Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons, 1875-1908

Author(s): M. kr Haniogl
Source: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1989), pp. 186-197
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283298
Accessed: 07-08-2016 12:07 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle
Eastern Studies

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons,

1875-1908

M. uiikru Hanioglu

Historians of the age of Abdulhamid II have tended to lump all opposition

to the Hamidian state under the generic rubric of 'Young Turk opposition'. This usage has created confusion. The fact is that the Committee for
Union and Progress (CUP) which initiated the era of Young Turk rule in
1908 was not alone in opposition to Sultan Abdulhamid II between 1875
and 1908. Indeed, a careful scrutiny of the evidence shows that the CUP
did not become a prominent actor until 1894/5 and that its earlier activities
were quite insignificant. More important in these first phases were such
lesser known associations as the Turco-Syrian Committee, le Parti Constitutionel en Turquie and the Cemiyet-i Ilmiye which was led by a number of
influential ulema. Especially worthy of mention are the activities of
high-ranking government and extra government groups - provincial
govemors, Palace officials and the Freemasons.
My intent here is to unravel one strand of this opposition by reconstructing the activities of one of the most decisive elements, the Freemasons.
Freemason organizations were, without doubt, among the most important organizations active in the period 1875-1908. This group has already
been the subject of several articles and has been discussed at some length

in a book.' In none of these studies, however, has much attention been

paid to their activities before 1902. Instead, the focus has been on relations
between the Freemasons and the Hurriyet Cemiyeti (founded in 1906) and
on their subsequent impact on the political life of the Ottoman Empire
after 1908. It is noteworthy that during the trial of the assassins of Mahmud
Shevket Pasha (murdered 11 June 1913) the conspirators claimed that
their aim had been to recapture power which had been too long in the
hands of the Freemasons.2 This statement should alert us to the fact that
the activism of the Freemasons antedates the foundation of the Hurriyet
Cemiyeti. Indeed, it can be traced back to the 1870s.
It is a well-established fact that a number of prominent Tanzimat
statesman and dignitaries who were Freemasons played a crucial role in
bringing Sultan Murad V to the throne for a brief period in 1876. 3 A key
figure in this process was Cleanthi Scalieri. An Istanbul Greek by birth,
Scalieri was inducted into the ranks of the French Masonic Lodge of the
Ottoman capital, L'Union d'Orient, in 1865. Ten years later, he had
already reached a position of high authority in the Paris branch of the
Union.4 Drawing upon his close friendship with the heir-apparent Prince
Murad, and his understanding of the fanciful political aspirations of
eastern Masonary, Scalieri devoted himself to the establishment of a new
Byzantine state. The new state was to unite Turks and Greeks under the

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 187

shadow of an enlightened Ottoman Sultan. Here is one contemporary

Greek account of Scalieri's role in these events:

...Scalieri won the trust and friendship of Murad Efendi, heir

apparent, because of his gentle character and their warm relations.

While in Istanbul, he [Scalieri] observed the ill-will and disunity

which were obstacles to the progress of these two nations [Greece
and Turkey]. Under the influence of Masonic ideology, he came to
believe that the cooperaton of these two peoples could bring an end
to the Eastern Question.

The cooperation and friendship of these two nations and the

realization of a new Byzantine state required immense efforts and a
candidate to embody this ideal. To this end, there was none more

suitable than Murad Efendi. He possessed a noble temperament,

was favorable to the idea of freedom, was capable of hard work,

and was ready to bestow freedom upon his people through the
Constitution. In addition to this, Murad had the quality of being a
Freemason. It was therefore not difficult for Scalieri to prepare the
prince for his ideas. Having obtained the authorization of the French
Obedience, Scalieri convened the notables of the lodge of Proodos
of which he was the president, and inducted Murad on 20 October
1872. Later, he introduced Prince Nureddin and other dignitaries of

Turkish society to this lodge. Earlier, on 14 May 1872, Scalieri

obtained the permission of the French Obedience of Proodos for the

publication of a Turkish pamphlet - a complement to two Greek
ones - which made clear his aims. Then, following a rebellion,

Murad Efendi, the nephew of Sultan Abdulaziz, ascended the

throne on 18 May 1876. Upon his accession, he took steps to

enact the Constitution and other related reforms. The preliminary

measures in the implementation of these policies were undertaken
by Scalieri who was assisted by our brother Francis L. Aimable then
a lawyer in Istanbul and later mayor of Paris, by our brother A.

