This thesis is about debates over the nature of Ottoman society, particularly in its classical Age of the 14th-16th centuries. The idea that it was not feudal has constituted the ruling paradigm in Turkish historiography since the late 1930s. From the second half of the 1960s onwards, that proposition has come to be shared by theorists of the "Asiatic mode of production". This verdict involve, arguing from a model of (European) feudalism that had its heyday in the 19th century, but still continues to exercise some influence over western historians' minds. The study of Turkish historiography therefore opens up to the study of the development of medieval history in general, with both dimensions axed on the question of our notions of feudalism and feudal society. In chapter I, the basic features of the Ottoman timar system, which lies at the heart of the controversy, are presented, followed by a summary of the literature that favours the feudalism view. Chapters II and III deal with the rise and subsequent crisis of 20th century Turkish nationalist historiography, concentrating on the works and ideas of Fuat Koprulu, Omer Lutfi Barkan and Halil 1nalclk. AMP theory is dealt with in Chapter IV. Chapter V reviews the recent developments in western medieval history that, it is argued, have rendered the notion of feudalism utilised by the proponents of the Ottoman non-feudalism thesis obsolete. The thesis concludes with a sketch of the specificities of Ottoman feudalism in comparative perspective.

No description available.

The Selīmnāme of Celālzāde Muṣṭafā Çelebi is a history of the early career and the reign (1512-20) of the Ottoman Sultan Selīm I. The part which forms the subject of the present edition and translation covers the early career of Selīm, up to his accession to the Ottoman throne, and concentrates particularly on the troubled state of Anatolia during the latter part of the reign of Selīm's father, Bāyezīd II, and on the events which led to Selīm's acquiring the Sultanate in the face of strong competition from his brother Aḥmed. Celālzāde Muṣṭafā had entered the service of the Ottoman government halfway through Selīm's reign, in 1516, as a scribe of the Imperial Dīvān. Under Selīm's son and successor, Süleymān, he was promoted, first to the office of Re'īs ül-Küttāb (1525) and then to that of Nişānci (1534), which he held, with great distinction, for twenty-three years. The Selīmnāme was written sometime between 1557 and 1566, during the period of his retirement. In explaining his reason for writing the book, Celālzāde asserts that none of the accounts of Selīm's reign which have so far been written, reflect the true facts, because they were written by uninformed people. He himself claims to have gained his knowledge from reliable people (including Pirī Pasha, Grand Vizier during the last two years of Selīm's reign, whom he served as private secretary). He also implies that his position as Nişānci, by giving him access to documents relating to the period, has made him especially well qualified to set the record straight. The Selīmnāme has not been published, but survives in six manuscript copies, which are located in Istanbul, Dresden, London and Manchester. The critical edition nere presented is based on a full collation of the relevant sections of all these manuscripts, which has yielded sufficient evidence regarding the inter-relationship of them to make possible the postulation of a stemma codicum. Descriptions of the manuscripts, and a discussion of the main patterns of variation between them, are included in the introduction to this thesis. The notes accompanying the translation are intended primarily as a commentary on the text itself, and include a considerable element of discussion of linguistic and semantic problems. The significance of historical terns occurring, and the identity of persons mentioned in the text are also made the subject of notes.

En partant de l’idée que la France a été pour les Turcs une terre de refuge, de découverte, d’apprentissage mais aussi d’inspiration, nous nous sommes interrogés pour chercher à déterminer à quoi ils ont pu s’initier et s’intéresser dans ce pays en fonction des différentes périodes. Il est établi qu’entre 1830-1856, la France était un pays de formation militaire pour les Ottomans. Par la suite, elle devient un modèle d’administration pour les réformateurs des Tanzimat, pendant que les exilés commencent à en faire une tribune de libre expression. Il semblerait donc suivant les périodes, que la France ait eu une résonance politique, artistique ou culturelle auprès des Turcs. Il se dessine, a priori, une première période (1880-1914) où la France se présente davantage comme un laboratoire politique. Durant la seconde période (1925-1980), la France semble davantage se profiler comme un terrain artistique grâce à la présence et à l’influence des écrivains et surtout des peintres. / Starting from the idea that France was for the Turks a land of refuge , discovery , learning and also inspiration, we asked to try to determine what they were able to initiate and s' interest in this country according to the different periods. It is established that between 1830-1856 , France was a country of military training for the Ottomans. Thereafter, it becomes a model for the administration of Tanzimat reformers , while the exiles began to make a forum for free expression. This suggests the following periods , as France has been a political, artistic or cultural resonance with the Turks . It draws a priori an initial period (1880-1914) when France is presented more as a political laboratory. During the second period (1925-1980) , France seems more itself as an artistic field due to the presence and influence of writers and especially painters.

