholics. It was later that Protestants made a significant contribution to this community. The resident Greeks were mostly descendants of Byzantines, Orthodox Christians whose allegiance was with Fener Patriarchate, and in the Ottoman nationality system were classed as Rum and by the Europeans as Greeks. In time though the nationality classifications were added to include groups such as the Orthodox Bulgarian, Catholic Armenian and Protestants, while the main divisions were still named as Greek, Armenian and Jewish. In general Levantines were classed as outside the above Ottoman nationality divisions (Reyah) and were assigned as foreigners.
However, despite the efforts of Churches and Ottoman authorities to insulate these communities, there were frequent inter-marriages between Levantines, with these Ottoman Christians, mostly the numerically significant Greeks.
Also another factor seperating these (Catholic) foreigners was unlike their counterpart communities from which they had emigrated, they married freely with each other disregarding differences in language and national origin, and as a result of living for a long time in the East, at least in the eyes of their Ottoman hosts, lost some of their European identity and thus were known with the new designations such as ‘Levantine’, ‘Sweet water Frank’.
Levantines retained their religion, customs, their European contacts and manner of thought and indexed their future with an affectionate attachment to their new adopted land without pre-condition, while adding an Eastern mysticism to their new identity.
They couldn’t be too integrated as in those day’s world religion was an identity and the Ottoman Empire retained this designation of people from before the time of the French revolution when the concept of nationhood became widespread, till after the Tanzimat reforms. Despite some effort, there was never a drive towards integration as in America. The Ottoman government, which had a policy of welcoming foreigners and minorities, did not pursue integration, which would have led to equal rights, yet at the same time provided concessions (capitulations) thus providing the ground for a social policy that was unfair.
For Turkey at least, it is best to limit the period of advantage of the Levantines through capitulations as the 19th century when in a short space of time and generally for a short period the English, French, Dutch and Austrians etc. benefited. In the East in general the presence of Levantines and therefore the soul of Levantines has deeper roots.
A surprisingly large number of people can be categorised as the ‘half-European – half-Eastern’ definition of Levantines, those who arrived in Turkey from the West, liked the land, found commercial potential, were captured by the mystery of the near-East, and no longer a solid European. These could include Byzantine Romans, Latins who in 1204 with the crusades captured Istanbul and later mixed with the local population, the Genoese, Florentine, Venetian trade colonies of Galata and their representative ‘Ballios’ and those who came as ambassadors and later settled many of whom wrote interesting insights of the Empire and Palace of the time. Without difficulty we can widen the net to include dragomans [translators attached to foreign legations], Ottoman Christian ambassadors, some of the ‘Phanariot’ Greek princes and the voyvods of Eflak Bogdan [semi-autonomous Greek Orthodox governors of Transylvania and Moldavia, under nominal Ottoman suzerainty]. This idea is further explored in Philip Mansel’s book ‘Constantinople - the city of world’s desire 1453-1924’ that has been translated into many languages.
When we surpass the narrow confines of religious differences, we see that there was a permeation of thought across the nations of the Ottoman Empire, and maybe the reason why Turkey today is more Western than other Islamic countries could be a product of this spirit of the ‘Levantine’ environment.
The history of Turkey should no longer be viewed as a drama played out by people indexed to their separate religion and race, and leading to pre-assumptions of apportioning of blame for all the misdeeds of the past.
The Ottoman Empire before it went in to its gradual period decline, had a period of ascendancy and the communities listed above also existed then, and like all others had their positive and negative contributions and those who part of the government protected the interests of the Ottomans. They lived through the same phenomena as seen in universal history of kings and rulers etc. Not all historians have been kind to the Sultanas [wife of the Ottoman Sultan] of Western origin, such as the Venetian Safiye Sultan, however the recent work ‘Osmanlıda Harem’ [Ottoman Harem] by Ergun Hiçyılmaz and Meral Altındal, has tried to redress the balance of an honest appraisal, a work I was happy to assist with through providing sources. I am confident future works in this area will continue historical appraisal in a non-judgemental way.