Holinsk, a forner diplomat, by the forner Grand Vizir Midhat

Pasha, by S.G. Eliot then English ambassador in Istanbul, and by

our brother Malkum Iranian ambassador.
Furthermore, we had to contend with the reaction of the populace.
For this reason, it was necessary to teach the basics [of our program]
to a group which had influence over the population. But we also had
to win more adherents. With this in mind, Scalieri established under
the auspices of the French Obedience the Envar-i Sharkiye lodge
which conducted its affairs in Turkish. The lodge became famous
by virtue of its membership which included several distinguished
politicians and high ranking religious officials. From this nucleus the
faction of the Young Turks was boM.6
Other sources attest to the veracity of this account in an indirect fashion.
Hence we leam that 'first the Young Turks entertained good relations
with some Greek notables but then they began to apply their own
program ... .7 Such statements point to the fact that Scalieri's leadership

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

188

MIDDLE

EASTERN

STUDIES

gave shape to some of the early elements of the 'Young Turks' and 'the

Liberal Movement'.8

Scalieri's own letters corroborate this and give further details of his
efforts on behalf of Murad V and the role of the ulema and the softas
(students of religion) in these early phases.9
The activities of Scalieri and the Masons continued after the accession

of Murad on 30 May 1876. The committee created by Scalieri did its

utmost to save him from being ousted.10 But when it became clear that
Murad could not deal with the complex pressures of Palace and street
politics (on August 31 1876, he was declared mentally unfit to rule and was
deposed), Scalieri fled Istanbul. He was sped away from the turmoil of the
capital to Piraeus by an Italian ship rented by several of his Greek and
Italian Mason friends.11 In the course of a trial against him in Greece,
Scalieri revealed that the beleaguered Murad had tried to convince him to
return to Istanbul but he had refused the offer. The court record also
shows that while in Istanbul, Scalieri had maintained contacts with a
certain Ahmed Esad Efendi, a colonel who had once overseen the
publication of the joumal Teshvik in Greece. Esad Efendi, however, was
not a reliable supporter and in Murad's and Scalieri hour of need he did not
keep his word.

After this initial failure, Scalieri tumed his efforts for the next 15 years

to winning the support of European countries, especiallr England, for the

reinstatement of Murad V and his liberal program." This he did by

relaying personal messages to English officials through Masonic channels

in Istanbul."4 His work bore no fruit, however, and he died in 1891.
Other Masonic groups tried their hand at Ottoman politics and some of

them shared Scalieri's aspirations. One of these groups was led by

Stefanos Skuludis. Skuludis shared Scalieri's agenda for a new Byzantine

state but he believed that it was just as important to oppose the dangers of

Slavic imperialism. Skuludis never developed a network of contacts

comparable with that elaborated by Scalieri. 5 This is in part attributable

to the suspicions of the Hamidian regime which kept a careful eye on all

Masonic activities and took harsh measures to curb them.'6 The Freemasons became a special target of repression when Abdulhamid II got
wind of their efforts in Europe on behalf of Murad V. Eventually, the
government branded the Freemasons as 'a habitual source of sedition'.17
Govemment repression and scrutiny notwithstanding, in the mid 1890s
Greek Freemasons in Istanbul resumed their activities.'8 Again, let us
tum to a Greek account of these events:
At the beginning of 1894, after receiving special instruction, the son
of Scalieri and [others, notably] Igglesis, Kefallineos and Spanopulos
established an informally organized lodge. Again they took up the

idea of founding an Eastern state. Other members of 'the lodge,

Olimpios, Stamelos, Sulidis, and Gakkos decided on a plan in
conjunction with the Greek ambassador Mavrokordato, the French
ambassador Paul Cambon, and the English ambassador Philip

Currie.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 189

In Istanbul, through the agency of this informally organized

lodge, a reaction against the regime was co-ordinated. It entailed

reviving older Ottoman Constitution. The intervention of this lodge

saved the life of [deposed] Sultan Murad V when the threat of
execution hung over him and it further encouraged the nascent

Committee for Union and Progress. This loosely organized body

finally adopted the name 'The Light of the East' and chose Dr.
Balilis, the younger Scalieri then a joumalist, and two lawyers,
Messrs. Olimpios and Kefallineos as administrative officers.
In 1896, the actions of this lodge in Istanbul were coordinated with
those of the sister lodge in Athens."9

Although 1894 may have been the year of the foundation of this lodge, the
renewal of Freemason activities mentioned above can be traced to the end

of 1891. They are intimately connected with the surge of new publications
condemning Sultan Abdulhamid II. The first of these periodicals was La
Turquie Libre which appeared in London with little fanfare in late 1891.fI
The editor of this newspaper who angered the Ottoman government and
caused a flurry of investigations was Justin Marengo.2' Formerly Marengo
had been based in Paris but he was expelled by the French government on
the grounds that his activities endangered public order. Marengo insisted,
however, that he was deported at the behest of the Sultan. Marengo
remains an elusive character. Little is known of his background and
affiliations other than the indications given on the masthead of La
Turquie Libre. There, the periodical is described as an organ of Le Parti
constitutionel Ottoman. Yet, within the pages of this joumal we find a
number of interesting declarations printed on behalf of an organization
called Le Comitg Liberal Ottoman.23 As we shall see shortly below, this
Comite was none other than the cover name used by the Masons in their
political endeavors in Turkey.
What is particularly striking in the pages of Marengo's periodical is the
multitude of articles in support of Sultan Murad V.2 Furthermore, barely
a year after initiating publication, La Turquie Libre published the texts of
speeches in support of an exiled Ottoman prince which were delivered at a
Masonic gathering of the Grand Orient. The texts were accompanied by
the names of the speakers and their Masonic ranks.25 For unknown
reasons, La Turquie Libre soon afterwards ceased publication.
On the heels of La Turquie Libre's demise, a curious pamphlet
appeared in late 1893. The work entitled La Turquie sous Abd-ul-Hamid
claimed on its title page to have been rnnted in Istanbul by the presses of
the Committee of the Young Turks. It was the first such pamphlet to
mention this committee and it immediately attracted the attention of the
Ottoman Foreign Ministry officials stationed in Europe.27 Part of this was
a result of the notoriety of the text in Europe where the press had
commented on 'this interesting work by the Committee of Young Turks in
Istanbul'.28 Of particular note was the very different style this pamphlet
had from the later publications of the CUP and especially its more lenient
attitude towards relations with the Christian populations of the Empire.29

