Tag Archives: Armeno-Turkish

Cross-Script Dynamics: Understanding Armeno-Turkish through Linguistic Ecology

Nevra Lischewski (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)

The Ottoman Empire was celebrated for its linguistic diversity, encapsulating a complex interplay of languages that shaped its sociolinguistic profile. Central to understanding this multilingualism is the phenomenon of Armeno-Turkish, which involved writing the Turkish language using the Armenian script. This phenomenon offers a unique vantage point for examining the intricate linguistic relationships within the empire through a contemporary linguistic lens. This essay intends to position Armeno-Turkish as a distinct linguistic phenomenon by harnessing various concepts, terms, and approaches from contemporary linguistic disciplines. I aim to construct a theoretical framework that not only situates Armeno-Turkish within its rightful linguistic context but also provides a nuanced interpretation of its development and function. At the heart of this endeavor are several key concepts and terms, among which the ‘Sociolinguistic Profile’ stands as our initial point of focus. This term, along with others selected from contemporary linguistic disciplines, will guide our exploration, offering a framework through which to analyze the complex interplay of languages in the Ottoman Empire. Through this lens, we will examine how Armeno-Turkish interacted with, influenced, and was shaped by the surrounding sociolinguistic environment, providing insights into its emergence as a unique tool for cross-cultural communication.

Building the Linguistic Framework

Armeno-Turkish is a linguistic construct suggests that it developed through a process of synthesis. Thus, a thorough linguistic analysis of this entity necessitates an examination of the broader linguistic milieu within which it is embedded, positioning it as an integral component of this environment.

For the linguistic analysis of Armeno-Turkish, I have selected the sociolinguistic term sociolinguistic profile to encapsulate the entirety of the context in which Armeno-Turkish is situated. The sociolinguistic profile furnishes detailed linguistic information about the various languages that coexisted during a specific period within a defined region, thereby elucidating key sociolinguistic dimensions of multilingual settings.[1] Given the multilingual nature of the Ottoman Empire, it is rationally justified to employ this term to gain insight into the complex dynamics and interactions among the various linguistic communities within the empire.

Constructing a sociolinguistic profile is a challenging endeavor. Despite the existence of various approaches and methods[2] to achieve this, I wish to discuss the approach I have pursued. My methodology progresses along three interrelated yet distinct trajectories. Initially, my research focused on the linguistic landscape, a term that encompasses the visible and audible presence of languages within various personal, social, and cultural spheres.[3] This involved examining past linguistic landscapes through the written expressions found on artefacts such as ceramics, bottles, boxes, banknotes, coins, manuscripts, printed materials, and inscriptions on tombstones and monuments. The written expressions on those artefacts not only illustrate the linguistic diversity of the Ottoman Empire but also underscore its recognized multilingualism. However, recognizing the Ottoman Empire as multilingual only begins to describe its complex societal dynamics. Multilingualism is not merely a descriptor but a dynamic force that shapes society in productive ways, exhibiting qualities beyond mere linguistic diversity.

To deepen the understanding of multilingualism, I have turned to the field of Linguistic Ecology, which examines the complex interactions between languages and their environments. Central to this ecological approach is the understanding of language as part of complex socio-historical-cultural systems, with different dimensions and levels interacting.[4] The interactions within a language’s social environment, including its varieties and coexisting languages, define and shape it, much like natural ecological systems are structured and defined by functional interconnections between their inhabitants and their respective environments.[5]

The emphasis that linguistic ecology places on the multifaceted and dynamic nature of language provides a holistic perspective for analyzing multilingualism. At this stage, I employ the term linguistic mediator, which I propose for the description of the strategies and behaviors of coping with the complexity of multilingualism.[6] Such linguistic mediators are being used in the sociolinguistic landscape to manage the communication between different language varieties or languages. Resulting from practical needs, they play a crucial role in the transfer of knowledge as well as in cultural and linguistic exchange.

In the following, I will present examples of different kinds of linguistic mediators within the sociolinguistic context of the Ottoman Empire.

Linguistic Mediators in Action within the Sociolinguistic Profile of the Ottoman Empire

Through the lens of linguistic ecology, the Ottoman Empire emerges as a dynamic backdrop where various linguistic components interact. In this multilingual context, Turkish served as both the vernacular and the native or second language for many within the speech community. It functioned as the language of wider communication, or lingua franca, predominantly used in the public sphere across large portions of the late Ottoman Empire.[7]

Turkish, as a common language or lingua franca, can be considered a linguistic mediator in both spoken and written forms, facilitating daily interactions among diverse linguistic communities. The primary function of a common language is to enable smooth and uncomplicated communication between different groups in contact situations.

The Turkish language journal Mecmua-i Havadis (Journal of Events), which was printed with Armenian Script, featured the advertisement of the Turkish novel Akabi Hikayesi [8] (The Story of Akabi (Figure 1))[9] in the middle of its last page: AKABİ HİKAYESİ Cümleye malum olan lisan-ı Türkçe’de latif bir hikaye, bahası 20 Guruş (STORY OF AKABI A pleasant story in Turkish as a common language for everybody.)” The announcement referred to the Turkish language as “…[C]ümleye malum olan lisan” (Language known to everybody).

