^{page 244 note 1} For this ancient social arrangement see Rosenthal, E. I. J., Political Thought in Medieval Islam (Cambridge, 1962).Google ScholarNasir, al-Din al-Tusi, The Nasirean Ethics, tr. Wickens, G. M. (London, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} For a more extensive treatment of the ayan and for bibliography see Kemal, H. Karpat, ‘The Land Regime, Social Structure, and Modernization in the Ottoman Empire’, Beginnings of Modernization in the Middle East, Polk, William R. and Chambers, Richard L. (eds.), (Chicago, 1968), pp. 69–90.Google Scholar See, also article ‘Ayan’ in Encyclopaedia of Islam (new edition) and Herbert, L. Bodman Jr, Political Factions in Aleppo 1760–1826 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1963)Google Scholar. Uzunçarşili, I. H., Meşhur Rumeli Ayanlarzndan Tirsinikli Ismail, Yillzkoğlu Süleyman Ağalar ue Alemdar Mustafa Paşa (İstanbul, 1942) and Avdo, Suceska, Ajani (Sarajevo, 1965).Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 3} For a view of eşrafs in Syria see Albert, Hourani ‘Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables’, op. cit., Beginnings of Modernization‖, pp. 41–68.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} For background information on trade see Charles, Issawi, The Economic History of the Middle East, 1800–1914 (Chicago, 1966), p. 60Google Scholar. Nicolas, G. Svoronos, Le Commerce de Salonique au XVIII^e siécle (Paris, 1956)Google Scholar. Paul, Masson, Histoire du commerce français dans le Levant au XVIII^e siècle (Paris, 1911)Google Scholar. Wood, A. C., A History of the Levant Company (London, 1935)Google Scholar. Leone, Levi, History of British Commerce 1763–1870 (London, 1872), p. 934Google Scholar, places the exports to the Ottoman empire in 1850 to £2,811,000. Turkey was in third place. Other statistics place the volume of British exports to Turkey well above this figure. See Bailey, , British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1942), p. 74Google Scholar. Also William, Page, Commerce and Industry Tables of Statistics for the British Empire (London, 1919).Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} The quotations are from Urquhart, D., Turkey (London, 1933), pp. 141–4Google Scholar, and Ubicini, M. A., Letters on Turkey, tr. Lady, Easthorpe (London, 1856), pp. 339–44Google Scholar, reproduced in Issawi, , op. cit., pp. 42–5 passim.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} See Traian, Stoianovich, ‘The Conquering Balkan Orthodox Merchant’, Journal of Economic History (06, 1960), pp. 234–313,Google Scholar also ‘The Social Foundations of Balkan Politics 1750–1941’, Balkans in Transition, , Charles and Jelavich, Barbara (eds.), (Berkeley, 1963), pp. 297–345Google Scholar, ‘The Nature of Balkan Society under Ottoman Rule’, Slavic Review, vol. xxi, 4 (1962), pp. 597–622. The above writings seldom use any Turkish sources (except those written in Western languages) and treat each contemporary Balkan state as though it was independent from the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries. These writings conspicuously ignore the existence of Turkish traders and Turks in general in the Balkans or the impact of the Ottoman state on the economic system or upon the transformation of Balkan society.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} On the social groups and nationalism in the Balkans see Dimitrije, Djordjevic, Revolutions nationales des peuples balkaniques, 1804–1914 (Beograd, 1965)Google Scholar; FischerGalati, S., ‘The Peasantry as a Revolutionary Force in the Balkans’, Journal of Central European Affairs, vol. 23, 1 (1963).Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} Christo, Gandev, ‘L'apparition des rapports capitalistes clans l'économie rurale de la Bulgarie du nord-ouest au cours du XVIII^e siécle’, Etudes Historiques (Sofia, 1960), pp. 208ff.Google Scholar See also a series of court decisions published in Yugoslavia on the History of Macedonia, , Turski Documenti za Makedonskata Istorija 1800–1839, 5 vols. (Skoplje, 1951–1958)Google Scholar. See, for instance, document number 53, vol. 1, ordering the ayan Mustafa ağa, not to bother the raya. (By this time the name raya came to be applied to Christians.) For similar occurrences in Anatolia see Kenan, Akyüz, Ziya Pasa'mn Amasya Mutassariflği Siraszndaki Olayar (Ankara, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} One may in fact distinguish by name the early crafts and trades of Turkish origin from those which were introduced later in the Balkans. For instance, a Wallachian document of 18 July 1812 gives a list of all the craftsmen isnafuri (from the Turkish esnaf) and tradesmen in Bucharest. Of 61 professions on the list, 22 bear distinctly Turkish names and relate mostly to wearing-apparel, house items and foods, while the remainder of names are of German, Hungarian (usually describing metal works), Slavic, or French origin and relate mostly to trade and crafts which were introduced more recently. Documente Privitoare la Economia Ţârii Romînesti, 1800–1850, vol. 1 (Bucuresti, 1958), pp. 146–7.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} Vlaykov, T. G., Prehvyanoto (Experiences), 3 vols. (Sofia, 1934–1942)Google Scholar. Fragments reproduced in Doreen, Warriner, Contrasts in Emerging Societies (Bloomington, Ind., 1965), pp. 235–6.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} A summary of the struggle with the ayan based on Turkish sources may be found in Mufassal Osmanh Tarihi, vol. v (Istanbul, 1962), pp. 2724–6, 2859–63.Google Scholar The most comprehensive study of the period is Stanford Shaw, J., Between Old and New; the Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim III, 1789–1807 (Cambridge, Mass. 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 252 note 2} Niyazi, Berkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey (Montreal, 1964), pp. 72ff.,Google Scholar and Enver, Ziya Karal, Tarih Vesikalari, 1/6 (04, 1942), pp. 414–25.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 3} For the opening of the new embassies see Ercümend, Kuran, Avrupa'da Osinanli Ikamet Elçiliklerinin Kuruluşu (Ankara, 1968).Google Scholar For the pact with the ayan see Halil, Inalcik, ‘Senedi Ittifak ve Gülhane Hatti Hümayunu’, Belleten, vol. 28 (10, 1964), pp. 603–90.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 1} Berkes, , op. cit. p. 93,Google Scholar Berkes's picture of Mahmud II as the ‘people's’ man is overly idealized, more in line with Berkes's own ideological bent rather than Mahmud's personality. Berkes makes Mahmud II appear like Ivan the Terrible as depicted by the Soviets – good to people but awful to the Boyars. See also Bailey, F. E., British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement (Cambridge, 1962), which reproduces a letter by Reşit Pasha, very critical of Mahmud's tyranny, giving thus a different picture of the situation.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} See Osman, Ergin, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi, 5 vols. (İstanbul, 1939–1943)Google Scholar. Some scattered information is in Başgöz, I. and Wilson, H. E., Educational Problems in Turkey (Bloomington, Ind. 1968),Google Scholar and Andreas, M. Kazamias, Education and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey (London, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 1} şerif, Mardin, The Genesis of Young Ottoman Thought (Princeton, 1962)Google Scholar. Bernard, Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (London, 1961), pp. 129ff.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} The best source on the subject is still the collective work, Tanzimat (İstanbul, 1940)Google Scholar. See also Reşat, Kaynar, Mustafa Reşit Paşa ve Tanzimat (Ankara, 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 3} Halil, Inalcik, ‘Tanzimat Nedir’, Tarih Araştirmalari (Ankara, 1941), pp. 237–63.Google Scholar Also Tanzimat ye Bulgar Meselesi (Ankara, 1943).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} Roderic, H. Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876 (Princeton, 1963), p. 43.Google Scholar For a British view of Lord Stratford see Allan, Cunningham, The Turkish Career of Stratford Canning (forthcoming).