Although not widespread, some Europeans judged Levantines as of ‘uncertain roots, and not honest in their business dealings’, an accusation perhaps the result of a complex against people who could speak 4 or 5 languages, without an attitude against the East and Turks, and successful in trade, against their own closed environment that was trapped in the city / country, one language and one dialect world that they lived in. However when the family trees of Levantines are investigated, we see roots amongst prominent people coming from important towns, fused with people of Byzantine background. A free further enriched by the addition of Turks in the nearer times of the republic period.
In addition, Levantines whether living in the Ottoman Empire or its successor, the Turkish republic or countries they moved to later, were never harmful or involved in rebellious activity. Obedient to the laws of the country they lived in, and honest in business and personal relationships, they were esteemed by the government of the Ottoman Empire for their contribution as proved by the findings of my research.
The first Sultan to allow foreigners to own real estate, Mahmut II, in his firman [decree], uses these words for my great-grandfather Emmanuele Baltazzi:
“However much in appearance he is of foreign nationality, in heart he is loyal to the state and as such with the permission of the Sultan, to build a house on the Grande Rue de Pera ...”
The same Baltazzi was responsible to the importation of the Şirketi Hayriye ferryboats at no profit to himself from England, and in gratitute the said firm made a donation of 10 stock shares to him.
Some of the Sultans were guests in the houses of the Baltazzis and Whittalls (Abdülmecit honoured our house in Bornova in 1850, while Abdülaziz paid a visit to our house in Buca n 1863).
Examples such as this are seen in many Levantine and minority families. The intellectuals of today, open the debate in an impartial way to the forced migration and population exchanges of the past, in the light of the benefits of Levantines and minorities to Turkey, in a way as to return favour to the “Lettres de noblesse” [formal letter of introduction, often accompanying the first generation of landed Levantines].
In the XIXth century in the eyes of European travellers and researchers, the Levantines are viewed and written about in terms of:
“While it can not be denied that Levantines have abilities in diplomacy, trade, banking, maritime operations, and in industry ascending right now, with their rich social life, multi-lingualism, their magnificent mansions, it is clear the haven’t risen much in terms of culture, arts and intellectual thought”.
This may be true with certain exceptions and they may even lag behind in these qualities of the more numerous minorities. The reasons are numerous and sociologic. At the most basic, they were encouraged into trade from an early age, were confronted with many different languages thus losing the strength of a mother tongue and in many cases had difficulty in obtaining higher education in the cities they lived at. According to Nora Şeni who wrote the saga of the famous Comondo family, who were partners in the many banking and trade ventures of my grandfathers, “The religious groups in the Ottoman Empire lived side by side, yet had their back turned on each other, and lived in their own worlds, not meddling in the affairs of others”.
In this situation, these people didn’t have a national culture they could contribute to or be influenced by, and so some may have chosen the easy route of an European aspiration, an imitation of that sense of belonging and gossip, rather than develop their own intellect. However by the time of the Republican era, amongst Levantine intellectuals, writers and researchers we see the likes of Duhani, Willie Sperco, Livio Missir and Giovanni Scognamillo.
Another criticism of Levantines during the XIXth century was “As they knew many different languages and were cosmopolitan, they didn’t have national feelings”. This is an important observation, and while it may appear as the chief characteristic of a Levantine identity, a proper assessment requires the consideration of the political conditions, turmoil of the time and variations of individual situations.
It mustn’t be forgotten that concept of nationhood in Europe only became significant with the French Revolution of 1789, and before this soldiers of fortune and commanders easily switched allegiances of city-state or nation. New identities and nationalities were created out of religious wars, the inquisition, forced migrations, and those seeking sanctuary in distant lands. Genoa and Venice had fallen, the latter was now part of the Austrian Empire. When the Ottomans captured the Aegean island of Chios the local Catholic Venetian settlers became nominally Greek to avoid being taken prisoner. It is only normal that amongst these transitions these people had difficulty in defining their own state of nationality. I know families who cherish their old nationality after 200 years of residence in Turkey, yet who are attached to this land. In a way this cosmopolitan view could be considered a more favourable state than a narrow-minded nationalism.
It is worth considering that whether Levantine or another minority, those people who despite their love of the country or its citizens, were designated foreign both in the East they lived and in Europe, and the hurt this has caused them. Fortunately those days are now in the past!..
Prologue - Arus Yumul – Fahri Dikkaya, p.9
Edhem Eldem – On the word ‘Levantine’, p.11
İlber Oltaylı – Levantines, p.23
Stefanos Yerasimos – Who are the Levantines? p. 29
İlhan Pınar – The Levant, Levantine and the concept of a Levantine, or redefinitions according to others, p.33
Arus Yumul - mixed identities, p. p.39
Alex Baltazzi - Levantines and the concept of a Levantine state of mind, p.51
Maria Rita Epik – Maria or Rita? p.55
Haydar Kazgan – One family and a child in the world of the Levantines, p.59
Behzat Üskiden – Levantines, Marranes [Iberian Jews] and foreigners. p.71
Serap Yılmaz – Levantines of Izmir (17-20th Century), p. 119
Pelin Böke – About the Izmir “Catastrophe”… p.141
Feyyaz Erpi – Community culture and its reflection in local architecture, 3 examples: Turkish, Greek and Levantine houses of Western Anatolia, p.151
İnci Kuyulu – Levantine houses of Bornova, p.171
Fahri Dikkaya – Is East is East, is West is West? p.193
PROLOGUE
The origins of this book lies in a conference in Izmir, an vital city in the story of the community, a symposium organized by the General Forum of European Students (AEGEE), on 6-8 March 1998, entitled ‘Levantines and Europeans’. The sections of the book are based on the various presentations in the meeting held in Ege [Aegean] University, but in the intervening time, was enriched in content.
The definition of a Levantine identity is difficult as it surpasses geographical boundaries and has traditionally been shrouded in mystery. The Levantines could be viewed as a middle ground or even as an alien community. According the [Giovanni] Scognomillo [Istanbul based Levantine writer, whose works include the exploration of this subject], they are the product of an East-West fusion and synthesis. This polyglot identity is the identity somewhat shared by all the people living in the zone from the Balkans to the Mediterranean. At the same time, Levantines are the first people in this zone to possess a truly European culture. It is somewhat significant that in this age of a debate on a European identity that the first AEGEE-Izmir symposium should be dedicated to the discussion of Europeans amongst their midst.
We would like to thank for their assistance in the organisation of this meeting, the Ege University, especially the vice-rector, Prof. Dr. Gönül Öney and the members of AEGEE-Izmir.
Arus Yumul – Fahri Dikkaya
p. 51
LEVANTINES AND THE CONCEPT OF A LEVANTINE STATE OF MIND – Alex Baltazzi
It may appear to be dated to view Levantines in the narrow view of yesterday, as today the relict community is mostly completely integrated within the society they live, and reject the notion of a separate Levantine identity. Having said that it could be asked why these people are still called Levantines. However, if this situation is viewed without preconceptions that former writers frequently were entrapped in, many modern and positive elements in the concept of Levantines can be discovered.
In today’s global world, while Turkey is preparing to join the E.E.C., we could wish if only the Europeans were a bit more Levantine, and Turks had a vision bit more like that community that embraced multiculturalism. This view suggests it is an advantage to study Levantines and the concept of a Levantine state of mind.
As is known, Levantines were people who had migrated from Europe and had settled for a few generations in the East, known as the Levant. These were generally Latin Catholics. It was later that Protestants made a significant contribution to this community. The resident Greeks were mostly descendants of Byzantines, Orthodox Christians whose allegiance was with Fener Patriarchate, and in the Ottoman nationality system were classed as Rum and by the Europeans as Greeks. In time though the nationality classifications were added to include groups such as the Orthodox Bulgarian, Catholic Armenian and Protestants, while the main divisions were still named as Greek, Armenian and Jewish. In general Levantines were classed as outside the above Ottoman nationality divisions (Reyah) and were assigned as foreigners.
However, despite the efforts of Churches and Ottoman authorities to insulate these communities, there were frequent inter-marriages between Levantines, with these Ottoman Christians, mostly the numerically significant Greeks.
Also another factor seperating these (Catholic) foreigners was unlike their counterpart communities from which they had emigrated, they married freely with each other disregarding differences in language and national origin, and as a result of living for a long time in the East, at least in the eyes of their Ottoman hosts, lost some of their European identity and thus were known with the new designations such as ‘Levantine’, ‘Sweet water Frank’.
Levantines retained their religion, customs, their European contacts and manner of thought and indexed their future with an affectionate attachment to their new adopted land without pre-condition, while adding an Eastern mysticism to their new identity.
They couldn’t be too integrated as in those day’s world religion was an identity and the Ottoman Empire retained this designation of people from before the time of the French revolution when the concept of nationhood became widespread, till after the Tanzimat reforms. Despite some effort, there was never a drive towards integration as in America. The Ottoman government, which had a policy of welcoming foreigners and minorities, did not pursue integration, which would have led to equal rights, yet at the same time provided concessions (capitulations) thus providing the ground for a social policy that was unfair.
For Turkey at least, it is best to limit the period of advantage of the Levantines through capitulations as the 19th century when in a short space of time and generally for a short period the English, French, Dutch and Austrians etc. benefited. In the East in general the presence of Levantines and therefore the soul of Levantines has deeper roots.
A surprisingly large number of people can be categorised as the ‘half-European – half-Eastern’ definition of Levantines, those who arrived in Turkey from the West, liked the land, found commercial potential, were captured by the mystery of the near-East, and no longer a solid European. These could include Byzantine Romans, Latins who in 1204 with the crusades captured Istanbul and later mixed with the local population, the Genoese, Florentine, Venetian trade colonies of Galata and their representative ‘Ballios’ and those who came as ambassadors and later settled many of whom wrote interesting insights of the Empire and Palace of the time. Without difficulty we can widen the net to include dragomans [translators attached to foreign legations], Ottoman Christian ambassadors, some of the ‘Phanariot’ Greek princes and the voyvods of Eflak Bogdan [semi-autonomous Greek Orthodox governors of Transylvania and Moldavia, under nominal Ottoman suzerainty]. This idea is further explored in Philip Mansel’s book ‘Constantinople - the city of world’s desire 1453-1924’ that has been translated into many languages.
When we surpass the narrow confines of religious differences, we see that there was a permeation of thought across the nations of the Ottoman Empire, and maybe the reason why Turkey today is more Western than other Islamic countries could be a product of this spirit of the ‘Levantine’ environment.
The history of Turkey should no longer be viewed as a drama played out by people indexed to their separate religion and race, and leading to pre-assumptions of apportioning of blame for all the misdeeds of the past.
The Ottoman Empire before it went in to its gradual period decline, had a period of ascendancy and the communities listed above also existed then, and like all others had their positive and negative contributions and those who part of the government protected the interests of the Ottomans. They lived through the same phenomena as seen in universal history of kings and rulers etc. Not all historians have been kind to the Sultanas [wife of the Ottoman Sultan] of Western origin, such as the Venetian Safiye Sultan, however the recent work ‘Osmanlıda Harem’ [Ottoman Harem] by Ergun Hiçyılmaz and Meral Altındal, has tried to redress the balance of an honest appraisal, a work I was happy to assist with through providing sources. I am confident future works in this area will continue historical appraisal in a non-judgemental way.
Although not widespread, some Europeans judged Levantines as of ‘uncertain roots, and not honest in their business dealings’, an accusation perhaps the result of a complex against people who could speak 4 or 5 languages, without an attitude against the East and Turks, and successful in trade, against their own closed environment that was trapped in the city / country, one language and one dialect world that they lived in. However when the family trees of Levantines are investigated, we see roots amongst prominent people coming from important towns, fused with people of Byzantine background. A free further enriched by the addition of Turks in the nearer times of the republic period.