Figure:1 Advertisement of the first Turkish novel Akabi Hikayesi

The fact that a novel by an Armenian author was written in Turkish using the Armenian Script, and the emphasis this received in advertisements, serves as evidence of the accessibility and comprehensibility of Turkish for all speech communities of the Ottoman Empire. This demonstrates how Turkish functioned effectively as a linguistic mediator, bridging diverse linguistic groups and facilitating cultural and linguistic exchange. Interestingly, the newspaper advertisement itself supports this argument, as it is written in Turkish but uses Armenian letters, published in a newspaper where the language is Turkish and the script is Armenian. The alignment of form and content in the advertisement not only underscores the widespread understanding of Turkish but also highlights the innovative linguistic processes at play. The primary function of a common language is to facilitate smooth and uncomplicated interaction between different groups in contact situations. Additionally, it serves as a catalyst for innovation, introducing new linguistic outcomes into the sociolinguistic profile through the contributions of various linguistic communities. In this context, such innovation occurs through multigraphization, which is the next example as a linguistic mediator. Multigraphization, also known as allography, is the simultaneous use of several writing systems for the same language.[10]

Next, I will explore the phenomenon of multigraphization in Turkish, a noteworthy result of interlingual interaction. Multigraphization, as a linguistic mediator, entails the use of multiple scripts for a single language. This practice emerged out of practical necessities and significantly contributed to the transfer of knowledge as well as cultural and linguistic exchanges among diverse groups. [11]  The extent of these exchanges varied, influenced by the differing levels of linguistic competence and contributions from various groups. Armenians, often bilingual, typically had greater familiarity with Turkish than Greeks, resulting in a higher prevalence and readership of Turkish texts in Armenian script compared to Turkish with Greek Script.

Nonetheless, all instances of multigraphization are equally important as linguistic mediators, regardless of the differences in Turkish proficiency and the volume of multigraphic production. Writing Turkish in Hebrew script, for instance, should also be regarded as a linguistic mediator. This practice emerged as a pragmatic solution to help the Jewish population of the empire learn Turkish more efficiently, thus ensuring effective communication among diverse linguistic communities.

Multigraphization facilitated cross-linguistic encounters and subsequently shaped the Ottoman Empire’s linguistic landscape. Evidence of this can be found in literary and scholarly works, newspapers, journals, and books. Initially, it might seem that multigraphization primarily benefited the groups who adapted their familiar scripts to the Turkish language. For example, the use of Armenian script for Turkish might appear to serve only Turkish-speaking Armenians. However, multigraphization proved to be a robust linguistic mediator, gradually increasing its influence across various linguistic groups. The interest in the multigraphic written corpus spurred the production of scholarly works and script guides, which functioned as additional linguistic mediators by introducing Turkish in different scripts to a broader audience. The subsequent examples will illustrate such linguistic mediators.

The guide ʿOs̱mānlıca Bilenlere Dört Günde Ermenīce Oḳumanıñ Uṣūlī [12] (The method of Reading Armenian in Four Days for Those who Know Ottoman), authored by a Muslim author, Ḥacı Beg Zāde Aḥmed Muḫtār in 1890, was designed to teach the Armenian Script (see, figure 2). Notably, this guide was written by a Muslim author, which challenges the assumption that the use of Armenian script for Turkish solely served Armenian speakers.

Figure 2: Title page of ʿOsmānlıca Bilenlere Dört Günde Ermenīce Oḳumanıñ Uṣūlī

In this work, the author developed seventeen practical rules to teach the Armenian Script, introducing its written symbols alongside the phonemes they represent and the corresponding Perso-Arabic symbols. This method was also applied in reverse; the Perso-Arabic script was described based on the phonetic features of the Armenian script system (see, Figure 3)[13]. The author illustrated both printed and handwritten forms of the Armenian script, demonstrating his proficiency with the phonetic systems of both languages.

Figure 3: Partial chart of Armenian script according to Ḥacı Beg Zāde Aḥmed Muḫtār

The title of this work and the introductory remarks reflect the author’s confidence in the ease of learning the Armenian script. He assures readers that with consistent practice, they could proficiently read Armenian letters within a few days, provided they follow the lessons sequentially: “… I assure you that if you are occupied with practicing that book as long as your schedule allows you, in a couple of days you will be able to read the Armenian letters very well. However, under the condition that you will do the lessons one after another …”[14]

Additionally, the author highlights the extensive range of printed materials available in Turkish using Armenian script and the interest these publications garnered among different groups: “This book can show the easiest way to read for the ones who wants to read the news- papers, illustrated weekly periodicals, novels and etc., which are in Turkish and written in Armenian script. However, this book can also be a guide for the one whose language is Armenian.”[15]

Furthermore, there are other instances of adopting different scripts for the languages of the Ottoman Empire. For example, a booklet from 1861 introduced the Kurdish language in Armenian Script and was published in Armenian and Kurdish with Armenian script. Several translations of the Bible and other books into Kurdish with Armenian script were printed in Istanbul between 1856 and 1911.[16] Writing one language in multiple scripts or writing texts using the script of another language was extremely common from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century.

The acceptance of different scripts in the public sphere significantly influenced the linguistic landscape. This is evidenced by multigraphic street signs, business cards, shop labels, operetta theatre posters, and tags for daily consumer products such as cigarettes, matchboxes, shoeboxes, medicine, marmalade, liquor and perfume bottles, toothpaste, and wrapping paper.

As we have explored the multifaceted linguistic practices and the role of linguistic mediators within the Ottoman Empire, it becomes evident that these dynamics were integral to the empire’s multilingual and multicultural fabric.

Final Reflections 

Utilizing linguistic ecology and various terminological concepts developed across linguistic fields, this research has aimed to decipher the complex linguistic interactions within the empire, with a particular emphasis on the phenomenon of Armeno-Turkish.