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} The true impact of the educational system demands a clear detached analysis. There are many conflicting views on the subject today, as the early opinion that these intellectuals were true reformers is being challenged by a continuously growing number of students, especially in Turkey. See Doağn, Avcioğlu, Türkiyenin Düzeni, Dün, Bugün, Yann (Ankara, 1968);Google ScholarNiyazi, Berkes, 200 Yildir Neden Borcalzyoruz (İstanbul, 1964)Google Scholar; Niyazi, Berkes, Baticilik, Ulusçuluk, ve Toplumsal Devrimler (İstanbul, 1965). Unfortunately, Berkes's subjective and propagandistic views expressed in these books published in Turkish hardly measure up with his balanced scholarly work in English.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 1} For instance, in İzmir the total trade in 1850 was 67 million francs. Tens years later it went up to 105 million francs and by 1881 it reached 221 million francs (116 million imports, 10 million exports). Demetrius, Georgiades, La Turquie actuelle (Paris, 1892), p. 224ff.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} On the notables see Albert, Hourani, ‘Ottoman Reform and the Politics of Notables’, in Beginnings of Modernization, pp. 41–68.Google Scholar See also William, R. Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788–1840 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)Google Scholar. For administrative reforms and their social basis in the early times see Stanford, J. Shaw, ‘The Central Legislative Councils in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Reform Movement’, Iternational Journal of Middle East Studies, 1 (01 1970), pp. 51–84.Google Scholar For Hayreddin Paşa's views see Reformer necessaires aux états musulmans (Paris, 1868) and Mukaddime-i Akvam alMasalik fi Marifetul Ahval al-Memalik (İstanbul, 1878).Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} See Kemal, H. Karpat, ‘Mass Media’, in Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, ed. Ward, R. and Rustow, D. A. (Princeton, 1964).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 1} Mardin, , op. cit. pp. 252ff.;Google ScholarBerkes, , op. cit. pp. 197ff.;Google Scholar and Lewis, , The Emergence of Modern Turkey, pp. 147ff.Google Scholar The literature in Turkish on the Young Ottomans is cited in the bibliographies of Mardin, , Lewis, , and the author's Turkey's Politics (Princeton, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} The ‘liberal’ political thought used as a weapon by the bureaucracy-intelligentsia in its power struggle with the sultan was best expressed in Prince Mustafa Fazil's letter to Sultan Abdülaziz, which was published in 1867. The letter points out that four centuries ago the Turks ‘submitted to their leaders on the virture of a freely accepted principle’ and had a ‘moral virility’. But now there was a feeling that pride and honor were diminishing subject to the ‘injustice, whims, exactions of subordinate officials who depend only nominally on your [sultan's] authority‖ Your subjects [sultan's] of all faiths are consequently divided into two classes: those who oppress without checks and those who are oppressed, without mercy.’ The intellectual degeneration and loss of moral virility was accompanied by stagnation in agriculture and trade, and the disappearance of the desire and skill to produce. The cause of all these lay in the political system's lack of freedom and of a constitution that would guarantee the people ‘their sacred religion, fortune, and property, as well as the security of home’. The system instituted after the Tanzimat had ‘corrupted and made greedy our statesmen who in their own turn contributed more to corrupt and render it [the system] greedy’. The letter is a criticism of the sultan, but it does point out that the immediate grievance was the new bureaucratic order. See translation by Colombe, M. in Orient, no. 5 (1958), pp. 29–38.