Two Mythical PANs:
Uses of Apocrypha Ascribed to the Turks
H. B. Paksoy, D. Phil.
[Published in EURASIAN STUDIES (Ankara) Summer 1994.]
I. Now it is understood that Pan, the half-goat, half-
human, flute playing creature of early human
consciousness, was a mythical construct. However, some
humans are perhaps in the need of creating myths, so two
more were concocted during the 19th century.
1) "Pan-Turkism." Also marketed as "Pan-
Turanianism," this notion was invented not by the Turks,
but by a resourceful Professor of Oriental Languages
teaching in a European university. It was the 1860s, and
the Professor was in the pay of a Great Power where the
people and their queen paused daily for tea. The purpose
of the Professor's "unity" doctrine was to urge the Turks
of Central Asia to combine against another Great Power to
the north, where people drink borscht frequently, if not
every day. The tea-drinking empire desired a buffer of
Turks to "contain" the borscht-drinking empire, which was
expanding and approaching the tea-drinkers' own colony,
the Jewel in the Crown in the south. They played this
"Great Game," as Kipling called it, in Asia, for the
European game-board was in stalemate. The borscht-drinkers
played the Game, too, but in reverse, and called the Turks
a menace, pretending --as one does in Games-- that the
Professor's scheme was Truth.
2) A second Pan was "Pan-Islam." Despite its origins
in the colonial world, it was yet a third European Power,
where the people drink beer while listening to Valkyries
sing, joined the Game. Even their emperor played salesman
to foster this second Pan within the domains of the
Ottoman Empire, especially among some of its leaders, as
the Great War --to "end all wars"-- was about to commence.
The aim was the same, to gain advantage over the rivals in
European Balance of Power struggles someplace off the
stalemated European game-board. Military action by the
Ottoman Turks would have forced the seafaring tea-drinkers
to move forces away from the front where they faced the
land-based beer-drinkers. The beer-drinkers used pan-Islam
also on the Caucasus front in order to outflank the
borscht-drinkers who were threatening to outflank the
beer-drinkers. And it looked as if the plan would work.
II. Then the borscht-drinkers became convulsed by the
pangs of a "bug" they caught from their ruler's way of
life. Their "new and improved" leadership denounced the
old rulers, and left the war. Later, this new leadership
took up the banner of Pan. The new borscht-drinkers wished
to use these bogus twins to put down the Central Asian
Turks. When this Great War ended and the Central Asians
were demanding access to what became known the President
Wilson's 14 Principles, a new Game, but not so clever, was
invented. The new borscht drinkers screamed loud and long,
declaiming the Central Asian Turk demands for
independence, self determination and human rights were
desires for "World Dominance."
III. That Defamation Campaign of the new borscht-drinkers
was quickly heard in the European domains. A tacit
agreement called the acceptance of the Bogus Pans to be
declared True, alive and menace to humanity. The Central
Asians were relegated to the vast dungeon that was erected
around their own homelands, all the European Powers were
happy in the knowledge that the weapon was safely and
mutually disarmed. President F. D. Roosevelt's call for
the Four Freedoms were ignored.
IV. The early foreign policy initiatives of some Western
religious leaders --the Crusades-- perhaps had shown the
way. Unable to find a viable solution to their own
domestic problems, where the masses displayed political
and economic dissatisfaction, rulers of the early and
19th-20th century "crusades" again used this "foreign
policy initiative" to distract their own subject
populations. The faithful, whose trust and sincere
feelings were thus betrayed and channeled away from their
own ruler, responded as people blindly acting. What those
masses did not know, they soon learned: In the
battlefield, the troops die; especially the ignorant.1
V. Times change, but apparently, not always for the good.
As most of the modern nations of Europe, the Turks also
enjoyed an Imperial period. But, unlike their neighbors,
who have been all but absolved of past sins committed
during their own Imperialism, Turks have not been. The
Turks are still being asked to pay the balance on their
"account" even after having paid the principal, an
exorbitant interest charge, and penalties of all types.
The majority of the Turks living on earth today are still
living on their ancestral homelands which they never left,
though others played Games around them and at their
expense. Hence the twin mythical Pans have been living
outside the story books whence they came.
VI. The Turks have been laboring under the misapprehension
that silence is golden, and that engaging in truthful
debate is "ungentlemanly." After all, did their ancestors
not state "Truth shall prevail?"2 The Proverb is
undoubtedly correct, but it does not state just when the
promise will be fulfilled. While the truth is preparing to
prevail, another word of their forefathers obtains: "He who
acquired the horse, has already left Uskudar.3 The damage is
done, the application to join the European Community as a
full member is declined, economic injury continues to deepen.
