Abstract
This article traces the historical and intellectual origins of modern Turkish music theory in the late Ottoman period. It examines debates about music theory in the Ottoman Turkish press during the 1880s and 1890s, focusing particularly on the earliest publications of Raʾūf YektÄ (1288â1353/1871â1935). The article shows how the modern Turkish theory of pitch was created by YektÄ and his collaborators through the rediscovery of Arabic and Persian treatises associated with the Systematist school of mathematical music theory, which flourished between the seventh/thirteenth and ninth/fifteenth centuries. It argues that this project to bring Ottoman music into the modern âage of progressâ was shaped by the ideals of both scientific positivism and Islamic modernism.
The modern theory of Turkish classical music is inseparable from the history of the Turkish Republic. In the 1920s and 1930s, a group of musicologists including Raʾūf YektÄ (1288â1353/1871â1935), Meḥmed á¹¢ubḥī (Ezgi, 1306â1366/1869â1962), and Ḥüseyin SÄÊ¿deddÄ«n (Arel, 1298â1374/1880â1955) dedicated themselves to constructing a canon of classical repertoire supported by a sophisticated theoretical scaffold. The aim was, so the story goes, to preserve the heritage of Ottoman music in a climate of radical modernization, revolutionary nationalism, and disdain for the imperial past.1 The establishment of an authoritative and scientific theory of pitch was an integral part of this project, whose resounding success can be gauged by the fact that the theory continues to be almost universally accepted amongst performers and scholars of Turkish classical music. There are, of course, always dissenting voices, but while criticisms and alternative solutions are intermittently propagated, no-one has so far succeeded in toppling the official theory from its position of dominance.
Raʾūf YektÄ, a clerk at the Ottoman Imperial Chancery (dÄ«vÄn-ı hümÄyÅ«n) and a member of the MevlevÄ« Sufi order, is credited with first articulating its principles, which were subsequently elaborated and refined by his colleagues. However, there is a lack of clarity about the origins of YektÄâs theoretical ideas, and their relationship to existing practices, concepts, and textual sources. In this article, I examine YektÄâs earliest publications in order to trace the historical process by which he and his collaborators developed a new theory of the Ottoman pitch system between approximately 1885 and 1900. I argue that this was based on the revival and reinterpretation of concepts derived from Arabic and Persian treatises of the Systematist school, which had been obsolete since the early sixteenth century. I situate this revival within the context of wider debates about musical reform, which were shaped by a general preoccupation amongst Ottoman intellectuals with ideals of science, civilization, and progress.
The relationship between the modern theory of Turkish classical music and the earlier Islamicate tradition is often assumed to be one of unbroken continuity, a view that is typically colored by a healthy dose of nationalism. Ä°smail Hakkı Ãzkan, the author of one of the most widely consulted reference works on Turkish music theory, confidently asserts that all of the Systematist theorists, despite writing in Arabic and Persian, were âfull-blooded Turksâ (özbeöz Türk) whose treatises obviously describe the pitch system of Turkish music.2 At the same time, some scholars have recognized and indeed celebrated the fact that YektÄ was responsible for reviving the Systematist tradition following a period of perceived intellectual decline. As Murad Bardakçı writes:
Theoretical research in Turkish-Islamic music (generally known as Oriental music), which began in the ninth to tenth centuries, after experiencing its most brilliant period in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries with works by the members of the Systematist school, fell into a profound silence until the end of the 1800s. ⦠Rauf Yekta Bey, putting an end to this unscientific (gayrıilmî) current, was the person who researched, learned and taught to both the Turkish and the Western worlds this forgotten dimension of music which had been neglected for centuries â that is, the scientific (bilimsel) dimension. (Murad Bardakçı, âRauf Yekta Beyâin hayatı ve eserleri,â in Türk musikisi by Rauf Yekta Bey, trans. by Orhan NasuhioÄlu (Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1986), 8)
But despite his acknowledgement of historical rupture, Bardakçıâs statement elides a number of crucial questions. What, in fact, was the historical relationship between âTurkishâ music and âIslamicâ or âorientalâ music? Why did YektÄ feel the need to revive the âscientificâ (i.e. mathematical) approach to music theory? And what role did he play in transmitting this theory to the West?3
While some western scholars have been content to accept YektÄâs authority as a native informant who was steeped in the oral tradition of Ottoman music, others are aware that he reintroduced terms and concepts that had long been absent from Ottoman music treatises.4 YektÄâs international reputation was enhanced by his correspondence with European scholars and his publications in journals such as La Revue musicale. This led to an invitation to author the article on Turkish music in Lavignacâs Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du conservatoire, published in 1922.5 This dense and lengthy essay, a considerable part of which is devoted to the discussion of intervallic ratios, has long been accepted as a definitive statement of the theory of Turkish classical music by one of its most learned representatives. It has therefore been the main â and in most cases the sole â point of reference for YektÄâs work amongst western scholars. However, he had been publishing regularly in Ottoman periodicals since 1897, and these writings constitute an extensive and largely unstudied record not just of his own ideas, but of lively, complex, and often polemical debates about music theory in the final decades of the empire.
In the following, I concentrate on articles published by YektÄ between 1897 and 1899 in Resimli Ä azete and Ä°qdÄm.6 These sources provide detailed information about how, beginning in the mid-1880s, YektÄ collected and studied Systematist treatises together with two collaborators, the MevlevÄ« sheikhs Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede (1258â1288/1842â1910) and ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede (1265â1326/ 1849â1907). In order to decipher these treatises, which they initially struggled to comprehend, they conducted experiments on a sonometer (similar to a monochord but with multiple strings, and used to demonstrate the musical intervals represented by mathematical ratios), with the assistance of the physicist and mathematician á¹¢Äliḥ áºekÄ« (1281â1340/1864â1921). YektÄ also studied recent European scholarship on music theory and acoustics, especially as it related to âorientalâ music. After more than a decade of research and experimentation, he published a prototypical version of his new theoretical model in Å aÊ¿bÄn 1317/December 1899.
To situate YektÄâs intervention in a broader historical context, I show how the question of musical âreformâ (ıṣlÄḥ) was a matter of general concern amongst Ottoman intellectuals during the late nineteenth century. This led to other embryonic attempts to establish a mathematical theory of Ottoman music, as well as heated debates about the relevance of western music theory to âorientalâ (Å¡arqÄ«) music. These discussions were shaped by a widely shared belief in the ideals of âcivilizationâ (medeniyyet) and âprogressâ (teraqqÄ«), which could be attained through the application of rational scientific principles to Ottoman music. YektÄâs interest in Systematist theory was motivated by a conviction that the existing theory of Ottoman music had degenerated into an amalgam of irrational beliefs about astrology and Galenic medicine. The Systematist tradition was emblematic of a venerable Islamic past, and at the same time could demonstrate that Ottoman music had a rational, scientific basis that was suitable for the modern age. In conclusion, I argue that the revival of Systematist theory resonated with contemporary political and intellectual movements, including Islamic modernism and scientific positivism, which despite their apparently divergent aims were united in their commitment to âprogress.â7
1 The Beginnings of the Debate
From the ninth to fifteenth centuries, authors writing in Arabic and Persian typically conceptualized music as a mathematical discipline. A major stream of intellectual discourse centered on the mathematical expression of pitch relations, founded on ratios corresponding to acoustic intervals (2:1 for the octave, 3:2 for the perfect fifth, and so on), and their combinations into different types of tetrachord, scale, or mode. The most influential exponent of this tradition was á¹¢afiyyaddÄ«n al-UrmawÄ« (d. 693/1294), a musician at the Ê¿AbbÄsid court who is regarded as the founder of the Systematist school.8 One of the last major exponents of Systematist theory was Ê¿AbdalqÄdir al-MarÄÄ¡Ä« (d. 838/1435), who is conventionally considered the founder of the Ottoman musical tradition, although his works were written predominantly in Persian.9 During the ninth/fifteenth century, Systematist treatises in Persian and Arabic were dedicated to Ottoman sultans by al-MarÄÄ¡Ä« and Muḥammad al-LÄá¸iqÄ« (d. c.900/1495), while al-MarÄÄ¡Ä«âs son and grandson were patronized by the Ottoman court.10 The first major music-theoretical text to be written in Turkish (in around 828/1425) is a translation of al-UrmawÄ«âs KitÄb al-AdwÄr.11 A treatise in Turkish by SeydÄ«, written before 910/1504, includes a discussion of interval ratios according to Systematist conventions.12 After this date, however, no original work in the Systematist tradition was written in Turkish (or, indeed, in any other language) until the turn of the twentieth century. Although some later Ottoman theorists were aware of the existence of Systematist treatises, which continued to be copied, mathematical theories were apparently no longer considered adequate or appropriate for describing the Ottoman pitch system.