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

190

MIDDLE

EASTERN

STUDIES

In tandem with these events, was the issuing of a number of declarations

by Le Comite Libe'ral Ottoman. At this time no official Young Turk books

or periodicals had been published3 and the declarations of Le Comite

appeared in foreign language papers enjoying the reputations in the

westem press for being 'activist'.

Some two years later in the midst of political turmoil and unrest in
Istanbul, a declaration was posted trughout the capital on 25 November
1895.3' This action, attributed by the Westem press to the Young Turks,
was in fact the first overt propaganda ploy undertaken in the capital by Le

Comite Libgral Ottoman, or as it became known in Turkish, by the

Osmanli Hurriyetperveran Cemiyeti.32 As stated above, this Comite was

the political arm of the Freemasons in Istanbul.33

Still, Le Comitg acted as a completely separate organization from

the Freemasons and it continued to pursue its reform program and its

propaganda against the government policies which curbed freedom.3

More significantly, it printed a number of provocative declarations.35

It is important to emphasize at this moment that up until about 1895 the

Masonic lodges had operated in a largely clandestine fashion and had

avoided any direct link with groups confronting the government through
the press. In the period of the 1 880s and early 1 890s, only one man seems to

have provided a link between Young Turk groups and the Freemasons.
This was Ali Shefkati, member of the lodge overseen by Scalieri, and
editor of the newspaper, Istikbal, which he founded in Naples and began
to write entirely on his own as of 1881.36 All Bey's publication quickly
aroused the concem of the Palace37 and the Sultan's agents first tried to
intimidate Ali and then tried to mend relations with him.' But Ali
Shefkati's contacts in Europe were excellent, and he always found a way to
escape the net cast by the Palace as he continued his operations in various
European cities.39 His great mobility may be further explained by the
fact that his actions were subsidized by the former Khedive of Egypt,

Ismail.'
For all this, it is striking tfiat Ali Shefkati's paper never spoke of

its editor's links with the Freemasons. Indeed, when the paper resumed
publication in June 1895 after a failed reconciliation with the Palace,
it remained silent about these links.4' With the exception of Hurriyet,
it enjoyed almost uninterrupted publication. The fact that Ali Shefkati
was an important link for the Freemasons is confirmed by his relations
with Ahmed Riza. He met the latter in London a short while before
Ahmed Riza's paper, Mechveret, began publication in Paris as the
principal organ of the CUP.42 The friendship was short-lived for All
died soon after, and with him the link between the CUP and the Free-

masons.43
At this point, we should note that there is no evidence to support the
frequent assertion first made by Ramsaur4 that one of the founders of the

Ittihad-i Osmani Cemiyeti (founded in 1889 as a precursor of the CUP),

Ibrahim Temo, made contact with the Freemasons in Italy in 1888. The
preponderance of the evidence suggests that the Freemasons continued to
operate their own independent political organizations until 1902. This is

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 191

further corroborated by Ahmed Riza's refusal to accept an offer to join a

Masonic lodge in 1892 on the grounds that the beliefs of the Masons
conflicted with his well-known postivist tendencies.45
Until the Congress of Ottoman Liberals which was held in Paris in 1902,

Le Comitg Liberal Ottoman continued to draw the atention of the

European press, largely thanks to several high-level efforts to enlist
the help of the European powers. In particular, we should note their
petition of 1901 to King Edward VII, a long-standing Freemason, on

behalf of the former Sultan Murad V who was imprisoned in Yildiz Palace.

Second, they lodged a formal protest with La Ligue des Droits de

l'Homme. Finally, they addressed a letter to the French government. The

Ottoman govemment reacted swiftly to these appeals and advised the
King of England against any reply.' He compiled with the request of the
Porte and with this the most daring action of Le Comite Liberal Ottoman

ended.