The prevarication about Barbaros Hayreddin (1466-1546), the
Ottoman Grand Admiral, is well known: it is said that the name
of Barbaros, the "bogeyman," is evoked along the Mediterranean
shores by the parents of unruly children. The purpose is to
scare the little tykes into unquestioning submission. The
legend continues to take its toll, as the children grow into
statesmen and businessmen. "Tree is bent while it is
green."4
VII. Further, tales similar to those attributed to
Barbaros Hayreddin have been created in writing. One of
the earliest, used with immediate political intent dates
from 1473, twenty years after Mehmet II (1432-1481) ended
the Byzantine Empire. In that small work, allegedly Mehmet
II "...boasts of his conquests achieved or intended; the
replies [by his pretend European adversaries] naturally
contradict his assertions..." It transpired that the whole
work was invented by an industrious individual, claiming
to have translated it from Turkish, eager to show, or
create, the European defiance.5
VIII. Today it is documented that at least three hundred
such apocryphal letters were circulated in some half a
dozen languages. The purpose evidently was to frighten the
European readership into some sort of unity. The tracts
were often written by the propagandists of one Christian
sect, Catholic or Protestant, calling his side to unite to
fight the other. The allusion was if such unity is not
effected, the "bogeyman" Turks would come and take all.6
It was a tactic resuscitated to create an outside
adversary, however imaginary, for domestic religious or
political purposes. The method survives and thrives today.
IX. Such propaganda appears not to have been new even for
the 15th century. It is suggested that the Prophecy of the
fall of the Turks was first put forth by the Byzantine
Emperor Leo VI (865-911), later to resurface and be
incorporated into the politico-religious tracts of the
16th century.7 Similar works were also being issued in
other European presses, utilizing the new invention, the
movable type.8 This is similar to the later campaigns
involving electronic dissemination media, not only limited
to radio, television and video cassettes; but also
encompassing the computer communication networks and data-
bases. As the earlier printed works were at first
invisible to the general public in the 15th century, so
are the contents of the computerized data-bases (such as
"bulletin boards") in the latter half of the 20th. In such
secluded environs, the seeds of discord are nurtured and
germinates before it is released into other forums to
infect the rest of the public opinion. Once again, "A fool
casts a stone into the well, and forty geniuses can not
retrieve it."9
X. Following other European influence patterns on the
Russians, such propaganda methods were also absorbed by
the latter. Beginning with the early 17th century,
translations into Russian of such apocryphal letters
further motivated the Russians. It is known that the early
diplomatic language of the Eurasian steppe was Turkish,
while the derivation of a ruler's election and legitimacy
stemmed from non-Russian sources. 10 The Turkish syntax
even affected the way the Rus chanceries wrote Russian,
and the Turkish style of writing influenced the literary
efforts of the Russian authors, who strove to create works
in that greatly admired Turkish vein.11 When inspiration
dried, the Russians next appear to have appropriated
Turkic origin literary works.12
XI. As the Great Game in Asia and the Eastern Question
reached its peak, the commentators on behalf of the
European players, further choosing sides, redoubled their
efforts. Felix Valyi defended the Ottoman Turks.13
The diplomats at the 1919 Versailles peace conference,
responding negatively to President Wilson's vision of post
World War I world order, issued a dissent.14 Regardless of
the relative merits of the published words, the tone was
set. In the North and East, the Soviet state mechanisms
were set into motion, to propagate, with fresh vigor, not
only the twin Mythical Pans, but also the distortion of
the historical Turkish documents that belied the
apocryphal assertions.15 The young Turkish Republic,
having freshly completed its own War of Independence, was
ostracized diplomatically and economically. This would
continue until the prospects of another Great War --again
among the same European players, with additions-- became
inevitable. Once again, the twin mythical Pans were
dragged out of the storybooks. Once again, the European
factions began exerting pressure, seeking to embroil the
Turks on their side.
XII. Earlier, the typical Turkish response to the mythical
Pans and the related apocrypha generally fell into one of
two categories: total silence; and stubborn adherence to
traditional historical literature.16 The history of one
group or nation can not be written in isolation, and the
most forceful questioners of these apocrypha placed
Turkish history in a global context. Perhaps the first far
reaching challenge against the mythical Pans was mounted
by Yusuf Akura in 1904.17 Kazim Karabekir followed
shortly afterwards, with his insightful analysis not only
of the Pans, but also their political origins of the 19th
and the 20th centuries.18 Recently, discussions of the
related issues began to be openly deliberated in current
publications.19
XIII. The issues connected to the Pans and other
apocryphal literature are primarily concerned with the
definition of culture. Unless Turks envision and discuss
their culture and history in their own terms, without
reference to the perceptions and definitions of others,
they will remain vulnerable to manipulation in the
intellectual and political realms. When Braudel writes
French history, he does not use the paradigms of A.J.P.
Taylor or Toynbee. Vice versa.
NOTES:
This paper was presented to the conference "LA TURQUIE ET
L'AIRE TURQUE DANS LA NOUVELLE CONFIGURATION REGIONALE ET
INTERNATIONALE: MONTEE EN PUISSANCE OU MARGINALISATION"
during November 1991, jointly organized in Paris by Centre
d'tudes et de Recherches Internationales / Fondation
Nationale des Sciences Politiques. A French language
summary was included in the January 1992 issue of the
periodical Cahiers d'Etudes sur la Mediterrane orientale
et le monde turco-iranien, published by the organizers.