The latter was instead described with reference to the frets (perde) of the long-necked lute á¹anbÅ«r. The perdes were named and classified as either primary (tamÄm, lit. âwholeâ) or secondary (nÄ«m, lit. âhalfâ). The sequence of primary and secondary degrees on the á¹anbÅ«r was also represented visually. The intervallic relations between degrees can be ascertained to some extent by verbal descriptions of âconsonanceâ (ünsiyyet).13 However, this does not provide a mathematically precise account of interval sizes, and much uncertainty remains about the exact constitution of the Ottoman pitch system.14
Imprecise verbal and visual modes of expressing pitch relations continued to be the norm in Turkish-language treatises well into the nineteenth century. The most substantial theoretical work of the mid-nineteenth century, an introductory essay that accompanies the second edition of HÄÅ¡im Beyâs song-text collection (1280/1864), draws on an early eighteenth-century treatise and contains no discussion of interval sizes.15 Beginning in the 1880s, a number of practical music tutors were published, such as ḤÄǧǧı EmÄ«nâs NÅá¹a muÊ¿allimi (1302/1884) and ṬanbÅ«rÄ« ǦemÄ«lâs Rehber-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« (1321/1904). In these works, the Ottoman pitch system is represented using makeshift adaptations of European staff notation. Sharp, flat, and natural signs indicate the approximate heightening or lowering of pitches, but do not give exact indications of interval size.16 The mathematical calculation of pitch became a topic of debate amongst Greek church musicians in Istanbul during the nineteenth century, inaugurated by Chrysanthos of Madytosâs (c.1770â1846) treatise on the reformed system of Byzantine notation (1832).17 A mathematical theory of the 24-note equal-tempered scale (which bears no relation to Systematist concepts) was also developed by the Lebanese intellectual MīḫÄʾīl MuÅ¡Äqa (1800â1888) around 1840, but was not published in Arabic until 1899.18 In addition, the Armenian musicologist EÅia Tntesean (1834â1881) published a mathematical table comparing the intervals of European and Ottoman music in 1874.19 However, although YektÄ was aware of Chrysanthosâs intervallic system and studied MuÅ¡Äqaâs treatise soon after it was published, mathematical theories of pitch were not discussed in Turkish-language publications until the mid-1890s.20
In 1305/1888, the journalist and novelist Aḥmed Midḥat (1260â1331/1829â1912) published a serialized essay in TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat titled âIá¹£lÄḥÄt-i mÅ«sÄ«qiyyeâ (âMusical reformsâ).21 According to Aḥmed Midḥat, Ottoman music had shown commendable progress in recent decades due to the introduction of western notation, which was promoted by figures such as ḤÄǧǧı EmÄ«n and Aḥmed Midḥatâs own music teacher, Leon ḪÄnǧıyÄn (d. 1947). However, even if the entire Ottoman repertoire were to be notated, this would be of little benefit without a scientific system of classification. Aḥmed Midḥat thus concludes the first instalment of his essay by appealing to his readers for answers to questions such as: What are the criteria defining the 15 main modes? What is the rule that defines the relationship between the âfundamental modesâ (üssü l-maqÄmÄt) and the other main modes? What principle governs the formation of compound modes? The formation and classification of modes was the subject of Ottoman music treatises long before dilettantes such as Aḥmed Midḥat called for systematization in the name of progress. Furthermore, modal theory was an integral part of the oral tradition of transmitting the Ottoman repertoire, as Aḥmed Midḥat had learned from his lessons with ḪÄnǧıyÄn. Nonetheless, the essay is indicative of a growing sense that the existing theory of Ottoman music was not rigorous or scientific enough for the modern age, to which the educated, bourgeois readers of journals such as TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat aspired to belong.
Following the publication of the first instalment of his essay, Aḥmed Midḥat received several reader responses, one of which was from ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede, the head of Yenikapı MevlevÄ« lodge. ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede, who happened to be visiting the village outside Istanbul where Aḥmed Midḥat was staying, congratulated him on his efforts towards musical reform, and to assist him in his search for the scientific principles of music, loaned him âfive or six excellent treatises, beginning with treatises written in Arabic and Persian five or six hundred years ago, even including a treatise written in Turkish by his own grandfather.â22 Aḥmed Midḥat confessed that he had until then been ignorant of the existence of such works, which evidently consisted of treatises by Systematist theorists.23 As he excitedly reported, he was now dedicating himself to the study of these ancient manuscripts. Although Aḥmed Midḥat continued to engage in polemical debates about music during the following decade, he did not make a significant contribution to the development of Ottoman music theory. However, his encounter with ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede in 1305/1888 is the earliest evidence of an attempt to use older Arabic and Persian music treatises to establish a modern, scientific theory of Ottoman music. It is also illustrative of the complex social networks through which this process took shape, involving journalists, music teachers, and Sufi sheikhs, and mediated through the burgeoning public sphere created by the growth of the Ottoman press.
The first modern work in Ottoman Turkish to actually employ a mathematical approach to pitch was written by Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m (Uz, 1288â1356/1872â1938), a high school teacher and one-time employee of the imperial music school. KÄáºÄ±m was conscious that luminaries such as Ibn SÄ«nÄ (d. 428/1037), al-UrmawÄ« and al-MarÄÄ¡Ä« had written treatises on music, since he provides short entries for them in his musical dictionary, published in 1310/1893.24 In a brief didactic work published the following year, KÄáºÄ±m gives just-intonation ratios for the ânatural scaleâ (á¹abÄ«Ê¿Ä« Ä¡Äm), based on the western diatonic scale beginning on C (dÅ).25 He does not relate these ratios directly to the pitches or modes of Ottoman music, and his use of imported terms such as Ä¡Äm (Fr. gamme) and qÅma (Fr. comma) suggests that the ratios were derived from a contemporary European source. KÄáºÄ±m also adopts the Arabic terms laḥn (for whole tone) and fÄṣıla (for interval), which are not used in these senses in either Turkish or Arabic music treatises.26 As discussed below, these are attempts to translate the French words ton and intervalle.
KÄáºÄ±m adopts the western diatonic scale â expressed in terms of just-intonation ratios rather than equal temperament â as a universal standard that, because of its mathematical basis, is valid for all musics. As he writes:
From the point of view of science, all people and nations that live on the earthâs surface are united when it comes to benefiting from each otherâs ideas, inventions, and progress. For this reason, contrary to some, we can say that the notes of oriental music, and indeed [the notes of the music of the] Italian, Hungarian, German, French, English, and the other nations living on all five continents, always consist of the mathematical arrangement of the words do (1), re (2), mi (3), fa (4), sol (5), la (6), si (7). (Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m, MÅ«sÄ«qÄ«, 4)
The idea that the western diatonic scale is a universal standard is founded on the notion of a singular path of civilizational development on which all nations have achieved a greater or lesser degree of progress. This worldview was widely shared amongst Ottoman intellectuals (and indeed globally) during the late nineteenth century, and defined the discursive terrain upon which debates about music took place. While different authors took different positions, even those who adopted an oppositional stance (the âsomeâ whose opinion was contrary to KÄáºÄ±mâs) were obliged to reckon with the purported universality of western music and its conceptual apparatus.