After the Paris Congress of 1902, the overt political activities of the
Freemasons apparently came to an end. This was no doubt a relief for the
beleaguered regime of Abdulhamid II. But a closer examination of
the doings of the Freemasons plainly shows that their activities had
not ceased. In their place came new and subtler, and ultimately more
dangerous, connections. A new coalition had been fashioned in Paris by
the Ottoman Prince Sabahattin and his Albanian ally, Ismail Kemal Bey.
They took control of the newspaper Osmanli and declared themselves a
separate organization of Turks and Greeks who were intent upon seizing
power by a coup d'etat.47 By no coincidence, this group adopted the name
Osmanli Hurriyetperveran Cemiyeti.4' For official purposes, they took the
French name Le Comitg Central de la Ligue Ottomane,49 but later in their
dealings with French police authorities they called themselves Le Comite

Liberal Ottoman.' Their announced intention of carrying out a coup

d'etat and the support that they enjoyed among a number of Greek
notables and in certain British government circles, leads one to suspect
that Masonic influences had found their way into Prince Sabahattin's
organization. Still, the evidence to this effect is rather scanty. The only
direct evidence that we have are a few vague references in a speech given
by Prince Sabahattin several years later in 1908 at the Greek Masonic
lodge of Isiodos in which 'he praised the Masonic contributions to the
constitutionalist movement'.51 But since Sabahattin's ambitions for a
coup and the creation of a loosely federated Empire were ill-conceived, it
was not long before the CUP reasserted itself and took control of the

newspapers Osmanli. The name of Le Comite Liberal Ottoman was

quickly forgotton. But the CUP elements which assumed control of

Osmanli were only one segment of the Young Turk movement. Ahmed
Riza's faction was still the most important group and it bore a name similar

to that of the CUP, only with an apparent reversal of priorities. Its name

was Committee (or Association) for Progress and Union - Terraki ve

Ittihad Cemiyeti.

At a moment that they judged favorable, the Freemasons once again

made an overture to Ahmed Riza. In 1903, the French masonic journal,

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

192

MIDDLE

EASTERN

STUDIES

L'Acacia, published an article which hinted at the contacts being made

with Ahmed Riza:

Not willing to allow Constantinople to succumb and not wishing to

take it herself, it is in the interest of France to maintain the status
quo, that is the preservation of the Ottoman Empire. This is also in
the interest of England and Gernany. Furthermore, this excludes
the creation of rival independent states from the majority Christian
provinces of Turkish Europe that will be dominated by Russia....
But how is one to reconcile the disappearance of the outrageously
tyrannical govemment of a Sultan - after Abdul Hamid there could
well be one no better - with the preservation of the Ottoman
Empire? There seems to be a contradiction.

There is no contradiction says Mr. Ahmed Riza, head of the

Jeune Turquie movement who has taken refuge in a paper called
Mechveret. In his opinion and in that of the members of his faction
who are all prominent men, Christian and Muslim, Turkey can be,
without undue disruption, an honestly governed country, ruled by
just laws established by a national parliament of Christians and
Muslims. Not only can it be the case, but it has already been so for a
two-year period; from a legal standpoint, it is still the case for the
constitution of 1876 has not been abrogated but simply suspended by
a coup d'gtat. It is still mentioned on the first page of the govenmment

yearbook. The Ottoman Parliament was in session for two years in

Constantinople and it conducted itself with great wisdom. Arab

and Turkish members defended the interests of the Christian populations. According to this constitution, all Ottoman citizens - for
thanks to it they were just that - were equal without distinction of
religion or race and enjoyed the same rights and liberties and were

subject to the same legal obligations. This can again be the case,
since it [the Constitution] already proved itself during a two-year
period and was only brought to a halt by the arbitrary act of a
monarch who benefited from the state of turmoil created in the

Empire by the defeat of the Ottoman army.

Upon learning that Armenian organizations had also approached

Masonic groups to solicit their help, Ahmed Riza asserted the following:53

In an age when freedom of association and the right to free speech

did not prevail in Europe, the Masonic organizations performed a
great service by advancing the ideas of freedom and progress. Such
was their contribution that they hastened the coming of the French

Revolution.

Since these secret societies have lost their raison d'etre in the
independent countries [of Europe], a number of Masonic organizations have taken it upon themselves to intervene in political affairs
abroad. They have mobilized their energy to fight despotism
and repression all over the world. Abdulhamid understands the
importance of these Masonic groups and the respect that they have

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 193

for the oppressed former Sultan, Murad V. For this reason he

commissioned secret agents to make enquiries about the policies and
ideas of these organizations. But the Masonic groups were well
aware of Abdulhamid's spying endeavors and I trust that they will
take the necessary precautions to bring their undertakings to a good

end.54

It is doubtless impossible to maintain that a man like Ahmed Riza, who

had a special standing among the Young Turks and who had so staunchly
defended his postivist ideas, would suddenly abandon them to take up the
ideologies of the Freemasons. Nevertheless, there were in the Young

Turk circle round Ahmed Riza a number of prominent Freemasons. Chief

among these was Prince Mehmed Ali who had been in contact with

Ahmed Riza for some time and who during the 1906 'Reorganization' of
the Young Turks was given important duties. The Prince was a leader of

the Masons of Egypt and had been suspect in the eyes of the Sultan since

the mid 1890s.5 Also in this group was Talat Bey who had maintained

correspondence with Ahmed Riza from 1903. He became a member of the

lodge 'Macedonia Risorta' in July 1903.56
Throughout this period, the Masonic organizations continued to

support the Young Turks in their publications. The significance of this for
the Palace is illustrated in an incident of 1905. That year a Russian citizen
tried to enter the country with a copy of the banned newspaper Skrip:"
Despite being banned in the Ottoman Empire, Skrip did not change its
editorial stance. This comes as no surprise since the editor was the younger
Scalieri who was still stnrvin1 to draw the Freemasons together to create a
coherent political program. by 1906, Palace intelligence channels had
taken note of the increase in the number of Masons travelling to Istanbul

from Athens." In response to this new flurry of activity, the Palace

maintained constant contact with the Rumeli InsNectorship (mufettishlik)

to leam about Freemason activities in Salonica.
The Palace's suspicions were fueled by the fact the Osmanli Hurriyet

Cemiyeti which was founded in Salonica in 1906 (it later became Terakki
ve Ittihad Cemiyeti Dahili Merkez-i Umumisi - the Intemal headquarters
of the Committee of Progress and Union) had been organized into two
important Masonic lodges.