One significant finding from this analysis is the pivotal role of Turkish as both the major language and vernacular, fulfilling multiple functions including wider communication and official duties. The exploration of Turkish as a common language revealed a comprehensive, long-term process involving various societal segments. This dynamic development was not isolated but interconnected with the efforts of Armenians, Greeks, and Jews, who played a crucial role in the emergence of the written vernacular Turkish through multigraphization.

The practice of multigraphization, especially the use of Armenian script for writing Turkish, serves as a prominent example of linguistic mediation. This adaptation was not just a pragmatic response to communication needs but also a strategic effort to foster easier learning and integration among different linguistic communities, particularly highlighted by the widespread publication of materials like Mecmua-i Havadis. The utilization of Armenian script in Turkish publications underscores the integrative and inclusive nature of the Ottoman linguistic landscape, challenging the notion that such practices served only the Armenian community.

Furthermore, the presence of multigraphic elements in public spaces—from street signs to product labels—illustrates the societal acceptance and functional significance of multiple scripts, reflecting the dynamic interplay of languages and scripts across various domains. This acceptance facilitated not only linguistic but also cultural exchanges, contributing significantly to the sociolinguistic profile of the Empire.

Through the lens of linguistic ecology, this paper has examined the dynamic interactions between coexisting languages and their communities, conceptualized as cross-linguistic encounters. These interactions, often innovative and productive, have led to the development of “linguistic mediators.” These mediators, whether in the form of languages, scripts, or cultural artifacts, emerged from practical needs and significantly influenced the transfer of knowledge and cultural exchange within the empire.

In synthesizing these findings, the term “sociolinguistic profile” has been redefined to reflect a dynamic scene characterized by the constant interactions of languages and speakers, with Armeno-Turkish playing a central role. These interactions, facilitated by linguistic mediators, ensure that all components of the multilingual landscape remain vital and capable of generating new linguistic outcomes.

Ultimately, this paper not only highlights the complex nature of multilingualism in the Ottoman Empire but also emphasizes the transformative impact of Armeno-Turkish as a linguistic mediator. The insights gained here encourage a broader appreciation of multilingualism’s role in shaping dynamic and productive societal processes and offer a model for analyzing other multilingual settings.

Bibliography

Fasold, Ralph. “Naturalism and the Search for a Theory of Language Types and Functions.” in Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, ed. Ulrich Ammon (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1989), 107-21.

Ferguson, Charles A. “National Sociolinguistic Profile Formulas.” Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of UCLA Sociolinguistic Conference, (1964): 309-24.

Haarmann, Harald. “Language Planning: Graphization and the Development of Writing Systems,” in Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of Science of Language and Society, Vol. 3, eds. Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill (Berlin: Walter de Gruyder, 2006), 2402-20.

Hacı Bey Zade Ahmed Muhtar, ʿOs̱mānlıca Bilenlere Dört Günde Ermenīce Oḳumanıñ Uṣūli (İstanbul: Nişan Berberyan Matbaası, 1890).

Haugen, Einar, “The Ecology of Language,” in Ecolinguistic Reader: Language, Ecology andEnvironment, ed. Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2006), 55-106.

Landry, Rodrigue and Bourhis, Y. Richard. “Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 16, no.1 (1997): 23-49.

Lischewski, Nevra. From Multilingualism to Monolingualism: Sociolinguistic Profile and Language Planning in the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey (1850–1950) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2022).

Ludwig, Ralph, Pagel, Steve and Mühlhäusler, Peter. “Linguistic Ecology and Language Contact: Conceptual Evolution, Interrelatedness, and Parameters,” in Linguistic Ecology and Language Contact, eds. Ralph Ludwig, Steve Pagel, and Peter Mühlhäusler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 3–42.

Malmîsanij, Mehemed, Türkiye ve Suriye’de Kürtçe Kitap Yayımcılığının Dünü ve Bugünü, ed. Deniz Gündüz (İstanbul: Vate Yayınevi, 2006).

Shohamy, Elana. “Linguistic Landscape after a Decade: An Overview of Themes, Debates and Future Directions,” in Expanding the Linguistic Landscape: Linguistic Diversity, Multimodality and the Use of Space as a Semiotic Resource, eds. Martin Pütz and Neele Mundt, (Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2018), 25-37.

Stewart, William. “A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism,” in Readings in the Sociology of Language, ed. Joshua A. Fishman (Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1968), 531-45.

Tietze, Andreas, ed., Akabi Hikayesi: İlk Türkçe Roman (1851) (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1991).


[1] The foundational concepts of the sociolinguistic profile were first developed in the 1960s by William Steward and Charles Ferguson, who sought to systematically describe and classify languages within multilingual societies. Ferguson, “National Sociolinguistic Profile Formulas.”; Stewart, “A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism,”.

[2] The limitations inherent in developing generalizations concerning sociolinguistic profiles as well as representing and applying them to different cases are mentioned by Fasold, “Naturalism and the Search for a Theory of Language Types and Functions,” 109-110.

[3] For the development of the of linguistic landscape and its emerging as a interdisciplinary area, see Shohamy, Linguistic Landscape after a Decade: An Overview of Themes, Debates and Future Directions, 25-27.

[4] For the definition of the term „Linguistic Ecology “, see Haugen, “The Ecology of Language,” 325.

[5] An outline of the developments and various perspectives in the discussions on linguistic ecology is provided by Ludwig, Mühlhäusler, and Pagel, “Linguistic Ecology and Language Contact,” 1-19.

[6] A detailed definition of linguistic mediators, along with additional examples, can be found in Lischewski, N. From Multilingualism to Monolingualism, 53-69.