1. For a discussion of the Great Game in context, and
its uses, see H. B. Paksoy, "Basmachi" (Turkistan
National Liberation Movement) Modern Encyclopedia of
Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union (Academic
International Press, 1991) Vol. 4. Pp. 5-20; idem, "US
and Bolshevik Relations with the TBMM (the Turkish
Grand National Assembly) Government: The First
Contacts, 1919-1921." (forthcoming).
2. "Dogruluk, yerini bulur."
3. "At'i alan, Uskudar'i geti."
4. "Agac yasken egilir."
5. Daniel Clarke Waugh, The Great Turkes Defiance: On
the History of the Apocryphal Correspondence of the
Ottoman Sultan in its Muscovite and Russian Variants
(Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1978).
6. Waugh, The Great Turkes Defiance.
7. Repeated in Vaticinium Sever, et Leonis
Imperatorum, in quo videtur finis Turcarum in Profetia
di Severo (1596). Apparently republished in the Arabic
script by A. Fischer in ZDMG 47 during 1920.
8. See Philipp Lonicer, Chronicorvm Turcicorvm
(Frankfurt, 1584); Johannes Leunclavius, Historiae
Mvsvlmanae Tvcorvm, De Monvmentis ipsorvm
exscriptae... (1591).
9. "Bir deli kuyu'ya tas atmis, kirk akilli
cikaramamis."
10. Edward Louis Keenan, Jr., "Muscovy and Kazan: Some
Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe
Diplomacy" Slavic Review Vol. XXVI, No. 4 (December,
1967); Omeljan Pritsak, "Moscow, Golden Horde, and the
Kazan Khanate from a Polycultural Point of View"
Slavic Review Vol. XXVI, No. 4 (December, 1967).
11. Edward Louis Keenan, Jr., "The Jarlyk of Axmed-Xan
to Ivan III: A New Reading" International Journal of
Slavic Linguistics and Poetics XII, 1967. (Mouton, The
Hague).
12. For the discussion pertaining to the suggested
origins of the Tale of Igor, see H. B. Paksoy, "Chora
Batir: A Tatar Admonition to Future Generations."
Studies in Comparative Communism Vol. XIX, Nos. 3 & 4,
Autumn/Winter 1986. See also Keenan.
13. Felix Valyi, Turk's Last Stand: The Historical
Tragedy on the Bosphorus (London, 1913) was originally
delivered as a lecture at the University of London,
and translated from French into English.
14. Joint Note of the Allied Governments in answer to
President Wilson, The Murderous Tyranny of the Turks
written by Arnold J. Toynbee (Hodder & Stoughton,
1917). Toynbee was a member of the British Delegation
to the Paris Peace Conference. See Arnold J. Toynbee
and Kenneth P. Kirkwood, Turkey (Charles Scribners,
1927).
15. H. B. Paksoy, ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity
under Russian Rule (Hartford, CT: Association for the
Advancement of Central Asian Research, Monograph
Series, 1989).
16. For some prominent echoes of the historical
literature in more recent times, see H. B. Paksoy
"Central Asia's New Dastans." Central Asian Survey
Vol. 6, N. 1, (1987); Bahtiyar Nazarov "Kutadgu Bilig:
One of the First Written Monuments of the Turkic
People" H. B. Paksoy, Editor, Central Asia Reader (NY:
M. E. Sharpe, 1994).
17. Yusuf Akura, Tarz-i Siyaset (Ankara: Turk Tarih
Kurumu, 1976). This essay was first printed in the
newspaper Turk published in Cairo during 1904. For an
English translation, see David S. Thomas, "Three Types
of Policies" Central Asian Monuments, H. B. Paksoy,
Ed. (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992).
18. Kazim Karabekir, Cihan Harbine Neden Girdik, Nasil
Girdik, Nasil Idare Ettik (Istanbul, 1937); idem,
Istiklal Harbimizin Esaslari (Istanbul, 1933-1951);
idem, Istiklal Harbinde Enver Pasa (Istanbul, 1967).
Though Karabekir wrote these volumes much earlier,
they could not be made available in print earlier. For
some comments on the reasons, see Erik Jan Zurcher,
"Young Turk Memoirs as a Historical Source: Kazim
Karabekir's Istiklal Harbimiz" Middle Eastern Studies
Vol. 22, No. 4, October 1986.
19. For examples, see H. B. Paksoy, "M. Ali--Let us
Learn our Inheritance: Get to Know Yourself." Cahiers
d'Etudes sur la Mediterrane orientale et le monde
turco-iranien Vol. 11, No. 1 (1991); Ayaz Malikov,
"The Question of the Turk: The Way Out of the Crisis"
Central Asia Reader (NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994). .
This counter has been placed here on 25 February 1999