At this point, an important issue has to be touched on; the role that the
Freemasons began to play at this time in supplying the Young Turks with
safe houses were they could take cover from goveniment agents.61
Great differences still separated the Freemasons from the Young
Turks. The issue was raised in August 1908 when a Young Turk

sympathizer published a letter in the French newspaper Le Temps dissociating the Young Turks from the Freemasons on the grounds that the
nationalism of the Young Turks was irreconcilable with the what he

perceived as the Greek nationalistic aims of the Masons.' The Masons

seized the opportunity to declare themselves the main force behind the
July 1908 revolution, and the Greek Masons made the author retract his
comments."4 In spite of these differences, the fact remained that the

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

194

MIDDLE

EASTERN

STUDIES

Freemasons supported the Young Turks and were more than satisfied

with the reinstatement of constitution;' it was still clear to them that the
bulk of the populace, now fired by the emergence of Turkish nationalism,
would be unmoved by any idea of reviving a Byzantine state or by the
prospect of resolving the tensions between the different ethic groups in the
Empire. The Freemasons understood that their alliance with the Young
Turks had been based on mutual interest and that similar alliances had
been contracted with Armenian, Bulgarian and Albanian committees in
1907-08. The inescapable reality was that these different movements
were following divergent paths.

NOTES

1. The articles are: Elie Kedourie, 'Young Turks, Freemasons and Jews', Middle Eastern
Studies, Vol.7, No. 1 (1971), pp.89-104; Paul Dumont, 'La Turquie dans les archives
du Grand Orient de France: les loges maconniques d'Obedience franqais a Istanbul du
milieu du xixe si&le a la veille de la premi&re guerre mondiale', in Colloques
internationaux du CNRS, no.601 - economie et sociWhes dans l'Empire Ottoman,

pp. 171-202; Paul Dumont, 'La Franc-Maconnerie d'Ob&dience franqaise a Salonique

au debut du xxe si&le', Turcica 16 (1984), pp.65-94. There is one book: Ernest

Edmonson Ramsaur, The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908 (Princeton,
1957), pp.103-9. Kedourie's article focuses on the relations between Freemasonary
and the Committee of Union and Progress after the 1908 revolution. Dumont's first
article deals with the organization of the Hurriyet Cemiyeti (Freedom Society) which
became the Internal Organization of the Committee for Union and Progress after 1907
and its organization within the framework of Masonic lodges. Dumont's second article
discusses the activities of the Grand Orient de France in the Ottoman Empire. While

this article is rich in detail, its perspective is very different from the one presented here.

2. Mahmud Shevket Pasha Suikasti Iddianamesi, manuscript copy of the court proceedings, private collection, fl.30. Similar claims were also made in the European
press. See The Morning Post, 7 October 1911, 'The Young Turk Organization:

Committee's Waning Influence: Hostility to Jewish Freemasonry'; and The Morning

Post, 11 October 1911, 'Nationalism in Turkey: Salonica Committees Arms Jewish
Freemasons and Turkification'.

3. Ebuzziya, 'Farmonsonluk', in Mecmua-i Ebuzziya 100 (18 Cemaziy'ulahir 1329),

pp.681-2. See also: Tarik Zafer Tunaya, Turkiye'de Siyasal Partiler, Ikinci Meshrutiyet Donemi: 1908-1918 (Istanbul, 2nd ed. 1984), Vol. 1, various references throughout
the work.

4. Marinos Pollatos, Diakosia Elliniku Tektonismu (1740-1940), (Athens, 1952), pp.512.

5. Stefanos 1. Makrimihailos, 'Ipsigmata apo tin Drasin tu Elleniku Eflefterotektonismu

en Turkiya Kata Ton l9on Eona', Tektoniko Deltio 1(1954) 602-3. Thus Malkum
Khan, who played an important role in the activities of the Masonic lodges in the
Orient, claimed that the Young Turk movement emerged before the 1870s. See: Prince
Malcom Khan, 'L'Orient', La Revue de Paris 4 (February 1897), p.539. For the
popularity of the Freemasons among the Young Turks, See: Ahmed Riza,' Vari6t6s,
Mechveret, Supplnment FranVais 35 (15 May 1897), pp.6-7.