Shortly after the publication of KÄáºÄ±mâs treatise, in 1312â13/1895 a serialized essay on music theory was published in the literary journal MaÊ¿lÅ«mÄt by Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at (ÃaÄatay, d. 1353/1935).27 Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at was a firm believer in the cause of musical reform: he composed music in both Ottoman and European genres, and made important contributions to the institutionalization of music education.28 He begins his essay in MaÊ¿lÅ«mÄt by stating that
oriental music ⦠having attained serious progress in the area of the laws of mathematics during the last few centuries, merely due to the fact that the appropriate degree of importance has not been given to the necessity for a theory of this science, is today diminished in relation to its former greatness. (Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â 10)
The reasons for the decline of oriental music, according to Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, are the neglect of theory as well as the belated acceptance of notation. He therefore adopts âalaturqaâ (i.e. Hampartsum) notation to expound his didactic theory of music. While Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at acknowledged that âthe Europeans, as in everything, have made extraordinary progress in music,â he argues that oriental music had historically made progress in other areas, particularly with regards to the mathematical calculation of pitch. Furthermore, certain pitches exist in oriental music that cannot be accounted for by European music theory.29 Yet although Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at pays lip service to the âorderly rules that our noble ancestors established with extraordinary effort and care,â he does not refer to any specific theoretical texts, nor employ any of the terminology or concepts of Systematist music theory. Like KÄáºÄ±mâs, his mathematical approach to music is derived from modern European sources, and he accordingly adopts a just-intonation diatonic scale (beginning on C) as the fundamental scale, which he refers to as Ä¡Äm nÄtÅ«rel.30
Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at attempts to reconcile this with the existing Ottoman system by establishing correspondences between solfège notes and Ottoman perde names, which are also represented by discrete symbols in Hampartsum notation. However, the western orientation of his theory is demonstrated by his assertion that the third degree of the fundamental scale should not be segÄh (which was universally accepted as a main degree by earlier Ottoman theorists), but bÅ«selik (a secondary degree), which was perceived to correspond more closely to the European note si. Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at claims that segÄh had mistakenly been classified as a main degree due to the neglect of mathematical theory in favor of âsuperstitionsâ (ḫurÄfÄt):
For some time we have given importance only to the practice of music. Due to the difficulty of extracting theoretical information from the works of certain philosophers, and the spread of superstitions such as the relation of music to the stars, it is supposed that segÄh is a main degree. If one asks how this was calculated, the answer is: âmusic cannot be calculated.â (Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â 103)
Hence, while ʿAlī Rifʿat emphasized the importance of mathematical calculation and the existence of pitches that fell outside of the western tonal framework, his attempt to develop a coherent theory of the Ottoman pitch system was hampered by his manipulation of the established fundamental scale according to western theoretical norms. Furthermore, although he was aware of the existence of a historical tradition of mathematical theory, he was not able to adapt this tradition in any concrete way to his own project of musical reform.
2 Raʾūf YektÄ and the Systematist Revival
The aspiration to revive a great theoretical tradition for the purpose of modernization, which would demonstrate that Ottoman music was equally as scientific and rational as European music, was realized most effectively in the work of Raʾūf YektÄ. The first instalment of YektÄâs earliest published essay appeared in Resimli Ä azete on 7 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314/11 January 1897, and constitutes a statement of intent for the reform of music theory.31 Like Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, he believed that theory had been neglected by practicing musicians, and that this had precipitated a degeneration into irrational speculation. Having consulted a number of works on music, he characterizes their content as follows:
The theoretical section is kept absolutely far away from the gaze of the reader, and instead a bunch of scientifically and rationally discredited myths are made up, such as the relationship of the musical modes to the seven heavenly bodies, the twelve signs of the Zodiac, the celestial spheres, the seasons, and the times of day. As the discussion is limited to these matters by means of various exaggerations and elaborations, with the claim that they discuss the âscience of musicâ (fenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«), these works are in fact brought to a state of being a âcompendium of superstitionsâ (meǧmÅ«Ê¿a-yı ḫurÄfÄt). (YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â 115)
YektÄ singles out for special opprobrium HÄÅ¡im Beyâs theoretical essay in the second edition of his song-text collection. Despite consisting of âa compilation of nonsenseâ (münderiǧat-ı safsaá¹a-perdÄzÄne) about the cosmological dimensions of music, this was until recently the only available publication on the science of music, and had even been cited as an authoritative source in scientific discussions. How, in this âage of progressâ (Ê¿asr-ı teraqqÄ«), could people give serious consideration to such âmythsâ (efsÄneler)?32
There was, however, an alternative theoretical tradition that was eminently suited to the task of bringing Ottoman music into the modern age. YektÄ reported that, while he had been unable to locate any scientific music treatises written in Turkish after 850/1446â7, many such works had been written before this date in Arabic and Persian. The authors of these works were âwise and virtuous men of Islamâ (ḥükemÄ ve fużalÄ-yı islÄmiyye) such as al-UrmawÄ«, al-FÄrÄbÄ« (d. 339/950), Ibn SÄ«nÄ, aÅ¡-Å Ä«rÄzÄ« (d. 711/1311), MonlÄ Ç¦ÄmÄ« (d. 879/1474), al-LÄá¸iqÄ«, and al-MarÄÄ¡Ä«. Furthermore, the concepts expounded in these treatises were âin accordance with the current state of progress of the rational sciences and the mathematical sciences relating to music.â If previous generations of musicians and theorists had paid proper attention to this intellectual tradition, âit is clear that we would possess a music that is in every respect more excellent and more extensive than European music, whose easiness and correctness in rules and laws we look upon with admiration today.â33
In 1314/1897, YektÄ claimed that for over ten years (i.e. since the mid-1880s, when he was a teenager), he had been âgathering and collecting the most important findings of the books and treatises related to the science of music in general, and especially to oriental music and our Ottoman music, composed and written by the most renowned music scholars of East and West.â34 His burning curiosity to read works by famous musicians and scholars such as al-FÄrÄbÄ«, Ibn SÄ«nÄ, al-UrmawÄ«, and al-MarÄÄ¡Ä« had led him to âturn the libraries of our city [Istanbul] upside down.â35 At the same time, YektÄ studied the practice of music with one of the most respected masters of the day, the MevlevÄ« singer and composer ZekÄʾī Dede (d. 1315/1897). His other teachers and collaborators included Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede and ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede, both of whom were sheikhs of MevlevÄ« lodges in Istanbul. As we have seen, ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede had loaned Aḥmed Midḥat several Arabic and Persian music treatises in 1305/1888. Copies of historic treatises were housed in MevlevÄ« lodges, public libraries, and private collections. YektÄ also purchased original manuscripts, and built up his personal library into one of the most important extant collections of Islamicate music manuscripts.36
Writing in the daily newspaper Ä°qdÄm in Å evvÄl 1316/February 1899, YektÄ relates that around ten years earlier Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede had been visiting a second-hand book seller when he came across a copy of al-MarÄÄ¡Ä«âs MaqÄá¹£id al-alḥÄn.37 Up to this point, Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede, âstudying [so that] this wonderful science of music would also have a firm theory like every other science, had been occupied for a long time with the investigation of ancient books related to [music] written by [our] exalted forefathers.â38 Realizing that, unlike the so-called edvÄrs filled with irrational superstitions, MaqÄá¹£id al-alḥÄn was a âserious book of scienceâ (ǧiddÄ« bir fenn kitÄbı) Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede immediately understood its value and was motivated to study it more closely. Some of the technical terms were at first difficult to understand, but after a while their meanings became clearer. To help in his research, Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede started to use a sonometer (referred to with the French word sonometre), which he had commissioned from the physicist and mathematician á¹¢Äliḥ áºekÄ«. Thanks to Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dedeâs efforts to establish a scientific basis for Ottoman music, âthere can be no doubt that his exalted name will adorn the first pages of the history of our musical progress.â39
YektÄ was asked by Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede to perform the great service of publishing the theoretical findings that he had derived from MaqÄá¹£id al-alḥÄn. However, at this time YektÄ did not own any other treatises from the Systematist tradition, and since MaqÄá¹£id al-alḥÄn was an abridged work his knowledge was still limited. Therefore, he was obliged to search the libraries in Istanbul in order to study and make copies of other treatises. Eventually, he discovered a cache of manuscripts at NÅ«r-ı Ê¿Os̱mÄniyye mosque, including al-MarÄÄ¡Ä«âs much more substantial ǦÄmiÊ¿ al-alḥÄn, which he spent eight months copying during regular visits to the library. Realizing the dimensions of the task, he engaged a professional copyist to assist him, and within a year they had together made copies of all of the most important music treatises in the NÅ«r-ı Ê¿Os̱mÄniyye library. At the same time, YektÄ continued to visit other libraries, and after around two or three years â that is, by around 1310/1893 â had collected copies of almost all of the music treatises in Istanbul. Having gathered these treatises, he proceeded to study them closely with Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede and ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede, and together they conducted practical experiments on the sonometer and solved numerous theoretical problems. This included not only the mathematical expression of pitch relations, but also the classification and interrelations of different modes. Thanks to these years of collective effort and research, YektÄ writes, critics who had insisted that it was impossible to extract any sense from the ancient books of music theory eventually had to congratulate him and his collaborators on their remarkable results.40
YektÄ was not above engaging in polemics, and his elegant literary style often barely masks his contempt for his interlocutors. This included those who adhered to existing theories of Ottoman music as well as those who were ideologically committed to western music theory. In his quest for a scientific theory of Ottoman music, YektÄ attempted to consult practicing musicians who had learned by the traditional method of oral transmission, but claims that he was not even able to get them to understand what his goals were.41 In fact, it was not just ordinary musicians who found his aims and methods obscure. Contemporary intellectuals such as Aḥmed Midḥat broadly agreed on the need for a modernized theory that would reflect the illustriousness of Ottoman music, yet could not hope to match YektÄâs knowledge of the finer points of intervallic ratio relationships. Understandably, some of his critics saw him as dogmatically attached to theoretical ideals derived from texts that had long been considered incomprehensible and irrelevant, and which were far removed from what most Ottoman musicians actually did or thought in practice. YektÄâs responses to his critics betray a conceited impatience which, while perhaps warranted by superior knowledge gained through years of dedicated study, leaves little room for alternative perspectives on theoretical issues. In his polemical exchange with Aḥmed Midḥat about the nature of the Pythagorean scale, he claims that, apart from Ê¿Aá¹ÄʾullÄh Dede and ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede â and, obviously, himself â there is in fact no other person who knows the theory of Ottoman music. To drive the point home, he invites readers to respond to five theoretical questions (e.g. âOn a string of 864 millimeters, at what point does the string need to be stopped to produce the interval of a müǧenneb, and if the open string sounds dügÄh, which perde does this produce?â), which he claims are âa job of five minutes for somebody competent in that theory.â42 His confidence that nobody would be capable of responding indicates that the application of Systematist concepts and terminology to Ottoman music was unfamiliar to anybody beyond YektÄâs personal circle at this date.
