DON JUAN ARCHIV WIEN
OTTOMANIA
8

Series Editors
HANS ERNST WEIDINGER · MICHAEL HÜTTLER

OTTOMAN EMPIRE
AND
EUROPEAN THEATRE

V

GLUCK
AND
THE TURKISH SUBJECT
IN BALLET AND DANCE

edited by
MICHAEL HÜTTLER · HANS ERNST WEIDINGER

Editorial collaboration and copy-editing:
Meike Wilfing-Albrecht, Suna Suner, Inge Praxl (Vienna, Austria)

English copy-editing: Nicole V. Gagné (San Francisco, California)

Index: Marija Bogdanović (Belgrade, Serbia)

Layout and Cover: Nikola Stevanović (Belgrade, Serbia)

Printed and bound in the EU

Coverimage: Tughra of Mustafa III

The symposia were supported by the Turkish Embassy Vienna, the Austrian Foreign Ministry,
the UNESCO International Theatre Institute (ITI) – Austrian Centre and
the Austrian Cultural Forum Istanbul.

The publication was supported by
DON JUAN ARCHIV WIEN
FORSCHUNGSVEREIN FÜR THEATER- UND KULTURGESCHICHTE

Michael Hüttler and Hans Ernst Weidinger (eds.)
Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, vol. 5: Gluck and the Turkish Subject in Ballet and Dance
Wien: HOLLITZER Verlag, 2019 (= Ottomania 8)

© HOLLITZER Verlag, Wien 2019

HOLLITZER Verlag
a division of
HOLLITZER Baustoffwerke Graz GmbH Wien
www.hollitzer.at

All rights reserved.
Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, digital, electronic or mechanical, or by photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or conveyed via the Internet or a Web site without prior written permission of the publisher.
Responsibility for the contents of the various articles and for questions of copyright lies with the authors. In the case of outstanding, justified claims, we request to be notified by the rights owner.

ISSN 2617-2542
ISBN 978-3-99012-074-3 (hbk)
ISBN 978-3-99012-075-0 (pdf)
ISBN 978-3-99012-076-7 (epub)

ABBREVIATIONS

REMARKS

Translations, if not indicated otherwise, are by the authors of the contribution. Quotations are generally in the original language, followed by an English translation.

Double quotation marks are used for quotations in the continuous text; single quotation marks indicate translated words or sentences, as well as otherwise highlighted words or phrases.

HOLLITZER Verlag claims no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, nor does it guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

PICTURE CREDITS

Images are reproduced with the permisson of the copyright owners. Credits are indicated in image captions. Responsibility for the contents of the various articles and for questions of copyright lies with the authors. In the case of outstanding, justified claims, we request to be notified by the rights owner.

OUVERTURE

EDITORIAL

MICHAEL HÜTTLER (VIENNA), HANS ERNST WEIDINGER (VIENNA/FLORENCE)

Gluck and the Turkish Subject in Ballet and Dance is the eighth volume of the Don Juan Archiv Wien series Ottomania and the fifth volume of its sub-series Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, which presents studies of the cultural transfer between the Ottoman Empire and Europe from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. The focus here is primarily on music, theatre and ballet.¹

The fashion for ‘Oriental’ ballets was initiated in seventeenth-century France by Molière (orig. Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, 1622–1673), with the premiere of his comédie-ballet Le bourgeois gentilhomme on October 14, 1670, at the court of Louis XIV (b.1638, r.1643–1715). The Turkish theme went on to exert considerable influence over the ballet stages of Europe, especially throughout the eighteenth century.

Christoph W. Gluck (1714–1787), taken as a reference point for this publication, was not only a reformer of opera, but also the composer of the reformist ballet Don Juan, ou Le festin de pierre, which had its premiere in Vienna on October 17, 1761, almost a hundred years after Molière’s comédie Dom Juan (Paris, 1665). Gluck also created operas and ballet-music with Turkish-oriental subjects, the most well-known of which are Le cadi dupé (Vienna, 9 December 1761) and La rencontre imprévue, ou Les pélerins de la Mecque (Vienna, 7 January 1764). ‘Turkish’ ballets were featured in the repertoire of many influential choreographers of the eighteenth century; outstanding among them was Gasparo Angiolini (1731–1803), who staged Gluck’s ballets Don Juan and La rencontre imprévue, as well as another ‘Turkish’ ballet with his own music, Solimano II o La francese trionfante (Milan, autumn 1773). Likewise notable as a choreographer of ‘Turkish’ ballets is Jean-Georges Noverre (1727–1810), whose oeuvre includes Les Jalousies, ou La fête du sérail (Lyon, 1758), L’amour corsaire (Lyon, 1759), Les cinq Sultanes (Vienna, 1771), and Le Gelosie del Seraglio (Vienna, 1772).

With this collection of studies – originally presented in two related symposia at the International Theatre Institute of the UNESCO Center Austria in Vienna and at the Austrian Cultural Forum in Istanbul, both in 2011 – the topic is discussed from a historical perspective. New findings are presented and the latest scholarly achievements of the research field are introduced.