6. Pollatos, Elliniku Tektonismu, pp.52-53.

7. A.H. Hamadopulos, I Neotera Filiki Eteria: Agnosti selides tis Etnikis mas istorias
(Athens, 1946), p. 12.

8. For an excellant summary of his efforts, see: Constantin Svolopulos, 'L'initiation de

Mourad V a la Franc-Maqonnerie par Cl. Scalieri: aux origines du mouvement lib&al
en Turquie',' Balkan Studies (Thessaloniki) 21 (1980) pp.441-57. The author is the
grandson of Scalieri.

9. For details, see the Private Papers of Scalieri, private collection. The details are

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 195

contained in Scalieri's letter dated 17 June 1876 which begins 'Mon cher Ami'. For the
role of the ulema and softas in the revolt, see a letter addressed to Scalieri by Louis
[Aimable?] from Paris, dated 29 May 1876. I am indebted to Professor C. Svolopulos
for these references.

10. For details on his futile efforts to save the Sultan, see: Ismail Hakki Uzuncharshili,
'V Murad'i Tekrar Padishah Yapmak Isteyen K. Skaliyeri - Aziz Bey Komitesi',
Belleten 8 (1944), pp.245-325. See especially. pp.260-78. For his role in the political
opposition, see Tarik Zafer Tunaya, Turkiye'de Siyasi Partiler (Istanbul, 1952),
pp.100- 102.

11. Cleanthi Scalieri, 0 Sultanos Hamit i Ta Organa Aftu en Athines, (Athens, 1882), p.4.
12. Ibid^, pp.5-7.

13. Cleanthi Scalieri, Appel a la Justice Internationale des Grandes Puissances par Rapport
au Proces de Constantinople par suite de la Mort du Sultan Aziz, Adresse par Cleanthi
Scalieri au nom du Sultan Mourad accuse de Midhat Pacha et des autres Condamnes
(Athens, Imprimerie de l'Union, 1881), passim.

14. FO 195/1332, Scalieri to Goshen, British High Commissioner, June 1880, and another
letter dated 18 June 1880. Enclosed in the second letter is a copy of a letter from Sultan
Murad to Sultan Abdulhamid II.

15. This organization published the speeches and confidential correspondence of a

number of European statesmen concerning Russia's influence in the East. See, Les
Responsabilites (Istanbul, 1877). A Turkish edition translated by J. Jacometi also
exists, see: Mes'uliyet (Istanbul, 1294), passim..

16. For the Palace' investigation of the Freemasons and their activities, and the measures
taken against them see Bashbakanlik Arshivi (hereafter BBA)/Yildiz Muhtelife,
no.551, 1 S 1308/16 April 1890. The first document deals with the members in Syria. Cf.

BBA/Yildiz Perakende, no. 1476-1032, 5 Ra 1308/19 October 1890. See also the report
from the office of the vali of Syria, BBA/Yildiz Mutenevvi (Gunluk) Maruzat,
no.1476-551, 1 S 1308/16 April 1890.

17. This comment was used too describe the activities of the Freemason's lodge in Beirut.
See BBAlYildiz Mutenevvi (Gunluk) Maruzat, no. 400-2470, 23 Ca 1310/13 December
1892. For the government reaction to the Masonic activities in favor of Murad V, see:
BBAIYildiz Perakende, no.1695, Z 1310/June/July 1893. For the pressure applied to
the Freemasons, see: BBAlYildiz Perakende, no.930-3, 9 Sh 1307/31 March 1890. For
actions against the Freemasons in Beirut, see BBAlYildiz Esas Evraki, 36/2470/6/147/
XV1, Beyrut Vilayetile Muhaberata Mahsus Defter, no.27, Mehmed Kamil Bey to the
vali of Beirut, 2/7 Mart 1311/19 March 1895.
18. On the renewed activities of the Masons in the Beyoglu section of Istanbul, see the
comments of the Chief Secretary of the Sultan, Mehmed Sureyya Bey in a letter dated
18 Teshrin-i evvel 1310/31 October 1894. The letter is reproducted photographically in
Kan Demir, Zindan Hatirala 1848-1908: Bir Devrin siyasi ve Fikri Tarihi (Istanbul
1932), p.96.

19. Pollatos, Elliniku Tektonisimu, pp. 129-31.

20. For British police report on the activites and establishment of this newspaper, see FO
78/4463, report no, 180, dated 26 September 1892.

21. For a sample of the intelligence work spawned by the appearance of opposition

newspapers, and for information on their editors, see: BBAlYlSadaret Hususi Maruzat
under thefollowingdates: 5 Ca 1309, 23Ca 1309,27 C 1309,8 Z 1309,5 Sh 1310allin file
no. 1652. See also files no.1739, 16 Ca 1311; no.1750, 17 Ca 1311; no.1862,24 Ca 1311;

no.1977, 2 C 1311; no.1990, 3 C 1311; no.2057, 8 C 1311; no.63, 7 M 1313. BBA, Y/

Mlitenevvi (Gttnltik Martlzat), 11R 1310/no.359-2981. BBA-BEO/Zaptiye Giden,
663-21/13, 55-102, (8 May 1894), 56-103 (8 May 1984-secret), 44-807 (1 June 1894),

153-2804 (25 July 1894), 176-3653 (13 August 1894).