When YektÄ approached people who were reputed to be experts in European music, he found that they were âcompletely unfamiliar with the theory of oriental music that our esteemed ancestors had expended such great efforts upon, and indeed were not even aware of the existence of such a theory.â43 Such people were convinced that European music was the only music with a scientific theory, and that this was entirely adequate to explain all other musics. The Ottoman maqÄms could be classified according to which major or minor scale they corresponded to, while the various pitches that did not exist in western music could simply be discarded as having no rational basis. These arguments were based on the notion of a single universal theory of music, whose principles were expressed most scientifically by the conventions of western music. In response, YektÄ argued that there were in fact two theories of music: a western one and an eastern one, as clearly distinct from one another as the grammatical rules of the French and Ottoman languages.44
In order to establish a new theoretical system, a suitable nomenclature was required. YektÄ observed that the knowledge of physics taught in primary and secondary schools was based mainly on translations of European books, with scientific terms adopted from French. Translators with no knowledge of music theory selected literal equivalents for terms related to acoustics, which were then unthinkingly reproduced by others: for example, seconde was translated as s̱Äniye, quinte as ḫÄmise, and intervalle as fÄṣıla. According to YektÄ, neither students nor teachers properly understood the meaning of such terms. Yet a suitable nomenclature was already provided in older Arabic and Persian texts: rather than, say, s̱Äniye, ḫÄmise and fÄṣıla, the Systematist terms á¹anÄ«nÄ«, áºÅ« l-ḫams and buÊ¿d should be adopted.45 Even worse, many French terms were not translated at all, but simply transcribed phonetically, leading to sentences such as: âtransferring the tetrÄḳÅrd sÅ«periyör of the Å«t mÄjör Ä¡Äm to the tetrÄḳÅrd inferiyör of the other Ä¡Äm and arranging and adding a tetrÄḳÅrd sÅ«periyör to this new Ä¡Äm results in a new á¹ÅnÄlÄ«te that includes a diyez.â As YektÄ comments, âit can be easily appreciated with how sorrowful a gaze those who desire the progress of our music with heart and soul read these French phrases written in Turkish letters.â46
However, although YektÄ vehemently rejected the idea that Ottoman music was inherently inferior to western music, he was in no doubt that it had declined from its former greatness, and that Europe was currently at the vanguard of musical and scientific progress. As he wrote: âWe cannot deny that in the matter of music we find ourselves very far behind.â47 The question was therefore how to use European learning in order to contribute to the reform of Ottoman music, rather than simply imitating or adopting European practices. YektÄ claims that he acquired and carefully studied more than 30 books on western music, and he refers frequently to European authors and works, especially those who discuss âorientalâ music.48 Having read the works of Toderini, Villoteau and Fétis, he remarks that âanybody with a conscience is compelled to say âThe Europeans know our music better than we do!ââ49 He pointed out that the renowned physicist Hermann von Helmholtz (1821â1894) discussed the works of the Systematists in his influential work on acoustics.50 Helmholtz drew on the earlier scholarship of Raphael Georg Kiesewetter, whose monograph Die Musik der Araber (1842) was also familiar to YektÄ. Furthermore, European scholars had published translations of Islamicate music treatises, such as J. P. N. Landâs Recherches sur lâhistoire de la gamme arabe (1884), which consists of a partial translation of al-FÄrÄbÄ«âs KitÄb al-mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« al-kabÄ«r, âtogether with an excellent commentary.â51 YektÄ thus used his knowledge of European scholarship to support his argument that oriental music was distinct from western music and had a historically established, rational theory that was compatible with the most advanced scientific principles.
Having spent over a decade collecting and deciphering Systematist music treatises, conducting experiments on the sonometer, and reading recent European scholarship on acoustics, music theory, and oriental music, YektÄ and his collaborators finally developed a prototypical model of the Ottoman pitch system. This was published for the first time on 29 December 1899 in Ä°qdÄm.52 The diagram accompanying the article represents a two-octave scale, with 23 unequally spaced intervals (or 22 degrees) per octave (figs. 1 and 2). Each degree is individually named and the types of interval are labelled using Systematist nomenclature and mathematical ratios. This first iteration of YektÄâs system has a number of differences from the version that is now widely known. Most obviously, there are 22 rather than 24 degrees per octave, as there is only one degree between ʿırÄq and rÄst and between segÄh and ÄÄrgÄh. Nonetheless, the model provides the foundations for the pitch system used in Turkish classical music today. It adopts the interval types used by al-UrmawÄ« and other Systematist theorists, and rearranges them according to a series of named degrees used in the Ottoman pitch system. In addition, YektÄ introduced a new set of alteration signs that could be used to represent Ottoman music in staff notation. The key point here is that until the publication of this article, no such arrangement or labelling of interval types was known in Ottoman music. Ingenious though it is, what it offers is not an empirical description of the pitch system as it existed at the end of the nineteenth century, but a prescriptive theoretical model based on the creative interpretation of historical texts.
YektÄ was fully aware that he was introducing a new theoretical model rather than describing existing practices. He noted, for example, that the long-necked lute á¹anbÅ«r was widely accepted as the reference point for the Ottoman pitch system. However, the number of frets in the lower and upper octaves was not the same: there were 18 between yegÄh and nevÄ, but only 14 between nevÄ and tÄ«z nevÄ. To eliminate this apparent illogicality, YektÄ decreed that each octave should contain 22 degrees. Of course, since there were more degrees in the new system than were identified in practice, additional names had to be assigned â which YektÄ admits was a matter of considerable difficulty. Fortunately, with the assistance of Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at and QÄnÅ«nÄ« ḤÄǧǧı Ê¿Ärif (d. 1329/1911), he was able to come up with names for all degrees in his two-octave general scale. A footnote indicates, for example, that YektÄ struggled to think of a name for the degree between á¹£abÄ and nevÄ until the word nerÄ«me was suggested to him by Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at. A few years later, under the influence of MuÅ¡Äqaâs nomenclatural system, which he considered more logical and easier to memorize, YektÄ decided to simplify the names of the degrees by introducing the modifiers nÄ«m and dik to indicate lower and upper variants of a degree. Thus, for example, rather than the individual names rehÄvÄ«, zengÅ«le and büzürg, the terms nÄ«m zengÅ«le, zengÅ«le, and dik zengÅ«le were adopted. In addition, two new degrees (dik gevÄÅ¡t and dik bÅ«selik) were added, increasing the number of degrees from 22 to 24 per octave, as in MuÅ¡Äqaâs system.53
The purpose of YektÄâs early publications is to demonstrate the rational basis of the theoretical model being presented, and to introduce technical terms, concepts, and symbols that were until that point not in currency. He puts forward a discursive argument that implies, and sometimes openly admits, that a diversity of opinions existed regarding the theory of Ottoman music. In the end, however, YektÄ was utterly convinced of his own expertise, and was pre-emptively and characteristically dismissive of any attempt to disagree with his proposed model. As he wrote:
The existence in our music of these forty-five pitches whose names we have designated from yegÄh to tÄ«z nevÄ is established in an absolutely definitive manner due to scientific reasons which we do not feel it necessary to explain in detail here. Our arrangement is the result on the one hand of investigations undertaken over several years into ancient eastern and western books on music, and on the other hand of an exchange of ideas in a meticulous manner with the aim of investigating the truth while paying attention to the present needs of our music. For this reason, we advise in the kindest possible way against attempts to raise vain objections. (YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde ÄÄryek, s̱üls̱ ve nıṣf á¹£adÄlarâ)
Chart from Raʾūf YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde ÄÄryek, s̱üls̱ ve nıṣf á¹£adÄlarâ (image courtesy of Atatürk KitaplıÄı, Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Libraries)
Citation: Oriens 51, 1-2 (2023) ; 10.1163/18778372-12340024
3 Conclusion
It took several more decades, and further refinements by other theorists, before YektÄâs model was generally accepted as the basis for conceptualizing the pitch system of Ottoman music â or, as it had become known by the early Republican period, Turkish classical music. However, the reforms of the 1920s and 1930s were not simply a consequence of the modernizing and secularist policies of the Kemalist regime, but a continuation of a process that had intellectual and social roots in the late Ottoman period. By the end of the nineteenth century, Ottoman society had already undergone decades of transformation driven by military and bureaucratic reorganization, the spread of modern technologies such as the steamship, telegraph, and printing press, and educational reforms. Debates about music took place against this background, with a widely shared assumption that Ottoman music could adapt to the modern age only through reforms that accorded with the latest scientific developments. The press itself played an integral role in shaping these debates. With the emergence of Ottoman print culture in the mid-nineteenth century, intellectual discussion of music became a matter of general public interest, rather than being confined to esoteric manuscripts and elite courtly gatherings. To be sure, the protagonists came from a relatively privileged stratum of society, though mostly from the middle class of professionals and civil servants rather than the highest echelons of power. The fact that complex problems of music theory could be discussed in the columns of daily newspapers like Ä°qdÄm demonstrates the extent to which such questions mattered in the late nineteenth century. This is because they were understood to be not just about music theory, but about much wider issues such as the nature of scientific knowledge, the intellectual heritage of Islam, the geopolitical relationship with Europe, and the irreversible social changes brought about by modernity.
To argue that the musical reforms of the Republican era had roots in the nineteenth century is not, however, to advocate a teleological narrative of modernization or âwesternization.â While all discussants agreed that progress was necessary, they held sometimes radically different opinions about how this should be achieved. It was precisely this diversity of opinions and approaches that supported the emergence of wide-ranging debates about music over a period of decades. I have necessarily focused on a limited aspect of those debates, and I have not been able to explore the many other complex and nuanced positions that were articulated. YektÄâs arguments were only one possible set of responses to the question of musical reform, and they certainly did not meet with universal approval. Nonetheless, his approach offers a useful illustration of how debates about music theory were related to broader discussions about science, history, and society.
The debates about musical reform were shaped by local realities and the perspectives of a limited group of individuals. At the same time, they were informed by developments far beyond their immediate environment. In the age of steam and print, intellectuals such as YektÄ kept up to date with contemporary debates in Europe, particularly as they related to âorientalâ matters. It would be incorrect, however, to assume that his theory was derived from European sources or simply the result of western influence. While an awareness of European scholarship played an important role in the formulation of YektÄâs ideas, they were also based on the independent study of primary sources and his understanding of the local cultural environment. Furthermore, YektÄ was aware of other efforts to establish mathematical theories of pitch for non-European musical traditions. This included the theory of a 24-note equal-tempered scale outlined by MīḫÄʾīl MuÅ¡Äqa, which YektÄ read about when it was published in al-MaÅ¡riq in 1899. Similarly, Greek reformers in Istanbul had been discussing matters of pitch measurement since the publication of Chysanthos of Madytosâs Mega TheÅrÄtikon in 1832. Indeed, as Daniel Walden has recently shown, mathematical approaches to pitch were adopted by music theorists across the globe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.54
YektÄâs interest in European scholarship on Arabic and Persian music was part of a broader phenomenon not only amongst Ottoman intellectuals but across the Islamic world. The historical contribution of Muslim scholars to scientific knowledge was a central issue in discussions of educational and social reform during the late nineteenth century.55 According to one narrative, during the Ê¿AbbÄsid period Muslim scholars had made scientific discoveries that were then transmitted to Europe through southern Spain, and thus precipitated the scientific revolution. Yet others argued that the Islamic learning of the past was irrelevant to the needs of the present, which could be met only by the knowledge and methods of the West. Also at stake were questions about language, faith, ethnicity, and identity. Were the early Islamic philosophers of Arab, Persian, or Turkish origin? What role did Christians play in the translation of Greek texts? Should Ottoman students still learn Arabic and Persian, or was French the only language that would provide access to useful scientific knowledge?
The debate about musical reform, particularly as it related to the Islamic intellectual tradition and its Greek sources, was thus part of the larger debate about the relationship between Islam and science. YektÄ and his allies attempted to demonstrate that Ottoman music belonged to a glorious Islamic past that also encompassed the Arab and Persianate worlds, and was heir to a scientific tradition of music theory that was associated with the great Muslim philosophers. Of course, Ottoman music theorists had long been familiar with Arabic and Persian writings on music, but it was only at the end of the nineteenth century that these writings began to be explicitly conceptualized as part of a common âIslamicâ or âorientalâ intellectual tradition that was opposed to that of âEuropeâ or the âWest.â While Ê¿AbdülḥamÄ«d IIâs strategic use of Islamic symbolism and rhetoric was oriented mainly toward the political domain and intended to bolster the position of the Ottoman sultan as the leader of the contemporary Muslim world, the work of intellectuals such as YektÄ helped to establish a pan-Islamic framework in the realms of history and culture. Likewise, the project of rationalistic modernization through an appeal to a golden age of Islamic cultural achievement was shared with reformist thinkers across the Muslim world, from Muḥammad Ê¿Abduh to Ismail Gasprinskii. This was not a reactionary stance, but on the contrary a way of arguing that Ottoman music â or Islam â was fit for the modern age, provided that its practitioners implemented systemic reforms that would lead to progress. Far from being conservative or traditionalist, YektÄâs ideas were thus fundamentally oriented toward the future, albeit through the prism of a reinvigorated past.
While YektÄ and his collaborators were committed to the revitalization of Islamic intellectual traditions, they also subscribed to contemporary positivist models of scientific knowledge. The theory of Ottoman music that existed until the 1890s was dismissed as consisting of nothing more than âsuperstitionsâ and âmyths.â There was no longer any space for cosmological speculation in music, which should serve the utilitarian goals of scientific progress. As Åükrü HanioÄlu has shown, varieties of Comtean positivism and the popular materialism of Ludwig Büchner were widely known amongst Ottoman intellectuals.56 These philosophies were adapted to local worldviews as they circulated through translations, appropriations, and critiques. While a few intellectuals became radical atheists, and others rejected outright any challenge to religious authority, most sought in one way or another to demonstrate the compatibility of materialism with Islam. Materialist and positivist philosophies were also integral to the Young Turk movement, which emerged in opposition to the ḤamÄ«dian regime and coalesced in the Committee of Union and Progress (Ä°ttiḥÄd ve TeraqqÄ« Ǧemiyyeti), founded in 1306/1889. The CUP eventually came to power in 1326/1908. In the decades around 1900, ideals of progress, civilization, and positivism thus migrated freely between debates about music theory, Islamic modernism, and revolutionary political movements. In the authoritarian climate of ḤamÄ«dian Istanbul, where public discussion of politics was best avoided, debates about music theory were a way of articulating opinions about the past, present, and future of the empire. YektÄ was a prolific author whose publications spanned four tumultuous decades, and whose ideas shifted and evolved in response to contemporary social, political, and intellectual developments. In this article I have examined his earliest writings, in which he situated Ottoman music theory primarily within a pan-Islamic historical genealogy. It remains a task for future research to unravel how this narrative was transmuted into the Turkish nationalism that came to dominate musical debates in the following decades.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Salah Eddin Maraqa and Mehmet UÄur Ekinci for their comments on earlier drafts of this article, and the organisers and participants of the international conference âMusical Sources and Theories from Ancient Greece to the Ottoman Period,â hosted by the University of Bochum in June 2021. The research was supported by a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Research Fellowship (2020â384) at the University of Cambridge.
Bibliography
Aḥmed Midḥat. âIá¹£lÄḥÄt-i mÅ«sÄ«qiyye.â TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat, no. 3004 (14 Å evvÄl 1305 / 24 June 1888): 7; no. 3012 (24 Å evvÄl 1305 / 4 July 1888): 7; no. 3020 (4 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 13 July 1888): 7; no. 3023 (8 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 17 July 1888): 6; no. 3024 (9 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 18 July 1888): 7.