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 1} Hûrriyet, , 5 04 1869,Google Scholar quoted by İhsan, Sungu, Tanzimat, pp. 821–2.Google Scholar Bitter criticism was also voiced by Ali, Suav in his article in Ulum, no. 1 (1870),Google Scholar reproduced in Sungu, İ. and Ziya, Maden, Ziraat Tarihimize Bir Bakιş (İstanbul, 1932), pp. 207–8, 228ff.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 2} This topic was a major theme in Turkish literature well into the period of the Republic, and it remains one of the most promising sources for the study of social behavior. It is also interesting that Namik, Kemal describes the topic of his noel as an ‘event which, even if it did not actually take place, had the possibility of occurrence’. Intibah or Sergüzeşt-i Ali Bey (İstanbul, n.d.). A French translation appeared in Mercure de France, 07–08 1921.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 1} Himli, Ziya ülken, ‘Tanzimattan Sonra Fikir Hareketleri’, Tanzimat, pp. 758, 761.Google Scholar Also Türkiyede çağda Düşünce Tarihi (İstanbul, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} As early as 1838, a special board pointed out the need for a new kind of attachment to the state and fatherland to be achieved by science. ‘Without science, the people cannot know the meaning of love for the state and fatherland. It is evident that the acquisition of science and skill comes above all other aims and aspirations of a state’ (Berkes, , op. cit. p. 105).Google Scholar This, in other words, meant new, rationally devised loyalties, in accordance with the needs of a centralized, integrated structure. Lewis quotes Cevdet Paşa, one of the great Ottoman statesmen of the nineteenth century, who called attention to the need for relating the new idea of fatherland to some commonly accepted values: The Emergence of Modern Turkey, pp. 352ff.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Ercüment, Kuran, ‘Ottoman Historiography of the Tanzimat Period’, in Lewis, B. and Holt, P. M. (eds.), Historians of the Middle East (London, 1962), p. 427. Namik Kemal planned to write a fourteen-volume history. The four volumes printed studied romantically events up to 1479.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} Abduh said: ‘The Orient needs a despot to force those who are criticizing each other to recognize each other's mutual value. In order to bring the people to a stage which they cannot abandon, fifteen years [of despotism] suffice. Can't the entire Orient find a single autocrat among its own [people] who will be just with his people, and through whose intermediary justice would be achieved more in fifteen years than in fifteen centuries?’ Article in Rashid, Rida, Tank al-Ustadd al-Imam (Cairo, n.d.), vol. 11, pp. 390–1.Google Scholar See excerpts in French: Anouar, Abdel Malek, Anthologie de la litterature arabe contemporaine (Paris, 1965, pp. 55–6).Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} The arguments advanced today in African states on behalf of the concept of fatherland are not different from Namik Kemal's. Leopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, in a report on the doctrine and program of the Party of African Federations defined the fatherland as the ‘heritage handed down to us by our ancestors: a land, a blood, a language or at least a dialect. The nation groups such fatherlands together in order to transcend them‖it is‖a conscious will to construct and reconstruct. Objectively, it is a restructuration along the lines of an exemplary model or archetype.’ (On African Socialism, trans. Mercer, Cook, (New York, 1964), p. 11.)Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 4} Mehmed, Kaplan, şiir Tahlilleri (İstanbul, 1958), p. 38.Google Scholar A psychological but conservative study by the same author is Namik, Kemal: Hayati ve Eserleri (İstanbul, 1948).Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} özön, Mustafa N. (ed.), Vatan yahut Silistre (İstanbul, 1957), p. 17.Google Scholar Mehmed Murad Mizanci, the true Islamist ideologue of the empire, hailed the play as ‘the first national work written in the modern style and corresponding to the national temperament’ (Mizan, 12 1888; quoted in özön, p. 93).Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 2} Ibid. p. 14.

^{page 266 note 3} The work of Mehmed, Murad Mizanci, Turfanda mi Yoksa Turfa mι (İstanbul, 1890), praising the Muslim idealists, is one of the most noteworthy Islamic idealogical writing of the period.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 4} Robert, Devereux, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period (Baltimore, 1963), p. 31;Google Scholar also Baykal, B. S., ‘93 Meşrutiyeti’, Belleten, 6, 21-2 (1942), pp. 45–83.Google Scholar Berkes considers the Constitution an attempt to deprive Russia of her argument that the Ottomans did not have freedom. Berkes, , op. cit. pp. 225–6.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 1} The orthodox Muslims found the Constitution of 1876 contradictory to religion, but eventually the commission drafting the Constitution included ten members of the ulema. A truly objective study of the ulema is needed: many of them were far more reform-minded and progressive than the statesmen. See the excellent study by Uriel, Heyd, ‘The Ottoman Ulema and Westernization in the time of Selim III and Mahmud II’, Studies in Islamic History and Civilization (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 63–96.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 2} Sir Henry, Elliot, Some Revolutions and Other Diplinnatic Experiences (London, 1922), pp. 228ff.;Google ScholarAli, Haydar, Life of Mithat Pasha (London, 1903);Google ScholarPakahn, M. Z., Mithat Paşa (İstanbul, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 3} See an excellent article on the subject by Albertine, Jwaideh, ‘Mithat Pasha and the Land System of Lower Iraq’, in Hourani, Albert (ed.), Middle Eastern Affairs, St Antony's Papers, no. 16 (Carbondale, n.d.), pp. 106–36.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 1} One must disagree with Leonard Binder's hasty judgement that parliaments ‘were simply transferred wholly grown to the Middle East. They were, and remain, artificial legalisms and a continuing temptation to go outside the law’ (The Ideological Revolution in the Middle East (New York, 1964), p. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 2} Devereux, , op. cit. p. 148, and Appendix, p. 269. We have personally contacted the heirs of the late Hakki Tank Us and discovered that he had been working on a third volume on the Parliament of 1876. This volume consisted of biographies of deputies. Among the elected were the çamurdanzadeler, Mollazadeler, Alemdarzadeler, and Evrenoszadeler, all former ayans. Mihalaki Gümüşgerdan of Filibe or Plovidv (Devereux erroneously lists him as a functionary), son of Athanas, was the head of a modern clothing enterprise there. The titles efendi, bey, and ağa also help identify the officials, landlords, and artisans.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 1} For the records of debates, see Hakki, Tank Us, Meclis-i Mebusan 1293–1877, Zabit Ceredesi, 2 vols (İstanbul, 1940, 1954);Google ScholarKemal, H. Karpat, ‘The Ottoman Parliament of 1876 and Its Social Significance’, Proceedings of the International Association of South East European Studies (Sofia, 1969), pp. 247–57.Google Scholar On the debate on the press law, see my ‘Mass Media’, in Ward, and Rustow, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 2} Hakki, Tank Us, op. cit. II, p. 113.Google Scholar

^{page 269 note 3} Ibid. p. 276. Though remindful of Islamic law, these utterances call for a different regulatory concept.

^{page 269 note 4} Ibid. p. 241 (Kazanciyan of Erzurum).

^{page 269 note 5} Ibid. pp. 207–8, 210, 381–2, 382–5.

^{page 269 note 6} ‘Devlet ahalinin muhabbeti ile kaim’, ibid. p. 113. The House also provided a forum for airing resentment of arbitrary administrative actions, but also for defending group interests, as in the case of a Mahir Bey, a political persona non grata. Mahir Bey, exiled Konya, discovered that in Seydişehir and Beyşehir the tax auction was fraudulently handled. He apparently was instrumental in bringing the matter to the attention of the vali, who nullified the deal. The affected parties plotted and sent Mahir to another town. Mahir, following the constitution, petitioned the Parliament to seek personal redress. Haci Mehmed Efendi, the deputy from Konya, objected to the letter, since he associated with the tax auctioneers. This is a typical case of lobbying for interest groups. (Ibid. pp. 183–6.)

^{page 270 note 1} Ibid. p. 401.