[7] I applied the categories and types from Ferguson to examine the status of Turkish, utilizing his framework for categorizing individual languages within linguistic diversity. Ferguson’s approach involves categorizing languages into distinct types to analyze their roles within a multilingual context. Ferguson, “National Sociolinguistic Profile Formulas”.

[8] Vartan Paşa (Osep Vartanian; Armenian: Վարդան փաշա, 1813–1879) was an Ottoman official, author, translator, and journalist of Catholic Armenian origin in the 19th century. He authored the first known novel-like text in Turkish, the novella “Akabi’s Story” (Akabi Hikayesi), published in 1851. Although written in Turkish, the text used Armenian letters and appeared in the newspaper Mecmua-i Havadis. For the novella, Tietze, Andreas, Akabi Hikayesi: İlk Türkçe Roman.

[9] Mecmua-i Havadis, no. 21, Februar 13, 1854, 4.

[10] The term multiple graphization is used and explained with examples by Haarmann, “Language Planning: Graphization and the Development of Writing Systems,” 2406.

[11] It is worth noting that the general principles regarding the development and function of multigraphization discussed here can also be applied to the use of the Greek script and Hebrew script for Turkish. Although there are some nuanced differences, the overarching sociohistorical dynamics, and pragmatic adaptations for literacy in diverse communities follow a similar pattern. For a detailed analysis, see Lischewski, From Multilingualism to Monolingualism, 26-37; 57-65.

[12] Ḥacı Beg Zāde Aḥmed Muḫtār, ʿOsmānlīca Bilenlere Dört Günde Ermenīce Oḳumanıñ Uṣūlī.

[13] Ibid, 3.

[14] Ibid, 1.

[15] Ibid, 1.

[16] Malmisanij, Türkiye ve Suriye’de Kürtçe Kitap Yayımcılığının Dünü ve Bugünü, 34.

Christoph von Schmid in the Ottoman Literary Landscape: Armeno-Turkish Translations and the Shaping of Christian Juvenile Literature

Hülya Çelik (Ruhr University Bochum) and Ani Sargsyan (University of Hamburg)

Introduction

Detailed comparative studies of the multidimensional nature of translations, particularly those in Armeno-Turkish, provide fresh perspectives on the diverse Ottoman literary landscape of the second half of the nineteenth century. This article draws on concepts such as “between two stools,” “Christian Turkish literature,” and “Turkish Kulturchristentum” (proposed by Johann Strauss and Laurent Mignon) to explore the transregional and inner-Ottoman translation trajectories of Armeno-Turkish literature. By examining two selected translations of Christoph von Schmid’s (1768-1854) works, this study explores the ecologies of translation, highlighting the significance of translation in the mobility and appropriation of ideas and texts.

A transimperial approach to translation and multilingualism broadens the scope beyond the dominant religious tradition of Islam and its “three languages” (elsine-i s̱elās̱e), as commonly emphasised in Ottoman studies. This approach enables a deeper exploration of the multireligious context within the Ottoman Empire and beyond, shedding light on common patterns regarding the significance of sacred languages across various religious communities. It examines the relationship between these sacred languages and vernaculars, the intricacies of translating between them, and the challenges of rendering religious texts into vernacular or foreign languages, printed forms, and different scripts.

Being “in-between” or “fallen between two stools,” Armeno-Turkish novels and other genres—translations as well as original works—have never found a place in Armenian or Turkish literary canons. However, the extensive presence of Armeno-Turkish printed material suggests this phenomenon was not extraordinary “exotic” for its time. Instead, it reflects the commonplace existence of cross-cultural contact zones in late Ottoman cities such as Istanbul, Smyrna/Izmir, Aleppo, and Jerusalem.[1]  This literature demonstrates the complex interplay of languages and broader cultural interactions within the late Ottoman period.[2] Building on Laurent Mignon’s insights, this paper seeks to uncover a shared cultural heritage, echoing Hrant Dink’s concept of ‘the common memory’ of the Turkish and Armenian people.[3]  By considering the concepts of Christian Turkish (Turco-Christian) literature[4] and “Turkish Kulturchristentum”,[5] and viewing Armeno-Turkish not merely as a dialect but as a functional style,[6] we highlight its role in the broader landscape of Ottoman multilingualism, examining its impact alongside Ottoman Turkish and Western Armenian literary works.

The flourishing of Armeno-Turkish literary production in the nineteenth century was significantly supported by Armenian printing houses in key Ottoman cities and the Mkhitarist printing houses in Europe (Vienna, San Lazzaro, Trieste). This network facilitated the dissemination of European literary works, including those by Christoph von Schmid, a prominent figure in eighteenth-century German literature known for his juvenile and devotional narratives (fromme Literatur). Schmid’s works resonated deeply across various Ottoman communities, emphasizing the broad appeal and cultural impact of Armeno-Turkish translations, which often preceded their Ottoman Turkish and Armenian versions.

This paper shows how these translations influenced Armeno-Turkish language and mixed cultural identities, revealing intricate translation practices and broader cultural implications. By analysing Christoph von Schmid’s works in translation, this paper aims to enhance our understanding of the complex web of translation, adaptation, and cultural transmission within the Ottoman Empire.

Genovefa – Genevieve – Yenoveva

The first and perhaps most cherished story examined in this context, which captivated both European readers and resonated within the Ottoman Empire, particularly among the Christian population, is Genovefa. This tale, based on the medieval legend of Genevieve of Brabant, was rewritten in German by Christoph von Schmid and first published in 1810.[7]

The narrative had a widespread popularity throughout the Ottoman realm.[8]  The story was evidently so well-loved that it was adapted into all three scripts—Greek, Armenian, and Arabic—used by Turkish-speaking and reading Ottomans of the time.[9]

The Armeno-Turkish translation of Yenoveva is attributed to an unknown translator, first published in 1855 and again in 1868 by the printing house of Ṙupen H. Kürkcyan in Istanbul.[10] Subsequent editions followed in 1890 and 1891, the latter printed by the Kavafyan printing house.[11] The preface (dibace) of the second edition, likely authored by Kürkcyan himself, hints at dissatisfaction regarding the delayed release, which took 13 years to produce 500 copies. Kürkcyan even adopts a tone of sarcasm, jesting that this second edition would probably endure until the end of his life, as expressed in the following passage:

…As it is the knowledge of the experts of reading [and] this story of ours had been printed once before and sold out …, Given that some enthusiasts have expressed a desire to read it, it has been deemed appropriate and fitting to print it again, this time without hesitation, in a neat and clean edition. However, we regret to say that while the first printing was in 1855, the second could only be done in 1868. That is, in exactly thirteen years, our little book could only be circulated with great difficulty in five hundred copies. And this time, it is beyond doubt that it will take just as long, meaning it can send us off to the other world. There is no doubt that the third printing will either be done by those who come after us, or we might do it upon our return […].[12]

The Karamanlidika version first appeared in 1854, translated by Evangelinos Misailidis and printed by the Anatoli publishing house, with a second edition printed between 1860 and 1870.[13] An Ottoman Turkish translation surfaced in 1868, attributed to Tatyos Dividjyan’s printing house and translated by Mehmed Memduh Paşa, the Minister of the Interior.[14] Some secondary sources mistakenly claimed that the original was written by Lamartine; however, this is incorrect.[15] Memduh Paşa’s translation was published only once, likely due to its “strange” and complicated Ottoman style of language.[16] Additionally, the story of Genevieve was also known to the Arab-reading public, likely translated from a French edition.[17]

The Armenian-speaking population also had access to this popular story. In 1849 (and subsequently in 1858, 1872, and 1900), the Mkhitarist Father of Venice, Vrtanes Buduryan, translated it into Armenian as History of Genovape, Duchess of Britain.[18] A rhymed Armenian version was translated into Armeno-Turkish by Mihran Arabacyan (d. 1898) in 1886 under his pen name Bidar, published by the Kavafyan printing house and entitled Ḳenovape nam Afıfe Ḳadının Hikyayei Ġaribesi, İngiltera Düşesalerınden.[19] Dikran-Haroutiun Dedeyan (1832-1868),[20] a prolific translator and publisher, likely translated the work from French into Armenian prose in 1861 (Dedeyan printing house, Smyrna), with subsequent editions in 1865 and 1876.[21] He noted that it was a free translation by himself. Further Armenian publications, possibly translated from French, appeared in 1895 by Gh. Martirosyan at the Civelegyan publishing house, in 1910 by Rogos Sakayan in Istanbul, and in 1953 by the G. Donigyan printing house in Beirut.

Die kleine Lautenspielerin   Aḳnes ve yaḫod ney çalan ḳızcıġaz

The second story by Christoph von Schmid that garnered significant acclaim and popularity among readers is Die kleine Lautenspielerin (The Little Lute Player).[22]Originally compiled as a play in 1832 and later adapted into a narrative form (Erzählung) in 1833, the story revolves around Countess Teoleninde and her daughter Adelinde. When Teoleninde’s husband, Adelbert, is called to war, the castle is conquered by Grimo von Harteck, who seeks to marry Teoleninde. Fleeing from Grimo’s advances, Teoleninde and Adelinde adopt new identities as Mathilde and Agnes. After enduring various hardships, Adelbert reunites with his wife and daughter, leading to a happy ending.

Interestingly, “Die kleine Lautenspielerin” to our knowledge does not appear to have been translated into Karamanlidika or Ottoman Turkish. The Armeno-Turkish version of the story, titled “Aḳnes or the Little Girl Playing the Reed Flute”(Aḳnes ve yaḫod ney çalan ḳızcıġaz) was printed in 1872 by the St. James Armenian Printing House in Jerusalem that was also advertised in the monthly Sion (Սիօն) (see illustration 1) published in Jerusalem on 30 April, 1872, under the heading “new publications”.[23]

Illustration 1: Aḳnes ve ya ney çalan ḳızcüġaz (Aḳnes or the Lute playing little girl) Translated from Armenian [and] written [by] Y. S. Kürkcianoff in Ayntap. The price is 4 piastres.

Translated by Y. S. Kürkcianoff from Ayntap (today’s Gaziantep), the Armeno-Turkish version lacks a preface. However, the cover pages of the first and second editions (1872 and 1885) include a dedication from Kürkcianoff, mentioning Patriarch Yesayi as a patron. He adds a note saying, “it is presented with the fatherly love from its translator to my friend’s offspring Lusia Adur Efendi Nizibliyan” (müterciminden pederane muhabbet ile ihta olunur dosd zadem Lusia Adur efendi Nizibliyane).[24] Apart from stating that he “translated from Armenian,” Kürkcianoff does not mention the intermediary Armenian translator, who must have been Lusi Balasanyan. Balasanyan translated Schmid’s story from a French version into Armenian in 1866 at the Dedeyan printing house in Smyrna, dedicating it to her cousin Levon Kr. Efendi Margosyan.[25]