The Prologue starts with “Impressions and Images of the Ottomans in the Early Modern Period. Official Representation, Cultural Transfer, and Art” by Katalin Rumpler. This essential overview illustrates the Ottoman impact and considers influential domestic relations along with official representation, cultural transfer and art.

The first section of papers, Act I, “Gluck, Le Turc généreux, and the Vienna Context” is dedicated to Christoph W. Gluck. Käthe Springer-Dissmann begins by following the artist’s way around Europe in “Gluck, the Wanderer, Travels of a European Composer (1734–1779)”. She presents Gluck’s life and career as determined by his restless tours through Europe in the pre-revolutionary era of the Enlightenment: from Bohemia to Italy; from London to Hamburg, Dresden, Copenhagen, Prague, and Naples; and several times between Vienna to Paris. Portraying a wandering composer who worked with some of the era’s greatest reformers in European music and dance, Springer-Dissmann points out how Gluck’s vagabond existence shaped his ideas and rightly earned him the reputation of being a cosmopolitan artist.

In Vienna, dance was the art form that assumed the “Turquerie” – even before the French theatre with its opéra-comique. From the year 1752 a long series of ballets with extra-European topics can be found. The Prince Schwarzenberg archive in Ceský Krumlov preserves the most comprehensive collection of Viennese ballets of the years 1750 to 1790. On this basis, Vera Grund takes a close look at “Turkish Ballets in the Viennese Repertoire (1752–1760)”, including Le Turc généreux of choreographer Franz Anton Hilverding (1710−1768) and composer Josef Starzer (1726−1787). Their ballet premiered in Vienna on April 26, 1758, with Gluck as conductor and in the presence of a Turkish delegation with Ottoman envoy Ahmed Resmî Efendi (1700−1783), then visiting Vienna to inform Maria Theresia (b.1717, r.1740–1780) about the enthronement of Sultan Mustafa III (b.1717, r.1757−1774).

Le Turc généreux is also the center of Bruce Alan Brown’s study “What The Envoy Saw: Diplomacy, Theatre, and Ahmed Resmî Efendi’s Embassy to Vienna, 1758”. Twice during his stay in the Habsburg capital, the Ottoman envoy and his entourage attended the Theater nächst der Burg and saw among its performances the pantomime ballet Le Turc généreux. That show became unique because of the engraving made in 1759 by Bernardo Bellotto (1720–1780), depicting the performers on stage and the orchestra. More than just an example of the popular genre of “Turkish” theatre, Le Turc généreux looked to France for its inspiration (it was the second act in Les Indes galantes, opera-ballet with music by Jean Philippe Rameau, Paris, 23 August 1735) – an attempt by the court theatre’s director Count Giacomo Durazzo (1717–1794) to expand, in the aftermath of Austrian Chancellor Kaunitz’s (1711–1794) renversement des alliances.

According to Brown, it becomes evident that Ottoman envoy Ahmed Resmî Efendi saw other theatre pieces along with Le Turc généreux during his stay in Vienna, and these also resonated with the objectives of his trip. Brown’s description of the representational nature of this diplomatic mission, and the elaborate ceremonies and spectacles that were part of the protocol in Vienna, is also a thorough analysis of what the envoy saw and heard.

Sibylle Dahms reports about “The New Edition of Gluck and Angiolini’s Don Juan (1761) in the Gluck-Gesamtausgabe (II/2)”. For the 250th anniversary of Gluck and Angiolini’s Don Juan, ou Le Festin de Pierre (1761), the original version of this epoch-making pantomime ballet has been published in the Gluck Gesamtausgabe (‘Complete edition of Gluck’s works’). Dahms explains the difference between the first edition of this ballet, edited by Richard Engländer in 1966, and the new edition presenting the so-called Kurzfassung (‘short version’), which seems to be the original version. She discusses the musical sources that are the basis of the new edition, and which distinguish it from the former edition, as well as some notable contemporary records concerning the work’s reception.

The next section, Act II, is dedicated to “Le Turc et la Cour, Ballet alla Turca and Baroque”. Strother Purdy in “Semiotic Aspects of the Baroque, the Ballet, and the Turkish Relation (1610–1761)” explores the meanings danced out by the combination of ballet and the baroque, brought together in the resplendently royal form of the ballet de cour. Its assumption of a Turkish subject, and its historical development into ballet d’action and beyond, present a rich field for analysis and discovery. Decorative or essential, it conveyed meaning, a semiosis – according to Purdy, the “Turkish relation”. Among his questions are: Was that meaning or message negative or positive? How was the Turkish subject assumed? Was it adapted to the movements of a dance to greater or lesser effect? Why did a Turkish vogue outlast the others? And finally, does one need semiotics to analyze meaning in ballet at all?

In the following paper David Chataignier asks “Questions over the ‘Parade of the Nations’ in the Carrousel de Monseigneur le Dauphin (1662)”. A spectacular equestrian ballet held at the Louvre in 1662, the Carrousel de Monseigneur le Dauphin was staged to celebrate the birth of Louis XIV’s (b.1638, r.1643−1715) first son, heir to the throne of France. Chataignier explores the role of “the Turk” in this extraordinary French seventeenth-century court spectacle, in which the king himself performed and all the participants were of high rank. Magnificently costumed, they represented different nations, comparing their images with those found in earlier ballets of the period, and situating the event amidst the Turkish vogue in seventeenth-century French literature.

Also covering France, Laura Naudeix studies “Scanderbeg on the French Operatic Stage: The Turkish Subject as Mediation for Fiction (1735)”. The Albanian nobleman George Castriota (1405–1468) called Scanderbeg was first in the service of the Ottomans but later led a rebellion against them. Already present in French fiction at the end of the seventeenth century, this historical figure appeared on stage at the Académie Royale de Musique on October 27, 1735 in the tragédie en musique Scanderbeg, written by Antoine Houdar de La Motte (1672–1731) – the poet already famous for L’Europe galante (Paris, 24 October 1697) and its fourth entrée, “La Turquie” (the model for the aforementioned Turc généreux of 1735) – and set to music by François Francœur (1698–1787) and François Rebel (1701–1775). According to Naudeix this opera is one of the main examples of the taste for the French “Turquerie”.

In Danish theatre ‘the Turk’ as a ballet figure was introduced in the eighteenth century in smaller ballets like The Adventurous Janissaries (‘De forløbne Janitskarer’) by Antonio Sacco in 1764 – the very same year he staged his version of Angiolini’s Don Juan ballet in Copenhagen – and The Magnanimous Turk (‘Den ædelmodige Tyrk’) by Vincenzo Galeotti from 1779. Bent Holm in “Between Romanticism and Reality. Dancing Danish Turks (1764–1870)” examines Danish theatre in an international context, as part of a European performative culture and artistic network, beginning with court culture and gradually turning into urban and civil institutions alongside royal entertainment and rituals. In ballet the ‘Turk’ played a significant role, either as the main character or as the adversary. Holm takes a close look at the leading figure in romantic Danish ballet, August Bournonville (1805–1879), and his great Turkish ballet of action Abdallah (Copenhagen, 1855) as a genuine example of Danish orientalizing romanticism.

Evren Kutlay determines ballets with a ‘Sultan’ on stage and takes a look at “The ‘Sultan’ Image in Selected Ballets from the Late Eighteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries (1772-1836)”, examining Noverre’s Die fünf Sultaninnen and Angiolini’s Solimano along with La fête du sérail (1788) by Nicola Ferlotti, La Turca in cimento (1792) by Luigi Dupen, Le sultane (1792) by Domenico Le Fèvre and Le tre sultane (1836) by Luigi Henry (1784–1836). The chosen choreographers Angiolini, Ferlotti, Dupen and Le Fèvre also created Don Juan ballets, all of which used music by Christoph W. Gluck.

In Act III the subject turns to “Dancing Turkishness: Genre and Gender in Ballets Turcs and Turkish Dances”. The victory in the siege of Vienna in 1683 over the Ottoman Turks was announced in the Spanish-ruled Southern Netherlands (today: Belgium) through prints and remarkable public celebrations. Dirk Van Waelderen in “‘Heroes And Villains’: Habsburg Supremacy over the Ottomans in Triumphal Celebrations in the Spanish Netherlands (1685)” takes a look at the ommegang in Antwerp of September 8, 1685, a splendid festive parade through the city of theatrical carts, dressed-up guild members, horsemen, musicians, priests and monks, with triumphal arches, columns and other ephemeral ornamental street decorations. The created image of the Ottoman in seventeenth-century performances is placed by Van Waelderen in perspective with the previous centuries, and he investigates to what extent these celebrations portrayed the Ottoman Turks as part of the traditional display of the exotic enemy and whether there were any timely adjustments.

In “The ‘Turkish Dance’, an Ambivalent Emblem of the French Belle Danse (1725)” Dóra Kiss analyses a choreography by Antony Labbé (Anthony L’Abbé, 1666-1757), transcribed in Feuillet notation and published c.1725 in A New Collection of Dances, with respect to Orientalism. The belle danse, a style developed in France at the end of the seventeenth century, established a language based on specific choreographic characteristics, which can be identified on the basis of dance scores and treatises. Kiss shows how the musical characteristics of the “Turkish Dance” are articulated in its choreography, and she explores the concealed contradiction between the ‘Turkish’ part of the title and the conventional French connotation that underlies the concept of belle danse.

In the Epilogue two artists-scholars report on fascinating artistic work that is strongly connected to the subject of the present publication. Choreographer and dancer Bert Gstettner’s text “Angelo Soliman (1721–1796) – Revisited” discusses one of the most notable individuals of eighteenth-century Vienna, the man to whom Gstettner dedicated two of his contemporary choreographies which included sections of Gluck’s music from the Angiolini ballets Don Juan, ou Le festin de pierre and Semiramis (1765) as inspiration. The valet Angelo Soliman, born in 1721 in what is today northeastern Nigeria in the Sahel region, was abducted and enslaved as a little boy, sold on the market and shipped to Europe where he made his way in the service of the best houses of the aristocratic societies, until he even walked in and out the Imperial court in Vienna. Angelo Soliman became the first black man worldwide to join a Masonic lodge, and he took a leading role in guiding Ignaz von Born (1742–1791) and Joseph Haydn (1732–1809), among others, into the Lodge “Zur Wahren Eintracht” (‘True Concord’); very likely, Soliman was also acquainted with Wolfgang Amadé Mozart (1756–1791), Emanuel Schikaneder (1751–1812) and other artists and elite of the Enlightenment at that time.

Emre Aracı’s study “A Life for the Sultan: Murad V (1840–1904) and the Creation of a Psychological Ballet” offers insights into the artistic context and creative process of his new two-act ballet libretto and score, based on the life of the sensitive and highly artistic Ottoman Sultan Murad V (1840−1904, r.1876). Remembered by history not only as the ‘shortest ruling monarch of the Ottoman Empire’ but also rather cruelly as the ‘mad Sultan’, he was kept with his family under strict house arrest at the Palace of Çırağan for twenty-eight years. This psychological ballet, partly based on original compositions by the Sultan himself and constructed from the original scores of the period, examines the deposed monarch’s misunderstood and lonely existence.

The publication is rounded up with an Appendix, containing the Indexes of names, works and places and Curricula Vitae.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Don Juan Archiv Wien – Forschungsverein for generously supporting the production of the book and also the symposia series Ottoman Empire and European Theatre since its beginnings in 2008. As always since the beginnings of the series, Suna Suner contributed her expertise in organizing the symposia in Vienna and Istanbul and conceived the volume with Michael Hüttler and Hans Ernst Weidinger.

Our editorial collaborators Inge Praxl, Suna Suner and Meike Wilfing-Albrecht have our thanks for their meticulous and prudent work – without them the book would never have come into being. Nicole V. Gagné has to be thanked once again for the perfect English-language proofreading.

Last but not least we especially would like to thank all the participants of the two symposia “The Turkish Subject in Ballet and Dance”, as part of the Ottoman Empire and European Theatre conference series at the UNESCO – International Theatre Institute in Vienna (April 29-30, 2011) and the Austrian Cultural Forum Istanbul (June 9-10, 2011), which inspired the current edition with brilliant lectures and lively discussions:

FRIDAY, APRIL 29th, 2011

Opening Ceremony

Helga Dostal (ITI-UNESCO Centrum Austria)

Exc. Kadri Ecvet Tezcan (Ambassador of the Turkish Republic)

Michael Hüttler (Don Juan Archiv Wien)

SATURDAY, APRIL 30th, 2011

ISTANBUL
(Act II)

THURSDAY, JUNE 9th, 2011

Opening Ceremony

Michael Hüttler (Don Juan Archiv Wien)

Doris Danler (Austrian Cultural Forum Director)

Paul Jenewein (Austrian Consul General)

İlber Ortaylı (Topkapı Palace)

FRIDAY, JUNE 10th, 2011

Closing Event: “An Ambassador’s Opera”
Open Air performance of Wolfgang Amadé Mozart’s “teutsche Operette”
Bastien und Bastienne (KV 50)
in the Gardens of Palais Yeniköy,
Austrian Consulate General, Istanbul (by invitation)

Bastien and Bastienne (KV50)
as an “Ambassador’s Opera”
in the Gardens of Palais Yeniköy, Austrian Consulate General in Istanbul

a production of
Don Juan Archiv Wien
in cooperation with
Österreichischen Generalkonsulat in Istanbul
and
Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University / State Conservatory in Istanbul

Bastien und Bastienne

Singspiel in one Act
by
Friedrich Wilhelm Weiskern / Johann Heinrich Friedrich Müller
newly edited by
Hans-Peter Kellner
set to music by
Wolfgang Amadé Mozart

performed by order of His Excellency
Mr Consul General of the Republic of Austria Paul Jenewein
on June 10, 2011

at the Secret Garden Theatre of Palais Yeniköy in Yeniköy Istanbul

a cooperation of
Austrian Consulate General Istanbul;
State Conservatory of
Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Istanbul;
Don Juan Archive Wien

Bastien . . . . . Ahmet Bahadır Özkoca
Bastienne . . . . . Dilruba Bilgi
Colas . . . . . Atilla Gündoğdu

Staging
Hans-Peter Kellner

Musical Direction
M. Erdem Çöloğlu

Concertmaster
Hande Özyürek

Orchestra
Camerata Saygun Chamber Orchestra
Aslı Özbayrak Çivicioğlu, Nilay Karaduman Yağan, Melisa Uzunarslan, Elif Akyar, Ayda Tunç, Mert Kemancı, Coşkun Coşkundeniz, Zeynep Paftalı Bottazzini, Emre Akman, Dilbağ Tokay, Erman İmayhan, Cengizhan Cevirme, Azad Alizade, Damla Alizade, Aslıhan And, Umut Şengül, Begüm Azimzade, Tuna Erten

Costumes and Stage design
Thomas Oláh

Mask
Henriette Zwölfer

Costume Production
ART for ART Kostümwerkstätten, Wien

Technique
Bitek Conference Systems

Production Team
Paul Jenewein
(Austrian Consulate General Istanbul)
Çiğdem İyicil, Pınar Yıldırım
(State Conservatory of Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Istanbul)
Michael Hüttler, Suna Suner, Hans Ernst Weidinger
(Don Juan Archiv Wien)

NOTES

1 Vols. 1 to 7: Michael Hüttler and Hans Ernst Weidinger (eds.): Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, vol. 1: The Age of Mozart and Selim III (1756–1808). Vienna: Hollitzer, 2013 (= Ottomania 1);
Bent Holm: The Taming of the Turk: Ottomans on the Danish Stage 1596–1896. Translated from the Danish by Gaye Kynoch. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2014 (= Ottomania 2);
Michael Hüttler and Hans Ernst Weidinger (eds.): Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, vol. 2: The Time of Joseph Haydn: From Sultan Mahmud I to Mahmud II (r.1730–1839). Vienna: Hollitzer, 2014 (= Ottomania 3);
Walter Puchner: Das neugriechische Schattentheater Karagiozis [’Modern Greek Shadow Theatre Karagiozis’]. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2014 (= Ottomania 4);
Michael Hüttler, Emily M. N. Kugler and Hans Ernst Weidinger (eds.): Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, vol. 3: Images of the Harem in Literature and Theatre: A Commemoration of Lord Byron’s Sojourn in the Ottoman Empire. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2015 (= Ottomania 5);
Michael Hüttler and H. E. Weidinger (eds.): Ottoman Empire and European Theatre, vol. 4: Seraglios in Theatre, Music and Literature. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2016 (= Ottomania 6);
Walter Puchner: Ausgewählte Studien zur Theaterwissenschaft Griechenlands und Südosteuropas [’Selected Studies in Greek and Southeast European Theatre Studies’]. Vienna: Hollitzer, 2018 (Ottomania 7).

PROLOGUE

IMPRESSIONS AND IMAGES OF THE OTTOMANS IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD: OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION, CULTURAL TRANSFER AND ART

KATALIN RUMPLER (VIENNA)¹

The stage for the dramatic events that reshaped early modern Europe was superficially set by competing visions of faith: the spread of Islam, a multifaceted Judaism and a divided Christianity. Closer examination, however, exposes the conflicting claims of different powers, frequently personified, and conquests for reasons such as territory or economy, together with multi-levelled changes in demographic structure, administrational competence, military affairs, technologies, infrastructure, and communication, all determined a period of transformation and development. It is remarkable that the regularly warring parties established fruitful relations with each other, shared interests and participated in manifold transfers and transactions, although the latter gradually declined between the sixteenth and the eighteenth century. “Melius de quibusdam acerbos inimicos mereri quam eos amicos qui dulces videantur; illos verum saepe dicere, hos numquam”² could at first well have been their common motto.

Reading the Turkish Histories³ of German humanist Johannes Löwenklau (1541−1594), an alternative image of the Ottomans emerges, despite the author’s apocalyptic expectations and prophecies. That image relies upon neither the revived contra Turcos literature nor the false image of the demonic Ottoman created by religious publications. Strange and feared, Ottomans develop virtues and favourable traits of character. They are thinking and acting human beings of a different but equivalent cultural area. The demand for a better knowledge and understanding⁴ of the Ottomans and their religion paved the way to a more or less

unbiased interest.⁵ The focal point of Ottoman culture and education is the court in Constantinople.⁶

Contacts with the contemporary ‘republic of letters’ and freethinkers of the time enabled the Calvinist Löwenklau to deliver Ottoman history and pro Turcis arguments based on original manuscripts. Three main sources were used for his works: the Codex Verantianus, ⁷ the Annales Beccani⁸ and the Codex Hanivaldanus.⁹ For Hieronymus Beck von Leopoldsdorf (1525−1596), with whom he was in close contact, Löwenklau also created a series of watercolours, the Löwenklau Codex, ¹⁰ depicting everyday Ottoman life. What he shares with like-minded scholars and Ottoman translators is the clear view as mentioned by Cicero (106 BC–43 BC).¹¹

This balanced analysis of the opposing side was not general, having been hindered by the more characteristic Ottoman attitude of exclusion as a ‘closed’ society – with some notable exceptions like Murad Bey (b.1509), ¹² who had the title of tercümân, or other intellectuals, physicians or scientists, whether Muslim or converts to Islam.¹³ Perception of the Ottomans in Europe changed with their image as a latent, dangerous or low-level enemy, along with the concept of Islam as interpreted in contrast to Christian values and philosophical or political developments.¹⁴

What lies hidden is how alterity and identity¹⁵ are created in a discursive manner by lingual (literarily or textually) and/or figurative (visually or iconographically) contexts and allocation of meanings. Discourses are subject to constant changes and adapt to needs. In addition discourses structured by key words deliver long-lasting topoi and stereotypes.¹⁶