^{page 270 note 2} Mahmud, Celaleddin Paşa, Miratt Hakikat (İstanbul, 1909), provides interesting reading on the attitude of officials toward the deputies.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 3} Enver, Ziya Karal, Osmanlι Tarihi Birinci Meşrutiyet ve İstibdat Devirleri 1876–1907 (Ankara, 1962);Google ScholarMahmud, Kemal İnal, Osmanlι Devrinde Son Sadrazamlar, vols. vi, vii, viii (İstanbul, 1946–1949);Google ScholarTahsin, Paşa, Abdulhamid Yιldιz Hatιralarι (İstanbul, 1931).Google ScholarBerkes, , The Development of Secularism in Turkey;Google ScholarLewis, , The Emergence of Modern Turkey;Google ScholarDavison, , Reform in the Ottoman Empire.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 1} Hilmi, Ziya ülken, ‘Aperçu général de l'évolution des immigrations en Turquie’, Integration, vol. 5 (10, 1959), pp. 220–40.Google ScholarAhmet, Cevat Eren, Türkiyede Göç ve Göçmen Meseleleri (İstanbul, 1966), pp. 69–72, Türk Ansikiopedisi under Göç.Google Scholar

^{page 274 note 1} Issawi, , op. cit. pp. 17, 232.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 1} Karal, , Osmanlι Tarihi, pp. 342–8.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 2} Karal, , op. cit. p. 332;Google Scholar see also for background, Velay, A. du, Essai sur l'histoire financière de la Turquie (Paris, 1903);Google ScholarUbicini, , Letters on Turkey (Paris, 1956);Google ScholarBailey, , op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 1} The basis for this information is still Osman, Ergin, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi (İstanbul, 1939–1945), 5 vols.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 2} Cevdet, Paşa, Tezakir 1–12, ed. Cavid, Baysun (Ankara, 1953), p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 1} The information is derived from Muharrem, Mazlum, Erkâni Harbiye Tarihçesi (İstanbul, 1930),Google Scholar and Ziya, şakir, Tanzimat Devrinden Sonra Osmanlι Nizam Ordusu (İstanbul, 1957).Google Scholar See also Dankwart, A. Rustow, ‘The Army’, in Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, ed. Ward, Robert and Rustow, D. A. (Princeton, 1964), pp. 352–69.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 1} Mazlum, , op. cit. pp. 11ff., reproduces the graduation diplomas which describe the officers academic background and training.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} Mazlum, , op. cit. pp. 214–16.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Karal, , op. cit. pp. 355–7.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 1} There was a contradiction between Abdülhamid's religious orientation and the establishment of this relatively modern professional school system. The purpose of education seemed to be only the imparting of skills necessary to meet the government's administrative needs. Moreover, the schools were deemed to be an excellent means for indoctrinating the pupils with loyalty to the sultan as symbolically expressed in the customary greeting: ‘Padişahim çok yaşa’ (Long live my ruler). The school system, however, avoided dealing with the more basic question of philosophy and outlook on the world. Social sciences were never taught, the fear of identification with the Western values and modes of life was dominant despite the fact that the educational system the Ottomans were trying to introduce would soon lead there. Indeed, the learning of French and the desire to become identified with a form of life considered superior became commonplace among intellectuals at the end of the century. There is certainly a compulsory logic of thought covering eventually all aspects of life even if one were to study only the positive sciences. The above conditions provided the philosophical roots of the intelligentsia's aloofness and opposition to the government, and their orientation toward secularism and positivism as expressed in the Meşveret, the major publication of the Young Turks. Eventually secularism and positivism entered into the stream of nationalism.

^{page 280 note 1} The factual discussion together with the relevant bibliography may be found in my article on modem Turkey in the Cambridge History of Islam. See also Ercüment, Kuran, ‘The Impact of Nationalism on the Turkish Elite’, Beginnings of Modernization, pp. 109–17.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Ernest, Ramsaur, The Young Turks: Prelude to Revolution (Princeton, 1957),Google Scholar first for the formative years and Feroz, Ahmad, The Young Turks, The Committee of Union and Progress in Turkish Politics, 1908–1914 (London, 1969).Google Scholar