Although the Armeno-Turkish translation of Aḳnes lacks a preface, the genre and subtitles of both the original and translated versions provide insights into the intended audience. The threefold edition, produced at the St. James Armenian Printing House and patronized by Patriarch Yesayi (sed. 1865-1885), suggests an audience connected to the Armenian Church in Jerusalem. The original was first written as a play and then rewritten as a story, both intended for a female audience, while the Armenian and Armeno-Turkish translations are based on the story version. It is plausible that the book was read in schools, such as the first female school (Սրբոց Գայանյանց/ Saint Gayane) established in 1862 in Jerusalem, which operated until 1927.[26] All the versions of Schmid’s The Little Lute-Player —the German original, as well as the French, Armenian, and Armeno-Turkish translations— end with the same quote. The Armeno-Turkish translation even begins and ends with this quote, noting that it is from the “Holy Book” (Aziz Kitab), specifically the fourth of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12).[27]

Intercultural transmission

Armeno-Turkish translations exhibit characteristics of “tradaptations,” indicating that they are not mere word-for-word translations but rather transpositions and localizations, or subcultures of translation.[28] Unlike original Armeno-Turkish literary works, which often engage in intercommunal debates on religion, society, or modernism, juvenile and devotional literature serves as a platform for presenting role models, particularly pious and chaste women. Furthermore, Armeno-Turkish translators, such as in the case of Aḳnes, frequently replace the names of original religious festivals and terms with Armenian equivalents. This incorporation of Armenian concepts is influenced by the Armenian ‘source’ text available to Y. S. Kürkcianoff, as well as by the intention of the translator and clergy patron to preserve and disseminate Armenian terms familiar to Turkophone Armenian readers. For example, terms such as seġan (altar), S. Haġordutün (Holy Communion), Badaraḳ (the Mass), S. Caşag (Holy Communion), Tsnund (Christmas), cḳnavor (anchorite), uḫdavor (pilgrim), and giragi (Sunday) appear in Armenian and are not translated into Turkish.

A comparison of the texts may provide insights into the source text of the different translations. In the case of Genevieve’s translation versions, variations in the interpretation of names, such as Genevieve’s son, are evident. The use of the name Benon in the Armeno-Turkish translation suggests that it may have been derived from the French translation or that the translator was familiar with both German and French texts. Conversely, the Armenian translation directly translates the German name Schmerzenreich as Ցավակ (Ts’avag), while the Armeno-Turkish translation retains the name Benon from the French translation without translating the meaning of Schmerzenreich into Turkish.

Another notable difference can be observed in a passage describing the shepherds’ hospitality in Aḳnes, indicating that the Armenian and Armeno-Turkish translators not only translated but localized the text by incorporating local traditions and familiar dishes. While the original portrays the shepherd’s hospitality as ideal, the Armenian and Armeno-Turkish translations emphasise traditional Armenian hospitality (nakhaharts’ and Nahabedagan). The tradaptation goes so far that the German Gemsfleisch, famous in the Alps, is translated into (geyik etinden) ‘pastırma’, a common dish in Turkey and Transcaucasia. The translator adapted the title of the story by changing the lute to a reed and translated ‘Gemsfleisch’ (today Gämsefleisch) through the intermediate French term ‘chamois salé’ and the Armenian translation ‘քարայծի աղած միս’ (salted chamois, wild-goat meat) into the Turkish expression ‘geyik etinden pastırma’. This adaptation was likely intended to present the readership with a familiar process of meat production, even though the meat itself (chamois, which in Turkish would be ‘dağ keçisi’) is not the same as
‘geyik eti’ (venison).[29]

Reception

The Armeno-Turkish translations share a commonality in their number of editions, indicating demand and a certain readership. Yenoveva was edited more than twice between 1855 and 1891, and Aḳnes between 1872 and 1912. The prefaces of these translated works provide valuable insights into their reception. The original intended readership for Yenoveva appears to have been children and mothers, as indicated by the subtitle, “One of the most beautiful and touching stories of antiquity, retold for all good people, especially for mothers and children.” Conversely, the Armeno-Turkish subtitle describes the story as “the beautiful story characterized by laudable moral qualities [and] therefore exemplary for women.”[30] The subtitle of Yenoveva explicitly names women as the audience. In the preface, the printer/publisher underscores this intention, suggesting a degree of warning for female readers:

[…] And although this story is for every class of people, it is especially intended for the women of our nation. Now, as half of them are eager to read, and because those who read our story may find it pleasing and, more importantly, take some lessons from it, the price has been reduced by five ġuruş to make it more affordable. Therefore, compared to its previous price, it will now be sold for ten ġuruş.[31]

The explicit reference to women readers, noting that “now half of them are desiring to read,” can be interpreted from both economic and socio-cultural perspectives. Economically, it suggests a strategy to increase sales by tapping into a growing market of female readers. Socio-culturally, it highlights the evolving interest of women in education and literature, reflecting broader changes in society regarding women’s roles and rights. This statement aligns with the development of feminist ideas and women’s rights debates within the Ottoman Empire. However, the plot itself focuses not on feminist themes but rather on ideals of feminine chastity and virtue.

In contrast to Yenoveva or Genovefa, Aḳnes or The Little Lute-Player features a young girl as one of its two main female protagonists. Schmid’s subtitles indicate a special readership, “children and friends of children,” but the translations, especially the Armeno-Turkish one, likely also targeted older female readers. This is suggested by the prominent role of Matilda (Teoleninda), Aḳnes’ (Adelinde’s) mother. Matilda is a dominant character whose emotional condition is frequently highlighted by the narrator, while Aḳnes is depicted as a brave, obedient girl. Matilda’s resistance to an evil tyrant and her efforts to live in honour likely broadened the story’s appeal, attracting a wider readership than just children and their friends. In addition to promoting Christian virtues and good attitudes, publishers aimed to sell popular stories translated from Western languages into Armenian and Armeno-Turkish. The continued printing of the Armenian version until 1953 (Beirut) suggests the story maintained its popularity among Armenian readers for a long period.