An array of interactions, such as diplomatic missions, economic relations and scientific exchange, in combination with mediators like cultural transfer, had a major impact on the images each obtained of the other.¹⁷ On the Ottoman side, translators with the official title¹⁸ dragoman or tercümân¹⁹ conveyed knowledge between the Ottomans, a people of the written language, and the European nations, a people of the image as portrayed in printed books. They apparently formed a kind of platform or even network to exchange information between entities²⁰ such as the Imperial Divan or provincial administration and foreign diplomacy, as the means to achieve comparability or compatibility of information and interactive communication at different levels, with the benefits of cooperation extending to all the parties involved. Excellent education, language skills and loyalty must be mentioned as preconditions. By the mid-1660s until 1821, ²¹ Greek families, ²² Phanariots, held the posts of translators, after a period of nearly 200 years during which only converts to Islam were appointed. Their professional status was that of a high-ranking diplomat, official or intermediary, not a plain and simple representative without own competence and decision-making authority, and they played a crucial role in foreign affairs, diplomacy, negotiations and treaties including trade, tax collection, science, military affairs, and intelligence. Through them, Ottoman formal and informal rules of conduct, traditions, customs, arts and science were conveyed to foreign representatives, and European art, literature²³ and science found their way into the Ottoman Empire. Objects of decorative art were very common as gifts; so was the exchange of manuscripts as previously mentioned and scientific publications as esteemed tokens of appreciation such as Joan Blaeu’s (1596–1673) Atlas Maior (1662), presented by Dutch ambassador Justinus Colyer (1624−1682) to Sultan Mehmed IV (1642−1687, r.1648−1687) in 1668.²⁴

REPRESENTATION OF POWER AND FESTIVITIES − A COMPARISON

The imperial court in Constantinople was the authority that raised and trained the elite to control, administrate and defend the Ottoman Empire. Beyond legitimising power, the court was also a multi-levelled cultural and religious centre. The basis for exercising power was centred on the person of the sultan: a sovereign in his own right, whose authority originated from dynastic law. This traditional political heritage gave him discretion in absolute and indivisible legislative, judicial, and executive powers not explicitly within the jurisdiction of Islamic law. Therefore the sultan was also, but not only, a religious leader.²⁵ Political framework rested on two pillars: (re)distribution and patrimonialism. The first provided the military and the administration with material goods, while the second determined the form and functions of the political system. In the sultan’s name the Great Divan exercised the highest legislative, executive, and judicial authority in the Ottoman Empire. During the next two centuries it gradually lost its functions and by the eighteenth century became the setting for ceremonies and formal diplomatic receptions. The sultan, the incorporate image of power, emphasised his sublimity by seclusion from his subjects and a changing concept of reigning based on patrimonialism, exemplified by his relationship with his grand vizier, an important mediator, or by his handling of the influence of the Harem²⁶ in public affairs.²⁷ There was a gradual general political and economic shift, especially in the seventeenth and the eighteenth century, which changed the distribution of wealth and power and shook the traditional Ottoman concept of the state, ²⁸ transforming it according to the demands and needs of maintaining its stability.

In the Ottoman Empire art and in particular architecture were used to create images of power. Palace ateliers provided skilled artists, craftsmen and architects for the imperial court and the empire. Uniformity in style throughout the Ottoman Empire was the result of a centralised state run by educated officials. This distinct visual language or programme included a broad variety of elements from unique or specific to inconspicuous or hidden. Each period has its characteristic art form, motif, origin, and important cultural centres.²⁹ Most commonly known are silk and cotton textiles and ceramics³⁰ with floral motifs. Examples of the latter are those rooted in Chinese art with all their nuances of blue and white as well as tulips, ³¹ roses, rosebuds, carnations or hyacinths, all part of the famous palette of flowers depicted on different kinds of surfaces. Obvious objects of the images of power are elevated wooden thrones and baldachins, decorated all over with flowers that are complemented by precious gemstones such as emeralds or diamonds, or Tuğras (‘tughras’)³² with the space between the letters in the lower part filled with designs showing flowers or reflecting European baroque style. Book art and calligraphy, which commanded great prestige, provided illustrated manuscripts with both secular and religious content. These contemporary classical miniatures are important sources illustrating ceremonial practice and festivities – and the identity of the participants, portrayed in detail – and last but not least topography.