22. For Marengo's account of events, see 'Une expulsion turque en France', La Turquie
Libre, 27 January 1892, and 'Sur les bords du Bosphore', La Turquie Libre, 5 February
1892.

23. For a sample of these declarations, see Le Comit6 Lib&al Ottoman, 'Traduit du
Turque', La Turquie Libre, 20 July 1892 and 'L'Approche d'une solution', La Turquie
Libre, 17 August 1892.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

196

MIDDLE

EASTERN

STUDIES

24. See 'La dynastie Ottomane', La Turquie Libre, 1 January 1892; 'Les Osmanlis et Abdul-Hamid II, La Turquie Libre, 17 February and 18 March 1892; As concerns the
conspiracy revolving around Murad V, see 'Arrestations a Constantinople,' La
Turquie Libre, 5 February 1892.

25. See 'Mourad V et la Franc-Maronnerie', La Turquie Libre, 13 October 1892.

26. La Turquie sous Abd-ul-Hamid (Istanbul: Imprimerie du Comite de la Jeune Turquie,
1893).

27. See for example the reaction in Rome: Archives of the Turkish Embassy in Rome,
Records of the Ottoman Consulate in Livourno, Box 52 (1)/Consul in Livourno to
Ambassador in Rome, Mahmud Nedim Pasha, document no. 332-38, 28 Nov. 1893.
28. 'La Turquie et Abdul Hamid', L'Italie, 28 November 1893.
29. La Turquie sous Abd-ul-Hamid, especially pp.13-15.
30. The fact that this was the first book is attested to by the back cover of the work. Two
more books were said to be forthcoming: Comment On Ruine un Empire; De la Presse
Anglaise et Fran9aise le Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid.
31. See 'A Turkish Manifesto', The Times, 26 November 1985. Cf. 'Les Affaires de
Turquie', Le Temps, 19 November 1895 for a discussion of Le Comite.
32. FO 78/4623, Sir Philip Currie to the Marquis of Salisbury, 27 November 1985. The text
of the manifesto is included in the report. According to the manifesto, Le Comite was
founded in 1875.

33. As a matter of fact, in a petition which was sent to the King of England, Le Comite
identified itself as 'Les membres Franc-Masons du Comite Liberal Ottoman de
Constantinople.' See FO 78/5119, From L[ansdowne] to Sir N. O'Conor, conf[idential],
no. 107/8, 8 May 1901 (draft).

34. BBAlYildiz Perakende, report no. 1239, Za 1314/April 1897 and Le Temps, 25 May
1900.

35. One such manifesto is enclosed in a letter from Sir N. O'Conor to Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. See: FO 78/5060, O'Conor to Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 4
July 1900. For the attitude of the Young Turks to this manifesto and other activities

of this organization, see 'L'Intervention des ttrangers', Mechveret, Suppliment

Frangais, 1 December 1900; 'Respectons La Constitution', Mechveret, Supplement
Franqais, 15 July 1900.

36. On Shefkati's activities, see Kemal Salih Sel, 'Masonluk Aleminin Me?hur
Merhulleri', Mimar Sinan 18 (1975), 34-44.

37. For Palace information on the publication of Istikbal in Naples, see BBA-Y/Sadaret
Hususi Maruzat, no.76, 16 S 1297/29 January 1880.
38. For the implementation of both these strategies, see BBA-YISadaret Hususi Maruzat,
no.825, 4 L 1297/11 August 1880 and no.76 16 S 1297/29 January 1880.
39. For his activities in Geneva, see BBA-YlSadaret Hususi Maruzat, 24 Za 1297; 8 Za

1298; 12 R 1306; 14 Ra 1306; Df. his activities in Paris, BBAIIradelDahilivel72383, 26

Ca 1301.

40. For the subsidies paid by the former Khedive, see BBA-YISadaret Hususi Maruzat, 8 B
1298; 9 Sh 1298; 18 S 1301.

41. See 'Mukaddeme', Estikbal, 21 June 1895. By this time, the paper was published in
London.

42. For information on this meeting, see: Archives of the Turkish Embassy, London, Box
303 (3) Rustem Pasha to Turhan Pasha, letter no. 541/19824, 19 June 1895. See further
correspondence between the two, loc. cit., no.587/19893, 4 July 1895; no. 589/19895, 5

July, 1895; also coded telegram, no.612/19926, 10 July 1895. Also see BBA-YISadaret
Hususi Maruzat, no 52, 6 M 1313/29 June 1895.
43. BBA-Y/Sadaret Hususi Maruzat, no. 372, 17 Ra 1315/16 August 1897.
44. Ramsaur, The Young Turks, p.15 Df. Peter Bartl, Die albanischen Muslime zur Zeit
der Nationalen unabhdngingkeitsbewegung (1878-1912), Albanische forschungen 8

(Weisbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1968), 153; Hasan Kaleshi, 'Dr. Ibrahim Temo-der

Grunder des Jungturkischen Komitees Einheit und Fortschritt: ein Beitrag zur Erhel-

lung de Rolle der Albaner in der Jungturkischen Bewegung', Sud6st-Forschungen 35

(1976), 117. Temo does not say anything to corroborate this either. See his papers in the
Medical School of Istanbul University: Cerrah Pasha Tip Fakultesi Tip Tarihi ve

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

NOTES ON THE YOUNG TURKS AND THE FREEMASONS 197

Deontoltoji Arshivi. Df. The Albanian national Archives (Arkivi Qendror) 19/31/108110, his letter to Dr Karl Stlssheim.

