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). .