Conclusions

These translations are not mere replicas of their originals but are nuanced “tradaptations” that incorporate local traditions and linguistic elements, highlighting the rich interplay between different cultural and religious communities within the Ottoman Empire.

The popularity of Genovefa and Die kleine Lautenspielerin across various scripts and languages indicates the widespread appeal and cultural resonance of these stories. The involvement of Armenian printing houses and the adaptation of these works into Armenian and Armeno-Turkish versions suggests a vibrant literary culture that transcended linguistic and religious boundaries. The targeted readership of these translations, particularly women and children, reflects broader socio-cultural trends, including the growing interest in education and the changing roles of women in society. The adaptation strategies employed by translators like Y. S. Kürkcianoff, who localised the texts by incorporating familiar Armenian terms and traditions, illustrate the translators’ efforts to make these stories accessible and relevant to their audiences. Examining the reception and impact of these translations makes it evident that Armeno-Turkish literature played a significant role in shaping the literary and cultural milieu of the late Ottoman period. The continued popularity and multiple editions of these works attest to their enduring influence and the important role of translation in cultural exchange and preservation.


[1] Sebouh D. Aslanian, ““Prepared in the language of the Hagarites:” Abbot Mkhitar’s 1727 Armeno-Turkish Grammar of Modern Western Armenian,” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 25 (2016): 54-86.

[2] See Murat Cankara, “Armeno-Turkish Writing and the Question of Hybridity,” in An Armenian Mediterranean: Words and Worlds in Motion, ed. Kathryn Babayan and Michael Pifer (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 173-191; Aram Ghoogasian, “The problem with hybridity: a critique of Armeno-Turkish Studies,” Middle Eastern Literatures, 25:1 (2022): 39-56.

[3] Laurent Mignon, “Lost in Transliteration: a few remarks on the Armeno-Turkish novel and Turkish Literary Historiography,” in Between Religion and Language, Turkish-Speaking Christians, Jews and Greek-Speaking Muslims and Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, ed. Evangelia Balta and Mehmet Ölmez (Istanbul: Eren, 2011), 111-23, here 123.

[4] Johann Strauss, “Is Karamanli Literature part of a “Christian-Turkish (Turco-Christian) Literature?,” in Cries and Whispers in Karamanlidika Books, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Karamanlidika Studies (Nicosia, 11-13 September 2008), ed. Evangelia Balta and Matthias Kappler, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 155-200, 155.

[5] Laurent Mignon, Uncoupling Language and Religion. An Exploration into the Margins of Turkish Literature (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2021), 69-70.

[6] Armin Hetzer, Dačkerēn-Texte: Eine Chrestomathie aus Armenierdrucken des 19. Jahrhunderts in türkischer Sprache (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987), 58.

[7] Hans Pörnbacher, ed., Christoph von Schmid. Genovefa. Eine der schönsten und rührendsten Geschichten des Alterthums neuerzählt für alle guten Menschen (Weißenhorn: Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 2018), see especially the epilogue by Pörnbacher, 173-203.

[8] See Günil Özlem Ayaydın Cebe, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Toplumu ve Basılı Türkçe Edebiyat- Etkileşimler, Değişimler, Çeşitlilik” (PhD diss., Ankara: Bilkent University, 2009), 249.

[9] The Karamanlidika version of Yenovefa was also subject to a Phd thesis conducted by Perihan Kaya, “Karamanlı Türkçesi üzerine dil çalışması: “Yenovefa hikayesi” (çeviri yazı-dil incelemesi-dizin),” (PhD diss., Ankara: Hacettepe University, 2016). 

[10] Teotig. Baskı ve Harf. Ermeni Matbaacılık Tarihi, [Çeviri: Sirvart Malhasyan, Arlet İncidüzen] (Istanbul, Birzamanlar Yayıncılık, 2012), 112-14.

[11] It is possible that the Armeno-Turkish version was translated from the Greek/Karamanlidika version of 1854 that in its turn was translated from the French version. For Hovsep Kafavyan and his printing house, see Teotig. Baskı ve Harf, 118-21.

[12] Yenoveva Yani Ahlaḳı Hamideyle Mevsuf Lihaza Nisa Taifesine İbretnüma Olmaya Maḫsus Hikyayeyi Nefise, Asitane [Istanbul]: Ṙupen H. Kürkcyan tabḫanesinde,1868, 3. For a digitized version available at the National Library of Armenia see https://haygirk.nla.am/upload/1512-1940/1851-1900/eenoveva_1868.pdf.

[13] See Ayaydın Cebe, “19. Yüzyılda Osmanlı Toplumu ve Basılı Türkçe Edebiyat,” 249; cf. Kaya, “Karamanlı Türkçesi üzerine dil çalışması,” 34-36.

[14] There is a digitized version available at the İBB Atatürk Kitaplığı under the title Tercüme-i hikaye-i Jöneviyo / Cristoph von Schmid, mütercimi Memduh Paşa.

[15] Günil Özlem Ayaydın Cebe, “To Translate or Not to Translate? 19th Century Ottoman Communities and Fiction,” Die Welt des Islams 56 (2016): 187-222, here 202 referring to Johann Strauss, “Who read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th centuries)?”, Middle Eastern Literatures, 6:1 (2003): 39-76, 75 and suggesting that “The mistake probably results from a similarity of name.” For Memduh Paşa see Zekeriya Kurşun, “Mehmed Memduh Paşa,” in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi 28 (2003), 495-97 (https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/mehmed-memduh-pasa).