45. Ahmed Riza's letter to the Masonic lodge in Paris. The Papers of Ahmed Riza, Private

Collection, letter dated 17 November 103 [1892]. Ahmed Riza uses the positivist

calendar in his correspondence.

46. For the appeal of the Freemasons to the king, see BBAlYildiz Easas Evraki, 1719521631
22. For the protest made to the Ligue des Droits de l'Hornme, see 'Protestation de la

Ligue des Droits de l'Homme: En Faveur du Sultan Mourad', 5/18 Mars 1901,
Mechveret, Supplbment Frangais, 1 May 1901; For the letter to the French Foreign
Ministry, see Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres/Nouvelle Sdrie (Turquie)13 (18991901), 270-71. for the instructions on Ottoman request to the King of England, see:
Archives of the Turkish Embassy, London, Box 362 (10), Antopulo Pasha to Tahsin
Bey, 13/26 April 1901. The American and European press got wind of these events, see:
'Turkish Masons to the King: An Appeal for Mourad V', The Daily Mail, 9 April 1901.
Cf. 'Abul's Imprisoned Brother: Turkish Freemasons Send an Appeal on Behalf of ExSultan Murad to King Edward VII', The New York Times, 9 April 1901.

47. 'Paris' de Osmanli Hurriyetperveran Kongresi', Osmanli, 16 April 1902.

48. Loc. cit.
49. Loc. ciL

50. Archives de la Prifecture de Police, Paris, (Sabahaddin et Loutfullah) no.B/a/1653

(171154), report of the Superintendent of the Paris Police, M. Leproust, 7 May 1902.
51. The minutes of the 12 September 1908 meeting of this lodge, Isiodos, no.49: Pentikontaetiris, (Athens, 1958), p.1.

52. 0. Pontet, 'La Franc-Maronnerie et la Question d'Orient', L'Acacia, 3 (February

1903), pp.203-7.

53. In 1894, the Armenian Committees had asked to make common cause with the Greek
Freemasons, but their suggestion was turned down. See BBA, Yildiz Esas Evraki, 36/
419/146/XV.

54. Ahmed Riza, 'Franmasonlar', Sura-yi Ummet, 29 April 1903/1 Safer 1321. p.3.
55. For the reports to the Sultan on Egyptian Freemasonry. see BBAlYildiz Perakende,
no. mukerrer 925/1, 3 B 1306 and no.1549, 1 Za 1318. Cf. BBA/BEOlMisir Hulasa
Defteri, (26) - 1040-68/12, report of Ahmed Muhtar Pasha, 220 (Dossier: 120) - 557/4
Sh 1315/29 December 1897. Also see 'Freemasonry in Egypt', The Crescent, XVIII,

454 (September 1901), p.203.

56. Pollatos, Ellinuku Tektonismu, p. 138.
57. For the paper's account of the event, see 'ke i Neoturki Zituu Sintagma', 28 October
1905.

58. Pollatos, Elliniky Tektonismu, 131-132. An important Young Turk, Reshid Bey, met
the son of Scalieri to discuss the possible use of the letters of Murad V for propaganda
purposes. Scalieri had an important collection of these letters. See Arkivi Qffndror, 19/
106-1/834/1853, undated letter from Reshid Bey to Ishak Sukuti [Paris?].

59. BBAlYildiz Perakende, no.2655/645-2858, 17 Z 1322/22 February 1905.

60. BBAlYildiz Esas Evraki, 30/1190/51/78 (I)- (II). reports from the Rumeli Inspectorship dated, 6 Teshrin-i Sani 1323 and 5 Teshrin-i Sani 1323.
61. For details, see T. Nadir [Haydar Rifat], Beyn-el-milel Ihtilal Firkalari (Istanbul:
Matbaa-i Osmaniye, 1326), p.6.

62. Le Temps, 20 August 1908. Cf. 'Temps Gazetesi Muhabirinin Rahmi Bey ile Mulakati', littihad ve Terakki, 9 August 1908/12 Receb 1326.

63. 0. Pontet, 'La Franc-Ma9onnerie de Turquie', L'Acacia 68-69 (September 1908),

pp. 135-8.

64. D. Margaritti, 'Du r6le de la Franc-Maqonnerie dans la Revolution de Turquie',

L'Acacia, 71 (November 1908), pp.321-322.

65. For the support and congratulations of the Greek Grand Orient leader A. Alexandro-

pulos, see 'Le Gouvernement constitutionel: La Franc-Maronnerie et S.M.I. Le

Sultan', Le Moniteur Ottoman, 11 August 1908; The Lodges 'Labor et Lux' in Salonica
and Socrates in Alexandria sent telegrams at the time of the proclamation of the
Constitution: see Takvim-Vekayi', 9 Kanun-i evvel, 1324; 10 Kanun-i evvel 1324; 29

Zilhicce 1326.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:07:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms