Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:27:25.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantics and the Modern History of Non-European Societies: Arab ‘Republics’ as a Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ami Ayalon
Ami Ayalon
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his article ‘Semantics and historiography’, published in 1953, Richard Koebner invites historians to exploit the benefits which a semantic approach to history readily offers them. A ‘semantic approach’ he defines as a systematic ‘study of the career of political and historical expressions and slogans’. Koebner is convincing when he explains why such a study is so important – indeed indispensable – to historians who do not wish to become ‘victims of destructive ambiguities and…liable to mistake the expressions of popular historical consciousness for historical realities’. There is probably no period in history, Koebner argues, which may not be enlightened by a pursuit of these inquiries; ‘the semantic approach to history has something to reveal in all periods’

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 821 - 834
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Koebner, Richard, ‘Semantics and historiography’, The Cambridge Journal, VII (12 1953), 131–44Google Scholar.

2 See Kvastad, Nils B., ‘Semantics in the methodology of the history of ideas’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXVIII 01 1977), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar f.

3 Cf. Bouwsma, William J., ‘From history of ideas to history of meaning’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XII (autumn 1981), 279–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Dubois, Jean, Le vocabulaire politique et social en France de 1869 à 1872 (Paris, 1962)Google Scholar.

5 For a discussion of the potential advantages of sociolinguistics to the historian, see Struever, Nancy S. ‘The study of language and the study of history’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, IV (winter 1974), 401–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 A number of articles in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam represent the most important effort of this kind, although these, by definition, are limited in scope and depth; see e.g. articles on ‘Djumhūriyya’ (republic, by B. Lewis); ‘Hukūma’ (government, by B. Lewis and others); ‘Hurriyya’ (freedom, by F. Rosenthal and B. Lewis); ‘Kawmiyya’ (nationalism, by P. J. Vatikiotis and others); ‘Madjlis’ (assembly, parliament, by J. M. Landau and others). See also Lewis', B. studies on ‘The revolutions in early Islam’ and ‘On modern Arabic political terms’, both in his Islam in history (New York, 1973)Google Scholar, and his ‘Translation from Arabic’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CXXIV (02 1980), 41–7Google Scholar.

7 Cf. Lewis, ‘On modern Arabic political terms’.

8 al-Farabi, Abu Nasir, Ara ahl al-madina al-fadila, Dietrici, F. (ed.) (Leiden 1895), especially pp. 53Google Scholar ff: Bajja, Abu Bakr ibn, Tadbir al-mutawahhid, Palacios, Don Miguel Asin (ed.) (Madrid, 1964), pp. 8–12Google Scholar; Khaldun, Abd al-Rahman ibn, al-Muqaddima (Beirut, 1900), p. 303Google Scholar.Cf also Rosenthal, E. I. J., Political thought in medieval Islam (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 93 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar; 120, 124 f; 160, 175 f.

9 Sa'id, Ali ibn Musa ibn, Kitab al-jughrafiyya, al-Arebi, Isma'il (ed.) (Beirut, 1970), p. 182Google Scholar; al-Fida, Abu, Taqwim al-buldan, Reinard, M. and Slane, Mac Gukinde (eds.) (Paris, 1840), pp. 199–200Google Scholar, 211; al-Qalqashandi, Abu al-Abbas, Subh al-a'sha (Cairo, 1915), V, 404Google Scholar, 405, 411; VIII, 46–8. One fourteenth-century writer adopted the Italian comune (Arabic kumun), which he explained in similar terms; but his usage of this word remained an isolated occurrence; see al-Umari, Shihab al-Din, Kalam jumali fi amr mashahir mamalik ubbad al-salib, in Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei 1882–83, 3rd series (Rome, 1883), pp. 96–8Google Scholar.

10 See e.g. Korkut, Besim (ed.), al-Watha'iq al-arabiyya fi dar al-mahfuzat bi-madinat dubruwnik, I (Sarajevo, 1960), 50Google Scholar, 58, 72, 74, 84; II (Sarajevo, 1961), 124, 128, 130, 132, 134.

11 For the usage of mashyakha in French documents see e.g. al-Sawi, Ahmad Husayn, Fajr al-sihafa fi misr (Cairo, 1975), plates 43, 48, 49, 70, 79, 87a, 90–7Google Scholar. A parallel case is provided by the occasional Ottoman practice of referring to the government of Venice as Venedik Beyleri, i.e. ‘the Signoria’.

12 E.g. Feridun, Ahmad, Munshe'at-i selatin (Istanbul, 1857–1858), 1Google Scholar, 13: 11, 479–481: Mu'ahedat mejmuasi (Istanbul, 1877–1880), II, 130–214Google Scholar. Cf. Lewis, ‘Djumhūriyya’, Encyclopaedia of Islam 2nd edn.

13 E.g. Jevdet, Ahmed, Tarikh (Istanbul, 1855), VIGoogle Scholar, 150, 156, 157, 160, 162, 165, 236, 240; Mu'ahedat mejmuasi, 1, 35–8; III, 37–60. See also Lewis ‘Djumhūriyya’, for more examples.

14 See al-Jabarti, Abd al-Rahman, Tarikh muddat al-fransis bi-misr, muharram-rajab 1213h; 15 June-December 1798, Moreh, S. (ed.) (Leiden, 1975), plate XIIIGoogle Scholar, for a reproduction of the original proclamation, and page 11 for a discussion of the notion by Jabarti. For the use of the term in other French proclamations see e.g. plates XIV, XV a, XV b; Sawi, , Fajr al-sihafa, plates 6a, 37Google Scholar, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57a, 58, 60, 62, 69. It is noteworthy that the two chief translators of the expedition, Venture de Paradis and Amédée Jaubert, got their linguistic training in Istanbul, and that the former also served as an official dragoman there; see al-Shayyal, Jamal al-Din, Tarikh al-tarjama fi misrfi ahd al-hamla al-faransawiyya (Cairo, 1950), pp. 46–7Google Scholar; Lewis, B., ‘The impact of the French revolution on Turkey’, in Metroux, G. S. and Crauzet, F. (eds.), The new Asia (New York, 1965), p. 42Google Scholar. Interestingly, already John Richardson's Persian-Arabic-English dictionaries of 1777 and 1780 offer the term jumhur as the Arabic equivalent of a ‘republick’ [sic].

15 For the traditional Muslim attitude of contemptuous disregard for Europe see Lewis, B., The Muslim discovery of Europe (New York & London, 1982)Google Scholar, especially chapter V. The French, but often also Christian Europe as a whole, were referred to as ‘Franks’ (ifranj or firanj). Cf. idem, ‘Ifrandj’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edn.

16 Jabarti, , Tarikh muddat al-fransis, pp. II,46–50Google Scholar. Idem, Mazhar al-taqdis bi-dhihab dawlat al-fransis (Cairo, 1969), p. 60Google Scholar.

17 al-Sharqawi, Abdallah, Tuhfat al-nazirin fiman waliya misr min al-wulat wal-salatin (Cairo, 1864), p. 75Google Scholar.

18 Turk, Niqula, Mudhakkirat, Wiet, Gaston (ed.) (Cairo, 1950), pp. 1–5Google Scholar, 78, 97–8, 112, 146. For similar instances see al-Shihabi, Haydar, Lubnan fi ahd al-umara al-shihabiyyin (Beirut, 1933), pp. 214Google Scholar, 218, 319–20,439.

19 For the use of mashyakha after the beginning of the Arabic press see e.g. Hadiqat al-akhbar (Beirut), 5 06 1858, p. 1Google Scholar; 17 July 1858, p. 1; 18 September 1858, p. 1; 22 January 1859, p. 1; 5 April 1860, p. 1; 16 May 1861, p. 1; Utarid (Marseille), 9 10 1858, pp. 2Google Scholar,3; 16 October 1858, p. 4; Birjis baris (Paris), 28 08 1862, p. 1Google Scholar; 31 August 1864, p. 2; 11 April 1866, p. 1; al-Jawa'ib (Istanbul), 26 04 1870, p. 5Google Scholar; 17 January 1878, p. 8; al-Bashir (Beirut), 17 09 1870, pp. 21Google Scholar, 23; 22 October 1870, pp. 60, 61; 26 November 1870, p. 104; 18 March 1871, p. 239; 6 May 1871, p. 310; al-Nashra al-usbu 'iyya (Beirut), 11 03 1873, p. 80Google Scholar; Kawkab al-mashriq (Paris), 4 01 1883, p. 3Google Scholar; 11 January 1883, pp. 2, 3.

20 al-Hilal, February 1894, p. 373.