Ahmed OÄlu Åükrullah. Åükrullahâın risâlesi ve 15. yüzyıl Åark musikisi nazariyatı. Ed. by Murat Bardakçı. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 2012.
Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at. âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«.â MaÊ¿lÅ«mÄt, no. 1 (28 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1312 [23 May 1895]): 10â11; no. 2 (10 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1312 [3 June 1895]): 36â37; no. 3 (20 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1312 [13 June 1895]): 60â61; no. 4 (1 Muḥarrem 1313 [24 June 1895]): 82â84; no. 5 (11 Muḥarrem 1313 [4 July 1895]): 102â3; no. 6 (22 Muḥarrem 1313 [15 July 1895]): 131â32; no. 7 (3 á¹¢afer 1313 [25 July 1895]): 156â57; no. 9 (24 á¹¢afer 1313 [15 August 1895]): 190â91; no. 10 (10 Rebīʿü l-evvel 1313 [31 August 1895]): 216â18; no. 13 (30 Rebīʿü l-evvel 1313 [19 September 1895]): 261â62; no. 20 (20 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-evvel 1313 [7 November 1895]): 432â33; no. 21 (27 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-evvel 1313 [14 November 1895]): 458; no. 23 (11 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-Äḫir 1313 [28 November 1895]): 506; no. 28 (17 Reǧeb 1313 [3 January 1896]): 619â20.
ArpaguÅ, Faysal. ââMaâlûmâtâ mecmuasıânın 1â500 sayılarında yer alan Türk mûsikîsi ile ilgili makâleler.â Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2004.
Arslan, Fazlı, ed. Ahmet Midhat Efendi ve mûsikî: BatılılaÅma döneminin ilk metinleri. Istanbul: VakıfBank Kültür Yayınları, 2020.
Aydin, Cemil. The Idea of the Muslim World: A Global Intellectual History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Bardakçı, Murad. âRauf Yekta Beyâin hayatı ve eserleri.â In Türk musikisi by Rauf Yekta Bey. Trans. by Orhan NasuhioÄlu. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1986, 8â16.
Bardakçı, Murat. Maragalı Abdülkadir. Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1986.
Ãergel, Muhammet Ali. âRaûf Yektâ Beyâin Ä°kdâm gazetesiânde neÅredilen Türk mûsikîsi konulu makâleleri.â Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2007.
Chrysanthos of Madytos. Great Theory of Music. Ed. and trans. by Katy Romanou. New Rochelle: The Axion Estin Foundation, 2010.
DoÄrusöz, Nilgün, ed. Rauf Yekta Beyâin musiki antikaları. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaÅkanlıÄı, 2018.
DoÄrusöz, Nilgün and Ali Ergur, eds. Musikinin asrî prensi: Ali Rifat ÃaÄatay. Ankara: Gece KitaplıÄı, 2017.
Erol, Merih. Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of Reform. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015.
Feldman, Walter. Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition and the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire. Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1996.
ḤÄǧǧı EmÄ«n. NÅá¹a muÊ¿allimi. Istanbul: áºÄrá¹ÄryÄn maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1302/1884.
HanioÄlu, Åükrü. âBlueprints for a Future Society: Late Ottoman Materialists on Science, Religion, and Art.â In Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy. Ed. by Elisabeth Ãzdalga. London: Routledge, 2005, 28â116.
HâÅim Bey. 19. yüzyıl Türk musikisinde HâÅim Bey Mecmuası. Birinci bölüm: Edvâr. Ed. by Gökhan Yalçın. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 2016.
Helmholtz, Hermann L. F. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music. Trans. by Alexander J. Ellis. Second English edition. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1885.
Helmholtz, Hermann L. F. Die Lehre von Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1863.
Ä°hsanoÄlu, Ekmeleddin, Ramazan ÅeÅen, Gülcan Gündüz and M. Serdar Bekar, eds. Osmanlı mûsikî literatürü tarihi (History of music literature during the Ottoman period). Istanbul: Ä°slâm Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür AraÅtırma Merkezi, 2003.
Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m. MÅ«sÄ«qÄ«. Istanbul: MaḥmÅ«d Bey maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1311/1894.
Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m. TaÊ¿lÄ«m-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« yÄḫūd mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« ıṣá¹Ä±lÄḥÄtı. Istanbul: Maá¹baÊ¿a-yı EbūżżiyÄ, 1310/1893.
Jäger, Ralf Martin. Türkische Kunstmusik und ihre handschriftlichen Quellen aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Eisenach: Karl Dieter Wagner, 1996.
KantemiroÄlu. KitÄbu Ê¿ilmiʾl-mÅ«sīḳī Ê¿alÄ vechiʾl-ḥurÅ«fÄt / Mûsikîyi harflerle tesbît ve icrâ ilminin kitabı. Ed. by Yalçın Tura. 2 vols. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001.
Keskiner, Bora. âArap harfli Türkçe süreli yayınlarda Türk musikisi teorisi bibliyografyası.â Türkiye AraÅtırma Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 14 (2009): 375â415.
Kiesewetter, Raphael G. Die Musik der Araber nach Originalquellen dargestellt. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1842.
Kurzman, Charles, ed. Modernist Islam, 1840â1940: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Land, J. P. N. Recherches sur lâhistoire de la gamme arabe. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1884.
Maraqa, Salah Eddin. âAuf der Suche nach den Anfängen der âmodernenâ arabischen Musiktheorie.â Die Musikforschung 68, no. 4 (2015): 341â352.
OâConnell, John Morgan. âFine Art, Fine Music: Controlling Turkish Taste at the Fine Arts Academy in 1926.â Yearbook for Traditional Music 32 (2000): 117â142.
Ãzdemir, Hüseyin. âRauf Yektâ Beyâin, Resimli Gazete, Yeni Ses ve Vakit gazetelerinde mûsikî ile ilgili makalelerinin incelenmesi.â Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2010.
Ãzkan, Ä°smail Hakkı. Türk mûsıkîsi nazariyatı ve usulleri kudüm velveleleri. Eighth edition. Istanbul: Ãtüken NeÅriyat, 2006.
Ãztuna, Yılmaz. Büyük Türk mûsikîsi ansiklopedisi. 2 vols. Ankara: Kültür BakanlıÄı, 1990.
Ãztürk, Okan Murat. âTürk müziÄinde Yekta, Ezgi ve Arel teorilerinin pozitivist inÅası: Kısa fakat eleÅtirel bir tarihçe.â Eurasian Journal of Music and Dance 16 (2020): 171â215.
Raouf Yekta. âLa musique turque.â In Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du conservatoire. Première partie: Historie de la musique, vol. 5. Ed. by Albert Lavignac and Lionel de la Laurencie. Paris: Librairie Delagrave, 1922, 2845â3064.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âṬanbÅ«rda naÄ¡amÄtin mevÄqiÊ¿-i fenniyyesi.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 4667 (18 Rebīʿü l-Äḫir 1325 / 31 May 1907), pagination unknown. Transliterated in Muhammet Ali Ãergel. âRaûf Yektâ Beyâin Ä°kdâm gazetesiânde neÅredilen Türk mûsikîsi konulu makâleleri.â Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2007, 256â63.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde ÄÄryek, s̱üls̱ ve nıṣf á¹£adÄlar.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1972 (26 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1317 / 29 December 1899): 3.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde tabÄ«Ê¿Ä« á¹£adÄlar.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1965 (19 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1317 / 22 December 1899): 3â4.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âSÅ«riyye ve BeyrÅ«t vilÄyetlerinde bir seyÄḥat-ı mÅ«sÄ«qiyye.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1944 (28 Reǧeb 1317 / 1 December 1899), pagination unknown. Transliterated in Muhammet Ali Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Beyâin Ä°kdâm gazetesiânde neÅredilen Türk mûsikîsi konulu makâleleri.â Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2007, 477â84.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âRÅ«m kiliselerinde mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1930 (13 Reǧeb 1317 / 17 November 1899): 3â4.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1645 (24 RamażÄn 1316 / 5 February 1899): 2â3; no. 1668 (17 Å evvÄl 1316 / 28 February 1899): 3â4; no. 1670 (19 Å evvÄl 1316 / 2 March 1899): 3.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âMeḥmed áºÄtÄ« Bey Efendiâye.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1590 (28 Reǧeb 1316 / 12 December 1898): 3.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında bir qaÄ söz.â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1339 (15 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1315 / 6 April 1898 [7 April 1898]): 3.