Manuscripts of diverse nature, workmanship and purpose depict in painted miniatures such events as enthronement ceremonies, circumcision festivities, marriage processions, public and private celebrations and events connected with the reception of guests. Although (classical) miniature painting reached its climax in the sixteenth century, it never lost its attraction as part and heir of a manifold, long-living art tradition, ³³ despite Islamic religious restrictions concerning the pictorial depiction of human beings.³⁴ Illustrations of ceremonies such as enthronements³⁵ are remarkable for their similarity, as their composition changed only in their representation from the time of Selim II (b.1524, r.1566−1574) until the eighteenth century.³⁶ Depictions of major political or personal events inter alia, recorded for reasons of authentic historical documentation or as part of the chronicle of the sultan, can serve as a source of information about armament and equipment, garments or musical instruments. The comparison and contrast of accounts is also permitted by private records with or without miniature paintings commissioned by officials, participants or guests.³⁷ Illustrated accounts of military campaigns, festivities or ceremonies, as well as scenes of everyday life, can be listed in order to present the sultan in both public and private spheres. Public appearances proclaimed the padishah as legitimate able ruler and victorious commander, attending Friday prayers signified him as righteous believer and successful hunts or other activities as good sportsman revealed his sovereign virtues. With this in mind, the equestrian portrait³⁸ – a symbol of power shared by both Ottoman and European rulers – is of special interest. In a broader context it is linked with the dynastic claim to power and, especially for the Ottoman ruler, to military strength and capability. It is present as a single image or is incorporated in a visual composition. An excellent example of the latter, with many to follow in the next 200 years, is a painted miniature representing the triumphal path of Mehmed III (b.1566, r.1595−1603) in Constantinople after conquering Eger. His route is lined by muhafız-es holding carpets. The procession itself is headed by dignitaries bearing maces, followed by the guards who pave the way for the sultan, and concludes with his entourage comprising among other sword-bearers, banner bearers and a military band.³⁹ For the above reasons these illustrations are miniature paintings or were commissioned by ambassadors or other representatives as souvenirs, gifts or documentation of their mission.

For a European prince the essence of both public imperial representation and festivities lay in the ability to express interdependences in the relationship between the ruler and the different subjects of their society. Ceremonial practice mirrored the social hierarchy, with ceremony at the different courts varying according to the internal political situation, personal preferences of the sovereign, prevalent tradition, and established practice of a dynasty.⁴⁰ Rulers of equal standing are therefore at once different and alike in the approach of their representation.

Leopold I (b.1640, r.1658−1705) appears even more superior, elevated, and imperial by not sitting in noble vanity on his throne in formal apparel. The armour-clad horseman holding a marshal’s baton in imperious gesture in his outstretched right hand towers calm and severe over the rearing horse. His head of curly hair is crowned by victory laurels. Under his fluttering and flowing embroidered cloak, he wears the richly ornamented Collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The features and mien of the horseman are designed in noble symmetry. The vivaciously prancing horse is magnificently bridled, and the high riding saddle rests on a caparison luxuriantly fringed and covered with relief embroidery. Mane and tail of the rearing horse play in the wind. The eyes of the horseman on the powerfully built and muscular animal proudly look off into the distance, taking no notice of his defeated enemy beneath his horse’s hoofs.⁴¹ This ivory equestrian statuette created by Matthias Steinl (1644−1727) shows significant symbolic character;⁴² so does the painting⁴³ by an unknown artist from 1685, which depicts Louis XIV (b.1638, r.1643−1715), the ruler of France, not riding a horse but sitting in semi-profile on his throne. The king places his right foot on a cushion, the symbol of his own sovereign power base, and he wears the Cross of the Order of the Holy Spirit.⁴⁴ His face is framed by a full-bottomed wig, ⁴⁵ and a richly embroidered ermine cloak hangs from his shoulders, billowing out in ordered folds and symbolising baroque universalism.

In the line of portraits revealing the sultan’s skills and virtues are images presenting the ruler while fishing, hunting or performing other admired activities. Although many were known as hunters, one deservedly owes his nickname to it: Mehmed IV, the hunter. In an image standing for many others he sits on a horse with bridle, saddle and harness bedecked with gold and gemstones. He wears a white turban (conversion) with two ghazi aigrettes (ghaza⁴⁶), a gold garment beneath a cloak, trousers, and boots. Bows and arrows (intertwined symbols of power) are carried by accompanying hunters on foot.⁴⁷ In portraits after his reign only a humble turban with a single aigrette was granted. A ruler who was introduced during his reign as a just, kind, pious and fearless warrior and ghazi sultan was left with a posthumous reputation of a passionate hunter, javelin thrower, wrestler and demanding epicure of food and concubines.⁴⁸

Common exercises performed during various festivities, though with decreasing frequency, were competitive tournaments demonstrating capability and dexterity in disciplines ranging from horse races and archery on horseback to javelin throwing. Circumcision festivities lasted a longer period of time and included a wide range of military activities displaying different skills, a broad variety of events according to the preferences of the ruling sultan and fireworks as both amusement and a symbol of war. The ceremony for the sons of Ahmed III (1673–1736, r.1703–1730) is commonly cited, due to the magnificent miniature paintings by Abdülcelil Çelebi (d.1732)⁴⁹ and because of the two-way cultural exchange that existed at the height of the Tulip Period in Constantinople, particularly with France and the Habsburg Empire. In spirit it is most similar to festivities held contemporaneously somewhere in Europe. Events celebrating the circumcision of princes of the House of Osman, the most relevant ones held between the sixteenth and the middle of the nineteenth century, were not less attractive than comparable events taking place in Renaissance or baroque Europe, but may differ in their point of view concerning social order or society in general. They seem more or less to resemble medieval spectacles or festivals in many respects, having been held by and addressed to an elite group within a defined variety of places. Society’s pyramidal order can also be clearly observed at any feast, but in a different sequence. The 1720 ceremony already mentioned shows a reverse order⁵⁰ compared with early festivals in the sixteenth century. What is definite is that the religious class gained power in the Ottoman Empire. Its role and influence changed and became visible with the growing number of feasts given for it during the events.⁵¹