L’examen de l’espace militant en Turquie à travers quatre mouvements contestataires sur la base du genre, de l’orientation sexuelle ou de l’appartenance ethnique, montre que les contextes conflictuels et repressifs peuvent créer les possibilités d’émergence de nouveaux mouvements contestataires et leur convergence. Ces mouvements, malgré leurs divergences, interdépendants dans la complexité de leurs dynamiques, se rejoignent dans le même cycle de contestation, germé dans les années 1980, maturé et émergé autour de 1990, qui devient l’acteur de la déconstruction d’un monopole idéologique, organisationnel et politique dans l’espace militant. L’interdépendance de ces mouvements, avec de multiples facteurs, favorise leurs convergences et leurs interactions qui dépendent aussi de leurs lignes de fractures et de dissociation, relatifs à la structuration interne des rapports sociaux, à leurs diverses modalités de hiérarchies organisationnelles. Ces conflits créent des freins aux innovations des organisations mais grâce au maintien de leurs alliances, ils provoquent des transformations par des luttes internes et renforcent les rapprochements des communautés autour de ces mouvements. Dans la complexité de ce processus entre interdépendances, tensions et influences réciproques, le nouveau cycle de contestation naît comme une pluralité de relations, à partir des années 2010, dans un espace intermédiaire où les concepts et les répertoires, les idées, les expériences voyagent. / This study of Turkish activism, focussing on four protest mouvements based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity, shows that a repressive context can actually open up possibilities for the emergence of new protest mouvements as well as for their coalescences. Despite their differences, these movements are still interdependent in their dynamics and complexity, and belong to the same cycle of contention, which was born in the eighties and matured in the nineties when it became a powerful agent in the deconstruction of the ideological, organizational, and political monopoly of the militant space. The interdependenceof these mouvements, based on several factors, promotes their convergence and their interactions, which also depend on their cleavages, relative to the internal structure of social relations and to various forms of their organizational hierarchies. These conflicts are slowing down renewal and the innovation process within these organisations. Thanks to the sustained alliances, though, they cause internal disputes that bring transformation and reinforce the concord of communities around these mouvements. From the complexities of this process between interdependence, tensions and mutual influences, a new cycle of contention arises in 2010, in the form of a multiplicity of relations within an intermediate space where concepts, repertoires, ideas and experiences are in mouvement.

La Turquie est membre du Conseil de l’Europe (COE) depuis 1949. Ainsi, elle fait partie intégrante de l’histoire de la construction démocratique de l'Europe. Cette thèse fait une histoire quasi exhaustive de la démocratisation en Turquie inspirée par le COE de 1949 à 2013. Les acteurs sont l’Assemblée Parlementaire, le Comité des Ministres, la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, les autorités compétentes turques et la société civile. Les principales sources de ce travail sont les archives du COE, celles de la Grande Assemblée Nationale de Turquie et des organisations du secteur privé et civil et les ouvrages académiques et littéraires. Dans ces relations durant 64 ans, quatre étapes se surviennent. 1. L’intégration de la Turquie aux institutions européennes, 2. Les interventions militaires en Turquie, 3. L’approfondissement de la démocratie en Turquie à la suite de la guerre froide, 4. Les procédures de suivi appliquées par les mécanismes du COE sur la démocratisation en Turquie. / Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe (COE) since 1949. Thus, it is an integral part of the history of European democratic construction.This thesis is a nearly complete history of democratization in Turkey inspired by the COE from 1949 to 2013. The actors are the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the European Court of Human Rights, the competent authorities of Turkey and civil society. The main sources of this work are the archives of the COE, those of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, and organizations in the private and civil sector and the academic and literary works. In these relationships for 64 years, four steps occurred. 1. The integration of Turkey to the European institutions, 2. The military interventions in Turkey, 3. The deepening democracy in Turkey after the Cold War, 4. The monitoring procedures followed by the mechanisms of the COE on democratization in Turkey.