Raʾūf YektÄ. âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı.â Resimli Ä azete, no. 10 (7 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [11 January 1897]): 115â17; no. 11 (16 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [20 January 1897]): 126â27; no. 12 (21 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [25 January 1897]): 135â37; no. 13 (28 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [1 February 1897]): 151â52; no. 15 (12 RamażÄn 1314 [15 February 1897]): 176â78; no. 17 (1 Å evvÄl 1314 [5 March 1897]): 199â201; no. 19 (14 Å evvÄl 1314 [18 March 1897]): 223â24; no. 20 (21 Å evvÄl 1314 [25 March 1897]): 235â37; no. 28 (18 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1314 [21 May 1897]): 333â35.
SaÄlam, Atilla. Türk musiki/müzik devrimi. Bursa: Aktüel Yayınları, 2009.
SeydÄ«. SeydÄ«âs Book on Music: A 15th Century Turkish Discourse. Ed. and trans. by Eugenia Popescu-Judetz in collaboration with Eckhard Neubauer. Frankfurt: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 2004.
Signell, Karl L. Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music. Sarasota: Usul Editions, 2008 [1977].
ṬanbÅ«rÄ« ǦemÄ«l. Rehber-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«. Istanbul: MaḥmÅ«d Bey maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1321/1903.
TekelioÄlu, Orhan. âModernizing Reforms and Turkish Music in the 1930s.â Turkish Studies 2, no. 1 (2001): 93â108.
Tntesean, EÅia. Nkaragir ergocâ Hayastaneaycâs ekeÅecâwocâ. Istanbul: Tpagrutâiwn E. M. Tntesean, 1874.
Walden, Daniel. âThe Politics of Tuning and Temperament: Transnational Exchange and the Production of Music Theory in 19th-Century Europe, Asia, and North America.â PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2019.
Wright, Owen. Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations. Vol. 2: Commentary. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000.
Wright, Owen. âÃargâh in Turkish Classical Music: History versus Theory.â Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53, no. 2 (1990): 224â244.
Wright, Owen. The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music, A.D. 1250â1300. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Yalçınkaya, Mehmet Alper. Learned Patriots: Debating Science, State, and Society in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.
Orhan TekelioÄlu, âModernizing Reforms and Turkish Music in the 1930s,â Turkish Studies 2, no. 1 (2001): 93â108; John Morgan OâConnell, âFine Art, Fine Music: Controlling Turkish Taste at the Fine Arts Academy in 1926,â Yearbook for Traditional Music 32 (2000): 117â42; Atilla SaÄlam, Türk musiki/müzik devrimi (Bursa: Aktüel Yayınları, 2009).
Ä°smail Hakkı Ãzkan, Türk mûsıkîsi nazariyatı ve usulleri kudüm velveleleri, eighth edition (Istanbul: Ãtüken NeÅriyat, 2006), 24â25.
A critical analysis of the intellectual and historical background of modern Turkish music theory is provided in a recent article by Okan Murat Ãztürk, which covers a somewhat broader chronology than the present essay but reaches similar conclusions. See Okan Murat Ãztürk, âTürk müziÄinde Yekta, Ezgi ve Arel teorilerinin pozitivist inÅası: Kısa fakat eleÅtirel bir tarihçe,â Eurasian Journal of Music and Dance 16 (2020): 171â215.
For a largely uncritical acceptance of YektÄâs theory, see e.g. Ralf Martin Jäger, Türkische Kunstmusik und ihre handschriftlichen Quellen aus dem 19. Jahrhundert (Eisenach: Karl Dieter Wagner, 1996), 221â24, 255â56; Karl L. Signell, Makam: Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music (Sarasota: Usul Editions, 2008), 7. For more cautious and historically informed evaluations, see Walter Feldman, Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition and the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire (Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1996), 221â22; Owen Wright, âÃargâh in Turkish Classical Music: History versus Theory,â Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 53, no. 2 (1990): 224â44.
Raouf Yekta, âLa musique turque,â in Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du conservatoire. Première partie: Historie de la musique, vol. 5, ed. by Albert Lavignac and Lionel de la Laurencie (Paris: Librairie Delagrave, 1922), 2845â3064.
YektÄâs articles in Resimli Ä azete are transliterated in Hüseyin Ãzdemir, âRauf Yektâ Beyâin, Resimli Gazete, Yeni Ses ve Vakit gazetelerinde mûsikî ile ilgili makalelerinin incelenmesiâ (Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2010). Those in Ä°qdÄm are transliterated in Muhammet Ali Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Beyâin Ä°kdâm gazetesiânde neÅredilen Türk mûsikîsi konulu makâleleriâ (Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2007). Ãztuna claims that YektÄ began publishing in Ä°qdÄm from 1889 onwards, but as Ãergel points out, Ä°qdÄm did not begin publication until July 1894, and YektÄâs first article did not appear until April 1898. See Yılmaz Ãztuna, Büyük Türk mûsikîsi ansiklopedisi (Ankara: Kültür BakanlıÄı, 1990), 2:219; Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 15â16. For the most comprehensive list of YektÄâs published articles, see Bora Keskiner, âArap harfli Türkçe süreli yayınlarda Türk musikisi teorisi bibliyografyası,â Türkiye AraÅtırma Literatür Dergisi 7, no. 14 (2009): 383â404.
On Islamic modernism, see Charles Kurzman, ed., Modernist Islam, 1840â1940: A Sourcebook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Cemil Aydin, The Idea of the Muslim World: A Global Intellectual History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017).
Owen Wright, The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music, A.D. 1250â1300 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).
Murat Bardakçı, Maragalı Abdülkadir (Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1986).
Bardakçı, Maragalı Abdülkadir, 42â46; Ekmeleddin Ä°hsanoÄlu et al., ed., Osmanlı mûsikî literatürü tarihi (History of music literature during the Ottoman period) (Istanbul: Ä°slâm Tarih, Sanat ve Kültür AraÅtırma Merkezi, 2003), 18â23.
Ahmed OÄlu Åükrullah, Åükrullahâın risâlesi ve 15. yüzyıl Åark musikisi nazariyatı, ed. by Murat Bardakçı (Istanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 2012).
SeydÄ«, SeydÄ«âs Book on Music: A 15th Century Turkish Discourse, ed. and trans. by Eugenia Popescu-Judetz in collaboration with Eckhard Neubauer (Frankfurt: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 2004), 86â113.
See e.g. KantemiroÄlu, KitÄbu Ê¿ilmiʾl-mÅ«sīḳī Ê¿alÄ vechiʾl-ḥurÅ«fÄt / Mûsikîyi harflerle tesbît ve icrâ ilminin kitabı, ed. by Yalçın Tura (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2001), vol. 1, 112â21.
For general discussions, see Feldman, Music of the Ottoman Court, 197â216; Owen Wright, Demetrius Cantemir: The Collection of Notations, vol. 2: Commentary (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), 15â22.
HâÅim Bey, 19. yüzyıl Türk musikisinde HâÅim Bey Mecmuası. Birinci bölüm: Edvâr, ed. by Gökhan Yalçın (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi, 2016).
ḤÄǧǧı EmÄ«n, NÅá¹a muÊ¿allimi (Istanbul: áºÄrá¹ÄryÄn maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1302/1884); ṬanbÅ«rÄ« ǦemÄ«l, Rehber-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« (Istanbul: MaḥmÅ«d Bey maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1321/1903).
Chrysanthos of Madytos, Great Theory of Music, ed. and trans. by Katy Romanou (New Rochelle: The Axion Estin Foundation, 2010); Merih Erol, Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul: Nation and Community in the Era of Reform (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015), 124â26.
Salah Eddin Maraqa, âAuf der Suche nach den Anfängen der âmodernenâ arabischen Musiktheorie,â Die Musikforschung 68, no. 4 (2015): 341â52.
EÅia Tntesean, Nkaragir ergocâ Hayastaneaycâs ekeÅecâwocâ (Istanbul: Tpagrutâiwn E. M. Tntesean, 1874), 45.
For YektÄâs comments on MuÅ¡Äqaâs treatise, see Raʾūf YektÄ, âSÅ«riyye ve BeyrÅ«t vilÄyetlerinde bir seyÄḥat-ı mÅ«sÄ«qiyye,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1944 (28 Reǧeb 1317 / 1 December 1899), transliterated in Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 477â84. The article also mentions an earlier essay by YektÄ on Greek church music (overlooked by Ãergel), which was subsequently translated and published in a Greek periodical. YektÄ did not know Greek, and his information seems to have been derived mainly from European authors such as Bourgault-Ducoudray. See Raʾūf YektÄ, âRÅ«m kiliselerinde mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1930 (13 Reǧeb 1317 / 17 November 1899): 3â4.