21 al-Tunisi, Khayr al-Din, Aqwam al-masalik fi ma'rifat ahwal al-mamalik (Tunis, 1867), p. 301Google Scholar (an electoral region in Prussia); Laz, Muhammad, Qanun yata'allaq bi-tartib wa-mzam al-mashyakha al-baladiyya (Cairo, 1867)Google Scholar, passim (al-mashyakha al-baladiyya – the Paris city council); al-Bashir, 6 May 1871, p. 3 (the Paris Commune – hizb mashyakhat bariz); al-Jinan (Beirut, 1975), p. 584Google Scholar (rural local government in Russia); Da'irat al-ma'arif (Beirut, 1876), 1Google Scholar, 282 (knighthood; the title ‘Sir’–sar –is identified as shaykh wa-amir); al-nashra al-usbu'iyya, 26 October 1885, p. 341 (mashyakhat al-kana'is al-injliziyya) Zaki, Ahmad, al-Safar ila al-mu'tamar (Cairo, 1893), p. 221Google Scholar (the mayor of London – shaykh al-mashyakha); ibid p. 264 and idem, al-Dunya fi baris (Cairo, 1900), p. 47Google Scholar (the Directoire); al-Hilal, September 1894, pp. 46–7 (the Mamluks in Egypt taking hold of mashyakhat al-bilad); ibid October 1896, p. 85, and al-Jami'a al-uthmaniyya (Cairo, 1899), p. 122Google Scholar (mashyakhat al-jami' al-azhar).

22 For early occurrences of jumhuriyyet with the meaning of ‘republic’ see e.g. Jevdet, , Tarikh, IV, 152Google Scholar, 157, 158, 160, 236. On the other hand cf. Mu'ahedat mecmuasi, V, 141 f., 157 f., where the French republic is still called jumhur in treaties from 1879 and 1881. In mid-nineteenth-century Turkish dictionaries the equivalent of ‘republic’ still appears as jumhur; see Handjéri, Alexandra, Dictionnaire Français-Arabe-Persan et Turc (Moscow, 1840–1841)Google Scholar, and Bianchi, T. X., Dictionaire Français-Turc (Paris, 1843–1846)Google Scholar, s.v. république; Bianchi, T. X. and Kieffer, J. D., Dictionnaire Turc Français (Paris, 1850)Google Scholar, s.v. jumhur. As late as 1891 J. W. Redhouse in his Turkish and English lexicon (Istanbul) offered jumhur as the only Turkish word for this notion.

23 al-Tahtawi, Rifa'a Rafi, Takhlis al-ibrizila talkhis bariz (3rd edn., Cairo, 1958), 252–3Google Scholar; idem, al-Kanz al-mukktar fi kashf al-aradi wal-bihar (Cairo, 1834), 4, 6,Google Scholar; idem, Qala'id al-mafakhir fi gharib awa'id al-awa'il wal-awakhir (Cairo, 1833), I, 11Google Scholar, 14, 27, 52, 57; II, 101. The dictionaries, however, continued to monitor jumhur along with mashyakha as the equivalent of ‘republic’; s.v. république. in Bocthor, Ellious, Dktionnaire Français-Arabe (Paris, 1828–1829, and 4th edn, 1869)Google Scholar; Marcel, Jean-Jacques, Vocabulaire Français-Arabe (Paris, 1837)Google Scholar; Humbert, Jean, Guide de la conversation Arabe (Paris & Geneva, 1838)Google Scholar; Berggren, J., Guide Français-Arabe vulgaire (Upsala, 1844)Google Scholar; s.v. jumhur in: A., de Biberstein-Kazimirski, Dictionnaire Arabe-Français (Paris, 1846)Google Scholar, and Johnson, Francis, Dictionary, Persian, Arabic and English (London, 1852)Google Scholar. Zenker's, J. T.Türkisch-Arabisch-Persisches Handwörterbuch (Leipzig, 1866)Google Scholar seems to have been the first to include jumhuriyya (along with jumhur) as a definition for ‘republic’, after the word had been in use in that sense for several decades.

24 Tahtawi, , Takhlis, p. 252Google Scholar. See also a similar, but somewhat more vague definition in idem, al-Ta'ribat al-shafiyya li-murid al-jughrafiyya (Cairo, 1843), appendix, pp. 72–3Google Scholar.

25 E.g. al-Zarabi, Mustafa Sayyid Ahmad, Qurrat al-nufus wal-uyun bi-sayr ma tawassat min al-qurun (Cairo, 1846), I, 81Google Scholar; Mahmud, Khalifa, Ithaf al-muluk al-aliba bi-taqaddum al-jam'iyyat bi-bilad uruba (Cairo, 1841), I, 28Google Scholar.