In addition, Levantines whether living in the Ottoman Empire or its successor, the Turkish republic or countries they moved to later, were never harmful or involved in rebellious activity. Obedient to the laws of the country they lived in, and honest in business and personal relationships, they were esteemed by the government of the Ottoman Empire for their contribution as proved by the findings of my research.
The first Sultan to allow foreigners to own real estate, Mahmut II, in his firman [decree], uses these words for my great-grandfather Emmanuele Baltazzi:
“However much in appearance he is of foreign nationality, in heart he is loyal to the state and as such with the permission of the Sultan, to build a house on the Grande Rue de Pera ...”
The same Baltazzi was responsible to the importation of the Şirketi Hayriye ferryboats at no profit to himself from England, and in gratitute the said firm made a donation of 10 stock shares to him.
Some of the Sultans were guests in the houses of the Baltazzis and Whittalls (Abdülmecit honoured our house in Bornova in 1850, while Abdülaziz paid a visit to our house in Buca n 1863).
Examples such as this are seen in many Levantine and minority families. The intellectuals of today, open the debate in an impartial way to the forced migration and population exchanges of the past, in the light of the benefits of Levantines and minorities to Turkey, in a way as to return favour to the “Lettres de noblesse” [formal letter of introduction, often accompanying the first generation of landed Levantines].
In the XIXth century in the eyes of European travellers and researchers, the Levantines are viewed and written about in terms of:
“While it can not be denied that Levantines have abilities in diplomacy, trade, banking, maritime operations, and in industry ascending right now, with their rich social life, multi-lingualism, their magnificent mansions, it is clear the haven’t risen much in terms of culture, arts and intellectual thought”.
This may be true with certain exceptions and they may even lag behind in these qualities of the more numerous minorities. The reasons are numerous and sociologic. At the most basic, they were encouraged into trade from an early age, were confronted with many different languages thus losing the strength of a mother tongue and in many cases had difficulty in obtaining higher education in the cities they lived at. According to Nora Şeni who wrote the saga of the famous Comondo family, who were partners in the many banking and trade ventures of my grandfathers, “The religious groups in the Ottoman Empire lived side by side, yet had their back turned on each other, and lived in their own worlds, not meddling in the affairs of others”.
In this situation, these people didn’t have a national culture they could contribute to or be influenced by, and so some may have chosen the easy route of an European aspiration, an imitation of that sense of belonging and gossip, rather than develop their own intellect. However by the time of the Republican era, amongst Levantine intellectuals, writers and researchers we see the likes of Duhani, Willie Sperco, Livio Missir and Giovanni Scognamillo.
Another criticism of Levantines during the XIXth century was “As they knew many different languages and were cosmopolitan, they didn’t have national feelings”. This is an important observation, and while it may appear as the chief characteristic of a Levantine identity, a proper assessment requires the consideration of the political conditions, turmoil of the time and variations of individual situations.
It mustn’t be forgotten that concept of nationhood in Europe only became significant with the French Revolution of 1789, and before this soldiers of fortune and commanders easily switched allegiances of city-state or nation. New identities and nationalities were created out of religious wars, the inquisition, forced migrations, and those seeking sanctuary in distant lands. Genoa and Venice had fallen, the latter was now part of the Austrian Empire. When the Ottomans captured the Aegean island of Chios the local Catholic Venetian settlers became nominally Greek to avoid being taken prisoner. It is only normal that amongst these transitions these people had difficulty in defining their own state of nationality. I know families who cherish their old nationality after 200 years of residence in Turkey, yet who are attached to this land. In a way this cosmopolitan view could be considered a more favourable state than a narrow-minded nationalism.
It is worth considering that whether Levantine or another minority, those people who despite their love of the country or its citizens, were designated foreign both in the East they lived and in Europe, and the hurt this has caused them. Fortunately those days are now in the past!..