Aḥmed Midḥat, âIá¹£lÄḥÄt-i mÅ«sÄ«qiyye,â TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat, no. 3004 (14 Å evvÄl 1305 / 24 June 1888): 7; no. 3012 (24 Å evvÄl 1305 / 4 July 1888): 7; no. 3020 (4 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 13 July 1888): 7; no. 3023 (8 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 17 July 1888): 6; no. 3024 (9 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 / 18 July 1888): 7. For a modern Turkish edition of Aḥmed Midḥatâs published writings on music, see Fazlı Arslan, ed., Ahmet Midhat Efendi ve mûsikî: BatılılaÅma döneminin ilk metinleri (Istanbul: VakıfBank Kültür Yayınları, 2020).
Aḥmed Midḥat, âIá¹£lÄḥÄt-i mÅ«sÄ«qiyye,â TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat, no. 3020 (4 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1305 [13 July 1888]): 7. ǦelÄleddÄ«n Dede was the grandson of the MevlevÄ« musician and theorist Ê¿AbdülbÄqÄ« NÄṣır Dede (1179â1236/1765â1821).
Aḥmed Midḥat gives the name of only one treatise, which is the Persian-language NaqÄvat al-advÄr, written by the youngest son of al-MarÄÄ¡Ä« and dedicated to Meḥmed II (835â886/1432â1481). See Aḥmed Midḥat, âIá¹£lÄḥÄt-i mÅ«sÄ«qiyye,â TerǧümÄn-ı ḥaqÄ«qat, no. 3012 (24 Å evvÄl 1305 / 4 July 1888): 7. For details of the treatise, see Ä°hsanoÄlu et al., Osmanlı mûsikî literatürü tarihi, 22â23.
Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m, TaÊ¿lÄ«m-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« yÄḫūd mÅ«sÄ«qÄ« ıṣá¹Ä±lÄḥÄtı (Istanbul: Maá¹baÊ¿a-yı EbūżżiyÄ, 1310/1893), 44, 49.
Ä°smÄÊ¿Ä«l KÄáºÄ±m, MÅ«sÄ«qÄ« (Istanbul: MaḥmÅ«d Bey maá¹baÊ¿ası, 1311/1894), 9â10.
My thanks to Salah Eddin Maraqa for clarification on this point.
Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â MaÊ¿lÅ«mÄt, no. 1 (28 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1312 [23 May 1895]): 10â11; no. 2 (10 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1312 [3 June 1895]): 36â37; no. 3 (20 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1312 [13 June 1895]): 60â61; no. 4 (1 Muḥarrem 1313 [24 June 1895]): 82â84; no. 5 (11 Muḥarrem 1313 [4 July 1895]): 102â3; no. 6 (22 Muḥarrem 1313 [15 July 1895]): 131â32; no. 7 (3 á¹¢afer 1313 [25 July 1895]): 156â 57; no. 9 (24 á¹¢afer 1313 [15 August 1895]): 190â91; no. 10 (10 Rebīʿü l-evvel 1313 [31 August 1895]): 216â18; no. 13 (30 Rebīʿü l-evvel 1313 [19 September 1895]): 261â62; no. 20 (20 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-evvel 1313 [7 November 1895]): 432â33; no. 21 (27 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-evvel 1313 [14 November 1895]): 458; no. 23 (11 ǦemÄáºÄ« l-Äḫir 1313 [28 November 1895]): 506; no. 28 (17 Reǧeb 1313 [3 January 1896]): 619â20. Although the instalment in MaÊ¿lÅ«mÄt no. 28 indicates that the series will be continued, no further instalments appeared in nos. 29 and 30. For a transliteration of the instalments listed above, see Faysal ArpaguÅ, ââMaâlûmâtâ mecmuasıânın 1â500 sayılarında yer alan Türk mûsikîsi ile ilgili makâlelerâ (Masterâs thesis, Marmara Ãniversitesi, 2004), 19â55.
Nilgün DoÄrusöz and Ali Ergur, eds., Musikinin asrî prensi: Ali Rifat ÃaÄatay (Ankara: Gece KitaplıÄı, 2017).
Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â 36.
Ê¿AlÄ« RifÊ¿at, âFenn-i mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«,â 60.
Raʾūf YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â Resimli Ä azete, no. 10 (7 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [11 January 1897]): 115â17; no. 11 (16 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [20 January 1897]): 126â27; no. 12 (21 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [25 January 1897]): 135â37; no. 13 (28 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1314 [1 February 1897]): 151â52; no. 15 (12 RamażÄn 1314 [15 February 1897]): 176â78; no. 17 (1 Å evvÄl 1314 [5 March 1897]): 199â201; no. 19 (14 Å evvÄl 1314 [18 March 1897]): 223â24; no. 20 (21 Å evvÄl 1314 [25 March 1897]): 235â37; no. 28 (18 áºÄ« l-ḥiǧǧe 1314 [21 May 1897]): 333â35. For a transliteration, see Ãzdemir, âRauf Yektâ Bey,â 16â57.
YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â 116.
YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â 116.
YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â 177â78.
Raʾūf YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında bir qaÄ söz,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1339 (15 áºÄ« l-qaÊ¿de 1315 / 6 April 1898 [7 April 1898]): 3. See Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 453â58.
Nilgün DoÄrusöz, ed., Rauf Yekta Beyâin musiki antikaları (Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi BaÅkanlıÄı, 2018).
Raʾūf YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1645 (24 RamażÄn 1316 / 5 February 1899): 2â3; no. 1668 (17 Å evvÄl 1316 / 28 February 1899): 3â4; no. 1670 (19 Å evvÄl 1316 / 2 March 1899): 3. See Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 414â39. The following paragraphs are based on the information given in the second instalment (28 February 1899).
Raʾūf YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1668 (17 Å evvÄl 1316 / 28 February 1899): 3.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3â4.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3.
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3. See also YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında.â
YektÄ, âMÅ«sÄ«qÄ« naáºariyyÄtı,â 176â77.
YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında.â
YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında.â
YektÄ, âFÄ«s̱ÄÄ¡oras Ä¡Ämı,â 3.
YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«si ḥaqqında.â
Raʾūf YektÄ, âMeḥmed áºÄtÄ« Bey Efendiâye,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1590 (28 Reǧeb 1316 / 12 December 1898): 3. See Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 385â94. It is not clear which edition of Helmholtzâs work YektÄ consulted. First published in 1863, several editions and translations followed. For the discussion of Systematist theory in the first edition, see Hermann L. F. Helmholtz, Die Lehre von Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1863), 432â37. A detailed commentary on this passage is found in the second edition of Alexander Ellisâs translation: Hermann L. F. Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, trans. by Alexander J. Ellis, second English edition (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1885), 280â85.
YektÄ, âMeḥmed áºÄtÄ« Bey Efendiâye.â See Raphael G. Kiesewetter, Die Musik der Araber nach Originalquellen dargestellt (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1842); J. P. N. Land, Recherches sur lâhistoire de la gamme arabe (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1884).
Raʾūf YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde ÄÄryek, s̱üls̱ ve nıṣf á¹£adÄlar,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1972 (26 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1317 / 29 December 1899): 3. See Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 63â70. The mathematical foundations of the system are discussed in an article published the previous week: Raʾūf YektÄ, âÊ¿Os̱mÄnlı mÅ«sÄ«qÄ«sinde tabÄ«Ê¿Ä« á¹£adÄlar,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 1965 (19 Å aÊ¿bÄn 1317 / 22 December 1899): 3â4. See Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 54â62.
Raʾūf YektÄ, âṬanbÅ«rda naÄ¡amÄtin mevÄqiÊ¿-i fenniyyesi,â Ä°qdÄm, no. 4667 (18 Rebīʿü l-Äḫir 1325 / 31 May 1907), pagination unknown. Transliterated in Ãergel, âRaûf Yektâ Bey,â 256â63.
Daniel Walden, âThe Politics of Tuning and Temperament: Transnational Exchange and the Production of Music Theory in 19th-Century Europe, Asia, and North America,â (PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2019).
Mehmet Alper Yalçınkaya, Learned Patriots: Debating Science, State, and Society in the Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015); Aydin, The Idea of the Muslim World.
Åükrü HanioÄlu, âBlueprints for a Future Society: Late Ottoman Materialists on Science, Religion, and Art,â in Late Ottoman Society: The Intellectual Legacy, ed. by Elisabeth Ãzdalga (London: Routledge, 2005), 28â116.