26 For instances in which the two terms appear together see, e.g. Tahtawi, , Qala'id, I 52Google Scholar, 57; idem, Ta'ribat, pp. 69, 77; al-Su'ud, Abdallah Abu, Nazm al-la'ali fi al-suluk fiman hakam faransa min al-muluk (Cairo, 1841), p. 188Google Scholar. For other occurrences of jumhuriyya during the pre-press period see e.g. Tahtawi, , Qala'id, 1Google Scholar, 45, 90: idem, Ta'ribat, p. 277, and appendix, p. 51; Zarabi, , Bidayat al-Qudamawa-hidayatal-hukama (Cairo, 1838), pp. 75Google Scholar,76, 78; idem, Qurratal-nufus, I,10; Abu al-Su'ud, 194; Na'am, Sa'd, Siyahat amirika (Cairo, 1845), pp. 24Google Scholar, 64, 79; Bayya, Muhammad Mustafa, Matali'shumus al-siyar fi waqa'i karlus al-thani'ashar (Cairo, 1841), pp. 18Google Scholar,46; Mahmud, 1,48; al-Tahtawi, Ahmad Ubayd, al-Rawd al-azhar fi tarikh butrus al-akbar (Cairo, 1849), p. 39Google Scholar.

27 Birjis baris, 24 June 1859, p. 2. For other instances of its usage see: 26 October 1859, p. 3 (of Switzerland: ‘wa-siyasatuha fawda’), and p. 4 (Napoleon III in 1848: ‘ra'is dawlat al-fawda’); 9 November 1859, p. 4; 23 November 1859, p. 4; 18 January 1860, p. 3 (of the United States: ‘wa-dawlaluha fawda tusma al-ittihad’). The classical definition upon which the editor based his choice of term appears in Firuzabadi's Qamus (s.v.).

28 An illuminating contrast is offered by the case of modern Japanese, in which the word kyowa, chosen to denote ‘republic’, initially meant ‘harmony’. I owe this remark to Professor Marius Jansen from Princeton University.

29 E.g. Tahtawi, , Ta'ribat, appendix, p. 51Google Scholar (‘democracy – dimuqratiyya – means jumhuriyya, namely government by the jumhur’); ibid. p. 76 (democracy defined as ‘a type of jumhuriyya’); likewise Mahmud, I, 131; Thamarat al-Funun (Beirut), 8 08 1878, p. 4Google Scholar; Da'irat al-ma'arif, VI (Beirut, 1882), 534Google Scholar; al-Shidyaq, Ahmad Faris, al-Bakura al-Shahiyya fi nahw al-lugha al-inkliziyya (Istanbul, 1883), p. 290Google Scholar (s.v. ‘democratical’); al-Nur al-tawfiqi (Cairo), 1 01 1889, p. 88Google Scholar. Dictionaries of Arabic and other languages throughout the nineteenth century echoed this confusion; see Richardson (1780), s.v. ‘democracy’ and ‘republick’ [sic] Bocthor (1828–9, 1869), Marcel, , and Bellot, Jean-Baptiste, Dictionnaire Français-Arabe (Beirut, 1890)Google Scholar – s.v. democratie and république; Cameron, Donald, An Arabic-English vocabulary (London, 1892)Google Scholar, s.v jumhuriyya.

30 See e.g. al-Aqiqi, Antun Dahir, Thawra wa-fitna fi lubnan, Yazbak, Yusuf Ibrahim (ed.) (Beirut, 194–?). PP. 87–8Google Scholar, where the rebellious peasants in Mount Lebanon are called upon by their leader to join in the foundation of a ‘jumhuriyya government’ – meaning, as is quite clear from the context, a ‘popular government’. In the same vein al-Bashir, 11 March 1871, p. 192, described ‘popular demonstrations’ as ijtima'at jumhuriyya.

31 E.g. al-Bashir, 13 May 1871, p. 318; 10 June 1871, pp. 360–2.

32 al-Bustani, Butrus in Da'irat al-Ma'arif, VI (Beirut, 1882), 534Google Scholar.

33 al-Zawi, al-Tahir Ahmad, Jihad al-abtal fi tarablus al-gharb (Cairo, 1950), pp. 222Google Scholar ff. The ‘Tripolitanian Republic’ had been preceded, a few months earlier, by a similar experiment outside the Arab region: an independent ‘republic’ was founded in Muslim Azerbayjan in May 1918; it lasted for about two years, then was incorporated in the Soviet system.

34 al-Mawdudi, Abu al-A'la, Nizam al-hayat fi al-islam (Beirut, 1968), pp. 28–30Google Scholar. The argument that the classical Islamic state was ‘a kind of republic’ had been made on earlier occasions, by such thinkers as Namik Kemal (in 1868) and Muhammad Rashid Rida (in 1922); see Mardin, Şerif, The genesis of Young Ottoman thought (Princeton, 1962), pp. 296–7Google Scholar; Rida, Muhammad Rashid, al-Khilafa aw al-imama al-uzma (Cairo, 1922), p. 5Google Scholar. Mawdudi's elucidation, however, is more explicit, as well as more articulate in contrasting the two concepts.

35 Radio Tripoli, 16 November 1976; Arab Revolutionary News Agency (Tripoli), 21 February, 3 March 1977.