Another important element of the circumcision festivities is the guild procession, which provided the sultan with gifts⁵² and an impression of his tradesmen’s and craftsmen’s capabilities, according to protocol and tradition. These encounters were essential to show and strengthen the relationship between the sovereign and his people, especially after lost campaigns or riots. The 1720 festival showed a clear order in the sequence of the participants’ appearance – farmers, millers, bakers, shepherds, butchers, cooks and tanners, for example – and was somewhat idiosyncratic, when candlemakers, barbers, ⁵³ tentmakers, ⁵⁴ shoemakers, grocers, fruit dealers, turban makers, quilt makers, fabric merchants⁵⁵ and on the final occasion⁵⁶ gold and silver thread makers, blacksmiths, weavers and saddlers all built up a logical line.⁵⁷ In the Sûrnâme all processions are described and depicted⁵⁸ in detail, showing every guild’s profession and ability in action as well as their offered gifts. Accompanying groups or artists draw special attention to the images as sources of information. Whereas shepherds played simple flutes or horn-shaped instruments, tanners were accompanied by musicians, singers and artists. A variety of dancers followed the candlemakers, and the procession of the barbers was led by four musicians: two playing wind instruments, most probably zurnas, and two performing on drums, most likely davuls.⁵⁹ With the exception of some guilds, they were accompanied by musicians and dancers – in two cases even by a moveable model of a ship with all its sails set and a mechanical three-headed dragon. Artistic and sportive performances of different kinds were integral not only to the guild procession but to the event itself as well. Artists, acrobats, jugglers, stilt walkers, tightrope walkers, contortionists, magicians, köçeks⁶⁰ and curcuna dancers⁶¹ accompanied by several musicians performed before the sultan as well as the grand vizier. Body language and the appearance of the protagonists were the main characteristics of the dances performed during these festivities, because these conveyed a message or meaning to the audience. While some amused people with clumsy impersonations and overdone gestures, others performed as well-known professionals. The level of their education and artistic excellence can partially be assumed from the music, or better from the compositions for dances handed-down from generation to generation. Neither their movements nor the choreography were recorded in writing. In line with the musical tradition, improvisation was an essential element.⁶²

In contrast, guild processions with a unifying character were held in Europe once a year or occasionally from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. They were neither linked with festive processions nor organised or commissioned by local rulers or the sovereign.⁶³

In Western Europe processions of different kinds and for different reasons, including processions given on specific occasions such as the birth of a legal heir⁶⁴ or carnival, ⁶⁵ were a simple necessity yet a worthy ‘addition’ to aggrandise seigneurial glory and display court festive culture at its most attractive. They were in line with the continuation of festive events and tournaments documented in Maximilian I’s (b.1459, r.1508−1519) book of tournaments the Freydal.⁶⁶ Established forms of a festive character, like processions and tournaments, coupled with court divertissements, mirrored contemporary virtues and the dynastic abilities of an ideal ruler with a harmonic demonstration of power in a homogeneous programme of events. There were no limits to the imagination, however, and numerous processions showed explicit parallels despite their differences in time and space or occasion, cast and costume. These similarities arose from the utilisation of metaphors in allegory, history and mythology, which were often associated with motifs like the four elements, the four seasons, the four continents or the seven planets. Durchlauchtigste Zusammenkunfft, ⁶⁷ a series of celebrations lasting four weeks in honour of the family meeting of the Albertine line of the House of Wettin in Dresden in February 1679, was the first festivity combining court celebrations with a leitmotif. In addition to theatre performances, ballets in operas and the Mohrenballett (‘Moor ballet’), notable highlights were the tournaments enhanced by three allegorical processions.⁶⁸ In accordance with the leitmotif the festivity concluded with a display of fireworks dedicated to Hercules.⁶⁹

As mentioned before, tournaments in the Ottoman Empire focussed on war as well as sportive elements such as competitions of diverse nature or mock combats. The siege of and battle for a wooden fortress were invariable parts of the festivities. The introduction of ships into this scenery for the circumcision festivities in 1720 was a real innovation. What an impression: real and artificial ships fighting out battles, moving on both water and land, with one even balancing on a tightrope. It should be kept in mind however that the padishah did not take part in the games and no choreography underlined any connection with him or his ancestors.⁷⁰

In European baroque representation the equestrian ballet was an established instrument.⁷¹ These ballets, which originated from the medieval tradition of the art of war, tournaments, Mummereien⁷² (‘masquerades’) and Mummenschanz⁷³cortigiano⁷⁴