[16] Although we were not able to compare the Armeno-Turkish and the Ottoman version as a whole yet, comparisons of certain parts let us conclude that the Armeno-Turkish version is written in a much clearer “Turkish”, not containing as much complicate structures or izafets as the Ottoman Turkish version of Memduh Paşa.

[17] Strauss, “Who read What in the Ottoman Empire (19th-20th centuries)?,” 63.

[18] The original Armenian title of the translated story was “Պատմութիւն Գենովափէի, դքսուհիոյն Բրիտանիոյ” The digitised version of the work is available at the National Library of Armenia https://haygirk.nla.am/upload/1512-1940/1801-1850/patmutyun_genovapei1849.pdf.

[19] Ardashes Kardashian, Matenagitutʻiwn Hayataṛ Ōtar Lezwov Tpagir Girkʻeru) [Bibliography of Armenian print foreign books.] (Paris: Ṛubēn Sewak” Mshakutʻayin Himnarki, 1987), 150; cf. Sabri Koz, “Bîdârî”, Dünden Bugüne İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, vol. 2․ (Istanbul: Ana Basım AŞ, 1994): 227-28. For Mihran Arabacyan (or Mihran Bidar Arabacyan) see Murat Canka, “İmparatorluk ve Roman: Ermeni harfli Türkçe romanları Osmanlı/Türk edebiyat tarihyazımında konumlandırmak” (PhD diss., Ankara: İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi, 2011), 242-46; numerous works of Arabacyan are digitized and available at the National Library of Armenia.

[20] Dikran- Haroutiun Dedeyan’s printing house, established in Smyrna, played a big role in expansion of translated secular literature in Armenian starting from 1853 until 1884 publishing 63 literary translations. See more on the Dedeyan publishing house and translations and collaborations between publishing house and translators, Jennifer Manoukian, “Literary translation and the expansion of the Ottoman Armenian Reading Public, 1853-1884,” Book History 25, 1 (2022): 128-71; Jennifer Manoukian, “The Dedeyan Publishing House of Smyrna, 1853-1892,” https://www.houshamadyan.org/mapottomanempire/vilayet-of-aydinizmir/literature/printing.html.

[21] The third publication before 1876 is unknown and we had no access to it so far. See  Manoukian, “The Dedeyan Publishing House of Smyrna, 1853-1892.” For a digitized version of the Armenian translation available at the National Library of Armenia see https://haygirk.nla.am/upload/1512-1940/1851-1900/agnes1866.pdf; an Armeno-Turkish version is available as well, see https://haygirk.nla.am/upload/1512-1940/1851-1900/agnes_ve1872.pdf.

[22] Die kleine Lautenspielerin. Eine Erzählung für Kinder und Kinderfreunde nach dem Schauspiele gleichen Namens von Christoph von Schmid, Verfasser der Ostereier. Neue illustrierte Originalauflage. Mit Stahlstich und feinen Holzschnittbildern. Regensburg: Verlagsanstalt vorm. G. J. Manz, n. d..

[23] See Sion 4 (1872, April 30), 96. We know of at least three Armeno-Turkish prints. After the first print of 1872 followed a second print in 1885, and a third print in 1912. The Armeno-Turkish translation of Aḳnes was studied recently by Berna Sert, “19. yüzyıla ait Ermeni harfli Türkçe Agnes veya ney çalan Kızcığaz hikayesi (çeviriyazı, aktarma, inceleme, gramatikal dizin, tıpkıbasım),” (MA thesis, Ordu University, 2021).

[24] See Aḳnes ve yaḫod ney çalan ḳızcıġaz, Ermeniceden tercime eyledi Antebli Y. S. Kürkcianoff (Ḳuds Şerif [Jerusalem]: Mar Yaḳub manastırın basmahanesinde, 1872), 3. So far, we have no further information about the named person to whom the print is dedicated but we can assume that she was one of the sponsors of the St. James printing house.

[25] Manoukian, “Literary translation and the expansion of the Ottoman Armenian Reading Public, 1853-1884,” fn. 136.

[26] Maghakʻia Ormanyan, Haygagan Erusaghem [Armenian Jerusalem], (Jerusalem: St. Jakob, 1931), 86-87.

[27] “Honor your father and your mother, so that you will have a long life and you will grow with prosperity on the Earth. Holy Book”.

[28] For translation as a lingua franca and a “mode of worlding the local” see Marilyn Booth, “Introduction: Translation as Lateral Cosmopolitanism in the Ottoman Universe,” in Marilyn Booth (ed.), Migrating Texts. Circulating Translations around the Ottoman Mediterranean (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019), 1-54, here 42-44.

[29] For the French version we used Oeuvres du Chanoine Christophe Schmid. I. Agnès ou la petite joueuse de luth. Leipsic: Théodore Thomas, 1848. This print is available at https://sammlungen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/benjamin/content/titleinfo/12069372 (digitized by Universitätsbibliothek J.C. Senckenberg Frankfurt am Main).

[30] Yani Ahlaḳı Hamideyle Mevsuf Lihaza Nisa Taifesine İbretnümaOlmaya Maḫsus Hikyayeyi Nefise.

[31] Yenoveva Yani Ahlaḳı Hamideyle Mevsuf Lihaza Nisa Taifesine İbretnüma Olmaya Maḫsus Hikyayeyi Nefise, (Asitane[Istanbul]: Ṙupen H. Kürkcyan tabḫanesinde, 1868), 3-4․